Frito-Lay, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 820 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Frito-Lay , Inc. and Sales Drivers & Dairy
Employees, Local 166, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America , Charging Party. Case
31-CA-1183
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On May 6, 1969, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case,' and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.
As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner, the
present controversy arises out of a representation
case. In Frito-Lay, Inc., Case 31-RC-787,2 the
Regional Director for Region 31 on April 25, 1968,
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in a unit
consisting of "all driver-salesmen and warehousemen
of the Employer employed in Area 4 of Region II of
its Western Division in the Western Zone." On May
6, 1968, the Respondent filed a request for review of
the Decision and Direction of Election on the
grounds that the unit was inappropriate because it
lacked administrative autonomy and geographic
coherence. On May 22, 1968, the Board denied the
request for review.
On June 7, 1968, the Union won a
Board-conducted representation election. On June
14, 1968, the Respondent filed objections to the
election, which the Regional Director, after due
consideration, overruled, and on July 18, 1968, he
issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of
'Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record,
including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties
'Not published in NLRB volumes
Representative.' The Respondent did not request
review.
On August 5, the Union requested the
Respondent to bargain with it but the Respondent
refused to do so. The Union then filed a charge, in
Case 31-CA-1183, alleging that the Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(5). On September 6, 1968, the
General Counsel issued a complaint. In the answer
thereto, the Respondent denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices and alleged that certain
administrative changes which the Respondent had
begun to institute on September 10, 1968, rendered
the bargaining unit inappropriate.
On November 7, 1968, the General Counsel filed
a motion for summary judgment, and on November
13 the Board issued an order transferring proceeding
to the Board and a notice to show cause. In
response to the show cause order, the Respondent
reiterated its claim that it had begun to reorganize
its operations pursuant to recommendations of a
management consultant and had eliminated certain
positions; hence the unit which was based on an
administrative subdivision no longer in existence was
not appropriate. On January 17, 1969, the Board
issued an order denying motion for summary
judgment and remanding proceeding to Regional
Director for hearing before a Trial Examiner to
determine whether or not the administrative changes
made by the Respondent were sufficient to vitiate
the Board's prior unit determination.
The Trial Examiner concluded on the basis of the
record that the administrative changes did not
render inappropriate the unit previously determined
and that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain.
The undisputed evidence shows that before its
reorganization the Respondent's operations were
divided into four geographic zones. The Zones in
turn were divided into Divisions which were divided
into Regions . The Regions were then divided into
Areas which were further divided into Districts. In
the underlying representation case herein involved,
the Regional Director found appropriate a unit of
warehousemen and driver- salesmen in Districts 4A,
4B, and 4C, comprising Area 4' of Region II,'
relying in essential part on the fact that:
. .. the unit sought by Petitioner conforms with
an administrative unit of the Employer's
organization [one Area] and the record discloses
that each area manager has considerable
autonomy in the day-to-day operations within his
[A]rea, and further . no other labor
organization presently seeks to represent the
driver-salesmen on a [R]egional unit bases ....
'Not published in NLRB volumes
The salemen in this area operated out of six warehouses, the main Area
warehouse in Bloomington , California, and five warehouses between 24 and
85 miles from Bloomington
'All driver-salesmen in Area 3 of Region II (the only other Area in the
Region ) operated out of the Respondent's warehouse in Glendora,
California , which is 35 miles from the one in Bloomington
177 NLRB No. 85
FRITO-LAY, INC. 821
The record shows that Respondent's nationwide
reorganization was undertaken on the
recommendation of a management consultant firm
on the basis of that firm's study of Respondent's
organization-a study which was begun in the fall of
1967 before this proceeding was instituted. The
record discloses that Respondent's restructuring was
clearly not for the purpose of avoiding compliance
with the Board's unit finding. Indeed, no one
contends otherwise.
Respondent's reorganization completely
eliminated the Areas as administrative subdivisions
of the Regions and the positions of Area Manager.
All direct authority which under the old
organizational structure had been in part delegated
to Area Managers, and in minor respects to District
Managers, by Regional Managers, was returned to
the Regional Managers. This was true of Area 4 in
Region II. In addition, the change reduced the
number of driver-salesmen and the amount of
territory for which each Regional Manager was
responsible' and lifted certain duties from the
District Managers.
Notwithstanding the reorganizational changes the
Trial Examiner concluded that the three-District
unit was still appropriate. He reached this
conclusion on a finding that the reorganizational
changes did not affect the function and duties of the
driver-salesmen who continued to work the same
routes out of the same warehouses. He reasoned
that while the Area level of supervision had in fact
been eliminated and that while the Regional
Manager now had the sole authority on hiring,
firing, and allocation of routes, the Regional
Manager had at all times exercised final authority in
these matters. Since the supervisory or managerial
functions remained substantially the same, despite
the elimination of the Area Manager and,
presumably, authority could be delegated to the
District Managers, who remained, the Trial
Examiner concluded that the changes were
insufficient to vitiate the Board's prior unit
determination.' We disagree with the Trial
Examiner's conclusions.
It is true, of course, that once the General
Counsel has shown the Union to have been certified
and the subsequent request and refusal to bargain by
the Respondent, the General Counsel has established
a prima facie case of a violation of Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act. The burden then shifts to the
Respondent to establish that the circumstances upon
which the underlying unit was found appropriate no
longer exist and that the unit is therefore no longer
appropriate.' This, we believe, the Respondent has
done. It is evident that the essential factor which
made a unit of three Districts appropriate, in a
Region comprised of six Districts, was the Area
Manager's "considerable autonomy in the
day-to-day operations within his [A]rea," and it was
for that reason that the Board denied review of the
Regional Director's unit finding. But since it is clear
that the administrative changes brought about by
Respondent's reorganization of its operations
eliminated the "considerable autonomy" of the Area
Manager completely, the essential factor which
made a unit of three Districts in an administrative
and geographical grouping of six (now five) Districts
is missing . There is nothing in the record to show
that the employees in Districts 08, 09, and 10 enjoy
a community of interest separate and apart from the
employees in the remaining Districts in the Region.
Nor can we say that the three Districts in question
constitute a well defined and separate geographical
unit . Thus, the Bloomington warehouse in Region II
serving some of the employees in the three Districts
involved herein (08, 09, and 10) is actually
substantially closer to the Glendora warehouse,
serving employees in the other two Districts (06 and
07) than it is to the other warehouses in Districts 08,
09, and 10 which the Union sought as part of the
three-District unit. Under these circumstances, and
particularly in light of the fact that the
reorganization was undertaken for legitimate
business purposes, and without intent to evade the
Respondent's obligation under the certification, we
find that the unit previously certified is no longer
appropriate. Accordingly, we shall direct the
Regional Director to vacate the certification issued
in Case 31-RC-787. We further find that the
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the certified representative of the
employees in an appropriate unit . We shall therefore
dismiss the complaint.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
It is hereby ordered that the Regional Director
vacate the Certification of Representative issued on
July 18 , 1968, in Case 31-RC-787.
'With respect to Region 11, in addition to the above changes one of the
Districts formerly in Area 3 was eliminated . Further, Districts 4A, 4B, and
4C are now entitled Districts 08, 09 , and 10 and the two Districts formerly
in Area 3 are now entitled Districts 06 and 07.
'In recognition of the fact that there were no longer any subdivisions
called Areas, and that the Districts had been renumbered, the Trial
Examiner changed the unit description to conform with the new
nomenclature , to wit , "all driver-salesmen and warehousemen of the
employer employed in Districts 08, 09 , and 10 of Region 11 of its western
division in the western zone. .
'See, e .g, Cutter Laboratories, 116 NLRB 260; The Borden Company,
127 NLRB 304 , National Dairy Products Corp, 127 NLRB 313, SS
Kresge Company, 169 NLRB No. 61.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding
brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called
the Act, was heard at Los Angeles, California on March
11, 1969 pursuant to due notice. A complaint, issued by
the Regional Director for Region 31 (Los Angeles,
California), on behalf of the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board (herein called the
General Counsel and the Board), on September 6, 1968,
and based upon charges filed by Sales Drivers & Dairy
Employees, Local 166, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (herein called the Union or the Charging Party),
on August 23, 1968, alleged that Frito-Lay, Inc.,
Respondent herein , had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act by refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the duly designated bargaining representative of
the employees in an appropriate unit.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices questioning the
appropriateness of the unit as found by the Board and
alleging that it had declined to bargain with the Union "in
order to test the applicability of certain recent Board and
court decisions on the appropriateness of bargaining units
to the Company' s sales organization and operations."
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent ' s Business
Respondent is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
manufacture and distribution of food products with sales
distribution facilities throughout Continental United
States. The principal products manufactured and sold are
corn chips, potato chips, pretzels, bacon rinds, dip mixes,
Doritos, Cheetos, and similar products. Respondent has
manufacturing plants and other facilities within the State
of California including warehouses located at
Bloomington, Glendora, Victorsville, Barstow, South Gate,
Beaumont , Palm Springs , and Indio . In the course and
conduct of its business operations Respondent annually
makes sales directly in interstate commerce in excess of
$50,000 . At all times material Respondent has been an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Sales Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local 166,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America at all times
material herein has been a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
The unfair labor practice complaint here arose out of a
prior representation proceeding - Frito-Lay, Inc., Case
31-RC-787. The Union filed the representation petition in
that case on March 18, 1968 . A hearing on the petition
was held on April 3 and on April 25 the Regional
Director for Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election. A request for review was filed by Respondent on
May 6 and denied by the Board on May 22. A majority
of the unit employees' selected the Union as their
bargaining representative. Objections were filed by
Respondent on June 14 which were overruled by the
Regional Director who issued the supplemental decision
and certification of representative on July 18 certifying the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative in the
above unit.
On August 5 the Union made a demand of Respondent
for recognition and bargaining. Respondent refused to
bargain and the 8(a)(5) charge was filed by the Union on
August 23. The complaint issued September 6. As
indicated Respondent's answer denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices maintaining that administrative
changes made after the certification rendered the
bargaining unit inappropriate.
On November 1 the General Counsel filed a motion for
summary judgment with the Board. On December 4,
Respondent filed its response to the Board's order to show
cause why the motion for summary judgment should not
be granted alleging , inter alia that because of
administrative changes made in its sales organization since
the Union was certified the bargaining unit was no longer
appropriate. On January 17, 1969, the Board issued an
order denying the motion for summary judgment and
ordered a hearing before a Trial Examiner "for the
purpose of adducing evidence limited to the sole issue of
whether or not the aforesaid administrative changes made
by Respondent are sufficient to vitiate the Board's prior
unit determination."
The Administrative Changes
Respondent has in recent years experienced a rapid
growth into a National organization primarily through
acquisitions. The acquired companies were allowed to
retain substantial autonomy and to operate under their
former methods and procedures as separate "profit
center" divisions reporting to Respondent's National
headquarters in Dallas. Prior to 1969 for purposes of
distribution and administration Respondent ' s operations
were divided into four geographic zones covering the
entire Country. The zones in turn were divided into
Divisions, which were further divided into Regions. The
Regions in turn were divided into Areas which were
further divided into Districts, the latter being the lowest
organizational unit. Under this setup, the various
organizational units were headed in the order of
importance as follows: Zones were headed by a vice
president and general manager ; Divisions by a vice
president and general manager , division sales manager,
Regional sales managers , area sales managers and finally,
the lowest unit , district sales managers.
At the time of the Representation hearing Respondent
had 11 such Divisions including the western division
within which this case developed. Because of a lack of
uniformity in operations and problems of control and
communication between Dallas and the Divisions,
Respondent in 1967 asked the McKinsey Company to
informally evaluate the Respondent ' s organization and
structure at the same time that it was studying its pricing
structure and distribution methods.
'The unit found to be appropriate was all Driver -Salesmen &
Warehousemen of the employer employed in Area 4 of Region 11 of its
western division in the western zone , but excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
FRITO-LAY, INC.
In January 1968, McKinsey recommended a complete
study of Respondent' s administrative structure. Such a
study was undertaken by McKinsey from January through
May 1968, at which time McKinsey recommended
discontinuance of the "profit center" form of organization
in favor of organization on a functional basis - i.e., the
various functions in the field, e.g., sales , manufacturing,
employee relations, etc., reporting directly to Dallas.
McKinsey also recommended at that time changes in the
sales organization below the Division levels. In this
connection the elimination of the Area as an
administrative subdivision was recommended along with
the consequent elimination of the position of Area sales
manager whose functions would be consolidated in the
Regional sales manager . This would tend to alleviate
communication and control problems and at the same
time reduce the number of driver -salesmen and the
amount of territory for which each Regional manager was
responsible.
McKinsey's recommendations were weighed by
Respondent for about two months and in July placed into
effect down through its Divisional level. As for the
recommendations pertaining to the field sales organization
below the Division level , Respondent asked McKinsey for
further information. The report on this request, based on
a study in Respondent's Great Lakes Zone was submitted
to Respondent during the last week in August. After
review and numerous modifications by Respondent it was
approved on September 10 for implementation.
The changes thus approved were: (1) elimination of the
Areas as an administrative subdivision with corresponding
elimination of the position of area sales manager; (2)
consolidation in the Regional sales manager of the
functions previously performed by Area sales managers,
with a corresponding increase in the concentration of
responsibility and authority in the Regional sales
manager ; (3) reduction in the number of Driver- salesmen
and the amount of territory for which each Regional sales
manager was responsible ; and (4) relieving District sales
managers from certain duties and responsibilities which
had previously occupied their time thus freeing them to
perform their primary responsibilities of training and
aiding driver-salesmen and promotion-related activities.
Prior to the foregoing administrative changes , the Sales
Manager of Region II had under his supervision two Area
Sales Managers who were in charge of Areas 3 and 4,
respectively. Each Area Sales Manager had three District
Sales Managers under him - Area 3 having Districts 3A,
3B, and 3C, and Area 4 having Districts 4A, 4B, and 4C.
The unit as found by the Board was made up of the 24
salesmen operating in the three Districts of Area 4
working out of warehouses located at Bloomington , Indio,
Palm Springs , Beaumont , Barstow, and Victorsville,
California. Respondent objected in the R case to the unit
on the grounds that the salesmen in Area 3 working out
of the Glendora Warehouse (located 35 miles from the
Bloomington warehouse ) serviced routes "geographically
contiguous , in numerous instances," with territories
serviced by unit salesmen working out of the Bloomington
warehouse and should have been included in the unit.
The implementation of the McKinsey recommendations
in Region II eliminated the two area sales managers and
eliminated one of the Districts formerly under Area 3.
Thus the Region II Sales Manager was now in charge of
five districts instead of six which were now designated as
District 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 - Districts 8, 9, and 10
formerly having been Districts 4A, 4B and 4C.
823
Although one district was eliminated from Region II,
the geographic area originally covered by the unit finding
is still of the same . The same warehouses are involved and
the same number of salesmen, 24, are still working in
Districts 8, 9, and 10 as were working in Districts 4A, 4B,
and 4C, and there has been no change in their duties,
working conditions, or compensation. Although the
reorganization authorized three extra salesmen to be used
as relief salesmen throughout the entire Region, at the
time of the complaint hearing no such extras had been
hired.
Contentions and Conclusions
The General Counsel and the Union contend (1) that
the evidence presented by Respondent in the Complaint
case was not newly discovered or previously unavailable
and thus Respondent should not be permitted to attack
the determination made in the Representation proceeding
and (2) that in any event, the evidence adduced by
Respondent was not "sufficient to vitiate the Board's prior
unit determination."
It would appear that I am foreclosed by the Board's
Order from consideration of (1) above. As for (2) above,
however, I am inclined to agree with the General Counsel
and the Charging Party. Clearly "the evidence ... does
not establish a change in either the operation, scope or
composition of the unit." Nor does it, in my opinion,
show such changes in the managerial and supervisory
setup as would significantly effect the employees in the
bargaining unit . Respondent claims that after the
reorganization the hiring , firing , performance appraisal,
and promotions of salesmen and the realignment of routes
was all centered in the Regional manager whereas
formerly he delegated some of these functions or shared
them with the Area or District managers . While the
Regional manager may now have some added
responsibility in these respects, there is no doubt that
prior to the reorganization he had ultimate responsibility
for all of them just as he does now. Nevertheless, he still
has the District managers to rely on if necessary. Thus it
would appear that the only real change in the unit setup is
the elimination of the Area level of supervision between
the District level and the Regional level. In my opinion
none of the changes described by Respondent are
sufficient "to vitiate the Board's prior unit
determination."2 I so find. Thus it follows that by refusing
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the
collective-bargaining agent of the employees in the above
unit Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent as set forth in section I, above , have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
'The unit description of course should now conform to the nomenclature
applied to the Districts as reorganized . Accordingly , I find the appropriate
unit now to be described as including all Driver -Salesmen and
warehousemen of the employer employed in Districts 8, 9, and 10 of
Region II of its western division in the western zone, but excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices prohibited by Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take the usual affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record herein, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Frito-Lay, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sales Drivers and Dairy Employees , Local 166,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3. All Driver-Salesmen and Warehousemen of the
Respondent employed in Districts 8, 9, and 10 of Region
II of its western division in its western zone , but excluding
all other employees , office clerical employees , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the above
Union as the representative of the employees in the above
bargaining unit , Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and upon the entire record in this
proceeding , I recommend that Frito-Lay, Inc., its officers,
agents , successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with
the Charging Party as to wages , hours and other terms
and conditions of employment covering employees in the
unit herein found to be appropriate.
(b) In any like or related manner interferring with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which appeared
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request , bargain collectively with the
Charging Party as the representative of its employees in
the appropriate unit in good faith and in sincere effort to
reach agreement and embody in a written and signed
memorandum any understanding so reached.
(b) Post at its various warehouses located in Area 4 of
Region II of its western division in its western zone,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 31 , shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of the Respondent , be posted by it
immediately upon receipt and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that such said notices are not
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless, within the
aforesaid 20-day period the Respondent notify the
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the
Order recommended herein, the National Labor Relations
Board issue an Order requiring Respondent to take the
action recommended.
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order," shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Sales
Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local 166, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America in the bargaining unit described
below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of said Act.
WE WILL upon request, bargain with the above-named
Union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the bargaining unit described below
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment, and
if an understanding is reached, embody such an
understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is comprised of all
Drivers-Salesmen and Warehousemen employed in
Districts 8, 9 and 10 of Region II of our Western
Division in our Western Zone, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
FRITO-LAY, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 10th Floor
Bartlett Building, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles,
California 90014, Telephone 213-688-5850.