Taylor Baking Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 566 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
increase wages or benefits the 3 raises that you have gotten plus the increase in
insurance benefits is part of the Company's long range plan. There are more
raises to come, but you know and I know that money cannot be picked out of the
air and union organizers can not give it to you either . We are going to make Ideal
Bakery one of the leaders in this area . We are going to make it a profitable busi-
ness. And working together-you and I are going to earn further increases in pay
and benefits and build real job security.
In closing let me remind you-this is your fight-the only way we will win is
by the Company and you sticking together . These union bakeries that have Mr.
Merle Smiths Union would like to see us hurt. They would like to see us closed
by a strike . Just remember-you and I are the ones that will suffer most because
of Union strikes and trouble. VOTE NO!
I thank you.
Taylor Baking Company and Local 42, American Bakery and
Confectionery Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 10-RC-5503. June 28, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On March 25, 1963, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region,
issued his Decision and Order dismissing the petition in this pro-
ceeding on the ground that the record failed to establish that the
Employer's operations meet any of the Board's jurisdictional stand-
ards. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely
request for review, and a statement in support thereof, in which it
contended, inter alia, that the Employer's operations do meet the
Board's indirect outflow standard, and requesting that the hearing
be reopened to receive additional evidence on jurisdiction.
On April 10, 1963, the Board, by telegraphic Order, remanded the
proceeding to the Regional Director for purposes of reopening the
hearing for further investigation of the Employer's operations. A
further hearing was held on May 1, 1963, before Scott P. Watson,
hearing officer. On May 16, 1963, the Regional Director issued an
order transferring the case to the Board.
The Board 1 has considered the entire record in this case and makes
the following findings :
1. The Employer is engaged at Atlanta, Georgia, in the production
and sale of bakery rolls. During 1962 is purchased from outside the
State of Georgia materials valued at approximately $20,000. Its gross
sales, all of which were made within the State, amounted to approxi-
mately $105,000. Of this amount, products valued in excess of
$50,000 were disposed of, in the manner set forth below, through
retail grocery stores, each of which has annual gross sales exceeding
$500,000.
1 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 Members Leedom and Brown].
143 NLRB No. 53.
TAYLOR BAKING COMPANY 567
The Employer has arrangements with the area and store managers
of several retail grocery chains, covering approximately 120 stores
located in the Atlanta area. Under these arrangements, the store
managers allot space on their shelves for the Employer's products,
and the Employer's drivers call at each store two or three times a
week to remove stale rolls and to stock the shelves with fresh rolls,
using their own discretion as to the quantity displayed, within the
limitations of the allotted shelf space. However, the store manager
may revoke the allocation of shelf space if in his judgment the sales
of the Employer's products do not bring enough revenue to justify
continuing the arrangement. Customers of the stores purchase the
rolls as they do other products in the stores, paying the checkers
employed by the stores. The Employer bills each chain weekly for
the selling price of the products actually sold by the stores, less the
stores' markup.
The Employer contended, and the Regional Director found, that
the Employer is an integrated enterprise engaged in manufacturing
and retail sale of its products, and that the Employer's operations
fail to meet the Board's standards for such an enterprise. We find,
however, that in the furnishing of its baked products to retail stores
for sale at a markup to the ultimate consumers, the Employer is en-
gaged in a wholesale operation. Accordingly, we find that, even
though the stores are not obligated for any of the Employer's prod-
ucts which they do not sell, the Board's jurisdictional standard for
"the furnishing of goods or services to individual units of retail enter-
prises" 2 is nevertheless applicable to the Employer's operations. As
the Employer annually furnishes goods valued in excess of $50,000
to retail grocery stores, each of which has annual gross sales of
$500,000, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.3
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests an election in a unit of all employees of
the Employer's bakery, excluding truckdrivers, office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer
takes the position that all of its employees should be included in the
unit and permitted to vote in the election.
As Joseph Garratt, the baker, responsibly directs the work of em-
ployees, we find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act,
and we shall, therefore, exclude him from the unit. We shall also
Szemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, footnote 12.
Carolina Supplies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exclude the wife of the president of the Company, who works in the
office, in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Act. Hammond, a
production employee who also answers the plant telephone during the
absence of the president and his wife, does not responsibly direct em-
ployees, nor possess any of the other statutory indicia of supervisory
authority, and we shall, therefore, include her in the unit 4
The chief function of the two truckdrivers, Arrendale and John
Garratt, is to load their trucks, deliver bakery products to the grocery
stores, pick up the stale rolls, stock the store shelves, and prepare sales
slips. When they return from their routes, they unload their cargo
and then work with the bakery employees for the remainder of the
day. Garratt, who is the baker's son, works in the plant for several
hours every day and usually on Sunday also. Arrendale works in
the plant to a somewhat lesser extent. The only selling done by a
driver consists of asking the manager of a new store on his route for
permission to leave products in the store. The drivers,, who are su-
pervised by the president, are paid a straight salary. Under all the
circumstances, we find that the drivers share a close community of
employment interest with the bakery employees, and we shall there-
fore include them in the unit.,'
Accordingly, we find that all the employees of the Employer's
Atlanta, Georgia, bakery, including truckdrivers, but excluding the
baker, the president's wife, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The parties apparently agree to the inclusion of A. M. Phillips , who works alone at
night mixing ingredients according to written instructions of the baker , and we shall
include him.
s Tops Chemical Company, 137 NLRB 736.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Seafarers Inter-
national Union, Atlantic , Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dis-
trict, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC-7203. June 28,
1963
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 Henry M. Kelleher, hearing
'Subsequent to the hearing , the Petitioner moved to amend the name of the labor
organization to that set forth above.
143 NLRB No. 60.