Scrivner Stevens Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 506 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SCRIVNER STEVENS COMPANY , Petitioner and GENERAL
DRIVERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAgEHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA , LOCAL UNION NO. 986 . Case No. 16-
RM-59 . April 28, 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 John F. Funke,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board' finds:
1. The Employer-Petitioner is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner is a wholesale grocery company operating
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Petitioner seeks a repre-
sentation election within a unit composed of all warehousemen
and truckdrivers employed at its Institutional Division, ex-
clusive of office clerical employees, watchmen, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Union contends that
a contract between it and the Petitioner which was executed
on July 10, 1952, and which expires on July 10, 1953, is a bar
to the proceeding. This contract by its terms covers an appro-
priate unit of the Petitioner's warehouse employees at its
"main warehouse" in Oklahoma City.
From 1949 until November 1952 the Petitioner maintained 1
warehouse in Oklahoma City in which it operated under 2
distinct systems of grocery merchandising, 1 providing for
distribution to retail grocery stores and the other providing
for distribution to institutions of various types. Although these
2 systems are based upon different theories of merchandising
in that under the former large quantities of groceries are sold
to a small number of customers and under the latter small
amounts are sold to a great number of customers, the duties of
the employees under both systems are substantially similar.
In November 1952, due to the overcrowded conditions in the
existing warehouse and the fact that the 2 systems could not
operate properly in the same warehouse, the Petitioner opened
another plant in the city to handle its institutional trade
exclusively. This warehouse is currently known as the Institu-
tional Division, the employees of which are involved in this
proceeding. With the exception of 1 truckdriver who was
transferred directly from the Petitioner's main warehouse, the
remaining 6 warehousemen and truckdrivers hired at the
Institutional Division are new employees.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
to connection with this case to a three-member panel[Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
104 NLRB No. 66.
SCRIVNER STEVENS COMPANY 507
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we are of the opinion
that that Institutional Division is tantamount to a completely
new operation and that the contract between the Petitioner and
the Union executed prior to the new operation is not a bar to an
election among the warehousemen and truckdrivers employed
at the Institutional Division .' Accordingly , we find that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentatives of certain employees of the Employer - Petitioner
within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The record reveals that the work now being performed at
the Institutional Division is the same as was performed at the
main warehouse before the separation of functions, and further-
more that the duties of the warehousemen and truckdrivers at
the new division are substantially similar to those of the em-
ployees presently employed at the main warehouse . The evi-
dence further reveals that a substantial portion of all groceries
distributed by the Institutional Division is acquired from the
main warehouse , and that all employees at the new division are
on a payroll prepared at the main warehouse . The employees
at the new division , however, are under the separate super-
vision of the manager of the division.
Upon the basis of these facts we are of the opinion that either
a separate unit of the employees at the Institutional Division
or a unit consisting of the employees currently represented by
the Union at the Petitioner ' s main warehouse together with the
Institutional Division employees may constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining . We shall,
therefore , make no determination with respect to the employ-
ees at the Institutional Division at this time , but shall first
ascertain the desire of these employees as expressed in the
election directed herein.'
We shall direct an election among the following employees:
All warehousemen and truckdrivers employed at the Employer-
Petitioner's Institutional Division warehouse in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If the majority of the employees in the above voting group
cast their ballots for the Union , they will be taken to have in-
dicated their desire to be part of the existing warehousemen
and truckdrivers unit at the Employer - Petitioner's main
warehouse in Oklahoma City.
(Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2Richard Alan Button Company, 94 NLRB 1429 ; see also General Electric Company,
85 NLRB 150.
Ware Laboratories, Inc., 98 NLRB 1141.