McFarling Bros. Midstate Poultry & Egg Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1576 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organization selected by the employees in each group for such
unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not
vote for the union which is seeking to represent them in a separate
unit, these employees shall remain a part of the existing production
and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
McFarling Bros. Midstate Poultry & Egg Co . and Local 135,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Case No. 35-
I?C-1529. June 20, 1958
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 John H. Rogers,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record i in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that it would not effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over its opera-
tions. The Employer is engaged in raising, purchasing, processing,
and selling poultry and eggs at wholesale in Indianapolis, Indiana.
During the calendar year 1957 the Employer's total sales amounted
to $1,600,000, of which $7,687 represented sales directly out of State.
During that year, sales to companies, each of which the parties
stipulated had a direct outflow in excess of $50,000, amounted to
$67,856. The parties disagree as to whether the following transaction
should also be included in the Employer's indirect outflow :
During the year $71,936 worth of poultry was shipped to the
Employer from out of State. The Employer paid for and acquired
title to this poultry. The Employer stored the poultry in its Indian-
apolis warehouse, and later delivered it in Indianapolis to Armour
and Company, receiving $71,936 plus handling charges in payment
therefor. The Employer has included the handling charges in its
gross sales figures, but contends that the $71,936 it received for the
sale of this poultry should not be included in its indirect outflow
because it was merely a "paper transaction," the poultry having been
purchased for the account of Armour and Company and segregated
1 The request for oral argument by the Employer is denied , as the record including the
Employer 's brief, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
120 NLRB No. 201.
GENERAL TEAMSTERS, PACKERS, FOOD PROCESSORS, ETC. 1577
pending delivery to it. We do not agree. The Employer paid for
and acquired title to the poultry. When the Employer then sold and
delivered it to a company which shipped over $50,000 worth of goods
out of State, the transaction, we find, constituted indirect outflow,
notwithstanding the fact that the Employer realized no profit on
the transaction.'
As the Employers' total indirect outflow therefore exceeded $100,-
000 in 1957, we find that it would effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance within the agreement of the parties, we find that
the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : All employees engaged in the processing of poultry or
eggs at the Employer's Indianapolis, Indiana, plant, excluding truck-
drivers, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above-
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 Cf. International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL
Local Union No. 84, 112 NLRB 1059, 1064, footnote 2.
8 The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732.
General Teamsters, Packers, Food Processors and Warehouse-
men Union Local No. 912, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America:I
Con Hansen and Richard King and H . A. Rider & Sons. Case-
No. 20-CB-521. June 235 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 24, 1957, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom.
I The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters ' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended.
120 NLRB No. 199.