Terre Haute Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 435 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. 435
tenance employees and, in accord with our established practice with
respect to outside salesmen, exclude them from the unit.,,
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its Beckley, Lewisburg, Logan, and Charleston, West Virginia,
plants constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including route super-
visors, field men, milk testers or laboratory technicians, and plant
clerical employees; 10 but excluding office employees, outside salesmen,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that three regular seasonal employees
are ineligible to vote because they are relatives of management. We
agree as to Fred Hutchinson, son of the president of the Employer, and
Jimmy Daniels, son-in-law of the manager of the Beckley plant, and
find that they are not eligible to vote. However, we do not agree with
the Petitioner's contention that Carlton Wassum is ineligible because
his father is the plant materials records clerk in' Beckley; accordingly,
we find that he is eligible to vote in the election 11
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
0 Natural Products Company, 82 NLRB 1418.
10 In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we include the waitress , janitor,
receiving and shipping clerks, laborers, and regular seasonal employees ; and we exclude
confidential secretaries and the foreman in the bottling department at Beckley.
11 Bob Tankersley Produce Company, 89 NLRB 974.
TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC . and LOCAL 85, INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK
AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
35-RC--664. July 31, 1952
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 Joseph A. Butler, 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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
100 NLRB No. 70.
227260-53-vol. 100-29
436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees 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 to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Terre Haute, Indiana, plant, in-
cluding driver-salesmen, with specific exclusions and inclusions, dis-
cussed below. ,The Employer agrees generally to the Petitioner's unit
request, with exceptions noted below. The Teamsters seeks to repre-
sent the driver-salesmen and the production and maintenance em-
ployees in two separate units. United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL, Local 133, an Intervenor herein called
the Carpenters, and Sign Writers Local Union 572, Brotherhood of
Painters, Decorators, & Paper Hangers of America, AFL, an Inter-
venor herein called the Painters, seek to sever the carpenters and the
painters, respectively.
Driver-salesmen: There are 12, employees in this classification.
They drive trucks in designated territories, selling and delivering the
Employer's products and picking up empty cases to be returned to the
plant. The Teamsters has negotiated annual collective bargaining
contracts covering these employees since at least 1949. The Board
has found that driver-salesmen similar to these employees may ap-
propriately be represented among the production and maintenance
employees; it has also held that driver-salesmen may themselves con-
stitute an appropriate Unit .2 Accordingly, we shall make no final unit
determination now, but shall await the results of the self-determina-
tion elections hereinafter directed.3
Chteckers : The Petitioner and the Teamsters would include, and
the Employer would exclude as supervisors, the two checkers. They
are in charge of the plant when the supervisor is absent. Further,
they schedule the work for the load and bottling crews and have the
' International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, AFL, Local 144, an Intervenor herein called the Teamsters, contends that its
contract with the Employer covering the driver-salesmen is a bar to this proceeding. As
the Intervenor failed to produce evidence that the current contract was executed before
the petition herein was filed, we find that the- contract is not a bar to this proceeding.
2 Rockford Coca Cola Bottling Co, 81 NLRB 579; Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works,
80 NLRB 768
3 There is some indication in the record that the Teamsters would include in the driver-
salesmen voting group the mechanic and mechanic ' s helpers . The mechanic does the usual
repairs on the trucks used by the driver-salesmen , but he drives the trucks only in testing
after repairs . His helpers are used at times for other work around the plant. These
employees , like most of the other employees in the plant , are supervised by the plant
superintendent , whereas the driver -salesmen are supervised by the plant manager. Appar-
ently, also , their method of pay is different from the driver -salesmen 's. We find that the
interest of the mechanic and the mechanic ' s helpers are more closely allied to those of the
production and maintenance employees , and therefore we will include them in the latter
voting group . Rockford Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra.
TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. 437
power to discipline employees, and the record shows that they
responsibly direct employees in the performance of their work. We
find that the checkers are supervisors within the meaning of the
amended Act, and we will exclude them.
Carpenters: The Carpenters seeks to represent a single carpenter
in a unit apart from the production and maintenance employees. As
the Board has frequently held, a one-man unit is not appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.4 The request of the Carpenter is
therefore denied.
Painter and sign erectors : The Painters seeks a separate unit includ-
ing the sign painter and the two sign erectors. The latter two
employees set up and install advertising signs in stores or on bill-
boards. There is no contention, nor is there any evidence in the
record, that they are skilled or craft employees. They work, together
with the sign painter, as a crew under the supervision of the adver-
tising manager. The record does not indicate that interests of the
sign erectors are so dissimilar from those of the other employees to
warrant their severance in a separate unit. While the Board has
customarily permitted severance of craft painters, a one-man craft
unit, as indicated above, is_not an appropriate bargaining unit. The
request of the Painters is therefore denied .5
We shall direct that separate elections be conducted among the fol-
lowing groups of employees at the Employer's Terre Haute, Indiana,
plant:
1. All production and maintenance employees, excluding driver-
salesmen , the city delivery boy," office clerical employees, professional
employees, checkers and all other supervisors 7 as defined in the Act.
2. All driver-salesmen only.
If a majority in either voting group vote for the Teamsters they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit. If a majority in both voting groups vote for the
Petitioner, both groups will be taken to have indicated a desire to
constitute a single bargaining unit. In the event that a majority in
only one of the two voting groups vote for the Petitioner, the em-
ployees in that group may constitute a residual appropriate unit.
The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives consistent herewith to the bargaining agent or agents se-
lected for such unit or units which the Board, under the circumstances,
find to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4 Johns-Manville Products Corporation , 98 NLRB 748.
0 W. cE J. Sloane, 82 NLRB 924.
As the duties and supervision of this employee are in the office only , we follow the
agreement of the parties to exclude him.
' The advertising manager is alleged by the Employer to be a supervisor . The record
indicates that the advertising manager directs the sign erectors and the sign painter in
their work , using independent judgment, and has the power to discipline them. We find
that the advertising manager is a supervisor and therefore exclude him.
438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Load crew: There are five high school students who work about
21/2 hours a day, 5 days a week, loading the trucks. Both the Peti-
tioner and the Teamsters would include them among the employees
voting. The Employer takes no position. As the members of the
loading crew are regular part-time employees, we find that they have
a sufficient interest to be eligible to vote .8
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Cutter Laboratories, 98 NLRB 533.
L. GORDON & SON, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP,
SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
6-RC-1068. July 31,1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on May 20, 1952." an election by secret ballot was held on June
6, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Fifth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the
units found appropriate in the Decision. At the close of the election,
the parties were furnished with tallies of ballots showing that in the
L. Gordon & Son, Inc., unit of approximately 93 eligible voters, 93
cast ballots, of which 70 were for the Petitioner, 20 were against the
Petitioner, and 3 were challenged; and in the Stylecraft Division of
L. Gordon & Sons, Inc., unit of approximately 19 eligible voters, 19
cast ballots, of which 7 were for the Petitioner, 5 were against the
Petitioner, and 7 were challenged.
On June 12, 1952, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regu-
lations of the Board, the Regional Director investigated the challenged
ballots and the objections. On June 26, 1952, the Regional Director
issued and served upon the parties his report on objections and chal-
lenges in which he recommended that the challenges be sustained,2 that
the objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified. There-
after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report and to his recommendation that the objections be overruled.
' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
:The parties agreed , subsequent to the election , that the challenges to the ballots in
the Stylecraft unit , which were sufficient to affect the results of the election, should be
sustained on the ground that the voters challenged were permanently laid off by the
Employer . Accordingly , the Regional Director recommended sustaining the challenges to
these ballots and no exceptions were filed to this recommendation.
100 NLRB No. 71.