Independent Linen Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 717 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. OF MISSISSIPPI 717
ees,10 regular part-time employees, and maids, but excluding all store
managers, the assistant store manager and the credit manager at
the Palafox store, the shipping clerk at the Palafox store, the credit
manager at the Escambia store, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
not supervised separately and enjoy the same benefits as all selling and nonselling em-
ployees of the Employer , we include the two collectors . Sears, Roebuck & Company,
112 NLRB 559.
10 The Petitioner contends that Judy Ashbongh , secretary to the Palafox store manager,
is a confidential employee and should be excluded As there is nothing in the record to
indicate that this employee is engaged in confidential work of any sort, we include her
in the unit,
11 The parties agree, and the record shows , that all store managers , the assistant
manager , credit manager , and shipping clerk at the Palafox store , and the credit manager
at the Escambia store ( James Norris ) are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
The record is inadequate to determine the supervisory status of the shipping clerk at the
Escambia store , and the assistant manager and officer manager at the Pensacola store.
Accordingly , we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge.
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No.
891,1 Petitioner
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Laundry,
Cleaning & Linen Workers International Union , Local No. 218,
Independent,2 Petitioner . Cases Nos. 15-RC-1868 and 15-RC-
1873. August 25, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION, AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections dated January
20, 1959,3 elections by secret ballot were conducted on February 11,
1959, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region, among the employees in voting groups (1) and
(2), as described in the aforementioned Decision. After the elections,
the parties were furnished tallies of ballots which showed that, of
approximately 94 eligible voters in group (1), sought to be repre-
sented separately by Teamsters, 92 cast valid ballots, of which 24
were for Teamsters, 1 was for Laundry Workers, 67 were against the
participating labor organizations, and 1 was challenged; and that,
of approximately 191 eligible voters in group (2), 188 cast valid bal-
lots, of which 143 were for, and 45 against, Laundry Workers, 3 cast
'Herein referred to as Teamsters.
8 Herein referred to as Laundry Workers.
3122 NLRB 1002.
124 NLRB No. 90.
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
void ballots, and 8 were challenged. As a majority of the employees
in group (1) did not vote for Teamsters, the Regional Director also
furnished the parties with a tally of ballots disclosing that, of approxi-
mately 285 eligible voters in the pooled voting groups, 280 cast valid
ballots, of which 24 were for Teamsters, 144 for Laundry Workers,,
112 against Laundry Workers, and 9 were challenged. The challenges
were sufficient in number to affect the election results in the pooled
groups. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the elections.
After an investigation, the Regional Director on May 15, 1959,.
issued his report on challenged ballots and objections to election. As.
to the challenges he found that six of them involved employees who
were not on the Employer's payroll during the eligibility period, and
recommended that such challenges be sustained. As the remaining
three would be insufficient to affect the election results, he recom-
mended that they not be resolved. He found that the objections did
not raise substantial or material issues affecting the election results,
and recommended that they be overruled and that an appropriate
certification of representatives be issued to Laundry Workers. The
Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report, a motion
to consolidate the instant proceedings with unfair labor practice pro-
ceedings instituted again it by Teamsters, and a supporting brief.
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the excep-
tions thereto and supporting brief, and the entire record in this case,.
and makes the following findings : 4
As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's disposition of
the challenges, we adopt his recommendation that the challenges to the
ballots of Clifton Atkinson, Dorothy Dixon, Kinia Yarn, Kinia Earl
Yarn, Harold Plumpp, Robert Spiva, and Eddie Woodard be sus-
tained. We need not therefore resolve the remaining three challenges,
as they are insufficient in number to affect the election results.
Exceptions 1 and 2: The Employer excepts to the Regional Direc-
tor's rejection of its contention that the election is void, on the ground
that it did not receive due notice of the consolidated hearing in the
instant proceedings and that, for this reason, the voting groups estab-
lished by the Board in its Decision and Direction of Elections herein
are inappropriate. However, as the Board in its Decision denied
motions of the Employer premised upon alleged lack of due notice,
4 The Employer ' s motion to consolidate is hereby denied, as the unfair labor practice
charges in Case No. 15-CA-1456 were not raised as objections to the election, and in
view of our disposition of the postelection issues herein . See Thomas Electronics, Inc.,
109 NLRB 1141.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE CO. OF MISSISSIPPI 719
and the Employer's contention herein does not raise any matters not.
then considered, we find no merit in the exception.5
The Employer also contends that the Board's unit designations were
ambiguous and confusing to the employees and excepts to the Regional
Director's finding that there was no evidence that any employee was
confused about what his choices were in the election. In support
thereof it submitted several. affidavits dated May 22, 1959, purporting
to show that employees were in fact confused as to their choices. How-
ever, without regard to its timeliness, such evidence does not establish
that prior to the vote any employees indicated confusion as to how to
cast their ballots and requested instructions from the Board agent
conducting the elections. The exception is therefore without merit.
Exception 3: The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's con-
clusion that the early closing of the polls at Winona, one of the three
voting locations, did not affect the election results. The Regional
Director found that, although the scheduled time for voting at
Winona, was 1 to 1:45 p.m. and the polls were closed at 1:30 p.m., all
eligible employees working out of Winona were present on that day
and all voted. The relay driver who brings laundry from the main
plant at Jackson was also present and voted. There was no evidence
that any driver from a location other than Winona attempted to vote
during the scheduled voting hours at Winona. In these circumstances,
we agree with the Regional Director that the early closing of the polls
at Winona was insufficient to affect the election results. The exception
is therefore overruled.
Exception 4: The Employer excepted to the Regional Director's
rejection of the objection based on the activities of Doris Peets, on
the ground that the evidence warrants a hearing as to (1) whether
her electioneering activities were in violation of the Peerless Plywood
24-hour rule,' and (2) whether she made coercive and intimidating
statements at the polls. We disagree. As to (1), even assuming that
Doris Peet engaged in the activities alleged and made electioneering
speeches to employees in small groups, such activities do not consti-
tute speeches to massed assemblies of employees within the Peerless
Plywood rule. As to (2), the Employer does not except to the
Regional Director's statement that no eligible voters were offered or
found who overheard Mrs. Peets solicit votes or make any remarks,
threatening or otherwise, within the polling area prior to the voting..
Moreover, the affidavits submitted by the Employer in support of the
exception, even if considered timely, in no way conflict with the Re--
gional Director's conclusions. The exception is therefore without
merit.
s Nudor Manufacturing Corporation , 114 NLRB 944 , 945; Burrus Mills , Incorporated;.
116 NLRB 1257.
6 Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Exception 5: The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's find-
ings that no person climbed the stairs (leading to the polling place at
Jackson) in the presence of employees eligible to vote and that the
only nonsupervisory employees present during the setting up of
booths were the observers and the auditor, and to his failure to make
a finding with respect to alleged loud, ungentlemanly, insinuating,
intimidating, and boisterous language of union men at the polling
place. However, even if it be assumed, as alleged by the Employer,
that a man named Huff, connected with one of the participating unions,
climbed the stairs and talked with employees, and that eligible em-
ployees were near the polling place while the booths were being set
up, and were able to hear loud, boisterous and insinuating language
of union officials, such conduct does not establish that any of the al-
leged electioneering interfered with, coerced or intimidated employees
in the exercise of their free choice. Absent evidence that such con-
duct occurred, or that the union representative wilfully violated any
instructions of the Board agent, we are not justified in inferring that
the electioneering which may have occurred was serious enough to
warrant setting aside the election.' The exception is therefore with-
out merit.
Exception 6: The Regional Director found no evidence to support
the Employer's objection that Laundry Workers' reduction of mem-
bership dues and elimination of initiation fees was conditioned upon
the outcome of the election. The Employer contends that a hearing
should be held on this objection upon the basis of an affidavit signed
May 22, 1959, by three employees tending to contradict the Regional
Director's finding. However, there is no showing that evidence of
such character was before the Regional Director in the course of his
investigation, or that it is newly discovered. As such evidence is,
untimely, the exception is without merit.'
Exception 7: The Employer excepts to the Regional Director's
finding that there was no evidence that Teamsters' Local president,
Red Hoover, questioned employees concerning union activities just
before the voting began. The Employer alleges that employees have
stated that Hoover shook hands and said "Stay with me," and "I
can't do you any good until you vote the union in." However, for
the reasons expressed above, in our disposition of exception 5, such
electioneering conduct did not interfere with the employees' free.
choice. The exception is therefore without merit.
As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's disposition
of certain other objections, his recommendations that they be over-
ruled are hereby adopted. Accordingly, as we have overruled all of
the Employer's objections, and as the tallies of ballots show that Team-
The Rackle Company of Texas, 117 NLRB 462; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB
944, 947.
8 General Electric Company, 115 NLRB 306, 308.
CHAMBERS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 721
sters did not receive a majority of the votes cast in voting group (1)
and that Laundry Workers did receive a majority in the pool voting
groups, we shall certify the results of the election in voting group (1)
and shall certify Laundry Workers as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the combined voting groups, which we
find in the circumstances to constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
[The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots in voting
group (1) was not cast for Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
Helpers, Local Union No. 891, and that this labor organization is not
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of Independent
Linen Service Company of Mississippi.]
[The Board certified Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Inter-
national Union, Local No. 218, Independent, as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees of Independent Linen Service
Company of Mississippi in the pooled voting groups, found herein to
be an appropriate unit.]
Chambers Manufacturing Corporation and United Steelworkers
of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 32-CA-599. August 26, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 9, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the
Act, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.'
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications :
1. The Respondent contends that it was denied a fair hearing by rea-
son of certain pretrial rulings of a Trial Examiner, and that the coin-
1 As the record, exceptions , and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties herein , the Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied.
124 NLRB No. 94.
525543-00-vol. 124-4'7