Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC." and LOCAL 843, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL,2 PETITIONER ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and LOCAL 153, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HEI .rsRs OF AMERICA, AFL,3 PETITIONER ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,4 PETITIONER ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and BREWERS UNION LOCAL No. 2, INTEh- NATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,5 PETITIONER NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS: P. BALLANTINE AND SONS, J. HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING COMPANY, LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC., PABST BREWING COMPANY AND HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY and BREWERS UNION LOCAL No.2, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS : P. BALLANTINE AND SONS, J. HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING COMPANY, LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC., PABST BREWING COMPANY, HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY AND ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.6 and THE BREWERY WORKERS JOINT LOCAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF NEW JERSEY, AFL, FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOINT LOCAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL,7 PETITIONER P. BALLANTINE AND SONS, JOSEPH HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING COMPANY, PABST BREWING COMPANY, LIEBMANN BREWERIES , INC., HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BREWERY WORKERS UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 2-RC- 4000, 2-RC-4040, 2-RC-4176, 2-RC-4277, O-RC-4297, 2-RC-4631, and 2-RC-4118. January 29, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before " Herein called Anheuser. Herein called Local 843. 8 Herein called Local 153. Herein called Brewery Workers (CIO). Herein called Brewery Workers ( CIO) Local 2. Brewery Workers (CIO) and its Local 2 are sometimes jointly referred to as the CIO Unions. 6 Herein called the Association . The individual members are referred to collectively as the "Companies " 7 Herein called the AFL Joint Board. The constituent member unions thereof are some- times referred to as the AFL Unions. 102 NLRB No. 82. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 801 I. L. Broadwin and Lewis Moore, hearing officers. The hearing offi- cers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed." Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers involved The Association , which is comprised of member companies whose activities concededly affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act,9 is, by virtue of its representation of its mem- bers in collective bargaining, an employer of the employees of the member companies, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find , accordingly, that the Employer Association, and each of the member companies, is, respectively, engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved The participants in these proceedings included, together with the parties named in the captions above, Local 68, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called the Engineers, and Fed- eral Labor Local 24251, AFL, herein called Local 24251. The former intervened on the basis of its contract interest in the unit petitioned for in Case No. 2-RC-4277; and the latter intervened on the basis of its interest in the units respectively petitioned for in Cases Nos. 2-RC - 4297 and 2-RC-4631. Local 24251, Local 153, and Local 843 are the constituent unions comprising the AFL Joint Board, the Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC- 4631. Although there is no question that the constituent unions of the AFL Joint Board are each of them "labor organizations" within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, the CIO Unions claim that the AFL Joint Board does not possess, or should not be accorded, this legal status. Inasmuch as the record shows that the AFL Joint Board is clearly an "agency" of its member unions, existing for the purpose of dealing 8 At the hearing, counsel representing the two CIO Unions (Brewery Workers (CIO) and its Local 2) objected strongly to the rulings of Hearing Officer Broadwin limiting his cross-examination of certain witnesses , and on a number of occasions moved that the hearing officer disqualify himself on the grounds , among others, that he had indicated bias against the CIO Unions by not affording their counsel full opportunity to test the credibility of witnesses testifying to facts which counsel felt to be adverse to the position of the CIO Unions. We find no merit in these objections. We have carefully examined the very lenghty record made herein, and find no room for any doubt that the CIO Unions' counsel had full opportunity to present all relevant data bearing upon the issues in these cases, and that the hearing cfficer's limiting rulings were wholly reasonable. In any event , as hereafter appears, our disposition of the issues in the case accept as true the CIO Unions' factual contentions as to certain disputed points. ,Hence, whatever "error" may be attributed to the hearing officer in the disputed rulings, it is not prejudicial g The member companies of the Association are listed in the caption of Case No. 2-RC-4631 above. 802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collectively with Employers, it is clearly within the statutory defi- nition of a "labor organization." It is perhaps possible, as the CIO Unions suggest, that the AFL Joint Board's use of the words "formerly known as Joint Executive Board of International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, AFL" as part of its title may mislead the employees into believing that there is some present association and connection between it and the Brewery Workers (CIO) which is presently affiliated with the CIO. We do not believe, however, that the AFL Joint Board intended so to repre- sent itself, and while we do not condone any act of fraud or deception, we do not believe, in any event, that any prejudice resulted. For each of the three unions comprising the AFL Joint Board appeared at the hearing, and the record leaves no room for any doubt that they, and no other organizations, are the sole members of the AFL Joint Board10 Accordingly, we shall deny that part of the motion of the CIO Unions to dismiss the AFL Joint Board's petition, based upon the latter's alleged misrepresentation. However, in order to eliminate any possi- bility of confusion in the minds of the employees, in the course of the election and thereafter, as to the identity of the organization or organizations purporting to act on their behalf, the name of the AFL Joint Board shall appear on the ballot and in any certification which it may obtain herein, without the characterization: "formerly known as Joint Local Executive Board of International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers, AFL." " 3. The questions concerning representation The parties to this proceeding all agree that, with one exception, questions concerning representation of all employees covered by the various petitions herein, have arisen, which may be resolved by the conduct of immediate elections. The exception is as to a group of Anheuser's employees (most of whom are within the "brewing depart- ment" of that company) currently represented by Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 under a collective-bargaining agreement which will not expire until April 14, 1953. The CIO Union alleges such contract to be a bar to the present conduct of an election among this group of employees. The AFL Unions claim, however, that the contract should not be deemed a bar because: (1) A majority of the employees comprising the unit covered by the contract were hired either after recognition of the CIO as the representative, or after the execution of the contract; and (2) the contract unit reflects an expansion in the scope of the unit which was agreed upon by the parties, under the circumstances hereafter related, for purposes of testing the CIO's 10 Cf. Crawford Steel Foundry Co., 58 NLRB 428. 11 Cf United States Gauge Co., 6& NLRB 1254. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 803 majority status. Although Anheuser takes a neutral position on the contract bar issues as posed above, it has taken an overall position, consistent with the result sought by the AFL Unions, in favoring the conduct of an immediate election in an industrywide unit. We need not pass upon the issues so posed, however, as the "Mill B" date of the contract in question is less than 30 days away from the date of issuance of this decision 12 Accordingly, under well-es- tablished precedent,13 the existence of the contract cannot in any event bar a present determination of representatives. We find, as to each of the petitions herein, that a question affecting commerce has arisen involving employees of the Employers involved, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate units a. Cases Nos. 2-RC-4631, 4000, 4040, 4176, 4297, and 4418 (1) The unit requests of the parties The AFL Joint Board, whose constituent unions currently repre- sent, on a multiemployer basis, various of the lesser skilled produc- tion-maintenance workers of all association members, other than Anheuser, seek a single comprehensive unit of all the production- maintenance workers covered by the recently expired contract between Locals 843, 153, and 24251, respectively, on the one hand, and mem- bers of the Association, respectively, on the other. They would in- clude in such a unit, all of the similarly classified employees of Anheuser, and all of its laboratory workers. The Association and its constituent members agree that the com- prehensive unit proposed by the AFL Unions is appropriate. How- ever, they would exclude from such a unit all employees classified as stockhandlers and watchmen and would establish a separate unit of Anheuser's laboratory workers. The CIO Unions would split the employees thus sought to be repre- sented on a comprehensive unit basis by the AFL Unions, into several narrower multiemployer units purporting to conform generally in composition to the several contract units established by the expired agreements heretofore held by Locals 153, 843, 24251. More spe- cifically, the CIO Unions claim that the production-maintenance em- ployees (other than Anheuser's laboratory workers) should be "split" into units respectively composed of: (1) All employees of the re- spective employers' "Brewing department ...";14 (2) all employees 12 The contract in issue contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause which becomes operative February 15, 1953. 13 Dictaphone Corp., 90 NLRB 9,62; Rockwell Register Corp, 98 NLRB No. 183 14 This proposed unit is hereafter referred to as the `Brewing Department unit 804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged by the respective employers as "drivers, car washers, helpers, loaders and unloaders, warehousemen and freight handlers in the keg and bulk delivery departments, including [drivers of] mixed loads if any; fork lift operators (except those employed exclusively inside the bottling establishment) ,15 bottle sorters, yard, freight handlers and platform workers; loaders and unloaders of any and all raw materials used in the manufacture of the company's product; dead storage warehouse warehousemen, freight handlers, loaders and un- loaders; depot and distributor employees; carters of materials of every description relative to the manufacturing of products of the respective companies; garage employees excluding watchmen and all other employees"; 16 (3) all employees in the Employers' bottling es- tablishment, including the feeder warehouse and full goods ware- house, all bottle or packaged goods drivers on retail customer delivery routes, excluding watchmen and all other employees; 17 (4) employees classified as "checkers"; (5) employees classified as "stockhandlers"; 18 (6) employees classified as "porters"; 4° and (7) employees classified as "watchmen." With respect to the latter four of the employee group- ings, the CIO Unions suggest that self-determination elections be con- ducted in each, to determine whether these employees should be represented as part of the "bottle unit." In addition, the CIO Unions would establish a separate unit of a portion of Anheuser's laboratory workers,20 and would further repre- sent the remaining production-maintenance employees of Anheuser here involved in units separate than those in which it would represent employees of the remaining association members, although similarly composed classification- wise 21 From the foregoing statement of the positions of the parties, it appears that : (1) Except for a dispute as to whether Anheuser's em- ployees should be represented on a multiemployer or single-employer basis, all parties agree that any unit or units established should be Associationwide in scope; and (2) the most basic disagreement be- tween the parties involving representation of the lesser skilled pro- 16 The "bottling establishment" is defined to include the "full goods warehouse" and the "feeder warehouse." 16 This proposed unit Is hereafter referred to as the "keg and bulk delivery unit " 17 This proposed unit is hereafter referred to as the "bottle unit." 18 Only P. Ballantine & Sons, hereafter referred to as Ballantine , and Anheuser have such job classifications. 7e Only Ballantine, Llebmann Breweries, Inc., and Anheuser have such job classifications. m No union seeks to represent any laboratory workers employed by any company here Involved other than Anheuser. 31 The sole remaining petition before us for consideration, disposed of In section B, infra, that of Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 In Case No 2-RC-4277, involves a "power- house" unit of Anheuser employees who are not involved in any of the unit requests above described. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 805 duction-maintenance workers goes to the question of whether such workers should be represented on a single-unit basis as proposed by the AFL Unions and the Employers, or on a multiunit basis as pro- posed by the CIO Unions. (2) The basic issue of whether the production-maintenance workers should be represented on the single-ur}it basis proposed by the AFL Unions and the Employers, or on the multiunit basis proposed by the CIO Unions The Employers involved in this proceeding operate plants in the Newark, New Jersey, area where they manufacture and distribute malt beverages and, in the case of one Employer, soft drinks.22 In these operations, while there are differences of procedure due to dif- ferences in the physical establishment of the various companies, there is substantial uniformity among all of them in the work functions required for the respective operations. In general the manufacturing processes require the conversion of grains, malt, rice, and other raw materials into the beverage products, and the packaging of these products into kegs, tins, or bottles for distribution to the Employers' customers. The distribution op- erations cover the actual delivery of the finished products to the Employers' customers. In connection with these operations, the Em- ployers maintain extensive "auxiliary" facilities for the storage of the raw materials used in manufacture, the preparation of kegs, bottles, and other package containers, the storage of fully packaged goods, and the maintenance of its premises and equipment. The production-maintenance workers here involved compromise, as a whole, the lesser skilled workers engaged in these manufacturing, distribution, and "auxiliary" operations.28 With the exception of employees classified as "checkers," "porters," and "stockhandlers" (who are paid slightly less than other production-maintenance work- ers), all production-maintenance employees here under discussion receive the same rate of pay. All are hourly paid, and all receive identical vacations, holiday, overtime, and group hospitalization and pension benefits. With relatively few exceptions, involving for the most part machine operations in the "brew houses" and in the "bot- tling" establishments, the nature of the various work tasks is so similar that the employees can readily be transferred from one task to another. All the work functions are interrelated and interdependent, and the z, Hoffman Beverage Co , a wholly owned subsidiary of Pabst Brewing Co., is a soft- drink manufacturer utilizing the same plant facilities as its parent company in this area. 2s The remaining production -maintenance workers, whom all parties would exclude, are represented on a "craft" basis. 250983-vol. 102-53-52 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees engaged therein come into frequent contact with each other. In fact, the operations, which begin with the receipt of raw materials at railroad or other freight-receiving points and end with the delivery of the finished product to the Employers' customers in the area, are run practically on an assembly line basis. The foregoing facts suggest that these employees, as a whole, have a large degree of common interest in the conditions of work, and form a conventional production-maintenance unit. Nevertheless, the CIO Unions seek to justify establishment of a multiunit structure on the basis of (1) differences in the areas in which work tasks are performed, (2) certain differences in experience and training required of certain groups of workers for the attainment of job proficiency, and (3) the history of collective bargaining in the area here involved. We shall consider these contentions seriatim. There are of course, some differences in terms of the physical loca- tions in which various categories of employees work. Thus, delivery drivers and their helpers and certain "yard" workers perform sub- stantially all their work tasks in locations which are "outside" the brewery buildings, whereas warehouse workers and employees engaged in functions relating to the manufacture and packaging of the Em- ployers' products perform substantially all their work tasks "inside" the brewery plant. However, there is substantially no difference in the nature of the work performed by warehouse employees who load the finished products of the Employers on trucks, and often move them on trucks inside the warehouses from one place to another, and that of truck drivers, or their helpers, who load empty kegs or bottles they pick up from customers, or who pick up and load incoming freight, and unload such "empties" or freight goods at the Employers' brewery plants. Nor is there any appreciable difference between the work of "yard" employees who "sort" empty containers outside the brewery buildings, and those who "sort" them inside the warehouse buildings. Likewise, although in terms of physical locations, facilities for (a) handling and storing of empty kegs, (b) handling and storing of empty bottles, (c) storing of raw materials, and (d) storing of full goods are separately housed or differently located, the work tasks of the "ware- house" employees engaged in these functions are substantially the same, wherever they may be located. It is also true that the duties of some employees, particularly those who work on the "bottling" machine operations, and those who work on the beer manufacturing operations, require a different kind of experience or training than the duties of other categories of workers. However, the degree of experience or training required to attain pro- ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 807 ficiency in work is not extensive'24 and the differences in the "skill" of these employees is no greater than that normally found among dif- fering classifications of production-maintenance employees. We find, upon the foregoing facts, and contrary to the contentions of the CIO Unions that, with certain exclusions noted below, the em- ployees sought by the AFL Unions do in fact comprise a conventional production-maintenance grouping, and hence appropriately may be represented in a single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. In view of this finding, it remains only to consider whether, as the CIO Unions additionally contend, the history of collective bargaining in this area dictates unit findings along the lines it proposes. If so, while we would not be precluded from finding the comprehensive production-maintenance unit proposed by the AFL Unions to be ap- propriate, we would not, in the absence of unusual circumstances, establish such a unit without first determining the desires of the employees in separate self-determination elections conducted in voting groups conforming to the historical contract units 25 In considering the positions of the parties with respect to the history of collective bargaining, we note at the outset that there is a factual dispute between the CIO Unions on the one hand, and the AFL Unions on the other, as to the kind of unit basis upon which collective bargaining has been conducted. There is also a serious question raised as to whether, if the facts with respect to the historical conduct of bargaining are what the CIO Unions claim them to be, such history should, in any event, be disregarded. More specifically, it is the claim of the CIO Unions that bargaining has been conducted on a three "major"-unit basis along the lines of the units it here proposes. This claim is predicated upon the undisputed facts, more fully detailed below, that the various collective contracts, dating back to the early 1900's, have expressly recognized the existence of internal juris- dictional arrangements between the various interested unions, dividing the employees into three "major" groupings, and have uniformly provided for employer accommodation to such jurisdictional lines. 21 The record establishes that there is no operation in the "bottling" or "brewing" de- partments of the Employers performed by employees here sought to be represented , requir- ing more than approximately 3 to 4 months' training, and that work tasks requiring these maximums are relatively few in number . Almost all these positions are on an assembly line basis Although according to the collective agreements, an "apprenticeship " system exists In the "brewing departments," the evidence shows that, in practice , this system is not seriously utilized or viewed as a source of labor supply , and is in reality but a "token" system. Thus, each Employer is limited to one "apprentice " in the brewing department- a number clearly insufficient to provide replacements for experienced workers Moreover, as the record shows , Employers have , on numerous occasions , hired untrained workers and given them "on -the-job" training which enabled such workers to handle their tasks efficiently in the relative short period of from 1 to 3 months. 21 Illinois Cities Water Co , &7 NLRB 109. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is the claim of the AFL Unions that bargaining has been conducted on a single-unit basis. This claim is predicated upon certain facts, also detailed below, tending to show the "joint" conduct of collective bargaining by the interested unions on behalf of the employees they represented. It is the claim of the Employers (and the AFL Unions support this claim) that any evidence tending to establish a several- unit basis of bargaining be disregarded. This argument is predicated upon facts, likewise narrated hereafter, establishing that there has never been any clearly defined method of determining precisely what employees belonged in one unit or another, and that this situation has made it impossible to stabilize work assignments in day-to-day opera- tions and to administer the substantive provisions of the collective agreements on a uniform basis. The more pertinent portions of the record show as follows. Since sometime in the early 1900's, and prior to its disaffiliation from the AFL in 1941, the Brewery Workers represented the em- ployees here involved in three locals, known as Local 2, Local 148, and Local 268. These three locals had internal jurisdictional arrange- ments which divided jurisdiction among the production-maintenance employees in accordance with the "job content" of the work tasks performed by the employees. Local 2's claimed jurisdiction covered, roughly, the employees engaged in work pertaining to the manu- facture and/or brewing of the beverage products; Local 148's claimed jurisdiction covered, roughly, the employees engaged in work pertain- ing to the bottling of the beverages and the delivery of bottle goods to customers; and Local 268's jurisdiction covered, roughly, the em- ployees engaged in "yard" work, and in work pertaining to the hauling and storage of raw materials, and the delivery of keg and "bulk" packaged products to customers. It is undisputed that these three Brewery Workers' locals dealt with the Employers, or their Asso- ciation, through the medium of a formally constituted Joint Local Executive Board. The results of the negotiations, for a number of years before 1941, were memorialized in a single document. The single form of contract, however, traditionally contained provisions which expressed the Employers' recognition of the separate "juris- diction" which each union had over particular work functions, and the Employers' agreement, to apply the substantive contract terms in accordance with such jurisdictional lines. Following the Brewery Workers' disaffiliation from the AFL in 1941, Locals 268 and 148 withdrew from the Brewery Workers, and each obtained a charter from the Teamsters. Local 268 became Local 843 of the Teamsters, and Local 148 became Local 153 of the Teamsters, each retaining, generally, the jurisdictional claims of its predecessor. In 1946, when the Brewery Workers affiliated with the CIO, some of the membership of its Local 2 became dissatisfied. The dissident ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 809 group obtained a federal charter from the AFL and became Federal Local 24251. Its claimed jurisdiction extended generally over the same groups of workers as was claimed by Local 2.28 So far as the bargaining practices of these unions are concerned, the parties do not seriously disagree that, despite the shifts of affiliation of 2 of the 3 Brewery Workers locals in 1941, utilization of the formal Joint Local Executive Board as the medium of bargaining continued at least until 1946 or 1947, when Local 24251 succeeded to the representation of the employees previously represented by Local 2. There is, however, sub- stantial disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the Joint Local Executive Board continued to exist after 1946 or 1947, or whether, in any event, the three AFL locals bargained jointly or separately. We are not, however, concerned with what the facts on this disputed point may be, for the contracts resulting from these later negotiations reveal no substantial changes in certain material respects. They continued to include contractual language affording to each of the locals separate recognition as the "representative of the employees within its jurisdiction." 27 The definitions of separate areas of jurisdiction of each local were cast in terms 'which did not vary substantially, if at all, from those negotiated from about 1929 on. These contract definitions are worded as follows : 28 In the case of Local 24251, its jurisdiction is defined as including "all employees employed in the brewing department, at the kettles, coolers, filters, carbonizers, rackers and in the wash house." 29 In the case of Local 153, its jurisdiction is described as including "all drivers, automobile drivers, helpers, loaders and unloaders, in the keg and bulk delivery department . . . [and] employees doing carting of materials of every description, relative to the manufacturing of products of the com- pany and delivery of the same." In the case of Local 843, its juris- diction is described as including all employees "in the bottling estab- lishment and in the delivery of bottled goods." Since about 1943, Local 843 has also been given separate contracts for checkers, porters, watchmen, box repairmen, and stockhandlers.80 28 Local 2 has not represented any of the employees of the companies here involved from that date up until 1951, when it won the consent election held among Anheuser's "brewing department" employees under the circumstances described infra. sT From 1929 and up to 1941 , the contracts negotiated in those years were memorialized in a single document signed by all the interested locals. The later negotiated agreements were cast into separate documents covering each employee group within each local's jurisdiction, and signed singly by the interested local. 08 The most recent association contracts are used as examples. 80 With minor variations the contracts negotiated by or on behalf of Brewery Workers Local 2 prior to 1947 contained substantially the same language. 30 Checkers, porters, watchmen , box repairmen, and stockhandlers have been organized only within the past 9 years. Beginning about 1943, employees of each of these groups sought representation through Local 843. A series of consent elections were held in sepa- rate units of each group resulting in designation of that local in each case. Negotiations on behalf of these groups have always been conducted simultaneously with the negotiations on behalf of the other production-maintenance employees . However, the agreement of the parties has been cast in several separate documents , each confined, respectively, to one of these occupational categories. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The CIO's several unit proposals here purport to perpetuate, gen- erally, the groupings of employees established by the contractual language describing the respective "jurisdictional" areas of the local unions as above set forth. For purposes of discussing these proposals, we shall assume, contrary to the claim of the AFL Unions, that the contract provisions in question establish the intent of the contracting parties to bargain with respect to the employees on the basis of sepa- rate unit structures, rather than on the basis of a single comprellen- sive unit structure.31 We have great difficulty, however, in defining units on the basis of these contract provisions. For indisputably the contract units do riot purport (and have never purported) to group employees together on the basis of any conventional definitions con- forming to the Employers' internal organizational structures, or their job titles. Rather, the groupings have been predicated to a substan- tial degree on one or more of the following artificial and arbitrary criteria: (1) The physical locale in which employees perform work tasks (irrespective of basic similarities in work content) ; (2) the kind of materials or goods which the employees handle; and (3) the ulti- mate destination, or final place or rest, of the goods or materials which employees handle. The difficulties and defects in determining "unit" placements on the basis of such arbitrary and vague criteria are, more- over, amplified by the indisputable record evidence that the "work jurisdiction" claims of the union representing the workers here in- volved have always overlapped, and that no definitive resolution of the areas of conflict in such claims has been made. Thus, the record establishes that, although the Employers have yielded to the unions' insistence on specific contract recognition of "jurisdictional" lines, the contracting parties have not been able, de- spite their long relationships with each other, to settle longstanding differences over the "unit" placement of their employees. During the past few years, at least, they have continuously "negotiated," be- fore and throughout the contract periods, in an effort to adjust such disputes. It is true that, as a result of such negotiations, decisions have been reached as to the "unit" placement of some employees in dis- pute at specific times. But examination of the results indicates the decisions were dictated largely by expediency, and that, indeed, the parties to the collective relationships both on the union side 32 and on "I The CIO Unions' unit proposals admittedly do not, in each case , include precisely the same groups of employees to which the contracting parties have applied the substantive contract provisions in recent years . The proposals , rather, have attempted to make uniform units throughout the industry which, as noted hereafter , have varied from plant to plant 89 At various times, and at the behest of both the Employers and the interested unions, appeals were made to the common parent union of Locals 843 and 153 in an effort to get settlement of jurisdictional disputes between these two. As the record here shows, the "award" made by the parent union has either been confusing (as evidenced by several "interpretations" of the "award" made by the parent), or has not been followed. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 811 the employer side have been unable to agree, either among themselves or with each other, as to what precise groups of employees the con- tract "units" were intended to cover. For, in not one of the various (single-employer) agreements 33 purporting to settle "contract cov- erage" disputes is the jurisdictional or "unit" line of demarcation the same. It is, moreover, noteworthy that in many instances, where the parties were in complete agreement as to the "jurisdictional" or "unit" placement of particular groups of employees, large groups of such workers were arbitrarily "shifted" from the coverage of one contract to another as a condition of settlement of disputes covering different groups of workers. It is also noteworthy that, for purposes of "set- tling" the intraunion jurisdictional conflicts, certain "definitions" have been developed which may result in the anomalous situation of an em- ployee being in one unit at one time, and in a different unit at another time.34 Thus, one method of deciding "jurisdiction" which the parties have utilized as to delivery drivers is to determine the kind of goods which the drivers handle. For example, drivers who are assigned to the delivery of "bottles of beer" (as distinguished from "kegs of beer") to the Employers' customers form part of the "bottle unit." However, by the parties' jurisdictional definitions, such drivers remain in the "bottle unit" only if the delivery of the bottle-goods truckload is destined for numerous customers on a "route" basis, rather than for one customer. In the latter case, which is termed a "one-stop" de- livery, the assignment of a truckdriver to such a "one-stop" delivery task for three successive times would automatically remove him from the "bottle" unit and place him in the "keg and bulk delivery" unit. The "route" basis, which has also been used as a criterion of unit place- ment, has yielded similar unsatisfactory results. Thus, assignment of a driver to a truck which has both kegs and bottle goods loaded thereon, even if destined for delivery on a "route" basis, would auto- matically result in placement of that employee in the "keg and bulk delivery unit." On the basis of the foregoing evidence, we do not believe the history of collective bargaining justifies the establishment of several units of production-maintenance workers along the lines proposed by the CIO Unions. For, as has been demonstrated, the lines of delineation have been drawn by the use of artificial and arbitrary criteria, and have been, and are intended to be, flexible enough to permit the continuous negotiation over the "unit" placement of various categories of workers so that the internal "jurisdictional" claims of the unions may be satis- fied. As this case graphically illustrates, moreover, the Employers and the AFL Unions-parties to the collective relationships for the s' The record shows that the negotiations for the purpose of settling the disputes as to contract coverage were normally conducted by the unions on a single-employer basis. 34 The CIO's unit proposals would adopt these definitions. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD past several years-have been unable to define the lines of separation between the various contract "units" with the degree of particularity or uniformity which would permit our ready ascertainment of the exact scope of such contract "unit" in terms of specific exclusions and inclusions. Indeed, the parties who have "lived with" this situation for many years admit their dissatisfaction with it as a modus operandi for the effectuation of sound bargaining relationships. True, the CIO Unions' proposals indicate an attempt to provide "clarification" standards which, when applied, might eliminate certain sources of dispute. But the "clarifications" of unit lines it proposes are not in all respects the same as those the parties to the collective relationship have made in settling disputes over unit placements. In fact, in some respects, at least, the unit lines proposed by the CIO Unions are not the same as those established by the contracts evidencing the bar- gaining patterns. In any event, the unit proposals of the CIO do not eliminate all the areas of confusion and overlapping which have historically existed. In light of all the foregoing facts, the dissatisfaction of the parties who have developed the multiunit history of bargaining in the past several years, and the failure of bargaining on the multiunit basis to achieve stability in day-to-day relationships between all parties affected, we are persuaded that all these production-maintenance workers can best be represented in a single comprehensive unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.35 We shall, accordingly, dismiss the respective petitions of the Brewery Workers' and its Local 2, in Cases Nos. 2-RC-4418 and 2-RC-4297, and shall consider certain precise issues as to the scope and composition of such single unit on the basis of the AFL Unions' petition in Case No. 2-RC-4631. In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the CIO unions' motion to dismiss the AFL Joint Board's petition on the ground that the joint request of the constituent member unions of the AFL Joint Board to be certified as a single representative in a comprehensive unit is a "fraud and deception." Inter alia, it is suggested that in actuality these three unions have not in fact settled their separate and long- standing jurisdictional conflicts, despite their waiver of them here for purposes of filing a joint petition. We have no reason, however, to doubt the bona fides of such waiver, nor to disregard its salutary effect. In any event, our unit findings here impose upon the AFL Unions, through the AFL Joint Board, in the event they win the election we direct, the duty to bargain only on the basis of the unit or units hereafter found appropriate. At the same time, our unit find- ings relieve the Employers of all responsibility to deal with any 3 Cf. Weber Showcase and Fixture Co, Inc., 96 NLRB 358, 368,; Reilly-Electroplate Co., 94 NLRB 810, 813. See also Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 82 NLRB 810; Lake Tankers Corporation, 64 NLRB 281. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 813 representative, hereafter certified, on the basis of any unit or units different in composition or scope from those we determine to be appropriate, and insures to them the right to invoke our aid against any attempt of any union to compel negotiation on any basis incon- sistent with our findings. We therefore deny the CIO Unions' motion to dismiss the AFL Joint Board petition. (3) The dispute as to the inclusion of stockhandlers and watchmen in the production-maintenance unit The AFL Unions would include employees respectively classified as "stockhandlers" and "watchmen" in the production-maintenance unit.36 The Employer would exclude them. With respect to "stockhandlers," the record shows that although only two of the companies here involved have such a job classification'37 all the Employers have employees who perform work tasks similar to those performed by employees classified by the two companies as stockhandlers. More specifically, the duties of these employees in- volve, primarily, the receiving, storage, and dispensing of "nonpro- duction" materials such as brooms, soaps, and small parts for ma- chinery. All such employees, in the performance of their duties, come into frequent contact with certain employees whom all parties hereto would include in the production-maintenance unit. In the plants where employees performing "stockhandlers"' duties do so under different job titles, they have been represented as part of the production-maintenance employee groups. Although at Ballantine they have been represented in a separate unit under a separate con- tract, it appears that such separate contract was written purely because these workers were organized later in time by 1 of the 3 local unions (Local 843) comprising the AFL Joint Board. At Anheuser, stockhandlers are unorganized. In view of the nature of stock- handlers' duties, and the similarity of such duties to those of employees whom all parties would include in the proposed unit, we believe that stockhandlers have a sufficient community of interest with the remain- ing employees comprising the production-maintenance unit to warrant their inclusion in such unit. We shall, accordingly, include them. Watchmen: The record shows that these employees, who are uni- formed, perform duties relating to the protection of their respective Employer's property. They are usually stationed at their respective Employer's gates, where, among other things, they have authority to check employees' bundles for purposes of determining whether they contain property of their Employer; and to bar access to the Employ- 31 we need not consider the CIO Unions' contentions that these categories of employees, as well as checkers and porters, be separately polled. For neither of these unions has made any showing of interest among these employees. 11 Anheuser and Ballantine. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD er's property to unauthorized strangers or visitors. We find that watchmen thus perform duties of "plant guards" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. We shall accordingly exclude watch- men from any unit hereafter found appropriate. (4) The dispute as to the unit basis on which Anheuser's production- maintenance workers should be represented Unlike the situation existing at the plant of the remaining members of the Association, organization of Anheuser's unskilled production- maintenance workers had extended only to one portion thereof, viz, the employees comprising what is described in a current collective agreement between Anheuser and Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 as the "brewing department." The AFL Unions contend that this history of separate representation should be disregarded, and that the unit pattern for Anheuser's employees should be consistent with that which the Board here establishes for the remainder of the association members, viz, the "single-unit" pattern. The Employers, including Anheuser, agree generally with the AFL Unions on this point. The CIO Unions, however, urge strongly that any unit found appropriate by the Board at Anheuser should exclude the employees currently rep- resented by Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2. Consistent with their unit position as to the remaining association members, the CIO Unions also maintain that their multiunit proposals, above considered, should be applied to Anheuser. It is undisputed that, with the possible exception of the laboratory workers, whose unit placement is discussed below, Anheuser's em- ployees in the categories involved in the various petitions herein filed perform work similar in nature to and under substantially similar conditions, as that performed by the production and maintenance em- ployees of the remaining members of the Association which comprise the unit hereafter found appropriate. It follows, therefore, that, subject to the effect of the separate representation of the "brewing de- partment," all of these production-maintenance employees could be represented on the single-unit basis found appropriate for the remain- ing members of the Association. The record shows that the history of separate representation of An- heuser's "brewing department" employees dates back to about April 13, 1951. On that date a consent election was held in which both the current representative (Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2) and Local 24251 participated, and which the current representative won. On July 2, 1951, Anheuser and the current representative entered into a collective-bargaining agreement covering the "brewing department"- ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 815 which the parties defined as including Anheuser's beer manufacturing department, its washhouse, racking room, and empty cooperage storage area. In these circumstances, we are persuaded that the principle of our Illinois Cities Water decision 38 precludes the inclusion of these em- ployees in the optimum appropriate unit in the absence of a self- determination election. We cannot conduct such an election here, however, because the current representative does not desire such an election, and the unions requesting the inclusion of the employees in the overall unit have not made any showing of interest among these employees.39 We shall, accordingly, confine the conduct of the election herein to the residue of the production-maintenance workers, which we find, subject to the other exclusions made hereafter, may comprise an appropriate residual production-maintenance unit. In reaching this conclusion, we have also considered the AFL Unions' contention that the collective-bargaining history affecting the employees covered by the current Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 contract is defective and should be given no effect. This claim is pred- icated, in part, on the fact that the number of employees comprising the consent-election unit had doubled between the date of the election and the date of the contract. However, as there is no evidence that the employees who participated in the election did not comprise a repre- sentative group, the increase in numbers is not material. Nor is it here material that, as the AFL Unions additionally point out, there is some difference between the consent-election unit and the contract unit in that the former was confined to the employees of Anheuser's "Beer Manufacturing Department" and the latter included also the employees in Anheuser's washroom, racking room, and empty cooper- age storage area. For there is no evidence that the addition of these latter groups of workers affected the majority status of the Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 nor materially altered the character of the consent-election unit.40 Although there is some suggestion that such addition constituted an unfair labor practice, we have no unfair labor practice charge before us warranting consideration of such a con- tention. Nor, in such circumstances, do we give any weight in a representation proceeding to evidence adduced for the purpose of es- tablishing the existence of unfair labor practices. $8 Illinois Cities Water Co., 87 NLRB 109, 111-112. 30 As pointed out in the decision just cited, the union requesting inclusion of employees having a separate history of bargaining in an optimum appropriate unit must make a substantial showing of interest among such employees to obtain the self -determination election. 4° Cf. Calaveras Cement Co., 89 NLRB 378, where the contract unit differed from the unit found appropriate by the Board in a contested proceeding. 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (5) The dispute as to the unit placement of Anheuser's laboratory technicians The parties disagree as to the unit placement of Anheuser's labora- tory technicians. As has been indicated in the general statement of the parties' unit contention in section 4 a (1), supra, the AFL Unions would include all such technicians in the comprehensive production- maintenance unit. Anheuser would have all such technicians repre- sented in a unit separate and apart from all other employees, and the Brewery Workers seeks establishment of a unit confined to the "Liquid Beer Laboratory" technicians, excluding all others. The record shows that Anheuser maintains two separate laboratory departments known respectively as the "Liquid Beer Laboratory" and the "Quality Control Laboratory." There are approximately five tech- nicians employed in the liquid beer laboratory, who are classified as "technicians B or C." Their work involves principally the analysis and testing of the physical properties of (1) the raw materials used in the manufacture of liquid beer and (2) the liquid product itself in various stages of processing up to the time it is released for pack- aging. In performance of the specific duties assigned to them, "tech- nicians B" run routine laboratory analysis of wort, beer, and other materials used in the brewing process, for purposes of testing such things as color, stability, acidity, microbiological properties, and purity of gas used in pressure tanks. They perform their work with- out immediate supervision, under procedures explained to them initi- ally by the chief chemist, who is the overall head of the liquid beer laboratory. Technicians "C" assist technicians "B" and professional chemists who perform "special analysis," they collect the samples for testing from production departments, wash the glassware used in the laboratory, and apparently also run some routine analysis tests. There are approximately 10 technicians employed in the quality- control laboratory who are classified as technicians "A," "B," and "C." In addition there are about 9 employees classified as "quality control inspectors" who come under the "quality control laboratory" division organizationally, but who work mainly in the production areas rather than in the laboratory itself. The work of all these employees in- volves, principally, the analysis and testing of the chemical properties of the finished product of their employer and of competitors, and of the physical properties of the packaging containers. Technicians "A" work under the direction of the supervising chemist and perform com- plete chemical analysis tests of beer samples in finished form. One group of technicians "B" samples and performs tests on the packaging materials according to established procedures, and another performs routine tests on the packaging machines and equipment. Technicians ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 817 "C" sample, record, and test beer to determine its "keeping" quality. All these technicians work under the immediate direction of the super- vising chemist. While technicians "A" perform substantially all their work functions in the laboratory itself, the others perform some of their work functions in the production areas. The "quality con- trol" inspectors work largely in the production areas, under the direction of the shift technical supervisor-a professional chemist. Their main functions involve inspection of bottle beer coming off the "assembly line," in a prescribed method, for the purpose of de- tecting any foreign matter, and the recording of explosions occurring on the bottling line. Employees performing the work of the laboratory technicians in either of the two laboratories are hired by Anheuser without regard to formal education, although possession of a high-school diploma adds to the desirablity of an applicant for employment. Technicians, moreover, can be trained to perform even the more complicated func- tions of this group, considered as a whole, in a relatively short period of time. In these circumstances, including also the fact that none of the functions of Anheuser's laboratory technicians require the exercise of independent technical judgment, it is dubious that these technicians constitute a "technical" grouping of employees of the kind we would exclude from a conventional production-maintenance unit and establish as a separate unit, wherever any party objects to their inclusion in a production-maintenance grouping.- However, we need not dispose of the contentions of the parties on this basis. For the record shows, among other things, that these technicians, all of whom have common interests and duties, and most of whom are interchangeable from one laboratory to another, perform duties no different in nature from those performed by laboratory technicians employed by other members of the Association. None of the other companies' technicians have ever been covered in any of the contracts covering the production-maintenance workers here involved. In fact, unlike the represented workers, all the technicians are paid on a salary, rather than on an hourly, basis, and all of them receive the kind of separate incidental employment benefits (such as pensions and insurance benefits) as are granted to the office and administrative employees. In view of the common skills and interests of all Anheuser's labora- tory technicians, and particularly their interchangeability, we do not believe that the technicians of only one laboratory may alone comprise an appropriate unit, as the CIO Unions here contend. The question of whether or not all Anheuser laboratory workers may *' See Bell Aircraft Co., 98 NLRB 1277. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD together constitute a unit separate from all other employees is not, moreover, one we need here decide. For none of the unions before us here has made a sufficient showing of interest among such tech- nicians as a whole, to warrant the conduct of an election in such a group of employees, even if we were to find they do comprise a unit appropriate separate and apart from all other workers. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition of the Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2, in Case No. 2-RC-4176. In the circumstances of this case, we shall also deny the request of the AFL Unions for the inclusion of these employees in the compre- hensive production-maintenance unit. This request for the inclusion of these employees is predicated upon the fact that they perform some of their duties in production areas where other employees sought to be represented also work. However, this fact alone does not appear to us to justify granting the request when, at the same time, the requesting unions are unwilling to represent any of the technicians having interests and functions similar to Anheuser's technicians, who are employed by other Employers. We shall, accordingly, exclude Anheuser's laboratory technicians from the production-maintenance unit hereafter found appropriate. (6) The issue as to whether Anheuser's production-maintenance workers should be added to the existing multiemployer unit, or should be represented as a single-employer unit The parties also disagree as to whether Anheuser's production- maintenance workers in classifications similar to those included in the multiemployer unit hereafter found appropriate should be added to such multiemployer unit or should be represented in a separate single-employer unit. The AFL Unions and Anheuser urge the ad- dition of these workers to the existing multiemployer unit. The CIO Unions urge the establishment of such workers as a single-em- ployer unit. Because, as is above noted, Anheuser's employees perform work similar in nature to those of other association members, and because, moreover, Anheuser desires to bargain jointly with such other mem- bers of the Association, we could appropriately add these workers to the existing multiemployer associationwide unit. However, the record also shows that Anheuser's hitherto unrepre- sented production-maintenance workers, who themselves comprise an appropriate residual unit, have had no opportunity to consent, ex- pressly or otherwise, to be represented in common with employees of ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 819 other Employers by a single bargaining agent. Board policy therefore dictates that we should not compel such a result without first deter- mining their desires .42 We shall, therefore, conduct a separate self-determination election among Anheuser's unrepresented production-maintenance workers to determine their desires with respect to their representation on a multiemployer or single-employer unit basis. (7) Concluding unit findings in Case No. 2-RC-4631 1. Consistent with the foregoing determinations, we find that the following employees of all Employers comprising the Association, other than Anheuser, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act: All hourly paid production, manufacturing, packaging, warehous- ing, and delivery employees, including checkers, porters, and stock- handlers, but excluding laboratory workers, technical employees, watchmen and guards, beer pump and block tin plumbers, coopers, machinists, engineers, firemen, turbine operators, oilers and helpers, ironworkers, carpenters, laborers, plumbers, steamfitters, millwrights, bricklayers, and all or any other employees covered by collective-bar- gaining contracts between the Employers and any union or unions other than Local 843, Local 153, and Local 24251, and excluding also all office and clerical workers, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.43 2. All parties are in substantial agreement that, subject to our resolutions of their differences with respect to the "brewing depart- ment" employees and the laboratory workers, the following classifi- cations of employees at Anheuser are those comprising the residual unrepresented categories of production-maintenance workers who, as 41 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 55 NLRB 1188,; West Tacoma Newsprint Co., 81 NLRB 961; Manufacturer's Protective Association, 95 NLRB 1059 . The case of Wirts Distributing Co. et at., 82 NLRB 668, Is cited by Anheuser In opposing the conduct of a separate election among its employees . There we permitted the Inclusion of employees of a company which had not theretofore participated In group negotiations, in an associatlonwide unit, without a separate election . In that case, however , all parties to the proceeding agreed to the inclusion of the company in question In some multiemployer grouping . It further appeared , moreover , that the employees of the company in question had in fact impliedly consented to representation together with employees of the other employers comprising the multiemployer unit For these employees had apparently participated in group nego- tiations , but their employer had previously failed to sign the contract negotiated on their behalf on a multiemployer basis. 43 The unit description conforms generally to that proposed by the Association , subject to our determination as to the specific inclusions and exclusions indicated above. On the basis of the record, this description appears to us to permit ready identification by all parties affected of the precise categories comprising the unit found appropriate. 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we have found above, may together constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act : All hourly paid production employees in the packaging and shipping department under the supervision of the bottling foreman and first- floor foreman, unloaders of empty cooperage, loaders of full cooperage and checkers under the supervision of the draught-beer foreman, all porters, all hourly paid nonsupervisory employees in the material control department (i. e., checkers, stockhandlers, warehousemen, and truckdrivers), all retail sales truckdrivers in the Newark sales branch, all hourly paid employees engaged in the unloading and storing of raw materials for the production of beer and engaged in cleaning areas around grain building under the supervision of the brewhouse foreman in the beer manufacturing department, and oilers engaged in oiling bottling machinery under the supervision of the oiler foreman in the plant maintenance division of the engineering department; all porters in the division of plant utilities in the engineering department, excluding office and salaried clerical employees, supervisory employees as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, salaried laboratory technicians in the quality control department and liquid beer labora- tory in the beer manufacturing department, all employees in the beer manufacturing department other than those engaged in the unloading and storing of raw materials for the production of beer and engaged in cleaning areas around grain building under the supervision of the brewhouse foreman, and excluding all employees under the supervi- sion of the draught-beer foreman in the packaging and shipping de- partment other than unloaders of empty cooperage, loaders of full cooperage and checkers, and excluding all employees in the engineer- ing department other than porters and oilers engaged in oiling bottling machinery. In light of our finding that the employees of Anheuser in these classifications may, depending upon their desires, be represented either in a separate unit or as part of the unit comprised of the employees of the other Employers who are members of the Association, our final unit determination shall depend upon the results of a self-determina- tion election in a voting group composed of employees in the above- listed classifications.- If the employees in this voting group select, as their representative, the same union as is selected by the employees in the unit found appropriate above, they may be represented as part of such unit. If they select a different representative, they shall con- stitute a separate unit. The Regional Director is hereby authorized to issue to the winning union a certification of representatives con- sistent with our decision herein. 44 This group shall be designated as voting group A in the direction of election. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 821 3. As the foregoing determinations reflect an adoption of the basic unit contentions of the AFL Joint Board in Case No. 2-RC-4631, we shall, in accordance with the request of Locals 843 and 153, respec- tively, dismiss the petitions respectively filed by each in Cases Nos. 2-RC-4000 and 2-RC-4040. b. The issues in Case No. 2-RC-1.277 Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2, Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC- 4277, seeks a conventional "powerhouse" unit of Anheuser's engineers, firemen, and turbine operators, oilers, and helpers, excluding oilers who oil bottling machinery and their helpers,45 and all other em- ployees. The parties are in agreement as to the internal composition of the proposed unit. Local 68, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called the Engineers, however, seeks dis- missal of the petition. It claims, contrary to the position of the CIO, that Anheuser has bargained with it as the representative of these employees on a multiemployer basis since March 1951, and that hence establishment of these employees as a single-employer unit is now precluded. Although Anheuser is a member of the Association, and has otherwise expressed its intent to bargain jointly with the other members of the Association to the extent our determinations here permit such a course, it takes a neutral position on the question of whether its prior dealings with the Engineers preclude establishment of the single-employer "powerhouse" unit here petitioned for. The record shows that the Engineers now represents, and for many years has represented, "powerhouse" employees of Employers here involved on an associationwide basis. Anheuser joined the Associa- tion as a full-fledged member in February 1951 with the intent of participating with the remaining Employer members in this area in the joint conduct of collective bargaining for its brewing-plant employees. When it commenced its operations in or about March 1951, Anheuser was faced with conflicting claims of representation for its "powerhouse" workers from the Engineers and the Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2. In making its claim the Engineers pre- sented to Anheuser the then existing contract between it and the Association covering the "powerhouse" workers in the industry and demanded that Anheuser adopt it. It was the Engineers' position at the time that when Anheuser joined the Association its "power- house" employees automatically became part of the existing multi- employer unit represented by the Engineers. Pending proof of As The parties uniformly agreed that the duties of oilers engaged in oiling bottling machinery, and their helpers, are dissimilar to those of the remaining oilers and helpers in Anheuser's plant, and that they should accordingly be excluded from the proposed "power- house" unit and included in the "production -maintenance" unit. 250983-vol. 102-53-53 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD majority status, Anheuser refused both union demands. Thereafter, at the request of the parties, the New Jersey State Board of Mediation conducted a card check to determine which of the unions had received majority designation. It found that the Engineers had a majority. Upon such finding Anheuser recognized the Engineers and referred it to the Association for further negotiations. The Association, on behalf of Anheuser, agreed to adopt for Anheuser's employees the terms and conditions embodied in the them existing associationwide contract with the Engineers. Thereafter, and on March 21, 1951, a separate document was signed by Anheuser which contained the identical terms and provisions as were contained in the current asso- ciationwide (1950) agreement and terminating at the same date, viz, April 30, 1592.46 Upon the foregoing facts we find, contrary to the contention of the CIO, that since March 1951 Anheuser's "powerhouse" employees have been represented by the Engineers as part of the multiemployer unit and that the history of the inclusion of such employees in the multi- employer unit is of sufficiently long duration to preclude establishment now of a single-employer unit.47 We shall, therefore, dismiss the Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 petition in Case No. 2-RC-4277. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] CHAIRMAN IIERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. 49 At this time the petition herein was pending. 47 Taylor and Boggis Foundry Division of Consolidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Com- pany, 9& NLRB 481. OLIVER MACHINERY CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , INDEPENDENT and EMPLOYEES' COMMITTEE , PARTY ADMINISTERING CONTRACT . Case No. 7-CA-504. January 30, 1953 Decision and Order On May 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and had not engaged in others, and recommending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Employees' 102 NLRB No. 65.