Red Dot Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 145 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

RED DOT FOODS , INC. - 145
Basically, the Respondent operates a packing plant and distributes its production
by its own sales force and through the Savannah and Macon partnerships. Func-
tionally the Georgia partnerships operate as branches of the Respondent and they
jointly form a continuous chain from production to wholesale and retail distribution.
Although it is apparent that there is much local autonomy in each concern, in
determining the effect of the operations of the Respondent upon commerce, their
full impact cannot be determined without considering also the operations of the
two Georgia partnerships who function as outlets for its products. The Trial
Examiner therefore concludes that the Respondent and Meddin Brothers, at Savannah,
and Meddin Brothers, at Macon, are functionally integrated and the operations of
those concerns must be considered in their totality in determining the impact of
their operations upon commerce.
The barrier of a State boundary has prevented a similar integration of the opera-
tions of the Respondent with those of the partnership at Charleston, South Carolina.
Shipments from the Respondent to the Charleston concern are small. There are
the ties of family ownership and some joint functioning, but there is no integration
establishing a chain of production and distribution such as exists between the
Respondent and the other two partnerships. The Trial Examiner therefore concludes
that the operations of Meddin Brothers, at Charleston, South Carolina, are not
integrated with those of the Respondent and should not be considered in deter-
mining the question of jurisdiction. I -
If the out-of-State purchases or direct inflow of the Respondent and the Meddin
Brothers partnerships in Savannah and Macon, Georgia; are totaled the result is as
follows: -
1953-
Direct inflow Respondent---------------------------------- $402, 237.29
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Savannah)------------------- 80, 925. 24
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Macon)--------------------- 40, 681. 94
Total------------------------------------------------- 523,844.47
1954-
Direct inflow Respondent--------------------------------- 349, 980. 81
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Savannah)------------------- 82, 544.24
Direct inflow Meddin Brothers (Macon)--------------------- 111, 726. 83
Total------------------------------------------------- 544,251.88
Thus total direct inflow in each of the years which could be used as a base for
calculation was in excess of the $500,000 direct inflow requirement set forth in the
Jonesboro case, supra.20 The Trial Examiner therefore concludes that the opera-
tions of the Respondent when considered as an integrated enterprise with the Georgia
partnerships satisfy one of the criteria established by the Board for the assertion of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the application to dismiss these proceedings for want of
jurisdiction is denied.
It is further ordered that this hearing shall be resumed on the merits on Tuesday,-
August 9; 1955; at 9:30 a. in., in the United States Post Office and Federal Building,
Savannah, Georgia.
' National Gas Company, 99 NLRB 273, 276, reversed on other grounds 215 F. 2d 160
(C. A. 8) ; P. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc., 112 NLRB 295.
Red Dot Foods, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers,
Local No. 442, A. F. of L., Petitioner.
Red Dot Foods , Inc. and Lodge No. 1406, International Associ-
ation of Machinists, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Cases Nos. 13-RC-
4428 and 13RC-4442. September 21, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert H. Cowdrill, hearing
114 NLRB No. 29.
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain 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.
The Employer contends that its contract with the Bakery Workers
is a bar to the instant petitions.' This contract is for 2 years' duration
beginning April 14, 1955, and provides for the recognition of the
Bakery Workers "as sole representative of all of the Company's em-
ployees at its Madison, Wisconsin, plant, excluding executive,
supervisory, office and clerical employees and any temporary em-
ployees. . . ." At the hearing, however, the Bakery Workers admit-
ted that it has never represented the Employer's cafeteria employees,
janitors, shipping room employees, and maintenance engineers. More-
over, although -the Employer's production manager testified that all
classifications of -employees had been bargained for by -the Bakery
Workers, he later admitted that no demand for wage increases or
adjustments -had -been made -by the Bakery Workers for the shipping
room employees, nor had it handled grievances for them. He stated
further that the wage rates for the shipping room employees were de-
termined by their supervisor and -that he did not know upon what
basis the supervisor granted wage increases to those employees.
It is admitted that appendix A of the contract between the Em-
ployer and the Bakery Workers, wherein the employee classifications
and wage rates are listed, does not specify the classifications of em-
ployees sought in this proceeding. The production manager en-
deavored to explain this by stating that the classification of "general
utility" in the contract covers all employees not under specific classi-
fications. Later in the hearing, however, he contradicted his broad
statement and admitted that the "general utility"-classification did not
apply to cafeteria employees, shipping room employees, or employees
i Prior to the close of the hearing , the Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers, Local No 442,
A F of L., herein called Teamsters, Lodge No 1406 , International Association of
Machinists , A F of L , herein called IAM, and Bakery & Confectionary Workers Inter-
national Union of America , AFL, Local No. 233 , herein called Bakery workers , jointly
filed several motions , including an alternative motion requesting the Board to establish
an overall residual unit of employees to be represented jointly by the three unions. The
hearing officer referred the motions to the Board for rulings For reasons stated in
paragraphs 4 and 5 , infra, the alternative motion is granted
2 The Bakery workers was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the 4basis of an
existing contract with the Employer.
3 At the beginning of the hearing , the Bakery workers also contended that the contract
was a bar. However , prior to the close of the hearing, it withdrew this contention and
all previous objections to the units sought by the IAM and the Teamsters.
RED DOT FOODS, INC. 147
performing any type of maintenance work . The Employer 's' urchas-
ing agent and assistant production manager also stated that the "gen-
eral utility " classification did not apply to cafeteria or shipping
employees . Thus, even the testimony of the Employer 's `'witnesses
tends to support the testimony of the Bakery Workers' representative
that it had not represented the employees in question . Thus the clear
import of the testimony , even of the Employer 's witnesses, supports
the finding that the Bakery Workers has not represented or bargained
for the employees sought herein . We, therefore , find that the contract
between the Employer and the Bakery Workers is not a bar to a pres-
ent determination of representatives for those eniployees.4
4. The appropriate unit :
The Teamsters seeks to,represeilt a unit of the Employer 's shipping
room employees . The IAM filed a petition seeking to represent a unit
composed of all of the Employer 's maintenance departments em-
ployees, including janitors and cafeteria employees . At the hearing,
the IAM clarified its unit position by stating that the engineering de-
partment employees were a part of the unit it sought to- represent.
Later , at the hearing, the Teamsters , the IAM , and the Bakery Workers
filed a joint motion requesting the Board to establish three separate
units as follows : ( 1) A maintenance unit composed of engineering de-
partment employees and maintenance employees , excluding janitors,
cafeteria employees , and all other employees, with IAM on the ballot;
(2) all of the Employer's shipping room employees only, with the
Teamsters on the ballot; and ( 3) a residual unit consisting of janitors,
cafeteria employees , and laundry employees , with the Bakery Workers
on the ballot. ' As an alternative , the Bakery Workers would include
the employees it sought in the production unit which it presently rep-
resents. In the event the Board failed to grant the 3 units requested,
all 3 labor organizations requested as an alternative motion that an
overall residual unit, including all of the aforesaid employees sought
herein, be established with all 3 Unions appearing on the ballot as joint
representatives . The Employer opposes the original motion on the
grounds that the units sought are not appropriate and opposes the
alternative motion on the ground that the 3 Unions may not jointly
represent an overall residual unit of its employees.
The maintenance employees grease and make minor repairs to ma-
chinery and equipment . They also fabricate some simple repair parts.
The engineering department employees repair machinery , fabricate
some equipment and parts , and perform some painting and bricklaying
4 See Bell' Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277, at p 1278
8 The Employer does not have a department designated as a maintenance department.
It does, however , have an engineering department , and has several additional employees
who are separately supervised and are classified as maintenance employees
6 The Bakery workers submitted to the hearing officer a sufficient showing of interest
in this group of employees.
387644-56-vol. 114-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work. The janitors, whom the IAM would exclude from the mainte-
nance unit, mop, resurface, and wax the floors of the plant,.clean and
wipe down the conveyors, and clean the air filter louvers. In view of
the fact that the janitors are clearly performing maintenance duties,
and the further fact that they are under the same immediate supervi-
sion as the maintenance employees, they must be included in any appro-
priate unit of the Employer's maintenance employees. We find that
all of the Employer's maintenance employees, engineering department
employees, and janitors constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining. However, as the IAM sought all of these"
employees in its petition, as clarified at the hearing, and failed to sub-
mit a sufficient showing of interest in this maintenance unit, we shall
not direct that an election be held in this unit.
The shipping room employees receive and store raw materials and
load the finished products on trucks for shipment. Production-em-
ployees classified as truckers, who are represented by the Bakery
Workers as part of the production unit, transport most of the finished
products from the machines to the shipping room which is adjacent to
the production area. The shipping employees also transport some of
the finished products from the production machines to the shipping
room and at times transport the finished products from the production
machines directly to the trucks-for shipment. The production em-
ployees assist in the unloading of raw materials. In fact, the produc-
tion employees as a regular practice receive and store potatoes and the
shipping room employees seldom perform this work for the Employer.
The Employer does not employ any shipping employees at the Fair
Oaks plant. The production employees at that plant transport all of
.the finished products from the machines to the storage areas and the
shipping employees from the East Washington Avenue plant go over
there to load the trucks. The hours, working conditions, and benefits
of these shipping employees are similar to those of the production em-
ployees included in the contract and with whom they are frequently
interchanged. In these circumstances, it does not appear that the duties
and interests of the shipping room employees are so clearly distinguish-
able from those of the employees in the production unit to warrant the
establishment of an appropriate departmental unit limited to the ship-
ping room employees.' We further find that these employees may not
constitute an appropriate residual unit as other unrepresented produc-
ti on and maintenance employees are not sought in the unit.
. The janitors, cafeteria employees, and laundry employees sought by
the Bakery Workers do not constitute an appropriate residual unit or
residual voting group for inclusion with the presently represented.
7 See Alpine Metals Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 1190; National Cyhnder Gas
Company, 100 NLRB 768.
RED DOT FOODS, IN C. 149
production employees as other unrepresented production and main-
tenance employees are not sought in the residual unit or voting group.
As aforesaid, the three labor organizations seek in an alternative
motion to represent jointly as a residual unit all of the Employer's
janitors, maintenance employees, engineering department employees,
shipping room employees, cafeteria employees, and laundry employees.
These are the only unrepresented production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Madison, Wisconsin, plants. We have fre-
quently found such residual units appropriate.' We, therefore, find
that the following employees of the Employer at its Madison, Wiscon-
sin, plants constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All janitors, maintenance employees, engineering department em-
ployees, shipping room employees, cafeteria employees, and laundry
employees.'
5. The Teamsters, the IAM, and the Bakery Workers desire to be
placed on the ballot as a single joint representative of the unit found
appropriate in paragraph 4, supra. The Employer contends that Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the Act does not provide for labor organizations to act
as a joint representative. No showing has been made that, if selected,
the Teamsters, the IAM, and the Bakery Workers will not bargain on
a joint basis for the whole unit. Board precedent has fully established
the propriety of two or more labor organizations acting jointly as
bargaining representative for a single unit of employees.10 We see no
reason to depart from such precedent in the instant case and, accord-
ingly, find that these three labor organizations may appear jointly on
the ballot in the election directed hereinafter. If they should win, they
will be certified jointly as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the entire appropriate unit. The Employer may then insist
that the three labor organizations do in fact bargain jointly for such
employees as a single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting :
I would find the contract between the Employer and Bakery Work-
ers to be a bar, having been made before the petitions were filed, and
accordingly dismiss the petitions.
s The Wilson H. Lee Company, 97 NLRB 1023 , at p. 1025; Advertisers Production
Services, Inc., 110 NLRB 590
9 The Employer contends that these employees appropriately should be included in the
unit presently represented by the Bakery Workers . As we have found that these employees
may appropriately constitute a•separate residual unit and as no labor organization is
seeking to represent these employees as a part of the presently represented unit of 'em-
ployees, we need not decide the appropriateness of their inclusion in that unit.
10 Stanolind Cal and Gas Company, 98 NLRB 969, at p. 973; General Electric Company
(River Works ), 107 NLRB 70, footnote 3.
150 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The contract, which is for a 2-year period from April 14, 1955, pro-
vides that the Bakery Workers is recognized "as the sole, representa-
tive of all of the Company's employees at its Madison, Wisconsin,
plant, excluding executive, supervisory, office and clerical employees
and any temporary employees...." This language is unambiguous
and plainly includes the employees here sought to be established as a
residual unit. The, Employer testified that the employees now sought,
on the theory they have not been included in the contract unit repre-
sented, by,the Bakery Workers, had received the benefits-resulting from
negotiations with that Union. While it appears. that no specific, men-
tion of these groups is made in the contract, and that as to some of them
the Bakery Workers did not enforce its union-shop provision, I re-
gard the testimony indicating noncoverage as being too_ insubstantial
to establish that these groups have in, -fact been -excluded- from the
contract unit. Accordingly, I would dismiss the petitions.
Kennard Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,
Lodge No. 1012, AFL and District No. 9, International Associ-
ation of Machinists, AFL. and Independent Air Conditioning
Employees' Union, Petitioners. Cases Nos. 1I5-RQ-2807,,14 RC-
,0810, and 14-RC-2815, - September 21, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the_ Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated -hearing was held before
Jean F. Souders, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within,the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of theAct
4. The Petitioner in Case No. 14-RC-2810, District No. 9, Interna-
tional` Association of Machinists, AFL (herein" called Machinists),
seeks a unit of toolroom employees. The `Petitioner- in Case No. 14-
RC-2807, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,; Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge No. 1012, AFL
(herein called Boilermakers), seeks a unit of production and main-
tenance employees. The Petitioner,in Case No.- 14-RC-2815, In-
114 NLRB No. 34.