General Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1340 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of GENERAL BAKING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT
67, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-339.-Decided September 15,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before H. Raymond
Cluster, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer contends that a current contract between the Em-
ployer and Bakery and Sales Drivers, Local Union No. 33 of Wash-
ington, D. C., and vicinity, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, herein called the Bakery Drivers, covers garage employees whom
the Petitioner seeks to represent, and therefore constitutes a bar to a
present determination of representatives.' This contention is based
on the following facts :
On May 25, 1947, the Employer and the Bakery Drivers entered
into a collective bargaining contract, to be effective until April 30,
1949, covering employees engaged in the sale, delivery, and shipping of
its bakery products. On August 1, 1947, the Employer and the Bakery
Drivers executed a further agreement, also effective until April 30,
1949, in the form of an "addendum . . . to be attached to and become.
1 The Bakery Drivers was served with notice of hearing, but did not appear.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 222.
1340
GENERAL BAKING COMPANY 1341
part of the current contract between [the Employer] and [the Bakery
Drivers], to run and expire concurrently with it." This agreement
was a complete contract in itself and covered "automobile mechanics,
apprentices, automobile washers, greasers, gassers, and general garage
workers." 2 Neither the May 1947 contract nor the August 1947
addendum contained any provisions for automatic renewal.
On May 1, 1949, the Employer and the Bakery Drivers executed a
new contract, effective until April 30, 1950, covering "all employees
who are engaged in the delivery, sale, and shipping of the Employer's
products." This contract did not mention garage employees; nor have
the contracting parties executed any further agreement covering such
employees.
The Employer's position is that the August 1, 1947, addendum
automatically became part of the May 1, 1949, agreement. We do not
agree. According to its terms, the addendum was to be effective only
until April 30, 1949. Moreover, the words "to be attached to and
become part of the current contract . . . to run and expire concur-
rently with it" in the heading of the addendum clearly referred to the
May 1947 contract, which also terminated on April 30, 1949. As the
only presently existing contract between the Employer and the Bakery
Drivers does not cover garage employees, it does not constitute a bar
to the present proceeding.
Furthermore, we note that the May 1, 1949, contract contained
a union-shop provision; and it does not appear that the Bakery Drivers
has been certified by the Board,'pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the
Act, as being authorized to execute such a provision. In any event
therefore, the May 1, 1949, contract cannot serve as a bar to a present
determination of representatives.3
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning 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. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of auto mechanics and
greasers, excluding car washers, gassers, and supervisors. The Em-
ployer contends that the washers and gassers should be included in
the unit.
The Employer has two plants in Washington, D. C., a production
plant and a distribution plant. At its production plant, the Employer
has approximately 250 employees; and at its distribution plant, ap-
On July 20 , 1948, the Employer and the Bakery Drivers entered into a further agree-
ment, also designated as an "addendum ," modifying the August 1, 1947, addendum in certain
respects not here material.
" Matter of C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company , 80 N. L . R. B. 163.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proximately 50 employees. At both plants it maintains garages for
the purpose of maintaining its own equipment. At the time of the
hearing, it employed in the garage at its production plant 4 auto
mechanics, 1 garage helper-greaser, 2 garage helpers-car washers, and
1 gasser; and in the garage at its distribution plant, 2 auto mechanics,
1 garage helper-greaser, and 1 garage helper-car washer. All these
employees are under the supervision of the head of the Transportation
Department.
The mechanics do repair work on the Employer's trucks; the
greasers lubricate the trucks; the car washers wash the trucks and
occasionally change tires; the gasser puts gasoline in the trucks and
adds oil. The greaser at the distribution plant gasses trucks in addi-
tion to his other duties. The greasers and the gasser sometimes help
the mechanics by washing or cleaning parts. The mechanics are skilled
workers; the greasers are unskilled, but require some training; the
car washers and gasser are unskilled. All are paid by the hour, and
work the same number of hours, except in emergencies. As the car
washers and gasser work with the auto mechanics, and under the same
supervision, we find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that they
should be included in the unit.
We find that all auto mechanics, garage helpers-greasers, garage
helpers-car washers, and gassers employed at the Employer's Wash-
ington, D. C., plants, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
4 Any participant in the election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
GENERAL BAKING COMPANY 1343
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for the purposes of collective bargaining,
by District 67, International Association of Machinists, or by Bakery
and Sales Drivers, Local Union No. 33 of Washington, D. C., and
vicinity, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or by neither.