Continental Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 7, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 33 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY 33
self-organization, and that Respondent's maintenance and enforcement of the rule
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 19
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
'The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connection
with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has prohibited the distribution of union literature
on and near its parking lot during nonworking time, it will be recommended that
Respondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practice found and from any
like or related acts or conduct which would tend to interfere with , restrain, or
coerce its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the
Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Seamprufe, Inc. (Holdenville plant), is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, AFL, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By denying the use of its parking lot and adjacent area for the distribution of
union literature during the nonworking time of its employees, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
19 N. L R B v The Monarch Machine Tool Company, 210 F. 2d 183 ( C. A 6) ; Carolina
Hills, Inc, 92 NLRB 1141, enforced 190 F 2d 675 (C A. 4) ; Remington Rand, Inc., 103
NLRB 152, Grand Centi at Asrcraft Go, 103 NLRB 1114.
CONTINENTAL BAKING COMPANY, WONDER BAKERY and OFFICE EM-
PLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 2 , AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 5-RC-1157. July 7,19:54
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 M. Louise Felton,
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 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
employees of the Employer.
109 NLRB No. 14.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 of all of the Employer's office clerical
employees working at the Wonder Bakery. The Employer contends
that the requested unit is inappropriate because of a long history of
collective bargaining on a multiemployer basis for other groups of
employees. The Employer also contends that the employees sought
to be represented by the Petitioner are confidential employees because
they handle and have access to confidential business information such
as sources of supplies, formulas, and prices.
The Employer is a member of a local employer bargaining asso-
ciation which, for many years, has bargained with various labor
organizations on a multiemployer basis.' There has been no history
of collective bargaining for the office clerical employees involved in
this proceeding, Not does the record show that there has been a
history of collective bargaining for any other office clerical employees
of the local employer bargaining association. We do not believe that
the multiemployer pattern of bargaining for the Employer's other
employees precludes a finding that the unit of office clerical employees
sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.2
We also find no merit to the Employer's contention that the re-
quested unit is inappropriate because it is composed of confidential
employees. These employees do not assist or act in a confidential
capacity to any person who exercises managerial functions in the field
of labor relations. It is well settled that the fact that employees have
access to financial and business data does not render them confidential
employees.,
Accordingly, we find that all office clerical employees at the Em-
ployer's Wonder Bakery, Washington, D. C., excluding plant, garage,
and maintenance employees, guards, and supervisors, 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.]
'This bargaining on a multiemployer basis has emeied employees repiesented by locals
of the Bakery & Conlectioneiy Noikeis, international Association,of Machinists, Inter-
national Biotherhood of Teanisteis, Chauffeuis, Waiehousmnen & Iielpeis of America, and
international Union of Operating Engineei s
2 The Board has held that a nniltiemplovei patter n of bargaining in which the Employer
has engaged does not necessarily control 11ie determination of the ippiopiiate unit for
pieviously unrepresented employees at the sane plants Soicieign Pioductions, Inc,
and Ralston C Ripley Company, 107 NLRB 359 , Bull Insular Lime, Inc et at ( waieliouse
employees), 107 NLRB 674, Pearl Breu.inq Company. Lone Star Dieu,inq Company, 106
NLRB 192 ; Fibreboai it Pi oducts, Inc , San Joaquin Division, 102 NLRP, 405 , Loaan 'buiy
Chevi olet Company, 101 NLRB 17:i2 , Miller (C Miller Motor Freiglit Lines, 101 NLRB 581
Joseph 1,' Seagiain cf Sons, Inc , 101 NLRB 101
3G-rinnell Pajama Coip, 108 NLRB 289; P I Diil'ont de Nemours and Company, Iim,
Construction Division, Savannah River Plant , 107 NLRB 734, Staik's Boston Store,
107 NLRB 23