Mid-South Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 17, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 495 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

MID-SOUTH PACKERS, INC. 495â€¢ Mid-South Packers, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union #591,1 Joint Petitioners.. Case No. 32-RC-1096. April 17,1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a joint petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning.] Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. i At the hearing the Joint Petitioners moved to amend the petition by deleting the desig- nation AFL-CIO which originally appeared after Local Union #591, on the grounds that after the filing of the petition, the Teamsters had been expelled from the AFL-CIO. The Employer objected to the amendment and moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that â€¢ (1) The Petitioners do not jointly constitute a labor organization, but if they do they are not in compliance with the filing requnements of the Act ; (2) the portion of the show- ing of interest obtained by the Teamsters prior to its expulsion cannot serve as a showing of interest on its behalf after expulsion ; (3) the Joint Petitioners do not intend to bar- gain jointly on behalf of the employees in the bargaining unit hereinafter found appropri- ate; and (4) the deletion of the designation AFL-CIO from the name of the Teamsters will not correct the misleading impression as to the Teamsters' status cleated by per- mitting it, a union expelled from the AFL-CIO, to appear on the ballot jointly with a union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The hearing officer referred the motion to dismiss to the Board. We find no merit in the Employer's motion. With respect to (1) where as here two unions desire to act as joint bargaining representatives, and each will appear on the ballot, there is no necessity that whatever organizing instrumentality they may have utilized in organizing the employees, constitute a labor organization, or itself be in com- pliance with the filing requirements of the Act Vanadium Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1390 ; accord, Sterling Processing Corporation, 119 NLRB 1783 . With respect to (2) we are administratively satisfied that the number of authorization cards designat- ing the Meat Cutters as representative is alone sufficient to support the joint petit.on. It is immaterial whether the authorization cards indicate a desire for individual or joint representation ; The Stickless Corporation, 115 NLRB 979 ; Herman M . Bi own Service Company, 115 NLRB 1371 ; Central Soya Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 1525, or that they designate only one labor organization; Stratford Furniture Corporation, 115 NLRB 739 In connection with (3) the Employer offered to prove that the Joint Petitioners had never before bargained jointly and had in fact made no provision for conducting joint bargaining negotiations in the event that they win the election. The hearing officer properly denied the offer of proof . The Stickless Corporation , supra. The Joint Petitioners indicated on the record their readiness to represent the employees as joint representatives. Their names will appear jointly on the ballot, and if successful in the election, they will be certified jointly, and the Employer may then insist that they do in fact bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit. With respect to (4) we find that the deletion of the designa- tion AFL-CIO from the Teamsters' name adequately apprises the employees of the fact that that organization no longer is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Accordingly, for the foregoing ieasons we deny the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition. 120 NLRB No. 70. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. A 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. 4. The Employer is engaged in the processing of meat products. The Joint Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all production and maintenance employees including truckdrivers, their helpers, and dock checkers. They would exclude and the Employer would include lead- men and salesmen. Leadmen: In each of its eight departments the Employer employs a leadman, who spends all of his time performing production work. He receives 5 cents an hour more than other employees in the depart- ment, but otherwise receives the same benefits and works under similar conditions. He has no authority effectively to recommend hiring, firing, or disciplining of employees, or to process grievances. He is in charge of the department in the absence of the foreman, but the record is devoid of any indication that at such times he is clothed with the supervisory authority of the foreman. We find that leadmen are not supervisors and we shall include them in the unit. Salesmen: The Employer employs approximately 23 salesmen. The salesmen drive their own cars and solicit new business, take orders from old customers, and arrange displays. They are compensated on a fixed-salary-plus-commission basis. Some of the salesmen report into the plant daily, others on a weekly basis, and still others on a monthly basis. On infrequent occasions a salesman may be utilized as a truck- driver, and vice versa. Salesmen and truckdrivers are under different immediate supervision. The Employer's president testified that its salesmen perform substantially the same duties at this time as they did in 1954 when the Board excluded them from the unit over the objections of the Employer.' In view of the foregoing, we find that salesmen do not have a sufficient community of interest with other employees in the unit to warrant their inclusion, and we shall exclude them.4 We find that the following unit is appropriate for purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Tupelo, 9 Representatives of each of the Joint Petitioners testified that the Joint Petitioners are organizations that exist for the purpose of organizing employees and negotiating with the employers of such employees concerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of the employees. 8 Case No. 32-RC-763, issued July 29, 1954, not published. 4 Mid-South Packers, Inc, Case No. 32-RC-763, supra . Cf. Parrot Packing Company, 112 NLRB 1432, where Board excluded driver-salesmen from unit which included truckdrivers. FOOD FAIR STORES, INC. 497 Mississippi, plant, including truckdrivers, truckdriver helpers, dock checkers, and leadmen, but excluding salesmen, office clerical em- ployees, foremen, watchmen-guards, cattle buyers, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Food Fair Stores, Inc.' and Office Employees International Union, Local No. 128, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-237. April 17,1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert N . Watterson, hear- ing 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A 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. The Petitioner seeks to represent about 135 office clerical employees at Food Fair 's Southern Division main office , warehouse building office, maintenance shop building office, and employment office, all located in Miami , Florida. It would also include office clericals at Lady Fair Bakery Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Food Fair, located at Miami, Florida. Food Fair agrees generally that the unit is appropriate , but would include 10 office clerical employees of its 2 other wholly owned subsidiaries , Simon Tobacco and Candy Company, and Merchant Green Trading Stamp of Florida, Inc., and 2 office clerical employees of Food Fair Stores, Inc., Federal Credit Union.' Food Fair , a Pennsylvania corporation , operates retail food stores throughout the United States. Its operations in Miami, Florida, 1 Hereinafter called Food Fair 2 Hereinafter called Simon, Merchant, and Credit Union, respectively. 120 NLRB No. 72. 483142--59-vol. 120-33