Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. and Millwrights Local Union
No. 2232 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case 23-RC-4734
October 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND TRUESDAI.L
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officers Robert L. Penrice
and Robert G. Levy II, respectively. Following the
hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for
Region 23 transferred this case to the Board for Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Employer, Petitioner Mill-
wrights, and the Independent filed briefs, and Local
919 and the Conference filed a joint brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and find that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following rea-
sons:
Petitioner Millwrights and the Independent seek a
unit of maintenance employees, excluding electri-
I The following parties intervened in this proceeding and appeared at the
hearing: Local 919, International Brotherhxxd of Teamsters. Chauffeurs.
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. herein called Local 919: Brewers
and Soft Drink Workers Conference. U.S.A. affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. herein called the Conference; and the Independent Maintenance
Union. herein called the Independent.
I At the heanng the Conference took the position that the Independent is
not a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. The
record reveals that the Independent is an organization established for the
purpose of negotiating wages, hours. and working conditions on behalf of
maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Houston, Texas, brew-
ery, one of the locations involved herein, and is an organization in which
some of the Houston maintenance employees actively participate. Accord-
ingly, we find the Independent Maintenance Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. Alto Plastics Manufacturing Cor-
poralion. 136 NLRB 850 (1962).
clans, at the Employer's Houston, Texas, brewery.
The Employer, the Conference. and Local 919 con-
tend that the Regional Director erred in permitting
the Independent to intervene in the proceeding and in
not granting the Millwrights' request to withdraw its
petition. They further contend that the unit sought is
inappropriate because the employees therein have
been merged into a multiplant unit. For the reasons
set forth below, we conclude that the Regional Direc-
tor properly permitted the Independent to intervene
and properly denied the Millwrights' request to with-
draw its petition. We also conclude, however, that the
unit sought is inappropriate.
The record discloses that on December 4, 1978, the
Millwrights filed its representation petition with the
Board. Thereafter, Local 919 and the Conference
were permitted to intervene on the basis of being the
contractually recognized bargaining agents for the
employees in the unit sought by the Millwrights. Sub-
sequently, a hearing was held in Houston on January
4, and 5, and February 1, 21, and 22, 1979. The Em-
ployer, the Millwrights, the Conference, and Local
919 have stipulated that on January 30, 1979, counsel
for the Millwrights telephoned the Board's Regional
Office in Houston and notified the Region that the
International had directed the Millwrights to with-
draw its petition.3 On January 31, 1979, the Indepen-
dent filed a motion to intervene supported by a 30-
percent showing of interest. Several hours after the
Independent filed its motion to intervene, the Mill-
wrights filed a written request to withdraw its peti-
tion. On February 16, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 23, by telegraphic order, denied the Millwrights'
request to withdraw and granted the Independent's
motion to intervene.
When the hearing resumed, the Employer, the
Conference, and Local 919 objected to the Regional
Director's rulings on the Millwrights' motion to with-
draw and the Independent's motion to intervene.
They have renewed their objections in their briefs to
the Board. They contend, inter alia, that the Regional
Director's failure to treat the Millwrights' request to
withdraw as effective as of January 30, 1979, was an
abuse of discretion and contrary to Board policy.
They assert that as of that date no question concern-
ing representation existed since all that remained in
order to effectuate the withdrawal of the petition was
for the Millwrights to perform the formal act of filing
a written request to withdraw. They therefore argue
that it was error for the Regional Director to grant
the Independent's motion to intervene on January 31,
1979, because it was untimely filed. Finally, the Em-
3 The directive to the Millwnghts to withdraw its representation petition
was pursuant to a no-raid agreement reached between its International. the
United Brotherhoold of Carpenters. AFL CIO. and the International Broth-
erhtld otl T.eamsters. Chauffeurs. Warehouseimen and HIelpers of Amenca.
246 NLRB No. 3
29
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL I.ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer urges that the Board reconsider its decision in
Weather Vane Outwear Corporation, Inc.. 233 NLRB
414 (1977), and find that the question concerning rep-
resentation was resolved as of January 30, 1979, by
the interunion. no-raid procedures of the Teamsters
and the Millwrights.
We find that the contentions of the Employer, the
Conference, and Local 919 lack merit. Section
102.60(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Se-
ries 8, as amended, states, in pertinent part, that
"Prior to the transfer of the case to the Board, pursu-
ant to section 102.67, the petition may be withdrawn
only with the consent of the regional director with
whom such petition was filed." And, we find no basis
here for concluding that the Regional Director
abused his discretion by denying the Millwrights' re-
quest to withdraw. For even assuming, arguendo, that
the Regional Director previously had been notified on
January 30 of the Millwrights' desire to withdraw its
petition, such notice would not in itself constitute a
formal request to withdraw, nor was the Regional Di-
rector obligated to treat it as such. It is also clear that
the Independent filed its motion to intervene, which
was supported by at least a 30 percent showing of
interest, prior to the Millwrights' filing of its motion
to withdraw. Since the Regional Director had not yet
approved the withdrawal of the Millwrights' petition,
the Independent's motion to intervene was properly
treated as filed during the pendency of an unresolved
question concerning representation. Furthermore, it
is well settled that when a petitioner seeks to with-
draw its petition, but an intervenor possessing a peti-
tioner's showing of interest wishes to proceed to an
election, the petition will not be dismissed nor will a
withdrawal request be granted. See, e.g., Seaboard
Machinery Corporation, 98 NLRB 537 (1952). 4 Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the Regional Director
acted properly in granting the Independent's motion
to intervene and in denying the Millwrights' request
to withdraw.
We also find without merit the Employer's request
that the Board reconsider its decision in Weather
Vane. supra, and defer to the no-raid agreement
reached between the Carpenters and the Teamsters.
In Weather Vane, the Board clearly indicated that the
obligations of a no-raid agreement are insufficient un-
der Board policy to warrant the dismissal of a repre-
sentation proceeding. We continue to adhere to that
view for to do otherwise would permit a private reso-
' In view of our findings herein, we find it unecessary to pass upon the
contention of the Employer, the Conference, and Local 919, based on their
argument that the Millwrights' request to withdraw its petition was improp-
erly denied, that the prematurely extended 1978 Master Brewery Agreement.
discussed infra, would operate as a bar to any election directed herein on a
finding that the Independent would be entitled to petitioner rather than
intervenor status.
lution of a representation question in a manner con-
trary to the policies of the Act, and would impinge
upon the Board's exclusive jurisdiction to resolve
such questions of representation. Accordingly, we
now turn to the issue of the appropriateness of the
requested unit.
The Employer operates 10 breweries, which the
parties refer to as the "Old Three"5 and the "New
Seven."6 The "New Seven" breweries, all of which
have been built within the last 20 years, are highly
automated. Since 1976, all but 25 of the 2800 produc-
tion and maintenance employees working at the
"New Seven" breweries have been represented for the
purpose of collective bargaining by the Conference
and its affiliated Teamsters locals. ' In June 1976, after
a prolonged strike, the Employer concluded a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the Conference and
its affiliated Teamster locals which it and the Confer-
ence contend merged the then "New Six" single-plant
units into a multiplant unit. 8
The Houston brewery began operation in May
1966. The maintenance work was subcontracted to an
outside company until February 24, 1967, at which
time the Employer hired maintenance personnel and
commenced doing its own maintenance work. In
1968, the Board certified the Millwrights as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of all the Employer's
maintenance employees, excluding electricians, em-
ployed at the Houston brewery. In 1973, an organiza-
tion known as the Independent Maintenance Em-
ployees Union9 defeated the Millwrights in a Board-
conducted election and was certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Houston mainte-
nance unit described above. In 1974, Teamsters Local
919 defeated both the Independent Maintenance Em-
ployees Union and the Millwrights in a Board-con-
ducted election and became the certified bargaining
representative of the maintenance employees, exclud-
ing electricians, employed at the Houston brewery.
In 1975, Local 919 after receiving approval from its
members working at the Houston brewery, issued a
power of attorney authorizing the Conference to be
its national representative for the purpose of negotiat-
ing with the Employer a master contract covering a
multiplant unit consisting of the then "New Six" An-
'T1hese plants are located in St. Louis. Missouri; Newark, New Jersey:
and Los Angeles, Calilornia
'These plants are located in Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida; Houston,
Texas: Columbus. Ohio: Merrimack. New Hampshire: Williamsburg, Vir-
ginia: and Fairfield. California.
7 The exceptions are the operating engineers at the Columbus brewery and
the electricians at the Houston brewery.
The Employer contends that in October 1978, the multiplant unit was
expanded to include the production and maintenance employees of its new-
est facility. which was computed in 1977 and is located in Fairfield, Califor-
nia. as the seventh plant in the group known as the "New Seven."
9 he Independent Maintenance Employees Union, which represented the
Houston maintenance employees in 1973 is now defunct. Intervenor In-
dependent Maintenance Union is a separate organization.
30
ANlIlEUSER-BUSCH, IN('.
heuser-Busch breweries. The national negotiations
between the Conference and the Employer were in-
terrupted and broken off when the Millwrights filed a
representation petition fir an election among the
maintenance employees in Houston. In January 1976,
Local 919 defeated the Millwrights and remained the
certified bargaining representative for the Houston
maintenance employees.
The Employer, the Conference, and Local 919 con-
tend that the unit sought by the Millwrights and the
Independent is inappropriate because the Houston
maintenance unit effectively was merged into a multi-
plant unit in 1976 as evidenced, inter alia, by the exis-
tence of a Master Brewery Agreement signed by the
Conference, its affiliated locals and the Employer.
The Independent points out, inter ali., that the re-
quested unit has in the past been found to be appro-
priate by the Board. It further contends that the Mas-
ter Brewery Agreement is insufficient to establish the
existence of a multiplant unit.
The Board has held that parties to a collective-bar-
gaining relationship may by contract, bargaining his-
tory, and course of conduct merge existing certified
units destroys the separate identity of the individual
units. White-Westinghouse Corporation. 229 NLRB
667 (1977); General Electric Co.. 180 NLRB 1094
(1970). Applying this principle to the instant case, we
find that the Houston maintenance unit has been ef-
fectively merged into a multiplant unit. Thus at the
hearing, the Employer introduced a document, dated
June 6, 1976. and entitled "Master Brewery Agree-
ment Between Anheuser-Busch Inc. and the National
Conference of Brewery and Soft Drink Workers of
America, and Local Union Nos. 388, 413. 633. 822,
919 and 947. "*1 The recognition clause of the Master
Brewery Agreement reads as follows:
Anheuser-Busch Inc., hereinafter called the
"Company", hereby recognizes the National
Conference of Brewery Wokers and Soft Drink
Workers of America and Local Unions 388,
Tampa, Florida; 413, Columbus. Ohio; 633.
Merrimack, New Hampshire; 822, Williams-
burg, Virginia; 919, Houston, Texas: and 947.
Jacksonville, Florida, all affiliated with the Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein-
after called the "Union," as the sole and exclu-
sive bargaining agent in the matter of wages.
hours, and other conditions of employment for
all Production and all Maintenance employees at
the Anheuser-Busch breweries located in Tampa.
Florida; Merrimack, New Hampshire: Williams-
burg, Virginia; and Jacksonville, Florida; and
for Production and Maintenance employees (not
10 The title of the agreement reflects the former name the (Conference.
including Operating Engineers) at Columbus,
Ohio: and for Production and Maintenance em-
ployees (not including Electricians) at Houston,
ITexas. excluding all other employees, office cleri-
cal, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended. Rec-
ognition is extended to the aforesaid Conference
and Local Union consistent with certifications is-
sued at each plant by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
It is clear from the foregoing language that the Mas-
ter Brewery Agreement by its terms provides recogni-
tion of the Conference and its locals jointly as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees, including
those sought herein, on a multiplant basis.
Furthermore, the execution and implementation of
the Master Brewery Agreement in fact has resulted in
substantial changes in the manner of bargaining from
the prior practices of the Employer and Local 919.
Thus, since 1976, bargaining sessions have been con-
ducted at central locations with Conference officials
acting as chief negotiators for the Teamsters multi-
plant bargaining team and with management from
the Employer's corporate headquarters representing
the interests of Anheuser-Busch. Additionally, the
Master Brewery Agreement covers such substantive
terms as general seniority rules, a no-strike provision,
union securit, creation of new departments. safety.
hours of work, scheduling of overtime, and employee
transfers. Although the Master Brewery Agreement
permits supplemental agreements at the local level, it
is clear that any supplemental agreements concluded
by plant level management and the Teamsters Local
Unions must now be approved by the Employer's
representative in charge of corporate labor relations
and by officials of the Conference before it can be-
come effective. The 1976 Master Brewery Agreement
also resulted in a change in the procedures by which
employee grievances are resolved. In this regard,
since 1976, grievances not resolved at the local level
may he appealed to a Multiplant Grievance Commit-
tee to which only officials of the Conference may be
appointed to represent employee interests. The Board
has frequently held that bargaining of this type,
which obliterates previously existing single-plant
units based on Board certifications, is a permissible
avenue for the course of labor-management relations.
C(hase Bra.ss & Copper Co.. Incorporated. 123 NLRB
1032 (1959); General Mlotors Corporation, (Cadlillac
Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215 (1958).
We conclude that the Master Brewery Agreement
between the Employer, the Conference, and ocal
919, the course of conduct of the parties, and the bar-
gaining history since 1976. establish the creation of a
multiplant unit. We further note the uncontroverted
31
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence that in 1976, during the period of initial
multiplant negotiations between the Employer and
the Conference, a representation election was held
among the Houston maintenance employees in which
inclusion of these maintenance employees into a mul-
tiplant unit was a major, if not the primary, campaign
issue. The Houston maintenance employees had the
opportunity in that election to resist merger into the
larger Teamsters unit by voting for the Millwrights or
for no union, but instead voted in favor of Local 919
and therefore, in effect, for inclusion in the multiplant
unit. We are therefore of the opinion that the Hous-
ton maintenance employees in 1976 had sufficient no-
tice that continued representation by Local 919
would entail a merger with a multiplant unit. West-
inghouse Electric Corp., 227 NLRB 1932,1934 (1977).
Finally, we note that, as of the time of the filing of the
petition, bargaining on a multiplant basis had oc-
curred for approximately 2-1/2 years. The Board has
long held that an existing multiplant bargaining his-
tory which is in excess of I year's duration may be a
sufficiently long period to preclude the establishment
of a single plant unit. Gould-National Batteries, Inc.,
150 NLRB 418 (1964); Owen-Illinois Glass Company,
108 NLRB 947 (1954).
In view of the foregoing, we find that the record
establishes a controlling history of multiplant bar-
gaining which has resulted in the effective merger of
the requested unit limited to the maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Houston brewery and that
a separate unit of such employees is inappropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining." Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 We find it unnecessary to pass upon the Independent's contention that a
separate unit of maintenance employees at the Employer's Houston brewery
is appropriate under the craft severance criteria formulated in Mallinckrod
Cherzicul Works, Uranium Diision. 162 NLRB 387 (1966). for even conced-
ing, ilruendo. their status as craftsmen, it fbllows that a unit limited to only
loiuston maintenance employees is inappropriate as being only a segment of
the Employer's maintenance employees in the multiplant unit. The Boeing
(ompan, 144 NLRB 382 (1963). In so deciding, we are mindful of the fact
that a single-craft unit of electricians exists in the Employer's Houston facil-
ity; however this unit was found appropriate and certified prior to the exis-
tence of the multiplant unit herein and unlike the Houston maintenance unit
has never merged into the multiplant unit herein. See Anheurer-Busch Inc.,
170 NLRB 46 (1968).
32