Revonah Spinning Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 421 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

REVONAH SPINNING MILLS 421
Revonah Spinning Mills, Inc. and United Textile
Workers of America , AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case
4-RC-7736
February 12, 1969
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on May 15, 1968, by the Regional
Director for Region 4 in the stipulated unit. After
the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 641
eligible voters, 599 cast ballots, of which 285 were
for, and 307 were against the Petitioner, 3 ballots
were challenged, and 4 were void. The challenged
ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner
filed timely objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election. In accordance with National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the
objections and, on July 29, 1968, issued and duly
served upon the parties his report and
recommendations on objections to the election, in
which he recommended that the objections be
overruled in their entirety. The Petitioner filed
timely exceptions to the report, and the Employer
filed a memorandum in support of the Regional
Director's findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. On November 22, 1968, the Board
issued an order' remanding the proceeding to the
Regional Director for further investigation in
accordance with its instructions. Following such
further investigation, the Regional Director, on
December 18, 1968, issued and duly served upon the
parties his supplemental report on objections. No
exceptions to his supplemental report, and no briefs,
were filed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case 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
Not published in NLRB volumes.
purposes 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
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties have agreed that the unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is:
All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's East Middle Street and Blettner
Avenue (Malcolm Spinning Mills) mills, Hanover,
Pennsylvania, including all shipping and receiving
employees, plant clerical employees, and firemen,
but excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's
objections, the Regional Director's Report, the
Petitioner's exceptions thereto, the Employer's
memorandum in support thereof, and the Regional
Director's supplemental report, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Regional Director.2
Accordingly, as we have overruled all the
objections and as the tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner did not receive a majority of the valid
votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
votes in the election held on May 15, 1968, has not
been cast for United Textile Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, and that said labor organizations is not
the exclusive representative of employees in the unit
found appropriate, within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act, as amended.
'In The Food Mart , 158 NLRB 1294, cited by the Regional Director,
some employees , contrary to the employer's past practice , were reimbursed
for transportation costs incurred in attending an employer -sponsored party,
those who missed work were paid for 3 hours , and those not scheduled
were paid 3 hours at the overtime rate The Regional Director herein
correctly points out that the Board in Food Mart did not find a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) in that conduct, however, the Board did set aside the
election there In the instant case, the Employer waived the charge of $1
which it customarily charges for attendance at parties of the sort it here
sponsored It did not , however, pay transportation costs, or for time off
(the party spanned a period of time designed to allow employees from all
shifts to attend ), and no campaign speeches or discussions took place
during the course of the party. Further, there was some reason to charge
for past affairs , as they were traditionally held at times when not all
employees could attend We find that the "waiver" of the $1 charge here
was not such a benefit that could reasonably be found designed to impair
the voting choice of the unit employees , and cannot be compared to the
substantial benefits granted the employees in Food Mart