The Beechnut Life Savers Co., Inc.

BEECHNUT FOODS DIVISION 123 Beechnut Foods Division of The Beechnut Life Savers Co., Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Local No. 182, Petitioner. Case No. 3-IBC-1790. June 10, 1957 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On February 20, 1957, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this proceeding,' finding that depending upon the desires of the truckdrivers a unit of such employees might be appropriate. Thereafter, by telegram dated February 27, 1957, the Employer re- quested the Board to reconsider its Decision and Direction of Election on the ground that the truckdrivers spend only a small percentage of their time in actual driving and, therefore, could not appropriately constitute a separate trait. On March 4, 1957, the Board issued its order herein, indefinitely postponing the election, reopening the record of this proceeding, and remanding it to the Regional Director for further hearing with respect to the duties of the truckdrivers. Pursuant to the Board's order of March 4, 1957, a further hearing was held before Thomas H. Ramsey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the reopened hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board, for .the following reasons,,reaffirms its finding that a unit of truckdrivers may be appro- priate. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of baby foods, grocery and candy products, and gum at its Canajoharie, New York, plant, the only plant involved in this proceeding. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of truckdrivers from an existing unit of production and maintenance employees currently represented by the Intervenor, Beechnut Employees Association. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance on the ground that there is no functionally distinct group of truckdrivers, and that, therefore, the existing plantwide unit of employees is the only unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer employs 4 truckdrivers, and 2 drivers who drive station wagons which are used primarily to transfer personnel to and from the airport and railroad station. They are supervised by the head of the unloading department and have their seniority in that department; there is, however, no interchange between employees classified as truckdrivers and other unloading department employees. The four truckdrivers load and dump garbage, scrap paper, and other waste, transport supplies and products from one plant building to I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 118 NLRB No. 15. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD another, and deliver finished products and mail from the shipping department to the post office. In most cases they load their own trucks and make the necessary deliveries and pickups. When not so engaged, they assist in loading or unloading other trucks along with members of the unloading crew. The Employer estimates that the 4 truckdrivers spend from 22 to 52 percent of their time in actual driving, and the remainder of their time in loading and unloading their trucks and other trucks. The record also discloses that on occasion other members of the un- loading crew may also drive trucks. However, such driving appears to be confined to removing trucks from the loading area in the morn- ing, storing them in heated areas during inclement weather, or oc- casionally drawing milk or picking up pears during the fall season, all of which requires no more than 25 percent of the time of the indi- vidual involved. As these employees are not classified as truckdrivers, and as their driving duties are clearly incidental to their principal duties, we find that their exclusion from the Petitioner's proposed unit does not render that unit inappropriate.2 As it is clear from the record that .the truckdrivers spend a major part of their time in driving and in loading and unloading trucks, which latter functions are incidental to driving, we find that these employees constitute a functionally distinct group such as the Board has traditionally accorded the right of self-determination, notwith- standing a history of bargaining on a broader basis.3 Furthermore, the Petitioner is a union which has historically represented truckdriv- ers. We find, therefore, that the Employer's truckdrivers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Petitioner also seeks to include in the voting group the two station wagon drivers. As the record shows that these two employees do not drive or load or unload trucks, but rather perform mechanical and garage work when not chauffeuring personnel, we shall exclude them from the voting group 4 We shall direct an election among the following group of employees : All truckdrivers at the Employer's Canajoharie, New York, food processing plant, excluding station wagon drivers, shipping and re- 2 Denver Publishing Company, 117 NLRB 1465. 3 Painesville Works, General Chemical Division, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1784. American Can Company, 108 NLRB 1657, and Richmond Engineering Company, Inc., 108 NLRB 1659, relied on by the Employer, were specifically overruled in Painesville Works, General Chemical Division, Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, supra, to the extent inconsistent therewith. Nor are the other cases cited by the Employer dia- positive of this case , as the issue in these cases (except for Beaunit Mills, Inc., 109 NLRB 651, 659, which involved a request for a truckdriver unit by a union which was not the traditional representative of truckdrivers ) was not the propriety of a unit com- posed solely of truckdrivers , but whether truckdrivers should be included in production and maintenance units where separate units of truckdrivers were not sought. * Interchemicai Corporation , 116 NLRB 1443. TUTTLE & KIFT, INC. 125 ceiving employees and helpers, all other production and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. We shall, however, make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of the employees as expressect in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the employees in the group described above, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Sup- plemental Decision and Direction of Election. Tuttle & Kift, Inc. and Production and Miscellaneous Workers Union of Chicago and Vicinity, Local 705, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5364. June 11,1957 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election en- tered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region on February 12, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on February 27,1957, under the supervision of the Regional Director among the employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the stipulation. Upon completion of the election, the parties were fur- nished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 229 eligible voters, 96 cast votes for the Petitioner, 125 against, and 1 was challenged. On March 5, 1957, the Petitioner timely filed objections to the elec- tion and the conduct thereof,.and timely served copies upon the Em- ployer. The objections alleged in substance that (1) during the course of the election campaign, Tuttle & Kift, Inc., published a series of letters which it sent to its employees, together with a photostatic copy of newspaper articles in an effort to persuade employees not to join the Union, and (2 ) in one of the letters the Company referred to the Union as the "Capone Local." 118 NLRB No. 6.