Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 13, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 50 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is, therefore, a type of unit specified in the Act, and is presump- tively an appropriate type of unit." However, the appropriateness of a broad unit does not preclude the appropriateness of a smaller one where there are, as here, factors that show that the smaller unit may also be appropriate.' Thus, the Elkhart plant operations and the employees there are under the separate direction and supervision of a resident plant manager. The payroll for its production and mainte- nance employees is maintained in its own office, and there is little, if any, interchange of employees between the two plants which are about 120 miles apart. Also, like an employerwide unit, a plantwide unit is presumptively appropriate." Moreover, the Board normally permits employees at a new plant to decide whether or not they wish to be separately represented .9 Accordingly, we believe that, in these cir- cumstances, either a unit limited to the Elkhart employees, or a two- plant unit, may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. But, before making any final unit determination, we shall first ascer- tain the desires of the employees as expressed in the election directed hereinafter. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the follow- ing voting group : all production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Employer's Elkhart, Indiana, plant, excluding all clerical and confidential employees, guards, foremen and superin- tendents, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. If a majority of the Employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the Employees in the voting group cast their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented by the Intervenor as part of an employer- wide, two-plant unit and the Regional Director will issue a certifica- tion of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] e See Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200, 2201-2202. 7 See F TV. Saybolt & Company, 105 NLRB 510, 512 Beaumont Forging Company, supra. 0 Flemenq & Sons , Inc., 118 NLRB 1451, 1453; Rockingham Poultry Cooperative, Inc., 113 NLRB 376, 378. Swift & Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-2877. July 13, 1959 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 Harold L. Hudson, 124 NLRB No. 14. SWIFT & COMPANY 51 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 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.' 4. The Petitioner requests an election in a unit limited to the pro- duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Kansas City, Kansas, meatpacking plant. The Employer agrees to the appropriate- ness of the unit requested, but the Intervenor contends that only a multiplant unit of all employees covered by the Brotherhood's master agreement with the Employer is appropriate. The Employer operates dairy plants, poultry plants, branch houses (sales units), and meatpacking plants throughout the United States. Of the Employer's 46 to 48 meatpacking plants, 44 to 45 are organized, contracts with various unions covering employees in different types of units. Among these, the Employer has master contracts with thrae different International Unions. A master agreement with the Peti- tioner covers about 55 percent, and an agreement with another union not involved herein covers about 25 percent, of the Employer's meat- packing plants and truck distribution terminals. The Brotherhood's first master agreement with the Employer was executed in 1943 and covered all plants whose employees were repre- sented by that Union. Other plants have been added to or dropped. from coverage as the Brotherhood or its locals won or lost Board elections conducted in individual plant units. At present, the agree- ment covers 14 plants,' including the Kansas City plant. The Brother- hood also represents employees at the Employer's Brooks bologna plant, Lebanon, Pennsylvania., who are not covered by the master agreement. Prior to the negotiation of master agreements, each of the Brother- hood's Locals covered elects one member of the National Negotiating 1 The Employer and the Intervenor , National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers (herein called the Brotherhood ) on behalf of itself and its Local 12 , contend that a master agreement , effective from September 24, 1956, to September 1, 1959 , is a bar. As the agreement is of unreasonable duration , and had been in effect for over 2 years when the petition was filed on December 17, 1958, we find that it is not a bar . Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Haitutaeturers , 121 NLRB 990. 2 The covered plants are located in Harrisburg , Pa. ; Fort Worth , Tex. ; So. St . Joseph, Mo. ; Kansas City, Kans. ; Dodge City, Kans. ; Independence , Kans. ; Jefferson City, Joplin, and Springfield , Mo. ; Wichita, Kans. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; Marshalltown , Iowa ; San Antonio, Tex. ; Lake Charles, La. (truckdrivers only ). Salina and Liberal , Kans. , truck terminals, listed in the master agreement as covered , have been closed. Dock checkers at St. Louis, Mo., listed as covered , are no longer represented by the Intervenor. 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Committee, which has authority to execute agreements, subject to rati- fication by a majority of the members covered. The Committee de- termines bargaining policy and elects a spokesman, usually the presi- dent of the Brotherhood, Members of the Committee also take an active part in negotiations. The Employer's negotiating is done by its general superintendent and his staff. Master agreements are signed by the national officers of the Brotherhood and the general superintendent. While the recognition clause of the master agreement is not al- together clear, it appears to extend recognition to the Brotherhood for the employees in all the plants listed in the agreement, and to the Local in each plant as the representative of the employees therein. The agreement throughout refers to the "bargaining units" covered, and contains an exhibit in which each individual plant unit is de- scribed as found appropriate by the Board in various election pro- ceedings. The distribution terminal units include truckdrivers only ; one plant unit description includes production and maintenance em- ployees but specifically excludes truckdrivers; and still another unit description includes only truckdrivers at a plant where the other pro- duction and maintenance employees are represented by a different union. The Kansas City plant unit is described as including the pro- duction and maintenance employees, and as represented by Local 12, which Local also represents 6 of the other 13 plants presently covered. The current master agreement contains provisions regarding sen- iority, guaranteed workweek, fringe benefits, holidays, vacations, leaves of absence, grievances, safety and health, hours, and death benefits. The agreement does not contain wage rates, but provides for specific increases in "wage rates now in effect." No written wage agreements are in evidence, but testimony was presented to the effect that while base pay rates are substantially the same in all plants, there are geographical differences, and that interplant inequities are occa- sionally adjusted by negotiations between the Brotherhood's national officers and the general superintendent. The master agreement pro- vides for local plant option as to whether to follow the seniority pro- visions of the master contract or negotiate a different local seniority agreement. In addition, it provides for local negotiation of new job rates, substitutions for designated holidays and weekly workdays, relief periods, and meal allowances. Attached to the master agree- ment are supplemental agreements, executed simultaneously with the master agreement, changing various provisions with respect to the individual plants covered. At the same time, the Employer and the Brotherhood negotiated a separate agreement providing for termina- tion of the master agreement as to the employees in any bargaining unit for whom the Board might certify a different representative or decertify the Brotherhood. Local negotiations have resulted in many SWIFT & COMPANY 53. supplemental agreements applicable to individual plants, as provided for in the master agreement.' The master agreements between the Brotherhood and the Employer express no intention by the parties to effect a consolidation of the separately certified local plant units into one multiplant unit. The record contains evidence, in the form of testimony, that the Employer never intended that the identity of the individual plants would be lost. The Brotherhood presented no evidence in this proceeding as to its intent. However, the Brotherhood and its various locals have par- ticipated in many Board representation proceedings during the past 15 years, including three proceedings involving the Kansas City plant, and have never previously contended that the master agreements had rendered separate plant units inappropriate.4 That the Brotherhood in fact shared the Employer's intent to preserve the individual units is demonstrated by the position it took to that effect in a prior Board proceeding involving the Kansas City plant (117 NLRB 16) when it averred that individual plants were considered separate and distinct units under the master agreement. Many features of the master agree- ments themselves are consistent with this evidence as to the intent of the parties, indicating that the negotiation of the agreements was merely for convenience in bargaining for whatever local units repre- sented by the Brotherhood or its locals the parties agreed to include; e.g., although the Brotherhood is recognized as the overall representa- tive, individual Locals are recognized for the separate "bargaining units." Of additional significance is the absence of base pay rates for the employees covered, and the fact that seniority is on a plant and departmental basis. Individual plant unit status is also preserved by special provisions in the master -agreement covering individual plants only, local supplemental agreements, and the supplemental agreement to delete from coverage plants for which the Brotherhood or its Locals lose their certifications. Also, original separate plant unit certifica- tion lines are preserved in the composition of the Brotherhood's National Negotiating Committee for the determination of bargaining policy. Under these circumstances, we find that the bargaining his- tory fails to establish that the multiplant unit is alone appropriate. Nor would such a unit correspond with any functional, administra- tive, or geographical grouping of plants within the Employer's or- ganization. There is no functional integration of operations, no 3 The provisions of the master agreements of the three International Unions which represent most of the employees of the Employer 's meatpacking plants are similar, in general, except that the Brotherhood's agreement converts clothes-changing time and clothing allowance into wages, and computes vacation pay on a different basis. • The Brotherhood and Its Locals have agreed to the appropriateness of single plant units in 30 Board proceedings involving the Employer's meatpacking plants . Although unit stipulations in prior proceedings are not dispositive of the issue of appropriateness, we consider the Brotherhood's failure to raise the multiplant issue , under these circum- stances , to be evidence of its intent , and belief , that the separately certified units had not been merged by the execution of the master agreements. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employee interchange, and few, if any, transfers. Seniority is on a plant and departmental basis. We therefore find that the single-plant unit requested is appropriate.5 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Kansas City, Kansas, meatpacking plant, including truckdrivers; but excluding receiving office employees, research laboratory employees, time and employment office employees, plant protection employees (policemen, watchmen, matrons, bell pullers, and firemen), office cleri- cal employees, plant clerical employees, cashier in employees' store, credit union employees, reship clerk, draftsmen, standards department employees, general office employees, brick masons, superintendent, assistant superintendent, division superintendents, night superintend- ent, general foremen, foremen, foreladies, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting : Upon the record as a whole it has been established to my satisfac- tion that a definable multiplant unit, based upon bargaining history, is presently in existence. Cf. General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215. For this reason, I would dis- miss the petition. 5 Radio Corporation of America, 121 NLRB 633; American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284; Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841. General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215, relied on by the Intervenor, is distinguish- able from the instant case because there the contracting union was substantially the only union representing the employer's employees. The members of the contracting unions' bargaining committee were selected by groups of employees which cut across plant unit lines, and the multiplant unit 'found appropriate covered all employees represented by the union and was companywide and nationwide in scope. 0 The parties agreed to the composition of the unit. Benjamin Franklin Paint and Varnish Company Division of United Wallpaper , Incorporated and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC--3813. July 14, 1959 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 Katherine W. Neel, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 124 NLRB No. 3.