W. F. Schrafft & Sons Corp.

In the Matter of W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE W ORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 1-RC-955,1-RC-956, and 1-957.-Decided September 00, 1949 DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. 1-RC-955 and in Case No. 1-RC-956, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Forreasons stated hereinafter, however, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. l-RC-957 I At the hearing the Employer moved to adjourn the hearing , and, alternatively, to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the Petitioner's claims as to the number of employees to be included within its proposed units were not made sufficiently clear. However, inasmuch as the issues and positions of the parties were fully litigated at the hearing and are set forth clearly and completely in the existing record, we hereby affirm the hearing officer's ruling denying the Employer's motion to adjourn, and deny the Em- ployer's motion to dismiss the petitions . The Employer's request for oral argument is also denied . The Employer's motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Petitioner's showing of representation in Case No. 1-RC-955 Is not adequate is denied for reasons stated in Matter of C. D. Jennings and Company , 68 N. L. R. B. 516. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 18. 77 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD within the meaning of Section 9 .(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent three separate units of the Employer's employees. In Case No. 1-RC-955 it seeks a unit of building and cleaning department employees; in Case No. 1-RC-956 it requests a unit of maintenance department employees; and in Case No. 1-RC-957 it proposes a unit comprised of shipping, warehouse, and storeroom employees. The Employer opposes the units proposed by the Petitioner, contending that the functions of these employees are an essential and integral part of the Employer's production process, and urges that the only appropriate unit for collective bar- gaining is a single plant-wide unit.2 The Employer is engaged at its plant at Boston, Massachusetts, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of candies. This plant consists of a single building with an attached power plant and a separate small shed which at times is used for the temporary storage of cocoa beans. The Employer's manufacturing operations are car- ried on in approximately 16 departments, all of which are subject to the general supervision of a plant superintendent under whom there are 3 assistant superintendents and various department foremen. The Employer maintains a central employment office which hires and discharges employees for all departments. Except for an incentive bonus plan, applicable to certain employees in the plant, all em- ployees are subject to one company policy with respect to hours of employment, vacations, recreational facilities, profit-sharing plans, medical benefits, and other conditions of employment. In the course of- its operations, the Employer employs approximately 1,100 em- ployees. Of this number the Petitioner proposes to represent in its respective units approximately 62 employees in the building and cleaning department, approximately 42 employees in the maintenance department, and approximately 63 shipping, warehouse, and store- room employees. There is no collective bargaining history to bear upon the appro priateness of any of the units involved herein; and there is no request by any labor organization to represent a unit of employees at this plant on a plant-wide basis as contended by the Employer. Case No. 1-RC-955: The building and' cleaning department com- prises approximately 71 employees. Of this number the Petitioner 2 The Employer takes the additional position that conditions of cleanliness being a vital part of the manufacturing of candy, particularly because of the pure food laws, the em- ployees in the building and cleaning department are intimately related to the produc- tion process and should therefore not be permitted to bargain . as a separate collective bargaining unit. The Board has previously considered similar contentions and found them to be without merit. Matter of Worthy Paper Company; 80 N. L. R. B. 19 (and cases cited therein). W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION 79 would include in its proposed unit 62 employees classified as porters and matrons, and would exclude 4 elevator operators and 5 watchmen. These employees are engaged in the duties and functions usually inci- dent to their job classifications. Approximately 31 of these employees are permanently assigned to specific departments; the remainder work throughout the plant. They are all under the basic supervision of the building and cleaning department foreman but are also supervised to a limited extent by the foreman at the site of their work. There is no regular interchange'of building and cleaning department employees with employees in other departments, although in emergencies they may be given noncleaning duties in other departments, and, in some instances, have been permanently transferred from the building and cleaning department to jobs in other departments. From the fore- going facts and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, we find that the building and cleaning department employees constitute a custodial grouping sufficiently homogeneous and identifiable to be established as 'a separate bargaining unit.3 Although the Petitioner would exclude from its unit four elevator operators, the record shows that these employees are under the super- vision of the building and cleaning department foreman and are en- gaged in the performance of custodial duties like the porters and matrons with whom they appear to have a substantial community of interests. We shall therefore include them in the unit. We shall, however, exclude the watchmen whom we find to be guards within the meaning of the Act. We find that all building and cleaning department employees at the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, plant, including elevator oper- a tors, but excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, profes- sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective b::rgaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 4 Case No. 1-RC-956: The unit requested by the Petitioner in this case would embrace approximately 42 employees in the maintenance department, and would include the following categories of employees : electricians, carpenters, millwrights, painters, steamfitters, sheetmetal workers, welders, mechanics, beltmeh, and toolshop and stockroom employees. The maintenance employees, composed principally of craftsmen, are engaged in a scheduled program of servicing, repair- ing, and replacing production machinery. Although the majority of .3 Matter .of Tyre Brothers Glass & Paint Co., 85 N. L. R. B. 910; Matter of Bailey Department Stores Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 312 ( and cases cited therein). Under the circumstances present herein , the contention of the Employer that the unit sought by the Petitioner, and herein found appropriate, is based upon "extent of organi- zation" is without merit. 80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD these employees work throughout the plant, approximately 14 of them are permanently assigned to special departments. They are under the. basic supervision of the maintenance department foreman but are also. subject to limited supervision by the foreman at the site of their work. There is no interchange between maintenance department employees and employees in other departments. Where, as here, there is no collective bargaining history on a broader basis, we have found that maintenance employees, as a multicraft group possessing separate interests from those of the production employees, may constitute a separate unit.' Accordingly, we find that all maintenance department employees at the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and all super- visors 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 .6 Case No. 1-RC--957: The Petitioner's request for a unit of shipping, warehouse, and storeroom employees embraces approximately 63 em- ployees. These employees work in approximately 11 different depart- ments located on approximately 6 floors of the Employer's plant. They are under the immediate supervision of approximately 5 different foremen. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire record in the case, we believe that the Petitioner seeks to represent an artificial grouping of employees which lacks the homogeneity and cohesiveness requisite to a unit appropriate for the purpose of col- lective bargaining. Under these circumstances, we find that the re- quested unit is inappropriate and we shall therefore dismiss the peti- tion filed in Case No. 1-RC-957. ORDER IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 1-RC-957 by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec- tions 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 b Matter of General Mills, Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 831; Matter of Weston Biscuit Com- pany, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 407; Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1328. 6 See footnote 4, supra. W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION 81 case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, 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 rein- stated 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 represented, for purposes of collective bar- gaining, by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO.