Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1374 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
held that a unit of all unlicensed seagoing employees is appropriate 5
and as the conveyormen appear to be the only remaining unrepresented
group of unlicensed employees aboard the Employer's ships, having
been excluded from the existing unit by agreement of the parties, we
find that the conveyormen may constitute an appropriate residual unit,
or may be appropriately added to the existing unit. Accordingly, we
will make no final unit determination at this time but will direct a
self-determination election in the following voting group :
All conveyormen employed on all self-unloaded vessels of the
Bradley Transportation Line, Rogers City, Michigan, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for MEBA,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives for MEBA for such unit, which the
Board under the circumstances finds appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in the voting
group vote for District 50, UMW, they will be taken to have expressed
their desire to become part of District 50's present unit of unlicensed
seamen, and District 50 may bargain for them as part of such unit. If
a majority of the employees in the group vote for neither, they will be
deemed to have expressed their desire to remain unrepresented.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Pacific Maritime A88ociation and It8 Member Companies ; 110 NLRB 1647.
Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co. and Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Workers Local Union Number 304, Dry Cleaning
and Dye House Workers International Union, Petitioner.
Case No. 27-RC-2082. July 17, 1962
RULING ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW
On June 21, 1961, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Di-
rection of Election in the above-entitled proceeding [not published
in NLRB volumes] in which he found appropriate a unit of produc-
tion and maintenance employees, excluding, inter ialia, salaried and
commission drivers. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, Series 8, the Employer filed a timely request for review, con-
tending that the unit should also embrace office clerical employees and
truckdrivers. The Board, by telegraphic order dated July 17, 1961,
denied the request for review and directed that the unit description
137 NLRB No. 147.
IDEAL LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING Co. 1375
be amended to provide that the unit placement of the salaried drivers 1
be deferred and their ballots be challenged at the election, which was
held on July 19, 1961. Of approximately 126 eligible voters, 123 cast
valid ballots, of which 59 were for, and 58 were against, the Petitioner;
6 ballots (those of the salaried drivers) were challenged; and 2 were
void. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. Thereafter the Employer filed timely objections
to the conduct of the election, and the Petitioner filed timely objections
to the election .2
After an investigation, the Regional Director issued his supple-
mental decision and certification of representatives on September 8,
1961, in which he sustained the challenges to the ballots of the six
salaried drivers and overruled the Employer's objections in their en-
tirety and the Petitioner's objection No. 1. As the Regional Director's
ruling sustaining the challenges resulted in a conclusive election which
was won by the Petitioner, he found it unnecessary to rule on Peti-
tioner's objection No. 2 which he found was rendered moot. The
Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
supplemental decision in which it, inter alia, relied upon the Valley of
Virginia case 3 and asserted that the six drivers should be included in
the production and maintenance unit as the parties had not agreed
upon their exclusion and no labor organization had sought their sep-
arate representation.
With respect to the six salaried drivers whose unit placement is in
issue, the Regional Director in his supplemental decision made the
following factual findings, which are not materially disputed by the
Employer.
The six salaried drivers have working conditions that differ in many
respects from those of the production and maintenance employees in
the plant. Apart from the normal duties incidental to truckdriving,
such as loading and unloading trucks, the four full-time drivers do
no work inside the plant except on occasions when they assist, on a
voluntary basis, in sorting, folding, and wrapping laundered articles
for the purpose of expediting their own deliveries. The 2 relief
drivers, during the 12 weeks' vacation period each year, regularly as-
sume the driving duties of the 17 commission drivers (whose exclusion
from the unit was sustained by the Board on review) and the other
salaried drivers. They also drive during the absences of other drivers
because of illness or other reasons. They likewise assist in the instruc-
tion of new drivers and do special driving around the city for the
purpose of picking up parts for trucks and laundry supplies, and
'The Board unequivocally denied review of the Regional Director's exclusion of the
commission drivers.
Later, the Employer by letter filed an additional objection which we find, in agreement
with the Regional Director, was untimely. See Keraaac Nuclear Fuels Corp , 124 NLRB
429; Flight Enterprises, Inc, 119 NLRB 1442.
3 The Valley of Virginia Cooperative Milk Producers Association, 127 NLRB 785.
1376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make special pickups and deliveries of laundry and dry cleaning items.
When delivery trucks break down, the relief drivers also go out and
do whatever is necessary to assist the driver. In addition, they help
drivers find bundles or look for lost articles in order to expedite their
deliveries. They also perform some routine laundry work. All of
the drivers are salaried , whereas most of the plant employees are hourly
paid. The salaries of the relief drivers are substantially in excess
of those of the production workers. All drivers, unlike the plant em-
ployees, punch a time clock when reporting for work, but do not
"punch out"; their total working hours vary considerably; they are not
paid compensation when they work overtime. The relief drivers, as
well as the full-time drivers, work under the direct supervision of the
driver supervisor, although they may also take orders from the plant
manager.
In the recent Koester case ,4 the Board stated with respect to the
unit placement of truckdrivers :
In our evaluation we shall consider, among others, the following
factors: (1) whether they have related or diverse duties, mode of
compensation, hours, supervision, and other conditions of employ-
ment; and (2) whether they are engaged in the same or related
production process or operation or spend a substantial portion
of their time in such production or adjunct activities. If the
interests shared with other employees is sufficient to warrant their
inclusion, we shall include the truckdrivers in the more compre-
hensive unit. If, on the other hand, truckdrivers are shown to
have such a diversity of interest from those of other employees as
to negate any mutuality of interest between the two groups, we
shall exclude them.
In view of the foregoing, and as it is clear from the Regional Di-
rector's supplemental decision that the interests of the six drivers
involved differ sufficiently from those of the plant employees to negate
a mutuality of interest between the two groups, we find that the Em-
ployer's request for review raises no substantial or material issues with
respect to the Regional Director's determination sustaining the chal-
lenges to the ballots of the six salaried drivers. We likewise find that
the request for review does not raise any substantial or material issues
with respect to the Regional Director' s dismissal of the Employer's
objections.-'
[The Board denied the request for review.]
4 E H. Koester Bakery Co , Inc, 136 NLRB 1006 Although Members Rodger, and
Leedom dissented from the majority holding in the Koester case, they feel they should now
consider themselves bound by that opinion in order to facilitate the disposition of these
cases in the Region and at the Board level.
5 See George K Garrett, Inc., 120 NLRB 484, 485 ; Norris-Thermador Corporation, 118
NLRB 1341, 1344-1345.