Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 990 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in many cases and has insistently found that compliance with this section is a matter of
administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties.4
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with
operations of the Company described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the Trial Examiner will
recommend that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take the following affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Cooper's Inc., (of Georgia) is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Textile Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, interrogating, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of'the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees of Respondent's Millen, Georgia, plant,
but excluding all office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and bargain with the United Textile Workers of America, AFL,
as the collective -bargaining agent of employees in the above appropriate unit , the Respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid labor practices of the Respondent are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
4Sunbeam Corporation, 89 NLRB 469; Wiltse d/b/a Ann Arbor Press, 85 NLRB 58, 188 F.
2d 917 (C. A. 6), cert. denied 342 U.S. 859, Law & Son, 192 F. 2d 236 (C. A. 9); Greensboro
Coco Cola Bottling Co., 180 F. 2d (C. A. 4), Vulcan Forging Co., 168 F. 2d 926 (C A. 6).
1. F. Sales Co., 188 F. 2d 931 (C. A. 6), Boston and Lockport Block Co., 98 NLRB 686; Joseph
J. Michalik, 201 F. 2d 48 (C. A. 6). Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 105 NLRB 727
PEPSI-COLA BUFFALO BOTTLING CORPORATION, Peti-
tioner . and BEVERAGE WORKERS LOCAL 1195 OF INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L. and BEVERAGE WORKERS LOCAL 195 OF INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT
DRINK & DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR,
CEREAL, SOFT DRINK & DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO
107 NLRB No. 192.
PEPSI-COLA BUFFALO BOTTLING CORPORATION 991
COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. and
LOCAL 1195, BEVERAGE WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 3-RM-87 and 3-RC-1297. January 28, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, separate hearings were held
before Murray S. Freeman and Hymen Dishner, hearing officers.
The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Local 1195,
Beverage Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL,
herein called the AFL, and Beverage Workers Local 195 of
International Union of Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink &
Distillery Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, the
only labor organizations involved in the two cases, moved to
consolidate them for decisional purposes . Pepsi-Cola Buffalo
Bottling Corporation, herein called Pepsi-Cola, and Coca Cola
Bottling Company of New York, Inc., herein called Coca Cola,
both jointly called the Employers, do not object to such consol-
idation for purposes of resolving the schism issue raised in each
case. We hereby grant the motion to consolidate these cases for
decisional purposes.
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
employees of the Employers.
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
On June 1, 1953, the CIO executed separate collective-
bargaining agreements with each Employer, to run until May 31,
1955, as to Coca Cola, and to April 30, 1955, as to Pepsi-Cola.
The petitions herein were filed on October 2 and 9, 1953. The
CIO urges its June 1953 contracts as bars to an election at this
time. The AFL contends that neither contract is a bar because
of a schism in the rank of the CIO. The Employers take no
position in this respect.
Alleged schism: The labor organizations involved are both
amalgamated locals, representing or claiming to represent
employees at numerous companies in the Buffalo area. Thus,
the facts herein are applicable to both Coca Cola and Pepsi-
Cola with respect to the existence of a question concerning
representation.
On July 22, 1953, a meeting of the CIO's local executive board,
attended by all local officers, was held. This executive board
voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the CIO and affiliate with
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the AFL, and within the next few days applied to the
Teamsters for a charter. The charter was received early in
August.
About the end of July and the beginning of August, petitions
were circulated in the companies in the Buffalo area, some by
officers,' and some by stewards, which stated that the signa-
tories "affirm and ratify the action of the Executive Board of
Local Union No. 195 in disaffiliating from the . . . CIO and in
affiliating with the . . . AFL, as Local Union 1195." Although
the separate petitions were not all sufficiently identified so as
to be considered competent evidence, the record does establish
that a clear majority of the employees among the various
plants, including a large majority of the employees at Coca
Cola and Pepsi-Cola, signed these documents.
On August 5, 1953, the AFL wrote to Coca Cola and Pepsi-
Cola, stating that Local 195 was affiliated with the Teamsters
as Local 1195, and advising the Employers that it was the
bargaining agent of their employees.
Then, on August 11, 1953, a meeting was called by Michael
Achatz, at this time secretary-treasurer of the AFL (formerly
secretary-treasurer of the CIO). The notice of the meeting did
not state its purpose. At this meeting a vote of confidence in the
action of the former executive board of the CIO was passed by
a vote of 60 to 1. There are over 200 members of the amal-
gamated local.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, and on the entire record in
these cases, we are convinced that the application of the schism
doctrine is not warranted. The employees did not vote at a
meeting of the contracting union to disaffiliate from that union.
The only membership meeting at which disaffiliation was voted
upon was called by officers of the AFL, and after a charter had
been received from the AFL. The approximately 60 employees
at the meeting out of the total membership of more than 200 in
the CIO then merely took a "vote of confidence" in the action of
their former officers. Thus, it cannot be said that a schism has
occurred in the sense in which the Boardhas used that term.2
We find, accordingly, that the current contracts between the
CIO and the Employers bar new determinations of representa-
tives at this time, and we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
'Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the officers of the CIO were, by
the time these petitions circulated, already officers of the AFL.
2Rex Curtain Corporation, 97 NLRB 899; Boyle-Midway, Inc. 97 NLRB 895.