Desert Laundry-A Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Desert Laundry-A. Corporation and AFL-CIO Laun-
dry and Dry ' Cleaning International Union, Local
52, AFL-CIO; and Sales Drivers & Dairy Employ-
ees, Local =166, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of
America, Joint Petitioners. Case 21-RC-11995
August 25, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on' March 19, 1971, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for Region
21 among'the employees in the stipulated unit. At the
conclusion of the election, the parties were, furnished
a tally` of ballots which showed that of approximately
108 eligible voters, 85 ballots were cast, of which 41
were for the Joint Petitioners, 44 against the Joint
Petitioners, i 1 were challenged, and 1 void. The
challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
the results of the election. Thereafter, the Joint
Petitioners filed timely objections to conduct affect-
ing the results of the election.
Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Region-
al Director conducted an investigation of the issues
raised` by the objections. and the challenges, and on
May 5, 1971, issued'and duly served upon the parties
his Report on Objections, and Challenged Ballots.
The parties entered into, a stipulation reflecting their
agreement as to the eligibility of nine of the
challenged voters and, in accordance with this
stipulation, the Regional Director recommended that
the'` challenges to the ballots cast by Pedro Hidalgo,
Stella Quarrels,' maid James Queen be sustained and
that the challenges to the ballots cast by Erlinda
Dugenia,', Kevin Main, Edelberto Pitts, Leone Mop-
pin, Honorata Rodriguez, and Manuela
Sanchez (Perez)- be overruled and the ballots be
opened and counted. The Regional Director further
recommended that the challenge, to the ballot of
Rosie Sanchez be overruled, and that a hearing be
held to resolve the issue raised by the challenge to the
ballot of Artemisa Sesma should it be determinative.
As to the objections, the Regional Director found
that the Joint Petitioners' Objections 1, 2, and 4 were
without merit and recommended that they be
overruled. He found, however, that Objection 3
should be sustained, and further recommended that,
1 In our opinion, the Joint Petitioners' exceptions raise no material
issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations with respect to Objections I
in the event the revised tally of ballots shows that the
Joint Petitioners have not received a ,majority of the
valid ballots cast in the election conducted on March
19, 1971, the ' election should be set aside and a'
second election directed.
The Employer'' filed timely exceptions to the
Regional, Director's disposition of the issues raised
by Objection 3. The Joint Petitioners filed, exceptions
to the Regional Director's recommendation. that,
Objections I and 2 be overruled.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) off the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations- Board has delegated its
powers in connection with` -this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this, case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and- it will effectuate 'the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Joint Petitioners are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the - employees, of the
Employer within Fthe meaning of Section 9(c)(l), and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that -the
following employees' constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining Within the
meaning of Section'9(b), of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees-in-
cluding; all truckdrivers employed .at the Employ-
.er's locations at 4775 East'Ramon Road and 222
East Ramon Road, Palm Springs, California, and
-of the'Employer's `all employees employed' at all
call offices, excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guard's, watchmen,
and supervisors ' as; defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional Direc-
tor's report, and'the exceptions thereto 1'and hereby
adopts the Regional Director's findings and recom-
mendations, only to the extent consistent- herewith.
Objection 3 in essential part alleges that "On or
about March 9, 1,971, the Company mailed letters to
each eligible voter which,
(a) contained threats of loss of employment and
employee 'benefits and, promises of continued
employment and employee benefits if the employ-
ees voted against the Petitioners...
The Regional Director's investigation shows that the
Employer mailed in the same envelope two letters,
dated March 9, 1971, to all employees. One letter was
and 2 . As neither party has excepted to the Regional Director 's findings
and recommendations regarding the challenges and to overrule Objection
4, these findings are adopted pro forma.
192 NLRB No. 141
DESERT LAUNDRY-A CORP.
in English; -the second letter was a Spanish transla-
tion thereof.
Although there were other letters in English mailed
to the employees, the Spanish letter was the only
letter in that language mailed to them. The Regional
Director evaluated the English version letter as
typical campaign propaganda. An examination of
the Spanish version, however, revealed .that para-
graph "B" contained the following language which
varied from, theEnglish version:
These organizers will invite you to meetings,
meals and perhaps, even to have a drink, they will
make promises which they will never keep, they
will hurt your Employer, they will go on strike,
etc.etc. And this will affect you, since you will
lose days of work and will risk your stable
position out of irresponsibility, and it will affect
you also in a economic sense, since you will be
paying your dues you will be minus your regular
wages, that -is to say money will be missing as it
always. is during these demonstrations and ab-
sencesfrom work.
The Regional Director concluded that the Spanish
version "could reasonably have been interpreted by
the Spanish-speaking employees to have implied that
the Employer was unwilling to bargain with the
Union if they were to win the election and that,
therefore, a strike was inevitable."
In support of its exceptions to the Regional
Director's findings and recommended ruling on
Objection 3, the Employer defends its free speech
right to communicate its views to its employees. The
Employer categorizes paragraph "B" of the Spanish
version as a prediction of the effects unionization will
have on the employees. The Employer contends that
such effects are beyond its control and not subject to
its own volition. It further contends that in the
exercise of free speech its prediction contained no
threats of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
We find, in agreement with the Employer, that
paragraph "B" of the Spanish version is no more
1033
than a statement of opinion predicting events that
might occur should the Union win the election. The
Spanish version, standing alone , does not imply, in
our view, that the Employer was threatening action
in retaliation if the employees selectedthe Union. In
the total context of the Employer's noncoercive
conduct during the election campaign, we attach
little significance to the fact -that the Spanish version
contained language that did not specifically appear
in the English version. At the Employer's request, the
translation of the English version was accomplished
by one of its employees who had a reputation of
being able to read and speak Spanish fluently. Her
translation was not questioned nor reviewed by the
Employer . Subsequent to the mailing of the Spanish
letter, the Employer learned that employees to whom
the Spanish version was directed as a matter of
convenience could not read Spanish having been
taught English in school. The Employer, therefore,
decided not to continue circulating translations, and
no more letters in Spanish were mailed . In all the
circumstances , we find no merit in Joint Petitioners'
Objection 3.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 21 shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, within 10 days from the date of this
Direction, open and count the ballots of Erlinda
Dugenia, Kevin Main, Leone Moppin, Edelberto
Pitts,IHonorata Rodriguez,Manuela Sanchez (Perez),
and Rosie Sanchez and thereafter prepare and cause
to be served upon the parties a revised tally of
ballots, including therein the count of said ballots;
that in the event the revised tally shows that the
challenged ballot of Artemisa Sesma will affect the
results, a hearing be held on her challenged ballot;
and that in the event the revised tally is determina-
tive without such hearing, the Regional Director
shall issue an appropriate certification.