Fort Worth Rendering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1305 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of FORT WORTH RENDERING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
UNITED PACKING HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-1778.-Decided August 8,1946
Mr. Paul E. Blanchard, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Messrs. Steve R. Hauser and W. L. McMahon, of Fort Worth, Tex.,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Summer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Fort
Worth, Texas, on June 13, 1946, before Louis R. Mercado, Trial Ex-
aminer. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
. FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Fort Worth Rendering Company, a Texas corporation, has its prin-
cip-al place of business in Fort Worth, Texas, where it is engaged in
the operation of a grease rendering plant. The employer uses an-
nually in the operation of this plant approximately 3,900 tons of raw
materials and supplies valued at approximately $100,000, all of which
is obtained from points within the State of Texas. The Employer
produces annually and sells for delivery within the State of Texas,
approximately 1,600 tons of grease products, consisting of hides,
tallow and tankage, having an over-all value of approximately $180,-
000. Although none of the Employer's products are sold by it directly
in interstate commerce, all of the hides produced and sold by the Em-
ployer during the fiscal year 1945 and valued in excess of $54,000,
were sold to Nortex Hide and Produce Company, and shipped by it to
various points outside the State of Texas.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 162.
1305
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.,
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer, including truck drivers, the working foreman
and relief working foreman, but excluding office and clerical employ-
ees, and all supervisory employees within the Board's usual definition,
constitute an appropriate unit. The Employer takes no position with
respect to the appropriate unit.
Although the Petitioner requests the inclusion of working foremen
upon the ground that they are in reality gang leaders without sub-
stantial supervisory authority, the record discloses that working fore-
men, like regular foremen have the authority to discharge employees
under their supervision. Under the circumstances, notwithstanding
the fact that during the past year working foremen have apparently
not exercised their right to discharge other employees, we find that
working foremen are supervisory employees within the meaning of
our usual definition. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer, including truck drivers, but excluding the working foreman
and relief working foreman, office and clerical employees, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
1 See N. L. R. B. v. Fainblatt, et al., 306 U. S. 601; see also , Matter of Justin S. McCarty,
Jr., Nolan McGough and Gertrude Reed , d/b/a McCarty Manufacturing Company, 59
N. L. R. B. 1244 ; Matter o f Amerada Petroleum Corporation , et al ., 60 N. L. R . B. 1461.
FORT WORTH RENDERING COMPANY 1307
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Fort Worth Rendering Com-
pany, Fort Worth, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United
Packing House Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.