Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of St. Louis

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 208 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. Louis and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMAN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 606, AFL , PETITIONER. Case No.
14-RC-1083. May 2,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Milton 0.
Talent, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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 :
Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all wholesale and industrial
driver-salesmen, including extras and trainees, employed at the St.
Louis plant of the, Employer, but excluding guards, office and clerical
employees, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should not be limited
to employees at the St. Louis plant but that it should be multiplant,
including driver-salesmen at the Employer's warehouses at Belleville
and Alton in Illinois and St. Charles, Festus, Cuba, and St. Clair in
Missouri.
The Employer maintains its principal offices and operates a bottling
plant at St. Louis. The driver-salesmen employed there distribute
bottled Coca-Cola to customers in the St. Louis area. The six ware-
houses, which are within a radius of 65 miles of St. Louis ,2 receive their
Coca-Cola from the St. Louis plant. The driver-salesmen at these
warehouses distribute the soft drink in their respective warehouse
' The parties' request for oral argument is hereby denied as we believe that the record
and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
2 The distances of the Employer 's warehouses from St. Louis are as follows : Belleville,
22 miles , Alton, 20 miles , Cuba, 65 miles ; St. Charles , 42 miles ; Festus, 22 miles ; and
St Clair, 50 miles.
94 NLRB No. 33.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS 209
areas. There is no bargaining history for any of the driver-salesmen
employed by the Employer.'
Several considerations in this case suggest that a multiplant unit
of the Employer's driver-salesmen might be appropriate. In particu-
lar, we note that the labor relations policy for the outlying warehouses
is determined at the St. Louis headquarters of the Employer; that the
wage schedule is the same for all driver-salesmen ; that driver-salesmen
are paid by check from St. Louis, where all pay accounts are kept;
and that occasional meetings of all driver- salesmen are held at the
Employer's St. Louis headquarters.
On the other hand, the record reveals the following facts. The ware-
houses are from 22 to 65 miles from St. Louis. Hiring for each of the
Employer's warehouses is done locally. There is virtually no inter-
change of employees, nor are the Employer's trucks transferred from
one warehouse to another. There is no immediate supervision of the
warehouse operations by supervisors from the St. Louis headquarters.
And the Petitioner seeks to represent only those driver-salesmen op-
erating out of the St. Louis plant. Such facts as these, the Board has
held, make appropriate a single-plant unit for driver-salesmen in the
soft drink industry.' Accordingly, despite the considerations tending
toward a broader unit, we find that a unit limited to driver-salesmen
at the Employer's St. Louis plant is appropriate.
The second subject of contention between the parties is whether or
not certain individuals who were reclassified as driver-salesmen by
the Employer on or about April 13, 1950, are properly within the unit
of driver- salesmen.
Driver-salesmen at the St. Louis plant are assigned to either the in-
dustrial route division or the wholesale route division.-, Before April
13, 1950, each division was divided into 5 subdivisions, with a super-
visor in charge of each subdivision. On that day the St. Louis plant
was picketed and a number of driver-salesmen failed to report to
work. The Employer thereupon reclassified the supervisors of the
subdivisions as driver-salesmen. At the same time it also classified as
driver-salesmen approximately 30 employees working in other de-
partments of the plant. The Petitioner maintains that, despite the
reclassifications, the individuals involved should not be included in
the appropriate unit.
' Certain employees engaged in the bottling process at the St . Louis plant are under
contract with International Union of United Brewery , Flour, Cereal , and Soft Drink
Workers of America, Local 303.
4Norfolk Coca-Cola Bottling Works , Inc, 86 NLRB 462, Raleigh Coca -Cola Bottling
Works, 80 NLRB 768 See also Seats Roebuck ci Company, 91 NLRB 1411
'Industrial route salesmen deliver Coca -Cola to refrigerated coin machines in business
establishments Wholesale route salesmen deliver Coca-Cola to stores or establishments
that sell the drink to the general public.
953541-52-vol. 94-15
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the subdivision supervisors were reclassified to driver- sales-
men, they were assigned to delivery routes and they have been op-
erating those routes regularly ever since. However, it appears that
they still give daily instructions to driver-salesmen within their sub-
divisions and advise on the promotion or discharge of driver- salesmen.
Moreover, their wages, which are generally higher than those of the
regular driver-salesmen, have remained unchanged. Finally, the
record shows that the driver-salesmen have not been informed that
the reclassified supervisors are no longer acting in a supervisory capac-
ity. Under these circumstances, we find that these subdivision super-
visors reclassified as driver-salesmen are still supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit .6
With respect to those employees reclassified as driver-salesmen from
positions in other departments of the Employer's St. Louis plant, it
appears that the duties of some of them have not changed despite the
reclassification. Others in this group, however, work a portion of
their time as driver-salesmen and the remainder of their time in the
jobs of their former classifications. Although it is apparent that
these individuals are not primarily driver-salesmen, some of them do
function as part-time driver-salesmen. We are reluctant to deprive
them of representation for that portion of their duties. Therefore,
we deem those reclassified employees who are regularly assigned
driver-salesmen routes to be in the unit for the time they are perform-
ing this work, for the sole purpose of bargaining in relation to their
driver-salesmen duties 7
We find that all driver-salesmen employed at the Employer's St.
Louis, Missouri, plant, including extras, trainees, and part-time driver-
salesmen, but excluding guards, office clerical employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
5. Determination of representatives :
The majority of those employees reclassified as driver-salesmen on
or after April 13, 1950, have worked but a portion of their time as
driver-salesmen. In the past, the Board has found that those em-
ployees who spend 50 percent or more of their time doing work which
qualifies them to be in the unit may vote.8 We hold, therefore, that
only those employees reclassified as driver-salesmen who are regularly
6 Associated Fleet Owners , et at ., 90 NLRB No . 169 Included in this category are :
R. R Cova, L. L. Doyle, H M. Fickel , J. E Fickel , G F ITagenbrock , R. Johnson, L L.
Larkin, A F Rothermich , B Sullivan , E Swan, G P . Whitelaw, B V. Zerillo.
' Delaware Broadcasting Company, 82 NLRB 727.
'Delaware Broadcasting Company, supra ; WCAU, Inc., 93 NLRB 1003
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION 211
assigned to driver-salesmen routes and who spend 50 percent or more
of their time at this work shall be eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION and LODGE 1665, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No. 3-RC-622. May
0, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (cj of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. McRee, 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, Reynolds, 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a separate unit of factory clerks
at the Employer's Dansville, New York, plant, where the Employer
is engaged in the manufacture of oil refining, steam generating, and
other heavy machinery and equipment. In the alternative, the Peti-
tioner would merge these employees with the production and mainte-
nance employees whom it currently represents.,' The Employer
contends that the factory clerks sought by the Petitioner do not con-
stitute an appropriate unit, and further contends that they should not
be added to the existing production and maintenance unit. The
Employer. contends that the interests of the factory clerks are more
closely identified with those of the office clerks than with those of the
production and maintenance employees. However, the factory clerks
'On April 26 , 1943, following a consent election , the Petitioner was designated as bar-
gaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance employees excluding,
among others , the factory clerks . Case No. 3-R-560 ( unpublished). On November 12,
1950, the Employer and the Petitioner executed a contract covering the production and
maintenance employees to remain in effect for 1 year, and which contained an automatic
renewal clause.
94 NLRB No. 37.