Central Cooperative Wholesale

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CENTRAL COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GRAIN MILLERS, LoCAL No. 112, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.. 18-
RC-902. February 2, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, hearing of-
ficer. 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's feed
mill in Superior, Wisconsin, excluding salesmen, office clerical em-
I, loyees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and
General Drivers Local Union No. 288, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
herein called the Intervenor, contend that the unit sought is inappro-
priate, because of the feed mill's complete integration with the Em-
ployer's other operations in Superior, and because of past bargaining
on a broader unit basis.'
At Superior, Wisconsin, the Employer is engaged in the wholesale
distribution of groceries, hardware, building supplies, clothing, farm
machinery, grain, and seed, and in the manufacture and sale of bakery
products and stock and poultry feeds. It carries on these operations
in a large main warehouse, where foodstuffs, clothing, and hardware
1 The Employer and the Intervenor also claim that their current bargaining contract bars
this proceeding. As it was conceded at the hearing that the contract would expire on
December 31, 1950 , in accordance with its terms , we find that it does not constitute a bar
93 NLRB No. 2.
1
943732-51-2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are received, and where orders are prepared for shipment to retail
stores; in a feed mill building, adjacent to the main warehouse and
connected with it by passageways on the ground floor and by fire door-
ways on upper floors; in another, smaller warehouse a few blocks away,
where building supplies are stored and farm machinery is stored and
assembled; and in a bakery, "some blocks" away from the main ware-
house.
Two bargaining units now exist for the employees at these loca-
tions. One, limited to the bakery, is represented by a union which is
not a party to this proceeding. The other, embracing all 3 remain-
ing locations, has been represented by the Intervenor for over 10 years.
The 18 nonsupervisory feed mill employees whom the Petitioner seeks
to sever from the existing over-all warehouse unit, include 3 ware-
housemen, who load and unload trucks at a loading dock which serves
both the mill and the adjacent main warehouse; a "bull gang" of 4
employees who unload railroad cars from tracks which serve both the
warehouse and the mill; a grinding machine operator, an assistant
foreman, a loading and unloading foreman; and 8 unclassified pro-
duction employees who operate miscellaneous machinery and perform
other tasks necessary to the production of feeds from formulae pre-
pared in the mill office. It appears from the record that all feed mill
employees except office clericals 2 start as laborers, either as ware-
housemen or bull gang employees, and that after 6 months all are.
capable of doing any of the production jobs in the mill.
Warehouse employees, called linemen and checkers, assemble orders
for shipment to retail stores, check in merchandise as it is received,
and check it onto trucks for shipment. In the warehouse, as in the
feed mill, there is a bull gang and a loading and unloading crew.
Several of the warehouse employees devote part of their time to such
production activities as roasting coffee and ripening bananas. Al-
though the two departments, mill and warehouse, have separate
seniority, there is considerable interchange of bull gang and loading
and unloading crew employees between the two locations. Moreover,
the Employer's representative testified that it would transfer em-
ployees with seniority from either department to the other, rather than
lay them off, if the necessary vacancies existed. All employees in the
broad established unit are subject to the same vacation plan, insurance
benefits, and pensions. Each of these departments does its own hir-
ing from lists prepared in the main personnel office.
We are satisfied, on the foregoing facts and on the record as a whole,
that the employees sought by the Petitioner comprise but one of several
2 The Petitioner has excluded office employees from its requested unit , although it appears
that two stenographers in the feed mill office , like the nonsupervisory office personnel in
Employer 's main office in the waiehouse , are included in the unit now in existence.
FULTON MARKETS, INCORPORATED 3
production departments of the Employer's operations, and as such
do not enjoy a separate community of interests sufficient to warrant
their severance from the long-established unit in which they have
been included. It is true, as the Petitioner asserts, that the separate
supervision and seniority indicate some difference between' the in-
terests of the feed mill and those of the warehouse employees. These
elements, however, are more than offset by the considerable inter-
change between, and duplication of categories of employees in, the
two groups, their close proximity to one another, the similarity in the
character of their work generally, and the complete integration of
the Employer's operations. In these circumstances, and particularly
in view of the bargaining history on a anore inclusive basis, we find
that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for collective
bargaining purposes.3
We also find no merit in the Petitioner's further contention that
because there is a separate bargaining unit in the Employer's bakery,
a pattern of small units may be established among the other employees.
Apart from the fact that the record is silent as to the skills and work-
ing conditions of the bakery employees, their unit is part of the his-
torically established bargaining pattern.
Having found that the the unit requested is inappropriate, we shall
dismiss the petition.
Order
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
3 Miller and Rhoads, Incorporated, 86 NLRB 625.
FULTON MARKETS, INCORPORATED and LOCAL 371, AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETC-
TioNER. Case No. 1-RC-19411. February 0, 1951
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 Torbert H. MacDonald, hear-
ing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reyn-
olds].
93 NLRB No. 1.