Rand's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 30, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1787 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

RAND 'S INC. 1787 Rand 's Inc . and Chauffeurs , Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local No. 878, af- filiated with International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , Petitioner . Case 26-RC-2994 August 30, 1968 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION second election be set aside. The Employer filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's recommenda- tions. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Pursuant to an Order and Direction of Second Election, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on November 8, 1967. At the conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 73 eligible voters, 33 cast ballots for, and 31 cast bal- lots against the Petitioner. There were 1 void and 4 challenged ballots, the latter being sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. The Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affect- ing the results of the election. In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , the Regional Director for Region 26 investigated the issues raised by the challenged ballots, and on December 21, 1967, issued his Report on Challenges and Ob- jections, in which he recommended that the chal- lenges to the ballots of three of the employees be overruled and that said ballots be opened and counted. Further, he found with regard to the ob- jections that the Employer had interfered with the election "by maintaining an invalid no solicitation rule" and he recommended that the second elec- tion be set aside. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to said report. The Board ordered a hearing ' to resolve the issues raised by the Em- ployer's exceptions " regarding the existence of a separate valid oral rule covering union activity and whether item 162 was understood by employees not to have been applicable to union activity, and whether, in fact employees did engage in elec- tioneering on company property on no-work time." Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on May 1, 1968, at Little Rock, Arkansas, before Hearing Of- ficer Charles W. Toomey. On July 16, 1968, the Hearing Officer issued and served on the parties his Report on Objections recommending that the 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(l) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act: All fulitime and regular parttime warehousemen and truckdrivers at Rand's Inc.'s warehouses at 1200 Pike Avenue, North Little Rock, Arkansas, and 1014 East Second, Riverside, Little Rock, Arkansas, and 1800 E. 9th, Little Rock, Arkansas, including the print- ing employees; but excluding office employees, outside salesmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. The Board has considered the Hearing Of- ficer's report, the Employer's exceptions, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Hearing Officer's findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations only to the extent that they are con- sistent herewith. In his report, the Hearing Officer concluded that item 16, which states "outside busi- ness should not be conducted on company time, or company property, such as soliciting subscriptions, collection of money or circulating petitions" was interpreted as having some bearing on union activi- ty and therefore its maintenance had "an inhibiting effect upon the employees." However, he also found that there was in existence a separate valid oral rule permitting electioneering during nonwork ' The Board also adopted the Regional Director's disposition of the Peti- show that the Petitioner had received a majority tioner's Objections I through 4 and his recommendations with respect to 2 The rule found to have been invalid by the Regional Director was the challenged ballots and ordered that said ballots be opened and counted, identified as rule 16 in the Employer's handbook of rules and regulations it was further ordered that a hearing be held if the revised tally failed to 172 NLRB No. 211 1788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL time of which the employees were aware , and elec- tioneering in fact took place on company property on nonwork time . In these circumstances , we find, contrary to the Hearing Officer , that the mere ex- istence of the written no-solicitation rule did not constitute interference warranting the setting aside of the election. Accordingly, as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has failed to obtain a majority of the valid ballots cast , we shall certify the results of the election. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid ballots has not been cast for Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local No . 878, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America and that said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Na- tional Labor Realations Act, as amended.