Beatrice Foods Company, Employer And Tulsa General Drivers, Warehousemen And Helpers, Local Union No. 523, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehiousemen And Helpers Of America, A. F. L., Petitioner, 512 (1949)
In the Matter of BEATRICE FOODS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and TULSA GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No.
523, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHIOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-361.-Decided June 0, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Evert P. Rhea, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Subsequent to the hearing the Employer filed a motion to correct several errors in the transcript of the hearing.
A copy of the motion was mailed to the Petitioner. No objections to this motion have been received. Accordingly, the motion is hereby granted and the record corrected in accordance therewith.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [COairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
1During the course of the hearing, the hearing officer received a telegram from Joplin Local #823 of the Petitioner's International requesting that the Employer's out-of-town employees at Vinita, Afton, and Miami, Oklahoma, be excluded from the unit because the Petitioner was without authority to represent them. It stated that under its grant from the International Union these employees were under its jurisdiction and it was planning to file a petition to represent them. However, Joplin Local #823 made no appearance at the hearing and submitted no evidence to show that at the time of the hearing it represented any of the employees involved in this proceeding. There is thus no basis for regarding this union as a proper intervenor in this proceeding, and it will not be accorded a place on the ballot in the election hereinafter directed. Matter of Laclede Gas Light Company, Matter of Westvaco Chlorine Products Corporation,
States Boat Service Corporation, unit placement of the out-of-town employees is identical to that advanced by the Petitioner and is discussed herein.
512 513 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP