Swift and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 718 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of SWIFT AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I . 0., LOCAL 49-A
Case No. d-C-5693.-Decided August 31, 1945
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On April 6, 1945, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter , the- respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On August 21, 1945, the Board heard oral argument at Washington,
D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the
argument; the Union did not appear.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respond-
ent's exceptions and brief , and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c),
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Swift and Company, Jersey
City, New Jersey, and its officers, agents; successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, C. Y. 0., Local 49-A, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all plant clerks, standards department checkers, storeroom
clerk, and commissary employees, at its Jersey City plant, but exclud-
ing time and employment office employees, time-study employees , store-
room laborer, head storekeeper , chief clerk , fire marshal and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline,
63 N. L . R. B., No. 105.
718
SWIFT AND COMPANY 719
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action;
(b) Engaging in any like or related act or conduct interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist United
Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 49-A, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing
and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 49-A, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(b) Post at its plant at Jersey City, New Jersey, copies of the notice
attached hereto,, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to
be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City) in writing, within ten (10). days from the date of this Order,
what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CIIAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a decision and order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
We Will Not refuse to bargain with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 49-A, as the exclusive rep-
resentative of our employees in the bargaining unit described
herein.
We Will Not engage in any like or related act or conduct inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization,
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our em-
ployees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any
other labor organization.
We Will Bargain collectively upon "request with the above-
named union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if
an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All plant clerks, standards department checkers, storeroom
clerk, and commissary employees at the Jersey City plant of Swift
and Company, exclusive of time and employment office employ-
ees, time-study employees, storeroom laborer, head storekeeper,
chief clerk, fire marshal and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action.
Dated------------------------
SWIFT AND COMP ANY,
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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome P. Macct, for the Board.
Mr. John P. Staley, of Chicago, Ill., Mr. L. A. Ackley, of New York City, and
Mr. William F. Joy, of Boston, Mass ., for the respondent.
Mr. Meyer E . Stern, of New York City , for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America,
C. I. 0., Local 49-A, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Second Region (New York
City), issued its complaint dated March 1,1945, against Swift and Company, herein.
called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice
of the hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent, on or about June 9, 1944, and November 16, 1944, and thereafter,
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the respondent 's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit
although a majority of the employees in such unit, in an election conducted under
SWIFT AND COMPANY 721
the supervision of the Board on May 24, 1944, had designated and selected the
Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, thereby
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
The respondent thereafter filed its answer in which it admitted that on May
24, 1944, a majority of the employees in the unit described in the complaint, in an
election conducted under the supervision of the Board, had affirmatively expressed
their desire to be represented by the Union, and that, on approximately the dates
mentioned in the complaint and thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in such
unit; but denied that the unit was appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and further denied that
it had engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 21 and 22, 1945, at New York
City, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented at the hearing
by counsel and the Union by a representative. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the Board's case, the under-
signed granted a motion of counsel for the Board to conform the pleadings to the
proof as to dates and minor variations and denied the respondent's motion to
dismiss the complaint for want of proof. At the close of the hearing the respond-
ent again moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. Ruling on that
motion was reserved. The motion is hereby denied The parties did not avail
themselves of the opportunity afforded them to present oral argument before the
undersigned. On April 3, 1945, the respondent filed a brief.
Upon the entire record of the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Swift and Company, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business
at Chicago, Illinois, maintains a branch plant at Jersey City, New Jersey, which
.alone is involved in this proceeding At the Jersey City Plant, the respondent
is engaged in processing and preparing hogs for sale and distribution as pork
and pork products, During the past year, in the conduct of its business operations
at its Jersey City plant, the respondent purchased hogs valued in excess of
$1,000,000, of which about 90 percent was shipped to it from points outside the
State of New Jersey. During the same period the respondent produced and proc-
essed at its Jersey City plant pork and pork products valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which approximately 75 percent was shipped by it to points outside the State
of New Jersey. The respondent admits that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
Jr. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 49-A, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the respondent.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
On April 29, 1944, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
Case No. 2-R-4409 (56 N. L R. B. 147), finding, among other things, that all
plant clerks, standards department checkers, storeroom clerk and commissary
employees of the respondent's Jersey City plant, exclusive of time and employment
office employees, time-study employees, storeroom laborer, head storekeeper
chief clerk, fire marshal and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
On May 24, 1944, pursuant to said Direction of Election, an election by secret
ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Second Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was
furnished the respondent and the Union in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board. No objections were filed by the respondent or the
Union within the time provided therefor. The Tally showed that of approxi-
mately 29 eligible voters, 23 cast valid votes, of which 20 were for the Union and
3 against. Two ballots were challenged. On June 5, 1944, the Board certified
the Union as the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the
employees in the unit heretofore mentioned.
The respondent contests the appropriateness of the unit found by the Board,
urging (a) that plant clerks and standards department checkers perform man-
agement functions; (b) that since an affiliated local of the Union is the recognized
bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees at the
respondent's plant here involved, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act
for the Union to represent the employees in the unit for which it was certified ;
and (c) that, in any event, the said unit is heterogeneous in character. As
appears from the Board's Decision and Direction of Election and from the record
in the representation proceeding (Case No. 2-R-4409), these precise contentions
were raised by the respondent in that case, and there litigated and decided
adversely to the respondent.
In the instant proceeding, the respondent sought to introduce testimony as to
the duties and responsibilities of each individual employee who, according to its
view, was a member of the unit at the time of the hearing This proof was
offered by the respondent in support of its position that the unit was comprised
of management employees. While making its offer, the respondent conceded
that proof of the same general character, although less detailed, was adduced by
it in the representation proceeding in which it participated and was given full
opportunity to be heard' Likewise, the respondent conceded that the testimony
I However, with respect to one employee, A. Kalofsky, who, wholly apart from his regular
duties as a plant clerk , supervises, according to the respondent's offer of proof, a wrap
and pack gang during a 3-hour shift, the respondent claimed that it neglected to adduce
proof in the representation proceeding concerning his supervisory duties, although it
admitted that such proof was available to it at the time. The certified unit, it is noted,
is defined in terms of job description and not named individuals, and expressly excludes
therefrom all employees possessing the supervisory attributes described in the exclusion'
clause of the unit finding . Assuming without deciding that the proffered evidence would
establish that Kalofsky had supervisory status within the exclusionary provision of the
unit finding , it would nevertheless not affect the appropriateness of the unit. It does not
appear whether Kalofsky 's ballot was one of the two challenged . Even if he voted and
his ballot were improperly counted, it could not affect the Union's majority.
SWIFT AND COMPANY 723
offered by it in the instant proceeding was known to it at the time of the hearing
in the representation proceeding and that the witnesses who would give such
testimony were available at that time. Moreover, it was admitted that no change
of circumstances had occurred since that time with respect to the general
character of the unit, the duties and responsibilities Qf the employees comprising
the unit,2 or the Union's representation of a majority therein. Under the cir-
cumstances, the undersigned excluded the testimony so offered by the respondent.
As the Board stated in the Pacific Greyhound case:'
While the determinations, findings, conclusions, and certification of the
Board in a representation proceeding are not res jitdwata in a subsequent
complaint proceeding before the Board under Section 10 (b) and (c), we think
it both the intent of the statute and sound administrative policy that parties
in interest to such representation proceeding cannot try and have heard
de novo in the subsequent complaint proceeding questions or matters adjudi-
cated in the previous proceeding in the absence of cogent showing of possible
error in such proceeding.
We think it equally within the statutory intent and sound administrative
practice that parties in interest to a representation proceeding cannot in a
subsequent complaint proceeding require the Board to withhold presumptive
effect from its previous determinations, findings, conclusions, and certifica-
tion, on the ground that the Board in the representation proceeding failed to
consider matters or evidence which the parties there could have presented
but which they failed to do without apparent reasonable cause. In the in-
stant case the parties had their opportunity to be heard by the Board
with regard to such matters in the Representation Proceedings, and the
fact that they did not avail themselves thereof does not entitle them as
a matter of right to a second opportunity.
The undersigned finds, in accordance with the Board's previous determination,
that all plant clerks, standards department checkers, storeroom clerk and com-
missary employees of the respondent's Jersey City plant, exclusive of time and
employment office employees, time study employees, storeroom laborer, head
storekeeper, chief clerk, fire marshal and all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
-of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute and at all times
material herein constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining The undersigned further finds that on and at all times after May 24,
1944, the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority
of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit and that, pursuant to the pro-
visions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on May 24, 1944, and at
all times thereafter has been and is now the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
3 There was one exception. The respondent offered to prove that one employee, A.
Majkowski, by reason, of certain additional duties, responsibilities, and authority delegated
to him only 2 weeks before the hearing in the present proceeding, had acquired supervisory
status. Much of what has been said in the preceding footnote is applicable here The
Board did not certify a unit of named employees but a unit of employees in defined job
categories. Assuming, again without deciding, that Majkowski's duties have so changed
as to place him outside the unit, it is nevertheless irrelevant to any consideration of the
appropriateness of the unit and to the issues of this case.
3 Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lanes, 22 N. L. R. B 111. See also, Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company v. N. L. R. B., 313 U. S. 146, aff'g 113 P. (2d) 698 (C. C. A. 8), enf'g 15
N. L. R. B. 515.
662514-46-vol. 63-47
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
On June 1, 1944, the Union wrote to the respondent, referring to the election
results and requesting that the employees in the unit be included under its mas-
ter contract covering production and maintenance employees. On June 9, 1944,
the respondent replied, stating that it did not agree that the employees in the
certified unit ".should come under the master agreement because the basis of pay-
ment and working conditions of this group are altogether different than pro-
duction and maintenance employees." On June 16, 1944, the general counsel
of the Union addressed a further letter to the respondent, stating that while he
preferred to have the unit in question included under the master agreement "if
at all practical," nevertheless, "if there are reasons for your believing at this
time that this would not be a practical procedure I would appreciate your advis-
ing me to that effect." The respondent did not respond to the letter of June 16,
nor did it otherwise thereafter communicate with the Union. Following its fail-
ure to receive a reply to its last letter, the Union referred the matter to the
Conciliation Service of the United States Department of Labor. Under date of
November 16, 1944, the respondent in a letter to the conciliator, a copy of which
it forwarded to the Union, wrote, in part, as follows:
While the National Labor Relations Board conducted an election and cer-
tified the Union as bargaining agent for these employes, the Company desires
to exercise its right of appeal from the action of the National Labor Relations
Board. The only manner in which it can appeal is by refusing to bargain,
and defending against whatever complaint may be prosecuted by that Board
for refusal to bargain, and appealing any order resulting . . .
The Company refuses to bargain with the Union on matters relating to
plant clerks, . . .
The respondent admits its refusal to bargain, although it does not concede that
Its refusal occurred necessarily on the specific dates alleged in the complaint.
It is, of course, clear that the respondent's letter of November 16, 1944, constituted
an absolute refusal to bargain, and the undersigned so finds. While the respond-
ent's letter of June 9, 1944, did not constitute a refusal to bargain, and as the record
shows was not construed as such by the Union, the respondent's failure to respond
to the Union's letter of June 16, 1944, which in substance proposed to negotiate the
question of inclusion under the master contract, especially when viewed in the
light of the respondent's ultimate stand as expressed in its letter to the conciliator,
constituted, as the undersigned finds, a refusal to bargain.
The undersigned finds that the respondent on June 16, 1944, as well as on
November 16, 1944, and at all times thereafter has refused to bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the respondent, set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section
I above, have a close, intimate and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
SWIFT AND COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
725
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been found
that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with'the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be recom-
mended that the respondent upon request bargain collectively with the Union..
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0, Local 49-A, is a labor
organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All plant clerks, standards department checkers, storeroom clerk and com-
missary employees of the respondent's Jersey City plant, exclusive of time and
employment office employees, time-study employees, storeroom laborer, head
storekeeper, chief clerk, fire marshal and all supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
3. United Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 49-A, was on
May 24, 1944, and at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on June 16, 1944, as well as on November 16, 1944, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the United Packinghouse Workers
of America, C. I. 0, Local 49-A, as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing, its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Swift and Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of
America, C I 0, Local 49-A, as the exclusive representative of all its employees
employed at its Jersey City plant as plant clerks, standards department checkers,
storeroom clerk and commissary employees, but excluding time and employment
office employees, time-study employees, storeroom laborer, head storekeeper,
chief clerk, fire marshal and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action.
(b) Engaging in any like or related act or conduct interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organizations , to join or assist United Packinghouse Workers of America,
Local 49-A, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of
America, C. I. 0, Local 49-A, as the exclusive representative of all of its em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit;
(b) Post at its plant at Jersey City, New Jersey , copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report herein , marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall , after being
duly signed by the respondent 's representative , be posted by the respondent imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any
other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Second Region on or before ten
(10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report in
writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent has
complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended , effective July 12, 1944,
any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen ( 15) days from the date
of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board, Rochambeau
Building, Washington , D. C., an original and four copies of a statement in writing
setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part
of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all motions or objections) as
he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief in support
thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or
brief, the' party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to
argue orally before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
Dated April 6, 1945.
NLRB 582
(9-1-44)
ARTHUR LEFF,
Trial Examwiner.
.APPENDIX A
NoTicz To ALL EMPLoYEEs
Pursuant to the recommendations of a trial examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
SWIFT AND COMPANY 727
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist United Packinghouse Workers of America, C . I. 0., Local
49-A, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . All our
employees are free to become or remain members of this union, or any other
labor organization.
We will bargain collectively upon request with the above -named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described
herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions
of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All plant clerks, standards department checkers , storeroom clerk and com-
missary employees of the Jersey City plant of Swift and Company, exclusive
of time and office employees , time-study employees , storeroom laborer, head
storekeeper , chief clerk , fire marshal and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action.
SWIFT AND COMPANY,
By ------------------ ------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated ------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.