Liebmann Breweries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 26, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 616 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to pay over these sums to the appropriate State and Federal agencies for the
credit of the discriminatees. Under the recommended remedy, back pay shall
not accrue from April 10, 1951, the date of Judge Leibell' s order , to the date of
its vacation. If this order is vacated, back pay shall again accrue beginning 6
days thereafter unless the Union has within that time notified the Times and
the Mirror that it has no objection to and permitting their employment on a
nondiscriminatory basis.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The New York Times Company, Inc., and the Hearst Corporation, New
York Mirror Department, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Newspaper. and Mail Deliverers' Union of New York and Vicinity is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause and causing the New York Times Company, Inc.,
and the Hearst Corporation, New York Mirror Department, to discriminate
against the employees named in section IV, above, the Union has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2)
of the Act.
4. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
LIEBMANN BREWERIES , INC. and Tim BREWERY WORKERS JOINT LOCAL
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF NEW JERSEY , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
2-RC-4706. November 06, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leonard J. Lurie,
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Prior to the end of 1950 Liebmann Breweries, Inc., a New York
corporation engaged in the production of Rheingold beer, owned and
operated two breweries and a number of depots and branches, includ-
ing a depot at Newark, New Jersey. About the end of 1950 the com-
101 NLRB No. 117.
LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC. 617
pany purchased a brewery at Orange, New Jersey, from John F.
Trommer, Inc. A separate corporation, called Liebmann Breweries,
Inc., of New Jersey, was formed and this corporation took title to the
newly acquired plant January 8, 1951.
The stock of the New Jersey corporation is wholly owned by the
New York corporation with the exception of three shares required
by New Jersey law to be held by other persons. Substantially all
of the officers and directors of the New Jersey corporation hold cor-
responding offices in the New York corporation. The New York
corporation has certain officers who hold no office in the New Jersey
corporation. The Orange plant, which replaced the Newark depot,
is staffed with employees from the Newark depot, employees formerly
employed by John F. Trommer, Inc., and some new employees. The
bottle supervisor and the keg supervisor now at Orange held the same
positions at Newark. The office manager at Orange was the depot
manager at Newark. The sales manager at Orange was formerly
sales manager at the Employer's Manhattan operation and was sent
to run the Newark depot at the time the Orange brewery was pur-
chased. At the Orange plant the Employer produces beer which is
sold in New Jersey and in other States. The ale sold by the Orange
plant is brewed at the Brooklyn operation. All purchase contracts
for raw materials for the New York and New Jersey breweries, with
the exception of contracts for minor repairs and replacement, are
made in Brooklyn, the main office for the Employer.
The vice president of the New York corporation in charge of indus-
trial relations exercises the same functions with respect to the New
Jersey corporation. The vice president of the New York corporation
in charge of sales determines the sales policies for the entire organi-
zation of the Employer. The management policies of the New Jer-
sey corporation are determined by officers of the entire organization
at meetings held at the Brooklyn main office. Each department head
at Orange is responsible to the head of the corresponding department
at Brooklyn. Audits for both the New York and New Jersey cor-
porations are made by the internal auditing staff of the New York
corporation. Sales meetings of all salesmen , including those at
Orange, are held in New York City. Officers of the New York cor-
poration address salesmen of the Orange brewery at Orange. Com-
munications regarding sales policies and activities are sent to all
breweries and depots from the Brooklyn main office. The sales rec-
ords of all salesmen throughout the organization are reviewed twice
a year for merit increases . All salesmen have the same starting
salaries ; car allowances; pension, welfare, and hospitalization bene-
fits; and are subject to the same vacation policy except for a variation
with respect to draught salesmen in Connecticut.
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In view of the foregoing we conclude that Liebmann Breweries,
Inc., the New York corporation, and Liebmann Breweries, Inc., of
New Jersey, constituted a single employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act.'
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and Local 153, Office Employees International
Union, AFL, the Intervenor, 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 to represent about 45 bottle and keg beer sales-
men employed at the Orange, New Jersey, plant. The Employer con-
tends that only a company-wide unit consisting of all such salesmen
working out of its various depots and plants in New York, New
Jersey, and Connecticut is appropriate. There has been no bargain-
ing history among the salesmen of the Employer. A previous petition
involving Liebmann Breweries, Inc., was dismissed by the Board on
the ground that a unit of salesmen limited to the New York and New
Jersey operations, excluding the Connecticut plants, or a separate unit
of salesmen at the New York plants and a separate unit of salesmen
at the New Jersey plant were too narrow in scope and inappropriate
for collective-bargaining purposes?
The Petitioner argues that certain changes have taken place since
the decision by the Board that warrant establishing a separate unit
of salesmen at the Orange, New Jersey, plant. These changes in-
clude the replacement of the Newark depot by the Orange plant; the
ownership of the Orange Brewery by a separate corporation, Lieb-
mann Breweries, Inc., of New Jersey; some control of hiring and
firing by the sales manager at Orange; an incentive system for
Orange salesmen different from that in effect for salesmen in other
plants of the Employer.
The facts with regard to the Employer's sales organization and the
central control of its labor relations policy are set forth above. At
the hearing the Petitioner introduced evidence indicating that several
employees were hired and one may have been discharged at the Orange
plant by the local sales manager without previous consultation with
the vice president in charge of the Employer's sales department. In
addition, it appears that the incentive system for salesmen in New
' Industrial Lamp Corporation , and Its Subsidiary, Industrial Lamp Corporation of
Indiana, 97 NLRB 1021 ; Emerson c6 Stevens Mfg. Co., 95 NLRB 964.
2 Liebmann Breweries , Inc., 92 NLRB 1740.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 619
Jersey differs somewhat from that applied to salesmen in other geo-
graphic regions. The record reveals that the purpose of the variable
incentive system is to assure equal pay for equal sales effort regard-
less of the salesmen 's location.
The changed circumstances relied upon by the Petitioner are not,
in our opinion, sufficient to warrant a decision contrary to the Board's
previous determination, for the reasons there expressed, that a single
plant unit of the Employer's salesmen at the Orange, New Jersey,
plant is too narrow in scope to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.3 Accordingly, as the showing of interest of
neither labor organization is sufficient to warrant the direction of an
election in a more comprehensive unit, we shall dismiss the petition
herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
' John F. Trommer, Inc., 90 NLRB 1200; LAebmann Brewerie8, Inc., 92 NLRB 1740;
ef. Riegel Paper Corporation, 96 NLRB 779.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
PETITIONER
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), PETITIONER . Cases Nos.
6-RC-1086 and 6-RC-1121. November 26,1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
William A. McGowan, 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
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, CIO, and its Local 518, raises as a bar to the peti-
101 NLRB No. 127.