Pearl Brewing Co.

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment of work to their members by the Employer. Accordingly, I would find that the purpose of the Plumbers' picket line was to further the legitimate trade union objective of achieving union construction wage scales on the project and, as such, falls with- out the definition of a jurisdictional dispute in Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. I would therefore quash the notice of hearing issued in this proceeding. Chairman Farmer and Member Styles took no part in the con- sideration of the above Decision and Determination of Dispute. PEARL BREWING COMPANY, LONE STAR BREWING COM- PANY and BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 110, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-613. July 16, 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 Wilton Waldrop, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made atthe hear- ing 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 (Members Houston, Styles, and Peter- son]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are each engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employers. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit of cashiers, shipping clerks, and storeroom employees' of the Employers, herein separately designated as Pearl and Lone Star, respec- tively. The Employers contend that the proposed unit is in- appropriate and that the Petitioner may not properly represent their cashiers and shipping clerks in any unit because these employees check and audit the work of other employees whom the Petitioner presently represents. Pearl and Lone Star are competitors, individually and inde- pendently engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer in San Antonio, Texas. They are apparently the principal beer distribu- 'During the past year materials valued in excess of $500,000 were shipped directly to each of the Employers from points outside the State. Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638. 1Storeroom employees are also designated in the record as middlemen 106 NLRB No. 31. PEARL BREWING COMPANY 193 tors in the area . On June 8, 1950 , the Employers recognized the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of production and delivery employees in their respective plants and entered into a joint agreement with the Petitioner with respect to these em- ployees . This agreement, for an original 3-year term, was recently renewed on June 8, 1953 . There has been no bargain- ing history with respect to cashiers , shipping clerks, or store- room employees at either of the 2 plants . With respect to other employees , Pearl has separate contracts for 5 AFL craft unions: the Machinists , Electricians , Carpenters , Operating Engineers , and the Plumbers and Pipefitters; Lone Star has separate individual contracts with at least 3 of these designated craft unions . None of the contract units was established as the result of Board determinations and Board - conducted elections. The principal question presented by the Petitioner in this case is whether or not the multiemployer pattern of bargaining in which the Employers and the Petitioner have engaged for the past 3 years for production and delivery employees controls the determination of the appropriate unit for the previously unrepre- sented employees at the same plants whom the Petitioner now seeks . We do not think that it does. There has clearly been no pattern of multiemployer bargaining for employees who have had collective bargaining in the past. Even assuming that there had been such a pattern of multiemployer bargaining , this fact, although persuasive , would not necessarily control the bar- gaining pattern for every other group of hitherto unorganized employees .' Accordingly, in the absence of circumstances per- suasive of a broader unit, we find single - employer units ap- propriate for purposes of collective bargaining for the employees sought in this proceeding.4 The Employers , alleging that cashiers and shipping clerks are management employees , because they are responsible for "taking in millions of dollars " from drivers each year, and therefore constitute an integral part of the internal audit and control of the plants, further contend that the Petitioner should not be permitted to represent cashiers and shipping clerks at their plants because these employees check and audit the work of delivery men whom Petitioner presently represents and for whom it bargains under a renewed contract . We find no merit in either of the Employers ' contentions. Shipping clerks at each plant receive orders by telephone and prepare invoices . Checkers check the number of cases of beer placed on route trucks as they go out in the morning, and the number of empty cases on each truck as it returns in the eve- ning. The cashiers then determine from these figures how much the route driver owes the Employer and collects this amount from him. Cashiers take in money from route drivers at the end of the day and from "hotshot" drivers at the end of each run. There is some interchange between the shipping clerks and th!- 9Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 101 NLRB 101. 4 The Board has held that single- employer units are presumptively appropriate and will be recognized as such where there is no basis for finding broader units appropriate . Rainbo Bread Company, 92 NLRB 181. 194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cashiers at each plant . The duties of checkers , cashiers, and shipping clerks are analogous to those of plant clerical em- ployees rather than office clerical or management employees. Under these circumstances , we find nothing in the record to prevent the Petitioner from representing these employees in separate units if the employees select the Petitioner as their bargaining representative.5 We find that the following units are appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All cashiers , shipping clerks, and storeroom employees at the San Antonio, Texas , brewery of Pearl Brewing Company, excluding production and delivery employees , office clerical employees , professional employees , ' guards, all other em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All cashiers and shipping clerks at the San Antonio , Texas, brewery of Lone Star Brewing Company , excluding production and delivery employees , office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, all other employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. 6 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 5 Dr. Pepper Bottling Company, 78 NLRB 1261. 6 The record discloses that Lone Star employs no middlemen or storeroom employees. We therefore make no unit determination for this employment category at Lone Star. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. and OFFICE EMPLOYEESINTER- NATIONAL UNION, AFL , Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-1942. July 16, 1953 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 Bernard Marcus, 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 [Members Houston, Styles , and Peter- son]. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and Intervenor (United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO) seek a unit of hourly 106 NLRB No. 30.