Rittenbaum Brothers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HARRY RITTENBAUM, LOUIE RITTENBAUM, MARY FEEN
RITTENBAUM, SYLVIA FINE RITTENBAUM and MAX
RITTENBAUM, d/b/a RITTENBAUM BROTHERS and LAUN-
DRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 218,
A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-1948. May 18, 1953
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On January 27, 1953, pursuant to the Board ' s Supplemental
Decision , Order, and Direction of Second Election, dated
January 12, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Tenth Region, among the Employer' s production,
maintenance , and truckdriver employees at its Atlanta , Georgia,
plant to determine whether or not said employees wished
the Petitioner to represent them in collective bargaining.
Upon the conclusion of the election , a tally of ballots was
furnished the parties , in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board . The tally shows that of approxi-
mately 131 eligible voters, 113 cast valid ballots, of which
65 were cast for, and 48 against , the Petitioner.
Thereafter , on January 30, 1953, the Employer filed timely
objections alleging that the Petitioner had engaged in conduct
affecting the results of the election principally by violating
an alleged no-electioneering rule . The Regional Director
conducted an investigation and on March 19, 1953, issued and
duly served his report , recommending that the Employer's
objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certified.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the report and
recommendations of the Regional Director.2
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board 3 finds:
The Employer' s objections to the second election conducted
herein on January 27, 1953, were based essentially on its
contentions that before the first election , held September 11,
1952, the Board's agent (Field Examiner West ) told the
parties that there would be no electioneering whatsoever
permitted on election day; that the Board's agent handling the
second election (Field Examiner Slyer) advised the parties
that the same policies which had prevailed during the first
election would be effective during the second election; that
because of the rule against electioneering on election day
the Employer refrained from answering , among other things,
a radio campaign of the Petitioner on the night before the
second election ; and that the Petitioner violated the no-
1 Unreported.
2The Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the Employer 's exceptions on the ground that
these exceptions are in typewritten form, rather than printed or otherwise duplicated. The
motion is denied . The Board' s Rules and Regulations do not proscribe the submission of
typewritten exceptions to a Regional Director's report.
sPursuant 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 [ Members Houston , Styles, and Peter-
son].
104 NLRB No. 135.
RITTENBAUM BROTHERS 1047
electioneering rule by distributing handbills on the day of the
second election.
In his report, the Regional Director finds that Field Ex-
aminer West did not advise the parties that there would be no
electioneering on election day, but only that there would be
no electioneering at or near the vicinity of the polls and, at
most, the parties misunderstood these instructions by West.
The Regional Director points out in this connection that the
Board's rules do not prohibit electioneering on election day
and the Employer was represented by experienced labor
counsel. Moreover, before both elections the Employer re-
ceived the Board's usual notice of election which states
merely that "Electioneering will not be permitted at or
near the polling place." And, although Max Rittenbaum and
the Employer's attorney assert that West laid down a broad
no-electioneering rule, the Regional Director credits West
who is an experienced field examiner and who specifically
denied making the statement alleged by the Employer. Ac-
cording to West, he advised the parties, in conformity with
the Board's usual rule, only that there would be no election=
eering at or near the vicinity of the polls while the polls
were open. The Petitioner's representatives at the meeting
with West also do not corroborate the Employer's allegations.
As already indicated, the Regional Director concluded that
West did not in fact tell the parties that there would be no
electioneering permitted on election day. Accordingly, he
recommended that the Employer's objections, based on viola-
tions of the alleged broad no-electioneering rule, be found
without merit. We agree with the Regional Director's findings
and recommendations. While the Employer, in its exceptions,
points for example to the alleged additional fact that there
was no electioneering on the day of the first election, we are
of the opinion that, even accepting such allegations as true,
they do not alter our determination that West did not promul:
gate a broad no-electioneering rule. At most, as found by the
Regional Director the Employer may have misunderstood
West's statements of the Board's rule, but such circumstance
does not warrant setting aside the election. We therefore find,
as recommended by the Regional Director, that the Employer's
objections raise no substantial and material issue with regard
to the conduct of the election and they are hereby overruled.
As the tally shows that a majority of the valid votes were
cast for the Petitioner in the second election, we shall certify
the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Laundry Workers Inter-
national Union, Local 218, A.F.L., has been designated and
selected by a majority of the employees at the Employer's
691 Houston Street, N. E., Atlanta, Georgia, plant, in the
unit found to be appropriate, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is the
exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock took no part in the
consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and
Certification of Representatives.
ALFRED B. CLEFF AND JOHN SPEAR, d/b/a DEMI and
LOS ANGELES DRESS JOINT BOARD, INTERNATIONAL
LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION. Case No. 21-CA-1532.
May 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 9, 1953, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and
were engaging in certain unfair labor practices , and re-
commending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondents had not engaged in certain
other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and
recommended dismissal as to them. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings , conclusions , and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modifi-
cations:'
1. The Trial Examiner found that Respondents discharged
Ullo in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, be-
cause they believed that she was engaged in union activity.
The Respondents deny that they suspected Ullo of any activi-
ties on behalf of the Union and assert that she was discharged
1 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
2 In their exceptions , Respondents assert the Trial Examiner was incorrect in stating that
Cleffs expression of neutrality had been made to at least one employee who had expressed
concern that she might lose her job if the plant became unionized . According to the record,
one of the employees addressed by Cleff did feel such concern, but the record does not
indicate that she communicated her concern to him. However, such inadvertence by the
Trial Examiner does not alter our concurrence in his ultimate findings and conclusions.
104 NLRB No. 136.