St. Peters Manor, Inc. d/b/a St. Peters Manor Care Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1982

261 N.L.R.B. 1161 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

ST. PETERS MANOR CARE CENTER
St. Peters Manor, Inc. d/b/a St. Peters Manor Care
Center and Miscellaneous Drivers and Helpers
Union, Local No. 610, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti-
tioner. Case 14-RC-9543
May 28, 1982
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND
HUNTER
Pursuant to authority granted it by the National
Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three-
member panel has considered determinative chal-
lenges in an election held on January 15, 19 82 ,1
1 The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica-
tion Upon Consent Election The tally was 20 for, and 17 against, the
Petitioner; there were 3 challenged ballots Since we have adopted the
Acting Regional Director's recommendation to sustain the challenge to
Haton's ballot, the remaining challenged ballots are not determinative
2 The Employer, in support of its exception to the Acting Regional
Director's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Winona
Haton be sustained, has submitted an affidavit of James S. Sidman. This
affidavit is dated February 18, 1982, 8 days after the issuance of the
Acting Regional Director's report. Accordingly, this affidavit was not
timely submitted to the Regional Director as required by Sec. 102.6
9
(c)
of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Furthermore,
the Employer does not contend that the evidence set forth in the affidavit
was newly discovered or previously unavailable We therefore have not
considered this affidavit In any event, even were we to consider Sid-
man's affidavit, we would find it insufficient to warrant reversal of the
Acting Regional Director's findings or to warrant a hearing
3 We find that Banner Bedding, Inc., 214 NLRB 1013 (1974), relied on
by the Employer, is distinguishable from the instant case. In Banner Bed-
ding, the Board gave effect to an oral agreement which had been reached
prior to the execution of the stipulation and which was a "critical predi-
and the attached Acting Regional Director's report
recommending disposition of same. [Omitted from
publication.] The Board has reviewed the record in
light of the exceptions and brief and hereby adopts
the Acting Regional Director's findings2 and rec-
ommendations. 3
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for Miscellaneous Drivers
and Helpers Union, Local No. 610, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the Act, the fore-
going labor organization is the exclusive represent-
ative of all the employees in the following appro-
priate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
including LPN's employed at the Employer's
150 Spencer Road, St. Peters, Missouri, facili-
ty, excluding business office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
cate" to that stipulation. Here, the alleged oral agreement was reached
well after the stipulation had been executed and, indeed, just moments
before the election was to commence Furthermore, unlike Banner Bed-
ding, here the alleged oral agreement was directly contrary to the clear
and unequivocal language of the stipulation Moreover, as the Acting Re-
gional Director found, there is no evidence in the record that the parties
did not intend to exclude business office clericals from the unit at the
time the stipulation wsas entered Under these circumstances, the Employ-
er's reliance on Banner Bedding is misplaced
261 NLRB No. 171
1161