South Bend White Swan Laundry, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1253 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SOUTH BEND WHITE SWAN LAUNDRY, INC. 1253
SOUTH BEND WHITE SWAN LAUNDRY, INC. and AMAL-
GAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
Petitioner and LOCAL 157, LAUNDRY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, AFL. Case No. 13-RC-3332. October 12,
1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On July 2, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election' in the above-entitled proceeding, in which it found
that the Employer, an Indiana laundry and dry cleaning com-
pany, during 1952 performed about $9,000 worth of services
on goods shipped outside the State and during the same period
made out-of-State purchases in the value of $34,000. The
Board also found that the Employer and American Laundry
Company, a Michigan laundry and dry cleaning company, in view
of their common ownership and their integrated operations,
constituted a single, integrated , interstate enterprise which was,
for purposes of applying the Board ' s jurisdictional standards,
a single employer. Accordingly, the Board found, contrary to
the contention of the Intervenor , that it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
The Board also found, contrary to the Intervenor ' s contention,
that the existing contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor did not bar the petition because it contained an illegal
union-security clause.
Pursuant to the aforementioned Decision and Direction of
Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 28,
1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Thirteenth Region, among employees in the unit
found appropriate in such Decision and Direction of Election.
At the conclusion of the election , the parties were furnished a
tally of ballots which shows that of approximately 57 eligible
voters, 51 valid ballots were cast, of which 29 were cast for
the Petitioner, 17 were cast for the Intervenor, and 5 ballots
were challenged.
Thereafter, on August 3, 1953, the Intervenor filed objections
to conduct affecting the election. On August 20, 1953, the
Regional Director is sued his report on objections recommending
that the objections be overruled, and on August 28, 1953, the
Intervenor filed exceptions to the report of the Regional
Director on objections. On August 21, 1953, the Intervenor
also filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision and
Direction of Election herein.
The Intervenor in its motion for reconsideration renews its
contentions that the Board should not assert jurisdiction in this
case and that its current contract is a bar to this proceeding.
The Intervenor asserts that the plant of American Laundry
Company was destroyed by fire on July 16, 1953, and that the
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
106 NLRB No. 217.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer is therefore no longer a part of a multistate enter-
prise. While the destruction of American's plant may tempo-
rarily , at least , reduce the value of services performed by the
Employer on goods shipped outside the State , the Intervenor
does not deny , and we find , that the Employer is still engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act . We find therefore
that, under the circumstances of this case , it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to decline jurisdiction at
this stage of the proceeding . As the other allegations in the
Intervenor ' s motion were previously considered by the Board,
we find no merit in the motion , and the motion is denied.
In its exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report on objec-
tions, the Intervenor alleges , contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor's finding , that a representative of the Petitioner elec-
tioneered within the plant , in proximity to the polling place,
about one-half hour prior to the opening of the polls.
Even if this were true, it would not constitute a proper
ground for setting aside the election. The Board has no rule
against electioneering at any time before the opening of the
polls, and we perceive no reason for adopting such a rule.2
In its exceptions , the Intervenor contends , also, that it was
prejudiced by the fact that during the election its observer
was replaced without the knowledge and consent of Intervenor's
international representative. The Regional Director found that
about 20 minutes before the close of the election the Inter-
venor's observer left her station because of a personal emer-
gency and that further voting was suspended until Intervenor's
shop steward appointed herself to act as a replacement. The
Regional Director found further that not more than 5 ballots
were cast thereafter , and that some of these were challenged,
including 1 challenge by the Intervenor ' s shop steward. The
Intervenor does not dispute these findings , but contends only
that , as the shop steward was in disfavor with the employees
in the plant , her presence as an observer may have influenced
the 5 voters to cast their ballots against the Intervenor. Even
so, such votes would not have been sufficient to affect the out-
come of the election.3 In any event , the prejudice claimed by
the Intervenor is too speculative to warrant setting aside the
election.
Accordingly, we find that the Intervenor ' s exceptions raise
no material issues respecting the conduct of the election, and
they will be overruled. As the Petitioner has secured a
majority of the votes cast , we shall certify it as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board denied the Intervenor ' s motion for reconsidera-
tion and dismissed the Intervenor ' s objection to the conduct of
election and exceptions to the Regional Director's report
thereon.]
2Mutual Distributing Co., 83 NLRB 463; Dumont Electric Corp., 97 NLRB 94, 96.
3As already indicated , the Regional Director found that "some" of the 5 votes were chal-
lenged. This would leave at the most 3 unchallenged votes out of the 5. The Petitioner won by
12 votes , 5 additional votes being challenged.
JOHNSON CONCRETE COMPANY 1255
[The Board certified Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in the
Decision and Direction of Election herein.]
JOHNSON CONCRETE COMPANYand UNITED STONE AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 11-RC-545. October 13, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Louis
Perloff, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
The Employer is a North Carolina corporation engaged in
the manufacture and sale of concrete blocks and pipe, at its
plant in Salisbury, North Carolina. During the year ending
June 29, 1953, the Employer purchased cement in the amount
of $133,638.82 from outside the State of North Carolina, and
sold $2,677.46 worth of products outside the State of North
Carolina. Of its total sales, valued at more than $470,000,
approximately $2,000 to Cannon Mills Corporation and $11,000
to J.A. Jones Construction Company represent the only sales
to companies engaged in interstate commerce. The Employer
also sold concrete pipe valued at approximately $87,000 to the
North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission for
the construction, maintenance, and repair of county roads in the
State of North Carolina.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that its operations do not affect commerce within the meaning
of the Act, and that, in any event, the Board ought not assert
jurisdiction here.
It is clear on the foregoing evidence that the operations of
the Employer affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that the Board could assert jurisdiction. We are concerned,
however, not only with the question of whether the Board is
empowered to exercise jurisdiction , but also whether it is
administratively advisable to do so in a case of this kind. In the
light of past Board decisions on this question, the only theory
under which jurisdiction could be taken is that the Employer
furnishes goods valued at $ 50,000 a year or more to an instru-
mentality of interstate commerce. 2 We do not believe that the
concept of instrumentalities of interstate commerce should be
so broadly construed as to encompass so remote an activity as
the construction of county roads.
IN. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1.
2 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
106 NLRB No. 219.