Tennessee Egg Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 189 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

TENNESSEE EGG COMPANY 189 find that the four leaders are supervisors as defined in the Act and shall exclude them from the unit. We shall direct an election in the voting group composed of the pro- duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Clarksville, Ohio, plant, including the layout man, and checker 3 but excluding the inside panel leader, outside panel leader, saw leader, yard leader, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed here- in is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Peti- tioner for that unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event the majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to become part of the existing unit composed of employees at the Fort Payne, Alabama, plant, now represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will certify the results of the election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' This individual is included solely for the purpose of permitting him to vote subject to challenge and his inclusion in the voting group is not to be taken as a final determination of his unit placement. TENNESSEE EGG COMPANY and TRUCK DRIVERS , & HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 728 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-720. September 30, 1954 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 Philip B. Cordes, 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 National Labor Relations Act.' 'The Employer is engaged in processing and distributing poultry and eggs. It also distributes butter and margarine . It has its main plant at Chattanooga , Tennessee, and a branch plant at Atlanta , Georgia, which is alone involved in this proceeding . During the past year the Atlanta plant shipped out-of-State goods valued in excess of $50 ,000. The parties stipulate and we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 110 NLRB No. 19. 190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The appropriate unit : The original petition herein requested severance of the over-the- road and city truckdrivers from the production and maintenance unit presently represented by the Intervenor. At the hearing the Peti- tioner asked that the Employer's shipping department employees be included in the proposed unit, if the Board deemed such inclusion to be appropriate. The Intervenor does itot oppose the severance of the truckdrivers and took no position at the hearing with respect to the inclusion of the shipping department employees. The Employer op- poses any severance, contending that the plantwide unit which has been represented by the Intervenor for approximately 10 years is alone appropriate. The Employer employs 12 over-the-road and city truckdrivers who drive throughout the city of Atlanta, Georgia, and its vicinity. They spend approximately 75 percent of their time driving. The remain- ing time is spent loading and unloading trucks and assisting the ship- ping department employees in packing poultry. The shipping depart- ment employees are primarily engaged in packing poultry and in load- ing and unloading trucks. They also perform truckdriving duties on occasion. All three groups work on trucks or in the shipping depart- ment. There is no interchange between the truckdriver group or the shipping department group and the production workers. The Board in the American Potash case 4 has examined the issue of severance of employees from plantwide units. This decision, while primarily devoted to the issue of the severance of craft groups, recog- nizes that other groups, which do not qualify as craft groups, but which comprise "functionally distinct departments containing em- 8 Local 442, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor , intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contract interest. 3 The Employer contends that a contract between it and the Intervenor is a bar to this proceeding . On April 27, 1953. the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract covering the Employer 's production employees and truckdrivers at its Atlanta, Georgia, plant. This contract was effective until December 31, 1953, and thereafter for another year , unless notice of intent to terminate or modify was given 30 days before the expira- tion date. On September 28, 1953, the Intervenor gave notice of a desire to modify the contract , thus forestalling its automatic renewal. As a new contract had not been executed before March 18, 1954, when the instant petition was filed, we find that there is no contract bar. 20th Century Press, 107 NLRB 292. 4 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418 TENNESSEE EGG COMPANY 191 ployees identified with traditional trades or occupations distinct from that of other employees and who have special interests in collective bargaining for that reason may also be entitled to severance." The Board there noted that it would require proof that the department is functionally distinct and that the petitioner is a union which has traditionally devoted itself to serving the special interests of the em- ployees in question. In addition this concept would be strictly limited in character and extent and the burden of eliciting facts to establish severance on a departmental basis would be on the Petitioner. Applying the foregoing standard, and on the whole record, it is clear that the truckdrivers, who spend the majority of their time per- forming truckdriving duties, constitute a functionally distinct group, such as the Board has traditionally accorded the right of self-deter- mination despite a history of bargaining on a broader basis, and de- spite their lack of true craft skill.' Likewise the Petitioner is a union which has historically represented truckdrivers. However, as the shipping department employees do not spend the major part of their time in driving the Employer's trucks, we find that they do not have sufficient community of interest with the truckdrivers to warrant their inclusion in the same unit with the drivers. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's truckdrivers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. We shall direct an election among the over-the-road 6 and city truckdrivers at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, plant, excluding the shipping department employees, all other employees and super- visors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting-the election directed herein is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Di- rector will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] r See Wilson & Co., 102 NLRB 769 ; McDonnell Aircra ft Corporation, 92 NLRB 899 ; The Schaible Company, 88 NLRB 733. 6 The Employer would exclude the over-the-road truckdrivers from the unit on the ground that they are part of management. As an adjunct to their truckdriving duties, these employees purchase poultry in amounts and at prices prescribed by management. They thereby exercise no prerogatives of management . We shall include them in the unit.