Kansas City Coors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1984

271 N.L.R.B. 1388 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Metro Distributors, Inc., d/b/a Kansas City Coors
and Local 838, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 17-RC-
9600
31 August 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 7 May 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 17 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of
all employees at the Employer's Southside Distrib-
utors, Inc. facilities located in Kansas City and
North Kansas City, Missouri, rejecting the Em-
ployer's contention that the smallest appropriate
unit must also include its employees working at the
Employer's J. P. Ward and Son, Inc. franchise, lo-
cated in Kansas City, Kansas. Thereafter, in ac-
cordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision on the ground that, in
finding the petitioned-for unit appropriate, his deci-
sion represents a departure from officially reported
Board precedent and is clearly erroneous on the
record. By mailgram order dated 5 June 1984, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the Em-
ployer's request for review and stayed the election,
pending the Board's Decision on Review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case and makes the following findings:
The Employer is a Missouri corporation, author-
ized to do business in Kansas, and is owned by two
sole shareholders, Richard Lee Shaw, who acts as
executive officer, and John Meier, the secretary.
The Employer owns, as the sole shareholder, and
operates two alcoholic beverage distribution fran-
chises in the Greater Kansas City area: Southside
Distributors, Inc., located in Missouri and consist-
ing of a primary facility and an auxiliary ware-
house rented to handle the summer overflow, and
J.P. Ward and Son Distributors, Inc., located in
Kansas. Southside is located approximately 25-30
miles from the Ward facility. The distance from
I Both parties agreed that regardless of the scope of the unit it would
consist of the following job classifications; all full-time and part-time
drivers, line cleaners, merchandisers, dispatchers, pre-salesmen, ware-
housemen, mechanics and recycling employees, excluding office clericals,
guards, and supervisors.
271 NLRB No. 216
Southside's primary location to its rented auxiliary
facility is 20-25 miles. There are presently approxi-
mately 85 employees employed by the Employer:
25 at Ward, 50 at Southside, and 10 at the auxiliary
facility.
The Ward distributorship is licensed to sell and
distribute alcoholic beverages only in Kansas.
Under Kansas law, in order to obtain a liquor li-
cense one must be a Kansas resident. Hence, direc-
tors and officers of a corporation engaged in the
beer distribution business must be Kansas residents.
Kansas does, however, allow nonresidents to be
beer salesmen. The Southside distributorship is li-
censed to sell and distribute alcoholic beverages
only in Missouri. Both Kansas and Missouri have
strict rules concerning the segregation of alcoholic
products to be sold in their respective States. For
example, alcoholic beverages destined for either
Missouri or Kansas cannot be mixed together in the
same coolers, trucks, or storage areas. Given these
segregation requirements, the Employer (although
it has held itself out as Kansas City Coors on both
sides of the line since March 1983) retained Ward
and Southside as separate corporate entities and
liquor licensees.
Beginning in the fall of 1982, the Employer
began consideration of a project to consolidate its
distribution operations in one large facility which
would straddle the state line. The Employer's in-
tention is to close both the Southside and Ward fa-
cilities and conduct all of its operations from one
large centrally located facility. State officials for
both Kansas and Missouri advised the Employer
that they would have no objection to a facility
straddling the state line provided that all licensing
regulations were complied with. A site was ob-
tained at 141st Street and State Line, and as of the
date of the hearing (10 April 1984) in excess of
$500,000 had been invested in the new facility.
Construction of the new facility, access roads, and
a railway spur have begun. Anticipated completion
of the project is November or early December
1984.
Once the facility has been constructed, measures
will be taken to ensure the integrity of the product.
There will be separate loading areas, separate cool-
ers, and beer will not be mixed on the trucks or in
the warehouse. In addition, all records and files
will be kept separate. Although there will be no
wall separating the Missouri products and the
Kansas products, they will be kept in different
areas of the facility, each on the proper side of the
state line. In addition to the physical separateness
required by state law, separate financing and sepa-
rate contracts were entered into with the general
contractor for the construction of the facility.
1388
KANSAS CITY COORS
After construction Southside, in effect, will own
the Missouri side of the facility, and Ward, the
Kansas side.
Despite the technical segregation outlined above,
as necessitated by state liquor regulations, the Em-
ployer is in the process of centralizing its oper-
ations. As part of the anticipated consolidation, in
December 1983 the officers and shareholders of the
Employer developed and instituted a program that
would aid in centralizing its organization prior to
actual physical consolidation. Effective I April
1984 all employees of Southside and Ward became
employees of the Employer, who now supplies em-
ployees to each subsidiary. All employees are paid
by the Employer. In March 1984, an employee
handbook was distributed to all employees (regard-
less of location) covering all terms and conditions
of employment. Rules concerning probationary
period, evaluations, salary, jury duty, funeral leave,
leaves of absence, holidays, vacation, insurance,
sick leave, discipline, job security, layoff, recall,
benefits, and methods of operation are identical for
all employees. All job classifications and descrip-
tions are the same at both Southside and Ward.
Upon consolidation no new job classifications will
be added; the handbook will remain unchanged.
All employees in the same classifications have and
will continue to have the same job description,
wage,2 payday, pay period, uniform, hospitaliza-
tion, dental insurance, retirement benefits, and bo-
nuses. There is a universal promotion and transfer
policy. Open positions are posted in both facilities
and the best qualified individuals are selected re-
gardless of which side of the state line they work
on. Transfers also occur between facilities, at the
request of both management and employees. In fact
in the past 18 months there have been nine perma-
nent over-the-line transfers or promotions. There
have been three temporary transfers. Additionally
there are two employees who regularly work on
both sides of the state line: Kraft, a mechanic; and
McGrath, a runner and messenger who also assists
in servicing vehicles. Trucks and equipment are ex-
changed on an as-needed basis. All trucks are li-
censed to work on both sides of the state line. The
recycle trailers are also circulated between facili-
ties. Almost all truckdrivers are licensed to work
on both sides of the line. There is also an integrat-
ed computer system and phone system connecting
all employer subsidiaries. In the past 18 months
there have been four employerwide social activi-
ties, attended by both Ward and Southside work-
ers.
2 Any current discrepancy in wages is because on previous acquisition
of other distributorships the Employer agreed not to penalize the em-
ployees acquired through merger
The Employer's facilities, however, have sepa-
rate frontline supervision. Each subsidiary has a
sales and warehouse division. Each warehouse su-
pervisor oversees the day-to-day activities of the
loaders, warehouse employees, and mechanics.
Sales coordinators supervise dispatchers, drivers,
salesmen, line cleaners, and helpers. Each supervi-
sor is authorized to hire, take disciplinary action,
make recommendations as to discipline, and sched-
ule employees. All promotions, however, must be
effected via the employerwide posting procedures
and must be approved by Chief Finance Officer
Reed and Warehouse Supervisor Bloch. After con-
solidation, frontline supervision will remain the
same. Thus, Kansas employees will report to
Kansas supervisors, Missouri employees to Missou-
ri supervisors. Currently drivers and salesmen oper-
ate primarily on one side of the line, although after
consolidation the Employer anticipates an increase
in interstate work among these employees. Never-
theless, regardless of the separate supervision and
departmentalization, it is clear that on consolidation
all employees will be working under the same roof,
doing the same work, for the same Employer, and
under identical terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
Based on the above the Regional Director found
a single unit consisting of the two Southside facili-
ties, as requested by the Petitioner, to be the appro-
priate unit. The Employer, however, argues that
the smallest appropriate unit must include employ-
ees of both of the Employer's subsidiary corpora-
tions, Southside and Ward. Relying on the rapidly
approaching and imminent consolidation of the
Employer's facilities; administrative centralization
of labor relations and operations; and the similarity
of job functions and conditions among unit employ-
ees in Kansas and Missouri, we find the broader
unit, consisting of all employees working at South-
side and Ward, to be the appropriate unit.
The foregoing record evidence shows that the
Employer's three distribution facilities are current-
ly located in relatively close proximity. The pri-
mary Southside and the Ward facility are only 25-
30 miles apart. The auxiliary Southside warehouse
is only 12-15 miles from the Ward facility, leased
for 6 months in order to accommodate the summer
inventory expansion. Both Southside and Ward are
engaged in the same function and have identical or-
ganizational structures. All labor relations policies
and methods of operation are employerwide and
controlled by employer policy. All employees are
employed by the Employer; they perform the same
work, in the same job classifications, and under the
same terms and conditions of employment. There is
one employee handbook and wages, hours, benefits,
1389
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vacations, uniforms, and other circumstances of
employment are identical. There is some employee
interchange and interaction of equipment. In addi-
tion, most drivers, salesmen, and vehicles can work
out of either location. Significantly, in a few
months, all operations of both subsidiaries will be
consolidated in one facility. Although Kansas and
Missouri law mandate physical separation of the
product, this will have little effect on the commu-
nity of interest shared by the employees. All em-
ployees will be working side by side, under one
roof, performing the same tasks, under identical
terms and conditions of employment.
Based on the above factors, we find the South-
side unit sought by the Petitioner to be inappropri-
ate. Instead, we find that an employerwide unit
consisting of both the Southside and Ward facilities
constitutes the smallest appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining. We find, there-
fore, the following unit appropriate for collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:3
All full-time and part-time drivers, line clean-
ers, merchandisers, dispatchers, pre-salesmen,
warehousemen, mechanics, and recycling em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its
3 As the unit we find appropriate is larger than that requested, the Pe-
titioner is accorded a period of 10 days in which to submit the requisite
showing of interest to support an election. In the event the Petitioner
does not wish to proceed to an election, it may withdraw its petition
without prejudice by notice of the Regional Director within 7 days from
the date of this Decision on Review and Order.
Southside Distributors, Inc., facilities located
at 5712 E. 150 Highway, Kansas City, Missou-
ri and 1941 Warren Street, North Kansas City,
Missouri and at its J.P. Ward and Son Distrib-
utors, Inc. facility located at 3018 South 24th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas, but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined by the Act.
Accordingly, as the Petitioner indicated a will-
ingness to proceed to an election in any unit found
appropriate, the case is remanded to the Regional
Director for the purpose of conducting an election
pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election,
as modified herein, except that the payroll period
for determining eligibility shall be that immediately
preceding the issuance date of this Decision on
Review and Order. 4
ORDER
It is ordered that this case is remanded to the
Regional Director.
4 To ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to be informed
of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to
the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses that
may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear, 156 NLRB
1236 (1966); NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969). Accord-
ingly, it is directed that an eligibility list containing the names and ad-
dresses of all the eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the
Regional Director within 7 days from the date of this Decision on
Review and Order. The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election if proper objections are filed.
1390