Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 865 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

,a
In the Matter of LOOSE-WILEs BISCUIT COMPANY and LOCAL UNION'
No. 3, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFFILI-
ATED WITH THE AMERICAN , FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-4161.-Decided October 7, 1942
Jurisdiction : bakery products manufacturing industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed when there was no appropriate unit
within its scope ; proposed unit of maintenance employees held inappropriate
when ' such employees did not constitute a single departmental subdivision or a
single well -defined craft group, but were employed throughout plant and were
members of many separate and distinct craft groups.
Mr. Fredrick R. Livingston, for the Board.
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz cf Mendelsohn, by Mr. Nathaniel H. Janes,
of New York City, and Mr. William A. Ferguson, of Long Island City,
for the Company.
Mr. Henry W. Hanick, of New York City, and Mr.'John K. Laph,am,
of Long Island City, for the A. F. of L.
Mr. John J. Sheehan, of New York City, for the C. I. O.
Mr. Seymour I. Spelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Local Union No. 3, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the A. F.- of L., herein
called the A. F. of L., alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Loose-Wiles
Biscuit Company, New York City,' herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Horace E. Ruckel, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at New York City on August it, 1942., The Board,
the Company, the A. F. of L., and Local 25, United Cracker Workers
of Greater New York, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the
C. I. 0., appeared, participated, and .were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross -examine witnesses, and to introduce-,
44 N. L . R. B., No. 170.
487498-42-vol 44-55 865
866 DECISIONS OF "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence bearing upon the issues. The Trial Examiner 's rulings, made
at the hearing, are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On September 10 and 11, 1942, respectively, the Company and the
C. 1. 0. filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company , a New York corporation , having its
principal office in New York City and a plant in. Long Island City,
New York, is engaged in the manufacture , distribution , and, sale of
!biscuits , crackers ,'cakes, and related food products . The principal raw
" materials purchased by the Company are flour, sugar, and shortening.
During the 6-month period of February 1, 1942, to August 1, 1942, the
Company purchased approximately 2,800,000 pounds of said raw--.ma-
terial, approximately 50 percent of which was shipped to the Com-
pany's plant from points outside the State of New, York. During the
same period , the Company sold filiishecl products valued at approxi-
mately $10,000 ,000,'approxinlately 80 percent of which was shipped to
points outside the State of New York.
The Company concedes that, it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor admitting to membership maintenance employees of the
Company.
Local 25, United Cracker Workers of Greater New York, is a labor
organization aflhitea with the Congress of Industrial Organizations
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGFD APPROPRIATE UNIT
The A. F. of L. seeks- to establish a unit of maintenance employees,
including maintemihce mechanics, power plant employees, electricians
and helpers, plumbers and helpers, carpenters, cutter shop machinists,
machine shop employee`s, beltinen, elevator operators, porters, watch-
men, and washroom: atteiitlants. The C. I. O. and the Company con-
tend that such a,unit would be inappropriate.
The Company's pldnt'is divided into seven major production depart-
ments, each having-a d6' artment' head, foremen, and assistant fore-
I
LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT COMPANY' 867
men in its supervisory hierarchy. Foremen are responsible for cpro-
duction and maintenance .in their department.' All production and
maintenance employees are hired through the same personnel office
and work a basic 40-hour week with time and one-half for overtime.
-Vacation policy, bonuses, holidays, and lunch periods are the, same
for all production and maintenance employees.
The watchmen, porters, ele` ator operators, and washroom attend-
ants are under the supers ision of a Mr.-Miller. The other maintenance
employees are under the sueprivision of Mr. LeCount. LeCount inter-
views applicants for maintenance positions and has the power to dis-
cilarge. Foremen may recommend discharge of maintenance employees
to LeCount who generally follows these recommendations. LeCount
has general supervision over the maintenance employees, except its
stated above, but they receive most of their specific orders from the
foremen in the production departments in which they are working.
The Company's policy' has been to transfer, production employees to
the maintenance force when those employees have displayed the
requisite aptitude . The plant superintendent testified that several
production employees have been transferred to maintenance, under that
policy.
-The maintenance mechanics, 11 in number, are each assigned to a
specific production department where they are charged with the duty
cf keeping the production machines in repair. ' They receive their
orders-from the production department foremen, who lay out the work
for them, and they are at all times in contact with the production
employees in the department in which they are working.' On , many
occasions, the production employees assist the mechanics on repair
jobs. The other maintenance employees likewise perform their duties
in the various production departments throughout the plant, in con-
tact with the production foremen and production employees.
All,of these maintenance employees are included together with the
.production employees in an existing contract between the Company
and, the C. I. O. 'Since the execution of this contract'on,November 14,
1941, the C.• I. O. has bargained for th e maintenance employees as
well as for the production einployees.'
There was considerable testimony with respect to the previous bar-
gaining history of the Company and the biscuit industry in general.
In several biscuit companies in the City of New York, Bakery and
Confectionery Workers Union, Local 405, A. F. of L., has bargaining
contracts in which the unit embraces all production; and,maintenance
employees. The petitioner also has contracts with at least two coal
1The existing contract was executed after the A F of r; filed its petition heceiii `The
C I 0 made a prime facie showing of majority in a plant -wile unit at the time the con-
liact was entered i'nto ''
868 DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
panies in -New York wherein the unit includes, both production and
maintenance employees. At the Company's plants in Saginaw, Michi-
gan, and Kansas City, the C. I. 0. has contracts covering production
and maintenance employees. In some of the Company's other plants
throughout the country, there. are various kinds of bargaining units.
The unit sought to be established by the A. F. of L. contains within
it . approximately 10 different crafts. The petitioner has 'secured,
through the Central Trade Council, releases from these other A. F.
of L. craft-unions, and it has agreed to allow the employees in the
various crafts within the unit of maintenance employees to split off
if they desire and affiliate themselves with their appropriate craft
-organizations . The A. F. of L. testified that if 50 percent of the
maintenance mechanics, for example, should decide to split off and
affiliate with their craft unions, the other 50 percent would remain
with the petitioner. No understanding has yet been reached by pe-
titioner and the other A. F. 'of L. craft unions , as to how grievances
will be handled in the event that one or more craft groups split off
from the petitioner.
The Company and the C. I. 0. argue that the unit sought to be
established by the A. F. of L. is inappropriate (1) because there•is u
community of interest, similarity of working conditions, and func-
tional coherence- among the production employees and the employees
in the unit requested by the A. F. of L.; and (2) that chaotic collective
bargaining relations would result from the' establishment of such a
unit. In support- of the second proposition, the Company maintains
(a) that porters, elevator operators, washroom attendants, and watch-
men have little mutuality of interest with maintenance mechanics
and engineers; and (b) that the understanding between the petitioner
and the other A. F. of L. craft unions, whereby these crafts may split
off from petitioner, would make orderly and effective bargaining re-
lations between the Company and its employees a 'difficult matter.
In making determinations pursuant to Section'9 (b) of the Act,
the Board may properly find that a subdivision of an employer, craft,
or plant. unit constitutes an appropriate unit. The Board has enter-
tained petitions for separate departmental representation of employees
-being organized on a, plant-wide or industrial basis on the principle
that organization of the employees has not yet been extended beyond
such department. Nevertheless, this principle has never been applied
-to the determination as appropriate, units of arbitrary and artificial
groupings of employees:2 In the instant case the employees, 'which
are sought to be included`in a,single appropriate unit, do not constitute
a single departmental subdivision, but rather are employed throughout
2 In the Matter of Triangle Pubhcationi,' Ino and Chicago Editorial Asaooiation Federal
Union 21690, 40 N. L. R. B. 1330. -
LOOSE-WILES BISCUIT COMPANY 869
the,plant. Furthermore, these employees do not constitute a single,
well-defined craft group, but are instead members of a great many
separate and distinct craft groups.- We have, on occasion, permitted
several craft groups to be jointly represented by a single collective
bargaining agency. However, this result has been predicated either
upon separate elections in each craft unit or upon combination into a
joint council or federation of the representatives of each craft group
for the purpose of bargaining in an industrial or departmental unit.
Here neither factor is present.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the petition
herein should be dismissed, and we accordingly find that the unit re-
quested by the A. F. of L. is inappropriate for, the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
IV. TIIE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated in Section III, above, the bargaining unit sought
to be established by the petitioner is not appropriate, we find that no
question concerning the representation of employees 'of the Company
in an appropriate unit has arisen within the meaning'of Section 9 (c)
of the Act. '
ORDER
Upon the basis of ,the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of Loose-Wiles Biscuit,
Company, New York City, filed by Local Union No. 3, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., 'be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in,the consideration of the above
Decision and Order. '