Dodd Distributing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1185 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

DODD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1185
DODD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY and TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION No. 859,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
10-RC-1312. June 13, 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 John S. Patton, 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 gi>estioii 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 Employer operates a relatively small business, engaged in
the distribution of beer and liquor. The Petitioner seeks to represent
a unit consisting of all employees in the beer department, including
the driver-salesmen. The parties are in agreement as to the scope of
the unit; however, the Employer contends that driver-salesmen are
supervisors, within the meaning of the Act, and should therefore be
excluded from the proposed unit.
The driver-salesmen sell and deliver merchandise, collect for sales,
and install advertising material in their assigned territories. They
are supervised by the sales superintendent. Each driver has one
helper who loads the truck and assists the driver-salesman in the per-
formance of his duties. The work performed by the helpers is of
necessity simple and routine in nature, and the record does not permit
a finding that the driver-salesmen responsibly direct the work of their
helpers in a manner which requires the use of independent judgment.3
Apparently the Employer's contention is based instead on the alleged
authority of the driver-salesmen to hire and discharge their helpers.
1 Employed in the Employer's beer department are 9 driver-salesmen , 11 helpers, 6 ware-
house helpers , and 1 truck driver and warehouse helper, in addition to the sales superin-
tendent and advertising manager.
2 Neither party contends that the employees in the whiskey and wine department, who
perform a different type of work in a separate location under separate supervision and
are not interchanged with the beer employees. should be included in the unit.
' General Beverages Company, 85 NLRB 696 ; Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 83
NLRB 187.
94 NLRB No. 155
953841-53-vol. 94-76
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We have carefully examined the evidence introduced in support of
this assertion and find it inadequate to establish that the driver-
salesmen in question have been generally instructed or authorized
to hire and discharge their helpers, or that they have in fact hired and
discharged helpers as a general practice. True, the record does show
that, on occasion, when a driver-salesman has requested the Employer
to supply a helper and the Employer has been unable to do so it has
authorized the driver-salesman to obtain one himself. Similarly, on
occasion when a helper has quit in the middle of the working day the
driver-salesman has procured another helper while out on his route.
Both of these situations, however, appear to be deviations from the
general practice in which a driver-salesman in need of a helper re-
quests and obtains one from the Employer. So far as discharging
helpers is concerned, the record indicates that the Employer retains
general control over such personnel action, although driver-salesmen
have dismissed helpers while on their routes when the latter have
proved to be utterly undesirable.
In two recent cases 4 the Board had occasion to examine in some
detail the authority and responsibilities of driver-salesmen very
similar to those involved in the instant case. In the present case, as
in those cases, we are satisfied on the record as a whole that the driver-
salesmen do not in fact posses's supervisory authority within the mean-
ing of the Act, and we shall include them in the unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All driver-salesmen and their
helpers, and beer warehouse helpers,-5 excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* General Beverages company, supra ; Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling company, supra.
° Including the employee classified as truck driver and warehouse helper.
SANFORD-DAY IRON WORKS, INC. and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION No.
715 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL
AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS , A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
SANFORD-DAY IRON WORKS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND
FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA , LOCAL UNION No.
226, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 10-RC-1324 and 10-RC-1333. June
13, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Paul L. Harper, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
94 NLRB No. 186.