Coca-Cola Bottling Works Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1414 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of shows for television,12 and that television directors at KEC'A-TV
also exercise the authority to hire employees of the Employer. Ac-
cordingly, we further find that the television directors of the Employer
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, and
that the proposed unit is therefore inappropriate: 8 We shall there-
fore dismiss the petition herein.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this, case, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
12 WCAU, Inc., 93 NLRB 1003.
'$ As the Petitioner sought only a unit which includes directors , we make no finding
herein as to the other individuals in the proposed unit.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY and INDEPENDENT.SOFT DRINK
WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-KC-1113. April 16,
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 Seymour Goldstein, 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 organizations involved claim 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all driver-salesmen, help-
ers, and over-the-road drivers employed at the Employer's Cincinnati,
Ohio, plant, excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
1 Soft Drink and Mineral Water Drivers, Helpers and Employees, Local 152, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its current contract.
2 The Petitioner filed its petition on January 18, 1951 ; the Intervenor asserts its current
ontract executed on November 6, 1950 , which expires March 31 , 1951, is a bar to this
proceeding . As this contract has already expired, it cannot bar an election.
93 NLRB No. 247.
COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY 1415
fessional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. While not
objecting to the composition of the unit, the Intervenor contends that
the unit sought is inappropriate because it is limited to employees of
the Employer, and that an association-wide unit comprising employees
of all the members of the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Bottlers
Association, herein called the Association, is alone appropriate. How-
ever, the Intervenor stated at the hearing that it desired to be placed
on the ballot, if the Board found a single-employer unit appropriate.
The Employer's position is in accord with that of the Petitioner.
The Employer has been a member of the Association for more than
20 years. During that period, contracts covering the drivers employed
by Association members have been negotiated with the Intervenor,
and separate contracts covering the production employees of the As-
sociation members have been negotiated with Local Union 199, Inter-
national Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and
Distillery Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO. .
In March 1950, the Employer withdrew from joint negotiations
then pending between the Association and the Intervenor for a new
contract covering the drivers, and the Association thereafter ceased
to represent the Employer in such negotiations. Thereafter the As-
sociation reached an agreement with the Intervenor on behalf of its
members. Subsequently, on November 6, 1950, the Employer adopted
this agreement, which was to be effective from April 1, 1950, to March
31, 1951.
This action was taken by the Employer after the Board's finding
in 91 NLRB 351, involving the same parties, that the Employer's with-
drawal from the Association did not render appropriate the single-
employer unit sought in that case. This finding was predicated on
the fact that at the time of such withdrawal the Employer was still
participating in association-wide bargaining with respect to its pro-
duction employees. However, the Employer has since ceased to par-
ticipate in group bargaining with respect to the production employees,
and on January 23, 1951, the Employer negotiated directly with the
CIO a new contract, effective on that date, covering its production
employees.
The Employer stated at the hearing, and in its brief, that it intended
to pursue a course of individual bargaining as to its inside and outside
employees. While the Employer on November 6, 1950, adopted the
Association contract for its drivers, the Board has consistently held
that the adoption by an employer of contracts negotiated by a multi-
employer group does not, in itself, warrant treating the employer's
employees as part of the multiemployer unit.3 It is necessary, in addi-
tion, that such employer participate in the group negotiations, either
8 Stanford Wall Paper, Inc, 92 NLRB 1173.
14`16DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL I;ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personally or through an authorised representative. There is no evi-
dence of such participatibn by the Employer since March 1950 as to
any of its employees. As already stated, the most recent contracts
with the Intervenor covering the drivers and with the CIO covering
the inside employees were negotiated by the Employer without the
intervention of the Association. Accordingly, we will give effect to
the Employer's expressed desire to pursue an individual course in its
labor relations, despite a prior history of multiemployer bargaining.
We find that all driver-salesmen, helpers, and over-the-road drivers
at the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, plant, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, 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.]
FARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LoDGE 264 OF DISTRICT
38, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS . Case No. 1-CA.-
658.-April 17,1951
Decision and Order
On November 21, 1950, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Associ-
ation filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs. The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied,
as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties.
The Board I has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following exceptions, additions,
and modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent has dominated
and interfered with the Guild, Inc., and the Association, Inc., and
'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
[Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 248.