Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of RALEIGH COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS, EMPLOYER and
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 175, OF THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-191.-Decided November 23, 194x3
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a West Virginia corporation having its prin-
cipal place of business at Beckley, West Virginia, with two Coca-Cola
bottling plants situated approximately 25 miles apart in Beckley and
Mullens, West Virginia. In addition the Employer operates an ice
manufacturing plant at Mabscott, West Virginia, about one-half mile
from the Beckley Coca-Cola plant.
The Employer is primarily engaged in the manufacturing, bottling,
and distributing of a soft drink known as Coca-Cola and of various
flavors of soda water, and also in the manufacturing of ice. About
79 percent of its bottled products is Coca-Cola. It holds a franchise
from the Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Thomas), Inc., a Tennessee
corporation, which grants the Employer exclusive bottling and dis-
tribution rights for Coca-Cola in Raleigh, Fayette, and Wyoming
counties of West Virginia. Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Thomas),
Inc., in turn has a franchise from the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, a
Delaware Corporation, which is the original Coca-Cola Company.
*Reynolds Murdock, and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 119.
768
RALEIGH COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS 769
During the first 6 months of 1948, the Employer purchased raw mate-
rials , consisting of syrup, extracts, liquid carbonic acid, bottles, crowns,
ammonia , tires and gasoline valued at more than $200,000, of which
approximately 77 percent was purchased from sources outside the
State of West Virginia. During the same period, the Employer's
sales amounted to about $400,000 in value, and were all made within
the State of West Virginia. The Employer estimated that the amount
of business for the last 6 months of 1948 would be approximately the
same as the first 6-month period of 1948.
On the basis of these facts, we find, contrary to the contention of
the Employer, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the AFL,
claiming to represent employees 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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the production and
maintenance employees in the Employer's Beckley plant, including
route salesmen, truck drivers, truck helpers, mechanics, mechanic
helpers, warehousemen, janitors, advertising employees, and refrig-
eration service employees, but excluding supervisors, guards, and
office clerical employees. The Employer contends that the unit should
be a multi-plant one, embracing the employees of the Employers at
Beckley and Mullens, West Virginia, Coca-Cola plants, and the Mab-
scott, West Virginia, ice plant. Other than the foregoing contention
regarding the scope of the unit, the Employer agrees generally that the
categories of employees sought by the Petitioner are appropriate with
the exception that the bottling superintendent at the Beckley and
Mullens plant should be included therein. In support of its principal
contention, the Employer relies upon a determination in a prior pro-
ceeding 2 wherein the Board found that the employees of the three
plants herein involved constituted a single multi-plant unit appropri-
1 The Board found the Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act, in the Matter of Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works and
Raleigh Distributing Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 1010. However, the Employer contends
that this finding is not relevant to the instant case because the Raleigh Distributing
Company, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works,
has been since dissolved . We find that this contention is without merit for the reason
that in the case cited the Board found the Raleigh Coca-Cola Bottling Works and the
Raleigh Distributing Company to be individually engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act
See also Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Jamestown, 46 N L. It. B 799,
Matter of Coca-Cola Bottling Works, 46 N. L. R. B. 180, and Oklahoma Coca -Cola Bottling
Company, 78 N L. R. B. 854, wherein the Board has found and assumed jurisdiction over
other subsidiaries or branches of the principal Coca-Cola Company.
2 See footnote 1.
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate for bargaining purposes. However, the contention that the present
case is controlled by a prior Board determination is without merit,
inasmuch as the unit determination in that case was made pursuant to
an agreement by the parties; moreover, the election in such proceeding
did not result in the selection of a bargaining representative.3
Upon the basis of the present record, there are certain factors which
indicate the appropriateness of a 3-plant unit. Thus, the Employer
maintains a main office for all 3 plants at Beckley. This office con-
trols the policies concerning hospital benefits, vacations, labor rela-
tions, production control records, invoices, bills and all other records.
The Employer also maintains at the Beckley plant a central repair
shop for major repairs on all trucks used in the operations of the 3
plants. A general manager is in control of all 3 plants. On the other
hand, each plant has its own immediate separate supervision. There is
no interchange of employees between the employees at the Beckley and
Mullens plants, or between the employees at the Mullens and Mabscott
plants. The Mullens plant, is moreover, separate geographically
about 25 miles from both the Beckley and Mabscott plants. These
latter factors indicate that to be appropriate the unit need not be co-
extensive with all 3 plants. Thus, the Mullens plant by itself might be
a separate appropriate unit. However, as regards the Beckley plant,
the record reveals that, due to the fact that the Mabscott plant operates
on a seasonal basis, the majority of its 6 employees customarily exer-
cise their option to work along with the 73 employees of the Beckley
plant, a half mile distant therefrom, during the off season which com-
prises the greater portion of the year; also, that on occasions when a
shortage of manpower occurs, an employee from the Beckley plant
may work for a day or two at the Mabscott plant. In view of these
facts, we believe that the employees at the Beckley and Mabscott
plants have such interests in common as to require that they be in-
cluded in a single unit for purposes of collective bargaining. While
such unit is larger than that sought by the Petitioner, the record dis-
closes that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate; accordingly, we shall direct an
election therein 4
We find that all the production and maintenance employees at both
the Beckley and Mabscott plants, including route salesman, truck
drivers, truck helpers, mechanic, mechanic helpers, warehousemen,
janitors, advertising employees, ice pullers, ice engineers, and refrig-
eration service employees, but excluding supervisors,5 guards, and office
S Matter of Thompson Products , Inc., 73 N. L. R. B . 548, and cases cited therein.
4 Matter of J S. Abercrombte Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 712.
5 Included within this category is the bottling superintendent at the Beckley plant, who
possesses authority to recommend effectively the discharge or promotion of employees.
RALEIGH COCA-COLA BOTTLING WORKS 771
clerical employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, at its Mabscott
and Beckley, West Virginia, plants, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the
date of this direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4 above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by Teamsters, Chauffeurs, and Helpers Local Union No.
175 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL.
9 If the Petitioner does not desire to participate in an election at this time in the unit
found appropriate, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to the Regional
Director within 5 days from issuance of this Direction, and shall thereupon vacate the
Direction of Election See Matter of J. S. Abercrombie Company, supra.
817319-49-vol 80-50