Hollywood Brands, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 706 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HOLLYWOOD BRANDS, INC., EMPLOYER and BAKERY &' CONFECTIONARY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 14-R-1456.-Decided August 26,'1946 Mr. Richard F. Moll, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer. Mr. Joseph R. Doolin, of Jacksonville, Ill., for the Petitioner. Messrs. Roy E. White and Harold Stephenson, of Herrin, Ill., for District 50. Mr. Seymour M. Alpert, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION I Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Centralia, Illinois, on July 10, 1946, before Elsner L. Hunt, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE E111'I.QYER Hollywood Brands, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of candy and dairy products. It operates sev- eral plants including the one at Centralia, Illinois, which is solely involved in this proceeding. During 1945, the Employer purchased about $1,000,000 worth of materials for-use at this plant, of which approximately 90 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period,'the Employer's finished products were valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 75 percent of which represented shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IL THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 54. 706 HOLLYWOOD BRANDS, INC. 707 District 50, United Mule Workers of America, herein called District 50, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer' III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On May 7, 1946, the Petitioner filed its petition herein. On May 8, 1946, it requested recognition from the Employer as the collective bar- gaining representative of its non-supervisory employees. The Em- p] oyer refused such recognition on the ground of an existing contract between it and District 50 covering these employees. At the hearing, the Employer urged this contract as a bar to this proceeding. The contract in issue was entered into by District 50 and the Em- ployer on April 30, 1945, and was supplemented on June 21, 1945. It provides for an initial period ending June 16, 1946, and for its exten- sion for an additional 30 days in the event that the parties had not reached a new agreement by that time. On May 9, 1946, the parties commenced negotiations for a new contract, and as of the date of the hearing no new contract had been consulmnated. It is clear from the foregoing that the only contract between the parties has, in accordance with its terms, already expired. It cannot therefore bar an election at this time.2 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.. 1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties , that all production and maintenance employees at the Centralia , Illinois, plant of the Employer, including the city truck driver, but excluding all other truck drivers , office and clerical employees , watchmen , sales- men, cafeteria employees, the shipping clerk in the warehouse, chem- '-st and chemist 's helpers , superintendents , foremen, forewomen, and 'The Employer contends , in effect, that , inasmuch as the unit sought herein embraces some employees not within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner as defined by its constitution and by-laws , such employees are ineligible for membership in Petitioner and the Petitioner is consequently incompetent to represent them. We do not agree We have uniformly held that the constitutional right of a petitioning union to accept certain employees as members is immaterial in the absence of any proof that the union will not adequately represent such employees Matter of A S Campbell Co , Inc, 60 N L R B 1285, and cases cited therein 2 In its brief, District 50 states that its contract with the Employer has been orally ex- tended , and for that reason bars an election at this time W e do not agree It is well established that a parole agreement cannot serve as a bar to a determination of repre- sentatives . See Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46 N L it . B 1035. Nor do we find merit in District 50's further contention that the petition should be dis- missed because there exists a jurisdictional dispute between it and the Petitioner It is apparent that effective resolution of the existing conflict cannot be had without neso t to the administrative processes of the Acc. 712244-47-vol. 70-46 708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- ,mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status ,of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit .appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Hollywood Brands, Inc., -Cen- tralia, Illinois, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early .as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from-the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec- tions 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and in- ,eluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who pre- sent themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Bakery & Confectionary Workers International Union of America, AFL, or by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 8 This stipulated unit is substantially the same unit as the one covered by the expired collective bargaining agreement between the Employer and District 50.