F. W. Means Co. Clean Towel Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 779 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

F. W. MEANS COMPANY
F. W. Means Company Clean Towel Service and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local 371, affiliated with
I.B.T.C.W. & H. of America, Petitioner . Case 38-
RC-662
May 26, 1970
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
sent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted
in the above-entitled proceeding on April 30, 1969, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for Region 13 among the employees in the appropriate
unit. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties
were furnished a tally of ballots, which showed that,
of approximately 198 eligible voters, 182 cast valid bal-
lots, of which 74 were for and 108 were against the
Petitioner. There were no challenged or void ballots.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election.
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, series 8, as amended,
the Acting Regional Director conducted an investigation
and, on July 10, 1969, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections and direction of
hearing, in which he recommended that a hearing be
held to resolve the issues raised by the Petitioner Objec-
tions 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11, and that the remaining objections
be overruled.
Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to
the Acting Regional Director's report on objection and
direction of hearing, and a brief in support thereof.
On August 25, 1969, the National Labor Relations Board
issued a Decision and Order' in which it ordered that
the Petitioner's Objections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 be
overruled and that the issues raised by Petitioner's Objec-
tions 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 be processed pursuant to
the Acting Regional Director's order directing a hearing.
Pursuant to the Board's Order a hearing was held
on October 2 and 3, 1969, before Hearing Officer, James
B. Ruyle. All parties were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. On
November 10, 1969, the Hearing Officer issued his report
recommending that Petitioner's Objections 2, 4, 10, and
11 be overruled,' that Objection 1 be sustained, and
that the results of the election be set aside and a second
election be directed. The Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the Hearing Officer's report and a brief in
support thereof.
' F. W. Means Company Clean Towel Service, Case 38-RC-662 (not
printed in NLRB volumes)
Y In the absence of exceptions thereto, the Board adopts, pro forma,
the Hearing Officer's recommendations that Petitioner's Objections 2,
4, 10, and II be overruled
779
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, ' the Board ;has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds they are free from prejudi-
cial error. They are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Hearing Officer's report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and finds
as follows:
Objection I alleges, in essence, that the Employer
conducted meetings in which it threatened employees
with loss of certain benefits if the Petitioner was elected
and promised certain benefits if the Petitioner lost the
election.
The Hearing Officer found that
[I]n the meeting attended by Walker, Meyer was
asked about removing the 40-hour requirement for
Saturday overtime pay and stated he would check
into it; that, in the meeting attended by Norris,
Meyer was again asked about Saturday overtime
pay and stated that "maybe that could be changed";
that, in the meeting attended by Nipper, Meyer
stated that there would be more air circulating
into the building and mats to stand on; that, in
the meeting attended by Dunn, Meyer stated that
the Company was planning on drapes for the cafete-
ria; and that, in the meeting attended by Stringer,
Meyer stated that the Company was going to get
drapes for the cafeteria and uniforms for the
employees who wanted them.
The Hearing Officer concluded that Meyer's state-
ments, made in meetings called by the Employer, were
designed to influence the results of the election; he
recommended that Objection I be sustained, the election
be set aside and a second election directed.
The Employer excepts, contending that the statements
allegedly made by Meyer were made before the petition
was filed and that they do not separately or together
constitute a promise of benefit which would justify
setting aside the election. We find merit in the Employer's
exceptions.
The union campaign began in early February. Accord-
ing to the Employer's witnesses departmental meetings
were held the last week in February, during the course
of which employees requested a meeting with Plant
Production Manager Meyer to obtain answers to ques-
tions they had regarding the benefits presently provided
by the Employer. In response to these requests Meyer
held group meetings with the various departments on
March 5, 6, and 7.3 At these meetings Meyer described
the Employer's current benefits and then answered ques-
tions. According to Meyer the employees asked questions
about the pension plan, the Christmas bonus, the pro-
posed improvements in insurance benefits, floormats,
air circulation, and overtime on Saturdays.
On March 28 the proposed improvements in insurance
benefits were adopted by the Company.4 The insurance
Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to the year 1969
The Employer's home office is in Chicago, the Moline plant is
(Cont )
182 NLRB No. 117
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
improvements were announced to all employees by word
of mouth on March 28, and by announcement posted
on the bulletin board on April 1
The Union' s last general meeting for the employees
was held on March 29 On April 2 it filed its petition
for an election
On April 9, Meyer held his second set of departmental
meetings According to Meyer he merely told the employ-
ees when and where the Board election would be held
and that it would be by secret ballot Meyer also gave
the employees additional information about the improved
insurance benefits and answered questions about produc-
tion scheduling '
On the other hand, the testimony of the Petitioner's
witnesses reveals that they were confused and uncertain
with respect to the dates upon which the meetings
with Meyer occurred, they placed the first set of meetings
(those Meyer testified were held on March 5, 6, and
7) at various times between the last week in February
and the second week in April In any event on the
record before us it appears clear that the testimony
of the petitioner's witnesses will not support a finding
that any of the statements attributed to Meyer with
respect to Saturday overtime, floormats, and air circula
tion were made after the petition was filed '
Walker testified that the meeting at which Meyer
mentioned Saturday overtime occurred 11/i weeks after
the Union passed out authorization cards The record
reveals the cards were distributed in February Walker
further testified that the insurance benefit improvements
had not been put into effect at the time the meeting
was held, and that the meeting was held prior to the
last union meeting Since the insurance benefits improve
ments were adopted on March 28, and the Union's
last meeting was held on March 29 , it appears clear
that Walker's testimony places Meyer's statement prior
to the filing of the petition on April 2
Employee Norris attended only one meeting with
Meyer, the date of which she could not recall Her
testimony, however, like Walker's establishes that she
attended one of the meetings held in early March Inas-
much as she testified that Meyer told the employees
they would be receiving improved insurance benefits
in the near future, Norris' testimony can only refer
one of several operated by the Employer The home office entered
into an agreement with the insurance company on March 28 after
a considerable period of negotiation
Meyer s version of what was discussed at the second meeting
is corroborated by the employees None of the employees except
Stringer placed the discussion of the subjects at issue herein at the
second meeting they were in agreement that the statements found
objectionable by the Hearing Officer were made at the first meeting
to the meetings held in early March , prior to the filing
of the petition This was corroborated by employee
Dunn who testified that Norris, although not in her
department , sat in on her group ' s first meeting with
Meyer Meyer testified that Norris was absent on March
5 when her group met with him and that Norris sat
in on a meeting on March 7, with the group of which
Dunn is a member Employee Nipper, who testified
that at the first meeting with Meyer, he (Meyer) promised
there would be more air circulating and floormats to
stand on admitted she could not remember when the
meeting was held She did testify, however, that the
meeting was held prior to the last general union meeting
and the approval of the improved insurance benefits
It therefore appears that the statements attributed to
Meyer concerning air circulation and floormats were
made prior to the filing of the petition In this respect
Meyer testified that when asked about floormats at one
of the early March meetings , he replied that floormats
had always been available The Petitioner proffered no
evidence to rebut Meyer's testimony
The Board has held that the cutoff date for objectiona-
ble conduct that could affect the results of an election
is the date on which the petition is filed , in this instance
April 2, 1969' As the foregoing indicates the Petitioner's
evidence does not support a finding that the allegedly
objectionable conduct occurred after the petition was
filed, we shall accordingly overrule Petitioner's Objection
1, and as the Petitioner has failed to secure a majority
of the valid ballots cast, we shall certify the results
of the election
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of valid votes
has not been cast for Chauffeurs , Teamsters and Helpers
Local 371, affiliated with IBTCW & H of America,
and that said labor organization is not the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the
Act
' Although the timing of Meyer s alleged statement to Stringer pertain
mg to drapes for the cafeteria and uniforms is uncertain issues as
to these promises were not properly before the Hearing Officer Thus
the promise of drapes which even if made would not alone warrant
setting aside the election was not raised at any time prior to the
hearing and the Hearing Officer had stated that the hearing would
be limited to issues raised in specified objections Further the issue
as to uniforms which was the subject of Objection 5 had previously
been disposed of when the Board in its Order of August 25 1969
adopted the Regional Director s recommendation that Objection 5 be
overruled
' Ideal Electric Company 134 NLRB 133 Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company 138 NLRB 453