Heublein, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1337 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

HEUBLEIN, INC. 1337
production and maintenance departments and the truckdrivers in
the other departments, also wants to include some of the employees in
the retail stores; but it, too, would exclude the clerical employees
working in the unit it requests.
The Employer opposes the unit requests, and contends that only
the single unit, heretofore found appropriate by the Board, would be
appropriate.'
In the circumstances we perceive no reason, other than the extent
of the employees' organization, for carving up the appropriate unit.
The breakup of the unit is not sought on the basis of craft or of tra-
ditionally separate interests, nor because of any collective bargaining
history. Not only is there no legitimate factual basis for the units
separately requested by the Meat Cutters and the Teamsters, but
indeed some of the employees heretofore in the appropriate unit are
excluded from both requested units. We therefore find these units in-
appropriate,3 and shall dismiss the petitions .4
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
See Bullock's incorporated, 119 NLRB 642
* Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to consider the Employer's other motions for
dismissal of the petitions , or its request for oral argument.
Heublein, Inc. and Distillery, Rectifying Wine and Allied Work-
ers International Union , Local No. 45, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Heublein , Inc. and International Association of Machinists
Local Lodge No. 68, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2O-RC-
3381 and dO-RC-3394. January 16, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
M. C. Dempster, hearing 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 Rodgers and Bean].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
'Warehouse Union Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union,
Ind., herein called Local 6, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of
interest.
119 NLRB No. 164.
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 68,
AFL-CIO, herein called the IAM, seeks to represent a unit of the
Employer's maintenance mechanics, helpers, and boilermen, exclud-
ing janitors and cleanup men. In the alternative, it is willing to go
to an election in any unit of maintenance employees which the Board
may find appropriate. Distillery, Rectifying Wine and Allied
Workers International Union, Local No. 45, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Distillery Workers, contends that only a production and mainte-
nance unit is appropriate. Relying on the American Potash decision,
the Distillery Workers contends that the unit sought by the TAM is
not appropriate on a craft or a departmental basis. Local 6 takes
the position that either separate production and maintenance units, or
a single production and maintenance unit may be appropriate. The
Employer favors a single production and maintenance unit. If, how-
ever, the Board finds that a separate maintenance unit may be
appropriate, the Employer urges that it be limited to true craftsmen.
The plant involved in this proceeding, located at Menlo Park, Cali-
fornia, began operations in August 1957. On August 22, the Dis-
tillery Workers executed a contract with the Employer covering the
production and maintenance employees, and, on the same day, filed
its petition in this proceeding.2 The TAM filed its petition for a unit
of maintenance employees on September 11.
The Employer is engaged in the production of vodka and soup at
the Menlo Park plant. Plant operations are divided into five depart-
ments, distillery, bottling, shipping and receiving, food processing,
and maintenance. The maintenance department is under the direc-
tion of a maintenance superintendent who does not supervise any
other employees. At the time of the hearing, the maintenance depart-
ment consisted of 3 bottling line mechanics, 2 bottling line change-
over men, 3 food processing mechanics, 1 boilerroom maintenance
mechanic, 1 boilerroom operator, 2 cleanup men, and 6 janitors. Main-
tenance mechanics do no production work except that the bottling line
mechanics relieve bottling line operators during their two 10-minute
rest periods, and the food processing mechanics relieve food operators
during their rest periods. One of the food processing mechanics, how-
ever, spends about 25 percent of his time on the sterilization and
operation of the canning equipment.
It is well established that in the absence of a history of bargain-.
ing on a more comprehensive basis, maintenance employees may con-
2 The contract between the Employer and Distillery Workers is not urged as a bar to
this proceeding.
HEUBLEIN, INC. 1339
stitute a separate appropriate unit .3 As the circumstances detailed
above fail to establish a bargaining history of consequence, we find
no obstacle to the establishment of a maintenance unit. 4 Contrary to
the contention of the Distillery Workers, it is immaterial that no sepa-
rate production and maintenance units have been established at other
of the Employer 's plants or in other plants in this industry.' It is
also immaterial that the maintenance employees are not all skilled
workers of craft status. ' Nor does the record support the Distillery
Workers' contention that the Employer 's plant is so integrated as
to preclude the establishment of a separate unit for the maintenance
employees. While it is true that some maintenance employees relieve
production workers , and some production employees assist mainte-
nance employees as helpers , it is clear that each group of employees
spend the major portion of their working time in performance of
their normal routine duties. We do not believe that such minor inter-
change of functions destroys the homogeneity and distinct interests of
the maintenance department employees?
We therefore find that the maintenance department employees may
constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire . It is also
clear, and we find, that the production and maintenance unit requested
by the Distillery Workers, may be appropriate . And finally, we find
that if the maintenance employees desire separate representation, as
determined in the elections directed herein , a unit of production
employees may also be appropriate.8 Accordingly , we shall direct
self-determination elections in both the maintenance and production
voting groups . As janitors and cleanup men are maintenance em-
ployees, and no reason appears for excluding them, we shall include
them in the maintenance voting group.:
We shall direct elections in the following voting groups of
employees at the Employer 's Menlo Park , California , plant , exclud-
ing from each voting group the employees in the other voting group
and all office clerical and professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(1) All maintenance employees including the cleanup men and
janitors.
( 2) All production employees.
If a majority of the employees in the maintenance voting group
select the IAM as their represertative , they will be taken to have indi-
8 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporatio ; a, 117 NLRB 1441 , 1443; Magma Copper Com-
pany. 115 NLRB 1.
4 Rayette, Inc., 117 NLRB 1399.
5 National Gypsum Company, 116 NL:3B 1005, 1008; Ketchikan Pulp Company, 115
NLRB 279, 281.
6 Shoreland Freezers, Inc., 108 NLRB 723, 727.
T E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company , 117 NLRB 1048, 1051 ; National Gypsum
Company, 116 NLRB 1005, 1008; East Texas Pulp & Paper Company, 113 NLRB 539, 543.
8 United States Gypsum Company , 116 NLRB 1939, 1941.
1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is.instructed to issue a cer-
tification of representatives to the IAM for such unit, which. the
Board, under these circumstances , finds to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority
of the employees in the production. voting group select the Distillery
Workers or Local 6 as their representative,' the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor
organization for a unit of production employees, which the Board, in
these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority in the mainte-
nance voting group do not select the IAM, the ballots of the employees
in the maintenance voting group will be pooled with those of the
employees in the production group. 10 If the Distillery Workers or.
Local 6 achieves a majority of the votes in the pooled group,. the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to such labor organization for a unit of production and mainte-
nance employees, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to
be' an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
0 The IAM does not wish to be on the ballot of the production voting group.
10 If the ballots are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : votes for the
IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Distillery workers or
Local 6 ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for the Distillery
workers or Local 6, or for no union.
Goldblatt Bros ., Inc. and Retail Clerks International Associa-
tion , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . ° Case No. 13-RC-5651. January 16,
1958 '
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 Frances P. Dom,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
. X The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motions to dismiss on the
grounds that ( 1) the adequacy of the Petitioner 's showing had not been established as
the Board had not "scrutinized the genuineness of the signatures with sufficient care" ;
and (2 ) the Petitioner had not made a demand upon the Employer for recognition. As
to (1), the sufficiency of a petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter not
subject to litigation . We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing of
interest is adequate . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. As to (2), the filing of
the petition constitutes a sufficient demand, and the Employer declined, at the hearing, to
recognize the Petitioner . The motions to dismiss are therefore hereby denied . Goldblatt
Bros., Inc., 118 NLRB 643.
119 NLRB No. 162.