Carpenter Baking Co., Inc.

288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By that discharge the Respondent has contributed support to the Union named in paragraph numbered 1, above, and has thereby violated and is violating Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. 4. By the discharge, by the contribution of support , and by being a party to and permitting the existence of a contract containing unlawful union -security provisions, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Carpenter Baking Company, Inc. and Bakery & Confectionery Workers Local Union No. 205 of The Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4185. April 19,1955 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 Joseph Cohen, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 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. On December 17, 1954, the Petitioner filed the petition in this pro- ceeding requesting a production and maintenance unit. At the hear- ing the Employer agreed with the Petitioner that only a production and maintenance unit is appropriate. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 311, AFL, referred to herein as Operating Engineers, intervened and requested a separate unit of all maintenance depart- 1 The Employer is engaged at its Milwaukee , Wisconsin , plant in the manufacture and wholesale of bakery goods. During the first 20 weeks after the Employer purchased the plant in July 1954, it bought supplies which were shipped direct to it from out of the State valued at $299,366 . On the basis of this figure projected over a 1-year period, the Employer estimates its yearly out-of-State purchases as $778,352. We therefore find, con- trary to the contention of Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 344, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein re- ferred to as Teamsters , Intervenor, that the Employer is engaged in commerce and it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction . Jonesboro Grain Drying Coopera- tive, 110 NLRB 481. 112 NLRB No. 42. CARPENTER BAKING COMPANY, INC. 289 ment employees including firemen and maintenance helpers. Teamsters also intervened and requested a separate unit of all "ship- ping room" employees on the first floor of the plant. After the hearing but before the Board's decision, the Petitioner, on February 11, 1955, filed with the Board a telegraphic motion to with- draw its petition without prejudice. Teamsters has no objection to the motion, but the Employer and Operating Engineers oppose the re- quest. Operating Engineers requests the Board to direct an election in the maintenance unit or grant it permission to file a separate petition. Under these circumstances we shall not permit the petition to be withdrawn, but we hereby grant permission for the Petitioner to with- draw from the election directed herein with prejudice to its filing of a new petition for a period of 6 months from the date of this decision among the production employees, unless good cause is shown why the Board should entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period. As none of the Unions involved in this proceeding desire an election in the production and maintenance unit, we shall direct no election in such unit.' However, as Operating Engineers and Teamsters have submitted a 30-percent showing of interest, sufficient to maintain a petition in their own right, and desire elections in the maintenance and "shipping room" units respectively, we shall consider these parties as cross petitioners, and proceed to the question of the appropriateness of the units requested by them.' 4. There is no bargaining history for any of the employees involved in this proceeding. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and wholesale of bakery products. All bread is made on the second floor and sweet products are made on the third floor. The unit requested by Teamsters con- sists of 12 employees classified by the Employer as utility men, or help- ers. There is no separate shipping room or department in the plant. The requested employees are engaged on the first floor of the plant in routine work of a simple nature such as putting bakery products on and taking them off various racks, conveyors, and machines; operating bread slicing and wrapping machines; taking empty cartons to the machines; packing wrapped bakery products in the cartons; and tak- ing the cartons to the trucks where the sales drivers do the loading. In all, 60 of the Employer's 90 employees bear the same classification and are engaged in similar duties on all 3 floors of the plant. There is frequent interchange among the utility men on the various floors, all of 8 See Scars, Roebuck & Company, 107 NLRB 716 3 See Alloy Manufactu?anq Company , 107 NLRB 1201 ; cf Vtetorville Lsme Rock Com- pany, 107 NLRB 1145 290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD them are subject to daily transfer to jobs all over the plant. There is no set supervision, as the eight foremen also interchange among all floors. Benefits and working conditions are the same for all produc- tion employees. Upon these facts it is apparent that the unit re- quested by Teamsters consists of part, but not all, of the production employees. As it does not conform with any Board standard of ap- propriateness, we find that the requested unit of "shipping room" em- ployees on the first floor of the plant is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The maintenance department unit requested by Operating Engi- neers is composed of five employees classified as firemen and main- tenance helpers under the supervision of the chief engineer. The firemen are licensed to operate the automatic gas-fed boiler and the standby stoker-fed boiler, which are housed in a separate area of the plant and are used to heat the building and also in connection with the baking process. Two of the firemen are engaged exclusively in this duty. A third, the relief fireman, works on Saturday only, watch- ing the boiler, answering the telephone, and making rounds of the plant. The remaining two firemen, in addition to their duties in the boilerroom, are the regular maintenance men for the plant. As such, they do minor machine repair and minor carpentry, plumbing, and electrical repair throughout the plant. The 2 maintenance helpers have no duties in the boilerroom, but assist the 2 firemen-maintenance men in their plant maintenance duties. The benefits and working conditions of the maintenance employees are similar to those of other employees. In view of these facts, it appears that the Employer's operations are not so integrated as to destroy the separate identity of the maintenance employees, a group whose interests are distinguish- able from those of the production employees. Therefore, in accord- ance with the Board's established policy of granting separate repre- sentation of such maintenance employees, in the absence of any bar- gaining history on a broader basis, we find that the maintenance de- partment employees, including firemen and maintenance helpers, but excluding all other employees, the chief engineer, and all other super- visors as defined in the Act, as requested by Operating Engineers, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and we shall direct an election therein.4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDO_NI took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. *Shoreland Freeze)o . Joe, 108 NLRB 723