Baking Industry Council

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 1590 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BAKING INDUSTRY COUNCIL, PETITIONER and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT LODGE 94 AND ITS
AFFILIATED LOCAL UNIONS and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS LOCAL 63 AND ITS SUBORDINATE BRANCHES AND LOCAL 235
Case No. ^9,1-RM-37.Decided December 30,19418
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an employer petition duly filed,' a hearing was held before
a hearing officer of the National Labor Relatons Board. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The Employers are engaged in the wholesale baking industry in the
vicinity of Los Angeles, California. Several of them operate more
than one plant in this vicinity.2 The names of the Employers and the
locations of their respective plants are listed in Appendix A attached
hereto. During the year 1947, the Employers collectively purchased
for use in the manufacture of their bakery products a total of $26,500,-
000 worth of supplies, 72 percent of which was obtained directly from
1 The petition was filed by Baking Industry Council , herein called the Council , on behalf
of the wholesale baking companies named in the petition and herein called the Employer.
The Council is an informal association composed of the Employers whose purpose in asso-
ciating themselves together is to act jointly with respect to their labor relations The
record shows that since 1941 , the Employers have conducted joint negotiations with the two
labor organizations herein involved . Their practice has been to select a committee to
bargain on their behalf and when the negotiations are concluded , a single contract is drawn
up which is signed by all the Employers who have employees within its coverage. Since
1946, all contracts between the Employers and the two Unions named in the petition have
,been signed on behalf of the Employers by the attorney who has acted as their counsel in
the bargaining negotiations.
2 One of the Employers maintains eight plants in this area, two operate three plants,
and two operate two plants.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 241.
1590
BAKING INDUSTRY COUNCIL 1591
sources outside the State of California, while 6 percent was obtained
from local jobbers who, in turn, obtained these goods from points
outside the State of California. During the same period the total
sales of all the Employers exceeded $47,500,000, of which 1 percent
represented sales to customers outside the State of California. Each
of the Employers purchases not less than $250,000 worth of materials
and supplies annually and sells not less than $500,000 worth of bakery
products annually. Each of the Employers' out-of-State purchases
and sales approximate in percentage those of the Employers as a
group.
The totality of the Employers' operations clearly has an impact on
interstate commerce. Without determining whether or not the Board
would assert jurisdiction as to each Employer were it before the Board
individually,3 we find that for the purposes of this proceeding, the
Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 94 and its
affiliated local unions, herein called the Machinists, and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 63 and its subordinate branches
and Local 235, herein called the Engineers, are labor organizations,
claiming to represent employees of the Employers.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employers refuse to recognize the Machinists and the Engineers
as representatives of employees of the Employers until certified by
the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Machinists contend that a multiple-employer unit composed of
the plant maintenance engineers , junior engineers, automotive ma-
chinists , and machinists helpers in all the plants of the Employers is
appropriate . The Engineers oppose the establishment of the mul-
tiple-employer unit proposed by the Machinists insofar as it includes
the plant maintenance engineers and the junior engineers , and contend
that these employees in each plant involved herein constitute a, separate
appropriate unit . The Employers , having for the past 7 years bar-
" Compare Matter of S'tm%leen Bakery, Inc., 78 N. L. R. B. 798.
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gained on a multiple-employer basis with respect to the employees
herein involved, contend that any unit which includes these employees
should be multiple-employer in scope. The Employers do not other-
wise take any position with respect to the composition of the unit.
The plants of the Employers vary in size and in the number of
employees carried on their pay rolls .4 However, substantially the
same equipment is used in each plant, viz, refrigeration equipment,
ovens, wrapping machines, bread slicers, low pressure boilers, and air
compressors. Each of the Employers employs at least one or more
persons to maintain and keep this equipment in repair. These are the
employees who are herein referred to as plant maintenance engineers .5
Because all the Employers use their own trucks for the delivery of
their goods, each also employs one or more persons to service its trucks
and keep them in repair. These are the employees who are herein
referred to as automotive machinists.6
As previously noted, since 1941 the Employers have been bargain-
ing as a group with the Machinists and the Engineers. Their con-
tracts have all been on a members-only basis, with the Machinists
representing the automotive machinists and the Engineers the plant
maintenance engineers. During the period from 1941 to 1943, the
Employers executed joint contracts with the Engineers and the Ma-
chinists which covered "journeymen mechanics or engineers, journey-
men automotive machinists and helpers who are members of the
Union." In 1944, the IAM requested the Employers to execute sep-
arate agreements with it and the Engineers, but the Employers refused
and the dispute was submitted to the National War Labor Board for
settlement. A directive was issued by the Board early in 1946 in
favor of the Machinists' position, and from that time until recently,
the Employers have entered into separate "members-only" agree-
ments with the two Unions. The contracts with the Engineers cov-
ered the plant maintenance engineers and the junior engineers, while
the contracts with the Machinists covered the automotive machinists
and their helpers. The latter contracts also embraced within their
terms plant maintenance workers whose duties did not include the
maintenance and repair of boiler and refrigeration equipment.
Although the plant maintenance engineers and the automotive
machinists work on different kinds of equipment and machinery, their
duties are essentially similar. Thus, both groups oil, grease, replace
* While the record does not show the exact number of employees in each plant, it appears
that at least one plant employs 60 workers while others employ over 200.
5 These employees have also been referred to in the record as watch engineer mainte-
nance mechanics, and maintenance machinists.
e These employees have also been referred to in the record as maintenance machinists
and maintenance mechanics.
BAKING INDUSTRY COUNCIL 1593
parts, and make minor repair$ on machinery. It also appears that
in at least three plants, there is some interchange of duties between
the two groups, while in four plants the same labor force which is
responsible for servicing plant equipment is also responsible for serv-
icing trucks. On the other hand, in a majority of the plants, there
is no interchange between these classifications. Also, in all but the
few small plants, each group has its own workshop and is separately
supervised, the plant maintenance engineers by an operating engi-
neer in charge and the automotive machinists by a foreman.
The Engineers contend that the plant maintenance engineers are
essentially engineers and not mechanics or machinists as is claimed
by the Machinists, and therefore, that they should be established in
a separate unit apart from the automotive machinists. The only
duties of an engineering nature which the plant maintenance engi-
neers perform are the maintenance and repair of boilers, refrigerating
and air conditioning equipment. This equipment in all the plants
is automatic, so that it does not require constant attention. An alarm
rings when the pressure in the boilers has fallen too low. The plant
maintenance engineers merely keep the plant equipment in running
order and make minor repairs on it. Wherever major repairs are
necessary, experienced machinists from the outside are employed. At
most, the plant engineers devote only 4 or 5 hours a week to the care
of boilers and refrigerating and air conditioning equipment. The
balance of their time is spent greasing and oiling the machinery used
in the production processes and making minor repairs whenever neces-
sary. A large number of the plant maintenance engineers have had
no training or experience as engineers before their employment with
the Employers. Many had been previously employed as automobile
mechanics and machinists. According to the chief engineers of two
of the Employers, they look for persons with mechanical aptitude
to fill the jobs of plant maintenance engineers. The plant mainte-
nance engineers are not required to be licensed in California.
There is disagreement between the parties not only as to whether
the two classifications of employees here involved shall be represented
on a multiple-employer basis, but also as to whether separate units
shall be established for each classification. It appears that the Em-
ployers have for 7 years followed a practice of joint action in dealing
with labor organizations. They have negotiated joint contracts not
only with the Machinists and Engineers covering employees here in-
volved but also with other labor organizations covering other cate-
gories of their workers: Both the Employers and the Machinists
4 The Employers ' production workers appear to be covered by joint contracts with the
Bakery & Confectionery Workers of America and its several local unions while their garage
1 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
desire to preserve this bargaining pattern with respect to the em-
ployees herein involved. Although the Engineers have dealt with
the Employers on a joint basis, it now takes the position, without
assigning a reason therefor, that there should be separate plant bar-
gaining for the plant maintenance engineers.- In view of the Em-
ployer's practice of group bargaining, which we note is a practice,
followed by the baking industry in other sections of the country,8
we are persuaded that the employees should be, as they have been in
the past, represented on a multiple-employer basis .9
With respect to the question of whether the plant maintenance en-
gineers should be established in a separate unit apart from the auto-
motive machinists, the record indicates no notable differences between
the interests of these two classifications. The duties and skills of each
classification are substantially the same. Although the two groups
involved have a separate bargaining history, this history can be ac-
corded little weight since it was on a members-only basis 10 In view
of these circumstances and the entire record in the case, we are of
the opinion the plant maintenance engineers and the automotive ma-
chinists should function in a single bargaining unit.
There appears to be a question as to whether the operating engi-
neers in charge should be included in the unit. It appears that in
some plants, these persons exercise supervisory authority while in
others they are so designated because they are responsible for the
proper functioning of the boilers and refrigerating equipment.
Under these circumstances, we shall exclude the operating engineers
in charge in those plants where they render services as supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. In the plants where these persons
do not have such responsibilities, they shall be deemed to be included.
We find that all plant maintenance engineers, junior engineers,
operating engineers in charge," automotive machinists, and machin-
ists' helpers in all the plants of the Employers listed in Appendix A,
excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
workers appear to be covered by joint agreements with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters . All parties are agreed to the exclusion of these employees from any unit which
the Board may find appropriate.
8 Matter of Ward Baking Company, 78 N. L. R. B 781.
9 Matter of Coeur d'Alene M,nes Corporation , 77 N. L. R. B. 570; Matter of Foreman cC
Clark, 74 N. L. R. B. 77: Matter of Rayonier Inc, Grays Harbor Divti81on , 52 N. L. R. B.
1269.
19 Matter of Liggett Drug Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 312; Matter of Dana Corporation,
71 N L. R. B. 1249.
11 Provided these persons are not supervisory within the meaning of the Act.
BAITING INDUSTRY COUNCIL
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
1595
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employers listed in "Appendix
A," an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as pos-
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Twenty-First Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in Section IV, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, and also including employees on strike who are not entitled to
reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by International Association of Machinists, District Lodge
94,12 for the purpose of collective bargaining.13
APPENDIX A
Employer and Location of plant or plants in California
Barbara Ann Baking Co.: 3545 Pasadena Avenue, Los Angeles.
Barbara Ann Baking Co.: 1877 Massachusetts, San Bernardino.
Continental Baking Co.: 9340 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills.
Continental Baking Co.: 6007 South St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles.
Continental Baking Co.: 439 South Stoddard Street, San Bernardino.
DiCarlo's National Bakery : 469 Ninth Street, San Pedro.
Eagle Bakery : 809 East 15th Street, Los Angeles.
Franco-American Baking Company : 426 College Street, Los Angeles.
Grandma Baking Company : 671 Antonia Avenue, Los Angeles.
Gordon Bread Company : 457 East Santa Barbara Avenue, Los
Angeles.
Interstate Bakeries : 5225 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles.
Weber Baking Company: ' 5849 Crocker Street, Los Angeles.
Weber Baking Company:' 1601 West 14th Street, Long Beach.
'2 At the hearing, the Machinists requested that its name appear on the ballot in this
form.
19
We have not ordered the name of the Engineers placed on the ballot because at the
hearing it stated that it did not desire to participate in the election if the Board included
the plant maintenance engineers in the same unit with the automotive machinists.
' Footnote 1 at end of Appendix.
1596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weber Baking Company : 1 6841 San Fernando Road, Glendale.
Weber Baking Company: ' 2656 North Main Street, Santa Ana.
Weber Baking Company: ' 121 East Mason Street, Santa Barbara.
Weber Baking Company: 1 1111 Ninth Street, San Bernardino.
Four-S Baking Company:' 1801 Blake Avenue, Los Angeles.
Dolly Madison Cakes, Ltd.:' 2330 Ryfle Avenue, Los Angeles.
Dolly Madison Cakes, Ltd.:' 1657 Reed Street, Long Branch.
Log Cabin Bread Company:' 405 San Fernando Road, Los
Angeles.
Lagendorf United Bakeries, Inc.: 1870 West 62nd Street, Low Angeles.
Lagendorf United Bakeries, Inc.: 4726 Everett Court, Vernon.
Olson Baking Co.: 1401 Griffith Avenue, Los Angeles.
Orowheat Baking Co.: 6111 South Gramercy Place, Los Angeles.
Basso Baking Co.: 701 Castelar Street, Los Angeles.
1 Weber Baking Company , Four-S Baking Company , Dolly Madison Cakes , Ltd, and Log
Cabin Bread Company are all subsidiaries of Interstate Bakeries.