Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1358 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Anheuser-Busch,. Inc.; Falstaff ' Brewing Corporation ; Carling
Brewing Company; and Griesedieck Brothers Brewery Com-
pany and Kenneth J. Maddock and Local 6, Brewers and Malt-
sters, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Party to
the Contract . Case No. 14-CA-1602. June 10, 1958
.DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1957, Trial Examiner Max M. Goldman issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding,- finding that
the Respondents had not engaged in any unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report ' and a supporting brief. The Respondents filed a brief in
support of the Intermediate Report.
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 Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report,. the .exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in'
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen=
dations of the Trial Examiner.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents did not
violate Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by maintaining and
enforcing ,a union-security agreement which 'concededly conformed
with the requirements of Section 8 (a) (3). In so doing, we find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the evidence does not establish that tha
Respondents had reasonable grounds for believing that membership
in the contracting union was not available to employees hired after
January 1, 1948, on the terms and conditions generally applicable to,
other members of the union.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss ' the
complaint herein.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 The evidence reveals that on August 5, 1957 , in Case No . 14-CB-397, the contracting
union entered into a settlement stipulation in which it agreed to cease and desist from the
conduct which is the basis of the violation alleged herein.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by Kenneth 7: Maddock, an individual , the General Counsel
by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region (St. Louis, Missouri) of the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board , issued a complaint dated
120 NLRB No. 179.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC . 1359-
June 10, 1957, against Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Falstaff Brewing Corporation, Carling
Brewing Company, and Griesedieck Brothers Brewery Company, herein referred'
to as the Respondents, alleging that the Respondents had-engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint and the charges together with notice
of hearing were duly served upon the Charging Party, the Respondents, and Local 6,
Brewers and Maltsters, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union:
With respect to unfair labor practices the complaint alleges that the Respondents
by maintaining and enforcing a certain contract with the Union violated Section
8 (a) (3) and 8 (a) (1) of the Act. The Respondents in their answers deny the
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on August 20, 1957, at St. Louis, Missouri,
before the duly designated Trial Examiner. The Union entered an appearance as
an Intervenor. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to, introduce evidence on the issues were accorded the parties. The
General Counsel and the Respondents filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Anheuser-Busch, Inc., is a Missouri corporation with its main office in St. Louis,
Missouri, with plants in several States of the United States, including the State of
Missouri, where it is engaged in the production of beer. During the calendar year
1956, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., shipped or caused to be shipped directly from its plant
in St. Louis, Missouri, to points outside the State, goods valued in excess of $250;000.
Carling Brewing Company is a Virginia corporation with its main office at Cleve-
land, Ohio, with plants in several States of the United States, where it is engaged
in the production of beer. At all times material hereto, until on-or about April 1,
1957, Carling Brewing Company operated a plant in St. Louis, Missouri, which is
known as the Hyde Park plant. During the calendar year 1956, Carling Brewing
Company shipped or caused to be shipped directly from its various plants to several
States of the United States, goods valued in excess of $250,000.
.Falstaff Brewing Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its main office in
St. Louis, Missouri, and plants in several States of the United States, including
the State of Missouri, where it is engaged in the production of- beer. During the
calendar year 1956, Falstaff Brewing Corporation shipped or caused to be shipped
directly from its plant in St. Louis, Missouri, to points outside the State of Missouri,
goods valued in excess of $250,000.
Griesedieck Brothers Brewery Company is a Missouri corporation with its main
office and plant in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the production of beer.
During the calendar year 1956, Griesedieck Brothers Brewery Company shipped:
or caused to be shipped directly from. its plant in St. Louis, Missouri , to points
outside the State of Missouri, goods valued in excess of $250,000.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 6, Brewers and Maltsters, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The events , -
The Respondents and the Union have had a contractual relationship for several
years and they have abided by the provisions of their contracts. The current con-
tract covering the period involved in the complaint became effective on March 1,
1956, is to continue until March 1, 1958, and contains an annual automatic, renewal
clause. The unit description includes essentially all employees involved in the
brewing process and all employees engaged in receiving, shipping, and storing.'
i The text of the agreement, article I, setting forth the unit follows : ' '
The employer recognizes the union as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
agent for (a ) all employees engaged as journeymen brewers, utility brewers, appren-
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract involved does not contain a checkoff provision. The contract does
provide, as have its predecessor contracts beginning March 1, 1953, for union security
in the following language as shown by article II:
The employer grants to the union the maximum union security (but not less
than the union shop) permissible under applicable law.
All employees covered by this agreement shall, as a condition of employment,
tender dues to the union within thirty days after the commencement of their
employment, and shall thereafter maintain their membership in the union in
good standing. An employee who is expelled or suspended from the union
because of nonpayment of dues (including such other obligations to the union,
failure to pay which would make an employee subject to discharge under the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947), and an employee who is expelled or
suspended from the union for any other reason for which he may be lawfully
discharged under legislation which may be applicable during the term of this
agreement shall be subject to dismissal five days after notification in writing
to the employer by the Secretary or Business Agent of the local union providing,
however, that if the expulsion or suspension is for nonpayment of dues and
payment of such arrearage is made within such five-day period, the employer
shall not be required to discharge such employee.
The parties executed a letter in June 1956, confirming an understanding reached
in the course of bargaining negotiations. This document provides for certain indus-
try-wide seniority and reads in part as follows: .
The term "industry seniority" as used herein means the date of hiring for
regular employment in a plant in St. Louis and vicinity under the jurisdiction
of L.U.#
In the event that any employee, other than a journeyman brewer, having
an industry seniority date prior to January 1, 1948, is laid off for lack of work
for a period of more than one week, or is unemployed as a result of a plant
shutdown, he shall have the right to be employed, within not more than five
working days after request is made by the Union to the Employer in any other
plant covered by agreement between L. U. #6 and the Employers signatory
hereto in a department under the jurisdiction of L. U. #6 in whcih men of lesser
industry seniority are employed, displacing if necessary the employee with least
seniority in that plant.
Journeymen brewers who are covered by the contract requirement that they
shall be laid off in turn by the week in an impartial manner under the contract
between L. U. #6 and the Employers signatory hereto, who are subject to
layoff of more than one week in a three-month period shall have the right to
be employed within not more than five working days after request is made by
the Union to the Employer in the brewing department of any other plant under
the jurisdiction of L. U. #6 in which men of lesser seniority are employed,
displacing if necessary the employee with the least seniority in the brewing
department in that plant.
Article XXIII entitled, "Seniority" relates to freight and general labor departments
and provides in part as follows:
Group A shall consist of employees with a plant starting date of 1949 and
prior. Group B shall consist of employees with a plant starting date of
1950 or later.
The contract further provides that group B employees shall be vulnerable to layoff
prior to group A employees. Article XXII also entitled, "Seniority" relates to
brewery department employees and provides that "other men" as a category are
subject to layoff prior to the other named categories, that is, apprentice brewers,
utility men, and journeymen brewers. Although there is no provision in the contract
to the effect, the secretary-treasurer of the Union testified that without exception
persons who were hired after 1948, fall into the category of "other men." Under
tice brewers, watchmen doing brewers' work, and other men in the brewing depart-
ment, malt house, brew house, fermenting cellars, bottling cellars, wash house, racking
room , cooperage department, ice plant , and malt syrup department, and (b) all em-
ployees engaged In receiving, shipping, and storing raw materials , production supplies,
advertising matter, and finished products outside of bottling departments and bottling
areas, Including employees engaged in noncraft maintenance work and yard labor and
refrigeration and waterworks laborers, excluding clerical and professional employees,
watchmen , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
THE STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY 1361
the Union's policy before July 1957, persons who were hired after January 1, 1948,
were not admitted into membership in the Union. In July 1957 the Union notified
the Respondents' employees of a change in policy under which all employees were
offered full membership upon the payment of the regular initiation fee.
The Union explained that this policy limiting membership had been in existence
since 1947, and that it arose out of the highly seasonal nature of the brewing business.
When this policy was in effect, seasonal or temporary employees were not required
to pay the initiation fee but they were required to pay and did pay the monthly dues
for each month of their employment. At least annually the Union made determina-
tions as to the probable complement of regular employees which would be required
by the industry and would when it was indicated admit to full membership all
temporary employees hired on January 1, of a given year.
Although the Respondents concede that when called upon to do so, they main-
tained and enforced the union-security provision of the contract, there is no showing
that any particular person was adversely affected'in his employment by the operation
of the contract.
B. The conclusions
The General Counsel attacks neither the seniority, provisions nor the union-
security provision as written in the contract, but contends that the Respondents
enforced the union-security provision requiring their employees to pay dues, assess-
ments, and fines as a condition of employment, although the Respondents knew or
bad reason to know that under the Union's policy membership was denied to em-
ployees who were hired after January 1, 1948. The General Counsel also contends
that it is not essential to establish knowledge of the Union's exclusionary policy
on the part of the Respondents to establish a violation of the Act.
On the subject of the Respondents' knowledge of the Union's policy against grant-
ing membership to employees hired after January 1, '1948, the General Counsel
points out that (1) the parties have been in contractual privity for many years;
(2) the agreement contains seniority provisions which categorize employees by date
as before and after January 1, 1948; and (3) the Respondents first learned of the
existence of the Union's policy upon the receipt of the first amended charge dated
April 17, 1957. The Trial Examiner is of the view that this is an insufficient basis
to conclude that the Respondents knew or had reasonable grounds for believing that
membership was not available in the Union to employees hired after January_ 1,
1948, on the same terms and conditions, generally applicable to,other members of
the Union, and that knowledge is a prerequisite for establishing responsibility under
the specific language of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. It having been concluded
that the General Counsel's burden of proof has not been met in this respect, it is
found unnecessary to pass upon the issues which would be otherwise presented.
It will accordingly be recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
The Standard Register Company, Pacific Division and Oakland
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union No . 125, AFL-CIO and
Independent Standard Register Union , Petitioners. Cases Nos.
,90-RC-3407 and 2O-RC-3420. June 10, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before M. C. Dempster, a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
,Fanning].
120 NLRB No. 180.
483142-59-vol. 120-87