Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

In the Matter of FLORIDA COCA - COLA BOTTLING COMPANY (JACKSON- VILLE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY BRANCH.), EMPLOYER and IN- TERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK, AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-707.-Decided November ^?2, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clarence D. Musser, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 Reynolds and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Company is a Florida corpora- tion engaged in the bottling, sale, and distribution of Coca-Cola under an agreement with the national Coca-Cola Company. This agree- ment gives the Employer the exclusive right to bottle and market its product in the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Fort Pierce, Orlando, Sanford, and Ocala, Florida. The Jacksonville plant is the only one involved in this proceeding and is a wholly owned branch of the Florida company. During the first 9 months of 1949, the Jacksonville branch received over $400,000 worth of Coca-Cola syrup from the Florida company, which obtains all its syrup from the Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta, Georgia, In addition, it purchased raw materials, machinery, and supplies in the amount of $195,000 from points outside the State of Florida. During the same period the Employer 's gross sales were in excess of $800,000, all of which was sold within the State of Florida. Among the customers of the Employer are the Pullman Company, Eastern Airlines, and The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad. 87 NLRB No. 31. 201 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that its opera- tions affect commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Re- lations Act.1 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All route drivers, route helpers, advertis- ing department employees, cooler department employees, garage mechanics and helpers, production employees, laundry employees, and laborers, but excluding office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. .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 90 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision 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, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 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 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 bargain- ing, by International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink, and Distillery Workers of America, CIO. I Roanoke Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 72 NLRB 733 ; Raleigh Coca-Cola Works, et at., 65 NLRB 1010. 2 At the hearing the Employer stipulated that the Petitioner was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act . It was contended by the Employer , however, that because the Petitioner is an International and there is an existing Local of the Petitioner in the Jacksonville area, the Petitioner is not a real party in interest . We find no merit to this contention . The National Labor Relations Act does not vest in the Board any general authority to subtract from the rights of employees freedom to select any complying labor organization they wish as, their • exclusive bargaining , representative. Lane Wells Com- pany, 79 NLRB 252.