Vienna Bakery

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 1049 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

VIENNA BAKERY 1049
Manuel Lessner and Sam Lessner d/b/a Vienna Bakery and
Unnumbered Local of the American Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union, AFL-CIO , Petitioner
Wagner Baking Company, Inc. and Unnumbered Local of the
American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO , Petitioner
Midwest Bakery and Macaroni Corp. d/b/a Roma Bakery and
Unnumbered Local of the American Bakery and Confection-
ery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 17-RC-f987, 17-RC-2988, and 17-RC-2989. September 25,
1959
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
Harold L. Hudson, 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 Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks units of all employees at each of the Em-
ployer's plants in Kansas City, Missouri, excluding stationary engi-
neers, truckdrivers, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employers
agree that such units are appropriate. Locals 218 and 465 contend
that the appropriate units should consist of separate units of skilled
and unskilled employees at each of the Employers' plants, which units
'Local 218 and Local 465 (formerly Local 218A), Bakery and Confectionery Workers
International Union of America , herein called Local 218 and Local 465, respectively , inter-
vened on the basis of a contract with the Employers covering the employees here Involved
which expired on April 4, 1959.
The Petitioner objected to the intervention of Local 218 apparently on the ground that
it is defunct . The record discloses that Local 218 has a slate of officers and, at the hear-
ing, indicated that it was ready and willing to represent the employees involved. Accord-
ingly, we find that Local 218 is not defunct and we overrule the Petitioner's objection
in this connection.
124 NLRB No. 144.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board found appropriate in The Kansas City Bakery Employers
Labor Cowncil2 involving the same unions but different employers.
In the Kansas City case, the Petitioner sought a unit consisting
solely of skilled employees, i.e., those engaged in all phases of baking
from mixing through dumping. These employees, together with the
unskilled employees, i.e., those engaged generally in slicing and wrap-
ping bakery products and preparing them for delivery, had been
represented by Locals 218 and 465 under a contract with the employers
which the Board found had contemplated the existence of separate
units of skilled and unskilled employees represented separately by
Locals 218 and 465, respectively. In view of this contract, as well as
evidence that the duties and interests of the skilled and unskilled em-
ployees were separate and distinct, and in light of a previous history
of collective bargaining in such separate units, the Board held in that
case that separate units of skilled and unskilled employees were ap-
propriate.
In the instant proceedings, the Employers and Locals 218 and 465
were parties to a contract identical with that involved in the Kansas
City case.' Moreover, the previous bargaining history between the
Employers and Locals 218 and 465 parallels that in the Kansas City
decision. Furthermore, the record fails to indicate any significant
difference in the separate and distinct duties and interests of the
skilled and unskilled employees in this case from those which these
classifications of employees possessed in Kansas City. On the basis
of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that separate units of
skilled and unskilled employees at each of the Employer's plants are
appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following units of employees of Man-
uel Lessner and Sam Lessner, d/b/a Vienna Bakery, Wagner Baking
Company, Inc., and Midwest Bakery and Macaroni Corp., d/b/a
Roma Bakery, located in Kansas City, Missouri, excluding stationary
engineers, truckdrivers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
(A) All employees engaged in operations of mixing through dump-
ing, mixers or spongers of bread, rolls, cakes, or pies, oven men or
drawers, bench hands, underhand on cakes, bread, rolls, or pies, and
jobbers and apprentices on bread, rolls, cakes or pies, excluding all
other employees.
2 121 NLRB 6.
9 Like the contract in Kansas City, the instant contract by its terms was due to expire
on April 4, 1959. Since the election in that case in the middle of 1958, in which the
Petitioner was selected as bargaining representative of the skilled employees of the
employers there involved, the Employers herein have recognized the Petitioner as bar-
gaining agent for their skilled employees until the terminal date of their contract while
Local 465 continued separately to represent the Employer's unskilled workers.
VICKERS, INCORPORATED 1051
(B) All wrapping machine operators, ingredient scalers, icing
makers or fruit cooks, head checkers, receiving and shipping clerks,
excluding all other employees.
[Text of Direction of Elections 4 omitted from publication.]
* Locals 218 and 465 requested that, in the event that the Board directs separate elec-
tions among the employees in units (A) and ( B), Local 218 desired to go on the ballot in
the election in unit ( A) and Local 465 desired to appear on the ballot in the election in
unit ( B). In view of our unit findings herein, we grant the request.
The Petitioner has not indicated whether it desires to go to an election in the units
herein found appropriate. In light of this circumstance , we shall accord it a place on the
ballot in both elections . However , the Petitioner may withdraw its petitions in these
cases in the event it does not wish to participate in separate elections by so notifying the
Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this Direction of Elections.
Vickers, Incorporated i and International Union , Allied Indus-
trial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
17-RC-2957. September 28, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cassidy, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
on April 21, 1958, an election was conducted on May 28, 1958, in a unit
consisting of all the Employer's salaried employees. On June 6, 1958,
the Board certified that neither the instant Petitioner nor the Inter-
venor in that proceeding-International Union of Electrical Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-had received a majority of the
valid votes cast and neither was the exclusive representative of the
employees concerned. The petition herein was filed on March 19,
1959 seeking, in effect, a unit of the Employer's salaried technical,
clerical, and professional employees.
The Employer contends that the proscriptions of Section 9 (c) (3)
of the Aet 2 require dismissal of the present petition because (1) the
Petitioner is seeking an election in a unit which is merely a segment
of the larger salaried employees unit in which an election was con-
i The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which,
in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held .. . .
124 NLRB No. 146.