Caravelle Wood Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 855 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

CARAVELLE WOOD PRODUCTS 855
Caravelle Wood Products , Inc and Textile Workers
Union of America, AFL-CIO Case 13-CA-9568
December 12, 1972
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
On September 30, 1970, the National Labor
Relations Board issued its Decision and Order'
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, as
amended, and ordering Respondent to bargain with
the Union which had been certified by the Regional
Director in Case 13-RC-11823 as the exclusive
representative of the employees of the Employer in a
production and maintenance unit
On August 8, 1972, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision2
denying enforcement and remanding the proceeding
to the Board for a "factual determination" of
whether the challenged ballots cast by relatives of
shareholders of the Company should be counted
Thereafter, the Employer and the Union each filed
with the Board a statement of position
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National,abor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel
Pursuant to the court's remand, the Board has
reviewed the entire record in this proceeding and the
statements of position and makes the following
findings and conclusions
As noted above, the Regional Director on June 10,
1969, issued a Decision and Direction of Election for
a unit of production and maintenance employees
The Regional Director excluded therefrom certain
employees whose parent or spouse was a shareholder
of the Company
The election was held on July 18, 1969 The tally of
ballots showed that, of approximately 80 eligible
voters, 35 cast ballots for the Union, 32 cast ballots
against the Union, and 13 ballots were challenged
Six of the challenged ballots were those of employees
who had been excluded from the unit by the
Regional Director as children or spouses of share-
holders 3 The Regional Director sustained these
challenges on the ground that the family relationship
of the employees in question rendered them ineligible
to vote 4 As the Regional Director found that a
majority of the valid votes were cast for the Union,
he certified it as the exclusive representative of the
unit employees As noted above, the Board ordered
the Company to bargain with the Union
The court declined to enforce the bargaining order
because it was based on the exclusion of relatives
under Section 2(3) of the Act 5 However, the court
held that the Board is entitled to a case-by-case
analysis of the evidence under Section 9(b) of the
Acts In its remand, the court suggested a number of
factors which might guide the Board's exercise of
discretion under that provision "how high a percent-
age of stock the parent or spouse owns, how many of
the shareholders are related to one another, whether
the shareholder is actively engaged in management
or holds a supervisory position, how many relatives
are employed as compared with the total number of
employees, whether the relative lives in the same
household or is partially dependent on the sharehold-
,,er
The following evidence was presented at the
representation hearing held on May 22, 1969 7
The Company, a corporation, has 10 stockholders
who own equal shares therein Joseph Paradiso
(president and chief administrative officer), his
cousins who are brothers Louis Paradiso (vice
president in charge of production, plant manage-
ment, and scheduling), John Paradiso (treasurer and
head of receiving and millroom), Donald Paradiso
(head of assembly), and Nick Paradiso (head of
shipping and packaging), their sister, Rose Lecuore,
and Richard Valentino, the husband of another
sister , George Grutzius (secretary and head of
millroom), and Charles Gaines All of the sharehold-
ers except Gaines are directors of the corporation,
and all except Gaines and Valentino are "active in
the business "8
Among those working for the Company as prod-
1 185 NLRB No 115
2 NLRB v Caravelle Wood Products Inc 466 F 2d 675 (C A 7 1972)
3 Paul Inez Irene Raymond and Dennis Paradiso and Donald W
Kloss
4 The Regional Director also sustained six other challenges but found it
unnecessary to resolve the final challenge because it could not have affected
the results of the election No exception was taken to the Regional
Director s disposition of these seven challenges
5 This clause provides in part that the term employee shall not
include any individual employed by his parent or spouse
6 This clause provides in part that The Board shall decide in each case
whether in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising
the rights guaranteed by [the] Act the unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, or plant unit or
subdivision thereof
7 Contrary to the Union we do not find it necessary to reopen the
hearing to adduce additional evidence
8 The Company has two other supervisors, namely Stanley Grages and
George Michaels who in turn are respectively responsible to John Paradiso
and Grutzius
200 NLRB No 118
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
uction and maintenance employees are Gina and
Paul Paradiso, wife9 and son of Vice President Louis
Paradiso, Deborah Paradiso, daughter of Treasurer
John Paradiso, Inez Paradiso, wife of Donald
Paradiso, a departmental supervisor, Irene, Ray-
mond, and Dennis Paradiso,10 the wife and the sons
of Nick Paradiso, a departmental supervisor, and
Donald W Kloss, the son of Donald Kloss, a
departmental supervisor 11 Gina, Deborah, Inez, and
Irene Paradiso were hired during a recogmtional
strike subsequent to the filing of the Union's petition
for an election
It is clear from the foregoing that the Company is a
closely held corporation dominated by the Paradiso
family whose members together own 70 percent of
the stock, serve as directors, occupy most of the key
offices of the Company, are active in its operation,
and hold most of the supervisory positions
As stated above, seven members of the closely knit
Paradiso family constitute part of the Company's
work force Thus, Gina, Inez, and Irene are wives of
Paradiso stockholders, and Paul, Deborah, Ray-
mond, and Dennis are children of Paradiso stock-
holders All seven are, of course, also related to the
other Paradisos who play an important role in
management and supervision
We turn now to the employees whose ballots were
challenged Inez and Irene, the wives of Donald and
Nick Paradiso, who presumably dwell in the same
household as their husbands, signified their family
loyalty when they came to work as new employees
during the strike Raymond and Dennis, sons of
9 While the usual punching in time for regular employees was 7 a in the
vice presidents wife was permitted to report for work about 9 am
10 Raymond a 20 year old junior college student, and Dennis a 19-year
old high school student, were regular part-time employees who worked
under their father s supervision
Nick Paradiso, were minors who attended school and
also worked part-time under their father's supervi-
sion 12 Paul was the son of Vice President Louis
Paradiso Although Donald W Kloss was not a
member of the Paradiso family, he worked under his
father who was not only a departmental supervisor
but was also a shareholder and a director active in
the management of the Company
We conclude that the interests of the Paradiso
wives and children were closely allied to those of the
Company which was principally owned, controlled,
managed, and supervised by members of the Paradi-
so family Similarly, we conclude that the interests of
Donald W Kloss were closely linked to those of his
father, a supervisor, shareholder, and director who
took an active part in management affairs
Accordingly, as the Paradiso employees and
Donald Kloss did not have a sufficient community of
interest with other employees, we reiterate our
agreement with the Regional Director's recommen-
dation that the challenges to their ballots be
sustained
As a majority of the valid votes cast were for the
Petitioner, we again approve the Regional Director's
Certification of Representative and shall therefore
affirm our bargaining order
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and the entire record
herein, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
affirms its Order issued in this proceeding on
September 30, 1970
11 Donald worked under his father s supervision
12 In view of their status as students it may be presumed they lived at
home and were in considerable measure economically dependent upon their
father