Terre Haute Coca Cola Bottling Co., Inc.

TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. 435 tenance employees and, in accord with our established practice with respect to outside salesmen, exclude them from the unit.,, Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer at its Beckley, Lewisburg, Logan, and Charleston, West Virginia, plants constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, including route super- visors, field men, milk testers or laboratory technicians, and plant clerical employees; 10 but excluding office employees, outside salesmen, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner contends that three regular seasonal employees are ineligible to vote because they are relatives of management. We agree as to Fred Hutchinson, son of the president of the Employer, and Jimmy Daniels, son-in-law of the manager of the Beckley plant, and find that they are not eligible to vote. However, we do not agree with the Petitioner's contention that Carlton Wassum is ineligible because his father is the plant materials records clerk in' Beckley; accordingly, we find that he is eligible to vote in the election 11 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 0 Natural Products Company, 82 NLRB 1418. 10 In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we include the waitress , janitor, receiving and shipping clerks, laborers, and regular seasonal employees ; and we exclude confidential secretaries and the foreman in the bottling department at Beckley. 11 Bob Tankersley Produce Company, 89 NLRB 974. TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. and LOCAL 85, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC--664. July 31, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,' a hearing was held before Joseph A. Butler, 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, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 100 NLRB No. 70. 227260-53-vol. 100-29 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act." 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Terre Haute, Indiana, plant, in- cluding driver-salesmen, with specific exclusions and inclusions, dis- cussed below. ,The Employer agrees generally to the Petitioner's unit request, with exceptions noted below. The Teamsters seeks to repre- sent the driver-salesmen and the production and maintenance em- ployees in two separate units. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL, Local 133, an Intervenor herein called the Carpenters, and Sign Writers Local Union 572, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, & Paper Hangers of America, AFL, an Inter- venor herein called the Painters, seek to sever the carpenters and the painters, respectively. Driver-salesmen: There are 12, employees in this classification. They drive trucks in designated territories, selling and delivering the Employer's products and picking up empty cases to be returned to the plant. The Teamsters has negotiated annual collective bargaining contracts covering these employees since at least 1949. The Board has found that driver-salesmen similar to these employees may ap- propriately be represented among the production and maintenance employees; it has also held that driver-salesmen may themselves con- stitute an appropriate Unit .2 Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination now, but shall await the results of the self-determina- tion elections hereinafter directed.3 Chteckers : The Petitioner and the Teamsters would include, and the Employer would exclude as supervisors, the two checkers. They are in charge of the plant when the supervisor is absent. Further, they schedule the work for the load and bottling crews and have the ' International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, Local 144, an Intervenor herein called the Teamsters, contends that its contract with the Employer covering the driver-salesmen is a bar to this proceeding. As the Intervenor failed to produce evidence that the current contract was executed before the petition herein was filed, we find that the- contract is not a bar to this proceeding. 2 Rockford Coca Cola Bottling Co, 81 NLRB 579; Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 80 NLRB 768 3 There is some indication in the record that the Teamsters would include in the driver- salesmen voting group the mechanic and mechanic 's helpers . The mechanic does the usual repairs on the trucks used by the driver-salesmen , but he drives the trucks only in testing after repairs . His helpers are used at times for other work around the plant. These employees, like most of the other employees in the plant , are supervised by the plant superintendent , whereas the driver-salesmen are supervised by the plant manager. Appar- ently, also , their method of pay is different from the driver -salesmen 's. We find that the interest of the mechanic and the mechanic 's helpers are more closely allied to those of the production and maintenance employees , and therefore we will include them in the latter voting group . Rockford Coca Cola Bottling Co., supra. TERRE HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. 437 power to discipline employees, and the record shows that they responsibly direct employees in the performance of their work. We find that the checkers are supervisors within the meaning of the amended Act, and we will exclude them. Carpenters: The Carpenters seeks to represent a single carpenter in a unit apart from the production and maintenance employees. As the Board has frequently held, a one-man unit is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.4 The request of the Carpenter is therefore denied. Painter and sign erectors : The Painters seeks a separate unit includ- ing the sign painter and the two sign erectors. The latter two employees set up and install advertising signs in stores or on bill- boards. There is no contention, nor is there any evidence in the record, that they are skilled or craft employees. They work, together with the sign painter, as a crew under the supervision of the adver- tising manager. The record does not indicate that interests of the sign erectors are so dissimilar from those of the other employees to warrant their severance in a separate unit. While the Board has customarily permitted severance of craft painters, a one-man craft unit, as indicated above, is_not an appropriate bargaining unit. The request of the Painters is therefore denied .5 We shall direct that separate elections be conducted among the fol- lowing groups of employees at the Employer's Terre Haute, Indiana, plant: 1. All production and maintenance employees, excluding driver- salesmen, the city delivery boy," office clerical employees, professional employees, checkers and all other supervisors 7 as defined in the Act. 2. All driver-salesmen only. If a majority in either voting group vote for the Teamsters they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If a majority in both voting groups vote for the Petitioner, both groups will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a single bargaining unit. In the event that a majority in only one of the two voting groups vote for the Petitioner, the em- ployees in that group may constitute a residual appropriate unit. The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives consistent herewith to the bargaining agent or agents se- lected for such unit or units which the Board, under the circumstances, find to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 4 Johns-Manville Products Corporation, 98 NLRB 748. 0 W. cE J. Sloane, 82 NLRB 924. As the duties and supervision of this employee are in the office only , we follow the agreement of the parties to exclude him. ' The advertising manager is alleged by the Employer to be a supervisor . The record indicates that the advertising manager directs the sign erectors and the sign painter in their work, using independent judgment, and has the power to discipline them. We find that the advertising manager is a supervisor and therefore exclude him. 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. Load crew: There are five high school students who work about 21/2 hours a day, 5 days a week, loading the trucks. Both the Peti- tioner and the Teamsters would include them among the employees voting. The Employer takes no position. As the members of the loading crew are regular part-time employees, we find that they have a sufficient interest to be eligible to vote .8 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] Cutter Laboratories, 98 NLRB 533. L. GORDON & SON, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-1068. July 31,1952 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on May 20, 1952." an election by secret ballot was held on June 6, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees of the Employer in the units found appropriate in the Decision. At the close of the election, the parties were furnished with tallies of ballots showing that in the L. Gordon & Son, Inc., unit of approximately 93 eligible voters, 93 cast ballots, of which 70 were for the Petitioner, 20 were against the Petitioner, and 3 were challenged; and in the Stylecraft Division of L. Gordon & Sons, Inc., unit of approximately 19 eligible voters, 19 cast ballots, of which 7 were for the Petitioner, 5 were against the Petitioner, and 7 were challenged. On June 12, 1952, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Rules and Regu- lations of the Board, the Regional Director investigated the challenged ballots and the objections. On June 26, 1952, the Regional Director issued and served upon the parties his report on objections and chal- lenges in which he recommended that the challenges be sustained,2 that the objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified. There- after, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and to his recommendation that the objections be overruled. ' Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. :The parties agreed , subsequent to the election , that the challenges to the ballots in the Stylecraft unit, which were sufficient to affect the results of the election, should be sustained on the ground that the voters challenged were permanently laid off by the Employer. Accordingly , the Regional Director recommended sustaining the challenges to these ballots and no exceptions were filed to this recommendation. 100 NLRB No. 71.