Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 29, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC." and LOCAL 843, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, AFL,2 PETITIONER
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and LOCAL 153, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND HEI .rsRs OF
AMERICA, AFL,3 PETITIONER
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED
BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO,4 PETITIONER
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. and BREWERS UNION LOCAL No. 2, INTEh-
NATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY , FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK
AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,5 PETITIONER
NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS: P. BALLANTINE
AND SONS, J. HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING
COMPANY, LIEBMANN BREWERIES, INC., PABST BREWING COMPANY
AND HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY and BREWERS UNION LOCAL No.2,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY , FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT
DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
NEW JERSEY BREWERS ASSOCIATION AND ITS MEMBERS : P. BALLANTINE
AND SONS, J. HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G. KRUEGER BREWING
COMPANY, LIEBMANN BREWERIES , INC., PABST BREWING COMPANY,
HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY AND ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.6 and THE
BREWERY WORKERS JOINT LOCAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF NEW JERSEY,
AFL, FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOINT LOCAL EXECUTIVE BOARD OF INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY , FLOUR, CEREAL AND SOFT
DRINK WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL,7 PETITIONER
P. BALLANTINE AND SONS, JOSEPH HENSLER BREWING COMPANY, G.
KRUEGER BREWING COMPANY, PABST BREWING COMPANY, LIEBMANN
BREWERIES , INC., HOFFMAN BEVERAGE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BREWERY WORKERS UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 2-RC-
4000, 2-RC-4040, 2-RC-4176, 2-RC-4277, O-RC-4297, 2-RC-4631,
and 2-RC-4118. January 29, 1953
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
" Herein called Anheuser.
Herein called Local 843.
8 Herein called Local 153.
Herein called Brewery Workers (CIO).
Herein called Brewery Workers ( CIO) Local 2. Brewery Workers (CIO) and its
Local 2 are sometimes jointly referred to as the CIO Unions.
6 Herein called the Association . The individual members are referred to collectively as
the "Companies "
7 Herein called the AFL Joint Board. The constituent member unions thereof are some-
times referred to as the AFL Unions.
102 NLRB No. 82.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 801
I. L. Broadwin and Lewis Moore, hearing officers. The hearing offi-
cers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed."
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers involved
The Association , which is comprised of member companies whose
activities concededly affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act,9 is, by virtue of its representation of its mem-
bers in collective bargaining , an employer of the employees of the
member companies , within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.
We find , accordingly , that the Employer Association , and each of the
member companies , is, respectively , engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved
The participants in these proceedings included, together with the
parties named in the captions above, Local 68, International Union
of Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called the Engineers, and Fed-
eral Labor Local 24251, AFL, herein called Local 24251. The former
intervened on the basis of its contract interest in the unit petitioned
for in Case No. 2-RC-4277; and the latter intervened on the basis of
its interest in the units respectively petitioned for in Cases Nos. 2-RC -
4297 and 2-RC-4631.
Local 24251, Local 153, and Local 843 are the constituent unions
comprising the AFL Joint Board, the Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC-
4631. Although there is no question that the constituent unions of
the AFL Joint Board are each of them "labor organizations" within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, the CIO Unions claim that
the AFL Joint Board does not possess, or should not be accorded, this
legal status.
Inasmuch as the record shows that the AFL Joint Board is clearly
an "agency" of its member unions, existing for the purpose of dealing
8 At the hearing, counsel representing the two CIO Unions (Brewery Workers (CIO)
and its Local 2) objected strongly to the rulings of Hearing Officer Broadwin limiting
his cross -examination of certain witnesses , and on a number of occasions moved that the
hearing officer disqualify himself on the grounds , among others, that he had indicated
bias against the CIO Unions by not affording their counsel full opportunity to test the
credibility of witnesses testifying to facts which counsel felt to be adverse to the position
of the CIO Unions. We find no merit in these objections . We have carefully examined
the very lenghty record made herein, and find no room for any doubt that the CIO
Unions' counsel had full opportunity to present all relevant data bearing upon the issues
in these cases , and that the hearing cfficer's limiting rulings were wholly reasonable.
In any event , as hereafter appears, our disposition of the issues in the case accept as
true the CIO Unions' factual contentions as to certain disputed points. ,Hence, whatever
"error" may be attributed to the hearing officer in the disputed rulings, it is not
prejudicial
g The member companies of the Association are listed in the caption of Case No.
2-RC-4631 above.
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collectively with Employers, it is clearly within the statutory defi-
nition of a "labor organization." It is perhaps possible, as the CIO
Unions suggest, that the AFL Joint Board's use of the words "formerly
known as Joint Executive Board of International Union of United
Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers of America, AFL"
as part of its title may mislead the employees into believing that there
is some present association and connection between it and the Brewery
Workers (CIO) which is presently affiliated with the CIO. We do
not believe, however, that the AFL Joint Board intended so to repre-
sent itself, and while we do not condone any act of fraud or deception,
we do not believe, in any event, that any prejudice resulted. For each
of the three unions comprising the AFL Joint Board appeared at the
hearing, and the record leaves no room for any doubt that they, and
no other organizations, are the sole members of the AFL Joint Board10
Accordingly, we shall deny that part of the motion of the CIO Unions
to dismiss the AFL Joint Board's petition, based upon the latter's
alleged misrepresentation. However, in order to eliminate any possi-
bility of confusion in the minds of the employees, in the course of
the election and thereafter, as to the identity of the organization or
organizations purporting to act on their behalf, the name of the AFL
Joint Board shall appear on the ballot and in any certification which
it may obtain herein, without the characterization: "formerly known
as Joint Local Executive Board of International Union of United
Brewery, Flour, Cereal and Soft Drink Workers, AFL." "
3. The questions concerning representation
The parties to this proceeding all agree that, with one exception,
questions concerning representation of all employees covered by the
various petitions herein, have arisen, which may be resolved by the
conduct of immediate elections. The exception is as to a group of
Anheuser's employees (most of whom are within the "brewing depart-
ment" of that company) currently represented by Brewery Workers
(CIO) Local 2 under a collective-bargaining agreement which will
not expire until April 14, 1953. The CIO Union alleges such contract
to be a bar to the present conduct of an election among this group
of employees. The AFL Unions claim, however, that the contract
should not be deemed a bar because: (1) A majority of the employees
comprising the unit covered by the contract were hired either after
recognition of the CIO as the representative, or after the execution
of the contract; and (2) the contract unit reflects an expansion in the
scope of the unit which was agreed upon by the parties, under the
circumstances hereafter related, for purposes of testing the CIO's
10 Cf. Crawford Steel Foundry Co., 58 NLRB 428.
11 Cf United States Gauge Co., 6& NLRB 1254.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 803
majority status. Although Anheuser takes a neutral position on the
contract bar issues as posed above, it has taken an overall position,
consistent with the result sought by the AFL Unions, in favoring the
conduct of an immediate election in an industrywide unit.
We need not pass upon the issues so posed, however, as the "Mill B"
date of the contract in question is less than 30 days away from the
date of issuance of this decision 12 Accordingly, under well-es-
tablished precedent,13 the existence of the contract cannot in any event
bar a present determination of representatives.
We find, as to each of the petitions herein, that a question affecting
commerce has arisen involving employees of the Employers involved,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The appropriate units
a. Cases Nos. 2-RC-4631, 4000, 4040, 4176, 4297, and 4418
(1) The unit requests of the parties
The AFL Joint Board, whose constituent unions currently repre-
sent, on a multiemployer basis, various of the lesser skilled produc-
tion-maintenance workers of all association members, other than
Anheuser, seek a single comprehensive unit of all the production-
maintenance workers covered by the recently expired contract between
Locals 843, 153, and 24251, respectively, on the one hand, and mem-
bers of the Association, respectively, on the other. They would in-
clude in such a unit, all of the similarly classified employees of
Anheuser, and all of its laboratory workers.
The Association and its constituent members agree that the com-
prehensive unit proposed by the AFL Unions is appropriate. How-
ever, they would exclude from such a unit all employees classified as
stockhandlers and watchmen and would establish a separate unit
of Anheuser's laboratory workers.
The CIO Unions would split the employees thus sought to be repre-
sented on a comprehensive unit basis by the AFL Unions, into several
narrower multiemployer units purporting to conform generally in
composition to the several contract units established by the expired
agreements heretofore held by Locals 153, 843, 24251. More spe-
cifically, the CIO Unions claim that the production-maintenance em-
ployees (other than Anheuser's laboratory workers) should be "split"
into units respectively composed of: (1) All employees of the re-
spective employers' "Brewing department ...";14 (2) all employees
12 The contract in issue contains a 60-day automatic renewal clause which becomes
operative February 15, 1953.
13 Dictaphone Corp., 90 NLRB 9,62; Rockwell Register Corp, 98 NLRB No. 183
14 This proposed unit is hereafter referred to as the `Brewing Department unit
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged by the respective employers as "drivers, car washers , helpers,
loaders and unloaders, warehousemen and freight handlers in the keg
and bulk delivery departments, including [drivers of] mixed loads
if any; fork lift operators (except those employed exclusively inside
the bottling establishment) ,15 bottle sorters , yard, freight handlers
and platform workers; loaders and unloaders of any and all raw
materials used in the manufacture of the company's product; dead
storage warehouse warehousemen , freight handlers, loaders and un-
loaders; depot and distributor employees; carters of materials of
every description relative to the manufacturing of products of the
respective companies; garage employees excluding watchmen and all
other employees"; 16 (3) all employees in the Employers' bottling es-
tablishment, including the feeder warehouse and full goods ware-
house, all bottle or packaged goods drivers on retail customer delivery
routes, excluding watchmen and all other employees; 17 (4) employees
classified as "checkers"; (5) employees classified as "stockhandlers"; 18
(6) employees classified as "porters"; 4° and (7) employees classified as
"watchmen." With respect to the latter four of the employee group-
ings, the CIO Unions suggest that self-determination elections be con-
ducted in each, to determine whether these employees should be
represented as part of the "bottle unit."
In addition, the CIO Unions would establish a separate unit of a
portion of Anheuser's laboratory workers,20 and would further repre-
sent the remaining production-maintenance employees of Anheuser
here involved in units separate than those in which it would represent
employees of the remaining association members, although similarly
composed classification- wise 21
From the foregoing statement of the positions of the parties, it
appears that : (1) Except for a dispute as to whether Anheuser's em-
ployees should be represented on a multiemployer or single-employer
basis, all parties agree that any unit or units established should be
Associationwide in scope; and (2) the most basic disagreement be-
tween the parties involving representation of the lesser skilled pro-
16 The "bottling establishment" is defined to include the "full goods warehouse" and the
"feeder warehouse."
16 This proposed unit Is hereafter referred to as the "keg and bulk delivery unit "
17 This proposed unit is hereafter referred to as the "bottle unit."
18 Only P. Ballantine & Sons , hereafter referred to as Ballantine , and Anheuser have
such job classifications.
7e Only Ballantine , Llebmann Breweries, Inc., and Anheuser have such job classifications.
m No union seeks to represent any laboratory workers employed by any company here
Involved other than Anheuser.
31 The sole remaining petition before us for consideration, disposed of In section B,
infra, that of Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 In Case No 2-RC-4277, involves a "power-
house" unit of Anheuser employees who are not involved in any of the unit requests above
described.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 805
duction-maintenance workers goes to the question of whether such
workers should be represented on a single-unit basis as proposed by
the AFL Unions and the Employers, or on a multiunit basis as pro-
posed by the CIO Unions.
(2) The basic issue of whether the production-maintenance workers
should be represented on the single-ur}it basis proposed by the AFL
Unions and the Employers, or on the multiunit basis proposed by
the CIO Unions
The Employers involved in this proceeding operate plants in the
Newark, New Jersey, area where they manufacture and distribute
malt beverages and, in the case of one Employer, soft drinks.22 In
these operations, while there are differences of procedure due to dif-
ferences in the physical establishment of the various companies, there
is substantial uniformity among all of them in the work functions
required for the respective operations.
In general the manufacturing processes require the conversion of
grains, malt, rice, and other raw materials into the beverage products,
and the packaging of these products into kegs, tins, or bottles for
distribution to the Employers' customers. The distribution op-
erations cover the actual delivery of the finished products to the
Employers' customers. In connection with these operations, the Em-
ployers maintain extensive "auxiliary" facilities for the storage of the
raw materials used in manufacture, the preparation of kegs, bottles,
and other package containers, the storage of fully packaged goods,
and the maintenance of its premises and equipment.
The production-maintenance workers here involved compromise,
as a whole, the lesser skilled workers engaged in these manufacturing,
distribution, and "auxiliary" operations.28 With the exception of
employees classified as "checkers," "porters," and "stockhandlers"
(who are paid slightly less than other production-maintenance work-
ers), all production-maintenance employees here under discussion
receive the same rate of pay. All are hourly paid, and all receive
identical vacations, holiday, overtime, and group hospitalization and
pension benefits. With relatively few exceptions, involving for the
most part machine operations in the "brew houses" and in the "bot-
tling" establishments, the nature of the various work tasks is so similar
that the employees can readily be transferred from one task to another.
All the work functions are interrelated and interdependent, and the
z, Hoffman Beverage Co , a wholly owned subsidiary of Pabst Brewing Co ., is a soft-
drink manufacturer utilizing the same plant facilities as its parent company in this area.
2s The remaining production -maintenance workers, whom all parties would exclude, are
represented on a "craft" basis.
250983-vol. 102-53-52
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees engaged therein come into frequent contact with each other.
In fact, the operations, which begin with the receipt of raw materials
at railroad or other freight-receiving points and end with the delivery
of the finished product to the Employers' customers in the area, are
run practically on an assembly line basis.
The foregoing facts suggest that these employees, as a whole, have a
large degree of common interest in the conditions of work, and form a
conventional production-maintenance unit. Nevertheless, the CIO
Unions seek to justify establishment of a multiunit structure on the
basis of (1) differences in the areas in which work tasks are performed,
(2) certain differences in experience and training required of certain
groups of workers for the attainment of job proficiency, and (3) the
history of collective bargaining in the area here involved. We shall
consider these contentions seriatim.
There are of course, some differences in terms of the physical loca-
tions in which various categories of employees work. Thus, delivery
drivers and their helpers and certain "yard" workers perform sub-
stantially all their work tasks in locations which are "outside" the
brewery buildings, whereas warehouse workers and employees engaged
in functions relating to the manufacture and packaging of the Em-
ployers' products perform substantially all their work tasks "inside"
the brewery plant. However, there is substantially no difference in
the nature of the work performed by warehouse employees who load
the finished products of the Employers on trucks, and often move them
on trucks inside the warehouses from one place to another, and that of
truck drivers, or their helpers, who load empty kegs or bottles they
pick up from customers, or who pick up and load incoming freight,
and unload such "empties" or freight goods at the Employers' brewery
plants. Nor is there any appreciable difference between the work of
"yard" employees who "sort" empty containers outside the brewery
buildings, and those who "sort" them inside the warehouse buildings.
Likewise, although in terms of physical locations, facilities for (a)
handling and storing of empty kegs, (b) handling and storing of empty
bottles, (c) storing of raw materials, and (d) storing of full goods are
separately housed or differently located, the work tasks of the "ware-
house" employees engaged in these functions are substantially the
same, wherever they may be located.
It is also true that the duties of some employees, particularly those
who work on the "bottling" machine operations, and those who work
on the beer manufacturing operations, require a different kind of
experience or training than the duties of other categories of workers.
However, the degree of experience or training required to attain pro-
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 807
ficiency in work is not extensive'24 and the differences in the "skill"
of these employees is no greater than that normally found among dif-
fering classifications of production-maintenance employees.
We find, upon the foregoing facts, and contrary to the contentions
of the CIO Unions that, with certain exclusions noted below, the em-
ployees sought by the AFL Unions do in fact comprise a conventional
production-maintenance grouping, and hence appropriately may be
represented in a single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
In view of this finding, it remains only to consider whether, as the
CIO Unions additionally contend, the history of collective bargaining
in this area dictates unit findings along the lines it proposes. If so,
while we would not be precluded from finding the comprehensive
production-maintenance unit proposed by the AFL Unions to be ap-
propriate, we would not, in the absence of unusual circumstances,
establish such a unit without first determining the desires of the
employees in separate self-determination elections conducted in voting
groups conforming to the historical contract units 25
In considering the positions of the parties with respect to the history
of collective bargaining, we note at the outset that there is a factual
dispute between the CIO Unions on the one hand, and the AFL
Unions on the other, as to the kind of unit basis upon which collective
bargaining has been conducted. There is also a serious question raised
as to whether, if the facts with respect to the historical conduct of
bargaining are what the CIO Unions claim them to be, such history
should, in any event, be disregarded. More specifically, it is the claim
of the CIO Unions that bargaining has been conducted on a three
"major"-unit basis along the lines of the units it here proposes. This
claim is predicated upon the undisputed facts, more fully detailed
below, that the various collective contracts, dating back to the early
1900's, have expressly recognized the existence of internal juris-
dictional arrangements between the various interested unions, dividing
the employees into three "major" groupings, and have uniformly
provided for employer accommodation to such jurisdictional lines.
21 The record establishes that there is no operation in the "bottling" or "brewing" de-
partments of the Employers performed by employees here sought to be represented , requir-
ing more than approximately 3 to 4 months' training , and that work tasks requiring these
maximums are relatively few in number . Almost all these positions are on an assembly
line basis Although according to the collective agreements, an "apprenticeship " system
exists In the "brewing departments ," the evidence shows that, in practice , this system is
not seriously utilized or viewed as a source of labor supply , and is in reality but a "token"
system. Thus , each Employer is limited to one "apprentice " in the brewing department-
a number clearly insufficient to provide replacements for experienced workers Moreover,
as the record shows , Employers have , on numerous occasions , hired untrained workers
and given them "on -the-job" training which enabled such workers to handle their tasks
efficiently in the relative short period of from 1 to 3 months.
21 Illinois Cities Water Co , &7 NLRB 109.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is the claim of the AFL Unions that bargaining has been conducted
on a single-unit basis. This claim is predicated upon certain facts,
also detailed below, tending to show the "joint" conduct of collective
bargaining by the interested unions on behalf of the employees they
represented. It is the claim of the Employers (and the AFL Unions
support this claim) that any evidence tending to establish a several-
unit basis of bargaining be disregarded. This argument is predicated
upon facts, likewise narrated hereafter, establishing that there has
never been any clearly defined method of determining precisely what
employees belonged in one unit or another, and that this situation has
made it impossible to stabilize work assignments in day-to-day opera-
tions and to administer the substantive provisions of the collective
agreements on a uniform basis. The more pertinent portions of the
record show as follows.
Since sometime in the early 1900's, and prior to its disaffiliation
from the AFL in 1941, the Brewery Workers represented the em-
ployees here involved in three locals, known as Local 2, Local 148,
and Local 268. These three locals had internal jurisdictional arrange-
ments which divided jurisdiction among the production-maintenance
employees in accordance with the "job content" of the work tasks
performed by the employees. Local 2's claimed jurisdiction covered,
roughly, the employees engaged in work pertaining to the manu-
facture and/or brewing of the beverage products; Local 148's claimed
jurisdiction covered, roughly, the employees engaged in work pertain-
ing to the bottling of the beverages and the delivery of bottle goods
to customers; and Local 268's jurisdiction covered, roughly, the em-
ployees engaged in "yard" work, and in work pertaining to the hauling
and storage of raw materials, and the delivery of keg and "bulk"
packaged products to customers. It is undisputed that these three
Brewery Workers' locals dealt with the Employers, or their Asso-
ciation, through the medium of a formally constituted Joint Local
Executive Board. The results of the negotiations, for a number of
years before 1941, were memorialized in a single document. The
single form of contract, however, traditionally contained provisions
which expressed the Employers' recognition of the separate "juris-
diction" which each union had over particular work functions, and
the Employers' agreement, to apply the substantive contract terms in
accordance with such jurisdictional lines.
Following the Brewery Workers' disaffiliation from the AFL in
1941, Locals 268 and 148 withdrew from the Brewery Workers, and
each obtained a charter from the Teamsters. Local 268 became Local
843 of the Teamsters, and Local 148 became Local 153 of the Teamsters,
each retaining, generally, the jurisdictional claims of its predecessor.
In 1946, when the Brewery Workers affiliated with the CIO, some of
the membership of its Local 2 became dissatisfied. The dissident
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 809
group obtained a federal charter from the AFL and became Federal
Local 24251. Its claimed jurisdiction extended generally over the
same groups of workers as was claimed by Local 2.28 So far as the
bargaining practices of these unions are concerned, the parties do not
seriously disagree that, despite the shifts of affiliation of 2 of the 3
Brewery Workers locals in 1941, utilization of the formal Joint Local
Executive Board as the medium of bargaining continued at least until
1946 or 1947, when Local 24251 succeeded to the representation of the
employees previously represented by Local 2. There is, however, sub-
stantial disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the
Joint Local Executive Board continued to exist after 1946 or 1947,
or whether, in any event, the three AFL locals bargained jointly or
separately. We are not, however, concerned with what the facts on
this disputed point may be, for the contracts resulting from these
later negotiations reveal no substantial changes in certain material
respects. They continued to include contractual language affording
to each of the locals separate recognition as the "representative of the
employees within its jurisdiction." 27 The definitions of separate areas
of jurisdiction of each local were cast in terms 'which did not vary
substantially, if at all, from those negotiated from about 1929 on.
These contract definitions are worded as follows : 28 In the case of
Local 24251, its jurisdiction is defined as including "all employees
employed in the brewing department, at the kettles, coolers, filters,
carbonizers, rackers and in the wash house." 29 In the case of Local
153, its jurisdiction is described as including "all drivers, automobile
drivers, helpers, loaders and unloaders, in the keg and bulk delivery
department . . . [and] employees doing carting of materials of every
description, relative to the manufacturing of products of the com-
pany and delivery of the same." In the case of Local 843, its juris-
diction is described as including all employees "in the bottling estab-
lishment and in the delivery of bottled goods." Since about 1943,
Local 843 has also been given separate contracts for checkers, porters,
watchmen, box repairmen, and stockhandlers.80
28 Local 2 has not represented any of the employees of the companies here involved from
that date up until 1951, when it won the consent election held among Anheuser's "brewing
department" employees under the circumstances described infra.
sT From 1929 and up to 1941 , the contracts negotiated in those years were memorialized
in a single document signed by all the interested locals. The later negotiated agreements
were cast into separate documents covering each employee group within each local's
jurisdiction , and signed singly by the interested local.
08 The most recent association contracts are used as examples.
80 With minor variations the contracts negotiated by or on behalf of Brewery Workers
Local 2 prior to 1947 contained substantially the same language.
30 Checkers, porters, watchmen , box repairmen , and stockhandlers have been organized
only within the past 9 years. Beginning about 1943, employees of each of these groups
sought representation through Local 843. A series of consent elections were held in sepa-
rate units of each group resulting in designation of that local in each case. Negotiations
on behalf of these groups have always been conducted simultaneously with the negotiations
on behalf of the other production -maintenance employees . However , the agreement of
the parties has been cast in several separate documents , each confined, respectively, to
one of these occupational categories.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The CIO's several unit proposals here purport to perpetuate, gen-
erally, the groupings of employees established by the contractual
language describing the respective "jurisdictional" areas of the local
unions as above set forth. For purposes of discussing these proposals,
we shall assume, contrary to the claim of the AFL Unions, that the
contract provisions in question establish the intent of the contracting
parties to bargain with respect to the employees on the basis of sepa-
rate unit structures, rather than on the basis of a single comprellen-
sive unit structure.31 We have great difficulty, however, in defining
units on the basis of these contract provisions. For indisputably the
contract units do riot purport (and have never purported) to group
employees together on the basis of any conventional definitions con-
forming to the Employers' internal organizational structures, or their
job titles. Rather, the groupings have been predicated to a substan-
tial degree on one or more of the following artificial and arbitrary
criteria: (1) The physical locale in which employees perform work
tasks (irrespective of basic similarities in work content) ; (2) the kind
of materials or goods which the employees handle; and (3) the ulti-
mate destination, or final place or rest, of the goods or materials which
employees handle. The difficulties and defects in determining "unit"
placements on the basis of such arbitrary and vague criteria are, more-
over, amplified by the indisputable record evidence that the "work
jurisdiction" claims of the union representing the workers here in-
volved have always overlapped, and that no definitive resolution of
the areas of conflict in such claims has been made.
Thus, the record establishes that, although the Employers have
yielded to the unions' insistence on specific contract recognition of
"jurisdictional" lines, the contracting parties have not been able, de-
spite their long relationships with each other, to settle longstanding
differences over the "unit" placement of their employees. During
the past few years, at least, they have continuously "negotiated," be-
fore and throughout the contract periods, in an effort to adjust such
disputes. It is true that, as a result of such negotiations, decisions
have been reached as to the "unit" placement of some employees in dis-
pute at specific times. But examination of the results indicates the
decisions were dictated largely by expediency, and that, indeed, the
parties to the collective relationships both on the union side 32 and on
"I The CIO Unions ' unit proposals admittedly do not, in each case , include precisely the
same groups of employees to which the contracting parties have applied the substantive
contract provisions in recent years . The proposals , rather, have attempted to make
uniform units throughout the industry which, as noted hereafter , have varied from plant
to plant
89 At various times, and at the behest of both the Employers and the interested unions,
appeals were made to the common parent union of Locals 843 and 153 in an effort to get
settlement of jurisdictional disputes between these two. As the record here shows, the
"award" made by the parent union has either been confusing ( as evidenced by several
" interpretations" of the "award" made by the parent), or has not been followed.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 811
the employer side have been unable to agree, either among themselves
or with each other, as to what precise groups of employees the con-
tract "units" were intended to cover. For, in not one of the various
(single-employer) agreements 33 purporting to settle "contract cov-
erage" disputes is the jurisdictional or "unit" line of demarcation the
same. It is, moreover, noteworthy that in many instances, where the
parties were in complete agreement as to the "jurisdictional" or "unit"
placement of particular groups of employees, large groups of such
workers were arbitrarily "shifted" from the coverage of one contract
to another as a condition of settlement of disputes covering different
groups of workers. It is also noteworthy that, for purposes of "set-
tling" the intraunion jurisdictional conflicts, certain "definitions" have
been developed which may result in the anomalous situation of an em-
ployee being in one unit at one time, and in a different unit at another
time.34 Thus, one method of deciding "jurisdiction" which the parties
have utilized as to delivery drivers is to determine the kind of goods
which the drivers handle. For example, drivers who are assigned to
the delivery of "bottles of beer" (as distinguished from "kegs of beer")
to the Employers' customers form part of the "bottle unit." However,
by the parties' jurisdictional definitions, such drivers remain in the
"bottle unit" only if the delivery of the bottle-goods truckload is
destined for numerous customers on a "route" basis, rather than for
one customer. In the latter case, which is termed a "one-stop" de-
livery, the assignment of a truckdriver to such a "one-stop" delivery
task for three successive times would automatically remove him from
the "bottle" unit and place him in the "keg and bulk delivery" unit.
The "route" basis, which has also been used as a criterion of unit place-
ment, has yielded similar unsatisfactory results. Thus, assignment
of a driver to a truck which has both kegs and bottle goods loaded
thereon, even if destined for delivery on a "route" basis, would auto-
matically result in placement of that employee in the "keg and bulk
delivery unit."
On the basis of the foregoing evidence, we do not believe the history
of collective bargaining justifies the establishment of several units of
production-maintenance workers along the lines proposed by the CIO
Unions. For, as has been demonstrated, the lines of delineation have
been drawn by the use of artificial and arbitrary criteria, and have
been, and are intended to be, flexible enough to permit the continuous
negotiation over the "unit" placement of various categories of workers
so that the internal "jurisdictional" claims of the unions may be satis-
fied. As this case graphically illustrates, moreover, the Employers
and the AFL Unions-parties to the collective relationships for the
s' The record shows that the negotiations for the purpose of settling the disputes as to
contract coverage were normally conducted by the unions on a single-employer basis.
34 The CIO's unit proposals would adopt these definitions.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
past several years-have been unable to define the lines of separation
between the various contract "units" with the degree of particularity
or uniformity which would permit our ready ascertainment of the
exact scope of such contract "unit" in terms of specific exclusions and
inclusions. Indeed, the parties who have "lived with" this situation
for many years admit their dissatisfaction with it as a modus operandi
for the effectuation of sound bargaining relationships. True, the CIO
Unions' proposals indicate an attempt to provide "clarification"
standards which, when applied, might eliminate certain sources of
dispute. But the "clarifications" of unit lines it proposes are not in
all respects the same as those the parties to the collective relationship
have made in settling disputes over unit placements. In fact, in
some respects, at least, the unit lines proposed by the CIO Unions are
not the same as those established by the contracts evidencing the bar-
gaining patterns. In any event, the unit proposals of the CIO do
not eliminate all the areas of confusion and overlapping which have
historically existed.
In light of all the foregoing facts, the dissatisfaction of the parties
who have developed the multiunit history of bargaining in the past
several years, and the failure of bargaining on the multiunit basis to
achieve stability in day-to-day relationships between all parties
affected, we are persuaded that all these production-maintenance
workers can best be represented in a single comprehensive unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.35 We shall, accordingly, dismiss
the respective petitions of the Brewery Workers' and its Local 2, in
Cases Nos. 2-RC-4418 and 2-RC-4297, and shall consider certain
precise issues as to the scope and composition of such single unit on
the basis of the AFL Unions' petition in Case No. 2-RC-4631.
In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the CIO unions'
motion to dismiss the AFL Joint Board's petition on the ground that
the joint request of the constituent member unions of the AFL Joint
Board to be certified as a single representative in a comprehensive unit
is a "fraud and deception." Inter alia, it is suggested that in actuality
these three unions have not in fact settled their separate and long-
standing jurisdictional conflicts, despite their waiver of them here
for purposes of filing a joint petition. We have no reason, however,
to doubt the bona fides of such waiver, nor to disregard its salutary
effect. In any event, our unit findings here impose upon the AFL
Unions, through the AFL Joint Board, in the event they win the
election we direct, the duty to bargain only on the basis of the unit or
units hereafter found appropriate. At the same time, our unit find-
ings relieve the Employers of all responsibility to deal with any
3 Cf. Weber Showcase and Fixture Co, Inc., 96 NLRB 358 , 368,; Reilly-Electroplate
Co., 94 NLRB 810, 813. See also Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co., 82 NLRB 810;
Lake Tankers Corporation , 64 NLRB 281.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 813
representative, hereafter certified, on the basis of any unit or units
different in composition or scope from those we determine to be
appropriate, and insures to them the right to invoke our aid against
any attempt of any union to compel negotiation on any basis incon-
sistent with our findings. We therefore deny the CIO Unions' motion
to dismiss the AFL Joint Board petition.
(3) The dispute as to the inclusion of stockhandlers and watchmen in
the production-maintenance unit
The AFL Unions would include employees respectively classified
as "stockhandlers" and "watchmen" in the production-maintenance
unit.36 The Employer would exclude them.
With respect to "stockhandlers," the record shows that although
only two of the companies here involved have such a job classification'37
all the Employers have employees who perform work tasks similar
to those performed by employees classified by the two companies as
stockhandlers. More specifically, the duties of these employees in-
volve, primarily, the receiving, storage, and dispensing of "nonpro-
duction" materials such as brooms, soaps, and small parts for ma-
chinery. All such employees, in the performance of their duties,
come into frequent contact with certain employees whom all parties
hereto would include in the production-maintenance unit. In the
plants where employees performing "stockhandlers"' duties do so
under different job titles, they have been represented as part of the
production-maintenance employee groups. Although at Ballantine
they have been represented in a separate unit under a separate con-
tract, it appears that such separate contract was written purely because
these workers were organized later in time by 1 of the 3 local
unions (Local 843) comprising the AFL Joint Board. At Anheuser,
stockhandlers are unorganized. In view of the nature of stock-
handlers' duties, and the similarity of such duties to those of employees
whom all parties would include in the proposed unit, we believe that
stockhandlers have a sufficient community of interest with the remain-
ing employees comprising the production-maintenance unit to warrant
their inclusion in such unit. We shall, accordingly, include them.
Watchmen: The record shows that these employees, who are uni-
formed, perform duties relating to the protection of their respective
Employer's property. They are usually stationed at their respective
Employer's gates, where, among other things, they have authority to
check employees' bundles for purposes of determining whether they
contain property of their Employer; and to bar access to the Employ-
31 we need not consider the CIO Unions' contentions that these categories of employees,
as well as checkers and porters, be separately polled. For neither of these unions has
made any showing of interest among these employees.
11 Anheuser and Ballantine.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
er's property to unauthorized strangers or visitors. We find that
watchmen thus perform duties of "plant guards" within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. We shall accordingly exclude watch-
men from any unit hereafter found appropriate.
(4) The dispute as to the unit basis on which Anheuser's production-
maintenance workers should be represented
Unlike the situation existing at the plant of the remaining members
of the Association, organization of Anheuser's unskilled production-
maintenance workers had extended only to one portion thereof, viz,
the employees comprising what is described in a current collective
agreement between Anheuser and Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2
as the "brewing department." The AFL Unions contend that this
history of separate representation should be disregarded, and that the
unit pattern for Anheuser's employees should be consistent with that
which the Board here establishes for the remainder of the association
members, viz, the "single-unit" pattern. The Employers, including
Anheuser, agree generally with the AFL Unions on this point. The
CIO Unions, however, urge strongly that any unit found appropriate
by the Board at Anheuser should exclude the employees currently rep-
resented by Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2. Consistent with their
unit position as to the remaining association members, the CIO Unions
also maintain that their multiunit proposals, above considered, should
be applied to Anheuser.
It is undisputed that, with the possible exception of the laboratory
workers, whose unit placement is discussed below, Anheuser's em-
ployees in the categories involved in the various petitions herein filed
perform work similar in nature to and under substantially similar
conditions, as that performed by the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the remaining members of the Association which comprise
the unit hereafter found appropriate. It follows, therefore, that,
subject to the effect of the separate representation of the "brewing de-
partment," all of these production-maintenance employees could be
represented on the single-unit basis found appropriate for the remain-
ing members of the Association.
The record shows that the history of separate representation of An-
heuser's "brewing department" employees dates back to about April
13, 1951. On that date a consent election was held in which both the
current representative (Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2) and Local
24251 participated, and which the current representative won. On
July 2, 1951, Anheuser and the current representative entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement covering the "brewing department"-
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 815
which the parties defined as including Anheuser's beer manufacturing
department, its washhouse, racking room, and empty cooperage storage
area.
In these circumstances, we are persuaded that the principle of our
Illinois Cities Water decision 38 precludes the inclusion of these em-
ployees in the optimum appropriate unit in the absence of a self-
determination election. We cannot conduct such an election here,
however, because the current representative does not desire such an
election, and the unions requesting the inclusion of the employees in
the overall unit have not made any showing of interest among these
employees.39 We shall, accordingly, confine the conduct of the election
herein to the residue of the production-maintenance workers, which
we find, subject to the other exclusions made hereafter, may comprise
an appropriate residual production-maintenance unit.
In reaching this conclusion, we have also considered the AFL
Unions' contention that the collective-bargaining history affecting the
employees covered by the current Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2
contract is defective and should be given no effect. This claim is pred-
icated, in part, on the fact that the number of employees comprising
the consent-election unit had doubled between the date of the election
and the date of the contract. However, as there is no evidence that the
employees who participated in the election did not comprise a repre-
sentative group, the increase in numbers is not material. Nor is it
here material that, as the AFL Unions additionally point out, there
is some difference between the consent-election unit and the contract
unit in that the former was confined to the employees of Anheuser's
"Beer Manufacturing Department" and the latter included also the
employees in Anheuser's washroom, racking room, and empty cooper-
age storage area. For there is no evidence that the addition of these
latter groups of workers affected the majority status of the Brewery
Workers (CIO) Local 2 nor materially altered the character of the
consent-election unit.40 Although there is some suggestion that such
addition constituted an unfair labor practice, we have no unfair labor
practice charge before us warranting consideration of such a con-
tention. Nor, in such circumstances, do we give any weight in a
representation proceeding to evidence adduced for the purpose of es-
tablishing the existence of unfair labor practices.
$8 Illinois Cities Water Co., 87 NLRB 109, 111-112.
30 As pointed out in the decision just cited, the union requesting inclusion of employees
having a separate history of bargaining in an optimum appropriate unit must make a
substantial showing of interest among such employees to obtain the self -determination
election.
4° Cf. Calaveras Cement Co., 89 NLRB 378, where the contract unit differed from the
unit found appropriate by the Board in a contested proceeding.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(5) The dispute as to the unit placement of Anheuser's laboratory
technicians
The parties disagree as to the unit placement of Anheuser's labora-
tory technicians. As has been indicated in the general statement of
the parties' unit contention in section 4 a (1), supra, the AFL Unions
would include all such technicians in the comprehensive production-
maintenance unit. Anheuser would have all such technicians repre-
sented in a unit separate and apart from all other employees, and the
Brewery Workers seeks establishment of a unit confined to the "Liquid
Beer Laboratory" technicians, excluding all others.
The record shows that Anheuser maintains two separate laboratory
departments known respectively as the "Liquid Beer Laboratory" and
the "Quality Control Laboratory." There are approximately five tech-
nicians employed in the liquid beer laboratory, who are classified as
"technicians B or C." Their work involves principally the analysis
and testing of the physical properties of (1) the raw materials used
in the manufacture of liquid beer and (2) the liquid product itself
in various stages of processing up to the time it is released for pack-
aging. In performance of the specific duties assigned to them, "tech-
nicians B" run routine laboratory analysis of wort, beer, and other
materials used in the brewing process, for purposes of testing such
things as color, stability, acidity, microbiological properties, and
purity of gas used in pressure tanks. They perform their work with-
out immediate supervision, under procedures explained to them initi-
ally by the chief chemist, who is the overall head of the liquid beer
laboratory. Technicians "C" assist technicians "B" and professional
chemists who perform "special analysis," they collect the samples for
testing from production departments, wash the glassware used in
the laboratory, and apparently also run some routine analysis tests.
There are approximately 10 technicians employed in the quality-
control laboratory who are classified as technicians "A," "B," and "C."
In addition there are about 9 employees classified as "quality control
inspectors" who come under the "quality control laboratory" division
organizationally, but who work mainly in the production areas rather
than in the laboratory itself. The work of all these employees in-
volves, principally, the analysis and testing of the chemical properties
of the finished product of their employer and of competitors, and of
the physical properties of the packaging containers. Technicians "A"
work under the direction of the supervising chemist and perform com-
plete chemical analysis tests of beer samples in finished form. One
group of technicians "B" samples and performs tests on the packaging
materials according to established procedures, and another performs
routine tests on the packaging machines and equipment. Technicians
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 817
"C" sample, record, and test beer to determine its "keeping" quality.
All these technicians work under the immediate direction of the super-
vising chemist. While technicians "A" perform substantially all
their work functions in the laboratory itself, the others perform some
of their work functions in the production areas. The "quality con-
trol" inspectors work largely in the production areas, under the
direction of the shift technical supervisor-a professional chemist.
Their main functions involve inspection of bottle beer coming off
the "assembly line," in a prescribed method, for the purpose of de-
tecting any foreign matter, and the recording of explosions occurring
on the bottling line.
Employees performing the work of the laboratory technicians in
either of the two laboratories are hired by Anheuser without regard
to formal education, although possession of a high-school diploma adds
to the desirablity of an applicant for employment. Technicians,
moreover, can be trained to perform even the more complicated func-
tions of this group, considered as a whole, in a relatively short period
of time. In these circumstances, including also the fact that none
of the functions of Anheuser's laboratory technicians require the
exercise of independent technical judgment, it is dubious that these
technicians constitute a "technical" grouping of employees of the
kind we would exclude from a conventional production-maintenance
unit and establish as a separate unit, wherever any party objects
to their inclusion in a production-maintenance grouping.- However,
we need not dispose of the contentions of the parties on this basis.
For the record shows, among other things, that these technicians, all
of whom have common interests and duties, and most of whom are
interchangeable from one laboratory to another, perform duties no
different in nature from those performed by laboratory technicians
employed by other members of the Association. None of the other
companies' technicians have ever been covered in any of the contracts
covering the production-maintenance workers here involved. In fact,
unlike the represented workers, all the technicians are paid on a
salary, rather than on an hourly, basis, and all of them receive the
kind of separate incidental employment benefits (such as pensions and
insurance benefits) as are granted to the office and administrative
employees.
In view of the common skills and interests of all Anheuser's labora-
tory technicians, and particularly their interchangeability, we do
not believe that the technicians of only one laboratory may alone
comprise an appropriate unit, as the CIO Unions here contend. The
question of whether or not all Anheuser laboratory workers may
*' See Bell Aircraft Co., 98 NLRB 1277.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
together constitute a unit separate from all other employees is not,
moreover, one we need here decide. For none of the unions before
us here has made a sufficient showing of interest among such tech-
nicians as a whole, to warrant the conduct of an election in such a
group of employees, even if we were to find they do comprise a unit
appropriate separate and apart from all other workers. We shall,
accordingly, dismiss the petition of the Brewery Workers (CIO)
Local 2, in Case No. 2-RC-4176.
In the circumstances of this case, we shall also deny the request
of the AFL Unions for the inclusion of these employees in the compre-
hensive production-maintenance unit. This request for the inclusion
of these employees is predicated upon the fact that they perform
some of their duties in production areas where other employees sought
to be represented also work. However, this fact alone does not appear
to us to justify granting the request when, at the same time, the
requesting unions are unwilling to represent any of the technicians
having interests and functions similar to Anheuser's technicians, who
are employed by other Employers. We shall, accordingly, exclude
Anheuser's laboratory technicians from the production-maintenance
unit hereafter found appropriate.
(6) The issue as to whether Anheuser's production-maintenance
workers should be added to the existing multiemployer unit, or
should be represented as a single-employer unit
The parties also disagree as to whether Anheuser's production-
maintenance workers in classifications similar to those included in
the multiemployer unit hereafter found appropriate should be added
to such multiemployer unit or should be represented in a separate
single-employer unit. The AFL Unions and Anheuser urge the ad-
dition of these workers to the existing multiemployer unit. The
CIO Unions urge the establishment of such workers as a single-em-
ployer unit.
Because, as is above noted, Anheuser's employees perform work
similar in nature to those of other association members, and because,
moreover, Anheuser desires to bargain jointly with such other mem-
bers of the Association, we could appropriately add these workers
to the existing multiemployer associationwide unit.
However, the record also shows that Anheuser's hitherto unrepre-
sented production-maintenance workers, who themselves comprise an
appropriate residual unit, have had no opportunity to consent, ex-
pressly or otherwise, to be represented in common with employees of
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 819
other Employers by a single bargaining agent. Board policy therefore
dictates that we should not compel such a result without first deter-
mining their desires .42
We shall, therefore, conduct a separate self-determination election
among Anheuser's unrepresented production-maintenance workers to
determine their desires with respect to their representation on a
multiemployer or single-employer unit basis.
(7) Concluding unit findings in Case No. 2-RC-4631
1. Consistent with the foregoing determinations, we find that the
following employees of all Employers comprising the Association,
other than Anheuser, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act:
All hourly paid production, manufacturing, packaging, warehous-
ing, and delivery employees, including checkers, porters, and stock-
handlers, but excluding laboratory workers, technical employees,
watchmen and guards, beer pump and block tin plumbers, coopers,
machinists, engineers, firemen, turbine operators, oilers and helpers,
ironworkers, carpenters, laborers, plumbers, steamfitters, millwrights,
bricklayers, and all or any other employees covered by collective-bar-
gaining contracts between the Employers and any union or unions
other than Local 843, Local 153, and Local 24251, and excluding also
all office and clerical workers, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.43
2. All parties are in substantial agreement that, subject to our
resolutions of their differences with respect to the "brewing depart-
ment" employees and the laboratory workers, the following classifi-
cations of employees at Anheuser are those comprising the residual
unrepresented categories of production-maintenance workers who, as
41 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 55 NLRB 1188 ,; West Tacoma Newsprint Co., 81 NLRB 961;
Manufacturer's Protective Association , 95 NLRB 1059 . The case of Wirts Distributing Co.
et at., 82 NLRB 668, Is cited by Anheuser In opposing the conduct of a separate election
among its employees . There we permitted the Inclusion of employees of a company
which had not theretofore participated In group negotiations, in an associatlonwide unit,
without a separate election . In that case , however , all parties to the proceeding agreed
to the inclusion of the company in question In some multiemployer grouping . It further
appeared , moreover , that the employees of the company in question had in fact impliedly
consented to representation together with employees of the other employers comprising
the multiemployer unit For these employees had apparently participated in group nego-
tiations , but their employer had previously failed to sign the contract negotiated on their
behalf on a multiemployer basis.
43 The unit description conforms generally to that proposed by the Association , subject
to our determination as to the specific inclusions and exclusions indicated above. On the
basis of the record , this description appears to us to permit ready identification by all
parties affected of the precise categories comprising the unit found appropriate.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we have found above, may together constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (c) of the Act :
All hourly paid production employees in the packaging and shipping
department under the supervision of the bottling foreman and first-
floor foreman, unloaders of empty cooperage, loaders of full cooperage
and checkers under the supervision of the draught-beer foreman, all
porters, all hourly paid nonsupervisory employees in the material
control department (i. e., checkers, stockhandlers, warehousemen, and
truckdrivers), all retail sales truckdrivers in the Newark sales branch,
all hourly paid employees engaged in the unloading and storing of
raw materials for the production of beer and engaged in cleaning
areas around grain building under the supervision of the brewhouse
foreman in the beer manufacturing department, and oilers engaged
in oiling bottling machinery under the supervision of the oiler foreman
in the plant maintenance division of the engineering department; all
porters in the division of plant utilities in the engineering department,
excluding office and salaried clerical employees, supervisory employees
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, salaried laboratory
technicians in the quality control department and liquid beer labora-
tory in the beer manufacturing department, all employees in the beer
manufacturing department other than those engaged in the unloading
and storing of raw materials for the production of beer and engaged
in cleaning areas around grain building under the supervision of the
brewhouse foreman, and excluding all employees under the supervi-
sion of the draught-beer foreman in the packaging and shipping de-
partment other than unloaders of empty cooperage, loaders of full
cooperage and checkers, and excluding all employees in the engineer-
ing department other than porters and oilers engaged in oiling bottling
machinery.
In light of our finding that the employees of Anheuser in these
classifications may, depending upon their desires, be represented either
in a separate unit or as part of the unit comprised of the employees
of the other Employers who are members of the Association, our final
unit determination shall depend upon the results of a self-determina-
tion election in a voting group composed of employees in the above-
listed classifications.- If the employees in this voting group select,
as their representative, the same union as is selected by the employees
in the unit found appropriate above, they may be represented as part
of such unit. If they select a different representative, they shall con-
stitute a separate unit. The Regional Director is hereby authorized
to issue to the winning union a certification of representatives con-
sistent with our decision herein.
44 This group shall be designated as voting group A in the direction of election.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. 821
3. As the foregoing determinations reflect an adoption of the basic
unit contentions of the AFL Joint Board in Case No. 2-RC-4631, we
shall, in accordance with the request of Locals 843 and 153, respec-
tively, dismiss the petitions respectively filed by each in Cases Nos.
2-RC-4000 and 2-RC-4040.
b. The issues in Case No. 2-RC-1.277
Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2, Petitioner in Case No. 2-RC-
4277, seeks a conventional "powerhouse" unit of Anheuser's engineers,
firemen, and turbine operators, oilers, and helpers, excluding oilers
who oil bottling machinery and their helpers,45 and all other em-
ployees. The parties are in agreement as to the internal composition
of the proposed unit. Local 68, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL, herein called the Engineers, however, seeks dis-
missal of the petition. It claims, contrary to the position of the CIO,
that Anheuser has bargained with it as the representative of these
employees on a multiemployer basis since March 1951, and that hence
establishment of these employees as a single-employer unit is now
precluded. Although Anheuser is a member of the Association, and
has otherwise expressed its intent to bargain jointly with the other
members of the Association to the extent our determinations here
permit such a course, it takes a neutral position on the question of
whether its prior dealings with the Engineers preclude establishment
of the single-employer "powerhouse" unit here petitioned for.
The record shows that the Engineers now represents, and for many
years has represented, "powerhouse" employees of Employers here
involved on an associationwide basis. Anheuser joined the Associa-
tion as a full-fledged member in February 1951 with the intent of
participating with the remaining Employer members in this area
in the joint conduct of collective bargaining for its brewing-plant
employees. When it commenced its operations in or about March
1951, Anheuser was faced with conflicting claims of representation
for its "powerhouse" workers from the Engineers and the Brewery
Workers (CIO) Local 2. In making its claim the Engineers pre-
sented to Anheuser the then existing contract between it and the
Association covering the "powerhouse" workers in the industry and
demanded that Anheuser adopt it. It was the Engineers' position
at the time that when Anheuser joined the Association its "power-
house" employees automatically became part of the existing multi-
employer unit represented by the Engineers. Pending proof of
As The parties uniformly agreed that the duties of oilers engaged in oiling bottling
machinery , and their helpers, are dissimilar to those of the remaining oilers and helpers in
Anheuser 's plant , and that they should accordingly be excluded from the proposed "power-
house" unit and included in the "production -maintenance" unit.
250983-vol. 102-53-53
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
majority status, Anheuser refused both union demands. Thereafter,
at the request of the parties, the New Jersey State Board of Mediation
conducted a card check to determine which of the unions had received
majority designation. It found that the Engineers had a majority.
Upon such finding Anheuser recognized the Engineers and referred
it to the Association for further negotiations. The Association, on
behalf of Anheuser, agreed to adopt for Anheuser's employees the
terms and conditions embodied in the them existing associationwide
contract with the Engineers. Thereafter, and on March 21, 1951, a
separate document was signed by Anheuser which contained the
identical terms and provisions as were contained in the current asso-
ciationwide (1950) agreement and terminating at the same date, viz,
April 30, 1592.46
Upon the foregoing facts we find, contrary to the contention of the
CIO, that since March 1951 Anheuser's "powerhouse" employees have
been represented by the Engineers as part of the multiemployer unit
and that the history of the inclusion of such employees in the multi-
employer unit is of sufficiently long duration to preclude establishment
now of a single-employer unit.47 We shall, therefore, dismiss the
Brewery Workers (CIO) Local 2 petition in Case No. 2-RC-4277.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN IIERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
49 At this time the petition herein was pending.
47 Taylor and Boggis Foundry Division of Consolidated Iron-Steel Manufacturing Com-
pany, 9& NLRB 481.
OLIVER MACHINERY CORPORATION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , INDEPENDENT and EMPLOYEES'
COMMITTEE , PARTY ADMINISTERING CONTRACT . Case No. 7-CA-504.
January 30, 1953
Decision and Order
On May 15, 1952, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and had
not engaged in others, and recommending that it cease and desist from
the unfair labor practices found and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Employees'
102 NLRB No. 65.