Paradise Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 699 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PARADISE,BOWL-O-MAT, INC.
Paradise Bowl-O-Mat, Inc. and Union de
Trabajadores de la Industria Gastronomica de
Puerto Rico , Local 610 , Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 24-RC-3761
January 13, 1970
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon
consent election executed on May 14, 1969, an
election by secret ballot was held on June 12, 1969,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 24, to determine whether or not
certain employees of the Employer desired to be
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by
the Union de Trabajadores de la Industria
Gastronomica de Puerto Rico, Local 610, affiliated
with the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and
hereinafter referred to as Petitioner.
Upon conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties in accordance with the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended . The tally showed
that there were approximately 15 eligible voters and
that 11 ballots were cast, of which 5 were for
Petitioner , 5 were against the Petitioner , and I was
void.
On June 13, 1969, the Petitioner timely filed
objections to the conduct of the election. The
Regional Director, pursuant to the stipulation for
certification upon consent election, and in
conformity with Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations , caused an investigation of the
issues raised by the objections to be made, and,
thereafter, on September 16, 1969, issued and served
on the parties his report on objections. In his report,
the Regional Director recommended to the Board
that the objections filed by Petitioner be sustained,
the election set aside , and a second election directed.
Thereafter, on October 6, 1969, the Employer filed
timely exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report
and recommendation on objections , and a brief and
affidavits in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
In essential agreement with the position taken by
the Employer, we find that the Employer's conduct
did not interfere with the election held herein. On
the basis of the evidence revealed by his
investigation , the Regional Director found that on
May 5, 1969, two employees solicited wage increases
699
from the Employer' s manager . This solicitation
occurred 5 days after the petition was filed on April
30, 1969. The manager agreed to take up their
request with the stateside parent corporation and did
so by letter dated May 7, 1969, with his
recommendation as to the amount of each increase.
The same letter was returned on or about the last
week in May 1969, with an "approved"
endorsement.
Before the return of the letter the two employees
inquired as to the status of their increase, and were
advised that no reply had been received. After the
letter was returned they again made inquiry about
their increases , and were told by the manager that a
reply had been received but that his attorney had
advised him that he couldn't do anything about their
raises until after the election, scheduled for June 12,
was settled.'
On these facts we cannot agree with the Regional
Director that the withholding of wage increases for
these two employees interfered with the election and
requires that it be set aside. On the contrary, it
appears from all the facts that the Employer
properly tried to avoid any appearance of
attempting to influence the employees' decision
concerning their representation for purposes of
collective bargaining.' We note in particular that the
initiative in soliciting the wage increase came from
the employees themselves and took place within the
critical period between the filing of the petition and
the holding of the election.
Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the
Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid
ballots cast and as the objections of Petitioner do
not warrant a setting it aside, we shall certify the
results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots has not been cast for the labor organization
appearing on the ballot, and that such organization
'The Employer does not dispute the fact findings of the Regional
Director up to this point However , the Regional Director additionally
found that these two employees again inquired about their raises after the
election but were told again by the manager that because of the tie vote
nothing could be done until it was decided whether a new election would be
held. The Employer submitted an affidavit executed by Virgilto Valencia,
manager of the Paradise Bowl-O -Mat, denying that the two employees
inquired about their raises after the June 12 election , and further denying
that either he or the assistant manager made any statements relating to
these raises after that election As to this disputed conversation , found by
the Regional Director to have been had after the election , it is clear that
nothing said at the time could have influenced the outcome of the election.
We, therefore , do not pass on any of the issues which this latter
conversation might raise.
'See Sutherland Lumber Company , Inc., 176 NLRB No 143 See also
J C. Penney Company. Inc, 160 NLRB 279, and Engineers & Fabricators,
Inc., 156 NLRB 919, enforcement denied on other grounds 376 F 2d 482
(C.A 5).
180 NLRB No. 100
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is not the exclusive representative of all the meaning of Section 9(a) of the National Labor
employees , in the unit herein involved , within the Relations Act, as amended.