Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Forth Worth and
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen
of North America, AFL-CIO, Local 540. Case 16-
RC-7320
May 10, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND MURPHY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Claude
Witherspoon of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the
Regional Director for Region 16, transferred this
case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief in support of its position.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
I. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In its petition the Petitioner sought to represent
a unit described as "all regular truck drivers and all
pre-salesmen in the Employer's plant in Tarrant
County, Texas, excluding all production, mainte-
nance, warehousemen, cold-bottle drivers, office
employees, supervisors, guards and watchmen as
defined in the Act."
At the hearing the Petitioner clarified its unit
position by requesting that the unit include all omega
drivers, pre-salesmen, conventional route salesmen
and transport drivers, but exclude cold-bottle route
salesmen, full service route salesmen, snappy snack
route salesmen, and specialists. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Petitioner expressed its willingness to
participate in an election in a broader unit, including
I Employer's other departments, not involved in this proceeding, are
responsible for service, garage maintenance, advertising, and the business
office.
229 NLRB No. 92
the cold-bottle route salesmen, full service route
salesmen, and snappy snack route salesmen provid-
ing that such unit exclude employees classified as
specialists. The Employer contends that only a unit
consisting of all employees in its sales department
and the transport drivers is appropriate. There is no
bargaining history at the Employer's plant.
The Employer is engaged in bottling and distrib-
uting soft drinks and allied vending machine pro-
ducts in Tarrant County, Texas, where it operates
from three facilities; i.e., downtown Fort Worth,
northside Fort Worth, and Arlington, Texas. The
production facility is located in the downtown
facility and the Employer maintains warehouses at
all three locations. The Petitioner seeks to represent
employees at all three locations.
The Employer's operation is administratively di-
vided into separate departments. The sales depart-
ment includes all of the petitioned-for employees
except the transport drivers, who are part of the
production department.' The parties agreed to
include the transport drivers in any unit found
appropriate.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the following
classifications of employees in the sales department:
Pre-salesmen route employees: There are 17 employ-
ees in this classification and it is their responsibility
to sell the Employer's products to both high and low
volume home package accounts, including super-
markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, "mom and
pop" grocery stores, drugstores, and service stations.
They also make arrangements for the purchase of
coolers and racks. In addition, they stock or display
the Employer's products on customers' premises, and
collect payments on certain accounts.
Omega drivers: There are eight employees in this
classification and it is their job to deliver the
Employer's product to larger volume accounts such
as grocery stores, after the pre-salesmen have secured
the customers' orders. They have the responsibility
for delivering the products to the backrooms of
stores, picking up the empties, and collecting on the
accounts.
Conventional route salesmen: There are 16 employ-
ees in this classification and it is their duty to sell and
deliver the Employer's product to outlets, such as
drugstores, small grocery stores, liquor stores and
convenience stores, where the product is taken home,
rather than consumed on the premises. Additionally,
they sell rack replacements and collect on coolers.
The Petitioner would exclude from the unit all sales
department employees in the following classification:
Cold-bottle route salesmen: There are 35 employees
in this category and it is their function to sell and
553
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
deliver bottled products to accounts where the
product is consumed cold, usually on the premises.
They also make arrangements for the placement of
coolers and racks, and collect on these accounts.
Basically, these employees service small convenience
stores, "mom and pop" grocery stores, restaurants,
and schools.
Full service route salesmen: There are 10 employees
in this classification who are responsible for placing,
filling, and maintaining company-owned vending
machines at outlets which would include schools,
hotels, motels, offices, and hospitals. Additionally,
they are required to try and sell new products and
coolers, and find better cooler locations.
Snappy snack route salesmen: There are six employ-
ees in this category who are responsible for selling
and displaying certain snack items in the same
outlets served by the full service routemen. These
products are usually purchased, rather than manu-
factured, by the Employer.
Specialists: There are seven employees in this
classification. It is their function to sell coolers and
racks, as well as the necessary products to fill them.
They are primarily responsible for securing new
accounts or for expanding sales to existing accounts.
They also remodel display areas on the customers'
premises.
The similarity of duties, skills, fringe benefits, and
supervision of all employees in the sales department
persuades us that the Petitioner's proposed unit of
less than all sales employees is inappropriate.
All employees in the sales department perform
similar duties requiring similar skills. These duties
are basically to sell and/or deliver the Employer's
products to a variety of retail outlets in the same
general metropolitan area. In performing these
duties, the employees drive company-owned cars or
trucks of assorted sizes, and use the same loading
area at each of the Employer's three locations.
The record shows that all sales department employ-
ees wear the same standard Coca-Cola uniform: dark
gray pants and a lighter gray shirt with white
pinstripes and dark gray sleeves and a red Coca-Cola
logo. The specialists wear this uniform when they are
remodeling a beverage department or vault window.
In contrast, the production employees wear a solid
green uniform.
The record reveals that the duties of employees in
the job classifications discussed above overlap in
many respects. Thus, there is little difference between
the cold-bottle and conventional route salesmen
because they call on many of the same types of
outlets. Additionally, the pre-salesmen have some of
the same duties as the cold-bottle and conventional
2 It appears that one pre-salesman is paid at an hourly rate. The reason
for this departure is not shown.
route salesmen. In addition, the record reveals that
cold-bottle route salesmen sometimes work on
Saturdays as omega drivers, and at other times
substitute for conventional route or full service route
salesmen.
The Petitioner's proposed unit does not distinguish
between employees who are engaged exclusively in
delivering the Employer's products (omega drivers)
and those engaged solely in selling the Employer's
products (pre-salesmen). Indeed, the Petitioner also
seeks the conventional route salesmen who sell and
deliver the Employer's products.
Further evidence of the community of interest
existing among all employees in the sales department
is the frequent transfer of employees from one job
classification to another. For example, of the 17 pre-
salesmen whom Petitioner seeks to include in the
unit, 8 have previously worked as cold-bottle route
salesmen, or full service drivers whom the Petitioner
seeks to exclude from the unit. Similarly, of the 16
conventional route salesmen sought to be included, 4
previously worked as cold-bottle route salesmen
whom, as noted, Petitioner would exclude. The other
areas of the sales department operation have the
same high degree of transfers between job classifica-
tions.
All employees in the sales department enjoy the
same vacation, pension, sick leave, hospital-life
insurance, and bonus benefits. All sales department
employees attend regularly scheduled sales meetings.
In regard to salary structure, the conventional route
salesmen whom Petitioner seeks to represent are paid
on a salary-plus-commission basis, the same as the
cold-bottle and full service route salesmen whom
Petitioner would exclude from the unit. Similarly, the
pre-salesmen, whom the Petitioner would include in
the unit, and the snappy snack route salesmen and
specialists, whom Petitioner would exclude, are
compensated on a straight salary basis.2 It is clear,
therefore, that the method of compensation cannot
form the basis for finding the requested unit
appropriate. All sales department employees are
under the supervision, direction, and control of Sales
Manager David Van Houten who handles the labor
relations for all employees in the sales department.
Additionally, there is overlapping supervision among
the job classifications. Thus, for example, two
supervisors direct the work of cold-bottle routemen,
whom Petitioner would exclude, as well as conven-
tional, full service, and omega drivers, whom
Petitioner seeks to include in the unit. Similarly,
three other supervisors oversee a combination of
cold-bottle and conventional delivery employees
while one supervisor oversees both omega drivers
554
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.
and pre-salesmen. Of the remaining four supervisors,
two direct cold-bottle, one directs full service, and
one directs snappy snack employees exclusively.
Obviously, the method of supervision has no rela-
tionship to the requested unit.
Based on all of the foregoing, we find that a unit
limited to omega drivers, pre-salesmen, conventional
route salesmen, and transport drivers is too limited in
scope where, as here, there is no factual, logical, or
rational basis for excluding the other classifications
in the sales department. 3
As stated previously, the Petitioner agreed to
participate in an election in a broader unit provided
that such a unit excluded the employees classified as
specialists. The specialists, as indicated above, are
primarily involved in selling coolers, delivering racks,
remodeling beverage departments, remodeling vault
windows in convenience stores, and obtaining new
locations for full service accounts. When they sell a
rack the specialists are also selling the products that
go on the rack like the other salesmen. All of the
specialists have been on routes before and are paid a
straight salary similar to that of the pre-salesmen,
snappy snack route salesmen, and omega drivers.
It should be noted that the specialists are directly
supervised by David Van Houten and work out of
3 See Walker-Roemer Dairies, Inc., 196 NLRB 20 (1972), where the
Board found the petitioner requested a unit too narrow in scope and
directed an election in a combined unit consisting of both wholesale and
retail route salesmen since both categories sold and delivered essentially the
same products and had frequent daily contacts.
the main plant location. They share offices located
near the loading dock, but have no secretaries, and
work in their offices only for a short period of time
each day as most of their time is spent at customers'
stores.
The record indicates that the specialists perform
functions similar to those of other employees in the
sales department and we find that their duties and
interests are more closely allied with the sales
department than any other group of employees in the
Employer's plant. Moreover, to exclude the special-
ists would render them the only unrepresented
employees in the sales departments
Therefore, we find that the specialists share a
community of interest with the other employees in
the unit, and that no compelling reason has been
advanced for excluding them from such unit.
Inasmuch as the Petitioner has unequivocally indi-
cated that it is unwilling to participate in an election
in any unit which includes the specialists, we are
contrained to dismiss the petition.5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
4 Victor Industries Corporation ofCalifornia. 215 NLRB 48 (1974).
5 Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace d/b/a Sacred Heart General Hospital, 219
NLRB 966 (1975).
555