Central Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 6, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 19 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CENTRAL PACKING COMPANY
Recommendations
19
As reflected in its motion for remand, the Respondent seeks "a new decision
and order upon a reconsideration of the entire case." The Respondent, however,
has filed neither a brief nor a motion defining explicitly the scope of the "new
decision and order" which it seeks. I have concluded in effect that the evidence
adduced upon the remand does not warrant any modification of the findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and remedy embodied in the Board's Decision and Order.
It would, therefore, be needlessly repetitive for the Board to issue a Decision and
Order reiterating the provisions of the one now in effect. Accordingly, upon the
basis of the entire record in this proceeding, including the evidence adduced at
both the first and second hearings, and upon the foregoing findings of fact, I
recommend that :
1. The Board construe the Respondent's position before it as in effect an appli-
cation for the entry of a new Decision and Order containing such modification of
the one now in effect as may be warranted by a reconsideration of the additional
evidence adduced at the second hearing ; and
2. The Board enter a Decision and Order denying the application for modifi-
cation of the Decision and Order now in effect and reaffirming its terms and
provisions.
CENTRAL PACKING COMPANY, AND RABBIS M. BURNSTEIN AND TIROR
STERN 1 and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No.
36, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. I-2-RC-962. July 6, 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 Eugene Hoffman, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, as defined in paragraph numbered 2, below, is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner, a labor organization, claims to represent the five
:schochtim and the two tag men performing kosher butchering work
at the plant of Central Packing Company, herein called the Company,
at Kansas City, Kansas. The Petitioner contends that these workers
are employed by the Company with which it desires to bargain. The
Company contends that it does not employ these workers, but that
they are employed by Rabbis Burstein and Stern. The Rabbis, while
desiring to control the provisions of any collective bargaining agree-
ment for these employees which may touch upon the religious aspects
1 The name of the Employer is amended to conform with our finding heieln.
95 NLRB No. 8.
961974-52-vol. 95-3
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their work, state that they are not concerned with any of the other
conditions of employment of the kosher workers.
The Company, a Kansas corporation, is engaged in the slaughter-
ing and dressing of cattle which it ships to consumers for sale as
meat products for human consumption. During the calendar year
1950 the Company shipped more than $1,000,000 worth of meat to
points outside the State of Kansas. Approximately one-third of the
Company's business is devoted to its kosher products.
When the Company first attempted to enter the business of shipping
kosher food, its president, Weil, contacted Rabbis Burstein and Stern
.who, it had learned, were authorized to supervise such operations in
the Kansas City area. The Rabbis explained to Weil that the
schochtim and tag men who would perform the work must be under
the complete supervision of the Rabbis, who should have the sole
right to hire and discharge them.2 The Company and the Rabbis
then agreed on a flat rate to be paid by the Company for the cattle
which the Company should offer for kosher slaughtering, regardless
of whether or not they were eventually found fit for shipping as such.
The' number of men to be hired and the amount they should be paid
was left to the Rabbis. The Rabbis then decided between themselves
how they would divide the money paid by the Company. Shortly
after operations began, the Rabbis discovered that they were unable
to keep books with regard to paying the men, and the Company
agreed to perform the bookkeeping functions for them 3 Thereafter
the Rabbis notified the Company's bookkeeper what percentage each
of the kosher workers was to receive from the amounts due. Since
that time the bookkeeper has computed the pay from the amount due
each week for kosher work.
The kosher workers work on the same floor with the Company's
employees, who slaughter cattle for sale as nonkosher beef. All of
their work takes place on the Company's premises, but the Company
furnishes none of their tools or equipment other than the tags which
go on the products. Although the Company does not tell the kosher
workers specifically what their hours shall be and does not control
their holidays or vacations, the Company does in great measure control
their general working hours by its scheduling of the kosher slaughter-
ing and by increasing or decreasing the amount of kosher slaughtering
to be performed. The Company does not exercise control over the
working conditions of the kosher workers and Company President
Well testified that they are not subject to company regulations. How-
ever, the kosher workers are included in the Company's workmen's
4 On at least two occasions the Rabbis have suspended workers for violations of religious
rules.
' The Company states that it did so as a "favor" to the Rabbis.
J. HOWARD SMITH, INC. 21
compensation policy along with the general employees of the
Company.
On the basis of the foregoing, particularly the facts indicating that
the killing of kosher cattle and shipping of kosher products forms a
large portion of the Company's business, that the kosher workers
perform all of their work at the. Company's plant, and are indirectly
controlled through the Employer's operation of its plant, we find that
the Company and the Rabbis, who supervise and directly control the
working conditions of the kosher workers and determine their salaries,
constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of
the Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As the kosher workers are the only employees employed by the
Company and the Rabbis as a single employer, and in view of the
religious aspects of their work which is unlike that of the other em-
ployees in the plant, we find that they should function as a unit
separate and apart from the general production and maintenance
employees of the Company:'
We find that all schochtim and tag men employed by the Employer
at the Company's plant in Kansas City, Kansas, excluding all super-
visors 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.]
* The Board has consistently found units of schochtlm to be appropriate bargaining
snits. Armour & Company, 72 NLRB 717, and cases cited therein . We therefore find
no merit in the Rabbis' contention that the religious nature of their work precludes their
representation for purposes of collective bargaining.
J. HOWARD SMITH , INC. and SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
NORTH AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-814. July
6, 1951
Decision and. Order
,Upon a. petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in September 1950 before
Fred G. Krivonos, hearing officer. Following that hearing, the Em-
ployer, hereafter called Smith, moved to reopen the hearing on the
ground that it was changing its method of fishing operations for the
1951 season. The Board remanded the case for hearing on the alleged
95 NLRB No. 9.