Greenbrier Dairy Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 432 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
date of the election herein. The Employer contends that the Carpen-
ters and its local union should be denied this opportunity because of
their asserted impropriety in failing to disclose the above-related
facts to the Board before the election in this case was held.
As no exceptions have been filed by either the Carpenters or the
Employer addressed to the merits of the Regional Director's find-
ings or conclusions, we 2 shall adopt his recommendations. We find
it unnecessary at this time to pass on the. Employer's exception, as the
Board has been administratively advised that the Carpenters' local
union does not now intend to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h)
of the Act, and we regard the filing of a new petition by the Carpen-
ters or its local union with a request for a new election within 12
months from the date of the election herein as highly speculative.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board's Decision and Direction of
Election in Case No. 36-RC-723 be vacated, that the election held•pur-
suant thereto be declared a nullity, and that the petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives of employees of Brookings
Plywood Corporation, filed herein by United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters & Joiners of America, AFL, in Case No. 36-RC-723, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
2 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, Murdock,
and Styles].
GREENBRIER DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY' and LocAL No. 175, INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-R0-
1532. July 1952 1
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 Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 72.
GREENBRIER DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY 433
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor 2 contend that their contract
is a bar to this proceeding. This contract, which has a termination
date of June 30,1952, provides that "either party hereto may terminate
this agreement on an earlier date by giving at least sixty (60) days
notice in writing, to the other party of such desired early termination,
and on the 61st day after such written notice is given, this contract
shall become null and void." As this provision renders the contract
terminable at will by either party, the contract cannot operate as a
bar 3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section :1
(s-) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner requests an Employer-wide production and-main-
tenance unit. The parties agree generally as to the scope of the unit.
However, the Petitioner would exclude, and the Employer and Inter-
venor would include, certain categories of employees which have been
part of the contract unit:
Route supervisors. These employees are primarily relief driver-
salesmen , and receive the same salaries and work the same hours.
They have no supervisory authority, the name of the employer- classi-
fication having been chosen to give the Employer prestige with its
customers. We therefore include the route supervisors in the unit."
Field, men. These employees do educational and promotional work
among farmers in the areas from which the Employer draws most of
its raw milk, helping these farmers bring up their standards of produc-
tion and advising them on matters of sanitation. As no special train-
ing or education is necessary for these jobs other than general knowl-
edge of the dairy industry, we find that the field men are not technical
employees with interests different from those of the other employees
in the unit of the type normally excluded from production and main-
tenance units. We shall therefore include them in the unit.
Milk testers or laboratory technicians. One of the employees bear-
ing this classificatiol works in the laboratory full time, while the
other is a part-time S field man. They conduct tests for butter fat
content and bacteria. count. While the part-time field man has a
college-degree in dairy technology and is a bacteriologist, the labora-
United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America.
Texas Telephone Company, 93 NLRB 741
4 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of inadequate interest
showing is denied . Showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination.
The Viaking Corporation , 90 NLRB 1006. Moreover , we are administratively satisfied
that the Petitioner has an adequate interest in the unit herein found appropriate.
5 Dodd Distributing Company, 94 NLRB 1185.
434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tory worker was promoted from production worker, was trained- on
the job and there is some question as to whether she has even finished
high school. The Employer requires no special training or education
for the position. The record indicates that four production workers
are capable of and occasionally perform these duties, and that most
production workers could be trained on the job in about 2 weeks to
perform them. Because of the routine nature of this work, we con-
clude that the milk testers are not technical employees and include
them in the unit8
Plant clerical employees. Included in this group are the clerk who
keeps a record and inventory of truck parts, whose desk is in the
garage; the checkers who work in the plant checking the loads taken
out and brought back by the drivers; the clerks who keep general
manufacturing records, and who work in a separate office only -be-
cause there is no room for them in the plant; and the clerk who keeps
records of all materials used in the plant. As these employees are
plant clericals engaged in an aspect of production, we shall, in accord
ance with Board policy, include them in the production and mainte-
nance unit.?
Office employees. This classification includes payroll, accounts re-
ceivable, accounts payable, and sales record clerks and a receptionist-
telephone operator in Beckley, and sales record and payroll clerks in
Lewisburg. They work in the office at these locations and are super-
vised by the office manager; the plant clerical employees, discussed
above, work in the plant or garage under the supervision of the plant
superintendent. The duties of the office employees are company-
wide; plant clerical employees are concerned only with theespective
branch plants. The main reason advanced by the Employer for in-
cluding the office employees is that they have been included, for bar-
gaining purposes in the past. However, because of the fundamental
differences in the work and interests of the two groups, we do not con-
sider bargaining history to be sufficient reason for departing from the
Board's established policy of excluding office employees from pro-
duction and maintenance units .8
Outside salesmen. The Employer described these employees as
having "the usual duties of any salesman who is engaged in selling
merchandise." They are supervised by the assistant sales manager.
Their salaries - are not covered by the collective bargaining agree-
ment, but they make their own employment contracts directly with
the Employer. On the record before us, we conclude that they have
no substantial community of interest with the production and main-
6 Solvents Corporation, 80 NLRB 277.
* Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76.
61Standard Oil Company, 80 NLRB' 1276.
TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. 435
tenance employees and, in accord with our established practice with
respect to. outside'salesmen , exclude them from the units
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its Beckley, Lewisburg, Logan, and Charleston, West Virginia,
plants constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
. All production and maintenance employees, including route super-
visors, field men, milk testers or laboratory technicians, and plant
clerical employees; 10 but excluding office employees, outside salesmen,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that three regular seasonal employees
are ineligible to vote because they are relatives of management. We
agree as to Fred Hutchinson, son of the president of the Employer, and
Jimmy Daniels, son-in-law of the manager of the Beckley plant, and
find that they are not eligible to vote. However, we do not agree with
the Petitioner's contention that Carlton Wassum is ineligible because
his father is the plant materials records clerk in Beckley; accordingly,
we find that he is eligible to vote in the election."'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
0 Natural Products Company, 82 NLRB 1418.
10 In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we include the waitress, janitor,
receiving and shipping clerks, laborers , and regular seasonal employees ; and we exclude
confidential secretaries and the foreman in the bottling department at Beckley.
n Bob Tankersley Produce Company , 89 NLRB 974.
TER= HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. and LOCAL 85, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINE
AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
35-RC-664. July 31, 19-62
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act,` a hearing was held before Joseph A. Butler, 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, Murdock, 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.
100 NLRB No. 70.
227260-53-vol . 100-29