California State Brewers Institute

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 665 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE (ACME
BREWERIES, GENERAL BREWING CORPORATION, RAINIER BREWING
COMPANY, REGAL AMBER BREWING COMPANY, AND SAN FRANCISCO
BREWING CORPORATION), EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MACHINISTS UNION, INDEPENDENT),
PETITIONER
III the Matter of WESTERN CAN COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MACHINISTS UNION,
INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter of EDWARD J. DREIS Co., LTD., EMPLOYER and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MACHINISTS UNION,
INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter of LIBERTY MACHINE & POLE LINE Co., EMPLOYER and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (SUCCESSOR TO MACHINISTS
UNION, INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
In the Matter Of OSCAR KRENZ, INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, (SUCCESSOR TO MACHINISTS UNION,
INDEPENDENT), PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 'tO-R-1721, ^00-R 17 2, PO-R-1804, 20-R-1811, and 20-R-
1817, respectively.-Decided February 14, 1947
Messrs. Gregory Harrison, Richard Ernst, E. R. Herchner, and
James G. Hamilton, all of San Francisco, Calif., for the Institute.
Mr. Paul St. Sure, of Oakland,, Calif., and Mr. Leo Rabinowitz, of
San Francisco, Calif., for Western.
Mr. Edward M. Dreis, of San Francisco, Calif., for Dreis.
Messrs. Walter E. Drobisch and Alfred Myers, both of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for Krenz.
Messrs. J. H. Sapiro, E. F. Dillon, and Harry Hook, all of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., and Mr. Philip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the
Petitioner.
Mr. A. C. McGraw, of Oakland, Calif., and Mr. Charles B. Truax,
of San Francisco, Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
72 N. L R B , No. 127.
665
666 DECISIONS OF NATION AL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate amended petitions duly filed, a consolidated 1 hearing
in these cases was held at San Francisco, California, on August 5, 6,
and 7, 1946, before Robert E. Tillman, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Institute, Western, and Krenz each
moved to dismiss the petitions in the cases applicable to their res-
pective employees, and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition
in all cases.2 For reasons stated in Sections II, III, and IV, below,
all the motions are hereby denied. After the hearing, the Intervenor
moved to consolidate all cases herein with Cases Nos. 20-R-1806, 20-R-
1815, and 20-R-1816, concerning respectively, employees of California
Metal Trades Association, Ace Manufacturing and Supply Company,
and Belmont Engineering Company. Although these latter cases
involve some issues which concern us here, there are factual differences
which make further consolidation undesirable. We therefore deny
the Intervenor's motion.
Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, the National Labor
Relations Board makes the following:
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
California State Brewers Institute, herein called the Institute, is
a California corporation having as members producers of brewery
products in California. The Institute represents various of its mem-
bers, including the five companies named below, in collective bargain-
ing negotiations with labor organizations.
1 At the hearing , the Petitioner moved to withdraw its petition in Case No . 20-R-1811,
on the ground that Liberty Machine & Pole Line Co. employed only one employee within
the alleged appropriate unit. This motion is hereby granted, Case No. 20-R-1811 is hereby
severed from the remaining cases, and the petition in that case is hereby dismissed without
prejudice.
2 The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 20-R-1721 and 20-R-1722
on the grounds that there are now contracts in existence which are bars to present elections,
and that the petitions were not timely. In Cases Nos . 20-R-1804, 20-11-1811, and 20-R-
1817, the Intervenor sought dismissal of the petitions on the same grounds , plus the addi-
tional grounds that there were insufficient showings of interest on the part of the Petitioner,
and that the units sought were inappropriate.
The Institute moved to dismiss the petition in Case No 20-R-1721 on the ground that
the existing contract is a bar to a present election.
Western moved to dismiss the petition in Case No 20-R-1722 on the grounds that the
contract is a bar and that the unit sought is inappropriate.
Krenz moved to dismiss the petition in Case No 20-R-1817 on the grounds stated by the
Intervenor.
CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE 667
Acme Breweries , General Brewing Corporation , Rainier Brewing
Company , Regal Amber Brewing Company , and San Francisco
Brewing Corporation are California corporations having their prin-
cipal offices and places of business in San Francisco , California, where
they are each engaged in the production and sale of brewery products.
They are all members of the Institute . Each of the companies ships
substantial quantities of its finished products from its plant to points
outside the State of California . The percentage of products annually
so shipped by each of the companies in 1945 and 1946 is as follows :
Acme Breweries , more than 17 percent of its total annual production;
General Brewing Corporation , more than 4 percent of its total annual
production; Rainier Brewing Company, more than 51/2 percent of its
total annual production ; Regal Amber Brewing Company, more than
2.48 percent of its total annual production; and San Francisco Brew-
ing Corporation, more than 3.2 percent of its total annual production.
For the purpose of this proceeding, each of the brewing companies
admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
Western Can Company, herein called Western, is a department of
M. J. B. Company, a D_4aware corporation, having its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California . where Western is engaged
in the business of fabricating metal cans. The value of raw materials
purchased annually by Western exceeds $1,000,000, of which approxi-
nnately 70 percent is purchased and shipped to Western from sources
outside the State of California. Western's annual sales of its products,
and materials exceeds $1,500,000 in value, of which in excess of 10
percent is sold and shipped to customers located outside the State.
Edward J. Dreis Co.. Ltd., herein called Dreis, is a California cor-
poration having its only shop in San Francisco, California. where
it is engaged in the manufacture of squaring shears used in the cutting
of sheet metal. The value of raw materials purchased annually by
Dreis exceeds $25,000, of which approximately 20 percent is purchased
and shipped to Dreis from sources outside the State of California.
Dreis annually sells product, valued in excess of $45,000, of which
approximately 11 percent is sold and shipped to customers located
outside the State.
Oscar Krenz. Incorporated, herein called Krenz, is a California cor-
poration having its principal office and place of business in San Fran-
cisco, California, and a second plant in Oakland, California. Krenz is
engaged in the manufacture of equipment used in the processing of
foods, wines, and chemicals. The value of raw materials purchased
annually by Krenz for use at its two plants exceeds $75,000, of which
approximately 60 percent is purchased and shipped to the plants from
sources outside the State of California . Krenz annually sells prod-
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ucts valued in excess of $285,000, of which approximately 14 percent
is sold and shipped to customers located outside the State.
Each of the Employers admits, and we find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Intervenor maintains that the Petitioner is not a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act on the ground that the Petition-
er's predecessor, Machinists Union, Independent, herein called the
Independent, was not a labor organization. Whatever the status of
the Independent while it existed, the Petitioner itself is unquestion-
ably a labor organization as defined by Section 2 (5) of the Act, and
we so find.
San Francisco Lodge No. 68, affiliated with the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organi-
zation claiming to represent employees of the Employers.
III. TIIE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
A. The background
For many years, Lodge 68 of the International Association of Ma-
chinists, herein called Lodge 68, has bargained for tool and die mak-
ers, machinists, specialists, helpers and apprentices employed by most
uptown 3 shops in San Francisco and vicinity. From 1938 to 1944,
Lodge 68 entered into Association-wide collective bargaining contracts
with the California Metal Trades Association, an association of em-
ployers, herein called the Association, and also executed separate usu-
ally identical contracts with individual firms which either were not
members of the Association or, if they were members, did not choose
to be bound by Association-wide agreements. The Association and
Lodge 68 were unable to agree on the terms of a new contract in 1944.
Although no Association-wide contract was signed in that year Lodge
68 did negotiate about 55 separate bargaining contracts with as many
different firms in 1944 and 1945.
In the fall of 1945, Lodge 68 served demands for a wage increase on
all the employers in the San Francisco area, including the Association,
with whom it had previously had contractual relations. To enforce
its demands, Lodge 68 called a strike beginning October 29, 1945.
Some individual firms signed contracts with Lodge 68 before the date
of the strike, others signed agreements after the commencement of
the strike. The signing of an agreement by an employer either pre-
vented a strike or marked its termination. The Association, however,
3 Uptown shops are defined as manufacturing , contract jobbing, and general machine
contract shops.
CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE 669
refused to accede to the demands of Lodge 68 and the machinists of
such members as adhered to it remained out on strike.
On February 16, 1946, the Executive Council of the Grand Lodge
of the International Association of Machinists, herein called the In-
ternational, which had not authorized the strike, arrived in San Fran-
cisco to investigate the strike situation. The next day, the Inter-
national's representatives conferred with officers of Lodge 68. On
February 20, 1946, the Association submitted proposals for a new
agreement to Lodge 68 and the International. These proposals pro-
vided for a wage increase considerably less than the wage increase
demanded by Lodge 68. The International called a membership meet-
ing of Lodge 68 on February 26, 1946, to discuss the proposals of the
Association, but nothing was accomplished.
On February 27, 1946, the International sent letters to all members
of Lodge 68 setting forth the terms of the Association's proposals.
The members were asked to ballot as to whether (1) the proposals
were acceptable, and (2) the International should sign a contract with
the Association in behalf of Lodge 68. About 7,500 ballots were
mailed out and 2,750 were returned. Of the returned ballots, approxi-
mately 2,400 answered both questions in the affirmative. On March
3, 1946, Lodge 68, at the call of its local officials, held a special meeting
at which the proposals of the Association were rejected by a vote of
2,198 to 624.
On March 5, 1946, the International notified the officers of Lodge 68,
in writing, that the President of the International had filed charges
against Lodge 68, that a trial would be had on these charges on March
11, 1946, and that, pending this hearing, Lodge 68 was restrained from
taking further actions of any kind. On March 7, 1946, the Interna-
tional notified the Association of the suspension, and commenced to
negotiate with the Association for a new contract.4
On March 10, 1946, a special meeting of Lodge 68 was held, at which
approximately 4,000 members attended. Admission was granted only
to members of Lodge 68 in good standing. The overwhelming major-
ity of members present voted not to send a delegation to the hearing
before the International, and to secede from the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists. The officers of Lodge 68 were instructed to
form an independent union. All officers of Lodge 68 joined in the
secession. On March 11, 1946, the newly formed independent union,
under the name of Machinists Union No. 68,6 notified all the Employers
4In California Metal Trades Association, et al., 72 N L. R B. 624, issued this day,
the testimony was to the effect that the Association did not commence to bargain with the
International until March 11, 1946.
' At this time , the membership of Lodge 68 was approximately 8,000
O The name of the independent union was subsequently changed to Machinists Union.
Independent
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
involved herein that their machinists had transferred their allegiance
from Lodge 68 to the Independent. On the same day, the Inter-
national held a,hearing on the charges and suspended Lodge 68.
On March 12, 1946, the International, in behalf of Lodge 68, signed
a collective bargaining contract with the Association. This contract,
referred to herein as the master contract, provided that it should
remain in effect until March 31, 1947, and should continue in effect
for 1 year thereafter, unless either party gave written notice to the
other of desire to alter, amend, or terminate, at least 30 days before the
expiration date. On March 14, 1946, the International sent letters to
all members of Lodge 68 advising them that the contract had been
signed and that they should, therefore, return to work. On March 18,
1946, the strike came to an end.
Since the schism in its ranks, Lodge 68 has been governed by officials
appointed by the International. Lodge 68 has, however, continued to
collect dues, hold membership meetings and elect shop stewards and
committeemen. At the time of the hearing it had 6,800 members.
On June 16, 1946, the Independent voted to affiliate with the Peti-
tioner and was chartered on July 3, 1946, with the same officers.
B. The Institute
The Institute has bargained with Lodge 68 since 1936. The first
written contract entered into between the Institute and Lodge 68 was
in either 193 oor 1938. On April 1, 1944, Lodge 68 and the Institute
signed a collective bargaining contract for a 1-year term, renewable
for an additional year in the absence of written notice by either party
to the other of desire to alter, amend, or terminate, at least 30 days
before the termination date. This contract provided that, its wage
provisions could be reopened. Neither party gave the required 30 days'
written notice in 1945. On October 26, 1945, however, the parties
signed an interim agreement providing for higher wages to be effective
from October 29, 1945, until March 31, 1946. At the same time, the
parties signed a stipulation in which they agreed :
In the event a master agreement is accepted by the Lodge for
its jurisdiction, the terms and conditions of said master agreement
shall apply to and be incorporated in the collective bargaining
agreement entered into this day by the parties hereto.
On March 11, 1946, after the schism, the Independent sent a letter to
the Institute advising it of the change of affiliation by the machinists
employed in the breweries and claiming that the Independent was
now the legal party to the contract. The Institute made a noncom-
mittal answer.
CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE 671
On March 27, 1946, the Independent wrote to the Institute notifying
the latter that it represented a majority of the brewery machinists and
demanding that the Institute recognize it and bargain with it for a-
new, contract. On March 29, 1946, the Institute replied, asserting that
it already had an existing valid contract, by which it was bound. On
March 31, 1946, Lodge 68 presented a new proposed contract to tho-
Institute (presumably identical with the master contract) which the-
Institute refused to sign, on the ground that it already had a contract
to run concurrently with the master contract. On April 1, 1946, the-
Independent filed its petition herein with respect to the machinists-
employed by the breweries.'
C. Western
Western's bargaining relations with Lodge 68 go back 20 years or-
more. On April 1, 1944, Western and Lodge 68 signed a collective-
bargaining contract for a term of 1 year, renewable for an additional;.
year in the absence of written notice by either party to the other of
desire to alter, amend. or terminate, at least 30 days before the ex--
piration date. This contract provided for reopening of the wage-
clause on 5 days' notice. On February 28, 1945, the contract was-
amended by providing that the wage clause could be reopened on 30,
days' notice, but in all other respects the contract was continued in
effect. Pursuant to the provision permitting reopening, Western and
Lodge 68, on October 25, 1945, signed an interim agreement providing.
for increased wages until March 31, 1946. At the same time, the par-
ties also executed a stipulation identical with that signed by the
Institute and Lodge 68.
On March 11, 1946, after the schism, the Independent sent a notice-
to Western advising the latter of the change of affiliation by its ma--
chuiists, and asserting that the Independent was now the legal party-
to the contract. On March 25, 1946, Western signed a contract with
the Liternational. acting in behalf of Local 68, identical with the
master contract.5 On March 29, 1916, the Independent sent a letter-
to Western notifying Western that it represented a majority of its
machinists, demanding recognition as their bargaining agent and re--
questing negotiations for a iiew cons tact. On April 1, 1946,.tlie Inde-
pendent filed its petition hetein with respect to Western's machinists.9
' After the Independent became affiliated with the Petitioner , an amended petition was-
filed by the Petitioner, as successor to the Independent
s This was a single document signed by western and a number of other individual em-
plovers, including Diets and Iiienz
"After the Independent became affiliated with the Petitioner, an amended petition was
filed by the Petitioner, as successor to the Independent
731242-47-vol 7 ? 44
1
,672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
D. Dreis
Dreis first signed a written contract with Lodge 68 in 1941. The
-record is not clear as to whether or not Dreis had a contract with
Lodge 68 in 1944. In September 1945, Lodge 68 notified Dreis of its
demand for increased wages and on October 29, 1945, the machinists
,employed by Dreis went out on strike. On November 21, 1945, Dreis
and Lodge 68 signed a collective bargaining agreement, Section 21
of which provided that it was to remain in effect until March 31, 1946,
and continue in effect for 1 year thereafter, unless either party gave
.to the other written notice of desire to alter, amend, or terminate, at
least 30 days before the termination date. Lodge 68 and Dreis simul-
taneously signed a stipulation identical with that signed by the Insti-
tute and Lodge 68.
On March 11, 1946, after the schism, the Independent sent a notice
to Dreis similar to that which it sent to the Institute and Western.
,On March 12, 1946, Dreis sent a letter to Lodge 68 in which Dreis
.stated that it was terminating the contract "as provided for in See-
-tlon 21." On March 2.5, 1946, Dreis signed a contract with the Inter-
national, acting in behalf of Lodge 68, which was identical with
,the master contract.10 On June 17, 1916, the Petitioner, as successor
to the Independent, filed its petition herein with respect to the
machinists employed by Dreis.
E. Krenz
Krenz has been bargaining with Lodge 68 for 39 years. It is a
member of the Association but has never, except in 1 year, given the
Association a power of attorney to represent it in bargaining with
'Lodge 68. The first written contract between Krenz and Lodge 68
was in 1936. Krenz had no contract with Lodge 68 in 1944. In Sep-
tember 1945, Lodge 68 notified Krenz that it was demanding increased
wages and on October 29, 1945, Krenz's machinists went on strike.
,On January 22, 1946, Krenz signed a contract which was to be effec-
tive until March 31, 1946, and was to continue in effect for 1 year
thereafter unless either party gave written notice to the other of
desire to alter, amend, or terminate, at least 30 days before the ter-
mination date. Simultaneously , Krenz and Lodge 68 signed a stipu-
lation identical with that signed by Lodge 68 and the Institute.
On March 11, 1946, after the schism, Krenz received a notice from
the Independent identical with notices received on that day by the
Institute, Western, and Dreis. On March 25, 1946, Krenz and the
International , acting in behalf of Lodge 68, signed a contract iden-
tical with the master agreement between the International and the
.10 See footnote 8.
CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE 673
Association." On June 28, 1946, the Petitioner, as successor to the
Independent, filed its petition herein with respect to the machinists
employed by Krenz. -
F. Conclusions
The Employers and the Intervenor contend that the contracts be-
tween the Employers and the International constitute bars to any
present elections, especially since none of the petitions was filed within
10 days after the Independents initial demands for recognition"
The Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the 10-day rule
should not be applied here.
We find it unnecessary to consider the contract bar question in the
form in which it has been raised. All the contracts which are urged
as a bar may be terminated on -larch 31, 1947, less than 2 months
from the present time, upon appropriate notice by the parties thereto.
Under these circumstances, we find that the existing contracts are
not bars to current deter minations of representatives."
The Intervenor maintains that no questions concerning representa-
tion have arisen, inasmuch as the Petitioner has not made sufficient
showings of interest. This contention is without merit. We are sat-
isfied that the Petitioner's showings of interest, which were submitted
to the Board for administrative reasons, are adequate.
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Institute, Western, Dreis, and
Krenz, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
Iv. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner seeks separate units of tool and die makers, machin-
ists, specialists, helpers and apprentices employed respectively by
Western, Dreis, and Krenz, and a single unit of maintenance machin-
ists and their helpers employed by the five brewery companies belong-
ing to the Institute. The Intervenor and the Employers, while agree-
ing to the categories of employees to be included in the units, contend
that only an area-wide unit is appropriate.
In suppoi t of their contention, the Employers and Intervenor
argue that, from at least 1938, Lodge 68 has insisted upon uniform
wages and working conditions for all of its members employed in the
uptown shops In the San Francisco area and that the contracts nego-
tiated with the Association have been the master contracts to which
all separate contracts have conformed. The broadest unit which
the Board is authorized to find appropriate under Section 9 (b) of the
Act is the `"employer unit." The term "employer" is here used as
" See footnote 8
Cf Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N. L. R B. 997
13 Matter of Clam; Bros. Co , Inc, 66 N. L R. B. 849
674 DECISIONS OF NATIOAtAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
defined in Section 2 (2), that is, it "includes any person acting in
the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly." To group the
employees of different employers in a single "employer" unit, it is
necessary to find that some one person or organization has the power to
act for and to bind the various employers. No such situation exists
in the present case. The Association acts only for its members in
negotiating and signing the master contract; the individual firms
signing separate contracts act for themselves. Thus, the Association
is one employer and the companies signing separate agreements are
separate employers within the meaning of the Act. As we said of a
similar collective bargaining history in the Advance Tanning case 14
in rejecting an area-wide unit, this kind of bargaining "cannot be con-
sidered as true collective bargaining on an area-wide basis cover-
ing employees of both the Members and the Independents, particularly
since the Independents were in no way obligated to follow the Asso-
ciation's lead." 15 Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the
area-wide unit sought by the Intervenor and the Employers is not
appropriate.
The only unit question remaining is as to the propriety of the In-
stitute unit. As previously indicated, the Institute has, for a number
of years, entered into collective bargaining contracts with Lodge 68
concerning the machinists employed by its members. None of the
parties denies that the Institute has the authority to make such bind-
ing collective bargaining agreements. We find, therefore, that the
Institute is the employer of the machinists of the five brewery firms
involved herein within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and
that these employees constitute a single appropriate unit.
We find that each of the following units, excluding from each unit
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
1. All maintenance machinists and helpers employed by Acme Brew-
eries, General Brewing Corporation, Rainier Brewing Company, Regal
Amber Brewing Company and San Francisco Brewing Corporation,
at their plants in San Francisco, California.
2. All tool and die makers, maintenance machinists, machinists,
specialists, helpers and apprentices employed by Western Can Com-
pany at its plant in San Francisco, California.
3. All tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and ap-
prentices employed by Edward J. Dreis Co., Ltd.
4. All tool and die makers, machinists, specialists, helpers and ap-
prentices employed by Oscar Krenz, Incorporated.
14 Matter of Advance Tanning Company, et at., 60 N. L. R B. 923.
14 See also Matter of Rubin E Rappeport & Sons, et al., 62 N. L. R. B. 1118, and Matter
of Waterfront Employers Association of the Pacific Coast, et al., 71 N. L. B. B. 80.
CALIFORNIA STATE BREWERS INSTITUTE
V. THE DETERMINATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES
675
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
The Petitioner requests that eligibility to vote be determined by
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the filing of the petition
in each case, on the ground that there is a possibility of the discharge
of its members under the provisions of the existing agreements. We
perceive no merit in this argument as ,a basis for departing from our
usual eligibility rule. We shall, therefore, direct that employees
within the appropriate units who are employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the issuance of the Direction of Elec-
tions shall be eligible to vote.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigations to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with California State Brewers
Institute (Acme Breweries, General Brewing Corporation, Rainier
Brewing Company, Regal Amber Brewing Company, and San Fran-
cisco Brewing Corporation), San Francisco, California, Western Can
Company, San Francisco, California, Edward J. Dreis Co., Ltd., San
Francisco, California, and Oscar Krenz, Incorporated, San Francisco,
California, four separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in each of the units found ap-
propriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, to determine in each case whether
they desire to be represented by United Steelworkers of America, CIO
(successor to Machinists Union, Independent), or by International
Association of Machinists, for itself and in behalf of its subordinate
lodge, San Francisco Lodge No. 68, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Elections.