Federal Yeast Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 826 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assuming the existence of an oral or unsigned agreement which may
be enforceable at law .4 The UE 's motion to dismiss the petition on
the ground of contract bar is therefore denied.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 5
4. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, plant including expediters, stockroom employees,
truck drivers, and apprentices, but excluding office clerical employees,
draftsmen, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Groveton Papers Company , Inc, 96 NLRB 1369. We find no merit in the UE's con-
tention that Section 8 (d) of the Act , which provides in part that to bargain collectively
is (amone other things) "the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement
reached if requested by either party," compels the Board to discard the requirement that
only a written signed contract may operate as a bar. The hearing officer properly rejected
as immaterial the UE's offers of proof to show the existence of an enforceable agreement
through evidence that the Employer has put into effect the terms reached by the negotia-
tors and is checking off dues for the UE. The UE also contended that the Board's con-
tract bar rule should not apply in this case because the Employer's signing of a new
contract was "frustrated " by the transfer of allegiance of the UE 's negotiators to the
IUE. Such explanation for the Employer 's failure to sign a contract asserted as a bar
is immaterial to the issue before us . The hearing officer therefore properly rejected the
UE's offer to prove the defection of its negotiators.
5 The UE' s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that a question affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act does not exist is denied.
FEDERAL YEAST CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED
BREWERY, FLOUR , CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS,
CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-1111 . August 27,1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Henry L.
Segal, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
100 NLRB No. 124.
FEDERAL YEAST CORPORATION 827
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees, and drivers and helpers, including powerhouse employees at
the Employer's Colgate Creek, Maryland, plant, but excluding sales-
men, office clericals, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act. The Employer and the Intervenors contend that two units,
one consisting of ayeast workers and drivers and helpers unit, pres-
ently represented by Local 333, and the other a maintenance unit, pres-
ently represented by the Operating Engineers, are appropriate. At the
hearing the Petitioner stated that should the Board find these two
units appropriate it desires to participate in any elections which
are directed.
In support of their position, the Employer and the Intervenors
demonstrated at the hearing that for the past 12 to 15 years there
have been two such units as contended for by them at the plant and
that the Intervenors have had contractual relations with the Em-
ployer on that basis for the past 6 years. On the other hand, the
Petitioner seeks an over-all production and maintenance unit, in which
the historic unit of production employees would be merged with the
historic unit of maintenance employees. In accordance with our
usual practice and in recognition of the normal community of interest
between production and maintenance workers, absent the bargaining
history at the Employer's plant, we would find the over-all unit
appropriate 2 However, the Board is reluctant to disturb existing
contract units established by collective bargaining, unless they are
repugnant to Board policy or do not assure employees the fullest free-
dom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act 3
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we hold that the em-
ployees at the Employer's Colgate Creek, Maryland, plant, in the
following voting groups, excluding salesmen , office clericals, watch-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, may constitute
either a single appropriate unit or separate appropriate units : (1) All
' Brewery Yeast Workers, Soft Drink Workers and Driver Salesmen , Local Union No.
333, a subordinate local union of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, hereinafter called Local 333, and
International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 272-272A , AFL, hereinafter called
the Operating Engineers, were allowed to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of their
,contractual relationships with the Employer
I H A. Satin & Company , Inc., 97 NLRB 1001 ; Courtland Manufacturing Company,
95 NLRB 1292.
1 Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.
-828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yeast workers and drivers and helpers; * (2) all maintenance em-
ployees.5 We shall make no final unit determination at this time; but
shall first ascertain the desires of the employees themselves. If a ma-
jority in both voting groups vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken
to have indicated a preference for one over-all production and main-
tenance unit, and the Board, under the circumstances finds such a unit
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In the
event that a majority is established in voting group (1) alone, by
either the Petitioner or the Intervenor Local 333, the Board finds the
existing production unit to be separately appropriate. Finally, in
the event the Petitioner or the Intervenor Operating Engineers estab-
lishes a majority in voting group (2) alone, the Board finds the exist-
ing maintenance unit to be separately appropriate. The Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives con-
sistent herewith to the bargaining agent or agents selected for such
unit or units.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
This group includes the following employees : pressroom employees , drivers and
helpers, yeast room packers , fermenting scrubbers , fermenting titrators , fermenting first
men, separator first men, mixers , yeast room employees , yeast room first men, and packers.
5 This group includes the following employees : assistant engineers , maintenance men,
machinists, and firemen.
COLUMBIA MARKET CORP. and LOCAL 385, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS
AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 1-RC-13793. August 27, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Halloran,
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 Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds;
1. The Employer, which contests the jurisdiction of this Board,
operates a supermarket in Lewiston, Maine, where it is engaged in the
retail sale of meats, fish, fruits, and vegetables. The Employer
leases a portion of its premises to Elm Farm Foods Company, an
entirely separate corporation, which is engaged in the retail sale of
groceries and dairy products. All employees in the store, however,
are the employees of the Employer.
100 NLRB No. M.