Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 194 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election. Thereafter, on August 9, 1954, following an investigation
the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on objections, in which he found that the objections raised no
substantial and material issues and recommended that they be over-
ruled. The objecting parties filed timely exceptions to the Regional
Director's report.
The exceptions to the Regional Director's report concern the objec-
tions that (1) letters sent to the employees by the Employer falsely
asserted that the Repeal Association had the support of the Employer,
and (2) speeches broadcast by the Smelter Workers within 24 hours
of the election from a sound truck on the street near the plant were
heard throughout the plant by the employees.
The Regional Director's investigation disclosed that the Employer's
letters did not contain a threat or reprisal but merely expressed a
preference for one of the labor organizations for reasons set forth
without coercion or promise of benefit, and that the Smelter Workers'
speeches were heard by some employees within the 24-hour preelection
period but only when they were leaving the plant on their own time,
after they had completed their shift.
The Regional Director concluded, in accordance with Board prece-
dents, that neither the letters nor the speeches improperly interfered
with the employees' free choice of their bargaining representative.'
We agree with the Regional Director that these objections have no
merit and, accordingly, adopt his recommendations that the objections
be overruled.
[The Board ordered that the Regional Director conduct a runoff
election among the employees in the appropriate unit as set forth
in the Decision and Direction of July 6, 1954, to determine whether
these employees desire to be represented by UAW-CIO or by Local
700, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers,
Independent.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
2Underwood corporation, 108 NLRB 1368 , Stewart-Warner corporation , 102 NLRB
1153, 1157.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.' and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION, LOCAL 153, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 9-RC-6$90. Oc-
tober 4,1954
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 John J. Carmody, hearing
1 Name of the Employer appears as amended in the record.
110 NLRB No. 28
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 195
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 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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all salesmen employed in the Brook-
lyn, Bronx, Manhattan, and Westbury, New York, branch offices of
the Employer's region 1 sales division. The Employer moved to dis-
miss the petition on the ground that the only appropriate unit is either
a companywide unit or a regionwide unit, including the salesmen in
the Buffalo, New York, and Boston, Massachusetts, branch offices in
addition to those requested by the Petitioner. The motion, to dismiss
is denied for the following reasons :
The Employer is a nationwide beer manufacturer and distributor,
with home offices in St. Louis, Missouri. Its sales activities are cen-
trally directed by a home office vice president and sales manager who
supervise the Employer's eight sales regions. In charge of each region
is a regional manager who is responsible for all of the sales in the
region, whether through the Employer's branch offices or through
independent distributors. Labor and personnel policies are formu-
lated in St. Louis. However, the regional manager can modify these
policies to conform to his particular area. He also fixes the regional
sales quotas and with St. Louis' approval determines the number of
salesmen each branch office in his region will employ.
While these factors tend to support the position of the Employer
that a companywide or region-,vide unit may be appropriate, they are
not alone determinative of the unit question. The record reflects that
sales of region 1 encompasses seven States.' The greater part of this
territory is serviced by independent distributors, while the six branch
offices, in the region service the area in and about New York City,
Boston, and Buffalo. Each branch office is directed by a branch
manager who is responsible for the salesmen assigned to his branch
and who effectively recommends as to their hiring, salary increases,
spending money, and car allowances. Sales meetings are regularly
held in each branch office. The record further shows that the Brook-
lyn, Bronx, Manhattan, and Westbury branch offices are in a distinct
2 The Employer' s request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record, including
the briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
3 Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
New York
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
metropolitan area. They are all within 32 miles of the regional office,'
whereas the Buffalo and Boston branch offices are 400 and 227 miles
distant. Moreover, the sales territory of each of the metropolitan
branches is contiguous, while the territory of the Buffalo and Boston
branches is widely separated and not contiguous with that of any other
office. Further, there is no interchange of salesmen between the Buf
falo, Boston, and metropolitan area branches. On the other hand,,
salesmen are interchanged among the four metropolitan branches.
Thus, when the Brooklyn branch was recently established, it was.
staffed with salesmen from the other metropolitan branches. In addi-
tion, when a metropolitanwide advertising campaign is undertaken,
all the salesmen in. the four metropolitan area branches meet together
to discuss the campaign.
As it appears that the salesmen in the 4 New York metropolitan.
branches are located in a distinct geographical area, and that, through
interchange and personal contact, they have a community of interests
separate and distinct from the salesmen in the other 2 widely separated.
branches, we find that the metropolitan salesmen constitute an appro-
priate unit.'
The parties are not in dispute as to the composition of the unit ex-
cept as to the merchandising and sales promoters whom the Employer
would include and the Petitioner would exclude. As their primary
function is to promote the sale of the Employer's product and, in ef-
fectuating this result, they work in close association with the salesmen,,
we shall include the merchandising and sales promoters in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the salesmen in the Employer's Brooklyn,.
Bronx, Manhattan, and Westbury, New York, branch offices including
the merchandising and sales promoters and the draught beer sales and
service representative,' but excluding office and clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for bargaining purposes.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The regional office shares space with the Bronx branch office.
5 Crown Drug Company, 108 NLRB 1126 and cases cited therein ; cf. Liebmann Breweries,
Inc., 92 NLRB 1740, and John F. Trommer, Inc., 90 NLRB 1200, which in our opinion, are-
distinguishable on their facts.
9 The parties agree to the inclusion of the draught beer sales and service representative-
who is in the Bronx branch office and who services accounts beyond the metropolitan area..
DINION COIL CO., INC. and LOCAL UNION 1664, INTERNATIONAL BROTH -
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL. Case No. 3-C,A-663. Oc-
tober 5,1954
Decision and Order
On January 8, 1954, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his;
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the-
110 NLRB No. 27.