Kold Kist, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1964

149 N.L.R.B. 1449 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

KOLD KIST, INC. 1449
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce
our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
ELECTRICAL MOTORS AND SPECIALTIES, 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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Midland
Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois, Telephone No. Central 6-9660,
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Kold Kist, Inc. and Ice, Frozen Food Drivers & Handlers &
Cold Storage Warehousemen , Local 942, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Petitioner. Case No. 21-IBC-9134. December 8,1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On September 15, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 21 issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing. Thereafter, the Petitioner in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with
the Board a timely request for review of such Decision and Direction
of Election averring that substantial questions of law and policy were
raised with respect to the Regional Director's inclusion of employees
classified as "demonstrators" in the requested unit of production and
maintenance employees. The Employer filed a statement in opposi-
tion to the Petitioner's request for review. Thereafter, the Board, by
telegraphic Order dated October 8, 1964, granted the request for
review and stayed the election. The Employer resubmitted its state-
ment in opposition as its brief to the Board.
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 McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review, together with
the briefs of the parties, and finds as follows :
The Regional Director, over the objections of the Petitioner,
included the demonstrators in the appropriate unit on the ground
that, among other things, they performed unit work for substantial
periods of their working time and therefore shared a community, of
interest sufficient to require their inclusion in the requested unit.
We disagree.
149 NLRB No. 145.
• 1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record shows that the demonstrators ( all female ) work about
3 days per week in connection with the Employer's promotional cam-
paign to introduce and market its products to the public. They are
hourly paid, as are the production employees, and they receive iden-
tical fringe benefits. However, the demonstrators are separately
supervised -by individuals responsible for the Employer's sales func-
tions. The record does not indicate that there is any interchange
between the demonstrators and plant production employees. The
function of the demonstrators is to demonstrate the Employer's prod-
ucts at various supermarkets located in the Los Angeles area, and in
the course of their demonstration, to heat and serve samples of the
Employer's products to the supermarket customers. At some time
during the workweek, demonstrators go to the plant to receive work
,schedules, necessary supplies, instructions and information about the
product they are to demonstrate, and training in how to demonstrate
it. Thus, the time demonstrators spend at the plant may vary from
as little as 30 minutes, to as much as 16 hours per week. As part of
their training and instruction, they spend some of their time while at
the plant in observing the production processes and assisting in the
packaging of finished products.
On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we are
satisfied that the demonstrators, who work primarily at off-plant loca-
tions and under separate supervision, perform functions relating to
sales rather than production of the products.' Although they spend
a portion of their working time in the plant, during which they may
perform some packaging work similar to that performed by produc-
tion employees, such work is assigned them as a means of providing
information about the product they are hired to demonstrate and is
thus incidental to the performance of their sales or marketing func-
tions. In these circumstances, we find that the interests of the
demonstrators are not so related to those of the production and main-
tenance workers and truckdrivers herein as to require their inclusion
in the requested unit confined to the latter .2 We, therefore, exclude
them.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 21 for the purpose of holding an election pursuant to his
Decision and Direction of Election as modified herein, except that the
payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately
preceding the date of this - Decision on Review and Direction of
Election.
I See Plaza Provision Company (P R ), 134 NLRB 910
2 The facts in Foremost Dairies, Inc , 124 NLRB 293, cited by the Employer, are dis-
tinguishable, from those herein in that the demonstrators in that case worked in close
association with, and gave assistance to, other employees who were included in the unit
by agreement of the parties The other cases cited by the Employer are clearly inapposite.