Taylor Baking Co.

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD increase wages or benefits the 3 raises that you have gotten plus the increase in insurance benefits is part of the Company's long range plan. There are more raises to come, but you know and I know that money cannot be picked out of the air and union organizers can not give it to you either. We are going to make Ideal Bakery one of the leaders in this area . We are going to make it a profitable busi- ness. And working together-you and I are going to earn further increases in pay and benefits and build real job security. In closing let me remind you-this is your fight-the only way we will win is by the Company and you sticking together . These union bakeries that have Mr. Merle Smiths Union would like to see us hurt. They would like to see us closed by a strike . Just remember-you and I are the ones that will suffer most because of Union strikes and trouble. VOTE NO! I thank you. Taylor Baking Company and Local 42, American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 10-RC-5503. June 28, 1963 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On March 25, 1963, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued his Decision and Order dismissing the petition in this pro- ceeding on the ground that the record failed to establish that the Employer's operations meet any of the Board's jurisdictional stand- ards. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review, and a statement in support thereof, in which it contended, inter alia, that the Employer's operations do meet the Board's indirect outflow standard, and requesting that the hearing be reopened to receive additional evidence on jurisdiction. On April 10, 1963, the Board, by telegraphic Order, remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for purposes of reopening the hearing for further investigation of the Employer's operations. A further hearing was held on May 1, 1963, before Scott P. Watson, hearing officer. On May 16, 1963, the Regional Director issued an order transferring the case to the Board. The Board 1 has considered the entire record in this case and makes the following findings : 1. The Employer is engaged at Atlanta, Georgia, in the production and sale of bakery rolls. During 1962 is purchased from outside the State of Georgia materials valued at approximately $20,000. Its gross sales, all of which were made within the State, amounted to approxi- mately $105,000. Of this amount, products valued in excess of $50,000 were disposed of, in the manner set forth below, through retail grocery stores, each of which has annual gross sales exceeding $500,000. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. 143 NLRB No. 53. TAYLOR BAKING COMPANY 567 The Employer has arrangements with the area and store managers of several retail grocery chains, covering approximately 120 stores located in the Atlanta area. Under these arrangements, the store managers allot space on their shelves for the Employer's products, and the Employer's drivers call at each store two or three times a week to remove stale rolls and to stock the shelves with fresh rolls, using their own discretion as to the quantity displayed, within the limitations of the allotted shelf space. However, the store manager may revoke the allocation of shelf space if in his judgment the sales of the Employer's products do not bring enough revenue to justify continuing the arrangement. Customers of the stores purchase the rolls as they do other products in the stores, paying the checkers employed by the stores. The Employer bills each chain weekly for the selling price of the products actually sold by the stores, less the stores' markup. The Employer contended, and the Regional Director found, that the Employer is an integrated enterprise engaged in manufacturing and retail sale of its products, and that the Employer's operations fail to meet the Board's standards for such an enterprise. We find, however, that in the furnishing of its baked products to retail stores for sale at a markup to the ultimate consumers, the Employer is en- gaged in a wholesale operation. Accordingly, we find that, even though the stores are not obligated for any of the Employer's prod- ucts which they do not sell, the Board's jurisdictional standard for "the furnishing of goods or services to individual units of retail enter- prises" 2 is nevertheless applicable to the Employer's operations. As the Employer annually furnishes goods valued in excess of $50,000 to retail grocery stores, each of which has annual gross sales of $500,000, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.3 2. The labor organization involved claims 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. 4. The Petitioner requests an election in a unit of all employees of the Employer's bakery, excluding truckdrivers, office clerical employ- ees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer takes the position that all of its employees should be included in the unit and permitted to vote in the election. As Joseph Garratt, the baker, responsibly directs the work of em- ployees, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall, therefore, exclude him from the unit. We shall also Szemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, footnote 12. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88 568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD exclude the wife of the president of the Company, who works in the office, in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Act. Hammond, a production employee who also answers the plant telephone during the absence of the president and his wife, does not responsibly direct em- ployees, nor possess any of the other statutory indicia of supervisory authority, and we shall, therefore, include her in the unit 4 The chief function of the two truckdrivers, Arrendale and John Garratt, is to load their trucks, deliver bakery products to the grocery stores, pick up the stale rolls, stock the store shelves, and prepare sales slips. When they return from their routes, they unload their cargo and then work with the bakery employees for the remainder of the day. Garratt, who is the baker's son, works in the plant for several hours every day and usually on Sunday also. Arrendale works in the plant to a somewhat lesser extent. The only selling done by a driver consists of asking the manager of a new store on his route for permission to leave products in the store. The drivers,, who are su- pervised by the president, are paid a straight salary. Under all the circumstances, we find that the drivers share a close community of employment interest with the bakery employees, and we shall there- fore include them in the unit.,' Accordingly, we find that all the employees of the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, bakery, including truckdrivers, but excluding the baker, the president's wife, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 The parties apparently agree to the inclusion of A. M. Phillips , who works alone at night mixing ingredients according to written instructions of the baker , and we shall include him. s Tops Chemical Company, 137 NLRB 736. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Seafarers Inter- national Union, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dis- trict, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-7203. June 28, 1963 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 Henry M. Kelleher, hearing 'Subsequent to the hearing, the Petitioner moved to amend the name of the labor organization to that set forth above. 143 NLRB No. 60.