Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SWIFT & COMPANY 33
ical employees, watchmen, guards, machine tenders, and other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SWIFT & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETr o nut . Case No. 17-RC-1374. October 01, 1952
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 Eugene Hoffman,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's plant in Kansas City, Missouri, in-
cluding plant cafeteria employees, hourly paid scalers and order
fillers in the city sales department, hourly paid dock checkers, hourly
paid scalers, hourly paid storeroom employees, and all dressing room
attendants, excluding truck drivers and dispatchers, weekly paid
dock checkers, weekly paid scalers, weekly paid storeroom employees,
all office and clerical employees, plant clerks, employees in the em-
"Due to extenuating circumstances , the hearing officer granted the motion of Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Department Store, Package Grocery, Paper House, Liquor and Meat Drivers, Helpers and
Warehousemen, Local No. 955 , AFL, to intervene in this proceeding contingent upon the
production of a current showing of interest within 2 days of the close of the hearing.
As this organization has failed to produce the requisite showing within the allotted time,
the motion to intervene is denied. Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368.
' In its brief , the Intervenor , National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Local
No. 12 , CUA, questioned the compliance status of the Petitioner. The fact of compliance
by a labor organization which is required to comply 3s a matter for administrative de-
termination and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover , the Board is administratively
satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance . Swift & Company , 94 NLRB 917.
101 NLRB No. 2.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees' store , research laboratory employees, brick masons, draftsmen,
standards department employees, plant protection employees ( police-
men, bell pullers, firemen, and watchmen), and supervisors as
defined in the Act. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that
the existing production and maintenance unit for which the Inter-
venor has bargained since 1943, which includes truck drivers and dis-
patchers and weekly paid dock checkers and scalers, but excludes
dressing room attendants, is appropriate.
Truck drivers: The Employer employs approximately 50 truck
drivers in its auto department, in addition to 3 dispatchers who are
occasionally required to do driving work. These employees, who
deliver the Employer's meat and meat products into Kansas City
and the surrounding areas, are on a plant-wide seniority list and
are entitled to replace production employees in case of reductions in
force; they receive the same fringe benefits as the employees in the
production unit; and the truck drivers and the production em-
ployees are interchanged. Moreover, no labor organization seeks to
represent these individuals in a separate unit.' In view of these cir-
cumstances, and the facts that the truck drivers and dispatchers have
been bargained, for as part of the plant-wide unit over a 10-year
period, and are included in production units at other plants of the
Employer,4 we shall include them in the unit e
Dressing room attendants: The Employer would exclude 10 dress-
ing room attendants from the unit on the ground that they are watch-
men. The Petitioner would include these individuals. The Inter-
venor takes no position with respect to their unit placement.
The Employer has eight male and two female dressing room attend-
ants. The two female employees, who are called matrons, and six
of the male employees work during the day and are assigned to par-
ticular dressing rooms. The remaining two attendants work on the
night shift. In addition to these employees, the Employer employs
guards who are stationed at the entrances to the plant, and watchmen
who make periodic tours of the plant, including the dressing rooms.
All of these individuals are supervised by the chief of plant police.
According to the testimony of the plant superintendent, the day
shift attendants and matrons spend from 25 to 35 percent of their time
collecting the soiled work clothes of the production employees, im-
pressing laundry marks upon them, delivering them to a central
laundry pickup station, and returning the laundered clothing to the
dressing rooms. In addition, they supervise the dressing room lockers
' Local No. 955 of the Teamsters, whose intervention herein has been denied , sought to
sever the truck drivers and dispatchers from the plant-wide unit.
4 Under the most recent master agreement between the Intervenor and the Employer,
seven out of nine production and maintenance units covered include truck drivers.
5 Wilson & Co., Inc., 80 NLRB 1466.
SWIFT & COMPANY 35
and provide supplies. The balance of their time is spent performing
general cleaning duties in the dressing rooms , and in the enforcement
of plant rules and regulations . However, the record is devoid of any
evidence as to the portion of time which is allocated to each of these
latter functions. With respect to the two night shift attendants, all
their time is devoted to cleaning work.
In view of the foregoing, it seems clear that, despite their super-
vision by the chief of plant police, the two night attendants perform no
monitorial duties normally performed by watchmen. Moreover, we
are not satisfied from the record as a whole that the remaining dressing
room attendants and matrons spend more than 50 percent of their time
in work that is covered by the statutory description of "guards" in
Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dressing
room attendants are not watchmen within the meaning of the Act, and
we shall therefore include them in the unit.'
Docle checkers and scalers: There are approximately 20 employees
in each of these classifications. The checkers, whose work is confined
to the 3 loading stations at the plant, record the numbers and weights
of products on package labels, and mark each package to indicate they
have been checked. The scalers weigh the meat products which have
been received or are ready to be shipped, and keep records of such
weights. The Employer has, among both classifications , some em-
ployees who are paid on an hourly basis and some who are paid weekly.
The Petitioner contends that only those who are hourly paid should
be included in the plant-wide unit. The Intervenor and the Em-
ployer urge that, in view of the bargaining history, both the hourly
and weekly paid employees in these classifications should be included.
So far as appears, the weekly paid checkers and scalers perform
the same functions and duties as those who are hourly paid. As the
difference in the manner of payment appears to arise from historical
or administrative reasons, rather than from a difference in functions,
we perceive no reason for distinguishing for representation purposes
between the hourly paid checkers and scalers and those who are paid by
the week.7 Accordingly, we shall include the weekly paid checkers
and scalers in the unit.,,
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant in Kansas City, Missouri, including truck drivers
" See Wilson t Co., Inc., 81 NLRB 504, 506.
'The Petitioner apparently argues that because only the hourly paid employees in the
mechanical storeroom have been bargained for and are now sought to be included by the
Intervenor and the Employer, the hourly paid checkers and scalers should be similarly
treated. We find , however, that the functions and duties of the hourly and weekly paid
storeroom employees differ in that the former receive and dispense clothing and other
supplies , while the work of the latter is confined to keeping records and performing other
clerical duties.
s Wilson & Co , Inc., 80 NLRB 1466; Agar Packing & Provision Corporation, 62 NLRB
358.
242305-53-4
36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and dispatchers, plant cafeteria employees, hourly paid scalers and
order fillers in the city sales department, hourly and weekly paid dock
checkers, hourly and weekly paid scalers, hourly paid storeroom em-
ployees, and all dressing room attendants, excluding weekly paid
storeroom employees, all office and clerical employees, plant clerks,
employees in the employees' store, research laboratory employees,
brick masons, draftsmen, standards department employees, plant pro-
tection employees (policemen, bell pullers, firemen, and watchmen),
and 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
KNOx GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY and LODGE No. 1597, INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-
755. October 21, 1952
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 J. Mart Mitchell, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 Petitioner, and Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the
United States and Canada, A. F. of L., Local No. 230, herein called
the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4. The appropriate unit :
1 We reject as without merit the Employer 's contention that the Petitioner 's failure to
submit a showing of interest after the filing of the instant petition constituted a fatal de-
fect. An adequate and sufficiently current showing of interest was already on file with
the Board in connection with a previous petition of the Petitioner (which was withdrawn)
filed about 1% months before the present petition . Moreover , the question of a showing
of representative interest is entirely an administrative matter not litigable by the parties
at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 14.