Peters Sausage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 740 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Axle Engineering Department
Blueprint machine operators' duties consist of feeding paper into
blueprint machines and cutting and trimming the prints ejected by the
developer. They also mix and check developing fluid and make minor
service adjustments. We find that their duties and interests are sub-
stantially clerical in nature and we shall therefore include them.5
We find that all office and clerical employees of the Employer at
its general offices at 100-400 Clark Street and 1040 W. Fourth Street,
Detroit, Michigan, including the employees both parties have agreed
to include ,s the switchboard operators, the follow-up men in the
plant engineering and sales departments, the blueprint machine opera-
tors, but excluding the employees the parties have agreed to exclude,'
the detailers, layout men, checkers, junior engineers, the mathemati-
cian, the product designers, the nurses, the laboratory technicians, all
other employees, guards, professional employees, and all 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.
f
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 Southern Alkali Corporation, 84 NLRB 120.
Cost department, mail, file, stationary, telephone, teletype, and receptionist department,
stenographic and executive secretary department, accounts payable department, burner
department, material record department, receiving inspection department, purchasing
follow-up department, planning department, tool design department, general factory
department, plant layout department, time-study department, time and tabulating depart-
ment, tool stores, inspection quality control department, traffic department, service depart-
ment, and forge office.
7 All officers of the Employer, all division heads, plant manager, superintendents, office
managers and their assistants ; all department heads and assistant department heads ;
all secretaries to officers of the Employer, division beads, superintendents, office managers
and department heads ; executive assistants in the accounting and sales departments ; all
employees of the Company's personnel and labor relations departments ; all time-study
men ; all tool progress engineers ; all cost research analysts ; all plant-protection employees ;
all sales accountant executives ; all sales engineers ; all outside sales and service repre-
sentatives ; all cashiers ; all employees included in another bargaining unit for which
another labor organization has been certified.
PETERS SAUSAGE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 547, A. F. OF L.,' PETITIONER . Case No.
7-RC-1009. July 30, 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 Herman Corenman, hear-
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as used at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 89.
PETERS 'SAUSAGE coNTANY 741
ing officer . The hearing officer's rulings are free from prejudicial er-.
ror and 'are hereby affirmed?
Upon the entire 'record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The' Employer, a.Michigan corporation' with its principal office
and place of business in Detroit, Michigan, operates a meat processing
and pacdln' g plant. During 1950 'the Employer's purchases totaled
$2,319,265, of` which amount' merchandise valued at $516,654 was
shipped. to the Employer directly from points outside the State of
Michigan. During the same period, the Employer's sales amounted•to
$3626;980, all: 'of which were made within the State of Michigan.
About $5,530worth of such sales were made to concerns engaged. in
interstate commerce.
In-view of the fact that the direct inflow equals $500,000 in value
annually, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of'the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction in this case 3
2. The labor, organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor contends that a collective bargaining agreement
between it and the Employer, executed on August 3, 1948, constitutes
a bar to this proceeding. The Intervenor also joins the Employer
in urging their present contract, dated October 12, 1950, as a bar to
a present determination of representatives. The Petitioner takes the
contrary view that these contract's are not a bar.
The 1948 contract was effective until September 1, 1949, and was
automatically renewable for yearly periods thereafter unless termi-
nated by a notice at least 30 days prior to the yearly expiration date.
On July 1, 1949, the Intervenor notified the Employer in writing of
its desire to modify the terms of the contract with regard to wages
and other conditions of employment. The parties met and as a result
of the failure to reach an agreement on a new contract, the employees
struck from 'December 28, 1949, to March 17, 1950. Following the
strike, the Employer and the Intervenor verbally agreed to abide by
the terms of the 1948 contract while they carried on the negotiations
which. culminated in the October 12, 1950, agreement to be in effect
from October 2, 1950, to October 2, 1951. The instant petition was
filed on June`26, 1950.
on the basis of its contractual interest.
' Local 69, United Packing House Workers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene
The hearing officer properly denied the Intervenor's motion to continue the hearing in
order to consult its attorney as to the Board s jurisdiction. over the Employer. The
Intervenor received ample notice of hearing. . Moreover, the jurisdictional facts are fully
set forth in the record and the Intervenor' s interest has in no way been prejudiced.
3 Federal Dairy Co . Inc., 91 NLRB 638. . • - .
742 DECISIONS OF N,ATIONAL LABOR : RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear that the Intervenor's notice of July 1, 1949, • effectively
forestalled the automatic renewal of the 1948 contract .4 And, as
the agreement of .the parties to continue that contract in effect for
an indefinite period until negotiations for a new contract were com-
pleted was an oral agreement, it is likewise ineffective as a bar to
the petition thereafter filed .s Nor can the new contract of October
12, 1950, preclude this proceeding, as it was executed after the filing
of the petition herein.6
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a separate powerhouse unit of all engineers
and mechanical maintenance men.7 The Intervenor opposes the sev-
erance of this group from the plant-wide contract unit which it has
represented since September 1941. .In. the event, however, the Board
finds that a separate unit may be appropriate, the Intervenor contends
that the mechanical maintenance men should be excluded therefromrbe-
.cause they service the entire plant. The Employer takes no position:
with regard to the unit question.
The Employer has five. engineers, all of whom are required to be.
licensed by the city of Detroit. They have a 24-hour schedule and.
are under the direction of the chief engineer. These employees de-
vote their time exclusively to operating and maintaining the boilers 8
and refrigeration equipment which are located in the basement and:
engine room of the Employer's north and south buildings. The en-
gineers do not interchange with other employees. And it appears that
only occasionally do some production employees assist the engineers
in connection with certain unskilled tasks.
The record is clear, .and we find, that the engineers represent an.
identifiable and homogeneous group and may, if they so desire, con-
stitute a separate bargaining unit, despite the past bargaining history
on a broader basis.9 There remains for consideration the question of
inclusion in this voting group of the mechanical maintenance men.
The three mechanical maintenance men, like the engineers, are di-
rected by the chief engineer and receive $1.68 an hour as compared
.with the engineers' rate of $1.73. They, too,. have no production
assignments and do not interchange with production employees. They
I The Fuller Automobile Company, d/b/a The Fuller Automobile Company and Fuller
Manufacturing ci Supply Company, 88 NLRB 1452.
The Rooney Optical Company, 90 NLRB No. 163 ; Castle d Cooke Terminals, Limited;
88'NLRB 287.
''Anaconda Wire and Csbie-Company , 90 NLRB No..5. -
"The Petitioner's original unit proposal, was amended -' at the hearing..
8 At the time of the hearing, one of the two large boilers was not in use-
9 John Morrell cE Co., Inc., 86 NLRB 192.
FOLEY'S MILL AND CABINET WORKS 743
work throughout the plant. Although their duties include mainte-
nance of the Employer's buildings, it appears that their primary
function is to maintain all types of machinery,' including boilers,
refrigeration, ventilation, and air-conditioning equipment. In the
course of servicing the equipment, they work with the engineers, learn-
ing the "skills oftthe trade" so that :they may, after a minimum period
,of 2 years, qualify for the city license and serve as engineers.
As the mechanical maintenance men perform the skilled and spe-
,cialized functions which lead to the position of licensed engineer, and
:as their interests are substantially linked with those of the engineers,
,we shall include them in the voting group 10
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all engineers and
mechanical maintenance men at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan,
plant, excluding all supervisors 11 as defined in the Act. However,
we shall make no final determination at this time, but shall first
:ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election
hereinafter directed. If a majority votes for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.] .'
CHAIRMAN .HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
10. John Morrell & Co., Inc., supra . Cf. The Wooster Rubber Company, 77 NLRB 1044.
n'The status of the chief engineer appears questionable , from the record . For this reason
we shall make no determination with respect to inclusion of the chief engineer in the voting
group at this time. If he possesses supervisory powers within the meaning of Section 2 (11)
of the Act , he is to. be excluded therefrom.
FOLEY'S MILL AND CABINET WORKS and LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS
LOCAL UNIow_.- O. 2409. Case- No. 19-CA-335. July 30, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 26, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the
Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief. The Respondent filed 'a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report.
95 NLRB No. 101.
11