Kelloggâs Snack Co., 756 (2005)
KelloggÂ’s Snack Company and Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFLÂ–CIO.Â Case 2Â–CAÂ–36270
May 31, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
By Chairman Battista and Members Liebman and Schaumber
On February 25, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Raymond P. Green issued the attached decision.Â The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judgeÂ’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified below.3
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, KelloggÂ’s Snack Company, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Â Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
Â“(a) Furnish to the Union the information requested in the letters sent by the Union dated March 4, April 13, and April 27, 2004.Â”
Â Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge.
Notice to Employees
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
We will not do anything that interferes with these rights.Â More particularly,
We will not refuse to furnish relevant information to Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFLÂ–CIO in connection with a grievance filed on February 12, 2003.
We will not in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.
We will furnish to the Union the information requested in the letters sent by the Union dated March 4, April 13, and April 27, 2004.
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â KelloggÂ’s Snack Company
Dharma Wilson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Irving L. Hurwitz, Esq., for the Respondent.
Paul A. Montalbano, Esq., for the Union.
Statement of the Case
Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge.Â I heard this case in New York, New York, on November 15, 2004.Â The charge was filed on May 21, 2004, and the complaint was issued against the Respondent on August 27, 2004.1 Â In substance, the complaint alleges that since on or about February 11, 2004, the Respondent has failed to furnish to the Union certain information, to wit:
(a) Bills of lading from certain named carriers; and
(b) Invoices identifying the shipper, the name of the product, and the amount of the product and the date of delivery relating to certain named carriers.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I make the following
Findings of Fact
The parties stipulated that the Respondent, a corporation, is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of food products and that annually, it purchases goods valued in excess of $50,000 that are delivered directly to its New York facilities from outside the State of New York.Â I therefore conclude that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.Â The parties also agree and I find that Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFLÂ–CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
ii.Â alleged unfair labor practices
The Respondent is engaged in the manufacture and sale of prepared foods such as cookies and crackers.Â It and the Union have had a collective-bargaining relationship for at least 20 to 25 years.Â In this regard, although the Company has multiple facilities nationwide, Local 560 represents the drivers and warehousemen at two distribution centers in New York State.Â One is in Orangeburg, New York, and the other is in Long Island, New York.2
The most recent collective-bargaining agreements covering these two facilities (each is covered by a separate but largely identical agreement), ran from June 12, 2001 to June 12, 2004.Â Bargaining for new contracts began sometime in June 2001 and no new contracts have been reached.
The products that are handled at the two distribution centers are food items such as cookies and crackers that are baked at various facilities in the United States such as Macon, Georgia, etc.Â The goods are delivered from the manufacturing facilities to distribution centers which service specified geographic areas and are then delivered to customers, such as large supermarkets, from these centers.Â The two centers involved in the present case service New York City, Long Island, and New Jersey.Â The employees who handle the goods at the centers are warehousemen and the drivers who deliver the goods to customers are drivers.Â Local 560 represents both of these categories of employees.
There are, however, a category of smaller retailers who indirectly purchase the RespondentÂ’s goods such as grocery stores, bodegas, etc.Â And as to these, the Respondent has decided that it would not be efficient to deliver its products directly to them from its distribution centers by its own drivers.Â Accordingly, at some point in the past, the Respondent arranged to sell its products to various independent companies (wholesalers), who in turn sold and delivered the goods to these kinds of retailers. Examples of these kinds of companies are W.B. Brown, Condel, and Premiere Snacks.
One of the questions in this case is how do cookies get to bodegas and grocery stores?
The parties agree that pursuant to the contract, if the goods come into either distribution center they must be handled by and delivered by Local 560 members.Â That is, the cookies are driven from a center to the wholesaler in a truck owned by the Respondent and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP