Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1288 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SWIFT & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 254
Case No. 8-R-1909.-Decided March 28, 1946
Messrs. A. R. Curtis and John P. Staley, of Chicago, Ill., for the
Company.
Messrs . Ray Hobbs and Sam Sponseller , of Cleveland , Ohio, for
the CIO.
Mr. Herbert Walker , of Cleveland , Ohio, and Mr. Don Mahon, of
Des Moines , Iowa , for the Brotherhood.
Messrs . John Jurkanin and Sam Pollock , of Cleveland , Ohio, for'
the A . F. of L.
Mr. Frederick D. Vincent , Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CAST:
Upon a petition duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of
America, CIO. Local 254, herein called the CIO, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Swift & Company, Cleveland, Ohio, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer,
Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, on
February 8, 1946. The Company, the CIO, the National Brother-
hood of Packinghouse Workers (CUA), herein called the Brother-
hood, and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, A. F. of L., Local 500, herein called the A. F. of L.,
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the commencement of
the hearing the Brotherhood moved for an adjournment on the
ground that the plant in question was no longer in the possession
of the Company, having been seized by the United States Govern-
ment, and that since no representative of the Government was present
at the hearing, further proceedings were improper. The Trial
66 N. L . R. B., No. 152.
1288
SWIFT & COMPANY 1289
Examiner correctly denied this motion.' During the hearing the
Brotherhood, in effect, moved for dismissal of the petition on the
ground that an existing contract between it and the Company consti-
tuted a bar. Ruling on this motion was reserved for the Board. For
the reasons which appear in Section III, below, this motion is granted.
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:
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Swift & Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Company is engaged
in the business of processing and packing meat, operating plants
in numerous States throughout the United States. Only the Com-
pany's Cleveland, Ohio, plant is involved in this proceeding. During
the fiscal year 1945, the Company received at its Cleveland plant
raw materials totaling more than $6,000,000 in value, of which ap-
proximately 32 percent was purchased from points outside the State
of Ohio. During the same period the Company sold and delivered
from its Cleveland plant finished products valued in excess of
$17,000,000, of which approximately 28 percent was shipped outside
the State of Ohio.
Tlie Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION S INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 254, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Confederated Unions of America, admitting
to membership employee. of the Company.
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local 500, is a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
'The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, when pie-
sented with this question , that the United States , as a result of seizure of an employee
plant, has no substantial interest in a representation proceeding before this Board and
is not an indispensable pasty, inasmuch as such a proceeding deals with a preliminary
non-adversary matter N L R B v. TVeet Kentucky Coal Company , 1 52 F. (2d) 198,
1290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On February 6, 1942, after an election, the Brotherhood was
designated as the bargaining representative of the employees of the
Cleveland plant. In 1943 the Brotherhood and the Company exe-
cuted a contract, retroactive as of August 20, 1942, to continue in
operation until August 11, 1943, and for annual periods thereafter,
"subject to reopening by either party on written notice mailed at
least thirty days prior to August 11 of any year." This contract
was automatically renewed in 1943. On May 19, 25, and 26, 1944,
the CIO, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of
North America, and its local No. 625, each requested the Company
to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in
units each alleged to be appropriate. Petitions were filed with the
Board by each of these unions resulting in 'a consolidated hearing
and Direction of Elections? On September 22, 1944, the Brotherhood
was certified as the bargaining agent of employees of the Cleveland
plant. During the pendency of these questions of representation
the contract between the Brotherhood and the Company renewed
itself for another year commencing August 11, 1944. On May 15,
1945, the Brotherhood and the Company entered into a new agree-
ment for a term expiring August 11, 1946, containing the same auto-
matic renewal clause as the previous contract. Thereafter, on July
6, 1945, the CIO again notified the Company of its claim to represent
the Cleveland plant employees, and on July 9, 1945, filed its petition
herein.
The Brotherhood raises the May 15, 1945, contract as a bar to
this proceeding. But the CIO insists that, having asserted its rival
claim in timely fashion insofar as the 1942 contract is concerned, the
1945 agreement cannot be considered to preclude a present determina-
tion of representatives, inasmuch as it is nothing more than a prema-
ture extension of the earlier contract .3
The Board has unanimously held that a certified union is entitled
to a reasonable time (usually 1 year) in which, undisturbed, it may
bargain collectively for the employees it represents .4 Thus, at the
time of the completion of the 1945 agreement, less than 8 months
after its certification, the Brotherhood's status was not subject to
challenge and it was entitled to exercise its right as bargaining
representative. Moreover, in the Kimberly-Clark case,5 it was held
that a contract of reasonable term, automatically renewed about 7
2 Matter of Swift & Company, 57 N, L. R. B. 1411.
9 See Matter of Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 1447 ;
Matter of Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 N. L . R. B. 369.
*,See Matter of Aluminum Company of America , Newark Works , 57 N. L R. B. 913;
Matter of Bohn Aluminum and Brass Corporation , 57 N. L. R. B. 1684.
c Matter of Kimberly -Clark Corporation , 61 N. L. R. B. 90,
SWIFT & COMPANY 1291
months after certification, effectively barred a representative pro-
ceeding for the period of its duration, despite the fact that a rival
claim had been asserted prior to its renewal6 Even assuming,
therefore, that the CIO's claim had been made before the execution
of the 1945 contract in this case, under the Kimberly-Clark doctrine
it would nevertheless be a bar, unless it is, as the CIO contends, no
more than a premature extension of the 1942 agreement. In these
circumstances, however, the principle of premature extension is not
applicable. To hold otherwise would be to compel a union to adhere
to an agreement made before its certification and prevent it from
executing a new one in pursuance of such designation, as is its right.
We find, consequently, that the agreement of May 15, 1945, bars
the instant proceeding, and we shall dismiss the petition.'
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition
for investigation and certification of representatives of employees
of Swift & Company, Cleveland, Ohio, filed by United Packinghouse
Workers of America. CIO, Local 251, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
"See also Matter of imerican Woolen Coinpantj, 61 N. L. It B 1045
7 See Matte of Swift & Company, 66 N. I. It B 845.