Aero Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 348 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARA Services Inc. & its wholly owned subsidiaries,
Terminal Newsstands , Inc., & Terminal ; Shops,
Inc., d/b/a Aero Enterprises , Inc. and Hotel,
Motel, Restaurant & Hi-Rise Employees &
Bartenders Union , Local 355 , AFL-CIO. Case
12-RC-6462
26 February 1985
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered objections to an election held on 26 April
1984 and the hearing officer's report recommend-
ing disposition of them. The election was conduct-
ed pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion. The tally of ballots shows 29 for and 71
against the Petitioner, with 7 challenged ballots, an
insufficient number to affect the results.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the Employer's exceptions and brief, and adopts
the hearing officer's findings and recommenda-
tions' only to the extent consistent herewith.
In his report, the hearing officer recommended
that the portion of the Petitioner's Objection 2 con-
cerning the Employer's grant of a preelection wage
increase be sustained and that a new election be
held. We do not agree. Rather, we find that the 35-
cent wage increase granted by the Employer to
unit employees on 7 April 1984 did not constitute
objectionable conduct.
The record in this case adequately shows that
the wage increase was granted for reasons uncon-
nected to the election campaign. Prior to the Peti-
tioner's filing of a representation petition on 8 Feb-
ruary 1984, the Employer made unambiguous state-
ments regarding the timing and amount of a gener-
al wage increase which preclude any conclusion
that by implementing such a wage increase the
Employer sought to affect the election results.
On 7 December 1983 the Employer learned
during meetings, which originally had been sched-
uled as training sessions, that the cashiers in its air-
port concession operation had numerous com-
plaints about working conditions, including wages.
At one of these meetings, Employer Vice Presi-
dent Karen Powell told employees she would
check into the facts, asked the personnel manager
to prepare a wage survey, and told employees in
attendance that she would get back to them in
about a month. On 1 February 1983 Powell met
i In the absence of exceptions we adopt, pro forma, the hearing offi-
cer's recommendations that the Petitioner's Objections 1, 3, 9, and the
portion of Objection 2 concerning uniforms be overruled
with a group of employees and discussed action
taken on. several- of the complaints that had been
voiced at the December meeting. Regarding em-
ployee wages, she reviewed with them the wage
survey that had been prepared following their com-
plaints and stated that the survey showed employ-
ees had-received across-the-board wage increases
during the last '5 years varying between 15 cents
and 25 cents per hour. In response to an employee
inquiry regarding when they would be getting a
wage increase in the current year, Powell stated
that their annual review date was 7 April because
they had received an increase the prior year on
that date.2 In reply to an inquiry regarding the
amount, Powell stated she did not know because
she had not yet spoken to her superior, but that it
would be logical for it to be at least the historical
amount of between 15 and 25 cents and she would
like it to be more. Powell reiterated that there
would be a raise in April. About 3 February 1983
Powell spoke with her superior, Company Presi-
dent John Ranelli, and recommended that a general
wage increase of 25 to 40 cents be granted these
employees.
With these undisputed events as background,
whose lawfulness has not been challenged, and
which occurred prior to the representation petition
being filed on 8 February 1984, it is apparent that
the subsequent implementation of the wage in-
crease was in full conformity with the prior an-
nouncement and therefore has been shown to have
been based on business considerations unconnected
to the election.
On 15 March 1984 President Ranelli concurred
in the decision to give a raise and on 26 March
reached a final decision on a 35-cent increase to be
granted on 7 April. This raise was announced to
employees 2 days later.3
On these facts, it is clear that the Employer had
committed itself to giving employees a wage in-
crease on 7 April. The only indeterminate aspect of
this wage increase was the amount. However, in
the face of prepetition events, including the an-
nouncement to employees that it would be at least
15-25 cents and undisputed testimony that a rec-
ommendation had been made that it be 25-40 cents,
the selection of a 35-cent figure was clearly within
the range previously under consideration. More-
2 Prior to 1983 the increase occurred at the end of the calendar year,
but had been deferred in 1982 until April 1983
This announcement stated
As we advised some of you in the January committee meeting,
and consistent with the company's past practice of giving an annual
increase, we are pleased to announce a wage increase in the amount
of 35 cent [sic] per hour for all employees
This increase represents our recognition of the good job you are
doing , and we are pleased to put it into effect 7 April 1984
274 NLRB No. 44
ARA SERVICES
over, in announcing this increase the Employer did
not attempt to use it as election propaganda and
thus did not betray any underlying motive incon-
sistent with this proferred business justification. In
this setting, we find no basis to conclude that this
wage increase was designed to affect the election.
Accordingly, we decline to direct a new election
and find that a certification of results of election
should be issued.
349
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have not been cast for Hotel, Motel, Restau-
rant & Hi-Rise Employees & Bartenders Union,
Local 355, AFL-CIO and that it is not the exclu-
sive representative of these bargaining unit employ-
ees.