Yuengling Brewing Co. of Tampa, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 2001

333 N.L.R.B. 892 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 892
Yuengling Brewing Company of Tampa, Inc. and In-
ternational Union of Operating Engineers Local
925, AFL–CIO, Petitioner and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 79, AFL–CIO,
CLC. Cases 12–RC–8469 and 12–RC–8470
April 9, 2001
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS
LIEBMAN AND WALSH
On March 29, 2000, the Regional Director for Region
12 issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
(pertinent portions are attached as an appendix). The
Regional Director found that the separate production unit
sought by the Teamsters is not appropriate for bargain-
ing, and that the separate maintenance unit sought by the
Operating Engineers is also not appropriate. Instead, the
Regional Director found, in agreement with the Em-
ployer, that a unit composed of all production and main-
tenance employees employed at the Employer’s facility
in Tampa, Florida, is the only appropriate unit for bar-
gaining.1
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
the Operating Engineers filed a timely request for review
of the Regional Director’s Decision.2 The Operating
Engineers contends that a separate maintenance unit is an
appropriate unit for bargaining, noting factors such as
separate supervision and departmental structure, higher
skill level and wage scale, and lack of interchange. The
Operating Engineers contends that the Regional Director
erred in finding that there is no relevant bargaining his-
tory to consider, and claims that its representation of
maintenance employees in a separate unit for over 30
years with the Employer’s predecessors warrants finding
a separate unit appropriate in this case. On April 26,
2000, the Board granted Operating Engineers’ request for
review.
The Board has delegated its authority in this proceed-
ing to a three-member panel.
Upon careful consideration of the entire record, we
find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the peti-
tioned-for maintenance unit is an appropriate unit for
bargaining.
The Employer is engaged in the business of brewing,
packaging, and shipping of malt beverage products. The
Employer commenced its operations in August 1999,
after purchasing the facility from the Stroh Brewery
Company (Stroh), which ceased operations in January
1999. The Employer’s warehousing, brewing, and pack-
aging activity is located within a main building. The
powerhouse, a one-story building, is located in a separate
building several feet apart from the main building. With
the exception of the powerhouse engineers, who are ex-
clusively assigned to the powerhouse, all employees are
assigned to the main building.

1 The Teamsters was willing to proceed to an election in any unit
found appropriate. Thus, the Regional Director directed an election in
Case 12–RC–8470.
2 The Teamsters did not file a request for review.
The Employer employs 14 production employees and
11 maintenance employees. The Employer mainly oper-
ates with only one shift, 5 days a week. The power-
house, however, is a 24-hour, 7-day operation. Three
operational managers oversee the Employer’s day-to-day
operations. John Houseman, the brewmaster, is respon-
sible for overseeing the brewing function and supervises
four production employees. Martin Cooke, the packag-
ing manager, supervises the other 10 production employ-
ees who are employed in the warehousing and packaging
function. Bud Hardcastle is in charge of overall mainte-
nance, and primarily supervises the two electricians, four
machinists, and five powerhouse employees.
It is the Board’s longstanding policy, as set forth in
American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909 (1961), to find
petitioned-for separate maintenance department units
appropriate when the facts of the case demonstrate the
absence of a more comprehensive bargaining history and
the maintenance employees have the requisite commu-
nity of interest. In determining whether a sufficient
community of interest exists, the Board examines such
factors as mutuality of interests in wages, hours, and
other working conditions; commonality of supervision;
degree of skill and common functions; frequency of con-
tact and interchange with other employees; and func-
tional integration. Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016,
1019 (1994); Franklin Mint Corp., 254 NLRB 714, 716
(1981).
In the instant case, we find that the petitioned-for
maintenance unit at the Employer’s brewery constitutes a
distinct and cohesive grouping of employees appropriate
for collective-bargaining purposes. Contrary to the Re-
gional Director, we find that the evidence does not estab-
lish common supervision between production and main-
tenance employees. Operation Manager Bud Hardcastle,
who is in charge of overall maintenance, including me-
chanical, electrical, and powerhouse, supervises all of the
maintenance employees. Although the Regional Director
found that the two other operational managers may su-
pervise the work of maintenance employees when they
perform work in the production departments, the record
does not show what this supervision consists of, or that
any direction provided by these supervisors is more than
routine identification of machines that need repair. There
333 NLRB No. 104
YUENGLING BREWING CO. OF TAMPA 893
is no evidence that the two other operational managers
have disciplined or effectively recommended discipline
of the maintenance employees, or that they have exer-
cised any other indicia of statutory supervisory authority
with respect to the maintenance employees. Under these
circumstances, we find that the evidence does not estab-
lish common supervision. See Lawson Mardon U.S.A.,
332 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 5 (2000); Ore-Ida Foods,
313 NLRB 1016, 1018, 1019 (1994).
Further, the mechanics, electricians, and powerhouse
engineers are more highly skilled than the production
employees. Operational Manager John Houseman testi-
fied that when the Employer took over, the Employer
hired fairly experienced, skilled maintenance employees
from the predecessor employer. Houseman testified that
the electricians are electricians by trade and provide their
own work belts, and that the mechanics are required to
provide their own tools. The job description requires that
the powerhouse operating engineers be licensed. Main-
tenance machinist Ron Forstrom testified that he is certi-
fied in welding, and also has “paperwork” in “cutting and
stuff of that nature.” The maintenance employees’
higher skill level is reflected in the higher pay scale for
maintenance employees.3
Further, there is no permanent interchange between
production and maintenance employees. Although the
production and maintenance employees perform some
overlapping unskilled functions, there is little evidence of
temporary interchange. A maintenance employee may,
on occasion, relieve a production employee during a
break. However, when a production employee is absent,
another production employee will replace that employee.
Similarly, when a maintenance employee is absent, an-
other maintenance employee will fill in for the absent
employee.
In finding that only a combined production and main-
tenance unit is appropriate for bargaining, the Regional
Director relied on the significant degree of interaction
among the production and maintenance employees, as
well as overlapping job functions. We note, however,
that the five powerhouse employees, almost one-half of
the petitioned-for maintenance unit, have little contact
with production employees. Although the two electri-
cians and four machinists spend most of their time on the
production floor and have a significant degree of interac-
tion with production employees, we find that this factor
by itself is not sufficient to negate the appropriateness of

3 The Employer has three different pay classifications. All employ-
ees within each classification receive the same rate of pay. Production
employees earn $14.40 an hour; machinists and electricians earn $15.40
an hour; and powerhouse employees earn $15.90 an hour.
a separate maintenance unit. See Ore-Ida Foods, supra
at 1018, 1019–1020; Capri Sun, 330 NLRB 1124 (2000).
Further, as noted above, the overlapping functions per-
formed by production and maintenance employees in-
volve unskilled work. For example, the production and
maintenance employees cooperate to get the production
line started and to complete production at the end of the
day. Maintenance employees may lend a hand to take
glass out of the drop pack, help on the palletizer, and pull
bottles and cans out of the pasteurizer. Production em-
ployees perform minor electrical and mechanical work,
and provide assistance to maintenance employees, such
as jogging a machine or helping to get it lined up, when
repairing production equipment or performing special
projects.4 The maintenance employees, however, per-
form all major repairs. The Board has found that this
type of overlap and “lending a hand” does not require the
inclusion of production employees in a maintenance unit,
since this work is unskilled and peripheral to the regular
repair work performed by the maintenance employees.
Ore-Ida Foods, supra at 1020; Capri Sun, supra.
In addition, contrary to the Regional Director, we find
that the bargaining history favors a separate maintenance
unit. The Operating Engineers represented maintenance
employees in a separate unit and bargained with the Em-
ployer’s predecessors from 1958 until Stroh ceased doing
business in Tampa on January 30, 1999.5 Although the
Petitioners made no claim at the hearing that the Em-
ployer is Stroh’s successor, and this issue was not liti-
gated, the record shows that the Employer continued the
same business as its predecessor and bought all of the
equipment. Significantly, the majority of employees
hired by the Employer, as well as the plant manager,
were former employees of Stroh. We therefore find that
the bargaining history favors a finding that the peti-
tioned-for maintenance unit is appropriate for bargain-
ing.6
In sum, the maintenance employees are separately su-
pervised and have a higher skill level than the production
employees. They are paid a higher wage. There is no
permanent interchange between the production and main-
tenance employees, and the temporary interchange is
4 Houseman guessed that production employees spend five percent
of their time performing functions outside of their production job as
needed.
5 The Operating Engineers did not represent the electricians. The
electricians were represented by Local 108 of the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers for over 20 years.
6 The Operating Engineers argues in its request for review that the
Employer “is effectively a successor employer and obligated to ac-
knowledge the maintenance employees as a separate unit.” We find it
unnecessary to pass on the issue of whether the Employer is a successor
to Stroh, as this issue is not presented in this representation proceeding.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 894
minimal. The powerhouse employees, almost one-half
of the petitioned-for unit, have minimal contact with
production employees. Further, the maintenance duties
performed by production employees are minor and rou-
tine, and require lesser skills. In addition, the bargaining
history favors finding that the petitioned-for maintenance
unit is a separate appropriate unit. Based on the forego-
ing, we find that the petitioned-for maintenance unit is an
appropriate unit for bargaining.
Accordingly, the Regional Director’s Decision, Order,
and Direction of Election is reversed with respect to the
finding that a separate maintenance unit is not an appro-
priate unit for bargaining.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision, Order, and Direc-
tion of Election is reversed with respect to her finding
that a separate unit of maintenance employees is not an
appropriate unit for bargaining. The case is remanded to
the Regional Director for further appropriate action.

APPENDIX
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Positions of the Parties
At the hearing, the Petitioner in Case 12–RC–8469 (Peti-
tioner Teamsters), amended the petition to seek a bargaining
unit consisting of all production workers—job code 103, em-
ployed by the Employer at its Tampa, Florida facility. The
Petitioner in Case 12–RC–8470 (Petitioner Operating Engi-
neers), amended the petition to seek a bargaining unit consist-
ing of all maintenance workers/electricians—job code 101,
maintenance workers/machinists—job code 102, and mainte-
nance workers/powerhouse engineers—job code 104, employed
by the Employer at its Tampa, Florida facility. The Employer
urges a wall-to-wall unit consisting of all of the aforementioned
classifications. While Petitioner Teamsters seeks to represent
only the production workers, it is willing to proceed to an elec-
tion if the unit it seeks to represent is deemed inappropriate and
an alternate unit is found to be appropriate. Petitioner Operat-
ing Engineers, on the other hand, is not willing to proceed to an
election if the unit it seeks to represent is deemed inappropriate
and an alternate unit is found to be appropriate.
The Employer employs 14 production workers, 2 mainte-
nance worker/electricians (electricians), 4 maintenance worker/
machinists (machinists), and 5 maintenance worker/power-
house engineers (powerhouse engineers).1
Management Function
The Employer’s day-to-day operation is essentially run by
three operational managers who share many of the same re-

1 The term “maintenance employees” will be used hereinafter to re-
fer to the electricians, machinists, and powerhouse employees collec-
tively.
sponsibilities.2 All three operational managers report directly
to Jim Helmke, the vice president of operations of D.G.
Yuengling & Sons, Inc.,3 located in Pottsville, Pennsylvania.
Each of these managers is primarily responsible for supervising
certain employees. John Houseman (Houseman), the brewmas-
ter, is responsible for overseeing the brewing function, includ-
ing brewing maintenance and quality control, and primarily
supervises four production workers. The other 10 production
employees are employed in the warehousing and packaging
function and are primarily supervised by Martin Cooke
(Cooke), the packaging manager. Cooke is responsible for
supervising the packaging operations, including packaging
maintenance and packaging quality control. In charge of over-
all maintenance, both mechanical and electrical, and the pow-
erhouse, is Bud Hardcastle (Hardcastle) who primarily super-
vises the electricians, machinists and powerhouse employees.
The parties stipulated that Houseman, Cooke, and Hardcastle
are 2(11) supervisors.
Employer’s Operations, Production Process, and Degree of
Functional Integration
The Employer commenced its operations in August 1999, af-
ter purchasing the facility from the Stroh Brewery Company
(Stroh),4 which ceased its operations in January 1999. The
Employer’s warehousing, brewing, and packaging activity is
located within a main building. The powerhouse, a one-story
building, is located in a separate building several feet apart
from the main building. With the exception of the powerhouse
engineers, who are exclusively assigned to the powerhouse, all
employees are assigned to the main building.
The Employer’s production work is divided into two sepa-
rate functions, brewing and packaging. Both of these functions
are located on the first floor of the main building. The Em-
ployer’s brewing function is conducted on five different floors
located within the main building. After the brewing process
ends, the product is sent to a packaging release cellar tank and
then to packaging where it is put in various containers such as
bottles, cans, or kegs. The product then goes into a pasteurizer
vat, then into a packer, and finally into a palletizer. From there
the product is either placed on the floor or direct-line loaded on
trucks for shipping.
The Employer introduced new equipment after purchasing
the facility from Stroh to accomplish its packaging function
which included a 12-pack-can machine, a 12-pack-bottle ma-
2 The parties stipulated that the position of “plant manager,” al-
though currently unfilled, is that of a 2(11) supervisor. In addition, the
parties also stipulated that Carolyn Goodwin, in “administration,” and
Linda Roubos, the comptroller, are to be excluded from any unit found
appropriate.
3 Although D.G. Yuengling & Sons, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
the Pottsville facility, and the Employer are separate corporate entities,
they share identical corporate directors and officers. The parties stipu-
lated that Jim Helmke is employed by D.G. Yuengling & Sons, Inc. and
is not employed by the Employer.
4 Petitioner Teamsters was the collective-bargaining representative
of Stroh’s production employees and Petitioner Operating Engineers
was the collective-bargaining representative of Stroh’s maintenance
employees, except for electricians who were represented by Local 108
of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
YUENGLING BREWING CO. OF TAMPA 895
chine, and a bulk glass depal. It has also added improvements
such as a new keg line, a new water treatment system, and a
new water cooling system.
The Employer operates for the most part with only one shift,
5 days a week. The powerhouse, however, is a 24 hour, 7-day
operation. Maintenance employees will report to work any-
where between 4 and 7 a.m. while production employees report
to work between 4 and 5 a.m. The facility shuts down when-
ever the day’s production is completed, generally around 5 p.m.
During the brewing process, Houseman testified that apart
from the production employees who are engaged in brewing, an
electrician must be present. The production line, started at the
beginning of the day, requires both production and maintenance
employees to get the line running. In addition, on a daily basis,
maintenance employees assist the production employees at the
end of the day on the production line and in packaging to en-
sure the completion of the production work. Houseman testi-
fied that at least one mechanic and one electrician remain at the
facility until the production line shuts down. These mainte-
nance employees engage in tasks which involve removing bot-
tles from the pasteurizer or helping with the packer. A machin-
ist testified that he will spend up to an hour at the end of the
day in helping to close down the production line.
Houseman testified that it is common for maintenance em-
ployees to help on the production line to assist in “whatever
needs to get done.” This work involves taking glass out of the
drop pack, helping on the palletizer, and pulling bottles or cans
out of the pasteurizer. There have been other specific times
when maintenance employees have been called on to assist
production employees. For example, Houseman testified to a
recent situation where the bulk glass depal was not running and
several maintenance and production employees worked to-
gether to repair the machine. He stated that in that situation an
electrician was running the machine, a task normally handled
by a production employee. In June 1999 production workers
were called on to assist in maintenance work by tearing out two
palletizers and burning and demolishing certain equipment.
When a piece of equipment on the production line goes
down, the production employee will stay with the maintenance
employee to assist him in repairing the machine. A machinist
testified that he works together with production employees to
work out problems. For example, he stated that many times he
needs the production employee to jog the machine or get it
lined up.
Employees from one classification will seek out the assis-
tance of an employee from another classification when neces-
sary without being required to go through any immediate su-
pervisor. For example, a production employee testified that
when he needs electrical or mechanical assistance he will go
directly to an electrician or machinist to advise him of the prob-
lem. A machinist testified that four out of five times he will be
asked directly by a production employee for assistance on a
mechanical problem.
Supervision
Although the operational managers are primarily responsible
for supervising certain employees, they are directly responsible
for supervising the work of other employees when those other
employees are performing work in their departments. For ex-
ample, Houseman, primarily responsible for overseeing the
work of the production employees in brewing, will supervise
the work of electricians when they are performing electrical
work in the brewery. Also, for example, a mechanic perform-
ing mechanical work in packaging will report to Cooke even
though he is primarily supervised by Hardcastle.
Houseman testified that all maintenance employees, includ-
ing the powerhouse employees, work for all three supervisors.
He stated that even though work assignments are usually made
through the primary supervisor, all three supervisors may at
their own discretion use the services of any maintenance em-
ployee. Houseman stated that when he needs a maintenance
employee he will notify Supervisor Hardcastle who will in turn
send him a maintenance employee depending on the particular
problem. On a daily basis, Houseman supervises the work of a
powerhouse employee because that employee is used to start
and stop making plainer water, heat water for brewing, setup
schedules for brewing, and make deliveries of carbon dioxide.
Production and Maintenance Work
The Employer’s job description for production employees
reads as follows: Operate high-speed packaging equipment,
forklifts, brewing process equipment/controls, and perform any
other duties as required. The Employer’s job description for
electricians reads as follows: Good knowledge of PLCs,
wire/troubleshoot 480 VAC3 phase motor control centers, in-
stall/troubleshoot analog instrument loops, perform other duties
as required. The Employer’s job description for machinists
reads as follows: Perform maintenance/repair work to high-
speed packaging/brewing process equipment, perform milling,
lathe and welding work, operate production equipment, perform
other duties as required. The Employer’s job description for
powerhouse engineers reads as follows: Licensed powerhouse
operating engineer, NH3 & glycol refrigeration experience,
steam generation, water treatment, compressed air systems,
CO2 collection, mechanical/electrical work as needed. House-
man testified that when employees were interviewed for a par-
ticular job classification, they were specifically informed that
they were expected to do “whatever was necessary to get the
job done.” He said that the applicants were told they would
perform other duties, other than those described for their spe-
cific job classification, on a routine basis.
A production employee assigned to brewing testified that he
performs maintenance and electrical work often. He testified
that his former employer, Stroh, prohibited such activity. For
example, he stated that he helps the powerhouse engineers by
controlling the temperature in the cellars. He will turn on the
refrigeration units for them and will also change pumps. Elec-
trically, he changes fuses and resets breakers. He stated that he
maintains a set of basic hand tools, such as wrenches, sockets,
screwdrivers, pipe and Allen wrenches, to perform minor re-
pairs.
Houseman testified that maintenance employees are cross-
training production employees to perform preventive mainte-
nance. He stated, for example, that the production employees,
both in brewing and packaging, lube and oil their own equip-
ment.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 896
The production employees in brewing are responsible for the
entire brewing process, which includes brewing, fermenting,
and filtering the beer. Houseman testified that these employees
perform the brewing function most of the time with about five
percent of their worktime dedicated to general maintenance and
other production functions such as helping to get the production
line running in the morning.
The electricians have a small electrical shop located next to
the packaging area from where they monitor the brewing and
processing equipment. The room has its own entrance. The
electricians also use the room as a workshop to make small
repairs. For larger repairs they use the machine shop which is
located next to the electrical shop. The electricians spend only
about five percent of their worktime in the electrical shop.
They spend the rest of their worktime in the production area.
The machinists have a mechanical shop which they use to
perform major repairs. This work area is shared by the produc-
tion workers on occasion. When the machinists are not work-
ing in the shop they are working in the production area repair-
ing machinery. Houseman testified that about 80 percent of the
machinists’ worktime is spent in the production area, unless
they are working on a special project. When working in the
production area, the machinists work right next to the produc-
tion employees.
The powerhouse engineers generally work in the power-
house. However, when the powerhouse is down on the week-
ends, the powerhouse engineers are given other maintenance
duties to perform.
There has been no permanent interchange of employees be-
tween the maintenance and production classifications. Al-
though powerhouse engineers do other mechanical work on the
weekends, no other employees other than the powerhouse em-
ployees are qualified to perform powerhouse work. A produc-
tion employee cannot fill in for a mechanic or for an electrician.
As far as filling in for production employees, there is a desig-
nated relief production employee who does the relieving on the
production line and in brewing when necessary.
Other Working Conditions
The Employer has no written policy and procedure manual.
All employees, salaried and hourly, receive the same fringe
benefits which include a 401(k) plan and an insurance plan.
The same holidays are recognized in all areas of the Em-
ployer’s operations. All employees are entitled to vacation
based on an allotment formula which is the same for all em-
ployees. Other benefits include bereavement, long-term dis-
ability, and health insurance. Paychecks for all employees are
distributed weekly on Wednesdays. The Employer also has a
safety program which rewards employees with free lunch at the
facility and a free case of beer for each employee for every
month in which there is no lost time due to accidents.
All employees enter the building through the same front en-
trance. Both production and maintenance employees share the
same lunchroom. They place their meals in a refrigerator lo-
cated in the lunchroom. Houseman testified that both produc-
tion and maintenance employees share the lunchroom at the
same time, especially before the workday begins, during breaks
and during lunchtime. The production and maintenance em-
ployees share the same locker room located in the main build-
ing. Although the powerhouse has a locker room of its own,
those locker rooms are used mainly by the powerhouse em-
ployees for the storage of their tools. None of the employees
wear uniforms, nor do they wear any identification. All em-
ployees carry a basic badge which is used to get into the build-
ing.
The Employer has three different pay classifications. All
employees within each classification receive the same rate of
pay. Production employees earn $14.40 an hour, machinists
and electricians earn $15.40 an hour, and powerhouse employ-
ees earn $15.90 an hour. There is no timeclock at the Em-
ployer’s facility. Employees report their time based on an
honor system by recording their time on a timesheet located in
the lunchroom. The timesheet is the same for all production
and maintenance employees. Checks are issued locally for all
hourly employees. Employees receive their paychecks from
their immediate supervisor; production employees receive their
checks from Houseman or Cooke, and the maintenance em-
ployees from Hardcastle.
Analysis
As noted above, Petitioner Teamsters seeks to represent a
bargaining unit consisting only of all production employees
employed at the Employer’s facility located in Tampa, Florida.
Petitioner Operating Engineers seeks to represent a bargaining
unit consisting only of all maintenance employees, which in-
cludes maintenance worker/electricians, maintenance
worker/machinists, and maintenance worker/powerhouse engi-
neers. The Employer argues that the only unit appropriate for
bargaining is a wall-to-wall unit comprised of all of the afore-
mentioned classifications.
It is well established that the Act does not require the Board
to approve the most appropriate or comprehensive unit, but
simply an appropriate unit. Executive Resources Associates,
301 NLRB 400, 401 (1991); Morand Bros. Beverage Co., 91
NLRB 409 (1950), enfd. 190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951); Gate-
way Equipment Co., 303 NLRB 340 (1991). To constitute a
separate appropriate unit, the Board requires that the petitioned-
for employees comprise a readily identifiable group whose
“similarity of function and skills create a community of interest
such as would warrant separate representation.” American
Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909, 910 (1961); Harrah’s Illinois
Corp., 319 NLRB 749 (1995). In assessing the appropriateness
of the units sought, the undersigned is guided by several criteria
for determining whether the community-of-interest standard is
met, including similarity in employee skills, job duties, and
working conditions, supervision, functional integration, em-
ployee interchange, and collective-bargaining history. Okla-
homa Installation Co., 305 NLRB 812 (1991); Carson Cable
TV, 795 F.2d 879, 884–885 (9th Cir. 1986). On the facts pre-
sented, I find that a single unit comprised of all production and
maintenance employees employed at the Employer’s facility
located in Tampa, Florida, is appropriate and that the smaller
units sought by the Petitioners are not. Substantial community-
of-interest factors support this conclusion.
The record reveals that the Employer’s operation is highly
integrated. Furthermore, there is a significant degree of interac-
YUENGLING BREWING CO. OF TAMPA 897
tion among the employees in the petitioned-for units and there
is an overlap of functions among the maintenance and produc-
tion employees. For example, the cooperation of both produc-
tion and maintenance employees is required for the purpose of
getting the production line started and to complete production
at the end of the day. Also, maintenance employees work side
by side with, and require the assistance of, production employ-
ees when repairing production equipment on the line. Produc-
tion employees directly seek out the assistance of maintenance
employees when confronted with a mechanical problem they
are unable to resolve. Production employees perform certain
types of minor electrical and mechanical work and are also
being trained on performing preventive maintenance on the
production equipment. They have also been used to assist
maintenance employees with special projects. With the excep-
tion of the powerhouse employees who spend their working day
in the powerhouse physically separated from the other employ-
ees, the electricians and machinists work in close proximity
with production employees who are all located in the main
building.
The fact that the same working conditions apply to all em-
ployees, provides further support for finding a single unit. All
employees are subject to identical established wage parameters
and policies regarding fringe benefits and holidays. There is
also commonality in supervision. Although maintenance em-
ployees are primarily supervised by their designated operational
manager, when they perform maintenance work in production
(either brewing or packaging), they will be directly supervised
by the operational managers in charge of those production ar-
eas.
There is no history of collective bargaining between the par-
ties. Petitioners maintained separate collective-bargaining
agreements with Stroh, the prior owner of the Employer’s facil-
ity. However, Petitioners make no claim that the Employer is
Stroh’s successor employer. Although Petitioner Teamster’s
sister Local 830 maintains a collective-bargaining agreement
with the Pottsville facility covering all of its employees, the
evidence is clear that the Employer is a separate corporate en-
tity and there is insufficient evidence relating to the type of
operation run at the Pottsville facility to draw any conclusions
therefrom. In view of the above, I find there is no relevant
bargaining history to consider.
In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to establish that
separate units, one comprised of all production employees and
the other of maintenance employees, are appropriate. I shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition in Case 12–RC–8469, as Peti-
tioner Operating Engineers is unwilling to go to an election in a
unit other than in the petitioned-for unit. I shall, however, di-
rect an election in Case 12–RC–8470, as Petitioner Teamsters
is willing to go to an election in a unit found appropriate by the
undersigned. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and the
record as a whole, I find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production workers—job
code 103, maintenance workers/electricians—job code 101,
maintenance workers/machinists—job code 102, and mainte-
nance workers/powerhouse engineers—job code 104, em-
ployed by the Employer at its Tampa, Florida facility, exclud-
ing all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
ORDER
It is ordered that the petition filed in Case 12–RC–8469 be,
and it is, dismissed.