Coca-Cola Bottling Works Co.

In the Matter of COCA-CoLA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INDEPENDENT SOFT DRINKS WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-815.Decided September 20, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved 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 a unit consisting of the Employer's driver- salesmen, helpers, and freight and over-the-road drivers, excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, super- visors, and all other employees. While not objecting to the compo- sition of the emit, the Intervenor contends that the unit sought is inappropriate because limited to employees of the Employer, and that an association-wide unit comprising employees of all the members of the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky Bottlers Association is alone appropriate. The Employer's position on this point is in accord with that of the Petitioner. The Employer has been a member of the Association for more than 20 years. During that period contracts covering the drivers employed 'Soft Drink and Mineral Water Drivers , Helpers and Employees Local 152 , affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen , and Helpers of America , A. F. L., hereinafter called the Intervenor , moved at the hearing to dismiss the petition on the ground that the single-employer unit sought herein was inappropriate. This motion was referred to the Board. For reasons indicated below, this motion is granted. 91 NLRB No. 57. 351 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by its members have been negotiated by the Association 2 with the Intervenor, and separate contracts covering its members' production employees have been negotiated by the Association with Beer Bottlers, Bottle Beer Drivers and Soft Drink Workers, Local Union 199, Inter- national Union of United Brewery, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called Local 199. In all these negotiations an officer of the Employer has acted as one of the Asso- ciation's negotiators. While the contracts resulting from these nego- tions are submitted to the members of the Association for approval, such contracts have generally been adopted without any change.' Where, as in this case, an employer has participated in joint, multi- employer negotiations, the Board has held that the appropriate unit is one consisting of the employees of all the employers who have par- ticipated in the joint negotiations.4 However, the Petitioner and the Employer contend that the Employer's drivers may now be severed from the association-wide unit, because as to its drivers the Employer has manifested a desire to pursue a separate course in its labor rela- tions. As evidence thereof, the Petitioner and the Employer cite the fact that in March 1950, having been apprised of the Petitioner's claim to represent the Employer's drivers, the Employer withdrew from the joint negotiations then pending between the Association and the Inter- venor for a new contract covering the drivers, and the Association thereafter ceased to represent the Employer in such negotiations. At the hearing in this case, the Employer stated, moreover, that it in- tended in the future to negotiate directly with the bargaining repre- sentative of its drivers, without the intervention of the Association, and that it would adhere to this intention even if the Intervenor is certified as the representative of the drivers in any election directed herein. However, the Employer asserts that it is still a member of the Association, and still participates in joint negotiations between the Association and Local 199 covering the production workers of the Employer and of the other members of the Association.' 2 The Association consists of the following employers : Coca Cola Bottling Works Com- pany, W. T. Wagner's Sons Company, Canada Dry Bottling Company of Cincinnati, Dr. Pepper Bottling Company, Barq Bottling Company, Union Bottling Works. Louis Fritz Mineral and Soda Water Company, Newport Mineral Water Company, Nehi Beverage Cor- poration of Cincinnati , Buckeye Distributing Company, Grand-Pop of Cincinnati , High Rock- Sunspot Beverage Company, Hires Root Beer Company, James Verner Company , Fladung Bottling Works. 3 The president of the Employer testified that at least during the past 10 years the Employer had accepted the contract terms negotiated by the Association. 4 Associated Shoe Industries, 81 NLRB 224; Johnson Optical Company, 85 NLRB 895. It is immaterial that the Association in this case has no formal organizational structure, but functions informally , and that its members have given it no final authority to bind them. See Bellingham Automobile Dealers Association, 90 NLRB No. 59. 5 The record indicates that, while withdrawing in 1949 from the joint negotiations be- tween the Association and Local 199 for the production employees , the Employer in 1950 again participated in the joint negotiations for such employees, COCA-CIA BOTTLING WORKS COMPANY 353 It appears, therefore, that the Employer is seeking to withdraw from association-wide bargaining with respect to its drivers only, -while continuing to bargainn, on an association-wide basis with respect to its production workers. Although we have permitted an employer to disassociate himself entirely from a multiemployer unit, we have declined, in determining the appropriateness of a unit, to honor such a partial withdrawal from a multiemployer unit as is here proposed.6 Accordingly, we find that a multiemployer unit consisting of the drivers of all the members of the Association is alone appropriate, and that a unit limited to the drivers of the Employer is, therefore, inap- propriate for collective bargaining purposes. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board orders that the petition filed in this proceeding be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 Pioneer, Incorporated, 90 NLRB No. 247.