Independent Linen Service Co. of Mississippi

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 20, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1002 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union also objected to the holding of the election while the
above-noted charges, filed on November 4, 1958, were pending in the
Regional Office 4 After the filing of these charges, the Regional
Director conducted a preliminary investigation and determined that
the election should proceed as scheduled, on November 6, 1958, and
that the ballots should be impounded until the disposition of the
charges. We find that this constituted a proper exercise of the
Regional Director's discretion in these circumstances, where the
charges were filed almost on the eve of the election. Furthermore,
we find that the Union was not prejudiced by the fact that the elec-
tion took place before the charges were dismissed, since the charges
were subsequently found by the Regional Director to be without
merit.'
We, therefore, adopt the recommendation of the Regional Director
and overrule the objections of the Union to the conduct of the elec-
tion. As the Union failed to receive a majority of the ballots cast,
we shall therefore certify the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of valid ballots was not cast
for United Hat, Cap and Millinery Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
and that this union is not the exclusive bargaining representative of
the production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Fall River, Massachusetts, plant.]
4 The Union's objection to the holding of the election during the pendency of its appeal
from the dismissal by the Regional Director of unfair labor practice charges filed on
August 5, 1958, is clearly without merit as, apart from any other considerations, the
appeal was dismissed by the General Counsel before the election was held.
5 Dumont Electric Corporation, 97 NLRB 94, 95.
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi ' and Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Local Union No. 891 , Petitioner 2
Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi and Laun-
dry, Cleaning & Linen Workers' International Union, Local
218, Independent , Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 15-RC-1868 and
15-RC-1873. January 20, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 4 hearing was held
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
3 Herein called the Teamsters. This Petitioner's name appears as amended at the
hearing.
3 Herein called the Laundry Workers. This Petitioner's name appears as amended at
the hearing.
4 The Regional Director's order consolidating cases and notice of hearing was personally
served on the Employer 1 day prior to the actual date of the hearing. The Employer
122 NLRB No. 123.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE COMPANY OF MISSISSIPPI 1003
before William R. Magruder, hearing 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.5
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
The Employer is engaged in the rental of linens, towels, uniforms,
and other laundered supplies to various types of industries and busi-
nesses. The bulk of the Employer's route drivers operate out of its
Jackson, Mississippi, plant, at which the Employer operates a laun-
dry and maintains a garage at which all of its trucks are serviced and
an office where the account books and the principal part of the
records are kept. At Meridian, Mississippi, the Employer maintains
a distribution point with storage facilities and a small records unit,
but at which no laundering is done. This distribution point is uti-
lized for pickup and delivery of linen by the route drivers and by
the relay driver from the Jackson plant, and is staffed by route
drivers, checkers, laborers, and clericals. The Meridian distribution
point is 92 miles from Jackson. The Employer has another distri-
bution point at Winona, Mississippi, some 90 miles from the Jackson
plant, which performs the same function as that at Meridian, except
that it has no records unit or clericals.
In Case No. 15-RC-1868, the Teamsters seeks a unit of route
drivers, relay loaders, laborers, the relay driver, checkers, garage
personnel, the outside salesman, auditors, and office and plant cleri-
cal employees at all of the Employer's three locations. The route
drivers make deliveries and pickups to customers, help load their
own trucks, collect cash payments, and solicit new business. They
are under separate supervision, receive the same pay and benefits,
appeared and participated fully at the hearing . The record discloses that none of the
parties lacked opportunity to introduce evidence bearing on all the issues raised herein
or was in any way prejudiced by reason of the Board 's order or procedure . Accordingly,
we find without merit the Employer 's motion for a continuance and motion for severance
of the cases for hearing. Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., 91 NLRB 696.
5 Employer ' s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Board ' s jurisdictional standards
announced on October 2, 1958, do not apply in the instant case is found without merit, as
the new jurisdictional standards apply to pending cases. See Sienaons Mailing Service,
122 NLRB 81.
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perform no duties in the plant, and do not interchange with other
employees of the Employer. The relay driver operates between
Jackson and the two distribution points, delivering clean linen and
picking up dirty linen. He does not deliver or pick up linen from
customers and is engaged solely in driving. The relay loaders and
laborers load and unload the relay truck and help load the route
trucks. The auditors work out of the office in Jackson. They main-
tain inventory records and occasionally travel with the route drivers
to check material on hand with various customers. They are essen-
tially plant clerical employees.' The checkers, who work at all of
the Employer's three locations, check in dirty linen and check out
clean linen to the route drivers. The Employer's garage is located
in a separate building in Jackson, where all of the Employer's trucks
are serviced, but no other maintenance function is performed. The
garage personnel are under separate supervision and have no con-
nection with the laundry plant. The office employees perform the
usual office clerical tasks, and are located entirely in the Employer's
Jackson office, with the exception of three who work at Meridian.
The Jackson office employees are in a separate building, under sepa-
rate supervision, and do not interchange with other employees of the
Employer. The office employees at Meridian perform only office work
at that location. There is an outside salesman who drives a com-
pany-owned car and confines himself to soliciting business. He deals
with the route drivers only in obtaining suggestions for potential new
customers. He does not deliver or pick up linen, is paid on the
same basis as the drivers, but is under the separate supervision of
the assistant to the vice president and general manager.
We find the driver unit sought is generally of the type which the
Board customarily finds appropriate. However, the Teamsters' de-
sire to include in the unit the office and plant clericals and the outside
salesman is without merit. None of these employees perform func-
tions directly related to the driving operation and are not properly
a part of such bargaining unit.
Accordingly, we find, in Case No. 15-RC-1868, that a unit of all
the route drivers, relay driver, garage personnel, relay loaders, or
laborers of the Employer, but excluding the office and plant clerical
employees, auditors, and outside salesman may be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.'
In Case No. 15-RC-1873, the Laundry Workers seeks a unit of
production and maintenance employees confined to the main plant of
the Employer at Jackson, Mississippi, excluding all employees sought
0 Meyer Hammerman , et al ., d/b/a Jolly Kids Togs, 117 NLRB 393.
1 The loaders or laborers and garage personnel are included in the absence of objection
thereto. See, e.g., Stauffer Chemical Company, 113 NLRB 1255 ; San Manuel Copper
Corporation, 116 NLRB 1153; Sherman White & Company, 109 NLRB 1 ; Hughes Trans-
portation, Inc., 109 NLRB 458.
INDEPENDENT LINEN SERVICE COMPANY OF MISSISSIPPI 1005
by the Teamsters. The Employer contends that only an overall unit,
including its two distribution points, is appropriate. All of the
cleaning and laundry production work is done in a separate building
at the Employer's main plant in Jackson, Mississippi. The produc-
tion employees are separately supervised, and do not interchange
with the drivers, or any of the Employer's other employees. The
distribution points are staffed only by route drivers, checkers, labor-
ers, and the clericals at Meridian. Although the employees at the
distribution points are under immediate supervision at each location,
all the route drivers collectively at the three locations of the Em-
ployer are separately supervised. A common labor relations policy
is in effect for all employees. It is clear from the record that the
distribution points are merely adjuncts of the main plant and not
separate, self-sustaining plants. Accordingly, we find appropriate
only a production and maintenance unit which embraces the main
plant and the two distribution points." Although the unit specifi-
cally requested by the Laundry Workers is inappropriate, inasmuch
as this union has a sufficient showing of interest in the overall unit,
we shall direct an election in a companywide production and main-
tenance voting group.'
Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the following voting
groups of the Employer's employees at its main plant at Jackson,
Mississippi, and its distribution points at Meridian and Winona,
Mississippi, excluding office clerical employees, the outside salesman,",
guards," professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act :
(1) All route drivers, relay drivers, laborers, relay loaders, and
garage personnel.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, including auditors
and plant clericals, but excluding all employees in voting group (1).12
8Tri-State Plastic Molding Company, 120 NLRB 1450.
9If the Laundry Workers does not desire to participate in such election, it may with-
draw upon proper notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of the
Direction.
1o Laundry Workers did not specify whether it desired to include the outside salesman.
We shall exclude him from both voting groups. Allan U. Bevier, Inc., 118 NLRB 1335.
"Petitioner would exclude and the Employer include the night watchman and the
grounds maintenance man of the Jackson plant. The night watchman makes rounds in
connection with safety and fire protection. The grounds maintenance man is engaged
in keeping the outside of the Jackson plant clean and tends the flowers and lawns. He
replaces the night watchman on the night watchman's nights off.. We find that both of
these employees perform guard duties and exclude them from either voting group. Dixie
Wax Paper Company, 117 NLRB 548.
12 The Laundry Workers has indicated that it does not desire to participate in the
separate election among the employees in voting group (1). However, because the
employees in this voting group are appropriately a part of the overall group, should
they reject separate representation, and because they should be afforded an opportunity
to decide whether or not they desire to be represented in an overall unit by the Laundry
Workers, we shall place this union on the ballot in voting group ( 1). Container Corpora-
tion of America , 121 NLRB 249, footnote 20.
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a majority of employees in voting group (1) select the Team-
sters, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization
for such group, which the Board, under these circumstances, finds
to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority in voting group (1) do not vote for the
Teamsters, the ballots of the employees in such voting group will be
pooled with those of the employees in voting group (2).19 If a
majority of the employees in voting group (2) or in the pooled group,
as the case may be, vote for the Laundry Workers, the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
such labor organization for such group, which the Board, in the
circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. In all other events, the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of results of the election as appro-
priate in the circumstances.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
13 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : Votes for the
Teamsters shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against the Laundry
Workers. All other votes are to be accorded their face value.
American Gilsonite Company and United Steel Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. fO-CA-1296. January 20, 1959
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On October 24, 1958, the National Labor Relations Board issued
its Decision and Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding, finding, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that the Respondent had not
engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, the Board dismissed the
complaint.
On November 28, 1958, the Charging Party filed with the Board
a motion for reconsideration. of the Board's Decision and Order.2
The Respondent filed a brief opposing the motion for reconsideration.
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 Bean and Fanning].
1 121 NLRB 1514.
2 The Charging Party did not file exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
122 NLRB No. 127.