Liebmann Breweries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1632 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC., EMP--COYER and DIsTRICr
#15 OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
In the Matter of LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN, OILERS AND MAINTENANCE
MECHANICS, LOCAL No. 56, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 2-RC-1535 and 2-RC-1838.-Decided May 25, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a hearing 1 was held before Lloyd S.
Greenidge, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. District #15 of International Association of Machinists, herein
called the IAM, and International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers
and Maintenance Mechanics, Local No. 56, AFL, herein called the
Firemen, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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 for the following
reasons:
The Petitioners seek a unit of six stockroom employees in the Em-
ployer's receiving rooms located at the Noel St., and the Evergreen
Avenue entrances to the Employer's Brooklyn, New York, plant.
1 Pursuant to Section 203.64 ( b) of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , these cases were consolidated by order of the Regional Director for the Second
Region ( New York, N . Y.) on March 27, 1950.
89 NLRB No. 213.
1632
'IiIEBMANN BREWEIIB$, INC. .1633
The Employer takes no position as to the appropriateness of the pro-
posed unit.'
The Employer is engaged in the brewing and 'distribution of beer
.and ale at its Brooklyn, .New York, plant, the only plant involved in
this proceeding. It employs approximately 1,000 production em-
ployees.2 Other employees include mechanics, washers, oilers, greas-
ers, and inside machinists engaged in the maintenance and repair of
the Employer's fleet of vehicles, currently represented by the JAM;
firemen, oilers, and maintenance mechanics engaged in the mainte-
nance of the plant and production machinery, currently represented
by the Firemen; and administrative office employees, stockroom em-
ployees, elevator operators, porters, and utility men, presently un-
organized.
Because its Brooklyn plant occupies 7 blocks, the Employer receives
its material and supplies at several different locations in the plant.
The six employees whom the Petitioners seek to represent are em-
ployed interchangeably at the receiving rooms located on Noel St.
and on Evergreen Avenue. They spend part of their time in main-
taining records of stock and the balance of their time in receiving and
distributing supplies. These two receiving rooms, 2 blocks apart, are
the largest receiving points maintained by the Employer. The Noel
St. receiving room receives materials used largely in the Employer's
garage for the repair and maintenance of its fleet, and the Evergreen
Avenue receiving room receives supplies and materials used in the
repair and maintenance of the plant. In addition, these two rooms
occasionally receive stationery and similar supplies, machine parts,
and production supplies (bottles, caps, labels, etc.), but normally such
supplies are received at other receiving points.
In addition to the 6 employees mentioned above, the record discloses
that there are between 25 and 50 other employees throughout the plant
who perform, in whole or in part, duties similar to those performed by
the 6 employees sought, and none of whom are sought to be included in
the proposed unit. All the receiving room employees, including the
6 involved herein, are carried on the same payroll as the office em-
ployees, are paid on a salary basis, receive the same benefits as the
other office payroll employees (which differ from the benefits re-
ceived by the production and maintenance employees) and, although
they sometimes interchange with office employees, there is no inter-
change with the production or maintenance employees.
The bargaining unit proposed by the Petitioners is not sufficiently
comprehensive, as it does not include employees who perform duties
8 The production employees are represented by International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, Local No. 23, CIO.
1634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
similar to those of the employees in the proposed unit. Upon the
basis of the instant record, we find, therefore, that the unit proposed
by the Petitioners is not appropriate for collective bargaining pur-
poses.3 We shall accordingly dismiss both the petitions herein filed.
ORDER
On the basis of the entire record in this proceeding and for the
reasons set forth above, the National Labor Relations Board orders
that the petitions filed in Case No. 2-RC-1535 by District #15 of
International Association of Machinists, and the petition filed in Case
No. 2-RC-1838 by International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers and
Maintenance Mechanics, Local No. 56, AFL, be, and they hereby are,
dismissed.
8 Automatic Electric Company, 81 NLRB 218.