88 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

Nowell-Wetterau Grocer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 6, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 515 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of NOWELL-WETTERAU GROCER CO., EMPLOYER and IN- TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUStMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL No. 833, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 17-RC-608.Decided February 6, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J. Scott, 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 Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, a Missouri corporation, is a wholesale grocer and.'distributor of food products to independent retail grocers in Missouri. It operates under a franchise granted by Independent Grocers Alliance, a national organization of independent grocers. By the terms of the franchise, the Employer may use the services, labels, and trade-marks of the Alliance. The Employer annually purchases merchandise in excess of $3,000,000, of which about 75 per- cent is shipped directly to the Employer from outside Missouri ; annual sales, in excess of $3,500,000, are made entirely within the State. We find that 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 cer- tain employees 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: i Providence Public Market Company, 79 NLRB 1482. SS NLRB No. 109. 515 882191-51-34 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the drivers and warehouse employees at the Employer's Columbia, Missouri, ware- house. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one composed of the employees in all its warehouses. The Employer operates 3 warehouses in Missouri, 1 each in Colum- bia, Mexico, and Fulton.2 Columbia is about 38 miles from Mexico, and about 27 miles from Fulton; Mexico and Fulton are 23 miles apart. Each of the warehouses is a wholesale distributing-point. The Mexico and Columbia warehouses, employing 13 and 16 employees respec- tively, are virtually identical in organization, function, and opera- tion. Each is a cash and carry, as well as a credit and delivery, warehouse. The warehouse at Fulton, however, with 2 employees, does only a cash and carry business. The Employer's first vice presi- dent directly manages all 3 warehouses, with the help of the second vice president, who is also assistant manager. Stocks in the warehouse are considered a common pool for filling all orders. Although the truck drivers who deliver goods to the Employer's customers usually work out of the one warehouse to which they are permanently assigned, they are transferred to another if the need arises. Truck drivers assigned to one warehouse sometimes deliver into the territory usually served by another warehouse, if speed or efficiency of operation require it. Warehousemen also are interchanged among the warehouses. Wages and conditions of work are substantially the same in all 3 warehouses. In view of the foregoing facts, particularly the common supervision over all three warehouses, the similarity of operations, and the inter- change of employees among them, we find that a unit limited to the employees of one of the three warehouses is inappropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT Is IIEREBI ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 The record shows that within the next year the Employer intends to construct a new warehouse at Columbia, Missouri, wherein it will combine the Columbia and Mexico. 3 Brown, Express , et al., 80 NLRB 752.