Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 46 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anheuser-Busch , Inc. and Local Union 716, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO , Petitioner . Case 23-RC-3033
March 4, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Ronald D.
Crain. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the Natioanl Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, Series 8, as amended, and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 23, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision Briefs have been timely filed by
the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs filed herein, the Board finds.
1. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, and that it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all journeymen and
apprentice electricians performing electrical main-
tenance at the Anheuser-Busch Brewery, Houston,
Texas. The Employer and the Intervenors contend,
inter alta, that their current collective-bargaining
agreement is a bar to this proceeding.
The Anheuser-Busch plant in Houston was
completed and placed in operation in May 1966
' The National Conference of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers, and
Teamsters Local No 968, both affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
were allowed to intervene at the hearing on the basis of their current con-
tract allegedly covering the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees
When the plant first went into production, the
maintenance work was done by employees of an
outside contractor. On June 20, 1966, the Inter-
venors were certified as the bargaining agent of a
unit consisting of production employees. The col-
lective-bargaining agreement between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenors was then executed. This
agreement included a provision that in the event
that the Company later employed maintenance em-
ployees the agreement's coverage would be ex-
tended to them. On February 10, 1967, in anticipa-
tion of the Company's taking over its own main-
tenance work, a supplement to the collective-bar-
gaining agreement was executed which brought
maintenance department employees under the cur-
rent collective-bargaining agreement. However, at
this time Anheuser-Busch still had no employees in
the maintenance department. The outside contrac-
tor continued to perform all maintenance work
until February 24, 1967, at which time the Em-
ployer hired maintenance personnel and com-
menced performing its own maintenance work. A
comparison of the hourly employees on the payroll
shows 170 production workers, 9 operating en-
gineers, and no maintenance employees as of
February 10, 1967, while on October 18, 1967, the
date of the hearing, 189 production workers, 10
operating engineers,2 and 40 maintenance em-
ployees were employed by the Employer. Of the 40
maintenance personnel, 10 were maintenance elec-
tricians.
Whether the Employer's agreement with the In-
tervenors is a bar to the petition herein depends on
whether the addition of the maintenance depart-
ment is an accretion to the existing unit of produc-
tion workers. For even where a contract expressly
covers employees in a new operation to be hired
after the execution of the contract, the Board will,
nonetheless, refuse to find the contract a bar to the
petition seeking these employees unless it finds that
they are an accretion to the contract unit.3
There are, as is usual in cases of this type,
similarities in the employment conditions of the
newly added maintenance employees and those of
the 189 production workers. We note that both the
production and the maintenance employees have
the same vacations, holidays, insurance, and other
benefit plans and that they use the same parking
lots, restrooms, and lunchrooms. Moreover, the
work performed by the maintenance employees
keeps them in production areas 95 percent of the
2 The operating engineers are separately represented , in a craft -type unit
3 Pullman Industries, Inc , 159 NLRB 580, General Extrusion Company,
Inc , 121 N LRB 1 165 Sec also Potlatch Forests, Inc , 165 N LRB 1065,
Essex Wire Corporation , 130 NLRB 450
170 NLRB No. 5
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 47
time, and there has been some permanent transfer
of personnel between the two departments. On the
other hand, the record reveals substantial factors
which indicate that the maintenance department is
not an accretion to the production unit. Thus, the
maintenance employees are paid a higher wage,
have a separate seniority list, and are under
separate immediate supervision. While the ultimate
goal of both maintenance and production workers
is to keep the production lines running smoothly,
their immediate functions differ in that the produc-
tion workers operate the machines while the main-
tenance employees are responsible for keeping the
machines in working order. In performing their
work the maintenance employees exercise skills dis-
similar to those of the production workers.
The Board has consistently held that, in the
absence of a bargaining history on a broader scale,
maintenance employees may constitute a separate
unit.4 In the present situation, as previously ob-
served, the maintenance department was not
established until after the contract covering it was
executed. The maintenance employees, therefore,
did not participate with regard to the bargaining
agreement purporting to cover them. We conclude,
on the basis of the facts cited and the entire record,
that the recently added maintenance department is
a new operation rather than an accretion to the
production unit and that the contract between the
Intervenors and the Employer is not a bar to the
present petition.
4. As noted, there are 40 employees in the main-
tenance department, including the 10 maintenance
electricians. The Petitioner seeks a craft unit of the
maintenance electricians. The maintenance em-
ployees have been covered by the Intervenors' con-
tract for less than 6 months prior to the filing of the
petition, and, as we have found, were not a proper
accretion to the existing production unit. In view of
the above, we view the situation in the present case
as the initial establishment of a unit rather than a
case of severance from a traditional unit. While not
controlling in a nonseverance situation, the Mal-
linckradt •' tests are useful in our determination of
the appropriateness of the unit requested here.6
Craftsmen Status
The Company does not conduct a formal ap-
prenticeship program at the plant. However, the
record reveals that all the electricians hired had at
least 3 to 4 years of experience before going to
work for Anheuser-Busch . The four electricians
that testified had served formal apprenticeships
which included classroom as well as on -the-job
training . All of the electricians are required to
secure a license from the city of Houston as main-
tenance electricians , for which they are tested.
Furthermore the testimony of the electricians based
on their observation and experience was that each
electrician at the plant was a qualified craftsman
and that the electrical work at Anheuser -Busch was
far more complicated than that which they had
previously performed in other craft units.
The electricians have their own shop in which an
electrical log is kept . Seven of the ten electricians
work on the day shift under the direct supervision
of an electrical foreman ; the night-time main-
tenance foremen have some authority over ' the
other three electricians , but only to the extent of
establishing the priorities of the evening and
graveyard shifts . While major repair work is con-
tracted out, the electricians work on many highly
automated and complex machines for which it is
necessary to use technical schematic diagrams and
for which a high degree of skill and aptitude is
necessary . Although the same machine might
require mechanical as well as electrical repairs, the
actual electrical work is performed by electricians.7
The Employer, ostensibly, has only an overall main-
tenance seniority list; however , layoffs, overtime,
and vacations are scheduled on the basis of a de
facto electricians ' classification . While there have
been several permanent transfers of employees
between the production and maintenance depart-
ments , there have been no transfers with regard to
the electrical classification , and there is no tempo-
rary movement of employees between classifica-
tions. In view of the foregoing facts, we find that
the maintenance electricians possess the traditional
skill of their craft , and constitute a separate
identifiable and homogeneous group.
Petitioner's Experience in Representing
Maintenance Electricians
Local 716, the Petitioning Union herein, is an af-
filiate of the I.B.E.W. It represents 2,500 employees
in the Houston area of which 500 are maintenance
electricians. The Union represented the main-
tenance electricians of the contractor who previ-
ously did the maintenance work at Anheuser-
Busch, and some of the electricians now employed
by the Employer have worked in craft units
4 Anheuser-Busch, Inc , 124 N LRB 601, U. S Oil and Refining Company,
120 NLRB 863 See also Mve,s Drum Co, 165 NLRB 1060
3 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works , Uranium Division , 162 NLRB 387
"Fremont Hotel, Inc , 168 NLRB 115 See, E I Dupont de Nemou s
and Co, 162NLRB413
r Although there is evidence that production employees do make adjust-
ments on limit switches and electrical eyes, such adjustments are of a rela-
tively minor nature
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by the Petitioner. An apprentice and
journeymen school for training electricians is con-
ducted by Local 716. Also, a business agent is ex-
clusively engaged in the negotiation and administra-
tion of contracts for electrical maintenance units.
The International publishes a newspaper, received
by all members, which contains articles relating to
the electrical industry. From the foregoing, it is
evident that the Petitioner has had long and special-
ized experience representing maintenance electri-
cians of the type sought herein.
Coordination of the Electricians in the Production
Process
As previously noted, major repair work is con-
tracted out. However, the record demonstrates that
production is heavily dependent upon the electri-
cians and, in fact, on all the maintenance em-
ployees, since the brewery operation is a highly au-
tomated process.
Bargaining History
As already discussed, there is no substantial bar-
gaining history with regard to a broader unit.
Industry and Area Bargaining
Anheuser-Busch has two other breweries, one in
Tampa, Florida, and the other in St. Louis, Missou-
ri. The St. Louis plant has a craft unit, and the
Tampa plant does not. The only other brewery in
Houston had a craft unit of electricians until it
closed in June 1967. In the general geographical
area, evidence was introduced showing that four
breweries had craft units while one did not."
Unit Findings
As we have found, the maintenance electricians
possess the traditional skill of their craft, the Peti-
tioner has long and specialized experience in
representing maintenance electricians, there is no
significant history of collective bargaining on a
broader basis, and maintenance electricians in the
brewery industry do have separate craft units in the
area. The only factor weighing against the separate
craft unit herein is the highly integrated nature of
the production process of the Employer. However,
where as here the integration has not obliterated
the lines of separate craft identity, integration is
not, in and of itself, sufficient, in the present cir-
cumstances, to preclude the formation of a separate
craft bargaining unit .9 As noted previously, the Em-
ployer's 10 operating engineers are separately
represented. We conclude10 that the maintenance
electricians may constitute a separate appropriate
unit."
The following employees constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen and apprentice electricians per-
forming electrical maintenance at Anheuser-Busch,
Inc., Houston, Texas, excluding all other main-
tenance employees, production employees, clerical
employees, administrative and professional em-
ployees, supervisors, guards, and watchmen as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election12 omitted from publica-
tion. ]
"The one location where there was no craft unit is the Schlitz Brewing
Company, Longview, Texas, discussed infra, fn I I The Employer and the
Intervenors contend that the breweries that have craft units are older
breweries which are not automated to the extent of the Employer's
Houston plant While the record reveals that in an older plant there is con-
siderably more corrective and maintenance work of a major nature , it also
reveals that a newer plant would demand more from the standpoint of spe-
cialized skills and training
" E I Dupont de Nemours and Co , supra
10 Member Fanning concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his con-
curring opinion in E I Dupont de Nemours and Co , supra
11 In an unpublished decision, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, Case
16-RC-4263, cited by the Intervenors, the Board found a craft unit of
maintenance electricians inappropriate However, in that case some of the
electricians were hired without the training or experience to be qualified as
journeymen electricians in the traditional craft sense, and there was no ap-
prenticeship system or agreed upon substitute by which their employees
could achieve journeymen electrician status In the present case it appears
that the electricians in the unit were qualified electricians when hired
12 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 23 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear
Inc, 156 NLRB 1236