Nu-Life Spotless, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 357 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

NU-LIFE SPOTLESS, INC. 357
Nu-Life Spotless , Inc. and Drivers, Salesmen, Ware-
housemen , Milk Processors , Cannery, Dairy Em-
ployees and Helpers Union , Local No . 695, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America,' Petitioner and AFL-CIO Laundry and
Dry Cleaning International Union , Local 229, af-
filiated with the AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry Clean-
ing Interntional Union,' Petitioner. Cases
30-RC-2295 and 30-RC-2300
December 6, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On May 21 , 1974, the Regional Director for Region
30 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding , finding separate units of
truckdrivers and production and maintenance em-
ployees, as sought by the respective Petitioners.
Thereafter , in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions , the Employer filed a timely request for review of
the Regional Director 's decision on the grounds that
the unit placement of two dual-function employees,
Harold Haas and Ted Wegger , in the production and
maintenance unit , rather than in the driver unit or
both, is not supported by the record . The Teamsters
filed a statement in opposition in support of the Re-
gional Director 's placement of these employees in the
production and maintenance unit.
By telegraphic order dated June 17, 1974, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board , in denying the request
for review , deferred ruling on the resolution of the unit
placement of Haas and Wegger , but allowed them to
vote challenged ballots in both units with resolution of
their unit placement to be made by the Board , after the
opening and counting of the other ballots involved
herein if either or both of the Petitioners herein had
been selected as bargaining representatives in their re-
spective unit.
The results of the elections conducted June 17 and
18, 1974, showed that the Laundry Workers was not
selected bargaining representative in the production
and maintenance unit while the Teamsters was selected
as bargaining representative in the driver unit and that
challenged ballots were not determinative of the re-
sults . Nevertheless , in accordance with our prior order,
we shall resolve the unit placement of these two dual
function employees on the record before us.
Hereinafter referred to as Teamsters.
2 Hereinafter referred to as Laundry Workers
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and makes
the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the laundry and dry-
cleaning business in the Madison, Wisconsin, met-
ropolitan area. It operates out of a main plant whose
approximately 55 employees are in the production and
maintenance unit. The Employer also employs approxi-
mately eight full-time and part-time truckdrivers who
pick up and deliver laundry and drycleaning at five
separate retail outlets as well as service individual route
customers.
Harold Haas is a full-time employee who punches in
for work at 7 a.m. and works until sometime between
4 and 6 p.m. Production employees work regularly
from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He serves as a route driver,
picking up and delivering garments for regular custom-
ers at their premises. He estimates that during the past
year, he has spent approximately 60 percent of his time
engaged in driving. In addition to his driving, he trains
new drivers, performs maintenance and repair work on
trucks and production equipment at the plant, and
when necessary drives a truck to the location of a truck
which is broken down on the road and drives to parts
suppliers to pick up needed repair parts. He also oper-
ates various pieces of production equipment. He is paid
at the rate of $2.45 per hour, a rate similar to that paid
other drivers whereas 90 percent of the production
employees are paid at the rate of $1.90 per hour and
like other drivers he does not have a scheduled lunch
or break period as production and maintenance em-
ployees have.
Ted Wegger is also a full-time employee who punch-
es in for work at 7 a.m. and works until sometime
between 4 and 6 p.m., depending on whether there is
need for any special runs. Approximately 50 percent of
his time is spent on daily shuttle runs between the plant
and the retail outlets, picking up soiled clothing and
delivering laundered clothing. In addition to his regu-
lar shuttle runs, he is available to and does make special
runs . He receives calls from the retail outlets regarding
special deliveries and may assign these special runs to
other drivers throughout the day. When not engaged in
driving, he works at the plant performing such tasks as
checking delivery needs, bagging garments for delivery,
inspecting and pulling baskets for loading and delivery,
and tracing for missing garments. His hourly rate of
pay is $2.25 per hour which he receives regardless of
whether he is driving or working in the plant. Although
he, like production and maintenance employees, has a
215 NLRB No. 61
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scheduled lunch period, he does not have scheduled
break periods.
In cases like this, where elections are to be conducted
in two units and some employees perform work in both
units, they will be placed in the one unit in which their
greater community of interest lies.'
Based on the foregoing facts, we find that the hours,
wages, and working conditions of both Haas and Weg-
ger establish that their interests are aligned more
closely with those employees in the truckdriver unit
than with the employees in the production and mainte-
nance unit. Therefore, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, we shall include them in the drivers unit repre-
sented by the Teamsters.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of issuing the appropri-
ate certifications in accord with the findings herein.
3 Cf Mrs Karl's Bakery-Division of Interstate Brands Corporation, 214
NLRB No 25 (1974)
^,c.