Columbia Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 1199 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

COLUMBIA BAKING COMPANY 1199
As the Union failed to receive a majority of the valid ballots
cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was
not cast for Retail Clerks International Association, Local No.
536, AFL, and that the said labor organization is not the ex-
clusive representative of the employees of the Employer in the
appropriate unit.]
COLUMBIA BAKING COMPANY and LOCAL NO. 759, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 10-RC-2473 and 10-RC-2474. February 19, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before John S. Patton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.'
2. The labor organizations= involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of (1) all
maintenance employees including utility employees ; and (2) all
garage mechanics and their helpers at the Employer's Jack-
sonville, Florida, plant. Alternately, the Petitioner would
represent the two groups of employees in a single unit. The
Employer and the Intervenor contend that the employees sought
by the Petitioner should remain with the production employees
in the overall plantwide unit presently represented by the
Intervenor.
The Intervenor , as the result of a consent election, 3 was
certified on August 26, 1949, as bargaining representative for
a unit of all employees of the Employer." On September 6,
'Although Chairman Farmer and Member Rodgers join in this decision, they are not to be
deemed thereby as agreeing with the Board's past jurisdictional standards.
2 Local 482, Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL. herein
called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in Case No. 10-RC-2473 upon the submission
of an adequate showing of interest, and in Case No. 10-RC-2474 on the basis of a current
contract.
3Case No. 10-RC-693.
4 The unit was described as "All employees of the company at its Jacksonville, Florida,
plant, excluding office employees, executives, professional employees, guards, sales employees
and all supervisory employees as defined in the Act."
107 NLRB No. 252.
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1949, the parties executed a collective - bargaining agreement
covering these employees but not specifically including garage
employees . Since then there has been a continuous bargaining
relationship for such employees under yearly contracts.'
In Case No. 10-RC-2474, the Petitioner seeks a unit of 6
maintenance employees . Three of them, classified as machinery
repairmen , maintain, adjust , and make minor repairs to the
baking equipment ; a utility man repairs wooden bread trays
and performs odd jobs around the plant ; a general painter does
necessary painting work ; and 1 employee greases and lubri-
cates machinery . These employees are not considered highly
skilled , work in close proximity to and enjoy the same condi-
tions of employment as the production employees , and have
been specifically bargained for as part of the certified unit.
The foregoing facts clearly show that the maintenance employees
comprise neither a craft group nor a functionally homogeneous
department such as traditionally is entitled to severance. We
therefore find that a unit of maintenance employees is inappro-
priate.6
In Case No. 10 -RC-2473, the Petitioner seeks a unit of the
four garage mechanics and helpers who are under the super-
vision of a foreman, the only highly skilled mechanic in the
garage. They include a head mechanic who performs major
repairs, a mechanic and an assistant mechanic who perform
odd repair jobs, and a porter who washes and greases trucks.
These employees perform any work necessary to keep the
trucks on the road , regardless of their individual job classifi-
cations. They are not considered highly skilled and serve no
apprenticeship . They work in the same building near the pro-
duction area , enjoy the same benefits , wage increases, and
conditions of employment as do the other employees in the
plant , and interchange with maintenance employees . Under such
circumstances , we find that these employees do not constitute
such a homogeneous grouping of employees as to constitute a
separate appropriate unit.'
Furthermore , as the 1949 certification of the Intervenor
covered " all employees," we find that the garage employees
have been included therein. Because the failure to include them
in the bargaining contracts 8 has been contrary to the certifi-
cation and since they were initially entitled to vote in the elec-
tion upon which the certification was based , we find that the
garage employees sought are properly a part of the existing
plantwide unit presently represented by the Intervenor whose
majority status in this unit is not questioned.'
I The petitions herein were timely filed and no contract bar contention was raised.
6The Nestle Company , Inc., 92 NLRB 1250. See also Manhattan Coil Corporation , 98 NLRB
1246, and Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 NLRB478. Cf. Armstrong Cork Company , 80 NLRB
1328.
7 California Research & Development Company , 100 NLRB 1385. See also , Armstrong Cork
Company , 97 NLRB 1057 , 1061; and Gulf Oil Corporation, 79 NLRB 1274.
6Although in the past the garage employees have not been included in the bargaining con-
tracts. the parties have specifically covered them in the most recent contract.
9 See Wilford Auto Sales , Inc., 106 NLRB 1396.
ALLOY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1201
For the same reasons that we have found inappropriate the
separate units sought by the Petitioner, we find that a single
unit of the maintenance and garage employees is likewise
inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
HENRY L. PEIRONE AND JOHN A NEVELL, d/b/a ALLOY
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE NO. 942,
AFL.' Case No. 19-RM-118. February,19, f954
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 E. R. Ormsbee,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings'made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer asserts that the instant proceeding is
barred because of a consent-election agreement between it and
the Union.
On August 27, 1953, the Union requested recognition from
the Employer as bargaining representative of its employees.
The Employer declined recognition and filed the instant peti-
tion on September 10, 1953. Later, the parties duly executed,
on October 22, 1953, an agreement for consent election which
was approved by the Regional Director. At a conference held
on November 12, 1953, the day of the proposed election, the
parties disputed the voting eligibility and unit placement of
certain individuals. Thereupon, failing to reach agreement
with the Employer on these questions, the Union stated that it
was withdrawing from the consent election. In view of the
Union's withdrawal, the field examiner in charge of the election
canceled it. Thereafter, the Regional Director issued a notice
of hearing and on November 30 a hearing was held on the
instant petition.
The Employer contends that the cancellation of the election
and the scheduling of the hearing were improper under the
Board's Rules and Regulations. At the hearing, the Employer
moved that the hearing be "dismissed," and that an order be
issued staying the instant proceeding for a period of 1 year
thereafter, barring the Union during that period from making
'The Employer' s and Union' s names appear as corrected at the hearing.
107 NLRB No. 257.