Goebel Brewery Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY; PFEIFFER BREWING COM-
PANY; ALTES BREWING COMPANY; E & B BREWING
COMPANY, INC.; THE STROH BREWING COMPANY and
DETROIT BREWERS AND MALTSTERS UNION a unit of
LOCAL 547 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNIONOFOPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2020.
June 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C.
Farkas , 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 [Members
Houston, Murdock, and Styles ] .
The Board has amended the caption of this case to omit the
names of Schmidt Brewing Company and Central Distributor
from the list of Employers . Although notice of hearing was
served upon these two companies , neither appeared at the
hearing . It appears that Schmidt Brewing Company was
dissolved by court order on May 28, 1952, and that Central
Distributors is not a signatory to the multiemployer contract
involved in this proceeding and was inadvertently served.
Local 547, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL,
herein called Local 547 , sought to intervene in the instant
proceeding. During the course of the hearing , Detroit Brewers
and Maltsters Union , herein called the Maltsters , which filed
the petition in this case, became affiliated with Local 547.
The Maltsters moved in the alternative that Local 547 be
substituted , or that its name be amended in the petition to
show the affiliation . International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America,
CIO, herein called the CIO, had been permitted to intervene
on the basis of a contractual interest together with its Joint
Local Executive Board of Detroit, Michigan , herein called the
Joint Board , and its Local Unions Nos. 3, 38, and 181, herein
called collectively the CIO Locals . It moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the motions of Local 547 and the
Maltsters were inconsistent . The hearing officer permitted
Local 547 to participate in the hearing upon a proper showing
of interest , but referred the aforesaid motions to the Board.
We consider the hearing officer's permission for Local 547
to participate in the hearing to be equivalent to granting its
motion to intervene ,' and regard such intervention as proper
in view of Local 547' s showing of interest and its relationship
to the Maltsters . We grant the Malsters ' alternate motion to
amend its name , and have amended the caption of the case
'Cf. Edwin H. Fitler Co.. 90 NLRB 1880.
GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 699
accordingly, in order to clarify the identity of the parties in
interest resulting from its affiliation.' The CIO's motion to
dismiss is denied.
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
1. The Employers herein, whose names appear in the
caption, are severally referred to as Goebel , Pfeiffer, Altes,
E & B, and Stroh, and collectively as the Employers. We find
that each is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The CIO contends that the Petitioner is not a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act,
and, conversely, the Petitioner disputes the status of the Joint
Board.
The CIO's contention that the Petitioner is not a labor
organization is based upon the alleged violation of the CIO's
constitution, and the manner in which disaffiliation proceedings
were conducted by the officers of Local 3 leading to the
establishment of the Maltsters, and its subsequent affiliation
with Local 547. We do not deem these matters relevant to the
issues here presented. The Board has frequently held that it
will not concern itself with the internal regulations of labor
organizations . It suffices for purposes of this proceeding that
the Petitioner is an organization admitting employees to
membership and existing for the purpose of dealing with
employers on matters relating to wages and other working
conditions.'
With respect to the Petitioner' s assertion , the record is
clear that the Joint Board is the "agency" of the CIO Locals,
each of which is unquestionably a labor organizationas defined
in the Act, existing for the purpose of dealing collectively with
employers. 4
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner, Local 547, the
Joint Board, the CIO, and each of the CIO Locals, are labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. We find that no question concerning representation
exists for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit of employees
in the brewing departments. More specifically it would exclude
the keg beer drivers and helpers, case beer drivers and
helpers, freight drivers and helpers, driver-loaders, loaders
and distributors, warehousemen, bottlers, bartenders, shipping
clerks, office employees, clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act,
as well as all other employees which have traditionally been
under the jurisdiction of a local other than Local 3. In the
alternative, the Petitioner seeks a unit of journeymen brewers
and apprentices. The Employers, and the CIO, the Joint Board,
and Locals 3, 38, and 181, who have heretofore represented all
2 Cf Carbide & Chemicals Corporation, 88 NLRB 437.
3See General Motors Corporation, 88 NLRB 450 See also De Mays, Inc., 81 NLRB 1374.
4See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 102 NLRB 1011, United Mine Workers of America (Bitner Fuel
Co ), 92 NLRB 953.
7 00 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the brewing, bottling, and delivery department employees
in a multiemployer unit, oppose the unit on the grounds (1)
that the brewery department is part of an integrated produc-
tion and maintenance unit established by the history of
collective bargaining, and (2) that the journeymen brewers
and their apprentices are not craftsmen. The parties do,
however, agree that the appropriate unit--whether depart-
mental, craft, or industrial in type- -should be multiemployer
in scope.
The History of Collective Bargaining
The parties are in disagreement with respect to the kind of
unit for which collective bargaining has been conducted. The
Petitioner claims that bargaining has been conducted in a
fashion so that each of the CIO Locals has maintained its
identity and been recognized as the respective representative
of a departmental unit of the employees within its jurisdiction.
The Employer and the CIO and its constituents claim, however,
that bargaining has been conducted by the CIO Locals on a
"joint basis," through the Joint Board, for an overall production
and maintenance unit, covering the brewing, the bottling, and
delivery departments.
At the time of the repeal of the Prohibition Enforcement Act,
Local 3 was the sole representative of all employees in the
Detroit breweries. A contract for 1933-1935 was entered into
between the Employers and Local 3 covering the employees
in the brewing, bottling, and delivery departments. This
contract, as well as all subsequent contracts discussed here-
after, contained clauses pertaining to general conditions of
employment as well as separate articles dealing with each
department. Although a 1935-1938 contract was entered into by
Local 3 alone, in 1936, Local 3 was split into three locals,
with Local 3 retaining jurisdiction over the brewery workers,
and Locals 181 and 38 taking jurisdiction over the bottling
and delivery department employees, respectively. With the
establishment of these additional locals, the Joint Board was
also established, in accordance with a mandatory provision
in the CIO's constitution. An examination of the contracts
executed in 1938, 1940, 1943 and 1946 shows that the coverage
is identical with those contracts previously executed by Local
3 alone. The preambles of these contracts refer to the CIO
Locals as either the "party of the second part," or as the
"Union." These contracts provide that: (1) None but good-
standing members of any one of the CIO Locals can be
employed by the Employers; (2) extra help shall be issued
permit cards by any one of the CIO Locals before they can
go to work; and (3) grievances are to be adjusted by "the
Local Unions" with arbitrators to be selected by "the Local
Union" in the event that the grievance cannot be adjusted.
In addition, the 1940, 1943, 1946, and 1950 contracts under the
articles pertaining to each department make reference to each
one of the CIO Locals under whose jurisdiction the employees
GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 701
would fall. The contracts executed in 1949 and 1950, on the
other hand, refer specifically to the CIO and each of the CIO
Locals as the "Union" in their preambles, and specifically
recognize each of the CIO Locals together with the CIO "as
the sole and exclusive bargaining agents for all persons
employed by the Employer in any position." The 1949 and 1950
contracts, like all other contracts, also provide that grievances
are to be adjusted by "The Local Unions." None of these
contracts, however, contains a clause which grants recognition
specifically to these locals for the employees of a specific
department, or for their members, so as to conform to their
internal jurisdiction arrangements. Each of the contracts has
been memorialized in either a single written instrument or in
a separate , identical agreement for each employer, signed by
all the CIO Locals, the Joint Board, the CIO, and by each
employer respectively,.
There is some dispute among the parties with respect to the
manner of ratifying contracts, the Petitioner contending that
the contracts have always been ratified by a separate vote of
each local. The record indicates, however, that acceptance of
contracts by a majority vote of the members of all the CIO
Locals occurred as far back as 1940, although the CIO's
constitution never specifically provided for such a procedure
until 1950. The record shows that in 1940, as in 1950 when
Local 3 objected to the terms of a contract, the contract was
ratified by a majority vote of the members of all of the locals
involved over the objection of one of the locals. At the CIO's
1950 convention a resolution was introduced by Local 3
providing for ratification of contracts by a majority vote of
each local, and was defeated. Instead, a new provision was
added to the constitution, declaratory of past practice and
procedure, which provides that contract proposals shall be
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by all of the members
affected by the contract. In addition, however, the provision
does leave it to the discretion of joint boards to permit contract
proposals dealing with working conditions, as distinguished
from other matters, which affect only employees ina particular
department to be submitted for the approval of the members
who are affected by such working conditions.
In 1949 the CIO Locals jointly, through the secretary of the
Joint Board, petitioned the Board (Case No. 7-UA-2055) for
a single union-shop authorization election covering all
employees, with the exception of certain employees represented
by other unions, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, for which the unions involved
were the recognized bargaining representative.5
In view of the foregoing, where all of the employees were
represented by Local 3 and subsequent thereto by the CIO
Locals who have operated under and through the Joint Board,
SThe beer distributors for the metropolitan Detroit, Michigan, area have bargained jointly
with the Employers since 1946 for their employees and were included in the unit petitioned for
in the authorization election.
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we conclude that the CIO Locals have acted as the joint
bargaining representative for a single bargaining unit of all
employees in the brewing , bottling , and delivery departments
of the Employers . Although the contracts identify each of the
locals, they do not provide for their separate recognition. It
is evident from the entire record that the CIO Locals, by
acting through the Joint Board , have evinced a willingness to
merge their separate identities and be bound by a joint
determination reached through the Joint Board , acting on
behalf of the membership of the CIO Locals collectively. This
intention is not only expressly provided for by the CIO's
constitution , but has been carried out in actual practice.
Accordingly , we find that the history of collective bargaining
has been on the basis of an overall unit of production and
maintenance employees , and not on an individual departmental
basis as alleged by the Petitioner .6 We consider , then , whether
in view of the long bargaining history upon the basis of a
production and maintenance unit, severance of a smaller unit
as petitioned for is appropriate.
The Departmental and Craft Status of the
Brewing Department Employees
The Employers involved in this proceeding operate plants in
the Detroit , Michigan , area where they manufacture and
distribute malt beverages . In these operations , while there are
differences of procedure due to differences in the physical
establishments of the various companies , there is substantial
uniformity among all of them in the work function required for
the respective operations . Pfeiffer and Goebel plant 1 are
solely engaged in the manufacture of bottled beer , and there-
fore lack a washhouse and racking - room operation. In all
other respects , however, the processes and work function
are substantially the same.
In general , the manufacturing processes require the con-
version of grains, malt, rice, and other raw materials into
beverage products , and the packaging of these products into
kegs, tins , or bottles for distribution to the Employers'
customers . The distribution operations cover the actual
delivery of the finished products to the Employers ' customers.
To carry out these operations the Employers have set up
brewing, bottling , and delivery departments.
The brewing department employees , along with the bottling
and some of the delivery department employees, are hourly
rated employees . Although the brewing department employees
are generally higher paid, all hourly rated employees have
similar vacations , holidays, and severance - retirement benefits,
and other conditions of employment.
6 Cf. Phelps Dodge Corporation , New Cornelia Branch, 98 NLRB 726, St . Regis Paper Com-
pany, 97 NLRB 1051, New Bedford Cotton Manufacturing Association , 60 NLRB 1431 , distin-
guished in Luther Manufacturing Company, 61 NLRB 858.
GOEBEL BREWERY COMPANY 703
The brewery, bottling, and delivery department employees
are hired separately and are separately supervised. The
brewery department employees have their own dressing room
and lunchroom, but are not completely separated from contact
with other employees. The amount of contact varies with
respect to the particular operation involved in the brewing
process, and its physical location in the respective breweries.
There is no interchange of employees between the departments
at present. The lack of interchange is not the result of the
nature of the skills required but of the jurisdictional lines of the
respective CIO Locals. In the period, however, when Local 3
represented all of the employees in the Detroit breweries,
and during the period of the manpower shortage in World War
II, such interchange did occur. Moreover, freight handling
work, identical with that done by the brewery department
employees in Goebel plant 1, who are members of Local 3,
is performed by delivery department employees, who are
members of Local 38, in the other Detroit breweries; and
work identical with brewery department cellarmen, members
of Local 3, at Pfeiffer's and Goebel's plant 3 is performed
by the bottling department employees, members of Local 38,
in the other Detroit breweries.
The Petitioner urges the craft status of "journeymen
brewers," placing great emphasis upon an apprenticeship
training program . The record contains no evidence of such
a program before 1949. In that year, as the result of an
agreement settling an unfair labor practice charge against
Local 3, a training program was set up for those employees
classified as temporary employees who had been hired prior
to January 1, 1949.
The training period provided for in the present contract is of
2 years' duration. It is clear from the record, however, that it
would actually take about 6 months to train an employee for
all of the jobs in the brewing department .' In addition, the
record shows that there are only 5 apprentices, out of a total
of approximately 348 brewery department employees, working
at present in the Employers' breweries: 1 at Stroh, 1 at Goebel,
and 3 at Pfeiffer. No evidence was presented indicating that a
substantial number of "journeymen brewers" had been required
to undergo any course of training, aside from on-the-job
training, in order to qualify for this status. The record does
show, however, that employees classified as limited brewers,
and temporary employees have performed and are performing
the work of "journeymen brewers," whereas there are many
"journeymen brewers" who are not able to perform some of
the jobs in the brewing operation . Moreover , all brewing
department employees receive the same rate of pay for the
same work performed, the temporary employees attaining the
same wage scale after 6 months. Although some of the work
tasks within the brewery department may require more skill
7 See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra.
7 04 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than others, it is evident from the record that "journeymen
brewers" devote a great deal of their time to cleaning equip-
ment, and some are regularly assigned to that function alone.
It thus appears that the classification of "journeymen brewers"
has no real significance as to the skill of the employee so
classified.
It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing, as well as upon
the entire record, that although the duties of the "journeymen
brewers" and the other brewery department employees require
a different kind of experience or training from the duties of
other employees, the degree of experience or training required
to attain proficiency in their work is not extensive, and the
difference in the skill of these employees as compared to
other employees, who the Petitioner contends are not craftsmen,
is no greater than that normally found among different
classifications of production and maintenance employees.8
Upon all the facts, we conclude that brewing department
employees do not constitute a craft unit or departmental unit
of the type the Board has found should be permitted to sever
from a larger unit. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
Inasmuch as we have found that no question concerning
representation exists because the units requested are in-
appropriate, we deem it unnecessary topassuponthe contract-
bar contentions of the parties.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
B See Anheuser -Busch, Inc ., supra.
DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND DONOVAN, INC.
and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
NO. 12, A. F. of L., Petitioner . Case No . 18-RC - 1907. June
22, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jack R. Carrier,
hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. Donovan , Inc., is a family corporation whose entire stock
is owned by George H . and Margare t L. Donovan and their
eight children. Donovan, Inc., in turn owns all the stock of
Donovan Construction Company. Both corporations have the
same president , vice president, and assistant secretaries.
105 NLRB No. 99.