Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Huntington

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 7, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 797 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. OF HUNTINGTON 797
Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Huntington , Employer-Pe-
titioner and Teamsters Local Union No. 505 , affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America.' Case 9-RM-721
November 7, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Earl L. Led-
ford of the National Labor Relations Board. Follow-
ing the close of the hearing 2 the Regional Director
for Region 9 transferred this case to the Board for
decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thonty in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
1 The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing
2 Employees of the unit involved in this proceeding were formerly repre-
sented by Brewery and Soft Drink Workers Local 315 At a meeting on May
15, 1974, members of Local 315 voted to merge with the Union. Teamsters
Local 505 While served with a copy of the petition and notice of hearing,
none of the former officers of Local 315 sought to intervene in this proceed-
ing, and no assertion has been advanced that Local 315 continues to func-
tion as a separate labor organization
rags 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:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act?
4. The appropriate unit:
All employees employed by the Employer at its
plants at 401 Third Avenue and 617 Fourth Av-
enue, Huntington, West Virginia, excluding all
inventory checkers, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
3 The Union contended in the hearing that by reason of the merger, it
succeeded to Local 315's contract with the Employer, and this contract.
with a terminal date of September 20, 1974, was a bar to t his proceeding
The Employer's position was that the contract was not a bar, and a question
concerning representation was raised by the merger, and an election should
be directed Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Union notified the
Board that it was withdrawing its contract-bar contention and agreed that
an election be directed on the Employer's petition Accordingly, we find it
unnecessary to pass upon the contract -bar issue but shall , in accordance
with the agreement of the parties , direct an immediate election
214 NLRB No. 125