Pearl Brewing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 192 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of work to their members by the Employer. Accordingly, I
would find that the purpose of the Plumbers' picket line was to
further the legitimate trade union objective of achieving union
construction wage scales on the project and, as such, falls with-
out the definition of a jurisdictional dispute in Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act. I would therefore quash the notice of hearing
issued in this proceeding.
Chairman Farmer and Member Styles took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Determination of Dispute.
PEARL BREWING COMPANY, LONE STAR BREWING COM-
PANY and BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 110,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR,
CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-613. July 16,
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 Wilton Waldrop,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made atthe hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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, Styles, and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are each engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit of cashiers,
shipping clerks, and storeroom employees' of the Employers,
herein separately designated as Pearl and Lone Star, respec-
tively. The Employers contend that the proposed unit is in-
appropriate and that the Petitioner may not properly represent
their cashiers and shipping clerks in any unit because these
employees check and audit the work of other employees whom
the Petitioner presently represents.
Pearl and Lone Star are competitors, individually and inde-
pendently engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer in San
Antonio, Texas. They are apparently the principal beer distribu-
'During the past year materials valued in excess of $500,000 were shipped directly to each
of the Employers from points outside the State. Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638.
1Storeroom employees are also designated in the record as middlemen
106 NLRB No. 31.
PEARL BREWING COMPANY 193
tors in the area . On June 8, 1950 , the Employers recognized the
Petitioner as the bargaining representative of production and
delivery employees in their respective plants and entered into
a joint agreement with the Petitioner with respect to these em-
ployees . This agreement, for an original 3-year term, was
recently renewed on June 8, 1953 . There has been no bargain-
ing history with respect to cashiers , shipping clerks, or store-
room employees at either of the 2 plants . With respect to other
employees , Pearl has separate contracts for 5 AFL craft
unions: the Machinists , Electricians , Carpenters , Operating
Engineers , and the Plumbers and Pipefitters; Lone Star has
separate individual contracts with at least 3 of these designated
craft unions . None of the contract units was established as the
result of Board determinations and Board - conducted elections.
The principal question presented by the Petitioner in this
case is whether or not the multiemployer pattern of bargaining
in which the Employers and the Petitioner have engaged for the
past 3 years for production and delivery employees controls the
determination of the appropriate unit for the previously unrepre-
sented employees at the same plants whom the Petitioner now
seeks . We do not think that it does. There has clearly been no
pattern of multiemployer bargaining for employees who have
had collective bargaining in the past . Even assuming that there
had been such a pattern of multiemployer bargaining , this fact,
although persuasive , would not necessarily control the bar-
gaining pattern for every other group of hitherto unorganized
employees .' Accordingly, in the absence of circumstances per-
suasive of a broader unit, we find single - employer units ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining for the employees
sought in this proceeding.4
The Employers , alleging that cashiers and shipping clerks
are management employees , because they are responsible for
"taking in millions of dollars " from drivers each year, and
therefore constitute an integral part of the internal audit and
control of the plants, further contend that the Petitioner should
not be permitted to represent cashiers and shipping clerks at
their plants because these employees check and audit the work
of delivery men whom Petitioner presently represents and for
whom it bargains under a renewed contract . We find no merit
in either of the Employers ' contentions.
Shipping clerks at each plant receive orders by telephone and
prepare invoices . Checkers check the number of cases of beer
placed on route trucks as they go out in the morning, and the
number of empty cases on each truck as it returns in the eve-
ning. The cashiers then determine from these figures how much
the route driver owes the Employer and collects this amount
from him. Cashiers take in money from route drivers at the end
of the day and from "hotshot " drivers at the end of each run.
There is some interchange between the shipping clerks and th!-
9Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc ., 101 NLRB 101.
4 The Board has held that single- employer units are presumptively appropriate and will
be recognized as such where there is no basis for finding broader units appropriate . Rainbo
Bread Company , 92 NLRB 181.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cashiers at each plant . The duties of checkers , cashiers, and
shipping clerks are analogous to those of plant clerical em-
ployees rather than office clerical or management employees.
Under these circumstances , we find nothing in the record to
prevent the Petitioner from representing these employees in
separate units if the employees select the Petitioner as their
bargaining representative.5
We find that the following units are appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act:
(1) All cashiers , shipping clerks, and storeroom employees
at the San Antonio, Texas , brewery of Pearl Brewing Company,
excluding production and delivery employees , office clerical
employees , professional employees , ' guards, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All cashiers and shipping clerks at the San Antonio , Texas,
brewery of Lone Star Brewing Company , excluding production
and delivery employees , office clerical employees , professional
employees , guards, all other employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act. 6
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
5 Dr. Pepper Bottling Company, 78 NLRB 1261.
6 The record discloses that Lone Star employs no middlemen or storeroom employees.
We therefore make no unit determination for this employment category at Lone Star.
PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. and OFFICE EMPLOYEESINTER-
NATIONAL UNION, AFL , Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-1942.
July 16, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard
Marcus, 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles , and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and Intervenor (United Gas, Coke and
Chemical Workers of America, CIO) seek a unit of hourly
106 NLRB No. 30.