Beavers Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 233 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

BEAVERS PACKING COMPANY 233
BEAVERS PACKING COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA (CIO) , PETITIONER. Case No. 1O-RC-1490 . November
'301 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 S. Patton, hear-
ing 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 business of the Employer, Beavers Packing Company, a
partnership with its principal office and place of business in Newnan,
Georgia, is engaged in the business of slaughtering livestock and of
processing and selling meat and animal byproducts. During the
12-month period ending June 30, 1951,1 the Employer's total pur-
chases amounted to approximately $1,550,000, of which approximately
$462,000 was shipped to the Employer from points outside the
State of Georgia. During the same period, the Employer's sales
amounted to $1,946,000, all of which represent sales made within the
State. None of the meat sold by the Employer during the period in
question was reshipped to points outside the State as it was not fed-
erally inspected. Of the animal byproducts sold during this period,
a total of approximately $46,900 was shipped to the following three
companies : Sam A. Womack & Company, Atlanta, Georgia, which
obtained approximately $23,900 worth of hides; Shoen Brothers, At-
lanta, Georgia, which obtained $7,950 worth of tankage; and G.
Bernd, Macon, Georgia, which obtained $15,000 worth of grease.
Each of these three companies is a dealer in animal byproducts. Wo-
mack sells its products through brokers located in Atlanta and Macon,
Georgia. It appears that annually, Womack sells about $150,000
worth of products of which about 20 to 30 percent is destined for out-
of-State shipment. The annual sales of Shoen Brothers total ap-
proximately $1,400,000, of which approximately 70 percent represents
sales to out-of-State customers. During the year 1950 the sales of
3 All the commerce figures appearing in the record with respect to the Employer 's opera-
tions cover the 6-month period ending June 30, 1951. As the standards which the Board
leas adopted for the assertion of jurisdiction were computed on the basis of annual opera-
tions, we have projected the 6-month totals for an additional half-year, thereby obtaining
an estimate for an annual period.
97 NLRB No. 43.
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. Bernd Company amounted to $1,500,000, of which approximately
50 percent represent sales to customers outside the State.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the assertion of
jurisdiction is warranted in this case. It is true, as the Employer
contends, that the out-of-State purchases of the Employer standing
alone are not sufficient to justify the assertion of jurisdiction.2 How-
ever, the Employer also makes sales to companies who are engaged in
handling goods destined for out-of-State shipment in the value of $25,-
000 per annum, or more.3 These sales together with the out-of-State
purchases meet the aggregate of ratio test for asserting jurisdiction
enunciated in the Rutledge Paper Products case.' Thus the $462,000
of direct inflow is approximately 92 percent of the minimum direct
inflow requirement of $500,000; the sales amounting to $46,900 to firms
each of which annually ships more than $25,000 of its product outside
the State is approximately 93 percent of the $50,000 minimum require-
ment for local sales to companies over which the Board will assert
jurisdiction. The total of these activities is considerably in excess
of "100 percent."
Accordingly, we find not only that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, but also that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over it.
2. The labor organization involved claims - to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce -exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees including
truck drivers, shipping and receiving clerks, gang leaders,5 but ex-
cluding salesmen, watchmen,° the watchman-fireman,' the livestock
buyer,8 office employees, foremen, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638.
s Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
5 The record shows that the gang leaders do not exercise any of the powers of a supervisor
and we have therefore included them.
6 We have excluded the watchmen as guards because it appears that they devote all their
time to protecting the Employer's property. The Fuller Automobile Co., 88 NLRB 1452.
7As the watchman-fireman devotes the majority of his time to his duties as a watchman,
we have excluded him. Wsley Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB 40.
' As the livestock buyer performs excluqsively buying functions, we have, in accordance
with our usual practice in such cases, excluded him. South Georgia Pecan Shelling Com-
pany, 85 NLRB 591.