Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 240 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their seniority and other rights and privileges and make them whole for any
loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
All our employees are free to become , remain , or refrain from becoming or re-
maining members of any labor organization , except as that right may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment , as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We will not discriminate
in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any
labor organization.
JACKSON TILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Retail , Wholesale and
Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-
RC-1173. July 23, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon
consent election duly executed by the parties an election by secret
ballot was conducted on October 15, 1958, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region 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 46 eligible voters, 22 were for the Petitioner, 16 voted
for no union, 1 ballot was void, and 7 cast challenged ballots.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to
the Board's Rules and Regulations, made an investigation of the
issues raised by the challenges, and thereafter, on October 30, 1958,
issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots,
in which he recommended to the Board that the challenges to three
ballots be overruled and that if they are not determinative of the
results of the election a hearing be ordered an the issues raised by the
remaining four challenges. The Board adopted the findings and
recommendations of the Regional Director,' and accordingly on Jan-
uary 9, 1959, after the three challenged ballots referred to above were
opened and counted a revised tally of ballots was issued as follows :
22 for the Petitioner, 19 for no union, 1 void ballot, and 4 unopened
challenged ballots. Pursuant to the Board's Order the Regional
1122 NLRB 723.
124 NLRB No. 28.
DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 241
Director issued an order directing a hearing on the four unopened
challenged ballots.
A hearing was held on February 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1959, before John H.
Fenton, hearing officer. All parties appeared and participated at the
hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties.
On April 17, 1959, the hearing officer issued and served upon the
parties his report and recommendations, a copy of which is attached
hereto, in which he found that the four employees in question who
cast challenged ballots were supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, he recommended that the challenges to their ballots be
sustained and that the ballots not be opened or counted. The Em-
ployer filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report.
The Board 2 has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the + mployer's
exceptions thereto and supporting brief, and the entire record in this
case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
of the hearing officer to the extent noted below.
We agree with the hearing officer's finding that Wallace Bowling
and E. H. Bowling, route managers, responsibly direct in a nonroutine
manner the work of driver-salesmen and for the reasons stated in his
attached report are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We
therefore sustain the challenges to their ballots.' As a determination
of the challenges to the ballots of Brice Fonvielle, checker, and W. W.
Riddle, production manager, could not affect the results of the elec-
tion, we do not find it necessary to consider their status and conse-
quently do not pass upon the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the hearing officer in regard to their two challenges. Ac-
cordingly, as the revised tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner
has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, including
the unresolved two challenged ballots, we shall certify the Petitioner
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Retail, Wholesale and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representa-
tive and selected by a majority of the employes in the unit heretofore
found appropriate by the Board in its Decision, Direction, and Order,
issued on December 29, 1958.]
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Fanning].
See West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738.
525543-60-vol. 124-17
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
CHALLENGED BALLOTS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, entered into by
and between the Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Company, hereinafter called the
Employer, and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter called the Petitioner, an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region on October 15,
1958, among certain employees of the Employer. At the conclusion of the election
each party was furnished a tally of ballots showing that of approximately 46
eligible voters, 22 cast valid votes for the Petitioner, 16 cast valid votes against repre-
sentation by the Petitioner, 7 cast challenged ballots, and 1 cast a void ballot.
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on October 30, 1958, issued and
served upon the parties a report on challenges. He recommended that the challenges
to the ballots of Garage Mechanic W. C. Riddle, Promotion Manager O. C. Man-
gum, and Bottle Inspector Thelma Riddle be overruled, He further recommended
that, in the event these ballots were not determinative, the Board direct a hearing
for the purpose of resolving the conflict in evidence concerning the challenges to the
ballots of the remaining employees: Route Managers E. H. and Wallace Bowling,
Checker Brice Fonvielle, and Production Manager W. W. Riddle. The Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
On December 29, 1958, the Board issued and served upon the parties its Decision,
Direction, and Order, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Regional
Director. The Board further ordered that, in the event a hearing was held, the
hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare and
cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility
of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition
of said challenges.
Pursuant to this Decision, Direction, and Order, the Regional Director for the
Eleventh Region, on January 14, 1959, issued and served upon the parties a notice
of hearing on challenged ballots, directing that a hearing be held in accordance with
the said Order of the Board, on February 2, 1959, at Durham, North Carolina.
The hearing was held before the hearing officer, duly designated for that purpose,
on February 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Petitioner, the Employer, and counsel for the
Regional Director appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing upon the issues.
Upon the entire record in the case, from his observations of the witnesses, and
after examination of all exhibits and careful consideration of arguments and the
brief submitted by the Employer, the hearing officer makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
(1) Background: the Employer's operation, physical establishment, employee
complement, and supervisory hierarchy
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the bottling, sale, and dis-
tribution of Coca-Cola in and about Durham, North Carolina. Its gross sales are
approximately $700,000 annually. Its three managing officials are W. K. Rand,
Sr., president; Kenan Rand, Jr., vice president in charge of sales and production;
and Hubert Rand, market manager. The extent of W. K. Rand, Sr.'s participation
is not clear. Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that Rand, Senior, worked about 5 hours,
per day, that he made final decisions on such matters as the purchase of new equip-
ment, and that important policy matters are cleared with him. However, Rand.
Senior, is 82 years old, and the Employer concedes that the Petitioner was requested
to deal with Hubert Rand and Kenan Rand, Jr., and their attorney, rather than with
W. K. Rand, Sr. In addition, Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that Rand, Senior,
has delegated the actual supervision of employees in the unit to Hubert and himself.
Thus, it is the Employer's contention that all supervisory authority over the unit
employees is actually exercised by only Hubert Rand and W. K. Rand, Jr. Hubert
is primarily charged with responsibility for coin route sales, cooler sales, and adver-
tising. Kenan Rand, Jr., is primarily responsible for regular route sales and pro-
duction. The bookkeeping and office clericals are supervised by W. K. Rand, Sr.,
and Kenan Rand, Jr. All hiring is done by Hubert Rand, after con"ultation with
the other two.
The Employer's physical establishment is composed of three 'buildings. The
main plant, housing the production facilities and offices has two stories. The main
DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY- 243
section is rectangular, and approximately 100 by 50 feet. In addition there is a
triangular section which measures about 50 by 40 by 60 feet. Only the rectangular.
part has a second story. The shipping and receiving docks, the production depart-
ment, storage space, and the office of W. K. Rand, Sr., are on the first floor. The
second floor houses the offices of Hubert Rand, Kenan Rand, Jr., the cashier, book-
keeper and stenographer, and additional storage space. Across the street behind
the main plant is the garage for the maintenance and repair of the Employer's
vehicles. The third building, or "old plant" is completely across town, and houses
the advertising cooler departments.
There are approximately 42 employees in the stipulated unit, not including the
4 in question here. The production department has a complement of nine employees,
including Production Manager W. W. Riddle, whose status is here contested. The
garage department includes W. C. Riddle, the mechanic, and a lesser skilled em-
ployee. The challenge to the former's ballot was overruled. The advertising
department is under Advertising Manager H. L. Blevins and includes a sign painter
and one other employee. Blevins voted without challenge. The cooler department
includes Cooler Manager Leroy Cooley and two other employees. Cooley was.
also permitted to vote without challenge. The coin route department includes four
salesmen and one helper. It is directly managed, or supervised, by Hubert Rand.
The loading and shipping department includes Checker Brice Fonvielle, whose ballot
is challenged, and four platform employees. The regular route sales department is
divided into two groups of six salesmen and one group manager each. It also includes
two salesmen-in-training, or relief drivers. The ballots of the group managers,
E. H. and Wallace Bowling, are challenged. There is also a promotion department
under O. C. Mangum, promotion manager, who generally works alone. The
challenge to his ballot was overruled.
All of the various managers, including the individuals in dispute, are paid straight
salaries. The same is true of the relief drivers. The balance of the employees in
the unit are paid by the hour, and receive time and one-half for overtime, except
the salesmen, who receive $20 per week plus 6 cents a case commission. All em-
ployees receive the same hospitalization and life insurance benefits, and the same
vacations. All receive an annual bonus, determined by the Rands, and based upon
length of service, performance, and degree of responsibility exercised. None of the
alleged supervisors possesses the authority to hire, discipline, or discharge. Each
of them testified without contradiction that he has no power effectively to recommend
changes in the employment status of the men under his direction. They do have
authority to grant time off for periods of up to one-half day if, in their judgment,
the employee can be spared.' In the absence of such unequivocal indicia of super-
visory status, resolution of the issues herein requires a nice weighing of the duties
and responsibilities of each disputed individual to determine whether he responsibly
directs in a nonroutine manner the employees assertedly under his control.
One factor which the Board has consistently deemed highly persuasive in the
ultimate determination of supervisory issues, particularly where they are close, is
the ratio of supervisors to rank-and-file employees. Exclusion of the disputed cate-
gories here would result in what appears to the hearing officer to be a highly dis-
proportionate ratio. As noted above, the Employer concedes that there are only two
men, Hubert Rand and Kenan Rand, Jr., who actually exercise supervisory authority
over the approximately 46 employees in the unit. Some 18 of these are drivers,
or relief men, and are regularly on the road. In Washington Coca-Cola Bottling
Works, Inc., 117 NLRB 1163, 1178, the Trial Examiner rejected a contention that
a ratio of 12 supervisors to 58 drivers, or approximately 1:5, was excessively high.
He noted that, in the soft drink industry, an abnormally large number of supervisors
is required for drivers because they spend most of their time on the road, and their
performance can be checked only by accompanying them on the route. The hearing
officer subscribes to this finding, and rejects the contrary testimony of Kenan Rand,
Jr. He testified that he made no effort to check upon the drivers' performance by
simply asking the route managers, but rather did so,by their sales records, personal
observation, and contact with customers. However, Route Manager Wallace Bowling
admitted that Rand, Junior, did "usually" ask him how new salesmen were doing,
and, at times, how regular salesmen were performing. In this instance as well as
others, the hearing officer had the very distinct impression that Kenan Rand, Jr.,.
1 Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that the other managers who were included in the unit
were given the same instructions regarding this limited authority to grant time off.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was making a studied effort to minimize the responsibilities and authority of the
individuals in dispute .2
(2) The status of Route Manager Wallace Bowling
Wallace Bowling has a group of six salesmen. He also has access to two relief
drivers. He works approximately the same hours as the salesmen, but in addition
works some Saturdays and special events. His salary is somewhat higher than
the earnings of the drivers. He wears a uniform, like the drivers, which is sold by
the Employer for half of cost. He estimates that 95 percent of his time is spent
out on the routes, either substituting for salesmen or assisting them, or training new
drivers. It takes about 6 weeks to train a salesman. Bowling knows each route
intimately, and therefore is able to substitute for missing drivers with ease. He has
been with the Employer for 27 years. He regularly rides with each driver, assisting
him as a helper would, and checking upon his manner of operating the route, dealing
with customers, and handling the stock, coolers, and advertising materials. Where
needed, he makes "suggestions" for improvement, and handles customer complaints.
He checks behind the salesmen to see if such suggestions are carried out. He expects
them to be followed, and would report a failure to do so to Kenan Rand, Jr., with
arecommendation that the individual be corrected. However, he cannot discipline.
From time to time Kenan Rand, Jr., solicits his judgment on how the salesmen are
performing, and he usually asks him how new drivers are doing.3
Bowling may use his own judgment in deciding whether to assign a particular
relief driver, or salesman-in-training to a given route. However he testified that he
would leave this to Kenan Rand, Jr., in all but very clear cases. He does not make
adjustments in routes, but it consulted by Rand, Junior, as is the affected driver,
before decision is made by Rand, Junior.
Morning sales meetings are held approximately three times a week. They last
about 15 minutes and Wallace Bowling generally presides. If he does not, Kenan
Rand, Jr., does. These meetings concern inside advertising materials and methods,
and instruction in sales techniques. Sometimes movies are shown. One of the
Rands outlines the subject matter to Bowling the afternoon before the meeting, and
he then "relays" the information or instruction. There is general discussion of sales
methods and problems. These meetings are not a forum for the discussion of em-
ployment complaints or grievances.
As noted above, Bowling may grant several hours' time off. If a salesman needs
assistance, Bowling can assign a helper to him, if available, or provide the needed
assistance himself. Customer complaints are taken to the group manager by the
driver, before any action is taken.
On the basis of this evidence the hearing officer finds that Wallace Bowling re-
sponsibly directs the work of the salesmen. He trains them, regularly accompanies
them on their routes for the purpose of checking upon their performance and suggest-
ing methods of improvement, and has limited authority to make assignments and to
grant time off. While it is true that the drivers ordinarily require little supervision
and that their commissions constitute an incentive for good job performance, Bowling
clearly is responsible for the success of their operations, and does accompany them
on trips and presides at meetings, for the purpose of providing guidance and acquaint-
ing them with the Employer's policies .4 Further, Bowling provides the only regular
supervision which the salesmen in his group receive. Their contacts with the Rands
are infrequent, and there is no evidence that they receive any direction from them
except at meetings. It would seem unrealistic under these circumstances, and par-
ticularly in view of the abnormally low ratio of supervisors to employees which would
otherwise result, to hold that Bowling is not a supervisor.5
2In 1.950 the Board, in an unreported decision (34-RC-205; Employer's Exhibit No.
A), found that the classifications here in dispute were nonsupervisory. Notwithstanding
evidence that the 'duties have not changed, the hearing officer does not consider that
decision dispositive, since the instant record is a much more complete one than that
presented to the Board in Employer's Exhibit No. B.
3 Bowling believes he has the right to make recommendations. However, Rand,
Junior, investigated the matter during the one serious case of recommending correction
which Bowling recalls (Charles Staples), and Rand, Junior, denies that Bowling can
make effective recommendations, or that he would even consult with Bowling regarding
the work performance of salesmen in his group.
4 In this connection, the award of prizes to group managers upon the basis of group
performance would indicate that the quality of their leadership is a significant factor.
5 See Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12.
DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 245
(3) The status of Route Manager E. H. Bowling
E. H. Bowling's duties are admittedly identical to those of Wallace Bowling, ex-
cept that he does not conduct the morning sales meetings. He does, however, hold
meetings with his own group from time to time, for much the same purpose. He
was, in the hearing officer's opinion, a good deal less candid than Wallace Bowling
in testifying to the extent of his authority and responsibilities. It was the hearing
officer's distinct impression that E. H. Bowling made a deliberate attempt to equate
a route manager's position to that of a helper's,6 i.e., to eschew any authority to do
more than assist the salesmen, to make helpful suggestions, and to replace them when
absent. It is not insignificant that, when Bowling was asked whether he would make
"suggestions" to Mr. Kenan Rand, Jr., he replied that he would not, that the latter
gives the orders. The hearing officer would discredit E. H. Bowling's denial of
authority and responsibility.
Bowling admits that he can, on his own, make substitutions for absentees when not
forewarned in time to clear it with Kenan Rand, Jr. He would report disregard of his
suggestions to salesmen if he deemed it important enough. While there is some dis-
pute whether his "suggestions" are orders, disobedience is extremely rare. Driver
Sheldon Hill testified that Bowling rides with him about once a month, and tells him
what, if anything, needs to be done in order to more effectively promote sales.
Customer complaints are handled by Bowling, or at least the affected driver clears
such complaints with Bowling before handling them.
It is the hearing officer's conclusion that E. H. Bowling is also a supervisor.
Clearly his authority and responsibility are of a very minor nature. Nevertheless, he
does grant time off, select relief drivers and helpers, and regularly rides with the
members of his group for the purpose of checking their work and suggesting methods
of improvement. A salesman, once trained, does not require a demanding boss,
since his pay will reflect the effort and competence of his performance. However it
is clear that current familiarity with each route is not the only reason for Bowling's
practice of accompanying the salesmen: he gives them the benefit of his greater ex-
perience in handling problems. Indeed, where judgment is required, as in the case
of complaints from cutomers, the salesman must turn the matter over to Bowling.
The hearing officer finds that E. H. Bowling, like Wallace Bowling, does responsibly
direct his subordinates in a non-routine manner, and is a supervisor. While this issue
seems particularly close, a contrary finding would mean that the salesmen are ef-
fectively supervised only by Hubert Rand or Kenan Rand, Jr., men with whom they
have infrequent on-the-job contact, and from whom they receive little direction
beyond that provided at meetings?
(4) The status of Checker Brice Fonvielle
Brice Fonvielle has been employed by the Employer for 23 years. He works 45
to 50 hours a week and is paid a straight salary. He earns "twice as much or more"
than the four platform workers under his direction. They are hourly paid, and
receive time and one-half. As noted above, he receives the same fringe benefits
as the other employees, except that his bonus is larger. He has a desk in the sales-
room. Fonvielle's principal duty is to check trucks, counting the number of full
or empty cases during loading and unloading, and to see that the platform area is
clean and free of fire hazard, that his men are present, and that their work is done.
He also handles special events, assigning the appropriate employees and seeing that
the Coca-Cola is dispatched and delivered as ordered. On occasion he borrows
employees from the production department. He grants up to 4 hours off, checking
to see that the requesting employee punches the time clock (he does not punch the
clock himself), and checks on absenteeism. About three-quarters of his time is
spent in actually counting or moving cases.8 Most of the balance is used in checking
records. Very little of his time is spent in actually directing the work of the platform
employees. The platform procedure is outlined and well known to them. Each
has specific jobs to do when not either loading or unloading trucks, and Fonvielle
simply tells them to start or to stop loading and corrects them if they do anything
wrong. Fonvielle also takes special orders, where it is necessary to inform the sales-
men, while out on the route, to make unscheduled deliveries.
Fonvielle has the additional duty of assigning overtime to E. E. Jenette, a coin
route helper. Jenette works approximately 8 hours' overtime each week, on a volun-
Transcript page 562.
See Pearl Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1489.
e Platform employee Edward Petty testified that Fonvielle does little manual labor.
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tary basis, after, completing his work on the routes. He reports to Fonvielle if he
wishes work, and Fonvielle has authority to assign it if, in his judgment, Jenette
.can be used to good advantage. Fonvielle also trains new salesmen-trainees in
platform procedures, and the proper handling of cases and loading of trucks.
Kenan Rand, Jr., informed the platform workers that Fonvielle would be "in
charge" when the latter became checker. Fonvielle has informed all the platform
employees that he cannot get them raises. However, Kenan Rand, Jr., does ques-
tion him on the performance of platform employees and has asked him whether
particular employees were worthy of raises.9
Fonvielle's responsibility for the correct and proper loading of trucks; his training
of new employees; his giving of such limited instruction as the nature of the work
requires; his authority, upon his own judgment, to assign work to Jenette, and to
grant up to 4 hours' time off; his substantially greater rate of pay; and the absence
of evidence of any other immediate supervision of platform employees, convince the
hearing officer that Fonvielle is a supervisor.10
(5) The status of Production Manager W. W. Riddle
Riddle is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Employer's highly
automatic and complicated mixing and bottling machines, and for maintaining
uniform quality in the bottled product. He is a trained mechanic and has one assist-
ant mechanic (Lee Wallace) in his group. He and Wallace are on straight salaries.
The other seven employees in the production crew are hourly paid and receive time
and one-half for overtime. The hourly paid employees make from $1 to $1.26 per
hour. Wallace makes about $10 a week more than the highest hourly rated em-
ployee, and Riddle makes $10 per week more than Wallace. His bonus is $100 more
than Wallace's and Wallace gets about $50 more than any employee of equal
service. All employees work the same hours, and all but Riddle and Wallace punch
the clock. All receive the same "fringe" benefits, and work the same hours.
When the plant is in production Riddle calculates the amounts of chemicals needed
for water treatment, the amounts of syrup, soda, and water needed for Coca-Cola.
He then instructs employees in the proper amounts to be added. He spends most
of his time in regularly checking, adjusting and/or servicing the electric eyes, re-
frigeration units, water heating equipment, chemical tanks, and carbonation level.
About 21/2 hours of his regular 9-hour day are devoted to relieving the bottle in-
spector and the filler operator. He testified that no more than a few minutes is
spent in actually directing the work of other employees. The machinery is so set
that each man must competently perform his assigned task or it will not operate.
Thus every man knows his relatively simple job and knows that he must keep pace
with the machine to avoid disruption of production. If the machinery is shut down,
it immediately comes to the attention of Kenan Rand, Jr., whose office is upstairs.
When not supervising production, or engaged in mechanical maintenance or
repair, Riddle directs the production crew in unloading shipments of syrup or other
material, and empty cases. This occurs once a week. He simply tells the men
where to take materials, and helps unload himself, sometimes driving the forklift.
Riddle grants time off for short periods. In case of absenteeism, he can select a
platform employee to assist in production. When other departments request per-
sonnel he decides which employees to assign. He understands that the men in
his department take instructions from him, and was told that he was "boss" when
put in charge in 1946. However, he is aware that he cannot discipline and testified
he would get Kenan Rand, Jr., were his instructions disregarded. He also testified
he would "correct" employees who abused the machinery. On one occasion em-
ployee Chester McKinnon was discharged after Riddle reported his negligent han-
dling of a forklift. It appears however, that Kenan Rand, Jr., made an independent
investigation of the matter. If the men have any problem on the job they take it
to Riddle. Employee Edgar Green is assigned to other jobs outside the plant, in
order to make at least 45 hours every week. He testified that the assignment is
made by Riddle.
On this evidence the hearing officer finds that Riddle responsibly directs the work
of the production crew. The high degree of automation removes the need for
9 This evidence, like similar evidence as to Wallace Bowling, contradicts Kenan Rand,
Jr.'s, testimony that he does not seek such information, or recommendations, from the
challenged individuals. It, too, persuades the hearing officer that Kenan Rand, Jr., can-
not be fully credited.
11 See The Illinois Canning Co., 120 NLRB 669 ; Bordo Products Company, 117 NLRB
313.
UP-TO-DATE LAUNDRY, IN C. , 247
frequent direction, • since the employees know their relatively simple jobs and must
keep pace with the machines. Nevertheless, Riddle daily gives instruction in such
matters as the amounts of caustic soda and other ingredients to be added to the
tanks, and directs Wallace in the maintenance and service of highly complex ma-
chinery, matters which clearly seem nonroutine. In addition, he has limited au-
thority to grant time off, must tell the employees what to do when not in production,
can assign employees to other departments or borrow them from other departments,
and would correct them if need be. He is paid substantially more than his sub-
ordinates. There is no evidence that any admitted supervisor actually directs the
work of production employees, except on rare occasions. For all these reasons, the
hearing officer concludes that Riddle is a supervisor.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Having found that Wallace Bowling, E. H. Bowling, Brice Fonvielle, and W. W.
Riddle are supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, it is recommended
that the challenges to their ballots be sustained.
Up-to-Date Laundry, Inc.' and AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry
Cleaning International Union , Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2696.
July 24, 1959
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 Lawrence S. Wescott, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial. error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that it is engaged solely in a retail busi-
ness, that its operations do not meet the Board's retail standards for
asserting jurisdiction, and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
The record discloses that the Employer performs a significant part of
its laundry and dry cleaning work for trading establishments of vari-
ous kinds; institutions; industrial, commercial and professional users;
and governmental bodies. The Board has found that this type of
work is wholesale in nature.' Furthermore, where, as here, an Em-
ployer is engaged in both retail and nonretail activities, the Board
applies its nonretail jurisdictional standards.3
The Employer also contends that even if its business is considered
to be nonretail it does not meet the Board's current jurisdictional
standards. We do not agree. The record reveals that the Employer
furnished services valued at over $60,000 to various steamship lines
whose operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. Accord-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
s J. S. Latta f Son, 114 NLRB 1248, 1249.
3 Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB '543.
124 NLRB No. 30.