Cincinnati Bakers Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 442 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cincinnati Bakers Club and Local 213, American Bakery and
Confectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 9-RC-3325. August 12, 1958 -
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 a hearing officer-of
the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act : S
1 Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America (BW) Intervened
on the basis of the contractual interests of its Locals 213 and 213-A These locals were
also permitted to intervene The former is under special trusteeship and therefore not
defunct The latter changed its designation in November 1957 to Local 460 and is re-
ferred to herein as such. The Petitioner and Locals 213 and 460 - (BW) are labor
organizations.
2 The Intervenors raise the current contract between the Employer and Locals 213 and
213-A as a bar . The Petitioner contends that a schism removes the bar . After the ex-
pulsion of BW from the AFL-CIO, Local 213 (BW ) on January 25, 1958, held a special
meeting, attended by most of its amalgamated membership . At that meeting it was voted
unanimously to disaffiliate from BW and to reaffiliate as the Petitioner . Subsequently
a secret-ballot election , under the supervision of a "citizens committee ," was held Feb-
ruary 8 among Local 460's amalgamated membership to decide whether to disaffiliate
from BW and reaffiliate as part of the Petitioner . The election and its purposes were
well publicized . Although the business agent for Local 460 notified members that the
election was not legal, ballots were cast by 423 of the near 1,000 members , and 414
voted in the affirmative . In view of the foregoing , and as a principal reason for the dis-
affiliation votes was the BW expulsion , we find that a schism exists in Locals 213 and
460 (BW ) removing the contract bar. General Electric Company, 118 NLRB 637.
We reject the Intervenor 's contention that a fair election is impossible at the present
time because of pending litigation for control of assets formerly held by Local 213 (BW),
as it does not appear that the Petitioner has used such assets to coerce employees in the
manner done in Kearney & Trecker Corp. (210 F . 2d 852 ( C. A. 7)). See Chicago
Bakery Employers ' Labor Council, 121 NLRB 88.
8 The Petitioner proposes a unit of all employees in the bakery departments of the
Employer 's members . Local 460 urges the establishment of separate single -employer units
of bakers and auxiliary employees , respectively , or, in the alternative , multiemployer
units of each of these two categories of employees . It is clear that the bargaining has
been multlemployer in scope . However , contrary to the Petitioner , we are unable to con-
121 NLRB No. 67.
I INTERNATIONAL- BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 443
(1) All bakery employees in the bakery departments of the Em-
ployer's members located in Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding office clerical
employees, drivers and/or driver salesmen, maintenance employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All auxiliary employees in the bakery departments of the Em-
ployer's members located in Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding office clerical
employees, drivers and/or driver salesmen, maintenance employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
elude that Locals 213 and 213-A bargained jointly for bakers and auxiliary employees as
a single unit See The Kansas City Bakery Employers Labor Council , 121 NLRB 6. We
find, therefore , that separate multiemployer units of bakers and auxiliary employees, re-
spectively , are appropriate
• The baker and auxiliary categories in the above unit descriptions comprise the classi-
fications represented by Locals 213 and 213-A (BW), respectively, under the current
contract.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Uniol
No. 11 , AFL-CIO and Robert B. McClary and Burt A. Lowe,
Jr., d/b/a Hydro Company and Paul Gardner, Electrical Con-
tractor. Cases Nos. 01-CC-281 and 21-CC-282. August 13, 1958
. DECISION-AND ORDER
On March 31, 1958, Trial Egalniner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and "take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report and the entire record in this case, including the
exceptions and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
121 NLRB No. 65.