Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1375 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of WILSON & COMPANY, INc. and FOREMEN'S
AssocIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER No. 115
Case No. 13-P-3077.-Decided March 09, 1946
Mr. R. C. Winkler, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. W. Allen Nelson , of Detroit , Mich., and Mr. Hugh, P. Dav;,
of Chicago , Ill., for the Association.
Messrs. Sam Parks and Herbert March, both of Chicago , Ill., for
the C. I. 0.
Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT UT THE, CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Foremen's Association of America,
Chapter No. 115, herein called the Association, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Wilson R Company, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon clue notice before John R. Hill
Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on
September 25, 26, 27, 28, and October 25 and 26, 1945. The Company,
the Association, and United Packinghouse Workers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0.,' appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition
on the following grounds : (1) the supervisors sought to be included
in the alleged appropriate unit are not "employees" within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and (2) the unit sought
is not appropriate because the supervisors are a part of management
and the establishment of such a collective bargaining unit would
not effectuate the policies of the Act. The motion is hereby denied
'A motion to intervene by the C. I. 0 to protect its interest among certain non-
supervisory employees of the Company whom it represents as bargaining representative,
ass granted at the hearing.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 166.
1375
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for reasons stated in Sections III and IV, infra. The Trial Exami-
ner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to
file briefs with the Board. Inasmuch as both the Company and the
Association have filed briefs fully discussing the issues involved, the
request made by the Company for oral argument is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Wilson & Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its
principal offices and place of business in Chicago, Illinois, operates
8 packinghouse plants and about 90 branch houses throughout the
United States. This proceeding involves the Company's Chicago
plant solely, where the Company purchases and slaughters livestock,
and processes, manufactures, and distributes various meat products
and meat byproducts. During the past 12-month period, the Com-
pany purchased livestock valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which
approximately 50 percent was shipped to the Company from points
outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Company
sold products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50
percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Foremen's Association of America, Chapter No. 115, is an un-
affiliated labor organization, admitting to membership supervisory
employees of the Company.
United Packinghouse Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Association
as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its supervisory
personnel until the Association has been certified by the Board in
an appropriate unit.
In support of its motion to dismiss the petition, the Company
contends that the supervisory personnel sought to be included in
the alleged appropriate unit are not "employees" within the meaning
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. 1377
of the Act. In the Young case 2 we recently had occasion to reaffirm
our holding in the Packard 3 and Soss 4 cases that supervisors, in
relation to their employer, are "employees" within the meaning of
the Act. In accord with these prior determinations, we find that
the supervisors involved in the present proceeding are "employees"
within the meaning of the Act.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Association represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Association seeks a unit of all general foremen, assistant gen-
eral foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, including seven named
gang leaders,6 the engine room chief, boiler room chief, assistant
boiler room chief, first marshal, assistant fire marshal and general
clerks supervisor, but excluding the plant superintendent, division
superintendents, gang leaders (except the seven sought to be in-
cluded), foreladies, police chief, and assistant police chiefs, time office
supervisors, employment managers, general office employees, and all
other employees. The Company contends that this unit is inappro-
priate because supervisory employees are part of management, and
such a unit would not effectuate the policies of the Act. But, in
the event the Board finds a unit of supervisory employees to be
appropriate, the Company agrees to the composition of the unit
sought except that it would exclude the seven named gang leaders.
the fire marshal and the assistant fire marshal, and include the time
office supervisors and the employment managers.
The Company attempts to distinguish this case from the Packard
case, wherein we rejected unit contentions similar to those made by
the Company, on the grounds that the authority and responsibilities
of the supervisors here concerned are much broader than those of
the supervisors in that case. It also argues that here there are no
highly integrated production units such as are found in mass pro-
Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L R B 298, and cases cited
therein.
s Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L R. B 4.
4 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et al , 56 N L R B 348
5 The Trial Examiner stated that at the hearing the Association submitted 1 42 appli-
cation cards bearing the names of 98 employees listed on the Company's pay roll of
October 19, 1945.
There are approximately 189 employees in the appropriate unit.
6 C. E. Nelson , Arthur Nester, Anthony Scrits, William Stube, Lester Deutschman,
George Jobe, and William Laidlaw.
686572-46-88
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction industries. Nevertheless, we held in the Young case, as we
do here, that the application of the Act to supervisors does not de-
pend upon the variation in the duties and responsibilities of such
personnel from company to company or upon the type of industry
involved, whether mass production or not, and that as "employees"
supervisors are entitled to be placed in some unit under Section 9
(b) of the Act.
All parties are in agreement that gang leaders should be excluded
as a classification. Inasmuch as there is no persuasive evidence to
indicate that the seven named gang leaders possess sufficient iildicia
of supervisory authority to warrant their inclusion, we shall also
exclude them.
The unit sought is basically one of production and maintenance
supervisors. Thus, the fire marshal and assistant fire marshal, both
of whom are apparently concerned with the maintenance of the
Company's property through fire prevention, have interests related
to those of other employees within the unit. Accordingly, we shall
include the fire marshal and assistant fire marshal.
However, as clerical supervisors, the general clerks supervisor,
time office supervisors, and employment managers do not have
interests in common with production and maintenance supervisors.
Consequently, we shall exclude them.'
We find that all general foremen, assistant general foremen, fore-
men, and assistant foremen of the Company's Chicago, Illinois, plant,
including the engine room chief, boiler room chief, assistant boiler
room chief, fire marshal and assistant fire marshal,8 but excluding
the plant superintendent, division superintendents. foreladies,9 police
chief, assistant police chiefs,10 all gang leaders, employment managers,
time office supervisors, general clerks supervisor, general office em-
ployees, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
7 See Matter of Midland Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham Division, 65 N. L.
It. B 997.
8 It is clear from the record that the Company considers all included supervisors as
being on the same level of responsibility and none as having supervisory authority as
such over the others.
8 Foreladies are not supervisory employees within the meaning of our customary defi-
nition.
10 All plant police are armed , militarized , and deputized.
WILSON & COMPANY, INC 1379
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Wilson & Com-
pany, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article 111, Sections 10 and It, of said Rules and Regulations.
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the (late of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by Foremen's Association of America,
Chapter No. 115, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
AIR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company , 61 N. L. R. B. 4, I am constrained to
dissent from the majority opinion in this case.