General Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1423 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GENERAL MILLS, INC. and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, CHAPTER No. 165
Case No. 13-R-3085.-Decided March 29, 1946
Messrs. D. E. Balch and Edward K. Thode, both of Minneapolis,
Minn., for the Company.
Walter M. Nelson, Esq., of Detroit, Mich., by Messrs. Bernard E.
Konopka and Hugh P. Davis, both of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of
America, Chapter No. 165, herein called the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of General Mills, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for the
appropriate hearing on due notice before Gustaf. B. Erickson, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on September
12, 13, and 14,1945. The Company and the Union appeared and par-
ticipated.) All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
1In addition to the parties above named, the International Union of Operating Engi-
neers filed a motion to intervene but later withdrew from the hearing when its repre-
sentative was assured by counsel for the Union that the chief engineer , otherwise known
as the power foreman, was not within the unit alleged to be appropriate by the Union.
Other unions representing the rank and file employees filed waivers and disclaimers.
66 N. L. R. B., No. 176.
1423
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General Mills, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Minneapolis , Minnesota , is engaged in the
manufacture of flour and cereal products with numerous nation-wide
plants. included among which is a plant known as The South Chicago
Plant.2 located at Chicago , Illinois, and the only plant involved in
this proceeding . The Company annually receives at its South Chi-
cago Plant raw materials valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which ap-
proximately 90 percent is obtained from points outside the State of
Illinois. Of the finished products manufactured annually by the
Company at its South Chicago Plant and valued in excess of
$2,000,000 , approximately 70 percent is shipped to points outside the
State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America, Chapter No. 165, unaffiliated.
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as
exclusive bargaining representatives of any of its supervisory em-
ployees upon the ground that its supervisors are a part of manage-
ment.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of supervisory employees of the Company
in the classifications of planner, packing foreman, relief packing
9 The South Chicago Plant is divided into three units comprising a cereal plant, a flour
mill, and the Rialto Elevator.
3 The Field Examiner, repotted that the Union had submitted 24 application cards
bearing the names of 24 employees from among a total of 25 employees in the claimed
appropriate unit : and that the cards are dated between January and April 1945.
GENERAL MILLS, INC. 1425
foreman, loading foreman, unloading foreman, Kix milling foreman,
Wheaties milling foreman, forelady assistant to packing foremen, and
head cook at the cafeteria, in the cereal plant; and second miller,
packing and loading foreman, and sack foreman, in the flour mill;
excluding employees in the Rialto Elevator. The Company contends
that the unit claimed is not appropriate upon the grounds that fore-
men are not employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the
Act and that they are an inseparable part of management.
In support of its contention that foremen are not employees within
the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act, the Company has set forth
no argument which was not fully considered by the Board in the
recent Packard and other similar cases ,4 wherein it held that
foremen are "employees," which holding has been supported by
decisions of the Federal Courts.5 We find, in accordance with the
determinations in those cases, that the Company's foremen are "em-
ployees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
With respect to the Company's contention that the foremen herein
concerned are an inseparable part of management and therefore in-
capable of forming the basis of an appropriate bargaining unit, the
Company maintains that its foremen function in a comparatively
small and informally conducted administrative organization, and
that the part played by the foremen in question is substantially
greater than in the case of similar foremen in a concern having an
elaborate supervisory hierarchy. As evidence of the difference in
responsibilities of its foremen as compared with those of foremen in
more highly organized concerns, the Company points particularly
to the fact that foremen on certain shifts are the only supervisory
employees present in the plant, that foremen are consulted by higher
management officials with respect to changes in policy affecting em-
ployees under their immediate supervision; and that foremen handle
and settle numerous grievances of the rank and file employees under
the first step of the existing grievance procedure established by con-
tracts with the rank and file unions.
As regards the assertion of the Company that its foremen exercise
substantial managerial powers in the absence of the departmental
superintendents on certain shifts, it appears that the authority of the
foremen on such shifts is not increased thereby,6 although the absence
* See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L . R. B. 4, 64 N. L. R B. 1212 ;
Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L R B 298 ; Matter of Simmons
Company, 65 N. L . R. B. 984 ; Matter of Midland Steel Products Co., 65 N. L. R. B 997.
6 See N. L. R. B. v . Armour and Co., 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C A. 10) ; Jones &
Laughlin Steel Corp. v. N L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A 5); N. L. R B. v Skinner
it Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
6 The departmental superintendent retains full authority on a 24 -hour basis . Although
absent from the plant during certain shifts, he is always available for consultation by
the shift foreman with respect to any problems that may arise during the shifts when
he is not actually present in the plant.
686572--46-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the departmental superintendent may result in the foremen having
more duties to perform as regards production itself. Similarly, with
respect to the contention of the Company that foremen are consulted
by higher management officials and thus participate in the formula-
tion of company policies, it appears that the most the foremen can
do in this regard is to make recommendations which may or may not
be adopted by higher management officials. The further contention
of the Company that foremen represent management in the first step
of the grievance procedure has been considered by the Board in
prior decisions and rejected as a basis for denying to foremen the
right to bargain collectively in a separate appropriate unit.'
Upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, we are of the opinion
that, although the foremen have many of the privileges accorded
higher management officials and share with such officials the pro-
tection of the Company's property and administration of its policies
toward rank and file employees,8 such foreman, as distinguished from
policy making officials beginning with the rank of departmental
superintendent,0 do not, as claimed by the Company, constitute such
an integral part of management that they may not be segregated
therefrom and recognized as a separate group for the purposes of
collective bargaining. In support of this conclusion, the record is
clear that foremen do not have the determinative voice in the formu-
lation of company policies, the planning of production, the handling
of the Company's labor relations, or the hire and discharge of em-
ployees.10 Moreover, such foremen have a community of interest in
that they constitute the first level of non-working supervisory em-
ployees engaged in the general problems of production and the han-
dling and supervision of the rank and file production employees. We
find that such foremen may constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
There remains for consideration the question of including or ex-
cluding particular employees from the appropriate unit. The Union
would include an employee referred to as the planner, a forelady
who acts as an assistant to the packing foremen, the head cook in
' See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, 11; Matter of The Mid-
land Steel Products Co., 65 N. L. R. B. 997.
8 Foremen may recommend the discharge or discipline of rank and file employees and
their judgment in such matters is generally respected by the Company.
8 The Union does not claim or admit to membership employees such as departmental
superintendents and higher management officials who are charged with the formulation
of company policies.
io The record discloses that only department heads and higher plant officials comprise
the membership of both the labor relations committee which determines grievances on
appeal from the rulings of foremen, and the Company' s negotiating committee which
negotiates contracts with the rank and file unions. In addition thereto, it is clear that
the right to actually hire and discharge employees, as distinguished from the right to
make recommendations in this regard , is vested only in department heads and higher com-
pany officials.
GENERAL MILLS, INC. 1427
charge of the employees ' cafeteria, and three employees in the classi-
fication of second miller.
The Planner : This employee has no subordinates . Inasmuch as
he is not a supervisory employee within the Board's definition, we
shall exclude him.' 1
The Forelady : Although this employee is normally subject to the
supervision of the packing foremen , the latter do not have the right
to hire, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in her status.
since such matters, including possible grievances on the part of the
forelady , are handled and determined by the departmental superin-
tendent, Moreover , the record discloses that the forelady in question
performs with respect to the female employees in the department
supervisory duties which are substantially the same as those of the
packing foreman in relation to the male employees therein . Accord-
ingly , we shall include her within the unit.
The Head Cook : Although the head cook, by virtue of his position
immediately below the assistant plant superintendent , is on a super-
visory level with the departmental superintendent , he, nevertheless,
exercises substantially the same authority as the production foremen,
inasmuch as he has immediate supervision over employees included
within the production unit as established by an existing contract be-
tween the Company and one of the rank and file unions. In view
of such circumstances , we shall include the head cook within the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.l-
Second Millers: The employees bearing the classification of second
miller have duties and responsibilities with respect to the employees
in the flour mill which are substantially similar to the duties and
authority of the milling foremen who supervise production in the
cereal plant. Accordingly , we shall include them within the unit.
We find that all employees at the Company 's South Chicago Plant
in the classifications of packing foreman, relief packing foreman,
loading foreman , unloading foreman , Kix milling foreman, Wheaties
milling foreman , forelady assistant to packing, foreman, and the
head cook at the cafeteria , in the cereal plant : and second miller.
packing and loading foreman , and sack foreman . in the flour mill:
excluding the planner and employees in the Rialto Elevator,13 Con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
11 Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , 65 N. L. R. B. 997.
12 See Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 65 N. L R. B 997
13 The record discloses that there are no supervisory employees in the Rialto Elevator
comparable to the foremen herein concerned
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Mills,
Inc., South Chicago, Illinois, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among em-
ployees 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 elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to bd represented by
Foreman's Association of America, Chapter No. 165, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting:
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Pack-
ard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained, to dissent
from the majority opinion in this case.