Pine State Creamery Co., Inc.

892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD superseded by an effective bargaining history 7 on a broader unit basis, the existing, historical unit is controlling for decertification purposes., As the Board has repeatedly stated, Section 9(c) (1) (A) ( ii) "was designed to provide a method for determining whether an existing unit of employees desire to continue their current representation and the Board is required to conduct an election thereunder only when a question is raised concerning such current representation in the exist- ing unit." 9 The vague consideration of the "equities" involved, which essen- tially forms the majority rationale, is a novel, confusing, and irrele- vant factor to be injected into the particular issue of appropriate unit.10 In my view, the election herein has no justification under well defined Board policy and precedent, and can only serve to disrupt the existing bargaining relationship, by allowing a segment of employees properly belonging in the production unit to decide whether they wish to be unrepresented. MEMBER KIMBALL took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 7 The factor of bargaining history, save only in cases of conflict with fundamental Board policy, has always been aceorde(d significant, if not controlling, weight in deciding appropriate units. The reason is basic to the collective-bargaining principle, and flows from the Act' s major purpose of stabilizing industrial relations. $E.g., San Juan Mercantile Corp ., 117 NLRB 8 ; Chase Brass & Copper Co., 123 NLRB 1032 ; International Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Potash Division), 113 NLRB 53; U.S. Time Corporation, 108 NLRB 1435. 9 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115 NLRB 530, 532. 10 The decision herein provides that if a majority of the process control chemists vote for the Union, they will be included in the production unit-an exceptional procedure in decertification elections . I think the same condition was impliedly present in the 1958 consent election , or at least that the process control chemists must have known that the Union, if selected, would likely continue to represent them together with the production employees. And they must have been aware of, and acquiesced in, the 2-year contract which the Union thereafter executed covering them in a single overall unit. Pine State Creamery Company, Inc. and Southern Ice Cream' and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local #391-Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC- 1401. February 28, 1961 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 Martin L. Ball, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby armed. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing and in accord with the evidence. 130 NLRB No. 98. PINE STATE CREAMERY COMPANY, INC., ETC. 893 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 Rodgers and Kimball]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act .2 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees limited to the Employer's main plant in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should include its four branches and its farm. These is no history of bar- gaining. In view of the Employer's centralization of control and integration of operations, and the uniform application of its adminis- trative and personnel policies, described above, we find that an employerwide unit consisting of its main plant and four branches is appropriate .3 The Employer also operates a dairy and poultry farm. We find that the individuals on this farm, who tend cattle, raise poultry, and handle milk and eggs, are agricultural laborers within the mean- ing of the Act, as contended by the Petitioner, and they are, there- fore, excluded 4 The parties are in disagreement as to the unit placement of the following categories, which the Petitioner would exclude and the Em- ployer would include : 2 The Employer is engaged in manufacturing, processing, and distributing dairy and related products . All manufacturing and processing, and some distribution , is handled at the Employer's main plant in Raleigh , North Carolina . This plant furnishes all the products for distribution at branches located in Goldsboro , Dunn, Oxford , and Henderson, North Carolina, each approximately 50 miles from the main plant There is common ownership and control of all five establishments, including the branch at Henderson, which is separately incorporated as Southern Ice Cream. Officials of the Employer based in Raleigh supervise operations at the main plant as well as at the branches and visit the branches weekly. These officials are responsible for administrative and labor policies, including wage and fringe benefit schedules , which are applied uniformly at all five loca- tions. A central bookkeeping system, which is maintained at Raleigh , covers all five operations. Branch managers handle, hire , and discharge for their respective establish- ments, but are required to notify the Raleigh office of their actions. While there is no interchange of employees , branch personnel attend sales promotion meetings held at the main plant. Under all the circumstances of this case, we find that Pine State Creamery Company, Inc., and Southern Ice Cream constitute a single employer for jurisdiction and unit purposes . As the Employer, during a recent typical 12 -month period , purchased goods valued in excess of $50,000 which came directly from outside the State, we find that it is engaged in commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over it. 2 See Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Assooiation , 119 NLRB 817, 819. 4 Bemis Bro . Bag Company, 95 NLRB 44. 894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Laboratory workers: The Employer employs three laboratory workers who chemically test its dairy products. The Petitioner con- tends that these individuals should be excluded as confidential em- ployees since the results of their analyses are not made available to the public. As these laboratory workers do not assist or act in a con- fidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectu- ate management policies in the field of labor relations, we find that they are not confidential employees within the meaning of Board decisions. Moreover, as the laboratory workers have interests which are sufficiently allied to those of production and maintenance em- ployees to warrant their inclusion in the unit, we shall include them s Fieldmen: Two fieldmen, supervised by the Oxford branch man- ager, advise the Employer's farmworkers with respect to sanitation. Their work requires some experience or college training in animal husbandry or public health, but does not require that they be college graduates. We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that their interests are similar to those of the employees in the unit, and they are, therefore, included.' Office clericals: The Employer employs at its main office in Raleigh an office manager, a hostess who receives incoming personnel, switch- board operators, and routine office workers who maintain office records, handle the bookkeeping and payroll work, and operate automatic calculating machines. At each of its branches, the Employer employs one or more individuals who perform secretarial and routine office work. The Petitioner would exclude all these individuals as office clericals, while the Employer would exclude only those who it con- tends are confidential employees. We find it unnecessary to pass upon this contention as we find that the interests and working conditions of all the office clerical employees differ sufficiently from those of the other employees in the unit to warrant their exclusion in accordance with established Board policy. Addressograph girls: Two addressograph girls work in Raleigh, under the supervision of the retail sales manager, in a separate office which is located between the main office and the checkroom. They prepare records and mimeograph materials for the routemen, with whom they have frequent contact. Contrary to the Petitioner's con- tention that they are office clericals, we find them to be plant clericals, and they are, therefore, included in the unit.' Assistant supervisors: The parties are in dispute as to the unit place- ment of various departmental and branch assistant supervisors, route supervisors, and the assistant manager of the Oxford branch. As these individuals have no authority to change the employment status a See Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Association, supra, at 823. e See Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Association , supra, at 823. 7 Foremost Dairies, Inc., 124 NLRB 293, 295. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY 895 of any employees, or effectively to recommend such action, and as their direction of employees is routine and does not require the exercise of independent judgment, we find that they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, as contended by the Petitioner, and they are, therefore, included. Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer 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 Raleigh, Goldsboro, Dunn, Oxford, and Henderson, North Carolina, establishments, including laboratory workers Oxford fieldmen quality control employees, addressograph girls, routemen and route super- visors, assistant supervisors, the Oxford assistant manager, and filling and receiving department supervisors, but excluding agricultural laborers at the Employer's farm, office clerical employees, guards, managers, the assistant superintendent at Goldsboro, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 8 As we have directed an election in a larger unit than that requested by the Peti- tioner, we shall permit the Petitioner to withdraw from the election , upon written notice to the Regional Director , within 10 days from the date of the Decision. Phillips Petroleum Company and Bert H. Rose, et al., Petitioners and Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council and Affiliated Local Unions, AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-RD-177. February 28, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas K. Cassidy, 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 Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. 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 Petitioners, a group of individual employees of the Em- ployer, assert that the Union, which is currently recognized by the 1011, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO , hereinafter called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest. 130 NLRB No. 76.