Dixie-Portland Flour Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 681 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

DIXIE-PORTLAND FLOUR MILLS 681
Dixie-Portland Flour Mills , Inc. and Teamsters Local
515 Affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America , Petitioner . Case 10-RC-8277
November 20, 1970
ORDER
B' MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On July 29, 1970, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 10 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
captioned proceeding in which he denied Petitioner's
petition to sever a unit of over-the-road truckdrivers,
local truckdrivers, and truck cleaners from an existing
unit of production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, present-
' Olinkraft, Inc, 179 NLRB No 61, Consolidated Packaging
Corporation, 178 NLRB No 88, Rockingham Poultry Marketing
Cooperative, Inc, 174 NLRB No 194, Dura - Container, Inc, 164 NLRB
293
2 Pursuant to Sec 3 (b) of the Act, this case was decided by Members
Brown and Jenkins, with Member Fanning dissenting He would grant
review for the following reasons The drivers are separately supervised and
their department is located apart from any other department None of the
over-the -road drivers do plant work or load their trucks or have any
contact with plant employees Rather , they spend all their time in driving
duties and they are paid on a basis different from the plant employees The
local drivers do no plant work either , being engaged in local driving or the
spotting of trucks Departmental seniority controls driver assignments
ly represented by the Intervenor, Bakers Local No. 25
of Chattanooga, subordinate of the Bakery and
Confectionery Workers' International Union,
AFL-CIO. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a timely
Request for Review on the grounds that the Regional
Director should have granted severance on the
authority of Wright City Display Manufacturing
Company, 183 NLRB No. 86. The Employer and the
Intervenor filed timely oppositions to the Request for
Review.
The Board, having duly considered the matter, is of
the opinion that the Request for Review does not raise
any substantial issues warranting review and should
be denied.' Accordingly,
It is hereby ordered that the Petitioner's Request for
Review be, and it is hereby denied.
By direction of a panel of the Board.2
With a minor exception , there is no interchange between drivers and plant
employees In Wright City Display Manufacturing Company, 183 NLRB No
86, on facts deemed by Mr Fanning to be almost identical , the Board
granted severance and therefore he sees no reason for not reaching the
same result here
Further, Mr Fanning notes that in the first contract negotiations in 1965
the drivers had no representative on the negotiating committee and the
local drivers were excluded from the contract In 1967, although the
truckdrivers were led to believe that a separate contract for truckdrivers
would he negotiated only an addendum was added to the overall contract
On these facts , and under the standards of Kalamazoo Paper Box
Corporation, 136 NLRB 134, and Mallinekrodi Chemical Works, 162 NLRB
387, Member Fanning would give the Petitioner the election it seeks
186 NLRB No. 99