H & L Distributing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 169 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

H & L DISTRIBUTING CO. 169
H & L Distributing Company and Sales Drivers, Food
Processors, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Lo-
cal No. 952, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America. Case 21-RM-1588
September 25, 1973
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND KENNEDY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election approved on April 18, 1973, an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted on June 5, 1973,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 21, among the employees in the
stipulated unit. At the conclusions of the election, the
parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
showed that of approximately 10 eligible voters, 10
cast ballots, of which 5 were for, and 5 against, the
Petitioner. There were no challenged or void ballots.
Thereafter, the Union filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on July 13, 1973, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on Objections, in which he recom-
mended that objections be overruled and a Certifica-
tion of Results of Election be issued. Thereafter, the
Union filed timely exceptions limited solely to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendation on
Objection 1.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding 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 pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of the employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 8(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and we find, that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All salesmen and merchandisers, excluding all
other employees employed by the Employer at its
place of business at 8405 Artesia, Buena Park,
California, including drivers, warehousemen,
clerical employers, guards, professional employ-
ees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Regional
Director's report on objections, and the Union's ex-
ceptions thereto, and hereby adopts the Regional
Director's findings and recommendations.' _
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots has not been cast for Sales Drivers, Food Pro-
cessors, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local
No. 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the unit herein
involved, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
i In the absence of an exception to the Regional Director's ruling on
Objection 2, the Board adopts that ruling pro forma With respect to Objec-
tion 1, the Regional Director ruled that the Union 's inability to obtain an
observer at the election was insufficient ground to empower the Board agent
to cast challenges on the Union's behalf, and that his failure to do so was
itself insufficient ground to warrant setting aside the election. We adopt the
Regional Director's conclusion , but note there is no evidence that the Union,
faced with an inability to obtain its own observer, presented facts to the
Board agent sufficient to give him reason to believe that the prospective
voters were, in fact, ineligible. Had the Union done so, the Board agent would
not have been precluded from challenging these individuals and, indeed, may
have been under a duty to do so.
`06 NLRB No. 29,