Ward Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 781 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of WARD BAKING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and BAKERY AND
CONFECTIONERY WORKERS 1 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, A.
F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-149.-Decided July 30,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
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.
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 organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer at its Birmingham, Alabama,
plant, excluding office employees, salesmen, assistant salesmen (clas-
sified by the Employer as student salesmen), watchmen and super-
visors as defined in the amended Act.
The United Bakery and Confectionery Workers, Local 441 of Ala-
bama, affiliated with International Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, C. 1. 0. (hereinafter called the Intervenor), contends that
a single-employer unit is not appropriate, due to the practices in the
industry and the history of collective bargaining between the Em-
ployer, National Biscuit Company (hereinafter referred to as Na-
tional), the American Bakery Company (hereinafter called Merita)
and the Intervenor on a multi-employer basis for production and
1 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing
7S N. L. R B., No. 88.
781
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance employees and salesmen. All these companies are lo-
cated in Birmingham.
As a matter of policy the Employer prefers to negotiate jointly with
other companies and a particular union in the various cities in which
it operates. However, it takes no position with respect to the appro-
priate unit in this proceeding.
In 1938 the Employer entered into a contract with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations covering its production and maintenance
employees and salesmen. Local 57 was established to administer the
agreement for the Congress. The contract was renewed in 1939 and
again in 1940 with an expiration date of May 10, 1941. Meanwhile
in 1940 the Congress successfully negotiated a short-term contract with
National, the expiration date of which was fixed to coincide with that
of the Employer's contract. A separate local was set up by the Con-
gress to administer the agreement with National. When the 1940 con-
tracts expired, a joint board was established by the Congress consisting
of representatives from the two locals who were employees of the Em-
ployer and National to deal with them. In 1941, as a result of joint
negotiations by the Employer and National with the joint board, sepa-
rate contracts were entered into which were identical, except for
minor differences, and were to expire on May 10, 1942. Also in 1941,
the joint board negotiated a short-term contract with Merita having
the same expiration date. The employees of Merits were not rep-
resented by a separate local, but by the joint board. In May 1942 the
joint board negotiated jointly with the Employer, National and Merita.
As a result of these negotiations, separate, substantially similar agree-
ments were signed, except that the contract with Merita did not in-
clude its salesmen. These agreements were extended in 1943, the only
change in them being that the workweek was lengthened from 40 to
48 hours. Shortly thereafter an amalgamation of locals took place
which involved the dissolution of the joint board and its replacement
by Local 441 (the Intervenor herein). On June 6, 1944, the Employer,
National and Merita, after joint negotiations with the Intervenor,
signed a single contract.2 In 1946 a similar single contract was entered
into which expired on May 8, 1948. All the contracts were substan-
tially the same and included the production and maintenance workers
2 The agreement stated that it was severally made However , many of the provisions
indicate an intention by the parties to be jointly bound Article I, Section 1, reads • "The
Employers recognize the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency. * * *"
(Italics supplied ) Article II, Section 2, reads : "The employers agree that in hiring
new employees they will contact the Union office, and if there are any unemployed members
of the union that are acceptable to the employeis, they will receive preference of employ-
ment " Article XIV, Section 2, reads "Either party may terminate any part or parts of
this agreement . * * *" ( Italics supplied )
WARD BAKING COMPANY 783
of the Employer, National and Merita, and the salesmen of the Em-
ployer and Nationa1.3
Although the Employer, National and Merita have not participated
as members of a formal association, they have conducted joint negotia-
tions with the Intervenor or its predecessors since 1939. Apparently
as a matter of practice the Employer, as well as others engaged in the
baking industry, have had similar types of arrangements not only
in Birmingham but in various parts of the country.
The record indicates that the customary procedure of the em-
ployers has been to select either one spokesman or individual spokes-
men to conduct the bargaining negotiations for all three. Adjustments
are made from time to time to, accommodate any differences which
they may have and the spokesman or spokesmen, as the case may be,
present their position to the union and its international. While the
Employer's representative is not authorized to sign for the other two
and they are not authorized to sign for the Employer, they discuss
the terms of the contract and when joint negotiations with the Union
have been successfully completed, all simultaneously agree to it and
sign it or substantially similar contracts at a single meeting. The
union submits the agreement to a vote of the membership of the three
plants which vote on the acceptance of the contract as a single group.
The absence of an employer association does not preclude estab-
lishment of a unit comprising the employees of more than one com-
pany.4 In view of the foregoing circumstances and particularly the
past bargaining history, we are persuaded that the three employers
have, without combining themselves into a formal association, con-
ducted negotiations with the Intervenor on a joint basis, and that their
employees can be, as they have been, represented in a single multiple-
employer unit. Accordingly, we find a unit limited to the plant of one
of these employers is inappropriate.5
9 The Petitioner points out that the bases of wage payments in the contracts are different
as respects the three employers On the other hand, the Employee's plant manager stated
at the hearing that in the joint negotiations with the Employer , National , Merita and the
union the efforts of the negotiators have been directed to bringing about a substantially
uniform scale of wages for people in identical operations and occupations in the three
plants.
"Matter of Dolese and Shepard -Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 532. In Matter of Itayonier
Incorporated, Grays Harbor Division , 52 N L. R. B. 1269, the Board was not asked to pass
on this question , because the employer whose employees were being sought in a separate
giouping had bargained through an employer association of which it was a member. How-
ever, the Board there found a single-employer unit inappropriate and indicated that a mul-
tiple-employer unit was appropriate despite the fact that the association did not have the
power to bind its members to collective bargaining agreements . We considered as deter-
minative the facts that "the employers in question established a practice of joint action in
regard to labor relations by negotiation with an effective employee association , and by their
customary adherence to the uniform labor agreements resulting therefrom , demonstrated
their desire to be bound by group rather than by individual action "
'' Matter of Dolese and Shepard Company , footnote 4, supra; Matter of Standard Slag
Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 313 , Matter of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation , 77 N L. R. B.
570.
784 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the peti-
tion for investigation and certification of representatives of employees
of Ward Baking Company, Birmingham, Alabama, filed by Bakery
and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, A. F.
of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and GRAY took no part in the consideration, of
the above Decision and Order.