Lake County Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc.

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LAKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. and LOCAL. 142, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER and LOCAL 8, UNITED COOPERATIVE WORKERS, CLA, CHRISTIAN LABOR. ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 13- RC-2840 and 13-RC-2891. October 28,1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. M. Lieberman, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Local 142, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called Team- sters, contests the status of Local 8, United Cooperative Workers, CLA, Christian Labor Association of the United States, herein called CLA, as a labor organization, as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act. The constitution of CLA, received in evidence, shows clearly that the organization exists, in part, for the purposes of representing em- ployees and dealing with employers with respect to rates of pay, hours of work, and working conditions generally. Moreover, the CLA has in several cases been certified as a bargaining agent following Board- conducted elections. Accordingly, we find that both the Teamsters and CLA are labor organizations as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that both claim to represent certain 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 Employer and the CLA agree on an over-all bargaining unit of warehousemen, helpers, and truck drivers. The Teamsters seeks a unit limited to the truck drivers. The Employer is engaged in marketing farm products at 3 plants located at Crown Point, Leroy, and Highland, Indiana. It functions as a single integrated and centrally managed organization of 25 em- ployees, including 10 clericals or supervisors not sought by either Union 101 NLRB No. 36. LAKE COUNTY FARM BUREAU COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. 111 here, 10 warehousemen and helpers, and 5 truck drivers. The drivers spend between 75 and 90 percent of their time driving trucks, main- taining the vehicles, and assisting in the loading and unloading. The remainder of their time is devoted to warehouse work. The inside work done by the drivers never takes precedence over their trucking duties. They are on a separate pay scale and they have chauffeurs licenses and previous driving experience. Most of the driving is on the public roads within a 30-mile radius of the plant to which a driver is assigned, but occasional trips are as far as 150 miles away. The Board has frequently held that truck drivers who spend a major portion of their time driving over the public highways, loading and unloading, and maintaining vehicles, as here, may constitute a separate bargaining unit.' They do not lose their status as a homogeneous, identifiable group by virtue of the fact that they may spend a smaller portion of their time engaging in other duties 2 Therefore, these truck drivers may also, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit. If they prefer, they may form part of an over-all company-wide bargaining unit. In these circumstances, we shall make no final unit determination pending the outcome of the elections hereinafter directed. Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following two voting groups : (a) All truck drivers employed at the Employer's three Indiana plants at Crown Point, Highland, and Leroy, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All warehousemen and helpers at the Employer's three Indiana plants in Crown Point, Highland, and Leroy, excluding all truck drivers, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups (a) and (b) select the same labor organization, the employees in voting group (a) will be deemed to have indicated their desire to form part of the over-all unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organ- ization selected by the employees of the two groups, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) selects a labor organization which is not selected by the employees in voting group (b), the employees in voting group (a) will be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in that group, which the Board 1 The Schaible Co., 88 NLRB 733. 2 Edward Hines, Inc., 88 NLRB 1140. 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in such circumstances finds to be a separate unit appropriate for collec- tive bargaining purposes. If a majority of the employees in voting group (b) also selects a labor organization, the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in that group, which the Board in such circumstances also finds to be a separate unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. If the employees in either or both of the voting groups do not select a labor organization, the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certificate of results of election with respect to such group or groups. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] THE ALLIANCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS, LOCAL 750, CIO, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1666. October 28, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. 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 named below 1 claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Intervenor UE contends that although its last contract with the Employer terminated on February 1, 1952, followed by a strike, the subsequent strike-settlement agreement constitutes a bar upon the grounds (1) that it extended the last contract between the parties, and (2) that the settlement agreement itself further operates as a bar pending the expiration of a reasonable time for compliance with the terms of the agreement. The Petitioner and the Intervenor IBEW take the position that no valid contract is in effect, but that even if such 1 The United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America , Local 705 (UE), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL (IBEW ), were permitted to intervene 101 NLRB No. 38.