Hawthorne-Mellody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 212 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of'
such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL offer Henry A. Dressler immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially similar position without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make Henry A. Dressler and Michael E.
LeForestier whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against them.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members , of the above-named union or any other labor organization
except as that right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act. , We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against any employee
because of memborship in or activity on behalf of-any such labor organizat4onr,
ROBINSON AVIATION, INC.,
Employer.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
HAWTHORNE-MELLODY FARMS DAIRY OF WISCONSIN, INC., and CHAUF-
FEURS & TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 579, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2396. May 20,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John P. von Rohr,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner requests that the Board find appropriate a unit of
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's White-
i Local Industrial Union No. 1705 , CIO, was granted intervention at the hearing by the
hearing officer upon the showing of a contractual interest in the representation of these
employees.
99 NLRB No. 30.
IIAWTHORNE-MELLODY FARMS DAIRY OF WISCONSIN, INC. 213
water, Wisconsin, fluid milk department. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that the only appropriate unit is one encompassing
all three departments of the Employer at that location.
The Employer is engaged in the production of dairy products and
operates three adjacent departments at Whitewater, Wisconsin, known
respectively, as department A, department B, and the fluid depart-
ment? Department A receives inspected milk and processes it into
sweet cream, concentrated milk, and half and half, and ships out fluid
milk and fluid skim milk. Department B, which,is located adjacent
to A, receives grade B or condensery milk and processes it into dried
milk, condensed milk, sweet and sour cream, cottage cheese, and con-
centrated milk, and also ships fluid milk. The fluid department, which
is located approximately 2 blocks from the other departments, re-
ceives fluid milk, fluid half and half, fluid skim milk, concentrated
skim milk and fluid cream from the other two departments which it
pasteurizes, packages, and distributes along with other processed
products also received from the same source. The fluid unit is depend-
ent for its operations upon the existence of the A and B operations.
Approximately 14 employees are employed at present at department
A; while 42 work at department B and 13 at the fluid operations.
Department A has been in operation for 4 years and department B
for 7 years. The fluid department building was purchased by the
Employer in 1950, but did not commence its present operations until
October 1, 19511 The Intervenor has been the collective bargaining
representative for the production and maintenance employees of the
A and B departments since they began operations, but the status of the
employees in the fluid operations under the single contract covering
the other 2 departments had not been determined prior to the filing
of the instant petition.
As noted, the operations of the fluid department are highly inte-
grated and dependent upon the remainder of the Employer's business.
Job classifications and the type of work done by employees in all of
the Whitewater operations are generally the same, as well as hours,
wage rates, and working conditions. A general plant manager exer-
cises ultimate supervision over all three operations while a manager,
comparable to a foreman, is responsible for direct supervision in each
department. Payroll records for all employees are kept, along with
s The three groups are also referred to as "plants ." The Employer , however, considers
them to be departments rather than separate units. As the record supports this position,
and for purposes of uniformity , we shall refer to the three groups as departments herein.
8 The fluid department building was purchased in February 1950 and was operated as a
milk intake operation until September of that year . operations were then discontinued and
the personnel were transferred to departments A and B. After an unsuccessful attempt
to sell the building , it was equipped with machinery for the fluid operations and new
personnel were hired to operate the department.
215233-53-15
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
production records, in the main office in department A.4 Seniority for.
employees under the present contract is company-wide.
Upon the entire record it is patent that the fluid unit is merely a,
departmental extension of the Employer 's operations . While the
departments are sometimes referred to as "plants ," this as well as the
other factors relied upon by our dissenting colleagues , are largely
illusory 6 The proximity of the fluid unit employees to the remainder
of the operations , the identical skills, hours , wages , and working con-
ditions of employees throughout the entire plant, and the absolute
dependence of the fluid department upon the remainder of the opera-
tions all point unmistakably to the departmental category into which
the fluid unit falls . There is no evidence here of the existence of self-
contained and separate plants entitled to self -determination on the
issue of inclusion in a broader unit e On the contrary , the location of
the departments , the integration of functions and operations , the com-
munity of skills and working conditions , and the bargaining history
conforming to a company-wide pattern require a finding that a unit
restricted to employees of the fluid department is not appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act .7 Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petition .8
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and STYLES, dissenting :
Unlike our colleagues, we would direct an election among the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the fluid plant to determine
whether they wish to function separately or as a part of the existing
two-plant unit.
4 Apparently because of the necessity for extensive record keeping in the milk business,
duplicate records are maintained in department B and the fluid department While the
originals are kept and the factory accounting is done in the main office. There is only
one labor payroll account but separate records are maintained for each department pay-
roll . The individual managers initiate hiring and may recommend discharges but the
personnel records are maintained in the main office.
5 The casual description of the operational units as either "departments" or "plants,"
of course , is not determinative of their actual status. As noted by our dissenting col-
leagues, the addition of the fluid operations merely constituted a broadening of the
Employer 's basic operations with an extension of the same skills, working conditions,
and compensation . The short time the fluid unit has been in operation, moreover, offers
no basis upon which to find absence of interchange . The above facts, however, point
clearly to the interchangeability of the employees as does the fact that two employees
were permanently transferred to the fluid operations when they began.
6 The cases noted by our dissenting colleagues all concern plants with a substantial
geographical separation , from other plants which , in many instances , perform complete
manufacturing operations independently of other installations of the employer concerned.
7 See Riegel Paper Corporation, 96 NLRB 779 , and cases cited therein.
g The Petitioner advised the Board, following hearing in this case , that it requested
permission to amend its petition to include all three departments in the event the Board
found a separate unit inappropriate . As the Petitioner' s showing of interest is insuffi-
cient to sustain a petition for the larger unit, the Petitioner's request must be denied.
HAWTHORNE-MELLODY FARMS, DAIRY OF WISCONSIN, INC . 215 ,
We would have thought that, by now, it was well established that
the Board normally adheres to the practice of permitting new-em-
ployees at a new plant a voice in the determination of whether or not
they shall be separately represented apart from employees at their
employer's other plants .9 Yet, our colleagues of the majority have
temporized with this practice in this case by the simple expedient of
avoiding the use of the term plant for each of the three operations
involved and substituting therefor the term "department." This
semantic approach, however, fails to explain away the facts that each
"department" has a plant manager, answerable to the Employer's
general manager; that each plant manager has authority to do his own
hiring and discharging; and that each "department" has its own of-
fice, keeps its own production records, has its separate payroll, and is
located in a separate building. Moreover, strongly illustrative of the,
plant-like character of these "departments" is the fact that "depart-
ment" B constituted the sole operation of the Employer for at least
3 years before "department" A was started.
Nor is there any warrant for the conclusion that the integration
and interdependence of these plants warrant a deviation from es-
tablished practice. While it is true that products from plants A and B
find their way to the fluid plant for pasteurizing, packaging, and dis-
tribution, it is not contended that the fluid milk plant is constituted
primarily of operations formerly performed at plants A and B, nor
is it argued that a disruption of operations at the fluid plant would
prevent operations at the other two plants. Rather does it appear
that the Employer has, by the addition of the fluid plant, broadened
the scope of its operations. And while the employees at the fluid
plant are in classifications generally similar to those at the other two
plants, and have similar wages , hours, and working conditions, there
is no evidence of employee interchange. In addition, we find con-
siderable evidence of plant autonomy in the separate immediate super-
vision, payrolls, offices, production records, and location, mentioned
above 10
Accordingly, as the employees sought are new employees at a new
plant, only recently put into operation, as the degree of integration
does not preclude separate representation for these employees, and as
there is a bargaining history indicating that the other two plants may
constitute a separate unit," we believe that to dismiss the petition is
*Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company, 97 NLRB 238; Brown Equipment & Manu-
facturing Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1258; Sinclair Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643; Sylvania
Electrio Products Inc., 87 NLRB 597. In the last cited case the Board pointed out that
a separate election should be conducted in such circumstances, even where there is no
dispute as to the more inclusive unit.
' Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co., supra.
11 Southwest Truck Body Company, 93 NLRB 1341.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to render forfeit the rights of these employees to a voice in determining
their bargaining representative. We would therefore process the
petition to an election.
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION OF TEXAS an'd HOUSTON METAL TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-405. May 20,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:1
The Petitioner seeks to sever, in the face of a history of collective
bargaining for a production and maintenance unit, a group consisting
of all nonsupervisory maintenance department employees, excluding
electricians already represented in a separate craft unit by another
union. Alternatively the Petitioner would represent as a single unit
all nonsupervisory employees in the machine shop and mechanical
maintenance departments.2 The Employer and the Intervenor, Local
4446, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, contend that both pro-
posed units are inappropriate upon the grounds (1) that either unit
would constitute a heterogeneous grouping of multicraft and unskilled
employees; (2) that the history of bargaining for a production and
maintenance unit precludes the severance of a departmental unit; (3)
that equally skilled craftsmen are employed in the production de-
3 In view of our finding as to the unit issue in this case , we deem it unnecessary to rule
on the Employer 's and Intervenor 's contention that their current contract constitutes a
bar to the proceeding. See Capitol Chair Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 1a74.
8 Either alternative group would include in addition to machinists, machine repairmen
and their helpers, employees classified as pipefitters , welders, oilers , pump operators, chip-
men, janitors, sweepers, and laborers.
99 NLRB No. 51.