Schulze Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 73 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SOJIULZE BAKING Co., Ei PI.oYER and LOCAL UNION
NO. 8, INTERNATIONAL UNION OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 13-RC-1440.Decided November 14, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert Acker-
berg, 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
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is the Peoria, Illinois, Division of Interstate
Bakeries Corporation , a Delaware corporation , which operates 23
plants in 8 States. The annual value of products of the Peoria plant
exceeds $1 ,000,000, all sold within the State of Illinois . Raw mate-
rials annually cost about $750,000, of which about $350,000 in value
are shipped to the Peoria plant from places outside the State of
Illinois . The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the . Act. As it is but a division of a multistate enterprise, we find
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case?
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
A 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 Act.
4. The petitioner seeks a *unit of operating and maintenance engi-
neers at the Employer 's Peoria, Illinois, plant . The Employer, al-
though agreeing generally to the composition of the unit , contends
1 Fehr Baking Company, 89 NLRB 1401; The Borden Company; Southern Division, 91
NLRB 628.
92 NLRB No. 15.
73
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the unit should be multiemployer in scope, including similar
engineering employees at every wholesale bakery in the Peoria area.
Upon evidence presented by the Employer, it is undisputed that,
apart from the operating and maintenance engineers comprising about
5 percent of the Employer's total working complement; about 95 per-
cent of its'remairiing employees are organized and represented on a
multiemployer basis. Thus its production employees are represented
by the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of
America, herein.called the Bakers. In addition, bakery salesmen as
well as drivers are represented by the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America,
herein called the Teamsters. These two unions have conducted bar-
gaining for their respective groups for over 12 years on a multi-
employer basis covering the six wholesale bakeries in Peoria, including
the Employer. Although there is no formal employer's association 2
representatives of the six bakeries have met and negotiated jointly
with the representatives of the several unions and the agreements
reached at the meetings with the unions have been uniformly adopted
by each of the bakeries represented at such meetings .3 There is no
history of collective bargaining for operating and maintenance engi-
neers. Neither the Bakers nor the Teamsters claims to represent any
of the engineers involved herein.
Alultiemployer bargaining has become the established pattern
,among the wholesale bakeries in the Peoria area. Although multi-
employer bargaining has not covered the operating and maintenance
engineers as such, substantial benefits resulting therefrom, at least in
the case of the Employer, have been extended to the engineers herein
involved 4 In our opinion, the pattern of organization for a special
classification of employees, as for example the operating and mainte-
nance engineers in this case, can best follow the pattern of bargaining
established generally for other employees of the particular employer
involved .-5 We believe, therefore, that the uninterrupted and current
pattern of multiemployer bargaining for other employees of the Em-
2The Board has held that absence of a formal employer's association does not prevent
bargaining upon a multiemployer rather than a single employer basis. Bellingham Auto-
mobile Dealers Association, 90 NLRB 374.
'It is established Board doctrine that participation in joint bargaining negotiations
and the uniform adoption of the agreement resulting from such negotiations by the partici-
pants, indicates a desire on their part to be bound by joint rather than individual action.
Members of California State Breweries Institute, 90 NLRB 1747.
4 The Employer's representative testified without contradiction that whenever a wage
increase is given to the bakery and production workers, it is automatically granted to the
engineers.
2 Columbia Pictures Corporation et al ., 84 NLRB 647; Columbia Marble Company, 89
NLRB 1482.
SCHULZE BAKING CO. 75
ployer, is controlling with respect to the type of unit appropriate for
operating and maintenance engineers. Accordingly, we find that the
proposed unit is too limited in scope to be appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining and we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.