Philadelphia Lager Beer Brewers' Association

PHILADELPHIA LAGER BEER BREWERS' ASSOCIATION 491 During the operative and effective period of a certain certification of employee representative issued by the National Labor Relations Board on June 25, 1953, in Cases Nos 19- RC-1187 and 19-RM-73, or any other certification of a labor organi- zation, other than Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2781 , chartered by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , A. F. of L., we will not engage in, or encourage the employees of Everett Plywood & Door Corporation to engage in, a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport , or otherwise handle or work on any goods , articles , materials, or commodities , or to perform services where an object thereof is to force or require Everett Plywood & Door Corporation to recognize or bargain with us as the representa- tive of any employees of Everett Plywood &Door Corporation in the collective -bargaining unit of employees covered by such certification. LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 2781, chartered by the UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., Labor Organization. Dated . . ......... By . ........................... . . (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. PHILADELPHIA LAGER BEER BREWERS' ASSOCIATION i and BREWERY BOTTLERS LOCAL UNION NO. 741, af- filiated with INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2169. December 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 Julius Topol, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.' i The Association is composed of C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., Adam Scheidt Brewing Co., Henry F. Ortlieb Brewing Co., William Gretz Brewing Co., and Esslinger's Inc. 2 The International Union of the United Brewery , Flour, Cereal, Soft Dring and Distillery Workers of America, CIO, and its Locals 5 and 183 and the Joint Local Executive Board of Philadelphia and Vicinity (herein called the Local Board) intervened on the basis of a current contract covering the employees sought by the Petitioner . Local 5 has jurisdiction over the Employer 's brewing employees and Local 183 has jurisdiction over its bottling employees . The Local Board is comprised of representatives of the two locals and carries on negotiations on their behalf. 107 NLRB No. 138. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a multiemployer unit of bottling employees. The Intervenors contend that the exist- ing multiemployer unit of brewing and bottling employees is alone appropriate. The Employer took no position as to the composition of the unit. No one contends that the appropriate unit, whether composed of bottling employees only or brew- ing and bottling employees, should be other than multiem- ployer in scope. The Petitioner and Intervenors disagree as to the kind of unit for which collective bargaining has been conducted. The Petitioner contends that since certification of the In- tervenors in 1948 as the representative of a unit of brewing and bottling employees, the Intervenors have bargained for these employees as two separate units. The Intervenors contend that these employees have been bargained for as a single unit since 1937. Prior to 1946 the contracts with the Intervenors recognized the Local Board as the rep- resentative of the brewing and bottling employees. From 1946 to 1948 these employees were represented by another union. In 1948, pursuant to a consent election, the Inter- venors were certified as the bargaining representative for a single unit of both the brewing and bottling em- ployees, and successive contracts covering these em- ployees have been executed. These contracts recognize the two Locals rather than the Local Board as the bargaining representative. All contracts have covered both groups of employees. The Petitioner's contention that since 1948 the brewing and bottling employees have been represented separately is based primarily on the change in designation of the representative from the Local Board to the 2 Locals. However, it is undisputed that the contracts were negotiated by the Local Board, which at that time consisted only of the representatives from the 2 locals, and each contract was ratified by a majority vote of the members of the 2 locals at a joint meeting. We therefore con- clude that the change in designation of the representative in the contract did not alter the substance of the bargaining pattern. Moreover, nothing else appears in the record to warrant the conclusion that the parties have departed from the historical, certified bargaining unit. The fact that each Local is primarily responsible for the grievances of its members does not alter this conclusion in view of the fact that the other Local usually assists in processing grievances. Similarly the fact that requests for new employees are submitted to the Local having jurisdiction over the employees in the department making the WHITING CORPORATION 493 request is not significant since it appears that this is done primarily as a matter of convenience. Accordingly, we find that the history of collective bargaining has been on the basis of a single bargaining unit of brewing and bottling employees. 3 We consider then whether, in the light of the long bargaining history on the broader basis, bottling employees may be severed from the existing unit. It is not contended, nor does it appear that the bottling em- ployees constitute a craft group. Although the bottling and brew- ing employees are in separate departments and generally do not interchange with each other, there is frequent interchange of employees at one of the 5 breweries involved. The duties of the employees in both departments are substantially the same as the duties of such employees throughout the brewing industry. Different training is required for the different jobs but the degree of training required to attain proficiency in the work of either department is not extensive and there is no significant difference in the skills of the employees of the 2 departments. Upon all the facts, we find that the bottling-department em- ployees do not constitute a craft or departmental unit appro- priate for the purpose of severance from the larger unit.4 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3Goebels Brewery Company, et al., 105 NLRB 698. 4Goebels Brewery Company, et al., supra; Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 800. WHITING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SUB- ORDINATE LODGE NO. 92, A. F. of L., Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3173. December 22, 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 George H. O'Brien, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 'However, we reverse the hearing officer's ruling permitting International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 11, to intervene on the basis of a contract covering electricians which it had entered into in 1944 with Spencer and Morris Company. It appears that in 1948 the Employer had purchased certain assets from Spencer and Morris Company and tempo- rarily occupied its plant until the Employer built its own plant. Spencer and Morris Company thereafter continued in business at a nearby location. The Employer never assumed the above collective-bargaining agreement or any other obligation of Spencer and Morris Company. At no time did the Employer recognize the IBEW, nor did the IBEW claim to represent any em- 107 NLRB No. 108.