American Can Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1657 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1657
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS
AND HELPERS "GENERAL" LOCAL UNION NO. 200,
Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3583. June 30, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Kleen,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 employees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for
the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of truckdrivers from an
existing production and maintenance unit currently represented
by the Intervenor. The Intervenor having represented the pro-
duction and maintenance employees since 1950, opposes sever-
ance on the ground that the requested unit is inappropriate.
Although the Employer favors the overall production andmain-
tenance unit, it agrees to abide by the Board 's decision.
The Employer is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the
manufacture of metal containers for food products and main-
taining plants in 28 States. This proceeding involves only its
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, operations.
The record discloses that the Employer employs approxi-
mately 10 semitrailer truckdrivers who are engaged full time
during the busy summer season , June through the middle of
September, in hauling beer cans to breweries withinthe city of
Milwaukee. All but 1 or 2 of these drivers are hired in some
other capacity and subsequently are elevated to the truckdriver
status. During the slack winter season,2 in accordance with
plantwide seniority governing layoffs, approximately 5 drivers
are temporarily transferred back to their original jobs or to
other production work inside the plant. When so transferred, they
receive the pay of the assigned job. These 10 drivers constitute
a part of the overall shipping department, and although they
at times work a different shift and are paid a slightly higher
hourly wage than production employees, they share the same
lAt the hearing, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene based
upon its 3-year contractual relations with the Employer.
2 The record does not indicate the duration of the slack season, but it appears that, with the
exception of short periodic intervals, it ordinarily commences in late September and extends
through the following May.
108 NLRB No. 234.
1658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
supervision , vacation rights , pension rights , and other fringe
benefits with the production and maintenance employees.
The Board has recently reexamined the issue involving the
severance of employees from existing plantwide groups . ' While
primarily devoted to an analysis of the Board ' s revised policy
concerning the severance of craft groups , the American Potash
decision also recognized that certain other groups falling out-
side the true craft concept , but which comprise "functionally
distinct departments containing employees identified with tradi-
tional trades or occupations distinct from that of other em-
ployees and who have common special interest in collective
bargaining for that reason, " may also be entitledto severance.
However, in according "recognition to the historically estab-
lished separate interests of certain departmental groups which
have by tradition and practice acquired craft like characteris-
tics ," the Board noted that it will require , inter alia , strict
proof in each instance that the departmental group is functionally
distinct and separate.
In view of the above considerations , we find that the facts of
this case do not warrant the severance of the truckdrivers from
the existing production and maintenance unit . Of particular
significance is the fact that most of these employees are not
hired as drivers, and are to a large extent throughout much of
the year, shifted back to nondriving jobs, thus performing pro-
duction work inside the plant along with other production and
maintenance employees . Because of these circumstances it does
not appear that they constitute a craft or a functionally distinct
departmental group with special interests essentially different
from those of the Employer ' s other employees under the test
as enunicated in the American Potash decision . 4 Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Chairman Farmer, dissenting:
I do not agree with this dismissal. I construe American
Potash as permitting the severance of truckdrivers upon peti-
tion by the traditional union in all cases in which it is shown
that the drivers sought constitute a functionally distinct and
separate departmental group . This is the test we laid down in
American Potash , and I think it is fully satisfied here.
I do not understand that my colleagues take the position that
American Potash precludes the severance of truckdrivers as
a matter of general policy, and, if my understanding is correct,
I do not think the facts on which the majority relies are suffi-
cient to distinguish this case from the normal situation in which
severance would be granted.
3 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
4See Richmond Engineering Company, Inc , 108 NLRB 1659. Cf. Consolidated Vultee
Aircraft Corporation, Pomona Division, 108 NLRB 159.
RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 1659
The majority gives weight to the fact (1) that the truckdrivers
were largely recruited from production jobs, (2) that some of
them are transferred to other work during slack seasons,
(3) that they share common employee benefits, and (4) that
they are a part of a larger shipping department- I regard fac-
tors (1) (recruitment from production) and (3) (common bene-
fits) of no significance in a severance case for the reason that
they are customarily present in a plant where a group such as
this has been previously included in an overall unit. Factor
(4) (inclusion of truckdrivers in a shipping department) will,
if treated as a bar to truckdriver severance, operate to deny
severance in a great many cases, for I am sure employers
frequently write their table of organization so as to include their
truckdrivers in an overall warehouse and shipping department.
While American Potash speaks in terms of departmental units,
I did not assume that this meant that the Board would consider
the employer's organization chart as controlling. In sum, the
factors here relied upon by the Board, if applied singly or in
combination, would probably put an effective end to the sever-
ance of truckdriver units.
The truckdriver unit sought by the AFL Teamsters Union
constitutes a functionally distinct and separate departmental
group entitled to separate representation, if the employees
so desire, despite its past inclusion in the overall bargaining
unit. And, as unquestionably the petitioner is the traditional
bargaining agent for such a unit, a severance election should
be directed for the truckdrivers on the present petition.
RICHMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. and TRUCK
DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL NO. 592, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 5-RC-1390. June 30, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Smith,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting . commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
108 NLRB No. 235.