White Provision Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1940

24 N.L.R.B. 427 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of SWIFT & COMPANY, OPERATING UNDER THE TRADE NAME
AND STYLE OF WHITE PROVISION COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 108,
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, OF PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, C. I. 0.1
Case No. R-1850.Decided. June 6, 1940
bleat Packing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : controversy con-
cerning representation of employees : employer ' s refusal to recognize Union
prior to Board certification-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargalining: all
production and maintenance employees , including truck drivers , but excluding
supervisory and clerical employees and watchmen-Election Ordered
Mr. John McRee, for the Board.
Mr. William N. Strack, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. G. R. Hathaway,
of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Miss Fannie M. Boyls, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 22, 1940, Local Union No. 108, United Packinghouse
Workers of America, of Packinghouse Workers Organizing Com-
mittee, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, filed a petition with the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Swift & Company, operating under the
trade name and style of White Provision Company, Atlanta, Georgia,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April
25, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
1 At the hearing the formal papers were amended to show the name of the Company and
the petitioner as set forth in the caption.
24 N. L. R. B., No. 39.
427
428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional _
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On May 3, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Union, and
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 406, herein called the Amalgamated.2 Pursuant to the notice, a
hearing was held on May 23, 1940, at Atlanta, Georgia, before Berdon
M. Bell, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. The Amalgamated did not appear or
present any claim at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing upon the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of
the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings in regard to the
admission of evidence and granted motions to amend the petition and
other formal papers. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
White Provision Company, Inc., from the date of its incorporation
under the laws of the State of Georgia. in 1931 until January 1, 1940,
operated as a wholly owned subsidiary of Swift & Company, a corpo-
ration organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois.
On the latter date all the assets of White Provision Company, Inc.,
were sold and transferred to Swift & Company and its plant has since
then been operated by Swift & Company under the trade name and
style of White Provision Company.
The Company operates a packing plant on the outskirts of Atlanta,
Georgia, where it is engaged in the purchase, slaughter, dressing,
and processing of livestock and the sale of its products, which consist
chiefly of fresh meats, cured meats, sausage, smoked meats, lard, and
byproducts of the packing industry. The Company also buys and
sells shortening, dairy and poultry products, and canned meats, part
of which are produced at other plants operated by Swift & Company.
The livestock slaughtered at the Company's plant.consists of cattle,
calves, hogs, and sheep.
2 The Regional Director in a statement concerning claims of authorization for the pur-
pose of representation , dated May 21, 1940, which was introduced in evidence , reported
that the Amalgamated claimed an interest in the proceeding but refused to submit any
evidence in support of its claim.
SWIFT & COMPANY 429
During the fiscal year ending October 28, 1939, the Company's total
purchases amounted to about $5,985,000, approximately 43 per cent of
which came from States other than Georgia. During the same fiscal
year the Company's sales totaled approximately $7,480,000, about 34
per cent of which were made in States other than Georgia.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Union No. 108, United Packinghouse Workers of America,
of Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization which admits to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
A few days prior to March 22, 1940, the date upon which the peti-
tion in this matter was filed, a committee of the Union called upon the
management of the Company, stated that the Union represented a
majority of the maintenance and production employees at the plant,
and requested the Company to recognize the Union as the exclusive
bargaining agency for those employees. The Company, through its
manager, thereupon informed the committee that the Company could
not recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining agency unless
it was certified as such by the National Labor Relations Board.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company and the Union agreed that all production and main-
tenance employees, including truck drivers, but excluding supervisory
and clerical employees and watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. They further agreed that
the employees named by the Company's superintendent at the hearing,
whose names are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto, are all of
the employees falling within the classification of supervisory and
430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerical employees and watchmen who were employed by the Company
at the date of the hearing.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Company, including truck drivers, but excluding supervisory and
clerical employees and watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such unit will insure
to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union, on the basis of authorization cards submitted to the
Regional Director, claims to represent 297 of the approximately 300
employees within the appropriate unit, but does not seek certification
without an election. We find that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen can best be resolved by means of an election
by secret ballot.
It was stipulated by counsel for the Board, the Company, and the
Union that in the event the Board should direct an election, the
pay-roll date immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election should be used for eligibility purposes. The adoption of
such eligibility date is in accordance with our usual practice. We
shall therefore direct that all employees within the appropriate unit
who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including
employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since
been temporarily laid off, but excluding those who have since quit or
been discharged for cause, shall be eligible to participate in the
election.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Swift & Company, operating under the
trade name and style of White Provision Company, Atlanta, Georgia,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. All maintenance and production employees of the Company, in-
eluding truck drivers, but excluding supervisory and clerical em-
SWIFT & -COMPANY 431
ployees and watchmen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended , it is hereby
DIRE.ciEn that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Swift & Company , operating under the trade name and style of
White Provision Company, Atlanta , Georgia, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board , and sub-
ject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
all production and maintenance employees, including truck drivers,
who were employed by the Company during the pay-roll period next
preceding the date of this Direction of Election , including employees
who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation , and employees who were then or have since been tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and further excluding supervisory and clerical
employees and watchmen,3 to determine . whether or not they desire
to be represented by Local No . 108, United Packinghouse Workers of
America, of Packinghouse Workers Organizing Committee , C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
APPENDIX A
Supervisory and clerical employees and watchmen excluded from
appropriate bargaining unit :
Superintendent :
John A. Busse D. L. Taylor
General Foremen: H. J. Scarborough
C. F. Simpkins G. T. Barber
Al. O. Brennan M. K. Grant
8 See Appendix A, infra.
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Foremen, Assistant Foremen, and
Supervisory Gang Leaders:
J. D. Shields
T. C. Callicott
David Brown
H. R. Jordan
R. W. Hyatt
C. M. Browder
M. N. McMackin
Lee Williams
Roy Edge
H. W. Flury
H. A. Stevens
R. R. Lord
A. C. Mills
R. W. Richards
W. J. Ward
J. L. Waters
H. H. Long
W. Sanders
W. Culver
Clerical Employees:
F. N. Fairbanks
W. L. Shannon
J. G. Wright
E. B. Fuller
T. L. Nalley
A. F. Massar
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
H. W. Phillips
A. J. Conyers
Madelyn Walker
Charlotte Robinson
H. N. Alford
N. S. Underwood
R. D. Wilson
J. L. O'Shields
L. H. Grizzard
E. H. Pittman
J. L. Adams
O. R. Cowart
J. L. Lester
Ruby Brooks
C. N. Creel
Amos Hawkins
M. D. Meisenhamer
A. F. Jackson
J. R. Kilpatrick
W. A. Reeves
M. E. Weaver
J. D. Stevens
Watchmen.:
R. D. Flury
D. V. Fannin
J. D. Loner
J. Whitfield