The James Hanley Co.

In the Matter of THE JAMES HANLEY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 166 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND Dis- TILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-149.-Decided September 22, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* 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. 2. The labor organization named below in the Direction of Election claims to represent 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 appropriate unit; determination of representatives : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all shipping clerks in the brewery and bottling departments of the Employer, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, and supervisors. The Employer contends (a) that the unit is inappropriate because of a history of joint collec- tive bargaining by the Employer and Narragansett Brewing Company, and (b) that the unit should include the office clerical employees inas- much as the duties of the shipping clerks are primarily clerical in nature. The Employer's operations are carried on in two departments, the brewing department, in which the beer is brewed and packed in bulk, and the bottling department, in which the beer is bottled and canned. Of the four shipping clerks employed by the Employer, three (includ- * Houston , Reynolds, and Gray. 79 N. L. R. B., No. 111. 929 930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing Winn) work in the bottling department on the shipping platform which is separated from the rest of the bottling operations, and one (Shannon) works in the brewery department. ' The Employer contends that Winn and Shainion are supervisors who should, in any event, be excluded from the unit. This leaves two shipping clerks who are not in dispute. With respect to these, the record shows that their duties consist of checking outgoing shipments . of beer for count and recording the number of empty cases which are returned by the Employer to the distributors. They perform no manual labor and their duties appear to be routine. They are under the general supervision of the superintendent of the bottling department. The Petitioner and the Employer have an existing contract under which the Petitioner is accorded recognition as exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance em- ployees. The employees involved in this proceeding, however, are not covered by that contract. With respect to the production and mainte- nance employees there is a history of joint collective bargaining from 1938 to 1947 covering the employees of the Employer and Narragansett Brewing Company.' However, in 1947, the parties entered into a separate contract covering only the employees of the Employer. Inasmuch as the parties themselves, in 1947, changed the course of their bargaining history, we feel that the bargaining history from 1938 to 1947 on a multi-employer basis is no longer controlling in deter- mining the unit.' The employees involved. in this proceeding are essentially plant clerical employees such as we have customarily included in units of production and maintenance employees. The record shows that they have a closer community of interest with the production and mainte- nance employees than with the office clerical employees.3 Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the following em- ployees of the Employer at its Providence, Rhode Island, plant : All shipping clerks of the Employer in the bottling department,, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, and supervisors. We shall make no final determination at this time, but shall be guided by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will 8e deemed to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing . i A sister organization of the Petitioner , Local 114, was also a party to the negotiations and resulting contracts. - 2 See Matter of Hummel Furniture Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 301. 8 Matter o f Enseo Derrick & Equipment Company, 72 N. L. R. B 378 In view of our finding, infra, that Shannon, the only shipping clerk in the brewery de- partment involved in this proceeding, is a supervisor, we are eliminating the brewery de- partment from the unit description. THE JAMES HANLEY COMPANY 931 production and maintenance unit, and the Petitioner, which now represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees, may bargain for them. In addition to performing the same duties as the other shipping clerks, Winn makes out the daily production and stock reports and the receiving reports for incoming shipments of raw materials and sup- plies. When he is absent, the two shipping clerks not in dispute per- form these duties. He has seniority among the three employees in the bottling department who work as shipping clerks and is paid $5.50 a week more than the other two. He has no authority to hire, dis- charge, or discipline employees and no authority effectively to rec- ommend such action; nor does he assign work or prepare schedules of working hours. We find that Winn is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, we shall include him in the voting group. Shannon is in charge of the receiving, shipping, and traffic opera- tions in the brewery department. He assigns and directs the work of 12 employees who are covered by the existing collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Petitioner. He keeps their time records and makes out their pay sheets. He also has authority effectively to recommend disciplinary action. From the foregoing, we conclude that Shannon is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall, therefore, exclude him prom the unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the em- ployees described in paragraph 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre- sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Brewery Workers Local Union No. 166 of the International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal,•Soft Drink and DistilleryWorkers of America, CIO.