Silco, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 804 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Silco, Inc., Employer-Petitioner and Laundry, Linen
and Cleaning Drivers' Union, Local #185, affili-
ated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America and Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, Local 379, AFL-CIO. Case 9-UC-
119
May 19, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
Upon a unit clarification petition duly filed by
Petitioner under Section 9(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on
January 27, 1977, before Hearing Officer Earl L.
Ledford, at Cincinnati, Ohio. Following the hearing
and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the
case was transferred to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, briefs were filed by the Petitioner and
both Unions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. Silco, Inc. (hereinafter Silco), is an Ohio
corporation engaged in the operation of a laundry
service1 with locations in Ohio, Kentucky, Florida,
Georgia, and North Carolina. The parties stipulated
that Silco is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. It will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Laundry, Linen and Cleaning Drivers' Union,
Local # 185, affiliated with the International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (hereinafter Teamsters), and
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
Local 379, AFL-CIO (hereinafter RWDSU), were
Silco's laundry operation encompasses the cleaning and distribution of
industrial garments and other related items, including shop towels,
continuous towels, dust control products, and other items commonly used in
the industrial laundry business. Other corporate divisions operate pest
control, security, and janitorial services.
2 It is noted that, although Silco's laundry division in this area also
extends into Kentucky, the Louisville and Lexington facilities are not
organized and hence are not involved in the instant proceeding.
229 NLRB No. 126
stipulated to be labor organizations and each claims
to represent certain employees of Silco.
3. This case is solely concerned with Silco's
laundry operations in Ohio.2 Silco and the Teamsters
have a 46-year bargaining history.3 Their current
contract covers all drivers, driver salesmen, skippers,
and helpers employed by Silco in its Cincinnati,
Dayton, and Columbus, Ohio, facilities. The approxi-
mate distances between these locations are as
follows: Dayton to Cincinnati, 45 miles; Dayton to
Columbus, 65 miles; Cincinnati to Columbus, 102
miles. Employees at each location have separate
supervision, although all are ultimately under the
direction of Silco's regional general manager, Willard
F. Grassman. Grassman and Stanley, vice president
of finance, set labor relations policy. There is no
interchange of rank-and-file drivers between the
various Silco locations, but route supervisors are
occasionally called on to man a route outside their
territory if a regular driver in the affected location is
absent from the job.
Prior to April 3, 1976, Silco's laundry operations in
the Columbus area were limited to a distribution
warehouse located on Hendricks Drive. There were
11 drivers assigned to that facility. Garments
distributed from this point were laundered at Silco's
Bellefontaine, Ohio, plant and then delivered to the
Hendricks Drive warehouse for distribution.
On April 3, 1976, however, Silco purchased Atlas
Services, Inc. (hereinafter Atlas). This acquisition
encompassed all accounts receivable, 20 trucks, all
equipment and machinery, including washers, dryers,
and other laundry processing equipment, customer
lists, and certain parcels of real estate. As a result of
the Atlas purchase, 17 new routes were acquired, and
Silco elected to retain 20 former Atlas drivers as its
own employees. The Atlas drivers had been covered
by a collective-bargaining agreement with RWDSU.4
Silco neither adopted the Atlas-RWDSU agreement
nor did it execute a new agreement, but it did make
payments into the RWDSU pension fund and also
honored checkoff authorizations. In the absence of
any health and welfare fund for the new Silco
employees, the employer gave them coverage under
its standard Prudential policy.
In addition to the 20 drivers, Silco also retained
approximately 65 other Atlas employees, including
production workers, office clericals, salesmen, and
mechanics. These employees worked out of four
3 Until 1958, the contract covered only Cincinnati and Dayton. The most
recent contract was executed on July 1, 1975, and will expire on June 30,
1978.
4 The most recent contract was executed on February 19, 1976, and
extends over a 3-year period. Although there is some question regarding
whether or not the parties prematurely extended the contract, in light of our
decision herein, we need not deal with that issue.
804
SILCO, INC.
different facilities. The processing of the Atlas
accounts and the supervision of the Atlas employees
remained virtually unchanged, except for the fact
that final authority was vested in Grassman.
As for Silco proper, it continued to utilize its
Hendricks Drive and Bellefontaine facilities for
servicing its 11 original accounts in the Columbus
area.
In August 1976, however, Silco began its search for
a new site to be used for consolidation of its
Columbus operations. A 13-acre tract located at 1900
Progress Avenue was purchased and, on November
15, 1976, the relocation of facilities began. Although
the move had not yet been completed as of the date
of the hearing, Silco officials anticipate completion
by May 1977, at which time a geographical regroup-
ing of routes will be effected and the historical Silco-
Atlas divisions will cease to exist. Differences in
garment processing techniques, and to some extent
the supervisory structure, will also result from the
combination of operations.
There are currently 9 Silco drivers represented by
the Teamsters and 15 Atlas drivers represented by
the RWDSU. Five employees are unrepresented,
pursuant to the parties' agreement that neither
Union's contract benefits should apply until the
issues presented in this case are resolved.
Silco and the Teamsters contend that the unit
should be clarified to include all drivers under the
Teamsters contract. They base their argument on the
fact that Silco and the Teamsters have historically
bargained for an overall unit and the Atlas drivers
are merely an accretion to the unit. We do not agree.
In the circumstances of this case we find that the
new facility is not an accretion and that a question
concerning representation exists which should be
resolved through the Board's election procedures.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss Silco's petition for
clarification.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
805