Red Lobster

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 908 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

908
300 NLRB No. 124
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Regional Director also found no merit to the Employer’s alternative
claims that the smallest appropriate unit should consist either of employees at
the four restaurants under the control of Area Supervisor David Shanks (also
including Ann Arbor and Novi, Michigan locations), or a combined unit of
the Taylor and Dearborn Heights employees.
2 The record does not clearly set out the functional distinction between an
assistant and an associate manager.
3 These 28 restaurants are segmented in three geographic territories, one of
which is named the Detroit ADI (area of dominant influence), encompassing
the 13 restaurants in question.
4 Even assuming that area supervisors are scheduled to be in restaurants on
the general managers’ days off, there is insufficient staffing for persons in
these two positions to be present in all restaurants at all times. The record fur-
ther indicates that the area supervisor and the general manager may be present
simultaneously in a given restaurant. Thus it appears that on some days the
most responsible person in the restaurant is either the assistant or the associate
manager.
General Mills Restaurants, Inc., d/b/a Red Lobster
and United Steelworkers of America, AFL–
CIO–CLC. Cases 7–RC–18925 and 7–RC–18926
December 14, 1990
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On May 16, 1989, the Regional Director for Region
7 issued his Decision and Direction of Elections find-
ing appropriate two single-location units of the Em-
ployer’s restaurant employees located in Taylor and
Dearborn Heights, Michigan. On May 30, 1989, the
Employer filed with the Board a timely request for re-
view, and Motion to Stay the Regional Director’s De-
cision and Direction of Election. At the same time, the
Employer filed a Motion to Stay Election, Motion to
Reopen Record and Motion to Transfer Case to an-
other Regional Office. On June 13, 1989, in a supple-
mental decision, the Regional Director affirmed his
Decision and Direction of Elections. On June 16, 1989,
the Board granted the Employer’s request for review
solely with respect to unit scope and the Employer’s
allegation that the transcribed record, as a result of the
reporting service company’s actions, was incomplete.
The Board ordered that the elections be held but that
the ballots be impounded and the cases remanded to
the Regional Director to reopen the record for receipt
of the omitted testimony. In all other respects, the re-
quest for review was denied, as were the Employer’s
motions. Pursuant to the Board’s Order, the elections
were conducted, the ballots were impounded, the
record was reopened, and a July 11, 1989 hearing was
held. On September 5, 1989, the Regional Director
issued his Second Supplemental Decision and Order,
upholding his original decision and ordering that the
ballots be opened and counted. The Employer filed a
timely request for review and supplemental brief in
support. On December 28, 1989, the Board granted the
Employer’s request for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this matter to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
requests for review and supporting briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the Regional Director’s findings and
conclusions as modified. In agreement with the Re-
gional Director, we conclude that the evidence pre-
sented by the Employer fails to overcome the presump-
tion that the requested single-location units are appro-
priate. In support of this conclusion, we find that the
general managers of the two restaurants in question re-
tain a meaningful amount of autonomy and that the
evidence concerning employee interchange is not suffi-
cient to require broader units than those requested.
Facts
The Employer, which does business under the name
Red Lobster, operates 13 restaurants in the Detroit,
Michigan area. The Union has sought to represent em-
ployees in separate units at two area locations: Taylor
and Dearborn Heights. As noted, the Regional Director
found appropriate the two single-location units re-
quested by the Union, rejecting the Employer’s pri-
mary contention that the smallest appropriate unit must
encompass all 13 restaurants in the Detroit area.1
Pursuant to the Employer’s current organizational
structure, each of the Employer’s Detroit restaurants
has a general manager, who is assisted by a dining
room manager and either an assistant or an associate
manager.2 The general manager reports to one of three
area supervisors, each of whom has primary responsi-
bility for four or five of the Detroit restaurants. In turn,
the area supervisors report to a director of operations,
whose responsibility covers 24 Red Lobster restaurants
in Michigan, as well as 4 in Indiana.3
The Taylor restaurant employs approximately 100
employees and the Dearborn Heights restaurant em-
ploys approximately 85. There are a total of about
1200 employees in the 13 Detroit restaurants. The av-
erage distance between restaurants is about 7 miles,
and all are located within a radius of approximately 22
miles.
There is no history of collective bargaining with re-
spect to the employees in any of the various units as-
serted as being appropriate.
The Employer’s personnel policies and procedures
are centralized. Policies regarding wages, hours, over-
time, vacations, holidays, retirement, profit sharing and
employee fringe benefits are centrally established and
uniformly applied at all the Red Lobster restaurants.
Within the individual restaurants, general managers
are present a maximum of 5 days each week. Area su-
pervisors are present in each of the restaurants on aver-
age about once each week, typically for the full day.4
When not present, the area supervisor maintains daily
telephonic communication with each of the restaurants
to which he is assigned. As explained below, both the
909RED LOBSTER
5 Of the 40 employees hired in the 6 months before the hearing, the area
supervisor had no involvement in the hiring of at least 28 of these employees.
Evidence of the area supervisor’s involvement in interviewing and hiring a
portion of the applicants is consistent with, and may be explained by, his pres-
ence in the restaurants during days the general manager was not there.
6 The determination whether to rehire a former Red Lobster employee is not
controlled by the general manager, but is subject to prior approval by the area
supervisor.
7 The area supervisor reads and signs evaluations, sometimes after they are
given to the employee.
8 Area Supervisor Norris testified that the area supervisor also must approve
in advance all evaluations that are also above satisfactory. Norris’ testimony
was not, however, corroborated by Area Supervisor Shanks who has responsi-
bility for the two restaurants covered by the petitions.
9 The area supervisor’s involvement in setting employment levels and in
wage determinations is directly connected to his responsibility for maintaining
a budget for restaurants under his authority.
10 If there is a question whether an employee being trained is ready to be
scheduled for a certain position, the details will be discussed with the area su-
pervisor.
11 Several employees were temporarily assigned to another restaurant on
more than one occasion, so that, in total, 19 employees were involved in the
Dearborn Heights temporary transfers.
12 In half of the instances, earnings from the temporary assignment were less
than $21, indicating that the employee worked only a few hours at the other
location.
13 The Regional Director noted that no claim was made that the testimony
from the first hearing was defective insofar as it was recorded.
general manager and the area supervisor are respon-
sible for the operation of the individual restaurant.
With respect to employee relations, the evidence
shows that most of the hiring at the Taylor and Dear-
born Heights restaurants is done by the general man-
ager, without the area supervisor’s involvement.5 It ap-
pears that the area supervisor controls only the size of
the employee complement at each restaurant and deter-
mines whether an applicant may be hired at an hourly
rate above $5.6
General managers also evaluate employees, using a
form prepared by the Employer. Although these eval-
uations may be completed without the prior knowledge
of or approval by the area supervisor,7 there are certain
restrictions placed on the general manager in com-
pleting these evaluations. First, there is uniform testi-
mony that unsatisfactory evaluations need the prior ap-
proval of the area supervisor.8 Second, the area super-
visor also becomes involved if an employee complains
about the evaluation he received.
The evidence further indicates that the general man-
agers initiate wage increases for employees, but that
the area supervisor’s approval is required for all wage
increases. The record provides only general evidence
that it is more difficult to secure an area manager’s ap-
proval for increases of more than 50 cents per hour;
however, the frequency with which wage increases
under 50 cents an hour are denied is unclear. Area su-
pervisors also must approve any wage rates over $7.50
per hour.
Although the area supervisor determines the number
of employees who are to work in each restaurant,9 the
general manager is responsible for the details of em-
ployee scheduling.10 He has authority to call in and re-
lease employees as needed, and approves overtime pur-
suant to set guidelines. Further, he approves vacation
requests and grants leaves of absence of up to 7 days.
He initials timecards and distributes paychecks.
In regard to employee discipline, the general man-
agers can administer verbal discipline, which is memo-
rialized in the employee’s personnel record without
prior approval. General managers can also issue writ-
ten discipline and have authority to discipline employ-
ees for attendance problems without prior approval.
Other forms of written discipline, including general
manager’s recommendations that an employee be dis-
charged, require the prior approval of the area man-
ager, who conducts an independent investigation. Dis-
charge recommendations are followed approximately
50 percent of the time.
There are meetings of employees in the restaurants
which are scheduled by the general manager, some-
times at the direction of the area supervisor. The evi-
dence indicates that employees’ concerns, characterized
as grievances, are expressed and responded to at these
meetings. If the area supervisor is present, he or the
general manager may respond to these concerns. The
evidence is clear that the general manager may resolve
grievances that do not implicate general corporate pol-
icy, whether presented at these meetings or at other
times. Specifically, the evidence indicates that the gen-
eral managers have authority to correct payroll prob-
lems.
The evidence indicates that there was a certain de-
gree of employee interchange involving the 85 Dear-
born Heights employees and the 100 Taylor employ-
ees. During 1988, 11 employees were permanently
transferred into or out of these two restaurants. The
testimony indicates that permanent transfers were gen-
erally at the employee’s request. During this period,
there were also 11 instances in which Dearborn
Heights employees were temporarily assigned work in
another restuarant, and 16 times when employees from
other restaurants were assigned work at the Dearborn
Heights location.11 During 1988, only two Taylor em-
ployees were temporarily assigned work at other loca-
tions. All of these temporary assignments were vol-
untary, and about half of them were of very limited
duration.12
The Regional Director
As observed above, the hearing in this case was re-
opened in order to record the full testimony of one
witness, Area Supervisor Norris, whose testimony was
not fully recorded at the initial hearing. The Regional
Director found that Norris’ testimony at the second
hearing contradicted what Norris stated at the first
hearing13 concerning the general manager’s authority
to handle grievances, grant pay raises, and administer
discipline. The Regional Director also found that the
910 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14 We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for finding bias
or prejudice on the part of the Regional Director. Even assuming arguendo that
we did so find, this would not affect the outcome of this case because we
have made an independent review of the record.
testimony of two other area supervisors differed from
that of Norris. In making his unit determinations, the
Regional Director declined to rely on Norris’ testi-
mony to the extent that it was internally conflicting.
In reaffirming his initial finding that the petitioned-
for units were appropriate, the Regional Director relied
on the testimony of Area Supervisors Grierson and
Shanks and on Norris’ testimony on matters about
which Norris did not contradict himself. The Regional
Director found that this evidence established that the
general managers possessed significant autonomy in
the day-to-day operations of their individual res-
taurants. In reaching this conclusion, he found that
general managers possessed the authority to hire new
employees, gave verbal warnings which were docu-
mented in employees’ personnel files, prepared evalua-
tions, effectively recommended discharge, and granted
employees wage increases. He further found that the
general managers called in and released employees, re-
assigned them within the restaurant, granted time off
and leaves of absence, and scheduled vacations, con-
ducted employee meetings, and resolved grievances,
including payroll problems. In addition he found that
they were in charge of the day-to-day operations of the
restaurant.
The Regional Director also found that the degree of
employee interchange did not compel a multilocation
unit. He found that the number of permanent transfers
was relatively small compared to the size of the work
force in the petitioned-for restaurants, and that the ex-
tent of temporary transfers was also not so substantial
as to negate the appropriateness of the separate units.
The Employer’s Request for Review
Employer requested review on two general grounds:
that the Regional Director misconstrued the factual
evidence, resulting in erroneous conclusions, and that
the Regional Director made errors of law. The Em-
ployer also alleges bias and prejudice.14
The Employer argues that the restaurants are not au-
tonomous and that the Regional Director ignored cer-
tain limitations on the authority of the general man-
agers. The Employer asserts that general managers do
not effectively recommend discharge, and that the
amount of hiring they do is set by area supervisors.
Area supervisors approve about 35 percent of those ac-
tually employed, according to the Employer, relying on
Norris’ testimony. All evaluations done by general
managers must eventually be approved by the area su-
pervisor. General managers cannot give an evaluation
of ‘‘above satisfactory’’ or ‘‘needs improvement’’
without prior approval from the area supervisor. Vaca-
tions granted and grievances resolved by the general
managers are routine and do not require the exercise
of independent judgment. General managers have no
authority to change wages. Because of these limits on
the autonomy of the individual stores, the Employer
argues that individual units are inappropriate.
The Employer claims that the Regional Director
erred in not considering all of Norris’ testimony at the
second hearing. The Employer asserts that Norris’ tes-
timony is not contradictory and that the Regional Di-
rector did not pay adequate attention to those aspects
of the testimony in the second hearing that were not
found to be contradictory.
The Employer argues that the Regional Director’s
legal analysis is defective. The Employer acknowl-
edges the single-unit presumption, but, citing Gray
Drug Stores, 197 NLRB 924 (1972), contends that this
is a ‘‘weakened’’ presumption whenever the single fa-
cility is part of a retail chain. The Employer also ar-
gues that, in determining whether the evidence shows
a merger of the single-store work force into the more
comprehensive grouping so as to rebut the presump-
tion, the Board need not find that the separate identity
of the single store has been ‘‘completely submerged.’’
The Employer implies that the Regional Director ap-
plied too strict a test in deciding whether it had rebut-
ted the presumption in this respect.
Discussion
The Board in Kapok Tree Inn, 232 NLRB 702, 703
(1977), succinctly stated its approach in determining
appropriate units in multifacility operations such as the
one we have before us:
When dealing with a multifacility operation, the
well-established Board policy is to find a single-
facility unit presumptively appropriate. This pre-
sumption can be overcome, however, by a show-
ing of functional integration so substantial as to
negate the separate identity of the single-facility
unit. In making determinations on this issue, the
Board looks to such factors as prior bargaining
history, the geographical proximity to other facili-
ties of the same employer, the degree of day-to-
day managerial responsibility exercised by the
branch facility management, the frequency of em-
ployee interchange, and whether the requested sin-
gle-facility unit constitutes a homogeneous, identi-
fiable, and distinct employee grouping. Haag
Drug Company, Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877
(1968).
As explained below, we conclude that the evidence
presented by the Employer is insufficient to overcome
911RED LOBSTER
15 The Employer misconstrues Gray Drug Stores, supra, in contending that
the single-unit presumption is weaker in cases involving retail chains than it
is where other types of facilities are concerned. The Board in Gray Drug cited
the same factors for rebutting the presumption that it uses in any multifacility
case. 197 NLRB at 925. The Board’s special rule for retail chains—that the
bargaining unit ‘‘should embrace all stores within the employer’s geographic
or administrative area’’—was applied only after it determined that the single-
unit presumption had been rebutted. Ibid. The Board then confronted the issue
whether the unit should consist of all stores in the State of Florida, all stores
in two contiguous counties which were under the supervision of managers who
supervised no other stores in the State, or all stores in one of those two coun-
ties. The Board selected the two-county unit, applying the retail chain policy
that comes into play after the single-unit presumption has been rebutted. Id.
at 926.
16 Because the evidence does not take into account employee turnover, the
record does not accurately show how many different individuals were em-
ployed at the Dearborn Heights facility during 1988. It appears, however that
the proportion of all such employees affected by temporary assignments when
turnover is considered was substantially less than 20 percent of those em-
ployed during this period.
17 The record contains reference to a change shortly before the first hearing
that one of the restaurants usually under Shanks’ authority, Dearborn Heights,
was being overseen by a person who, until recently, had been the director of
operations in Kentucky and Tennessee. In addition, at some point in time be-
tween the two hearings, the Dearborn Heights restaurant was assigned to Area
Supervisor Joseph Grierson. The record does not indicate that those changes
had any impact on the authority of the general managers in these restaurants.
the presumptive appropriateness of a single-facility
unit.15
The separate Red Lobster restaurants in the Detroit
area are not physically proximate to each other, nor are
they functionally integrated. None of the restaurants in
question has any collective-bargaining history, and the
identity of the employees as a separate grouping at
each restaurant is apparent, particularly in that hiring
is done locally at each restaurant. Further, we find that
the degree of employee interchange is minimal, and
the significance of that interchange is diminished be-
cause the interchange occurs largely as a matter of em-
ployee convenience, i.e., it is voluntary. Temporary
transfers in this case consist of employees working
some hours during the week in a store other than the
one to which they are assigned. Even in the Dearborn
Heights restaurant, where the degree of temporary
interchange is most extensive, only 19 employees out
of a work force of 85 employees were affected by a
temporary work assignment during 1988, usually for
very short periods of time.16 Permanent transfers, a
less significant indication of actual interchange than
temporary transfers, were similarly minimal, with 11
permanent transfers in a combined work force of 185
employees within a 1-year period. Thus, the evidence
is insufficient to support the Employer’s claim that the
separate units at the two petitioned-for restaurants is
inappropriate.
The sole remaining factor having an impact on the
scope of the appropriate unit is the degree of local au-
tonomy of the general managers at the Dearborn
Heights and Taylor facilities. As explained below, we
agree with the Regional Director’s conclusion that gen-
eral managers retain sufficient authority to support the
presumption in favor of single-facility units.
Although it is clear that the general managers have
limitations on their authority, some imposed by cor-
porate policy and some based on their relationship to
the area supervisor, we find that the general managers
are responsible for the day-to-day management of the
restaurants. In the petitioned-for restaurants, the gen-
eral managers are the persons who make the over-
whelming majority of the hiring decisions, accepting
applications for employment and conducting interviews
of the applicants. Further, they are responsible for
evaluating employees, with approval necessary only for
those rated less than satisfactory. Their initiation of
wage raises, another clear area of their authority, has
not been shown to require anything more than routine
approval by the area supervisors, at least for raises of
less than 50 cents an hour. General managers also ad-
dress grievances and resolve them within the Employ-
er’s existing policies. Their role in the discipline of
employees includes issuing written warnings to em-
ployees for attendance matters and oral warnings for
all matters. Such warnings are then recorded in the
employee’s personnel file retained at the restaurant.
Although we agree with the Employer that the evi-
dence does not support the Regional Director’s finding
that general managers make effective recommendations
on discharge (given that an independent investigation
is conducted by the area supervisor with general man-
ager’s recommendation being accepted only half of the
time), it remains that the general manager plays an ac-
tive role in disciplining employees. Finally, the general
manager is responsible for the day-to-day staffing of
the restaurant, calling in and releasing employees,
granting overtime, reassigning employees, and granting
vacations and leaves of absence. Although the evi-
dence shows that the area supervisor is involved in res-
taurant operations, the record does not clearly distin-
guish between the function of the area supervisor as a
substitute for the general manager (i.e., when only the
area supervisor is present in the restaurant), and his
function as the superior of the general manager (i.e.,
when both are present or when the general manager
may not act alone). To the extent that the record is
ambiguous in this regard, we find that it detracts from
the Employer’s effort to overcome the single-facility
presumption.
We emphasize that the foregoing recitation of the
facts is based primarily on the testimony of Area Su-
pervisor David Shanks, who, as the area supervisor re-
sponsible for the Dearborn Heights and Taylor res-
taurants,17 had firsthand knowledge of the petitioned-
for units. While the testimony of other witnesses is not
wholly irrelevant, the testimony of the other area su-
pervisors does little to advance the Employer’s conten-
912 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
18 For example, Area Supervisor Joseph Grierson testified that he handles
all ‘‘need improvement’’ evaluations. He also testified that he sometimes initi-
ates pay raises. This might indicate that the practice in Grierson’s area varies
from that of Michael Norris’ area. Norris testified that he approves all pay
raises. Norris also testified that he approves all evaluations that are either
above or below satisfactory; but Area Supervisor Shanks only required prior
approval of below-satisfactory evaluations. Norris himself admitted that the
entry level wage rate is set by each individual area supervisor, and that his
rate might vary from that set by David Shanks or Joseph Grierson.
Because we find that, by virtue of his position, David Shanks provided the
most probative testimony on the issue of the autonomy of the two petitioned-
for restaurants we need not pass on the Employer’s attack on the Regional
Director’s treatment of internal conflicts he perceived in Norris’ testimony in
the two hearings. Thus, it is also irrelevant whether that treatment could be
characterized as a credibility finding.
tion that uniform management practices were followed
throughout the restaurants in the Detroit ADI.18
We find no merit in the Employer’s contention that
the Regional Director misapplied legal precedent. De-
spite the transfers and the centralized administration of
the Employer’s restaurants, we find that the single-fa-
cility units at Dearborn and Taylor are appropriate. As
in Big Y Foods v. NLRB, 651 F.2d 40 (1st Cir. 1981),
affg. 251 NLRB 869 (1980), it appears that only a
small number of employees were involved in transfers.
This distinguishes the case at hand from White Castle
System, 264 NLRB 267 (1982), in which the Board
dismissed the election petition. In that case 200 em-
ployees were involved in temporary transfers out of a
total group of 350–400 employees.
Furthermore, as outlined above, employees at the
restaurants in question ‘‘perform their day-to-day work
under the immediate supervision of one who is in-
volved in rating their performance and affecting their
job status and who is personally involved with the
daily matters which make up their grievances and rou-
tine problems.’’ Penn Color, Inc., 249 NLRB 1117,
1119 (1980). Finally, there is no bargaining history of,
nor any request for, representation on a broader basis.
See Renzetti’s Market, 238 NLRB 174, 176 (1978).
The Employer states that area supervisors have a
high degree of involvement and contact with the res-
taurants and that therefore the general store managers
do not have independent authority. In support, the Em-
ployer cites Pic-Way Shoe Mart, 274 NLRB 902
(1985); Petrie Stores Corp., 266 NLRB 75 (1983); and
Super X Drugs of Illinois, 233 NLRB 1114 (1977).
These cases are distinguishable, however, in that, un-
like here, the record in each showed that the local
manager did not make the final decision on hiring em-
ployees. The Employer also relies on Point Pleasant
Foodland, 269 NLRB 353 (1984), and Kirlin’s Inc.,
227 NLRB 1220 (1977). In Point Pleasant, the Em-
ployer’s president had final authority in all personnel
matters, including hiring. In Kirlin’s, the store man-
agers could not do more than recommend job appli-
cants.
In a related contention, the Employer cites V.I.M.
Jeans, 271 NLRB 1408, 1409 (1984), White Castle,
supra, and Lawson Milk Co., 213 NLRB 360 (1974),
for the proposition that the Regional Director did not
take proper account of evidence showing that the gen-
eral managers’ hiring authority was severely cir-
cumscribed by dictates from above, e.g., by constraints
on the number of employees whom they could hire.
We find the argument unpersuasive and the cases dis-
tinguishable. It is unlikely that a manager of a single
facility in any multifacility operation would be free of
all restraints on staffing levels. The significant point
here is that the managers of the restaurants at issue
possess hiring authority and that they make the major-
ity of decisions concerning whom to hire. In V.I.M.
Jeans, by contrast, the local manager conferred daily
with the central management official, who reviewed all
hiring and firing decisions. Id. at 1409. Similarly, in
White Castle, supra, 264 NLRB at 268, all of the local
manager’s hiring decisions were subject to the ap-
proval of district supervisors, who visited the premises
daily. Finally, the Board analyzed the circumscriptions
on a manager’s authority in Lawson Milk Co. in the
context of determining whether a four-store unit that
was ‘‘neither an administrative subdivision nor a dis-
tinct geographical grouping of stores’’ was an appro-
priate unit. Id. at 360–361. This analysis followed from
the Board’s determination, pursuant to the traditional
test, that the single-facility presumption had been re-
butted. See footnote 15, supra.
In sum, we find, contrary to the Employer’s conten-
tions, that the Regional Director’s unit finding is con-
sistent with Board precedent concerning the appro-
priateness of single-facility units, including such units
in retail store chains.
We therefore find the following units appropriate for
collective bargaining:
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Store No. 123 at
8787 Telegraph Road, Taylor, Michigan, includ-
ing hostess/host, bus persons, servers, utility em-
ployees, bartenders, cashiers, production employ-
ees and line employees; but excluding all man-
agers, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act. All full-time and regular part-time employees
employed at its Store No. 124 facility at 6850 N.
Telegraph Road, Dearborn Heights, Michigan, in-
cluding hostess/host, bus persons, servers, utility
employees, bartenders, cashiers production em-
ployees and line employees; but excluding all
managers, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Accordingly we shall remand the case to the Re-
gional Director with directions to open and count the
impounded ballots, to issue tallies of ballots, and to
take further appropriate action.
913RED LOBSTER
ORDER
It is ordered that this case be remanded to the Re-
gional Director for Region 7 to open and count the
ballots cast in the elections conducted in this pro-
ceeding on June 16, 1989, to issue tallies of the ballots
thereon, and to take further appropriate action.