F. W. Means Co. Clean Towel ServiceDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 26, 1970182 N.L.R.B. 779 (N.L.R.B. 1970) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation