The James Hanley Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE JAMES HANLEY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 166 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND Dis-
TILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-149.-Decided September 22, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 organization named below in the Direction of Election
claims 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 appropriate unit; determination of representatives :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all shipping clerks in the brewery and
bottling departments of the Employer, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, and supervisors. The Employer contends
(a) that the unit is inappropriate because of a history of joint collec-
tive bargaining by the Employer and Narragansett Brewing Company,
and (b) that the unit should include the office clerical employees inas-
much as the duties of the shipping clerks are primarily clerical in
nature.
The Employer's operations are carried on in two departments, the
brewing department, in which the beer is brewed and packed in bulk,
and the bottling department, in which the beer is bottled and canned.
Of the four shipping clerks employed by the Employer, three (includ-
* Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 111. 929
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing Winn) work in the bottling department on the shipping platform
which is separated from the rest of the bottling operations, and one
(Shannon) works in the brewery department.
' The Employer contends that Winn and Shainion are supervisors
who should, in any event, be excluded from the unit. This leaves two
shipping clerks who are not in dispute. With respect to these, the
record shows that their duties consist of checking outgoing shipments .
of beer for count and recording the number of empty cases which are
returned by the Employer to the distributors. They perform no
manual labor and their duties appear to be routine. They are under the
general supervision of the superintendent of the bottling department.
The Petitioner and the Employer have an existing contract under
which the Petitioner is accorded recognition as exclusive bargaining
representative of the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees. The employees involved in this proceeding, however, are not
covered by that contract. With respect to the production and mainte-
nance employees there is a history of joint collective bargaining from
1938 to 1947 covering the employees of the Employer and Narragansett
Brewing Company.' However, in 1947, the parties entered into a
separate contract covering only the employees of the Employer.
Inasmuch as the parties themselves, in 1947, changed the course of
their bargaining history, we feel that the bargaining history from 1938
to 1947 on a multi-employer basis is no longer controlling in deter-
mining the unit.'
The employees involved. in this proceeding are essentially plant
clerical employees such as we have customarily included in units of
production and maintenance employees. The record shows that they
have a closer community of interest with the production and mainte-
nance employees than with the office clerical employees.3
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the following em-
ployees of the Employer at its Providence, Rhode Island, plant :
All shipping clerks of the Employer in the bottling department,,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, and
supervisors.
We shall make no final determination at this time, but shall be
guided by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election
hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will
8e deemed to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing
. i A sister organization of the Petitioner , Local 114 , was also a party to the negotiations
and resulting contracts. -
2 See Matter of Hummel Furniture Manufacturing Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 301.
8 Matter o f Enseo Derrick & Equipment Company, 72 N. L. R. B 378
In view of our finding , infra, that Shannon, the only shipping clerk in the brewery de-
partment involved in this proceeding, is a supervisor , we are eliminating the brewery de-
partment from the unit description.
THE JAMES HANLEY COMPANY 931
production and maintenance unit, and the Petitioner, which now
represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees,
may bargain for them.
In addition to performing the same duties as the other shipping
clerks, Winn makes out the daily production and stock reports and the
receiving reports for incoming shipments of raw materials and sup-
plies. When he is absent, the two shipping clerks not in dispute per-
form these duties. He has seniority among the three employees in the
bottling department who work as shipping clerks and is paid $5.50
a week more than the other two. He has no authority to hire, dis-
charge, or discipline employees and no authority effectively to rec-
ommend such action; nor does he assign work or prepare schedules of
working hours. We find that Winn is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and, accordingly, we shall include him in the
voting group.
Shannon is in charge of the receiving, shipping, and traffic opera-
tions in the brewery department. He assigns and directs the work of
12 employees who are covered by the existing collective bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the Petitioner. He keeps their
time records and makes out their pay sheets. He also has authority
effectively to recommend disciplinary action. From the foregoing,
we conclude that Shannon is a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act, and we shall, therefore, exclude him prom the unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, 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, among the em-
ployees described in paragraph 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 vacation 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 employees on strike who are not entitled to
reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Brewery Workers
Local Union No. 166 of the International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal,•Soft Drink and DistilleryWorkers of America, CIO.