Bagley Produce Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 9, 1954108 N.L.R.B. 1267 (N.L.R.B. 1954) Copy Citation BAGLEY PRODUCE COMPANY 1267 BAGLEY PRODUCE COMPANY and ALLIED INDEPENDENT UNIONS, CONFEDERATED UNIONS OF AMERICA, CUA, Petitioner and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 73, AFL. Case No. 13-RC-3727. June 9, 1954 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 Jewel G. Maher, hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the employees of the Em- ployer, with the customary exclusions . The Employer agrees with the Petitioner. The Intervenor contends that only a multi- employer unit is appropriate. The Employer , a Wisconsin partnership employing about 16 persons, buys live poultry and processes it, selling the product to Milwaukee area butcher shops and to various soup and canning companies. The Employer started in the poultry processing business in 1936 or 1937 , and about 1944 joined a group of employers in similar businesses , called the Milwaukee Mercantile Asso- ciation.' Although not required to do so by any rule or action of the Association , it appears that since about 1937, several members of the Association who were primarily engaged in poultry processing, had made a practice of voluntarily ap- pointing a committee each year to negotiate a contract with the Intervenor , on behalf of their group. The arrangement was an informal one, the committee being appointed by the oral agreement of the group just prior to each year's nego- tiation period, usually after one of their daily meetings at the 'For the reasons appearing in paragraph 4 of the Decision , we find no merit in the In- tervenor 's contention that no question concerning representation exists. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the Association. The Association consists of approximately 22 employers who are in the butter, egg, or poultry business in Milwaukee. The Association apparently has no bylaws or similar document outlining any rules or regulations governing its existence, and according to Andrew Loehndorf, a partner of the Employer, joining the Association is merely a matter of filling out an application, paying a fee, and being voted in. The Association itself is not directly involved herein, but, as is more fully set out below, the multiemployer unit claimed by the Intervenor concerns approximately 7 members of the Association, acting individually. 108 NLRB No. 175. 1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stockyards . ' The Employer first joined the members of this group in signing such a contract in 1947.4 For the first year or two of the Employer ' s association with this group , a master contract was negotiated by the committee and signed by the members. More recently , however , only the principal points of the contract have been negotiated by the committee, with the matters peculiar to each member being left to each to settle separately with the Intervenor. In 1951, the Employer's Andrew Loehndorf was appointed to the group ' s negotiating committee , and served, apparently quite actively, through 1953. Before then , however, in 1952 , the Employer , through Leohndorf, who testified he noted several unnegotiated changes in the copy of the contract furnished for his signature by the Intervenor, refused for the first time to sign the contract , and in addition, Loehndorf was apparently successful in persuading the other employer members of the group not to sign . Most of the pro- visions which had been negotiated were, nevertheless , placed into effect by the employers ; although admittedly , none of the employers signed the proposed contract . Similarly , late in 1953 , after a series of bargaining conferences lasting from June through November, and after the committee andthe Inter- venor had apparently successfully negotiated a contract , Loehn- dorf, insisting that the Intervenor had again unilaterally altered several of the provisions of his copy of the contract , refused to sign on behalf of the Employer , and further refused to put the new terms into effect. Unlike the Employer inthe instant case, the other employers in the group signed this contract. As noted, the Employer contended at the hearing that the only appropriate unit was one limited solely to the employees of its plant. In view of the Employer ' s refusal to sign the last two con- tracts and its position at the hearing, we feel that is has affirmatively and clearly indicated its intent to withdraw from the multiemployer group , and instead henceforth to pursue an individual course of action with respect to its labor relations. 5 Accordingly , we find the unit limited to the employees of this Employer, as sought by the petition and as contended for by the Employer, is appropriate. We find that the following described unit constitutes an appro- priate one for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees , but excluding office clerical employees , guards, professional and confidential employees , and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] SLoehndorf testified that at least all of the employers who customarily negotiated in this group, met each morning at the stockyards toestablish the daily prices for poultry in the area. 4The record fails to indicate the names or number of the original members to this bar- gaining arrangement . Since the Employer joined the group, its number has varied from 5 to 7, with at least 5 of the same employers participating each year to date. 5 York Transfer & Storage Co., 107 NLRB 139. See also Laris Motor Sales Inc., 104 NLRB 1106. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation