Schenley Distillers Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 124 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of SCHENLEY DISTILLERS CORP., EMPLOYER and GROCERY
WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 595, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 21-RC-362.-Decided November 4, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the employees employed in the
Employer's warehouse, located at 316 East Commercial Street, Los
Angeles, California. This unit would consist of warehousemen, a
jack lift operator, and a shipping and receiving clerk. The Distillery,
Rectifying & Winery Workers International Union of America, AFL,
herein called the Intervenor, opposes the unit request upon the ground
that these employees have historically bargained together in a single
unit including all the employees of the Employer in the Employer's
bottling plant at 8000 Mai Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
Although the warehouse is under the immediate supervision of a
warehouse superintendent, both the warehouse and bottling plant are
under the supervision of a general manager whose offices are located
* Reynolds, Murdock , and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 27.
124
SCHENLEY DISTILLERS CORP. 125
in the bottling plant. The warehouse receives from the Employer's
various distilleries in the United States, whiskey and alcoholic spirits
in bulk containers for storage. When required, these items are sent
to the bottling plant to be blended and bottled, after which process
the resulting product is again sent to the warehouse to await distribu-
tion to the customers of the Employer. Since 1942, the Intervenor
has had continuous collective bargaining agreements with the Em-
ployer covering all the employees at the bottling plant and all the
employees employed in the Employer's warehouse in a single unit.,
Under the circumstances, we believe that the above-described 6-year
course of collective bargaining, supported by the integration of activi-
ties at these plants, requires a finding that a single unit covering
bottling plant employees and warehouse employees is appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining. We find, therefore, that the limited
unit sought by the Petitioner is inadequate in scope and inappropriate
for bargaining purposes?
As we have held that the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner
is inappropriate we find that no question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, The petition will, therefore, be dis-
missed 3
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
1 Because of the expiration of a lease at another location in Los Angeles, the Employer
in May 1947 , moved its warehouse operations to 316 East Commercial Street, Los Angeles.
There being nothing in the record to the contrary , it is assumed that substantially all the
employees at the former location were transferred to the East Commercial Street ware-
house Thus it appears that the East Commercial Street warehouse is not a new or differ-
ent operation but the same operation in another location.
2 Matter of Poultry Producers of Central California , 78 N. L . R. B. 1067 ; Matter of
Robert Gair Company , Inc (Natick Box and Board Division ) 77 N. L . R B. 649 and cases
cited therein.
3 In view of our dismissal of the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to resolve a contract bar issue raised by
the Intervenor.