Metz Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 108 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of METZ BAKING COMPANY , EMPLOYER and LOCAL 433,
BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY' WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
AMERICA , AFL , PETITIONER
Case No. 18-IBC-616.=Decided November 16, 1950
DECISION AND. DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed; a hearing'. was held before William J.
Douglas, 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 [Chairlnan Herzog and Members
Reynolds 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. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent 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 unit:
On February 28, 1949, pursuant to a consent election held under
the direction of the Regional: Director, Local 500 of the Petitioner's
International was certified as collective bargaining representative of
the employees in a unit upon which both parties agreed., Since that
time, Local 500 has relinquished to the Petitioner its interest as the
bargaining representative of these employees. The Petitioner now
seeks certification as bargaining agent for this unit, and seeks also the
inclusion in this unit of the Employer's garage employees, transport
drivers, retail sales clerks, and plant engineers, all of whom were
excluded from the unit for which Local 500 was certified.
'The unit agreed on by the ,. ployer_and Loc ;i,1.500 was described as follows :
All employees of the Employer in Sioux Falls , South Dakota , excluding managers,
office employees , salesmen , route salesmen , craft employees, plant engineers and guards
and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Labor Management
Relations Act.
92 NLRB No. 31.
108
METZ 'BAKING' COMPANY 109
. The ' Employer impliedly agrees' that ah election should be held
to determine the bargaining. agent'for,the existing unit, but objects
to the addition of the presently unrepreseiited groups requested by
the Petitioner,, contending that the employees in these categories
are separate crafts having no common interest with the production
employees in the established unit. In,the event the Board determines
that these groups should be, included in. the unit, the Employer con-
tends that separate elections should be held for each of them. The
parties also disagree as to the supervisory status of the chief engineer,
whom the Employer would exclude from and the Petitioner would
include in the unit; and the record raises.a question as to the super-
visory status of the bakery foreman and the night shipping foremen,
whom the parties have agreed to include.
The Employer operates a wholesale baking business, manufacturing,
selling, and distributing bread and other bakery goods in several
States. Only its baking plant at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is in-
volved in this proceeding. At this plant there are about 130 employees,
of whom approximately 86, including the 10 employees whose inclu-
sion is disputed by the Employer, are in the unit presently requested
by the Petitioner. All its working groups, including the garage
employees and the plant engineers, are located -in 1 building, and all
its employees work under the same general supervision.
Garage employees: The Employer has four garage employees who
repair and maintain its trucks. They work under the supervision
of the garage superintendent who reports to the general manager.
The record does not indicate the extent of the skill possessed by the
garage employees. They appear to perform the usual duties of garage
employees, such as checking trucks for motor defects, oiling and greas-
ing the vehicles, and generally maintaining the Employer's trucks in
operating condition. We find that the. garage employees may appro-
priately be included in the existing unit of production employees.2
Transport drivers: There are two transport drivers, who operate
large trucks in which they carry the Employer's bakery goods to
distant central points, where the Employer's driver-salesmen 3 pick
up the goods and deliver them to customers and other buyers. They
work under the supervision of the , garage superintendent and are
' Armour and Company, 84 NLRB 813.
The Employer has about 35 driver-salesmen, about half of whom work from its bakery
plant and the other half from distant central points located from 90 to 230 miles from
the bakery plant .' They operate comparatively ' small trucks delivering bakery goods to
customers and dealers , and while on the road they sell the Employer 's goods to such
customers as they can obtain . They' work on. a salary basis plus commission and are
under the direct supervision of the . sales manager. Neither party seeks to include them
in the unit.
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
paid on an hourly basis. We find that the transport drivers may prop-
erly be included in the existing bargaining unit.'
Sales clerks: The Employer operates a store in the plant building,
where it sells left-over' or stale bread. It employs two retail sales
clerks for that purpose. These clerks work under the supervision of
the 'general manager. Working in the same building with other em-
ployees, they are in continuous contact with the production employees
of the plant. We find that the two sales clerks may appropriately be
included with the production employees of the bakery in a plant-wide
unit.'
Plant engineers: The Employer has three plant engineers, one of
whom is known as the chief engineer, and the other two work under
the latter's direction, firing the plant boilers and repairing and main-
taining the various equipment and machinery used in the plant. Al-
though generally located in the boiler rooms of the plant, the engineers
work throughout the entire plant doing maintenance work wherever
needed. We find that, as maintenance employees, the plant engineers
may appropriately be included in a plant-wide production and mainte-
nance unit.'
As set forth above, the Employer contends that separate elections
should be held among these presently excluded groups to determine
whether they wished to be represented as part of the existing unit.
We have considered a similar issue in the case of Waterous Company,"
which decision issued this day. For reasons stated in that decision, we
shall deny the Employer's request." We shall direct an election in the
single voting group which i*cludes all employees in the unit herein
found appropriate.
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the chief
engineer and the bakery and night shipping foremen.
Chief Engineer: The chief engineer is under the direct supervision
of the production superintendent and has charge of the other two
engineers. Although he spends a considerable part of his time in
manual work, he directs the work of the .other two engineers and is
responsible to the prof ficti nII superintendent for the proper pe for'm-
ance of all the work assigned to the engineers. His recommendations'
as to the hiring, discharging, or disciplining of the men who work
4 Tell City Furniture Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 284; Stokely Food, Inc., 83 NLRB 795 ;
Hopper Machine Works, 83 NLRB 1007.
® Cf. Westinghouse Electric Supply Company; 83 NLRB 174.
6 Red Wing Potteries , Inc., 87 NLRB 1095; Columbia Packing Company, 80 NLRB 211.
7 The Waterou8 Company, 92 NLRB 76.
8 Chairman Herzog and Member Reynolds would grant the Employer 's request for a
self-determinative election among the presently excluded employees , for reasons , set forth
in their dissenting opinions in the Waterous case, but deem themselves bound by the
decision of the majority in that case.
METZ BAKING COMPANY 111
under him are given great weight by the Employer. We find that the
chief engineer is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We
shall exclude him from the unite
Baking foreman and night shipping foreman: The bakery foreman
spends approximately 10 percent of his time in physical labor and 90
percent in directing the work of 14 employees under him. He is re-
sponsible to the production superintendent for the operation of the
bakery department, and he may temporarily transfer employees from
job to•,job within his department. The Employer's general manager
gives considerable weight to his recommendations regarding tkie hir-
ing, discharging, or disciplining of those who work under him. The
night shipping foreman spends from 80 to 85 percent of his time in
directing the work of 10 or 11 employees working on the night shift
in the shipping room. He is responsible directly to the production
.superintendent who only on rare occasions is at the plant during the
night shift. His recommendations concerning the hiring, discharging,
or disciplining of employees working under him are likewise given
considerable weight by the Employer. Although the parties have
agreed-to, include the bakery foreman and night shipping foreman
in the unit, as the record clearly indicates that they are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, we shall exclude them 10
We find that all production and maintenance employees employed
at the Employer's Sioux Falls, South Dakota, plant, including garage
employees, transport drivers, retail sales clerks, and plant engineers,
but" excluding the chief engineer, bakery foreman, night shipping fore-
man, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute , a'init
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within. the, meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 The J. N. Bray Company, 83 NLRB 388; Welding Shipyards, Inc., 81 _NLRB 936.
10 Royal Palm Ice Company, 82 NLRB 879 ; Fairmont Foods Company, 81 NLRB 1092;
Ti'eldinc hipyards, Inc., supra.