Luce & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1355
313 NLRB No. 252
LUCE & SON, INC.
1 The challenged ballots were those of Sheryl Griener, Velma
Woodbridge, Scott Eddington, and Chris Hoffman. The Regional Di-
rector, among other things, sustained the challenge to Griener’s bal-
lot. In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the Regional Director’s
finding regarding Griener pro forma.
2 The unit description is:
All full-time and regular part-time office clerical employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its 2300 N. Valley Road, Reno, Ne-
vada location, excluding all confidential employees, outside sales
employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
3 Her seniority allows her to take vacation time at Christmas, a
privilege not enjoyed by any other employee.
4 Luce spends 7 months of the year in Hawaii and resides at the
location of her business for limited periods.
5 The Regional Director relied on Blue Star Ready-Mix Concrete
Corp., 305 NLRB 429 (1991), where the Board found that chal-
lenged voter Jason Vinson neither received special benefits nor
shared interests that aligned him with management despite Vinson’s
family relationship with various company officials. We find Blue
Star distinguishable. Vinson received a 50-cent higher starting salary
than other new employees, but the new employees received increases
ahead of Vinson. By contrast, Woodbridge receives a $200-a-month
car allowance which no other employee receives. Further, Vinson’s
caring for his elderly grandfather, one of the owners of the company,
was in no way job related. By contrast, Woodbridge has cared for
the sick Luce without loss of pay or deduction from her accrued sick
leave or vacation time.
Member Devaney concurs in the Board’s decision and notes also
that Velma Woodbridge’s family relationships, like Jason Vinson’s
relationships in Blue Star, could easily create a situation in which
Woodbridge’s presence at union meetings ‘‘could tend to inhibit free
expression of views and threaten the confidentiality of union atti-
tudes and voting,’’ and that her inclusion in the unit could well be
‘‘viewed with suspicion by other employees.’’ Blue Star, supra at
431, quoting Action Automotive, supra at 496. Member Devaney
notes that not only is Woodbridge the sister of the Employer’s
owner, but she is also the aunt of her supervisor, who supervises the
Continued
Luce and Son, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers and Professional,
Clerical, Public and Miscellaneous Employees
Local Union No. 533, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case
32–RC–3674
May 31, 1994
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
determinative challenges in an election held on June 4,
1993, and the Regional Director’s report recommend-
ing disposition of them. The election was conducted
pursuant to a Stipulated Election Agreement. The tally
of ballots shows seven for and four against the Peti-
tioner, with four challenged ballots.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of the
exceptions and briefs, has adopted the Regional Direc-
tor’s findings and recommendations to the extent con-
sistent with this decision, and finds that a certification
of representative should be issued.
The Petitioner challenged the ballot of Velma
Woodbridge because of her close family ties with the
Employer’s owner and managers. The Petitioner ar-
gued that Woodbridge’s interests were aligned with
management and that therefore she should not be in-
cluded in the bargaining unit. The Regional Director
overruled the Petitioner’s challenge and found that
Woodbridge shared a community of interest with the
unit of clerical employees.2
The facts are undisputed. Woodbridge, who owns a
relatively small number of shares in the Employer, is
the sister of its principal owner, Cherry Luce.
Woodbridge is a cash control clerk who also handles
the mail and matters such as workers’ compensation
and employment verification. She earns $13 an hour,
which is 50 cents higher than the hourly rate of anyone
else in the unit. Although Woodbridge works part-
time, she receives full-time benefits.3 Woodbridge re-
ceives a $200-a-month car allowance that no other em-
ployee receives. She also gets free gas once a month.
This latter privilege is occasionally shared by one or
two employees on a sporadic basis as their work re-
quirements dictate. Three of Woodbridge’s nephews
are managers of the Employer’s business. Woodbridge
is supervised by one of her nephews, Gary Hicks, who
also supervises the clerical unit. Woodbridge functions
as Cherry Luce’s personal secretary.4 She keeps Luce’s
personal books and records, to which no other employ-
ees have access. She alone handles phone calls for
Luce in Luce’s absence. Woodbridge also resides in a
house which is owned by Luce and which is next door
to Luce’s home. Woodbridge pays rent to Luce. On
one occasion when Luce was sick, Woodbridge cared
for her and did not report to work for a week.
Woodbridge was paid for this week and was charged
neither vacation nor sick time.
The Regional Director concluded that Woodbridge
did not receive special benefits because of her relation-
ship with the Employer’s owner. We disagree. We find
that Velma Woodbridge’s family relationship with the
Employer’s owner and managers and supervisors has
entitled her to special benefits. Of particular note are
Woodbridge’s receipt of a $200-a-month car allowance
and no loss of pay or leave when she cares for her sis-
ter, Owner Cherry Luce, when Luce is sick. Such sub-
stantial privileges are shared by no other employee in
the clerical unit. In these circumstances, Woodbridge
clearly does not share the common interests of her fel-
low employees. Her interests are aligned with manage-
ment and she should not be included in the bargaining
unit. NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc., 469 U.S. 490,
498 (1985).5 Accordingly, we sustain the Petitioner’s
1356 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining unit, and the aunt of at least two other managers. Thus,
for these additional reasons, and in accord with his partial dissent
in Blue Star, supra, Member Devaney finds that Woodbridge does
not share a community of interest with unit employees and that the
challenge to her ballot should be sustained.
6 The ballots of Scott Eddington and Chris Hoffman are no longer
determinative and thus need not be opened and counted.
challenge to Velma Woodbridge’s ballot and certify
the Petitioner.6
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid ballots
have been cast for Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men & Helpers and Professional, Clerical, Public and
Miscellaneous Employees Local Union No. 533, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO, and that
it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time office clerical
employees employed by the Employer at its 2399
N. Valley Road, Reno, Nevada Location, exclud-
ing all confidential employees, outside sales em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.