The Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1979

239 N.L.R.B. 1199 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis and
Magnolia Jackson and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Local Union 1196. Cases 26-
CA-5213, 26-CA-4991, 26-CA-5620, and 26-
CA-5729
January 3, 1979
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS MURPHY
AND TRUESDALE
On September 30, 1977, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued its Decision and Order' in the
above-entitled proceeding finding that Respondent
had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(aXl), (3), and (5) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act, as amended.
Respondent was ordered, inter alia, to cease and de-
sist from refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, hours of employment, and other terms
and conditions of employment with the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit. On July 3, 1978, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted
the Board's motion to withdraw the record pending
reconsideration by the Board of whether or under
what circumstances nonunion bargaining unit em-
ployees must be given the right to vote in union affili-
ation elections. On August 4, 1978, the Board noti-
fied the parties that it had decided, sua sponte, to
reconsider its decision, and advised all parties that
they could submit statements of position to the
Board with respect to the issues. Such statements
were received from Respondent, General Counsel,
and the Union.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reconsidered its decision in light of
the entire record and the parties statements and has
decided to reaffirm its previous Decision and Order
under the rationale and criteria discussed in Amoco
Production Company, 239 NLRB 1195 (1978).
On June 28, 1968, International Union of United
Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery
Workers was certified as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of certain employees of Re-
spondent at its Memphis, Tennessee, location. There-
after, Respondent entered into a collective-
'232 NLRB 794.
bargaining relationship and signed a collective-
bargaining contract with the certified union and its
Local 196. In October 1973, International Union of
United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis-
tillery Workers and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein referred to as the Teamsters Inter-
national, agreed to merge the two International
Unions effective December 31, 1973. Pursuant to the
agreement, Teamsters International granted Local
196 a charter as Local 1196 of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America.
On May 7, 1974, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 26 issued his decision and amendment of cer-
tification in Case 26-AC-24, wherein he amended
the Certification of Representative by substituting
the name "International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousernien and Helpers of America,
Local Union 1196%" for "International Union of
United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis-
tillery Workers." On July 8, 1974, the Board denied
Respondent's request for review of the decision and
amendment.
On June 30, 1975, in Case 26-CA-5213, the Board
granted a partial summary judgment and found that
Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5).2 On a motion by the Union, on
November 28, 1975, the Board issued an unpublished
Order vacating its June 30, 1975, Decision and Or-
der, and remanded the case for hearing with Cases
26-CA-4991, 5620, and 5729. The hearing resulted in
the Board's Decision and Order, 232 NLRB 794, su-
pra.
In reaffirming the validity of the underlying
Amendment of Certification, we have specifically
considered the following facts:
In mid-February 1974, the Union decided to hold
a special meeting to discuss and conduct a secret-
ballot election to determine whether the members fa-
vored affiliation with the Teamsters International.
Notices dated February 19, 1978, were posted and
distrubuted in the plant addressed to "All Union
Members employed at Coca-Cola," and stated that
the purpose of the meeting was for all union mem-
bers at Coca-Cola to consider, discuss, and vote in a
secret-ballot election on the question of Local 196's
affiliation with the Teamsters International. At the
meeting, the Union's counsel announced the purpose
of the meeting, conducted a discussion on the pros
and cons of affiliation, then held the affiliation elec-
tion. Names were checked off an eligibility list which
consisted of the names of unit employees who had
signed dues-checkoff or authorization cards for
218 NLRB No 129
1199
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
either Local 196 or the Teamsters International.3 Af-
ter the voter's name was checked off the list, the
member received a ballot and voted in a private
booth; After voting for or against affiliation with the
Teamsters International, the member deposited the
ballot into a secured ballot box. The results showed
that of the ballots cast, 78 votes were for and 3 were
against affiliation, with I void ballot. Also, there is
no dispute that all members, and nonmembers who
chose to become members, were given an opportuni-
ty to vote.
In view of the foregoing, we find that there was no
denial of due process and no impropriety in the affili-
ation voting procedure. There was adequate and
proper notice, discussion, time for reflection, an or-
derly vote, reasonable precautions to maintain the
secrecy of the ballots, and nonmembers were not
foreclosed from an opportunity to become members
and to then participate in the election.
In Amoco Production Company, supra, we held that
an affiliation vote is basically an internal union mat-
ter and where the vote has been conducted with due
regard for adequate due process, we will recognize
and give effect to the result of the vote. Thus we find
that the affiliation vote involved here was valid even
3 At that time, there were approximately 490 employees in the bargaining
unit, of which Ppproximately 212 names were on the eligibility list.
though the votes of nonunion bargaining unit em-
ployees who were denied the right to vote because of
their nonmember status could have determined the
outcome of the vote.
Therefore, we affirm our original Conclusions of
Law and Order and find, inter alia, that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing
to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, hours
of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment with the Union as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropri-
ate bargaining unit.4
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby affirms its original Decision
and Order in this proceeding and orders that Re-
spondent, The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of
Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Board's original Order (232 NLRB 794).
4 Member Truesdale, who was not a member of the Board when the
underlying issues in this case were considered and decided, agrees with the
decision herein, but relies additionally on the reasons stated in his concur-
ring opinion in Amoco Production Company, supra.
1200