Curtiss Candy Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

CURTISS CANDY COMPANY 533,
nical employees' who are part of a larger unit. As the Board pointed
out in the Campbell Soup case, it has traditionally been reluctant to
disturb an existing bargaining relationship in the absence of a statu-
tory mandate or overriding policy considerations to the contrary.s
The Board also pointed out in that case that, although the desirability
of according specialized representation to specialized groups of em-
ployees is sufficient to warrant disrupting an existing relationship
when separate representation is sought, such considerations are not
operative in a decertification proceeding which does not result in sepa-
rate representation for purposes of collective bargaining. Conse-
quently, the Board there concluded that in a decertification proceed-
ing no considerations of policy were sufficiently strong to warrant dis-
rupting the existing bargaining relationship.
The considerations which the Board found controlling in the Camp-
bell Soup case are equally applicable here, where the direction of an
election which the Act does not require would not result in the sepa-
rate representation of the specialized interests of the professional em-
ployees. Such a conclusion is, moreover, consistent with the expres-
sion of congressional concern that professional employees be accorded
the right to select specialized representation of their specialized in-
terests and the absence of any concern that they be accorded any right
to disrupt an existing relationship solely for the purpose of being un-
represented.' We conclude, accordingly, contrary to the contention
of the Petitioners, that in dismissing the petition herein, the Regional
Director properly applied the principle of the Campbell Soup case.10
4 Standard Oil Company of California , 113 NLRB 475.
8 See, e. g . American Dyewood Company, 99 NLRB 78 , for an instance in which the
Board declined to disturb an existing bargaining relationship , even though the existing
unit was one in which the Board could not have directed an election . See also American
Potash & Chemical Corploration, 107 NLRB 1418, 1422.
8 See House Rpt. No. 245 on H. R . 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p . 87; Senate Rpt. No.
105 on S. 1126, 80th Cong., 1st Sess ., pp. 11 , 25; House Conf. Rpt. No. 510 on H. R. 3020,
80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp . 36, 47 . See also remarks of Senator Taft , 98 Cong. Rec. 3836,
6442; remarks of Senator Ellender , 93 Cong. Rec. 4143 ; extension of remarks of Senator
Ball , 93 Cong. Ree. App. A2252.
'()In view of the basis for our conclusion , the alleged substantial turnover among the
professional employees in. the unit is immaterial.
Curtiss Candy Company and United Packinghouse Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4600. Febru-
ary 23,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Raymond A. Jacobson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
115 NLRB No. 86.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer manufactures candy and related products. It op-
erates six plants , numbered 2 , 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 , and a separate main
office , all located in Chicago, Illinois . The Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent a multiplant unit consisting, in substance, of all of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's plants. The Em-
ployer desires to leave the matter of the appropriateness of such a
unit to the discretion of the Board. With the exception of plant No. 8,,
which is located about 3 miles away, all the Employer 's plants are
located within 2 blocks of each other, and it is apparent from the
entire record that the operation of all the plants is closely integrated.
Examples of factors , here present , tending to establish this close inte-
gration , are as follows : Payrolls are kept in the main office for all the
plants; pay rates , pay increases , seniority , and other employee bene-
fits are established and maintained on a multiplant basis ; employees
interchange between the various plants; plant No. 2 does the shipping
and plant No . 10 serves as a warehouse and machine shop for all the
plants; and interviewers at plants Nos. 3 and 4 screen job applicants
for all plants . In view of the foregoing , we find that the multiplant
unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.2
Cafeterias are located in plants Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, and 10, and at the
main office . The Petitioner would include, and the Employer would
exclude, the cafeteria employees . The Employer contends that the
cafeteria employees are, in fact , employees of an independent contrac-
tor concessionaire who controls and operates the cafeterias. The
record shows that the concessionaire operates the cafeteria , but that
the wages of the cafeteria employees , and social -security payments
and unemployment compensation taxes affecting them, are paid by
the Curtiss Candy Company, the Employer named herein . The vice
president in charge of industrial relations at Curtiss testified that this
arrangement was utilized so that the cafeteria employees could par-
ticipate equally with Curtiss' production and maintenance employees
in such benefits as profit-sharing and Christmas savings plans. He
further testified , without contradiction , that the cafeteria employees
I The Employer contends the Petitioner is not qualified to represent the employees
sought because, heretofore, the Petitioner's primary experience has been in the representa-
tion of packinghouse workers It is well settled that, except in severance cases, such a
contention is without merit See The Item Company, 108 NLRB 1261, footnote 2.
2 Cf. American Factors, Limited, 109 NLRB 834, 835-836.
WTTV 535
are under the direct control of the concessionaire, and that Curtiss,
which pays a "flat fee" for the concessionaire service, is reimbursed by
the, concessionaire for its wage payments to the cafeteria employees.
The record contains no mention of elements of ultimate control, if any,
which are retained by Curtiss. Upon this record, we find that the
concessionaire, and not Curtiss, controls the essential terms and con-
ditions of the employment of the cafeteria employees. Accordingly,
we shall exclude the cafeteria employees from the unit.'
- The Employer would include the timekeepers and cost clerks as
plant clerical employees. The Petitioner contends these employees
should be excluded because they work in the office spaces of the various
plants. The record herein does not reveal the specific nature or the
scope of the duties performed by these employees. Accordingly, we
are unable to determine their proper unit placement at this time.
These employees may therefore vote in the election subject to chal-
lenge.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer's plants
Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, including plant clerical employees, matrons,
janitors, and locker room attendants at these plants and at the Bel-
mont Street main office, but excluding office clerical employees located
at the Belmont Avenue office building or at other offices in the plants
of the Employer, cafeteria employees, nurses, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as described in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See Weill's Inc. . 108 NLRB 731, 733
WTTV, a Division of Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.' and Local 1225, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,a Peti-
tioner. Case No. 35-RC-1165. February 23, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Hendrickson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 mhe name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
115 NLRB No. 88.