Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 956 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARMOUR AND COMPANY and LOCAL UNION No. 102, AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1350.
August 3,1951
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-:Emil; C. Farkas; hearing
officer. The.hearing - officer's - rulings made at the. hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the.provisions of Section 3_.(b•) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with. this case . to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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.
employees of the- Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repr esenta-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section' 9
.(c)- (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, the Intervenor
herein, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that a contract
between its Local Union No. 69, hereinafter referred to as the Local,
and the Employer constitutes a bar to this proceeding.' The Peti-
tioner contends that the Local has ceased to function as the bargaining
representative of the employees involved herein, and that the con-
tract cannot therefore preclude a present election. The Employer
takes no position with respect to the contract bar contentions.
The Local is an amalgamated local at present composed of seven
units at seven meat packing plants, six located in Detroit, Michigan,
and one in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the latter constituting the unit
involved in this proceeding. Following a consent election conducted
in 1941, the Local was certified by the Board as braining repre-
sentative in one of the Detroit units. In 1943, the Local obtained a
similar certification at the Employer's Grand Rapids plant. The rec-
ord does not indicate the manner ili which the remaining units were
established.. However, the Local has never achieved Board certifi-
cation on a multiplant basis 2
On January 20, 1944, the Intervenor executed a contract with the
Employer on behalf of the Local which was to run for annual periods
? Although served with notice, the Local was not represented at the bearing ' herein.
The Intervenor stated at the hearing that it had planned to remove the unit herein
involved from the amalgamated Local and establish it as a separate unit.
95 NLRB No. 112.
SOUTHERN SHELLFISH CO., INC. 957
absent 30 days' notice.- Since that date, neither of the contracting
parties has served notice to change, modify, or terminate the contract.
While the employees covered by the contract enjoy various vacation
and insurance benefits, none of these benefits has ever been the sub-
ject of negotiations between the Employer and the Intervenor. It
appears that no representative of the Local has ever met with the
Employer or requested negotiations regarding any term or condition
of employment contained in the contract; no grievance committee has .
ever been established pursuant to the contract, and no grievances have
been processed; no union dues have ever been checked off; nor has the
Local ever utilized the bulletin board which the Employer made
available for the posting of union notices. Furthermore, there is no,
evidence.that the employees at the Employer's:plant were aware of
the existence of a contract covering them, nor is there evidence' as to'
what number of employees are members of the Local; as to when, if
ever, meetings were held; or as to whether'or not any dues have been
paid by the employees directly to the Local.
Thus, it appears that the Local has abandoned the administration of
its contract with the Employer, and has ceased actively to represent
the Employer's employees since the execution of that contract 7 years
ago. Under all the circumstances, we find that it will best effectuate'
the purposes of the Act to direct an election at the Employer's plant
at this time.' Accordingly, we find that the contract between the Em-
ployer and the Local is not a bar to this proceeding.
4. The parties have stipulated, and we find, that all employees of the
Employer at its Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant, excluding all office.
and clerical employees, truck drivers, service truck salesmen, salesmen,
professional employees, guards, foremen, and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate. for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'[Text of Direction of Election 'omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Cf. American Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB No. 171; Reynolds & Manley Lumber
Company, 88 NLRB 1300.
SOUTHERN SHELLFISH CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL FUR AND LEATHER
WORKERS UNION OF THE UNITED" STATES AND CANADA, PETITIONER.
Case No. 15-RC-474. August 3,1951.
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 John W. Irving, hearing offi-'
95 NLRB No. 114.