Wm. Wood Bakery, Inc.

122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WM. WOOD BAKERY, INC., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 5, AFL. Case No. 15-ISM-32. November 26, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph M. Mitchell, 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 Employer operates a bakery at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where it manufactures, and from which it distributes, bakery products. The Employer distributes its products both in Baton Rouge and its immediately vicinity, and also in certain outlying areas. In Baton Rouge, the Employer's products are distributed on various routes by driver-salesmen who pick up such products at the Employer's bakery. The products distributed in the outlying areas are, however, first loaded into vans at the bakery, and are transported in such vans to the outlying areas, where they are delivered to the driver-salesmen who service such areas. The Employer asserts that a unit embracing all its driver-salesmen, van drivers, extra men, extra order men, and load- ers, both at Baton Rouge and in the outlying areas, is appropriate. The Union asserts, however, that no question of representation exists, because it has requested recognition as the representative of only the driver-salesmen, extra men, extra order men, and loaders who work at or out of the Baton Rouge bakery. On August 14, 1951, the Union requested recognition as the repre- sentative of employees at the Employer's Baton Rouge bakery. On August 20, 1951, the Union called a strike and began picketing the bakery; the picket carried a sign reading "Wolf Bakery Drivers on Strike for Recognition." The strike and picketing were still in prog- ress at the time of the hearing. At the hearing, the Union reiterated its claim to represent the employees at the bakery. The Union does not, however, claim to represent the employees who service the out- lying areas. I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Union ' s motion to dismiss the petition in this proceeding . For the reasons set forth hereinafter , this motion is hereby granted 2 The Employer is a Louisiana corporation with its office and place of business at Baton Rouge, Louisiana . During the 6-month period preceding the hearing in this matter, the Employer sold and delivered outside the State of Louisiana products valued in excess of $100,000 Stanaslavs Implement and Hardware Company, Limited , 91 NLRB 618 97 NLRB No. 23. SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS 123- On these facts we find that, although the Union is presently claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer, neither it nor any other labor organization claims to represent the employees in the unit alleged as appropriate in the Employer's petition.3 Under these cir- cumstances, we find that the petition does not raise a question con- cerning representation, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 4 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.,, Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 There are about 75 employees in the unit alleged in the petition , and about 35 in the group which the Union claims to represent. ri Corer d'Alene Grocers Association, 88 NLRB 44; Ny-Lint Tool f Manufacturing Co., 77 NLRB 642. 5In view of our disposition of this proceeding , we find it unnecessary to consider the alternative grounds advanced by the Union in support of its motion to dismiss SERVICE TRADE CHAUFFEURS, SALESMEN, AND HELPERS LOCAL 145, (ALSO KNOWN AS FOOD, BEVERAGE AND EXPRESS DRIVERS LOCAL UNION No. 145) AFFILIATED WITH - INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL and THE HOWLAND DRY GOODS COMPANY AND MEIGS & CO., INC. AND D. M. READ COMPANY. Cases Nos. 2-CC-64, 2-CC-65, and O-CC-66. November 27, 1951 Supplemental Decision On August 31, 1949, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in this case (85 NLRB 1037), in which it found that the Respondent Local 145 had engaged in certain unfair labor practices affecting commerce, and ordered the Respondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative remedial action. The Board thereafter petitioned the United States Court of Ap- peals for the Second Circuit to enforce its Order against the Respond- ent. On July 31, 1951, the court of appeals issued its decision (191 F. 2d 65), enforcing that portion of the Board's Order which was based on the finding that the Respondent had violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, in its picketing of the D. M. Read Company warehouse, Bridgeport, Connecticut, but remanding the balance of the case to the Board for 97 NLRB No. 24.