Guggenheim Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 777 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY 777
foremen report directly to the yard superintendent.- Although
inside machinists generally work to a closer tolerance than that ordi-
narily required in the repair work performed on board a vessel,12 the
pay rates in both departments are the same. But as seniority is de-
partnmental, the inside and outside machinists have separate seniority
lists.
We find that the inside and outside machinists and their helpers
at the Employer's Brooklyn and Hoboken yards constitute a homo-
geneous, readily identifiable, craft group 13 with sufficient interests
in common to entitle them to separate representation if they so
desire.14 We shall direct an election among these employees, and if a
majority of them vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented in a separate bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
"The yard superintendent reports to a production superintendent who in turn reports
to the general superintendent.
12 Bench hands or helpers in the machine shop assemble parts finished in the shop and
carry them to the vessels under repair, where they are installed by the outside machinists.
13 Gibbs Corporation, supra; Watei man Steamship Corp , supra.
14 Todd Shipyards Corporation , supra.
GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY and INDEPENDENT BUTCHERS'
& PACKERS' UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-956 . May 01,
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 William J. Scott,
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-mem-
ber 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 repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
94 NLRB No. 93.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties agree, and we find, that all the production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Wichita, Kansas, plant,
excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. Determination of representatives :
On December 12, 1950, 42 employees in the appropriate unit at
the Employer's plant left work because of a dispute between the Em-
ployer and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 379,
CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor.' The Employer hired 19
replacements. On February 28, 1951, an agreement was concluded
between the Employer and the Intervenor whereby the 42 employees
were to be recalled to work, in order of seniority, displacing the 19
new employees, as soon as production schedules permitted. Pur-
suant to this agreement, the 19 replacements were informed by the
Employer, according to the Employer's testimony, that they were
being "laid off temporarily and only until business permits your recall
to work." Because of business conditions, only about 4 of the 42
employees who were involved in the dispute, are at present employed
at the Employer's plant. None of the parties contends that the
remaining 38 employees in this group are ineligible to cast their bal-
lots. The parties do, however, disagree as to whether the 19 replace-
ments are eligible to vote. The Petitioner urges that they should be
permitted to vote on the ground that they were temporarily laid off.
The Intervenor takes the position that they are ineligible because
they have no reasonable expectancy of reemployment in the near
future. The Employer contends that the replacements have been tem-
porarily laid off due to a retrenchment in business caused by the un-
certainties in Government price regulations affecting the Employer's
product; and that, as soon as the uncertainties have been removed and
the Employer resumes full production, these employees will probably
be recalled.
We find the evidence insufficient to decide the employment status
of these 19 individuals. We shall, therefore, permit them to vote,
subject to challenge. The challenged ballots shall not be counted
unless they affect the results of the election, in which event the ques-
tion as to which of these ballots shall be opened and counted will await
further investigation concerning the employment status of the affected
individuals.2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
1 A collective bargaining agreement currently in force between the Employer and the
Intervenor is not urged as a bar to these proceedings.
2 Cf. Pagoda .%zzzttzng Mills, Inc ., 87 NLRB 621 ; Cocoizne Products, Inc., 79 NLRB 1426.