National Caterers of Virginia, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 12, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 110 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) All mechanics employed in the Employer's truck shop, small
truck shop, company garage, and cat shop at Ray, Arizona, including
their apprentices, but excluding helpers, steam cleaner operators,
laborers, welders, all other employees, office clerical employees, watch-
men, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act
If the majority in unit (b) vote for the Machinists, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropri-
ate unit, and,the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining In the
event a majority do not vote for the Machinists, these employees
shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will
issue a certification of results of election to such effect
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ]
National Caterers of Virginia, Inc. and Hotel & Restaurant
Employers & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No 5-RC-2705 November 12, 1959
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election by secret ballot was conducted by the Regional Director on
April 17, 1959, among the employees in the unit described below
After the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots
which showed that of 34 eligible voters, 16 cast valid ballots for and
18 cast valid ballots against the Petitioner The Petitioner filed
timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election
Auer investigation the Regional Director on July 24, 1959, issued
and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he
recommended that the objections relating to interviews with em-
ployees in the storeroom at the Seventh and Stockton location prior to
the election be sustained and that the election be set aside and that
a new election be ordered by the Board He found no merit in the
other objections, but in the course of his investigation uncovered evi-
dence concerning conduct affecting the results of the election and
recommended that if the Board did not agree that the election be set
aside that a hearing be directed to resolve material and substantial
issues raised by the evidence uncovered therein The Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations
125 NLRB No 10
NATIONAL CATERERS OF VIRGINIA, INC. 111
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated and we find that all food production and
food service employees of the Employer working in the cafeterias
located at the Philip Morris Tobacco Company plants located at
7th and Stockton Streets and at 20th and Main Streets in Richmond,
Virginia, but excluding all office clerical employees, managers , assist-
ant managers, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
5. In its objections, the Petitioner alleged during the period be-
tween the date the stipulation upon consent election was executed
and the date of the election, representatives of the Employer called
employees individually into the manager's office for the purposes of
persuading them to vote against the Petitioner.' The investigation
revealed the following facts : The Employer operates an industrial
catering service at the two locations involved herein. At each of the
locations, there is a dining room, a serving line, a kitchen, and a stock-
room for maintaining supplies and for the storage of food. At the
Seventh and Stockton location, the manager has a desk in a corner of
the storeroom without any separating partition. At the 20th and
Main location, there is a glass-enclosed office in the dining room. It
is undisputed that a few days before the election, Daniel Holland,
assistant to the president, who is normally at the Employer's Wash-
ington, D.C., headquarters, called all the employees at each location
individually into the respective storerooms for the purpose of per-
suading them to reject the Petitioner in the election. The individual
interviews at the Seventh and Stockton location were conducted away
from the manager's desk in a corner of the storeroom where two chairs
were set up without a table. In order to reach the location of the
interviews, employees had to pass the manager's desk at which it
appears the manager was not present. During the interviews other
i As no exceptions were made as to the Regional Director 's overruling the Petitioner's
objections based upon the activity of supervisors in the polling area, we shall adopt his
recommendation pro forma.
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees from time to time passed in and out of the storeroom in
order to obtain supplies in connection with their work. The Regional
Director , relying on the principles enunciated in Peoples Drug Stores,
Inc., et al., 119 NLRB 634 ; Economic Machinery Company, Division
of George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co., 111 NLRB 947; and other
cases applying the General Shoe doctrine ,3 found, on the basis of the
above-described interviews at the Seventh and Stockton location, that
the Employer had utilized the technique of calling its employees in-
dividually away from their normal work stations to a locus of mana-
gerial authority for the purposes of urging them to reject the Peti-
tioner and thereby interfered with their free choice in the election.
Accordingly , he recommended that the election be set aside and a new
election conducted.
In its exceptions , the Employer contends that the Regional Director
erred in concluding that the interviews were conducted away from
their "work places" at the "locus of managerial authority" of the
Seventh and Stockton location. In support thereof, the Employer
asserts that the storeroom where the interviews were held was a place
where the employees were accustomed to being in connection with
their work and, contrary to the Regional Director 's finding, was a
place where employee meetings were frequently held, and that the
interviews were not conducted at the manager 's desk, the only location
in the storeroom which could be called "the office" of the cafeteria.
We find no merit in the Employer 's contention . It is clear from the
record that the employees at the Seventh and Stockton location were
called individually from their work duties to a situs selected by a top
management official for the purpose of urging them to vote against
the Petitioner in the election . It is also clear that at the time they
were called to the storeroom the employees were engaged in their
duties elsewhere in the cafeteria . The fact stressed by the Employer
that the interviews were not held at the cafeteria manager's desk is not
here controlling . The unusual act of setting up two chairs in a corner
of the storeroom which also contains the manager 's desks for the
purpose of conducting private interviews by a management official,
in our opinion, reasonably led employees to believe that that location
was a locus of managerial authority . In the circumstances , like the
Regional Director , we conclude that this conduct, under our General
Shoe doctrine,' had a coercive effect upon the employees ' free choice
2 General Shoe Corporation ( Marman Bag Plant ), 97 NLRB 499.
8 See also, e . g., The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company . 120 NLRB 204 ; Campbell
Steel Company, et al ., 120 NLRB 168 ; Armour and Company, 120 NLRB 522 : Veeder-Root
Incorporated , Altoona Branch , 120 NLRB 967 ; Columbus Division, Colonial Stores Incorpo-
rated , 121. NLRB 1384 . Cf. Mead -Atlanta Paper Company. 120 NLRB 832: Crane Carrier
Corporation, 122 NLRB 206 ; Tuttle d Kift, Division of Ferro Corp ., 122 NLRB 848. We
find no merit in,the Employer ' s further contention that an exception to the doctrine should
be made herein because, as it argues , the storeroom was the only feasible location for such
interviews . See Peoples Drug Stores , Inc., supra, at 636 . Like the Regional Director, we
do not deem it necessary in the circumstances to reach the question whether the inter-
INT'L ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS , MATES & PILOTS , ETC. 113
in the election 4 We shall therefore set the election aside and order
a new election.'
[The Board set aside the election.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
views with individual employees conducted at the 20th and Main Streets cafeteria also
came within the doctrine 's proscription . See Columbus Division, Colonial Stores Incorpo-
rated, supra; Hook Drugs, Inc ., 117 NLRB 846; The Gallaher Drug Company, 115
NLRB 1379.
4 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that such a finding is contrary to the
rights of free speech guaranteed employers in the Act . We have held that the Act does
not prevent the Board from holding in a representation case that expression of views,
whether or not protected by Section 8(c), can be a basis for upsetting an election. See
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 90 NLRB 935, 938.
5 As the facts alleged by the Employer in its exceptions, even if accepted as true, in no
way affect our disposition of this objection , we find no merit in the Employer ' s contention
that it has been denied an opportunity to be heard. The Employer's request for a hear-
ing is therefore denied. Finally , in view of our decision to set aside the election on the
basis discussed above we need not consider the other recommendations of the Regional
Director or the Employer's exceptions thereto.
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc ., AFL-CIO; Great Lakes District, Local No. 47,
International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO and Chicago Calumet Stevedoring
Co., Inc., Charging Party
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO; Great Lakes District , Local No. 47,
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO and P & V Maritime Corporation,
Charging Party
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO; Great Lakes District , Local No. 47,
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO and North Pier Terminal Company,
Charging Party
International Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of
America, Inc., AFL-CIO, and International Vice-President
Captain Rolla R. Johnson and Cleveland Stevedore Company;
Lederer Terminal Warehouse Company; National Terminals
Corporation ; and Shipping Federation of Canada , Charging
Parties. Cases Nos. 13-CC-168, 13-CC-169, 13-CC-170, and
13-CC-180 (formerly 8-CC-76). November 12, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 20, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the
125 NLRB No. 19.