Greenbrier Dairy Products Co.

432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD date of the election herein. The Employer contends that the Carpen- ters and its local union should be denied this opportunity because of their asserted impropriety in failing to disclose the above-related facts to the Board before the election in this case was held. As no exceptions have been filed by either the Carpenters or the Employer addressed to the merits of the Regional Director's find- ings or conclusions, we 2 shall adopt his recommendations. We find it unnecessary at this time to pass on the. Employer's exception, as the Board has been administratively advised that the Carpenters' local union does not now intend to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and we regard the filing of a new petition by the Carpen- ters or its local union with a request for a new election within 12 months from the date of the election herein as highly speculative. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 36-RC-723 be vacated, that the election held•pur- suant thereto be declared a nullity, and that the petition for investi- gation and certification of representatives of employees of Brookings Plywood Corporation, filed herein by United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters & Joiners of America, AFL, in Case No. 36-RC-723, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 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]. GREENBRIER DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY' and LocAL No. 175, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-R0- 1532. July 1952 1 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 Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 100 NLRB No. 72. GREENBRIER DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY 433 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor 2 contend that their contract is a bar to this proceeding. This contract, which has a termination date of June 30,1952, provides that "either party hereto may terminate this agreement on an earlier date by giving at least sixty (60) days notice in writing, to the other party of such desired early termination, and on the 61st day after such written notice is given, this contract shall become null and void." As this provision renders the contract terminable at will by either party, the contract cannot operate as a bar 3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section :1 (s-) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The Petitioner requests an Employer-wide production and-main- tenance unit. The parties agree generally as to the scope of the unit. However, the Petitioner would exclude, and the Employer and Inter- venor would include, certain categories of employees which have been part of the contract unit: Route supervisors. These employees are primarily relief driver- salesmen, and receive the same salaries and work the same hours. They have no supervisory authority, the name of the employer- classi- fication having been chosen to give the Employer prestige with its customers. We therefore include the route supervisors in the unit." Field, men. These employees do educational and promotional work among farmers in the areas from which the Employer draws most of its raw milk, helping these farmers bring up their standards of produc- tion and advising them on matters of sanitation. As no special train- ing or education is necessary for these jobs other than general knowl- edge of the dairy industry, we find that the field men are not technical employees with interests different from those of the other employees in the unit of the type normally excluded from production and main- tenance units. We shall therefore include them in the unit. Milk testers or laboratory technicians. One of the employees bear- ing this classificatiol works in the laboratory full time, while the other is a part-time S field man. They conduct tests for butter fat content and bacteria. count. While the part-time field man has a college-degree in dairy technology and is a bacteriologist, the labora- United Construction Workers, affiliated with United Mine Workers of America. Texas Telephone Company, 93 NLRB 741 4 The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of inadequate interest showing is denied. Showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination. The Viaking Corporation, 90 NLRB 1006. Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has an adequate interest in the unit herein found appropriate. 5 Dodd Distributing Company, 94 NLRB 1185. 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tory worker was promoted from production worker, was trained- on the job and there is some question as to whether she has even finished high school. The Employer requires no special training or education for the position. The record indicates that four production workers are capable of and occasionally perform these duties, and that most production workers could be trained on the job in about 2 weeks to perform them. Because of the routine nature of this work, we con- clude that the milk testers are not technical employees and include them in the unit8 Plant clerical employees. Included in this group are the clerk who keeps a record and inventory of truck parts, whose desk is in the garage; the checkers who work in the plant checking the loads taken out and brought back by the drivers; the clerks who keep general manufacturing records, and who work in a separate office only -be- cause there is no room for them in the plant; and the clerk who keeps records of all materials used in the plant. As these employees are plant clericals engaged in an aspect of production, we shall, in accord ance with Board policy, include them in the production and mainte- nance unit.? Office employees. This classification includes payroll, accounts re- ceivable, accounts payable, and sales record clerks and a receptionist- telephone operator in Beckley, and sales record and payroll clerks in Lewisburg. They work in the office at these locations and are super- vised by the office manager; the plant clerical employees, discussed above, work in the plant or garage under the supervision of the plant superintendent. The duties of the office employees are company- wide; plant clerical employees are concerned only with theespective branch plants. The main reason advanced by the Employer for in- cluding the office employees is that they have been included, for bar- gaining purposes in the past. However, because of the fundamental differences in the work and interests of the two groups, we do not con- sider bargaining history to be sufficient reason for departing from the Board's established policy of excluding office employees from pro- duction and maintenance units .8 Outside salesmen. The Employer described these employees as having "the usual duties of any salesman who is engaged in selling merchandise." They are supervised by the assistant sales manager. Their salaries - are not covered by the collective bargaining agree- ment, but they make their own employment contracts directly with the Employer. On the record before us, we conclude that they have no substantial community of interest with the production and main- 6 Solvents Corporation, 80 NLRB 277. * Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76. 61Standard Oil Company, 80 NLRB' 1276. 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 units 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."' [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. n Bob Tankersley Produce Company, 89 NLRB 974. TER= HAUTE COCA COLA BOTTLING CO., INC. and LOCAL 85, INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINE AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-664. July 31, 19-62 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