Pluss Poultry, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 64 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CowoiusIONs of LAW
1. Local No. 65, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L.; Modern Cleaners Employees Pro-
tective Association ; and Modern Cleaners Employees Association are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
the employees named above, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration
of and by contributing support to Modern Cleaners Employees Association,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
1) of the Act.
5. The reliable, substantial, and probative evidence adduced at the hearing
herein does not conclusively show that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Wayne Stuart.
6. By discharging Marion Alberts the Respondent did not engage in any unfair
labor practices.
7. By failing to get in touch with and to offer reinstatement to Lena Rosell,
Esther Moran, Mildred Brown, and Beatrice ReCouper on April 28, 1950, when
they made application at Respondent's office for reinstatement, the Respondent
-did not engage in any unfair labor practice.
8. By failing to reinstate Duane Powers to his or her former position or
substantially equivalent position the Respondent did not engage in any unfair
labor practices."
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
ss The record does not divulge the sex of Duane Powers.
PLUSS POULTRY, INC., PETITIONER and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL. Case No.
3-RM 23. July 8,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Anthony J. Sabella, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
100 NLRB No. 7.
PLUSS POULTRY, INC. 65
. 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represents=
ion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
:(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Union urges its current contract with the Employer as a 'bar to
this proceeding. The Employer contends that the contract applies
only to its Decatur, Arkansas, plant, and therefore may not prevent
a present election among the employees at its Siloam Springs,
Arkansas, plant.
The Employer is engaged in the processing of poultry. For almost
•3 years it operated a chicken processing plant in the town of Decatur,
Arkansas. Because Decatur lacked proper sewage and other disposal
facilities, the Employer, starting in June, 1951, took steps to open
another plant at the town of Siloam Springs, - 17 miles distant. Dis-
continuance of the processing operations at Decatur was compelled
by the Arkansas State Department of Health and by the United States
.Food and Drug Administration. But for the seven or eight pickup
truck di ivers who still operate out of Decatur, all work at that locality
ceased on March 16, 1952. Five days later, on March 21, the Siloam
plant commenced processing operations.
Following a Board election, the Union was certified as bargaining
agent for the Employer's production and maintenance employees on
December 7, 1951. On February 21, 1952, it executed a contract
covering these employees, the agreement to expire on December 7,
1952. After the Siloam plant was opened, the Employer refused to
recognize this contract as covering the employees located there and,
with the Union asserting bargaining rights for the Siloam employees
by virtue of its certification, the Employer filed the petition herein.
The contract bar contention thus raises the question whether the
Siloam plant is a new or an additional operation, as the Employer
contends, or whether it is the old operation transferred to another site.
The work performed at Siloam is of the same character as that
discontinued at Decatur, whence much of the present Siloam machinery
was obtained. Both locations draw from the same labor market,
Decatur being a town of only 300 to 400 population. The Employer
asserts that the Siloam plant was staffed through the local offices of
66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the United States Employment Service. The record shows, however,
that of the original 145 employees working at Decatur, 113 now work
in the Siloam plant. As these employees were invited to apply for
work at the new location on its opening date, we attach little signifi-
icance to the fact that before starting there, they were required to
execute employment applications. Although the Employer contends
that the Decatur plant is still a functioning operation, it is used only
as the headquarters of a small pick-up crew. The record clearly
shows, and the Employer admits, that this location will not again be
put, in operation until costly sewage and other disposal facilities shall
have been installed by the municipality, and that the prospects of such
improvements are entirely speculative. On these facts, we are im-
pelled to the conclusion that the Siloam Springs operation of the
Employer is essentially nothing more than the Decatur operation
transferred to a new location. It follows, therefore, that the Febru-
ary 1952 contract between the Employer and the Union covers the
employees at the new location and constitutes a bar to an election at
this time.'
In further support of its petition for a new election, the Employer
points to the fact that its over-all employment has increased to ap-
proximately 180 employees, and that the existing contract adverts
literally to the Decatur plant. But, as the Board has heretofore held,
absent any material change in the scope and character of the unit,
such an increase in personnel, although substantial, is insufficient to
require a new election in the face of an existing contract 2 As to the
argument that use of the word "Decatur" in the existing contract
requires limitation of that agreement to that location, we believe such
interpretation to be out of context and unnecessarily restrictive.
Rather, we believe such phrase to be descriptive of the Employer in-
stead of the operation or the unit covered by the contract.
Upon the basis of all the foregoing and upon the entire record,
we find that the existing contract between the Employer and the
Union is a bar to a present determination of representatives. In
view of this determination, we find it unnecessary to consider the
Employer's motion, filed after the close of the hearing, for leave to
withdraw its petition. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
Order
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein by Pluss Poultry,
Inc., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131.
2 Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co., 73 NLRB 207.