Coca-Cola Bottling Works Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 20, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of COCA-CoLA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INDEPENDENT SOFT DRINKS WORKERS UNION , PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-815.Decided September 20, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of the Employer's driver-
salesmen, helpers, and freight and over-the-road drivers, excluding all
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, super-
visors, and all other employees. While not objecting to the compo-
sition of the emit, the Intervenor contends that the unit sought is
inappropriate because limited to employees of the Employer, and that
an association-wide unit comprising employees of all the members of
the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Bottlers Association is alone
appropriate. The Employer's position on this point is in accord with
that of the Petitioner.
The Employer has been a member of the Association for more than
20 years. During that period contracts covering the drivers employed
'Soft Drink and Mineral Water Drivers , Helpers and Employees Local 152 , affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers
of America , A. F. L., hereinafter called the Intervenor , moved at the hearing to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the single-employer unit sought herein was inappropriate. This
motion was referred to the Board. For reasons indicated below, this motion is granted.
91 NLRB No. 57.
351
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by its members have been negotiated by the Association 2 with the
Intervenor, and separate contracts covering its members' production
employees have been negotiated by the Association with Beer Bottlers,
Bottle Beer Drivers and Soft Drink Workers, Local Union 199, Inter-
national Union of United Brewery, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called Local 199. In all these
negotiations an officer of the Employer has acted as one of the Asso-
ciation's negotiators. While the contracts resulting from these nego-
tions are submitted to the members of the Association for approval,
such contracts have generally been adopted without any change.'
Where, as in this case, an employer has participated in joint, multi-
employer negotiations, the Board has held that the appropriate unit
is one consisting of the employees of all the employers who have par-
ticipated in the joint negotiations.4 However, the Petitioner and the
Employer contend that the Employer's drivers may now be severed
from the association-wide unit, because as to its drivers the Employer
has manifested a desire to pursue a separate course in its labor rela-
tions. As evidence thereof, the Petitioner and the Employer cite the
fact that in March 1950, having been apprised of the Petitioner's claim
to represent the Employer's drivers, the Employer withdrew from the
joint negotiations then pending between the Association and the Inter-
venor for a new contract covering the drivers, and the Association
thereafter ceased to represent the Employer in such negotiations. At
the hearing in this case, the Employer stated, moreover, that it in-
tended in the future to negotiate directly with the bargaining repre-
sentative of its drivers, without the intervention of the Association,
and that it would adhere to this intention even if the Intervenor is
certified as the representative of the drivers in any election directed
herein. However, the Employer asserts that it is still a member of the
Association, and still participates in joint negotiations between the
Association and Local 199 covering the production workers of the
Employer and of the other members of the Association.'
2 The Association consists of the following employers : Coca Cola Bottling Works Com-
pany, W. T. Wagner's Sons Company, Canada Dry Bottling Company of Cincinnati, Dr.
Pepper Bottling Company, Barq Bottling Company, Union Bottling Works. Louis Fritz
Mineral and Soda Water Company, Newport Mineral Water Company, Nehi Beverage Cor-
poration of Cincinnati , Buckeye Distributing Company, Grand-Pop of Cincinnati , High Rock-
Sunspot Beverage Company, Hires Root Beer Company, James Verner Company , Fladung
Bottling Works.
3 The president of the Employer testified that at least during the past 10 years the
Employer had accepted the contract terms negotiated by the Association.
4 Associated Shoe Industries, 81 NLRB 224; Johnson Optical Company, 85 NLRB 895.
It is immaterial that the Association in this case has no formal organizational structure, but
functions informally , and that its members have given it no final authority to bind them.
See Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association , 90 NLRB No. 59.
5 The record indicates that, while withdrawing in 1949 from the joint negotiations be-
tween the Association and Local 199 for the production employees , the Employer in 1950
again participated in the joint negotiations for such employees,
COCA-CIA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY 353
It appears, therefore, that the Employer is seeking to withdraw
from association-wide bargaining with respect to its drivers only,
-while continuing to bargainn, on an association-wide basis with respect
to its production workers. Although we have permitted an employer
to disassociate himself entirely from a multiemployer unit, we have
declined, in determining the appropriateness of a unit, to honor such a
partial withdrawal from a multiemployer unit as is here proposed.6
Accordingly, we find that a multiemployer unit consisting of the
drivers of all the members of the Association is alone appropriate, and
that a unit limited to the drivers of the Employer is, therefore, inap-
propriate for collective bargaining purposes. We shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record in the case, the Board orders that the petition filed in this
proceeding be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Pioneer, Incorporated, 90 NLRB No. 247.