Kraft Foods Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 582 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
press work. When plant No. 2 falls behind in its work, it calls upon
plant No. 1 employees for help.
While plant No. 2 is under the immediate supervision of one who
has the authority to,hire and discharge and to settle minor grievances,
the operations of both plants are directed by the superintendent of
operations. Company officials at plant No. 1 determine labor rela-
tions, production scheduling, engineering, and administrative policies
for both plants. For accounting purposes, the two plants are treated
as a single entity, and all personnel records and timecards are filed at
plant No. 1. All paychecks are prepared at plant No. 1 and all em-
ployees are paid at the same time. The employees at both plants are
covered by a single workmen compensation insurance policy and the
physical properties of the Employer at the two locations in question
are likewise covered by a single insurance policy.
On the basis of all the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that
plant No. 2 is essentially an extension of the plant No. 1 operation
and that, therefore, a unit confined to its employees is inappropriate.4
However, as the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest in
the appropriate unit herein embracing employees at plants Nos. 1 and
2, we shall direct an election in such unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its plants at 7th Street and Sunshine Road and 7th and
Kindelberger Streets, Kansas City, Kansas, excluding office clerical
employees, truckdrivers, and supervisors as defined in the Act, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
& Borg-Warner Corporation, 113 NLRB 152; Kearfott Company, Inc, 106 NLRB 716 ;
Poultry Producers Association , 114 NLRB 1186.
5 As we are unable to determine the unit placement of the shop engineer on the basis
of the present record, we shall permit that employee to vote subject to challenge.
Kraft Foods Company and Bakery and Sales Drivers' and Help-
ers' Local Union No . 686, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4537. August 13, 1956
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 John C. Burgoon,
116 NLRB No. 81.
KRAFT FOODS COMPANY 583'
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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
employees 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distri-
bution of food products on a nationwide basis. Its Boston, Massa-
chusetts, branch is alone involved in the present proceedings. The
Petitioner, under its amended unit request, seeks herein to represent
all salesmen and merchandisers employed by the Employer in the
Maine area of its Boston branch. The Employer takes the position
that the appropriate unit should comprise all such employees in its
Boston branch.
The Employer's Boston branch, as presently constituted, covers all
of Maine, most of New Hampshire, about half of Vermont, and the
more densely populated areas of Massachusetts. There has been a
history of bargaining for some of the salesmen and merchandisers
now in the Boston branch.' Around 1940, at a time when the Em-
ployer sold its products in northern New England directly from
trucks operating from a number of distribution branches, the Peti-
tioner organized the truck salesmen in the then Lawrence, Massa-
chusetts, branch, and its sister union, Local 646, organized like em-
ployees in the metropolitan Boston branch. By 1948, as a result of a
change from the truck sales to the advanced sales method of distribu-
tion, the Employer had reduced the number of branches in
northern New England to two : a Boston branch with a warehouse in.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a branch in Bangor, Maine..
The salesmen who had worked in the Lawrence and metropolitan
Boston branches continued to be represented by the Petitioner and
Local 646, respectively, while those in the other branches absorbed
into the Boston branch, e. g., Montpelier, Vermont; Portland,
Maine; and Taunton, Massachusetts, continued to be unrepresented.
Salesmen in the Bangor branch were also unrepresented. In.
1954, the Bangor branch was relocated in Portland and broadened
to include the entire Maine area. Finally, in 1955, the Portland
branch was made a part of the Boston branch. It appears that the
Petitioner and Local 646, under their latest contracts with the Em-
ployer, both of which recently expired, have bargained for all the
1 At the present time, there are 29 salesmen and 11 merchandisers in the Boston branch.
The requested unit comprises 5 salesmen and 1 merchandiser.
584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
salesmen and merchandisers in the Boston branch exclusive of those
requested herein.2
The Boston branch has a branch manager who formulates policy
and controls personnel and labor relations for the entire branch.
Under him are 2 assistant branch managers, 3 branch supervisors, and
several sales supervisors. The branch supervisors direct the activities
of salesmen and the sales supervisors direct merchandisers. The
salesmen throughout the branch attend six general sales meetings each
year. One of the assistant branch managers was formerly inanager of
the Portland branch, but, since the elimination of that branch, he has,
despite his new title, acted as a branch supervisor from the same Port-
land, office. The other assistant branch manager is in charge of mer-.
chandising throughout the branch.
The Employer at present uses a zonal distribution system in most
areas of its Boston branch. Under that system, which the Employer
calls Zonor, salesmen are not assigned to one area only but, operating
from the central warehouse, are rotated from zone to zone, as needed,
on a biweekly basis, and deliveries are made by the Employer's trucks.
In most of the Maine area, the Employer does not use the Zonor sys-
tem, but has salesmen in designated territories.3 These salesmen
make advance sales in the same manner as those operating under the
Zonor system. However, deliveries are made, not by the Employer,
but by independent grocery jobbers to whom the ordered food prod-
ucts are sent from the Employer's central warehouse, recently re-
located from Cambridge to Needham Heights, Massachusetts.
- The Petitioner, in its brief, contends that the salesmen operating
in the Maine area form a cohesive unit apart from other salesmen in
the Boston branch, by reason of their separate geographic location,
their exclusion from the Zonor system of sales and distribution, and
their different rates of compensation. However, in enterprises such
as the Employer's which distribute their products on a nationwide
basis, the Board has favored the establishment of units coextensive
with the employer's entire operation or some administrative subdi-
vision thereof.4 In the instant case, in view of the inclusion of the
Maine area in the Boston branch for administrative purposes, and
the central control exercised by the Boston branch manager with re-
spect to supervision, rates of compensation, working conditions, and
general policies, we conclude, upon the entire record, that the requested
unit is too limited in scope to constitute an appropriate unit on the
theory advanced by the Petitioner,5 and that, but for the bargaining
2 Local 646 did not intervene herein.
3 The Employer also assigns salesmen from other areas to the summer resort areas of
Maine and northern New Hampshire during seasonal sales peaks.
4 Kraft Foods Company, 91 NLRB 525.
5 See Liebmann Breu; erses, Inc ., 101 NLRB 616; tbid. , 92 NLRB 1740 ; Kraft Foods
Company, supra.
HILLMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 585
history herein, the branchwide unit would be the only appropriate
unit. However, we shall not dismiss the petition as there is an alterna-
tive basis for an appropriate unit finding in the fact, as previously
noted, that the Maine area salesmen appear to be the only salesmen
in the Boston branch not represented by any labor organization. In
these circumstances, we shall find appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, under our residual unit doctrine, all unrepresented
salesmen and merchandisers in the Employer's Boston branch .6
We find that all unrepresented salesmen and merchandisers in the
Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, branch, excluding those currently
represented by the Petitioner and Local 646, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, and excluding office and clerical employees, delivery
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
6 Equitable Gas Company, 111 NLRB 453; The Kroger Company, 93 NLRB 274.
Paul Hillman and Michael Sakuta d /b/a Hillman Manufacturing
Company and Harvey C. Babbitt , Petitioner and International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , and its Local 155, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 7-RD-207. August 13,1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING
REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO OPEN AND COUNT CHAL-
LENGED BALLOT
On October 20, 1955, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of
Election in this proceeding 1 pursuant to which an election by secret
ballot was conducted on November 8, 1955. Out of 22 votes cast, 11 were
for the Union, 8 were against it, and 3 were challenged by the Union.
The Employer filed, but later withdrew, objections to the conduct
of the election, and the Union withdrew its challenge to two of the
ballots. The Regional Director duly conducted an investigation upon
the remaining ballot which was challenged on the ground that Arthur
Strittmatter, the employee in question, was a supervisor and not
entitled to vote. On March 19,1956, the Regional Director's report on
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
116 NLRB No. 83.