New Jersey Brewers Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1404 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION, JOSEPH HENSLER.
BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING COMPANY, PABST BREWING
COMPANY, PETER BREIDT BREWING COMPANY, P. BALLANTINE & SONS
AND JOHN S. TROMMER, INC., EMPLOYERS and LOCAL 68, INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-25417.Deeided January 18, 1951
. DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome I. Macht, 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
had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a, three -member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) 'of the Act, for the following
reasons: 1
All the parties stipulate that the appropriate unit should be mul-
tiple -employer in scope.2 The Petitioner asserts that this unit should
1 The motion to dismiss the petition by Local Union No. 55 , International Brotherhood of
Firemen , Oilers and Helpers of Newark and Vicinity , AFL, herein called ' the Intervenor,
on the ground that the current contract between the Employer and the Petitioner is a bar
to this proceeding, is hereby denied. In view of the fact that the parties to the contract
decline to urge it as a bar , we find that the existence of this contract does not preclude a
present determination of representatives.
2 All the Employers involved herein , except Peter Breidt Brewing Company , are current
members of the New Jersey Brewers Association . Peter Breidt Brewing Company was a
member of the Association from 1934 to about 1947 at which time it withdrew its member-
ship . However , this Employer has continued its policy of entering into the same contracts
as those negotiated by the Association and its members. Although all parties to this
proceeding agree that any multiple -employer unit found appropriate should include the
employees of Peter Breidt Brewing Company , we shall exclude the employees of this
92 NLRB No. 220.
1404
NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION 1405
consist of all. engineers, firemen, and oilers, excluding all other em-
ployees. The Intervenor contends that because of the history of
collective bargaining, there should be one unit of engineers and another
unit of -firemen and oilers. The Employers indicated no position at
the hearing with respect to the composition of the appropriate unit.
The present New Jersey Brewers Association was formed about
1934. The bargaining history shows that the Intervenor has entered
into separate contracts with the members of the present Association
and its predecessors since 1908. These contracts have, in all instances,
covered the firemen, oilers, and helpers employed by the members of
the Association. The Petitioner has also had separate contracts with
the members of the Association and its predecessors for the same period
,of time covering the engineers.
The record does not clearly disclose the character of negotiations
engaged in by the Petitioner and the Intervenor with the Association
for the entire period from 1908 to 1950. It does reveal, however, that
for many years, the Petitioner, the Intervenor, and various other
unions representing certain employees of the Employers, would come
to an understanding among themselves with respect to desired wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment. These unions would then
meet with the members of the Association who acted as a committee
for the Association and its predecessors. As a result of these negotia-
tions, uniform contracts were entered into between the individual
employer members and each of the unions. In its brief, the Petitioner
contends that the foregoing amounts to evidence of joint bargaining
and therefore supports the propriety of a single unit of engineers,
firemen, and oilers.
A paucity of information has been submitted regarding the exact
method used in carrying on these negotiations. It is therefore diffi-
cult to ascertain whether the bargaining at this time was joint, con-
current, or separate. However, it is unnecessary to resolve this ques-
tion, because it is clear that for approximately 7 years preceding 1950,
the Petitioner and the Intervenor have not met with representatives
of the Association at the same time and that each has bargained sepa-
rately. Thus, for this period of time at least the employees involved
herein have been represented in two separate bargaining groups, i. e.,
the engineers by the Petitioner, and the firemen and oilers by the
Intervenor. In each of the recent contracts, the engineers are clearly
separated from the firemen, oilers, and helpers. The contracts with
the Intervenor prohibit the firemen, oilers, and helpers from doing
Employer from any unit hereinafter found appropriate because Peter Breidt Brewing
Company has not participated with members of the Association in joint bargaining negotia-
tions for approximately 3 years. Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts,
Inc., at al ., 81 NLRB 224.
1406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work performed by the engineers, and similarly the contracts with
the Petitioner prohibit the engineers from performing the work of
firemen, oilers, and helpers. Although at some of the plants there
have been some promotions from the jobs of firemen and oilers to
engineers, it is the general policy of the Employers to hire workers in
each of the respective groups from the outside. In general, the Peti-
tioner provides the Employers with engineers and the Intervenor pro-
vides the Employers with firemen, oilers, and helpers.
Each of the Employers has a power plant which furnishes it with
power and steam for cooking and heating. Each of the power plants
consists of an engine room and a boiler room. In two instances the
engine room and the boiler room are located in buildings separate from
the rest of the plant. In the remainder, the engine room and the
boiler room, although separate from each other, are located in the
same building, usually the building that houses the brewhouse. The
power plant does not enter into the production activity.
The sole objective of the Petitioner in this proceeding is to merge
the separate bargaining groups of engineers and firemen and oilers
into a single unit by adding to the group of engineers already repre-
sented by the Petitioner, the group of firemen and oilers who have
been represented by the Intervenor.
The Intervenor argues only in opposition to this comprehensive
unit sought by the Petitioner. The inherent appropriateness of a
single unit for engineers, firemen, and oilers, is amply established in
the record by the evidence, inter alga, that these, employees are the only
employees who operate the power plants in the breweries; that the
engineers work in close contact with the firemen and oilers; that they
have similar interests and common functions; and, that they have the'
same supervision and general working conditions.. Moreover, the
Petitioner is seeking a typical unit of powerhouse employees and the
Board has frequently recognized that such employees may constitute .a
single separate unit .3
Under the circumstances, we find that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is one which may be appropriate. However, in view of the
considerable period of amicable bargaining, during which the em-
ployees involved herein were represented in separate groups, the
Board, as a matter of policy, will not permit the Petitioner's requested
merger • of engineers, firemen, and oilers without first affording the
8 See for example Armour & Company, 88 NLRB 309 ; Baugh and Sons Company, 82
NLRB 1399; United States Gypsum Company. 80 Nr.RB 779. and cases cited therein.
NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION 1407
group of firemen and oilers an opportunity, by means of a separate-
election, to express its desires on the question .4
Before directing such an election, however, the Board must be.
administratively satisfied that the moving union has sufficient repre-
sentative interest among the employees in question.5 In the instant
case, the Petitioner has failed to make the. necessary showing of
interest among the firemen and oilers. Under these circumstances, as
the Petitioner has made an inadequate showing of interest among
the employees whom it seeks to merge with those whom it presently
represents and in view of its apparent lack of desire for an election
confined to the engineers alone, we shall dismiss the petition without
prejudice to filing a new petition at such time as the required showing,
of representation can be made.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,.
dismissed without prejudice.
J. R. Reeves and A. Teichert & Sons, Inc., 89 NLRB 54 ; Illinois Cities Water Company,
87 NLRB 109 ; Goldberg Brothers Manu facturing Company, 81 NLRB 1037 ; Columbia
Pictures Corporation, et al., 80 NLRB 1381.
See Illinois Cities Water Company , footnote 4, supra.