Bemis Bro. Bag Co.

336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD seeks to represent these drivers as part of a larger unit and except as noted above, there is no bargaining history affecting these em- ployees. In view of all circumstances, therefore, we find that the drivers at Greeley and Sterling have a sufficient community of in- terest to warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit.' We find, accordingly, that all metropolitan and territorial drivers headquartered at the Employer's Greeley and Sterling, Colorado, pickup stations and serving the Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Sterling, Colorado, and Sidney, Nebraska, areas, ex- cluding all supervisors 5 within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Employer in effect contends that the employees are not en- titled to an immediate election because the Greeley and Sterling plants may be reconverted to processing, or in the event that they are not, all drivers may be hired on a contract basis. As these possibilities appear wholly speculative, we find no merit in the Employer's con- tention and shall therefore direct an immediate election.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 Chemical Express, 117 NLRB 29. 5 As the record establishes that the foremen at Greeley and Sterling responsibly direct the work of the other drivers, and have and exercise the authority to hire and discharge, we find they are supervisors and shall exclude them from the unit. We shall also ex- clude the two contract drivers at Sterling who collect materials from the Fort Morgan, Wray, and Otis areas, in view of the parties' agreement that they are not employees. 8 Standard Automotive Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 726. Bemis Bro. Bag Co. and Warehouse Union Local 12, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America,' Petitioner. Case No. W-RC- 3644. December 5, 1958 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 Shirley N. Bingham, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 'Herein called Local 12. 2 At the hearing, Textile Workers Union of America, Local 71, AFL-CIO, herein called Textile Workers, served a subpoena duces tecum on Local 12, requiring it to produce books and records or other evidence of payments made in the form of strike benefits to the Employer's employees. At the same time counsel for Textile Workers made certain remarks about both Local 12 and its parent International Union. Local 12 filed a petition to revoke subpoena duces tecum, and moved to strike the remarks of counsel for Textile Workers. The hearing officer revoked the subpena, and granted the motion to strike. It appears from the statements made at the hearing by counsel for Textile Workers that 122 NLRB No. 52. BEMIS BRO. BAG CO. 337 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. 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 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, Local 12, seeks to represent a unit of produc- tion and maintenance employees, excluding warehouse employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors. Textile Workers contends that the unit sought is inappro- priate because it does not include warehouse employees in the unit. Local 6, in accord with Local 12, would exclude warehouse employees from the overall unit, and the Employer takes no position as to which unit, if any, is appropriate. The Employer manufactures textile and paper bags at its San Francisco plant. Its operations are carried on in three interconnected buildings and are subdivided into a pressroom department, plate department, multiware department, textile department, maintenance department, and warehouse department .4 Employees, when hired, are assigned to one of these departments and are not thereafter trans- ferred to another department except in emergency. The employees in each department are directed by a foreman who is admittedly a supervisor. The warehouse department employees work in the basement of each of the three plant buildings, and are supervised by a warehouse fore- man. Raw materials are received in the warehouse and are delivered by warehouse personnel to the department where needed. Finished products are removed from the production departments by ware- house personnel, and taken to the warehouse, where they are shipped to customers. All employees, including those in the warehouse, were represented by Textile Workers from 1938 to 1955. Since 1955, Local 6 has nego- its subpena was designed to elicit evidence that Local 12 engaged in unfair labor practices by coercing the employees herein, through promises of benefits, to abandon Textile Workers . To admit such evidence in a representation proceeding would clearly be con- trary to established Board policy. The stricken remarks related to the same subject as the subpenas . Accordingly, we affirm the foregoing rulings of the hearing officer. 3 At the hearing, Textile Workers , and International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union, Local 6 (Ind. ), herein called Local 6, intervened on the basis of a con- tractual interest. * The warehouse department is also called the shipping and receiving department and consists of the warehouse employees whom Petitioner would exclude. 505395-59-vol. 122-28 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tiated contracts with the Employer covering the warehouse employees alone, and they have been excluded from the production and main- tenance unit represented by Textile Workers. All employees receive comparable benefits regardless of bargaining representative. From the foregoing it is clear that a production and maintenance unit, including warehouse employees, may be appropriate. It is also clear that in view of the history of separate bargaining for ware- house employees, separate units of (1) warehouse employees, alone, and (2) all other employees may be appropriate.5 However, as no union other than Local 6 has made an adequate showing among the warehouse employees, and Local 6 does not desire to participate in an election among such employees, we shall not direct an election among the warehouse employees, but only among the following em- ployees of the Employer who, we find, under the circumstances, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's San Francisco, California, plant, including the textile department group leader, the maintenance department group leader, the multi- ware supervisor and lie tex,ile department supervisor of women, but excluding department foremen,6 warehousemen, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 Adams Coal Company, Inc., 118 NLRB 1493. 6 The parties agree and we find, that the specified group leaders and "supervisors" whom we have included are not supervisors under the Act, but that department foremen are such supervisors. Doughboy Plastic Production , Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 32-RC-1150. December 5, 1958 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, dated April 22, 1958, an election was conducted on May 13, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among the employees at the Employer's West Helena, Arkansas, plant. At the conclusion of the election, the par- ties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approxi- mately 385 eligible voters, 364 cast ballots, of which 79 were for the Petitioner and 267 were against the Petitioner. There were 15 122 NLRB No. 45.