Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1145 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 81, A. F. OF L.,
PETITIONER
In the Matter of LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. OF L., No. 176,
PETITIONER 1
Cases Nos. 34-RC-183 and 34-RC-194.-Decided October 00, 1950
DECISION, ORDER,'AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Miles J. McCormick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling
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 these cases to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record, 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 em-
ployees 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 appropriate units :
Case No. 34-RC-183
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, Local No. 81, A. F. of L., herein called the
Teamsters, seeks a unit consisting generally of the warehousemen, the
shipping department, and the storage department employees of the
1 The name of the Petitioner in Case No. 34-RC-194 appears as amended at the hearing.
91 NLRB No. 178.
1145
1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer. Tobacco Workers International Union, A. F. of L., Local
No. 176, herein called the Tobacco Workers, moved to dismiss the peti-
tion on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate, particularly
in view of the past bargaining history? The Employer also contends
that the unit sought is inappropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of packaged cigarettes
and other manufactured tobacco products. The Employer's Durham,
North Carolina, plant is the only plant involved in this proceeding.
This plant is under the general supervision of a general manager. The
plant is divided into two sections : (1) the stemmery, storage, and leaf
department, and (2) the manufacturing department. The storage
function of the first department is under the control of a superin-
tendent. The shipping department, a subdivision of the manufactur-
ing department, also has its own superintendent.
The Employer purchases tobacco at auction warehouses. Some of
the tobacco is brought directly to the stemmery department and some
is stored.. The tobacco which is brought to the stemmery department
is processed, put back into kegs, and transported by the Employer's
trucks to its various storage houses, where it remains without further
process for a period of approximately 2 years. At the end of the
storage period, it is put back on trucks by the storage department
employees, and taken to the manufacturing department. The ship-
ping department performs the usual packing and transporting
functions of such a department.
Under all the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of con-
trolling bargaining history,3 we find that the warehousemen and
storage department employees constitute an appropriate unit as they
are under common separate supervision, do not regularly interchange
with the production employees, have little contact with them, and
perform a different type of work.4 The Tobacco Workers' motion
to dismiss is accordingly denied. We shall not, however, include the
shipping department employees sought by the Teamsters in the unit
herein found appropriate. These shipping department employees are
under separate immediate and ultimate supervision, are in a different
administrative division of the Employer's plant, do not interchange
2 The Tobacco workers has represented employees of the Employer , including employees
in the unit involved, for approximately 15 years under contracts limited to employees
"they represent." The existing contract between the Tobacco Workers and the Employer
was entered into on March 24, 1950, retroactively effective to March 15, 1950, for a term
of 1 year . The Teamsters have represented the truck drivers in the storage department
since 1941. There is no contract bar contention.
3 We attach little weight to a bargaining history conducted on a "members -only" basis.
Baking Industry Council, 80 NLRB 1590.
4 This unit , together with the truck drivers already represented by the Teamsters, in-
cludes all the employees in the storage department.
LIGGETT & 1VIYERS TOBACCO COMPANY 1147
with the storage department employees, and have little contact with
them.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Durham,
North Carolina, plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All warehousemen, including employees of the storage department,
power-lift truck operators, tractor operators,-hoist operators, oilers,
hogshead handlers, and all others engaged in warehousing and storage
operations, but excluding all other employees, working foremen,
assistant foremen, and all other supervisors.
Case No. 34-RC-194
The Tobacco Workers seeks a unit composed of all the employees
engaged in the maintenance and operation of the air-conditioning
equipment in the'Employer's Durham, North Carolina, plant. Inter-
national Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 721, herein called the
Machinists, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
sought vvas inappropriate. The Employer also contended that the
unit was inappropriate and that the air-conditioning employees should
continue as part of the maintenance group now represented by the
Machinists under a "members-only".contract.
The Employer began operation of its air-conditioning equipment
in July 1949. The Employer now employs one supervisor and eight
employees in the maintenance and 'operation of this equipment.
These employees operate the controls, read gauges, make required ad-
justments, and perform minor repairs. The air-conditioning em-
ployees are not sufficiently skilled to make major repairs, which would
be made by the pipe fitters, electricians, and other craftsmen of the
Employer or by outside contractors. The air-conditioning employees
are supervised by the master mechanic, who is also the supervisor of
the electricians, plumbers, pipe fitters, and other skilled maintenance
employees. Of the eight air-conditioning employees, six are former
production workers. The other two air-conditioning employees were
hired by the Employer for this kind of work, and had had some
previous experience in this field. All eight of these employees are
classified as apprentices. The Employer stated that 4 years' ap-
prenticeship in this work would be necessary before journeyman status
was reached.
Under all the circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that
the Tobacco Workers concedes that the air-conditioning employees are
not included in any traditional craft and are not highly skilled, we
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
find that they do not constitute an appropriate unit. We shall there-
fore grant the Machinists' motion to dismiss the petition in Case No.
34-RC-194.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition in Case No. 34-RC-194 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]