Goebel Brewery Co.

698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY; PFEIFFER BREWING COM- PANY; ALTES BREWING COMPANY; E & B BREWING COMPANY, INC.; THE STROH BREWING COMPANY and DETROIT BREWERS AND MALTSTERS UNION a unit of LOCAL 547 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONOFOPERAT- ING ENGINEERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2020. June 22, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas , 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles ]. The Board has amended the caption of this case to omit the names of Schmidt Brewing Company and Central Distributor from the list of Employers . Although notice of hearing was served upon these two companies , neither appeared at the hearing. It appears that Schmidt Brewing Company was dissolved by court order on May 28, 1952, and that Central Distributors is not a signatory to the multiemployer contract involved in this proceeding and was inadvertently served. Local 547, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, herein called Local 547 , sought to intervene in the instant proceeding. During the course of the hearing , Detroit Brewers and Maltsters Union, herein called the Maltsters , which filed the petition in this case, became affiliated with Local 547. The Maltsters moved in the alternative that Local 547 be substituted, or that its name be amended in the petition to show the affiliation. International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, had been permitted to intervene on the basis of a contractual interest together with its Joint Local Executive Board of Detroit, Michigan , herein called the Joint Board, and its Local Unions Nos. 3, 38, and 181, herein called collectively the CIO Locals . It moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the motions of Local 547 and the Maltsters were inconsistent . The hearing officer permitted Local 547 to participate in the hearing upon a proper showing of interest , but referred the aforesaid motions to the Board. We consider the hearing officer's permission for Local 547 to participate in the hearing to be equivalent to granting its motion to intervene ,' and regard such intervention as proper in view of Local 547' s showing of interest and its relationship to the Maltsters . We grant the Malsters ' alternate motion to amend its name , and have amended the caption of the case 'Cf. Edwin H. Fitler Co.. 90 NLRB 1880. GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 699 accordingly, in order to clarify the identity of the parties in interest resulting from its affiliation.' The CIO's motion to dismiss is denied. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: 1. The Employers herein, whose names appear in the caption, are severally referred to as Goebel , Pfeiffer, Altes, E & B, and Stroh, and collectively as the Employers. We find that each is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The CIO contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and, conversely, the Petitioner disputes the status of the Joint Board. The CIO's contention that the Petitioner is not a labor organization is based upon the alleged violation of the CIO's constitution, and the manner in which disaffiliation proceedings were conducted by the officers of Local 3 leading to the establishment of the Maltsters, and its subsequent affiliation with Local 547. We do not deem these matters relevant to the issues here presented. The Board has frequently held that it will not concern itself with the internal regulations of labor organizations . It suffices for purposes of this proceeding that the Petitioner is an organization admitting employees to membership and existing for the purpose of dealing with employers on matters relating to wages and other working conditions.' With respect to the Petitioner' s assertion , the record is clear that the Joint Board is the "agency" of the CIO Locals, each of which is unquestionably a labor organizationas defined in the Act, existing for the purpose of dealing collectively with employers. 4 Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner, Local 547, the Joint Board, the CIO, and each of the CIO Locals, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. We find that no question concerning representation exists for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit of employees in the brewing departments. More specifically it would exclude the keg beer drivers and helpers, case beer drivers and helpers, freight drivers and helpers, driver-loaders, loaders and distributors, warehousemen, bottlers, bartenders, shipping clerks, office employees, clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, as well as all other employees which have traditionally been under the jurisdiction of a local other than Local 3. In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks a unit of journeymen brewers and apprentices. The Employers, and the CIO, the Joint Board, and Locals 3, 38, and 181, who have heretofore represented all 2 Cf Carbide & Chemicals Corporation, 88 NLRB 437. 3See General Motors Corporation, 88 NLRB 450 See also De Mays, Inc., 81 NLRB 1374. 4See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 1011, United Mine Workers of America (Bitner Fuel Co ), 92 NLRB 953. 7 00 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the brewing, bottling, and delivery department employees in a multiemployer unit, oppose the unit on the grounds (1) that the brewery department is part of an integrated produc- tion and maintenance unit established by the history of collective bargaining, and (2) that the journeymen brewers and their apprentices are not craftsmen. The parties do, however, agree that the appropriate unit--whether depart- mental, craft, or industrial in type- -should be multiemployer in scope. The History of Collective Bargaining The parties are in disagreement with respect to the kind of unit for which collective bargaining has been conducted. The Petitioner claims that bargaining has been conducted in a fashion so that each of the CIO Locals has maintained its identity and been recognized as the respective representative of a departmental unit of the employees within its jurisdiction. The Employer and the CIO and its constituents claim, however, that bargaining has been conducted by the CIO Locals on a "joint basis," through the Joint Board, for an overall production and maintenance unit, covering the brewing, the bottling, and delivery departments. At the time of the repeal of the Prohibition Enforcement Act, Local 3 was the sole representative of all employees in the Detroit breweries. A contract for 1933-1935 was entered into between the Employers and Local 3 covering the employees in the brewing, bottling, and delivery departments. This contract, as well as all subsequent contracts discussed here- after, contained clauses pertaining to general conditions of employment as well as separate articles dealing with each department. Although a 1935-1938 contract was entered into by Local 3 alone, in 1936, Local 3 was split into three locals, with Local 3 retaining jurisdiction over the brewery workers, and Locals 181 and 38 taking jurisdiction over the bottling and delivery department employees, respectively. With the establishment of these additional locals, the Joint Board was also established, in accordance with a mandatory provision in the CIO's constitution. An examination of the contracts executed in 1938, 1940, 1943 and 1946 shows that the coverage is identical with those contracts previously executed by Local 3 alone. The preambles of these contracts refer to the CIO Locals as either the "party of the second part," or as the "Union." These contracts provide that: (1) None but good- standing members of any one of the CIO Locals can be employed by the Employers; (2) extra help shall be issued permit cards by any one of the CIO Locals before they can go to work; and (3) grievances are to be adjusted by "the Local Unions" with arbitrators to be selected by "the Local Union" in the event that the grievance cannot be adjusted. In addition, the 1940, 1943, 1946, and 1950 contracts under the articles pertaining to each department make reference to each one of the CIO Locals under whose jurisdiction the employees GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 701 would fall. The contracts executed in 1949 and 1950, on the other hand, refer specifically to the CIO and each of the CIO Locals as the "Union" in their preambles, and specifically recognize each of the CIO Locals together with the CIO "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agents for all persons employed by the Employer in any position." The 1949 and 1950 contracts, like all other contracts, also provide that grievances are to be adjusted by "The Local Unions." None of these contracts, however, contains a clause which grants recognition specifically to these locals for the employees of a specific department, or for their members, so as to conform to their internal jurisdiction arrangements. Each of the contracts has been memorialized in either a single written instrument or in a separate , identical agreement for each employer, signed by all the CIO Locals, the Joint Board, the CIO, and by each employer respectively,. There is some dispute among the parties with respect to the manner of ratifying contracts, the Petitioner contending that the contracts have always been ratified by a separate vote of each local. The record indicates, however, that acceptance of contracts by a majority vote of the members of all the CIO Locals occurred as far back as 1940, although the CIO's constitution never specifically provided for such a procedure until 1950. The record shows that in 1940, as in 1950 when Local 3 objected to the terms of a contract, the contract was ratified by a majority vote of the members of all of the locals involved over the objection of one of the locals. At the CIO's 1950 convention a resolution was introduced by Local 3 providing for ratification of contracts by a majority vote of each local, and was defeated. Instead, a new provision was added to the constitution, declaratory of past practice and procedure, which provides that contract proposals shall be ratified by a majority of the votes cast by all of the members affected by the contract. In addition, however, the provision does leave it to the discretion of joint boards to permit contract proposals dealing with working conditions, as distinguished from other matters, which affect only employees ina particular department to be submitted for the approval of the members who are affected by such working conditions. In 1949 the CIO Locals jointly, through the secretary of the Joint Board, petitioned the Board (Case No. 7-UA-2055) for a single union-shop authorization election covering all employees, with the exception of certain employees represented by other unions, office and clerical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, for which the unions involved were the recognized bargaining representative.5 In view of the foregoing, where all of the employees were represented by Local 3 and subsequent thereto by the CIO Locals who have operated under and through the Joint Board, SThe beer distributors for the metropolitan Detroit, Michigan, area have bargained jointly with the Employers since 1946 for their employees and were included in the unit petitioned for in the authorization election. 702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we conclude that the CIO Locals have acted as the joint bargaining representative for a single bargaining unit of all employees in the brewing , bottling , and delivery departments of the Employers . Although the contracts identify each of the locals, they do not provide for their separate recognition. It is evident from the entire record that the CIO Locals, by acting through the Joint Board , have evinced a willingness to merge their separate identities and be bound by a joint determination reached through the Joint Board , acting on behalf of the membership of the CIO Locals collectively. This intention is not only expressly provided for by the CIO's constitution , but has been carried out in actual practice. Accordingly , we find that the history of collective bargaining has been on the basis of an overall unit of production and maintenance employees , and not on an individual departmental basis as alleged by the Petitioner .6 We consider , then, whether in view of the long bargaining history upon the basis of a production and maintenance unit, severance of a smaller unit as petitioned for is appropriate. The Departmental and Craft Status of the Brewing Department Employees The Employers involved in this proceeding operate plants in the Detroit , Michigan, area where they manufacture and distribute malt beverages . In these operations , while there are differences of procedure due to differences in the physical establishments of the various companies , there is substantial uniformity among all of them in the work function required for the respective operations . Pfeiffer and Goebel plant 1 are solely engaged in the manufacture of bottled beer , and there- fore lack a washhouse and racking - room operation. In all other respects , however, the processes and work function are substantially the same. In general , the manufacturing processes require the con- version of grains, malt, rice, and other raw materials into beverage products , and the packaging of these products into kegs, tins , or bottles for distribution to the Employers' customers . The distribution operations cover the actual delivery of the finished products to the Employers ' customers. To carry out these operations the Employers have set up brewing, bottling, and delivery departments. The brewing department employees , along with the bottling and some of the delivery department employees, are hourly rated employees . Although the brewing department employees are generally higher paid, all hourly rated employees have similar vacations , holidays, and severance - retirement benefits, and other conditions of employment. 6 Cf. Phelps Dodge Corporation, New Cornelia Branch, 98 NLRB 726, St. Regis Paper Com- pany, 97 NLRB 1051, New Bedford Cotton Manufacturing Association, 60 NLRB 1431 , distin- guished in Luther Manufacturing Company, 61 NLRB 858. GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 703 The brewery, bottling, and delivery department employees are hired separately and are separately supervised. The brewery department employees have their own dressing room and lunchroom, but are not completely separated from contact with other employees. The amount of contact varies with respect to the particular operation involved in the brewing process, and its physical location in the respective breweries. There is no interchange of employees between the departments at present. The lack of interchange is not the result of the nature of the skills required but of the jurisdictional lines of the respective CIO Locals. In the period, however, when Local 3 represented all of the employees in the Detroit breweries, and during the period of the manpower shortage in World War II, such interchange did occur. Moreover, freight handling work, identical with that done by the brewery department employees in Goebel plant 1, who are members of Local 3, is performed by delivery department employees, who are members of Local 38, in the other Detroit breweries; and work identical with brewery department cellarmen, members of Local 3, at Pfeiffer's and Goebel's plant 3 is performed by the bottling department employees, members of Local 38, in the other Detroit breweries. The Petitioner urges the craft status of "journeymen brewers," placing great emphasis upon an apprenticeship training program . The record contains no evidence of such a program before 1949. In that year, as the result of an agreement settling an unfair labor practice charge against Local 3, a training program was set up for those employees classified as temporary employees who had been hired prior to January 1, 1949. The training period provided for in the present contract is of 2 years' duration. It is clear from the record, however, that it would actually take about 6 months to train an employee for all of the jobs in the brewing department .' In addition, the record shows that there are only 5 apprentices, out of a total of approximately 348 brewery department employees, working at present in the Employers' breweries: 1 at Stroh, 1 at Goebel, and 3 at Pfeiffer. No evidence was presented indicating that a substantial number of "journeymen brewers" had been required to undergo any course of training, aside from on-the-job training, in order to qualify for this status. The record does show, however, that employees classified as limited brewers, and temporary employees have performed and are performing the work of "journeymen brewers," whereas there are many "journeymen brewers" who are not able to perform some of the jobs in the brewing operation . Moreover , all brewing department employees receive the same rate of pay for the same work performed, the temporary employees attaining the same wage scale after 6 months. Although some of the work tasks within the brewery department may require more skill 7 See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra. 7 04 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD than others, it is evident from the record that "journeymen brewers" devote a great deal of their time to cleaning equip- ment, and some are regularly assigned to that function alone. It thus appears that the classification of "journeymen brewers" has no real significance as to the skill of the employee so classified. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing, as well as upon the entire record, that although the duties of the "journeymen brewers" and the other brewery department employees require a different kind of experience or training from the duties of other employees, the degree of experience or training required to attain proficiency in their work is not extensive, and the difference in the skill of these employees as compared to other employees, who the Petitioner contends are not craftsmen, is no greater than that normally found among different classifications of production and maintenance employees.8 Upon all the facts, we conclude that brewing department employees do not constitute a craft unit or departmental unit of the type the Board has found should be permitted to sever from a larger unit. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. Inasmuch as we have found that no question concerning representation exists because the units requested are in- appropriate, we deem it unnecessary topassuponthe contract- bar contentions of the parties. [The Board dismissed the petition.] B See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra. DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND DONOVAN, INC. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 12, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Case No . 18-RC - 1907. June 22, 1953 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 Jack R. Carrier, hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. 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 [Members Houston , Murdock, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. Donovan, Inc., is a family corporation whose entire stock is owned by George H . and Margaret L. Donovan and their eight children. Donovan, Inc., in turn owns all the stock of Donovan Construction Company. Both corporations have the same president , vice president, and assistant secretaries. 105 NLRB No. 99.