Acme Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of ACME BREWING COMPANY, AZTEC BREWING COMPANY,,,
GRACE BROS. BREWING COMPANY, LTD., Los ANGELES BREWING COM-
PANY, MAIER BREWING COMPANY, RAINIER BREWING COMPANY,.
STEWART MCKEE & COMPANY, BOHEMIAN DISTRIBUTING COMPANY,-
EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR,.
CEREAL AND SOFT DRINK WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER-
Cases Nos. 21-R-35641 through 01-R-3570 and 21-R-3697.-Decided
February 28, 1947
Brobeck, Phleger 1 Harrison, by Messrs. Gregory Harrison, E. R.-
Hoerchner, and E. J. Ruff, of San Francisco, Calif., for Acme Brew-
ing Company, Maier Brewing Company, Rainier Brewing Company,.
and Bohemian Distributing Company.
Hanna and Morton, by Mr. James M. McRoberts, of Los Angeles,-
Calif., for Grace Bros. Brewing Company, Ltd., Los Angeles Brewing-
Company, and" Stewart McKee & Company.
Katz, Gallagher cC Margolis, by Mr. John T. MeTernan, of Los-
Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner.
F. Nason O'Hara, by Mr. P. M. McCarthy, Jr., of San Francisco,-
Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Melvin J. Welles, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing in these-
cases was held at Los Angeles, California, on December 18 and 19,
1946, before George H. O'Brien, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.' Prior to the hearing, at the hearing, and in its
brief, the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds,
in substance as follows: (1) there is no evidence that the Petitioner
represents a substantial number of employees in the alleged appro-
priate unit; (2) the petitions fail to state a cause of action; (3) the
unit sought is inappropriate; (4) a contract between the Intervenor
and the Employers is a bar to this proceeding; (5) the pendency of
1In affirming the hearing officer's rulings, we have considered claims by the Intervenor-
and the Employers that certain procedural error was committed at the hearing
72 N. L. R. B., No. 171.
1005
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unfair labor practice charges precludes the direction of an election at
this time; (6) the Petitioner's waiver of the unfair labor practice
charges is inadequate; and (7) the Board failed to advise either the
Intervenor or the Employers of the contents of the unfair labor prac-
tice charges or the names of the charging parties. The Employers,
at the hearing and in their briefs, also moved-to dismiss the petition,
on the grounds that (1) a contract between the Intervenor and the
Employers is a bar to this proceeding; (2) the petitions fail to state
a cause of action; (3) there is no evidence that the Petitioner repre-
sents a substantial number of employees in the alleged appropriate
unit; and (4) the pendency of unfair labor practice charges precludes
the direction of an election at this time. In addition, the Intervenor
moved to strike as parties the Petitioner's local unions named in the
various petitions.
The contention of the Intervenor and the Employers that the peti-
tion should be dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence that
the Petitioner represents a substantial number of employees in the
.alleged appropriate unit is without merit. As we have declared in
numerous cases, the question of whether or not a petitioner has made
a sufficient prima facie showing of interest to warrant the holding of
a representation election is an administrative matter to be determined
by the Board itself, and is, therefore, not subject to direct or collateral
attack by any of the parties to the proceeding.2 And we have satisfied
ourselves that, by reason of its long-enduring past relations with
the Employers, the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest
among the employees here involved.3
We also find no merit in the contention of the Intervenor and the
Employers that the petition should be dismissed because the peti-
tions fail to state a cause of action. We are convinced that the peti-
tions are sufficient as to form and substance.
For these reasons, and with respect to the remaining grounds upon
which the Intervenor and the Employers base their motions to dis-
miss, for the reasons set forth in Sections III, IV, and V, infra, the
motions are hereby denied.
The Intervenor's motion to strike as parties the Petitioner's local
unions named in the various petitions is also denied, inasmuch as
these locals have an interest in this proceeding.'
Matter of Nash Motors Ihvision of Nast-liclcinator Sales Corporation ( Philadelphia
Gone). 68 N I. R B 651 , Mattel of 0 D Jen nnys eC Company, 68 N L R B 516
3 See Matter of Advance Tanning Company , et at, 60 N L R B 923 Matter of Breve, if
Pioprietors of Milwaukee, Wwconvn, et at 62 N. L R B 163, Matter of International
Shoe Company ( Rubber Plant ), 55 N. L. R B. 267.
4 The Intervenor claims error in that its wirtten motion to dismiss, filed with the Regional
Director betoie the hearing, was referred to the hearing officer rather than the Board
Inasmuch as the hearing officer reterred the motion to the Board and the Board has passed
upon it, it is clear that the Inteivenor was in no way prejudiced.
ACME BREWING COMPANY 1007
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYERS
Acme Brewing Company, a California corporation engaged in
the manufacture of malt products, operates a plant in Los Angeles,
California, with which we are concerned in this proceeding. Annu-
ally, this Employer purchases malt, grain, and hops, valued at more
than $100,000, from outside the State of California. During the
period from July 1945 to June 1946, approximately 12.04 percent
of the products produced at its Los Angeles plant was shipped to
points outside the State of California.
Aztec Brewing Company, a California corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of, malt beverages. Annually, this Employer pur-
chases raw products, valued at more than $75,000, from outside the
State of California. During the year ending June 1946, approxi-
mately 7.55 percent of the products manufactured by this Employer
was shipped to points outside the State of California.
Maier Brewing Company, a California corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of malt products. Annually, this Employer pur-
chases raw products, valued at more than $50,000, from outside the
State of California.
Rainier Brewing Company, a California corporation engaged in
the manufacture of malt products, operates a plant in Los Angeles,
California, with which we are concerned in this proceeding. Annu-
ally, this Employer purchases grain and carton products, valued at
more than $100,000, from outside the State of California. During
1945, approximately 12.6 percent of the products manufactured at its
Los Angeles plant was shipped to points outside the State of
California.
Bohemian Distributing Company, a California corporation, is
engaged in the distribution of malt products. This Employer pur-
chases and distributes all of the products manufactured by Acme
Brewing Company. Bohemian Distributing Company purchases
other products, valued in excess of $100,000, from outside the State
of California. During the year ending June 1946, it shipped to
points outside the State of California malt beverages valued in excess
of several hundred thousand dollars.
Los Angeles Brewing Company, a California corporation, operates
branches throughout the southern part of California, where it is
engaged in brewing fermented malt liquors. During the past year,
731 24 2-47-vol 72--65
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this Employer purchased products, valued at approximately $12,-
255,000, of which approximately 80 percent was shipped to it from
points outside the State of California. During the same period, it
manufactured and sold products, valued at approximately $23,121,-
000, of which approximately 1 percent was shipped to points outside
the State of California.
Stewart McKee & Company, a California corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of beer. During the past year, this Employer
purchased products valued at approximately $500,000, of which ap-
proximately 70 percent was shipped to it from points outside the
State of California. During the same period, it manufactured and
sold products, valued at approximately $12,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 4 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
California.
Grace Bros. Brewing Company, Ltd., a California corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture of beer. Approximately 50 percent of
the materials used by this Employer is purchased from points out-
side the State of California. During 1945, it sold 92,318.4 barrels
of beer, all of which was sold within the State of California.
The Employers do not deny, and we find, that each of them is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer. -
Joint Local Executive Board of California, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employers.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
For a long period before May 15 , 1936, the Employers 5 were in con-
tractual relationship with the Petitioner . 6 In 1936, a jurisdictional
dispute arose between the Petitioner and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, and Warehousemen of America , A. F. L.,
herein called the Teamsters ,° and the existing contract was terminated.
Subsequently, in 1936 and 1937, negotiations took place between the
Employers and the Petitioner, and the hours , wages, and working con-
ditions then in existence were observed on a day-to -day basis. In
S All the breweries in southern Califoima are operated by all the Employers, except
Bohemian Distributing Company, which is a distributor in the same area
9 Until about October 16, 1941, the Petitioner was an A F L. affiliate At that time
it was suspended from the A F L , and about July 18: 1946, it became a C I. 0 affiliate.
7 The Iutervenm is composed of four locals of the Teamsters
ACME BREWING COMPANY 1009
1939, the Petitioner demanded a written contract, to include a closed-
shop for drivers. The Employers refused to enter into a contract
containing such a provision. However, negotiations ensued which cul-
minated in the Petitioner's submission of certain "Working Rules,"
which, with some exceptions, the Employers agreed to observe on a
"day to day basis." In 1941 negotiations were again conducted be-
tween the Employers and the Petitioner. Once more the Employers
refused to enter into a contract containing a closed-shop provision for
drivers, but agreed to observe on a day-to-day basis the Working Rules
adopted in 1939.
That same year, the Petitioner filed with the Board unfair labor
practice charges against the Northern California brewers," alleging
an unlawful refusal to bargain because the Northern California
brewers also rejected the Petitioner's demand for a written contract
providing for a closed-shop for drivers. These charges were dismissed
by the Board on the ground that the action of the Northern California
brewers was justified in the circumstances.'
In 1943, the Petitioner met with the Employers and repeated its re-
quests of 1939 and 1941. The Employers again refused to comply. A
strike against certain brewing companies in Northern California re-
sulted in a hearing before the War Labor Board. On May 2, 1944, the
War Labor Board issued a Directive Order,l0 directing that :
The existing practice of posting the Working Rules shall be
continued and the existing practice in carrying out the Working
Rules shall be continued. No variations in these existing prac-
tices shall be made except by mutual agreement or by prior deter-
mination of the National War Labor Board.
The Employers then agreed by written endorsement of a copy of the
Directive Order to be bound by the Directive Order "with the same
force and effect as if a party thereto."
In 1945, the Petitioners again demanded a written contract with a
closed-shop provision for drivers, and the Employers again refused,
agreeing only to observe the Working Rules on a day-to-day basis as
theretofore. In February 1946, the Employers and the Petitioners
entered into negotiations concerning wage scales and certain modifica-
tions of the Working Rules. A memorandum, signed by Employer
representatives only, was executed on February 8, 1946. Pertinent
provisions of this memorandum are as follows :
Discussion was held and mutual understanding reached with re-
spect to the following subjects:
J The Northern California brewers have always bargained separately from the Southern
California brewers.
" Matter of Arne Breweries, et al , 47 N. L R. B. 1208
10 Case No. 111-1376-D.
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following wage scale shall be effective the first payroll period
after March 1, 1946, and shall remain in effect thereafter until
May 1, 1947.
By mutual understandings with the [Petitioner] through various
officials, listed, on the preceding page, the following clarifications
and interpretations of the present [Petitioner's] working rules
were made. All Employers shall be guided accordingly :
[s] B. G. LEWIS
B. G. Lewis, Secretary
Southern Division,
California State Brewers Institute.
JAMES M. MOROBERTS.
Labor Counsel,
Southern California Brewing Industry.
On April 11 , 1946, a suit was instituted by the Petitioner against one
of the Employers, the Los Angeles Brewing Company , in which the
Petitioner alleged that this Employer was bound to it by contract, as
evidenced by the Working Rules , the War Labor Board directive, and
the memorandum of February S, 1946, and that the Employer breached
the alleged contract. The Petitioner prayed that the Court compel
the Employer to observe the obligations of the contract . The Court
(Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Los Angeles ) entered judgment for the Employer , finding that no con-
tract, as such , existed between the Petitioner and the Employer.
Sometime in 'July 1946 , certain. officials of the Petitioners trans-
ferred their allegiance to the American Federation of Labor. And on
July 26, 1946, the Petitioner sent to the Employers , among others, the
following telegram :
We have received information that out local union officials in
San Francisco have divorced themselves from our organization
and are attempting to take the membership , employees of your
firm, over to the Teamsters' Union.
This is formal notice that our union represents the majority of
your employees in all departments . You are hereby notified not
tto negotiate with any other union or representative thereof for
your employees . Eugene J. McCann is the only authorized repre-
sentative of this International Union in California , and he is
prepared to meet ' with you at mutually convenient times and-place
to negotiate written contract covering all your employees.
By Order of the General Executive Board. -
ACME BREWING COMPANY 1011
Also on July 26, 1946, the Intervenor advised the Employers that its
constituent locals represented a majority of employees of the Employ-
ers, and requested a conference for the purpose of collective bargaining
negotiations. A meeting between the Employers' representatives and
the Intervenor's officials was held on July 27, 1946, and one day later
the Employers and the Intervenor executed a contract, effective on that
date, to run until May 1, 1947.
The Petitioner instituted an action in the Superior Court of Cali-
fornia on August 2, 1946, and obtained a temporary restraining order
enjoining the Employers from enforcing or attempting to enforce the
provisions of this contract. The order was vacated on August 15,
1946, reinstated on August 19, 1946, pending appeal, and finally vacated
on August 20, 1946.
The Petitioner filed seven of its petitions on August 22, 1946, and
the eighth on November 18, 194611
The Intervenor and the Employers claim that,their contract of July
28, 1946, is a bar to the present proceeding.
Whether or not a true collective bargaining agreement has existed
between the Petitioner and the Employers since 1936, it is clear from
the record that until July 27, 1946, the Employers did in fact abide by
the Petitioner's Working Rules. Grievances were settled by the Em-
ployers and the Petitioner under the guidance of the Working Rules;
a wage scale having a fixed term was negotiated between the Employers
and the Petitioner ; the Employers employed only members of the Peti-
tioner's local unions from about 1939 to 1946, and certain employees
were discharged at the request of the Petitioner since the inception
of the Working Rules. This past relationship reveals that, for all
practical purposes, the Petitioner was recognized by the Employers
as the exclusive bargaining representative of their employees. When
in 1916 the Petitioner received information that certain of its officials
had transferred their allegiance, it immediately notified the Employ-
ers, in its telegram of July 26, of its continued claim to representation."
At that time, the Petitioner was a vital and recognized incumbent of
the status of statutory representative. In the face of these facts, and
tle^plte the additional circumstance 'that less than 5 months of the
14-month term of the wage scale agreement between the Employers and
the Petitioner had passed, the Employers and the Intervenor executed
their contract.
11 Separate petitions were filed with respect to each of the eight Employers, all but that
for the Bohemian Distributing Company having been filed on August 22 , 1946; the Bo-
hemian petition was filed on November 18, 1946
1' In their beefs, the Employers advert to the fact that the Petitioner did not prove
R lien this telegram was received But no evidence was adduced to overcome the presunip-
tion that the telegram was r eceived the same clay, or the day after, it was sent We find,
therefore, that the telegram was received before the contract of July 28, 1946, was made
1012 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Intervenor and the Employers seek to invoke the principle of
the General Electric X-Ray case,13 contending that the Petitioner's
timely claim of July 26, 1946, was vitiated by the late filing of the
petitions. Under our ruling in that case, where a petition is filed more
than 10 days after a naked claim to representation has been made, an
agreement, otherwise valid, which is executed in the interval between
the claim and the filing of the petition, constitutes a bar to an election.
This ruling was intended to prevent labor organizations from playing
"dog in the nmanger," by frustrating collective bargaining indefinitely
through advancing merely colorable claims to representation with the
intention of gaining time in order to augment their strength. But
the Petitioner's claim cannot be said to have been "naked" within the
purview of the General Electric X-Ray case. On the contrary, the
Petitioner's active incumbency at the time it asserted its continued
claim to representation amply demonstrates the substantiality of that
claim and refutes the implication that it was desirous of delaying
valid collective bargaining for the purpose of strengthening its posi-
tion. This is not the normal case, where the validity of a union's
claim, when made, can be verified only by the Board's prompt admin-
istrative examination of its authorization cards or other proof of
interest. In the normal case, failure to permit such an inquiry by
the filing of a petition within 10 days after the claim is advanced,
warrants the conclusion that the claim is unfounded and justifies a
refusal to interfere with the bargaining relations between the con-
tracting parties. Here, a prompt examination would have revealed
nothing more than the facts disclosed by this record. The accuracy
of dates and the genuineness of signatures on cards are not involved.
We are persuaded that the contract of July 28, 1946, is not a bar to
a current determination of representatives, having been made after
the Petitioner's valid claim of July 26, 1946.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employers, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
All parties, except the Intervenor, agree that the appropriate unit
should include all employees in the brewing, bottling, checking, and
delivery departments of the Employers' Southern California opera-
tions,14 excluding maltsters, maltsackers and yardmen in the malt de-
partments, brewmasters, assistant brewmasters, managerial em-
ployees, foremen, and all other supervisory employees. The Inter-
venor contends that the employees of all distributors in Southern
California should also be included in the unit. The Employers would
',Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N L R B. 997.
14 All parties agree that Southern California, for the purposes of this proceeding, in-
cludes all of California south of Bakersfield and the Tehachapi Mountains.
ACME BREWING COMPANY 1013
further include in the unit, and the Petitioner and the Intervenor
would exclude, the drivers of Aztec Brewing Company.
The eight employers include all breweries in Southern California,
and one distributor, Bohemian Distributing Company. These eight
companies have always bargained as a unit for their Southern Cali-
fornia operations, separate and distinct from the distributors in South-
ern California (apart from Bohemian) ; each agreement between the
Petitioner and the Employers has had as parties these eight com-
panies. In addition, the contract of July 28, 1946, between the Em-
ployers and the Intervenor, includes these eight companies only.
To support its contention that the 40-odd distributors in Southern
Calif ornia should also be included in the unit, the Intervenor adverts
to the testimony of one of the Petitioner's representatives to the effect
that the Petitioner's telegram of July 26, 1946, and a subsequent letter
along similar lines, was sent to other companies, including some dis-
tributors, in Southern California, in addition to the 8 Employers.
This, argues the Intervenor, amounts to a concession by the. Petitioner
that the unit should include the Southern California distributors.
However, the fact that a representative of the Petitioner sought to
protect contract rights with other employers does not amount to such
a concession. In our opinion the long history of collective bargaining
overwhelmingly supports the Petitioner's position that the unit be
con fined to the employees of the 8 Employers.
There remains for consideration the question of whether or not the
drivers of Aztec Brewing Company should be included in the unit.
These employees have been bargained for separately from the multi-
employer unit since 1944. They are presently covered by a contract
with a local of the Teamsters which did not participate at the hearing.
In view of their separate representation, we shall exclude them from
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all employees in the brewing, bottling, checking, and
delivery departments of the Employers' Southern California opera-
tions, excluding maltsters, maltsackers and yardmen in the malt
departments, drivers of Aztec Brewing Company, brewmasters, assist-
ant brewmasters, managerial employees, foremen, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner has filed unfair labor practice charges,15 alleging,
inter alia, that certain employees of the Employers were discrimi-
" Cases Nos . 21-C-2868 through 2874 and 21-C-2928.
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
natorily discharged. The Petitioner, however, has formally waived
the right to protect an election in this proceeding on any grounds set
forth in the charges. Accordingly, we shall not postpone an election
pending a determination of the unfair labor practice charges,ls finding
no merit in the contention of the Intervenor and the Employers that
the pendency of the charges precludes the direction of an election at
this time.17
At the time of the hearing, there were four strikes in progress in
the Los Angeles area, affecting employees of Grace Bros. Brewing
Company, Ltd., Maier Brewing Company, Stewart McKee & Coin-
pany, and Los Angeles Brewing Company.
The Petitioner requests that the eligibility date for voting purposes
determined by the weekly pay-roll period ending July 27, 1946, the
week prior to the first strike and the alleged discriminatory discharges.
In the alternative, the Petitioner requests (1) that employees on a
current pay roll be eligible to vote, including discharged and striking
employees, and excluding their replacements, or (2) that employees
on a current pay roll be eligible to vote, including discharged and
striking employees and their replacements, but that the ballots of the
dischargees, strikers, and replacements be challenged and impounded,
with their eligibility to be determined by the Board in the event that
the results of the election would be affected. All other parties desire
that a current pay roll be used to determine voting eligibility.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
We shall, however, allow the alleged discriminatorily discharged
eunployees,is the strikers, and the persons hired to replace strikers or
employees who were allegedly discriminatorily discharged, to vote.
But the ballot of each of such persons shall be segregated, sealed, and
impounded by the Regional Director. We shall -undertake to deter-
mine the validity of their ballots at an appropriate time in the future,
provided such ballots may affect the results of the election.
At the hearing, the Petitioner expressed a desire to appear on the
ballot under its full name: "International Union of United Brewery,
16 Matter of Fairmont Creamery/ Company, 67 N. L. R B 688 ; Matter of Knape and
Vogt Manufacturing Co. 65 N I. R B 200
17 The Intervenor contends further that the Petitioner cannot waive the charges on
behalf of the individuals who were allegedly discrmunatoiily discharged We find no
merit in this contention
Nor do we find any merit in the allegation in the Inteivenor s motion to dismiss that
the Board failed to advise the Inteivenor or the Employers of the contents of the unfair
labor practice charges or the names of the charging parties
"Those named in unfair labor practice charges as having been discriminatorily dis-
charged.
ACME BREWING COMPANY 1015
Flour, Cereal, and Soft Drink Workers of America, C. I. 0."; no
objection was made to this request. The Intervenor expressed a desire
to be designated on the ballot as "Brewery Workers, A. F. L." To
this request, the Petitioner interposed an objection. Although we are
aware that the words "Brewery Workers" appear in both names,
the letters "C. I. 0." in the Petitioner's requested designation and
the letters "A. F. L." in the Intervenor's requested designation should
eliminate confusion if conspicuously recited on the ballots, and thereby
clearly indicate to the voters the identity of the competing unions.
In these circumstances, and in view of our desire, whenever possible,
to place the names of labor organizations on the ballot in the form they
ihennselves desire, we hereby grant the Intervenor's request.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Acme Brewing Company, Vernon,
California ; Aztec Brewing Company, San Diego, California; Grace
Bros. Brewing Company, Ltd., Los Angeles, California; Los Angeles
Brewing Company, Los Angeles, California; Maier Brewing Com-
pany, Los Angeles, California; Rainier Brewing Company, Vernon,
California; Stewart McKee & Company, Los Angeles, California; and
Bohemian Distributing Company, Vernon, California, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision"of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, including persons who were on strike at that time, the individuals
alleged in the unfair labor practice charges as having been discrimina-
torily discharged, and the replacements for both of these groups, and
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States - who present themselves in
person at the polls, 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, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by International Union of United Brewery, Flour,
Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by Brewery
Workers, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.