Dixie-Portland Flour Mills, Inc.

DIXIE-PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS 681 Dixie-Portland Flour Mills, Inc. and Teamsters Local 515 Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help- ers of America, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-8277 November 20, 1970 ORDER B' MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On July 29, 1970, the Acting Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Decision and Order in the above- captioned proceeding in which he denied Petitioner's petition to sever a unit of over-the-road truckdrivers, local truckdrivers, and truck cleaners from an existing unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, present- ' Olinkraft, Inc, 179 NLRB No 61, Consolidated Packaging Corporation, 178 NLRB No 88, Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Inc, 174 NLRB No 194, Dura -Container, Inc, 164 NLRB 293 2 Pursuant to Sec 3 (b) of the Act, this case was decided by Members Brown and Jenkins, with Member Fanning dissenting He would grant review for the following reasons The drivers are separately supervised and their department is located apart from any other department None of the over-the-road drivers do plant work or load their trucks or have any contact with plant employees Rather , they spend all their time in driving duties and they are paid on a basis different from the plant employees The local drivers do no plant work either , being engaged in local driving or the spotting of trucks Departmental seniority controls driver assignments ly represented by the Intervenor, Bakers Local No. 25 of Chattanooga, subordinate of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a timely Request for Review on the grounds that the Regional Director should have granted severance on the authority of Wright City Display Manufacturing Company, 183 NLRB No. 86. The Employer and the Intervenor filed timely oppositions to the Request for Review. The Board, having duly considered the matter, is of the opinion that the Request for Review does not raise any substantial issues warranting review and should be denied.' Accordingly, It is hereby ordered that the Petitioner's Request for Review be, and it is hereby denied. By direction of a panel of the Board.2 With a minor exception, there is no interchange between drivers and plant employees In Wright City Display Manufacturing Company, 183 NLRB No 86, on facts deemed by Mr Fanning to be almost identical, the Board granted severance and therefore he sees no reason for not reaching the same result here Further, Mr Fanning notes that in the first contract negotiations in 1965 the drivers had no representative on the negotiating committee and the local drivers were excluded from the contract In 1967, although the truckdrivers were led to believe that a separate contract for truckdrivers would he negotiated only an addendum was added to the overall contract On these facts , and under the standards of Kalamazoo Paper Box Corporation, 136 NLRB 134, and Mallinekrodi Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387, Member Fanning would give the Petitioner the election it seeks 186 NLRB No. 99