W. F. Schrafft & Sons Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 77 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
UNITED PACKINGHOUSE W ORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 1-RC-955,1-RC-956, and 1-957.-Decided
September 00, 1949
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Robert E. Greene, 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
these cases to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. 1-RC-955
and in Case No. 1-RC-956, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Forreasons stated hereinafter,
however, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. l-RC-957
I At the hearing the Employer moved to adjourn the hearing , and, alternatively, to
dismiss the petitions on the ground that the Petitioner 's claims as to the number of
employees to be included within its proposed units were not made sufficiently clear.
However, inasmuch as the issues and positions of the parties were fully litigated at the
hearing and are set forth clearly and completely in the existing record, we hereby affirm
the hearing officer 's ruling denying the Employer's motion to adjourn, and deny the Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss the petitions . The Employer 's request for oral argument
is also denied . The Employer 's motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Petitioner's
showing of representation in Case No. 1-RC-955 Is not adequate is denied for reasons
stated in Matter of C. D. Jennings and Company , 68 N. L. R. B. 516.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 18.
77
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of Section 9 .(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent three separate units of the
Employer's employees. In Case No. 1-RC-955 it seeks a unit of
building and cleaning department employees; in Case No. 1-RC-956
it requests a unit of maintenance department employees; and in Case
No. 1-RC-957 it proposes a unit comprised of shipping, warehouse,
and storeroom employees. The Employer opposes the units proposed
by the Petitioner, contending that the functions of these employees
are an essential and integral part of the Employer's production
process, and urges that the only appropriate unit for collective bar-
gaining is a single plant-wide unit.2
The Employer is engaged at its plant at Boston, Massachusetts,
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of candies. This plant
consists of a single building with an attached power plant and a
separate small shed which at times is used for the temporary storage
of cocoa beans. The Employer's manufacturing operations are car-
ried on in approximately 16 departments, all of which are subject
to the general supervision of a plant superintendent under whom there
are 3 assistant superintendents and various department foremen.
The Employer maintains a central employment office which hires and
discharges employees for all departments. Except for an incentive
bonus plan, applicable to certain employees in the plant, all em-
ployees are subject to one company policy with respect to hours of
employment, vacations, recreational facilities, profit-sharing plans,
medical benefits, and other conditions of employment. In the course
of- its operations, the Employer employs approximately 1,100 em-
ployees. Of this number the Petitioner proposes to represent in its
respective units approximately 62 employees in the building and
cleaning department, approximately 42 employees in the maintenance
department, and approximately 63 shipping, warehouse, and store-
room employees.
There is no collective bargaining history to bear upon the appro
priateness of any of the units involved herein; and there is no request
by any labor organization to represent a unit of employees at this
plant on a plant-wide basis as contended by the Employer.
Case No. 1-RC-955: The building and' cleaning department com-
prises approximately 71 employees. Of this number the Petitioner
2 The Employer takes the additional position that conditions of cleanliness being a vital
part of the manufacturing of candy, particularly because of the pure food laws, the em-
ployees in the building and cleaning department are intimately related to the produc-
tion process and should therefore not be permitted to bargain . as a separate collective
bargaining unit. The Board has previously considered similar contentions and found
them to be without merit. Matter of Worthy Paper Company; 80 N. L. R. B. 19 (and
cases cited therein).
W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION 79
would include in its proposed unit 62 employees classified as porters
and matrons, and would exclude 4 elevator operators and 5 watchmen.
These employees are engaged in the duties and functions usually inci-
dent to their job classifications. Approximately 31 of these employees
are permanently assigned to specific departments; the remainder work
throughout the plant. They are all under the basic supervision of the
building and cleaning department foreman but are also supervised to
a limited extent by the foreman at the site of their work. There is no
regular interchange'of building and cleaning department employees
with employees in other departments, although in emergencies they
may be given noncleaning duties in other departments, and, in some
instances, have been permanently transferred from the building and
cleaning department to jobs in other departments. From the fore-
going facts and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, we find
that the building and cleaning department employees constitute a
custodial grouping sufficiently homogeneous and identifiable to be
established as 'a separate bargaining unit.3
Although the Petitioner would exclude from its unit four elevator
operators, the record shows that these employees are under the super-
vision of the building and cleaning department foreman and are en-
gaged in the performance of custodial duties like the porters and
matrons with whom they appear to have a substantial community of
interests. We shall therefore include them in the unit. We shall,
however, exclude the watchmen whom we find to be guards within
the meaning of the Act.
We find that all building and cleaning department employees at
the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, plant, including elevator oper-
a tors, but excluding all other employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective b::rgaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 4
Case No. 1-RC-956: The unit requested by the Petitioner in this
case would embrace approximately 42 employees in the maintenance
department, and would include the following categories of employees :
electricians, carpenters, millwrights, painters, steamfitters, sheetmetal
workers, welders, mechanics, beltmeh, and toolshop and stockroom
employees. The maintenance employees, composed principally of
craftsmen, are engaged in a scheduled program of servicing, repair-
ing, and replacing production machinery. Although the majority of
.3 Matter .of Tyre Brothers Glass & Paint Co., 85 N. L. R. B. 910; Matter of Bailey
Department Stores Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 312 ( and cases cited therein).
Under the circumstances present herein , the contention of the Employer that the unit
sought by the Petitioner, and herein found appropriate , is based upon "extent of organi-
zation" is without merit.
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these employees work throughout the plant, approximately 14 of them
are permanently assigned to special departments. They are under the.
basic supervision of the maintenance department foreman but are also.
subject to limited supervision by the foreman at the site of their work.
There is no interchange between maintenance department employees
and employees in other departments.
Where, as here, there is no collective bargaining history on a broader
basis, we have found that maintenance employees, as a multicraft group
possessing separate interests from those of the production employees,
may constitute a separate unit.'
Accordingly, we find that all maintenance department employees
at the Employer's Boston, Massachusetts, plant, excluding all other
employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act .6
Case No. 1-RC--957: The Petitioner's request for a unit of shipping,
warehouse, and storeroom employees embraces approximately 63 em-
ployees. These employees work in approximately 11 different depart-
ments located on approximately 6 floors of the Employer's plant.
They are under the immediate supervision of approximately 5 different
foremen. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts and upon the entire
record in the case, we believe that the Petitioner seeks to represent
an artificial grouping of employees which lacks the homogeneity and
cohesiveness requisite to a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining. Under these circumstances, we find that the re-
quested unit is inappropriate and we shall therefore dismiss the peti-
tion filed in Case No. 1-RC-957.
ORDER
IT is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 1-RC-957
by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec-
tions 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
b Matter of General Mills , Inc., 84 N. L. R. B. 831; Matter of Weston Biscuit Com-
pany, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 407; Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1328.
6 See footnote 4, supra.
W. F. SCHRAFFT & SONS CORPORATION 81
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Elections, 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 rein-
stated 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 represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO.