Carling Brewing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

CARLING BREWING COMPANY INC. 347
Carling Brewing Company Inc.' and International Union of
United Brewery, Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink , and Distillery
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-
4505. January 26, 1960
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 Lovic A. Brooks, Jr., hear-
ing officer. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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 to represent a unit of accounting department
employees at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, plant. The Employer
asserts that the appropriate unit consists of all of its office and plant
clerical employees, including the employees in the accounting depart-
ment, as sought in the original petition 2 The Petitioner, in the
alternative, asserts that an office clerical unit is appropriate. How-
ever, the Petitioner would exclude from such alternative unit certain
employees who it contends are plant clerical or confidential employees.
The Employer denies that the disputed employees perform any plant
clerical or confidential duties, and would include them in the office
clerical unit. The Petitioner would also exclude and the Employer
would include the engineer clerk. At the hearing, the parties agreed
to exclude the general accountant and the receiving and disbursing
accountant as supervisors. There is no history of bargaining on
behalf of the employees involved herein.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of beer at its Atlanta,
Georgia, plant. Its clerical operations are conducted mainly in a
building called the brew house. However, some clerical functions are
I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
z The petition was amended at the hearing.
126 NLRB No. 42.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performed in the bottle shop which is located about 200 yards from
the brew house 3
There are seven accounting department employees classified as the
secretary to the comptroller, the accountant, the accounts payable
clerk, the National Cash Register operator, the biller clerk, the payroll
clerk, and the statistical clerk. These employees, located in a separate
room in the brew house, perform accounting duties under the imme-
diate supervision of the accounting department head. The record
does not show that accounting department employees possess educa-
tion, experience, or skills different from other office clerical employees.
Also located in the brew house but in a different room are office
clerical employees classified as secretary to the regional advertising
manager, secretary to the personnel manager, the switchboard oper-
ator, and the office services employee. The secretaries perform the
usual secretarial tasks, but in addition the secretary to the personnel
manager assists at the switchboard; the switchboard operator, on
occasion, works in the accounting department; and the office services
employee acts as messenger, mail clerk, mimeograph clerk, and chauf-
feur. All clerical employees are salaried, are on the same payroll,
are subject to the same promotional, vacation, and pay policies, and
enjoy the same employee benefits. In view of the foregoing we find
that a separate unit of the employees in the accounting department
is not appropriate, as it is clear that this department constitutes only
a segment of the office force and may not therefore constitute a sepa-
rate unit' However, we find that a unit of office clerical employees,
including the accounting department employees is appropriate, and
as the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest in this
group we shall direct an election among the office clerical employees.
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the following
employees :
Plant clerical employees: The Petitioner would exclude as plant
clerical employees the sales order and scheduling clerk and his as-
sistant, who prepare schedules and shipment orders; the materials
control clerk, who orders packaging materials; and the storekeeper,
who purchases maintenance supplies and operates the storeroom. All
these employees work in the bottle shop under the immediate super-
vision of the production manager. As they work in a production
area under the production supervisor, we find that they are plant
clericals and we shall exclude them.
Confidential employees: The Petitioner would exclude the secretary
to the personnel manager and the secretary to the production manager
on the ground that they type minutes of management meetings and
prepare, and have access to, materials and files containing labor rela-
tions matters. However, the record shows that at the time of the hear-
8 The record does not show the location of the plant.
' Swift & Company, 119 NLRB 1556.
QUALITY FOOD MARKETS, INC. 349-
ing these employees had been relieved of all duties with respect to labor
relations matters. Moreover, neither the production manager nor the
personnel manager formulates or effectuates management policies in
the field of labor relations.5 Accordingly, we find that the secretary to
the personnel manager and the secretary to the production manager
are not confidential employees and we shall include them in the unit.
The engineer clerk: The Employer would include this employee in
the office clerical unit. The Petitioner would exclude him as a plant
clerical employee, or, in the alternative, would exclude his classifica-
tion on the ground that there are no employees presently employed
in this category. The Employer testified at the hearing that the
position of engineer clerk had been in existence for approximately 5
months, and although it asserted that it intended to fill the position
before November, at the time of the hearing on October 21, 1959,
and at the time the Employer filed its brief on November 4, 1959,
the position was still vacant. In these circumstances, we shall not pass
on the unit placement of the engineer clerk.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Atlanta,
Georgia, brewery, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.6
All office clerical employees including the secretary to the regional
manager, the secretary to the regional advertising manager, the sec-
retary to the comptroller, the accounts payable clerk, the National
Cash Register operator, the biller, the payroll clerk, the statistical
clerk, the secretary to the personnel manager, the office services clerk,
the switchboard operator, and the secretary to the production man-
ager, but excluding the sales order and scheduling clerk, the assistant
sales order and scheduling clerk the materials control clerk, the store-
keeper, the general accountant, the receiving and disbursing ac-
countant, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
See The B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722
e In view of our findings herein, we find no merit in the other contentions advanced by
the Employer in support of an overall office clerical unit consisting of both office and
plant clerical employees. Cf. Armour and Company, 119 NLRB 122, 123, Copeland
Refrigeration Corporation, 118 NLRB 1364, 1365.
Quality Food Markets, Inc. and Local No. 328, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen &
Helpers of America . Case No. 18-CA-991. January 27, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 30, 1959, Trial Examiner Charles W. Whittemore issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
1,26 NLRB No. 38.