1108 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Textile Service Industries, Inc. and its Employer
Members: Exchange Linen Service; Aratex;
Northern California Services, Inc. (Hospital
Linen); Servisco, Golden State Linen Division;
Steiner Corporation; Prudential Overall Supply;
Colon's Linen Service; Mission Uniform &
Linen Service and Textile Processors, Service
Trades, Health Care, Professional and Techni-
cal Employees International Union Local 75,
Petitioner. Case 32-RC-2347
17 July 1987
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered objections to an
election held 13 and 14 May 1986 and the hearing
officer's report recommending disposition of them.
The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulat-
ed Election Agreement. The tally of ballots shows
211 for the Petitioner, 190 for the Intervenor, and 8
against either labor organization. There were no
challenged ballots.
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and briefs, has adopted the hearing
officer's findings and recommendations, and finds
that a certification of representative should be
issued.
CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
IT IS CERTIFIED that a majority of the valid bal-
lots have been cast for Textile Processors, Service
Trades, Health Care, Professional and Technical
Employees International Union Local 75 and that
it is the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time laundry
production workers covered by the current
collective-bargaining agreement, including but
not necessarily limited to the following classifi-
cations: Washroom Department, head washers
and utility room employees; Finishing Depart-
ment, garment press operators, shirt unit oper-
ators, garment folders and tunnel operators;
Marking-Distributing Department, head mark-
ers and distributors, soil sorter-marker-distribu-
tors (including conveyor belt distributors),
head route person-stock-supply persons, check-
ers or putter uppers; Flatwork Department,
continuous towel, route persons, towel
counters, folders, ragroom employees, clean
sorters, tiers, loaders, shakers, pullers, and
feeders; Sewing Department, alterations
person, seamstress persons, clean up persons,
employed by the following Employer mem-
bers of Textile Service Industries, Inc. at the
following locations:
Exchange Linen Service
527 23rd Avenue
Oakland, CA
Aratex
330 Chestnut
Oakland, CA
Northern California Services, Inc.
(Hospital Linen)
333 Shore Way Road
San Carlos, CA
Servisco, Golden State Linen Division
958 28th Street
Oakland, CA
Steiner Corporation
1377 Lowrie
So. San Francisco, CA
Prudential Overall Supply
1429 Milpitas Blvd.
Milpitas, CA
Calou's Linen Service
730 29th Street
Oakland, CA
Mission Uniform & Linen Service
30305 Union City Blvd.
Union City, CA
Excluding: All maintenance employees, truck
drivers, office clerical employees, professional
employees, confidential employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
MEMBER BABSON, dissenting in part.
I cannot adopt the hearing officer's recommenda-
tion that the "Intervenor's Objection Not Specifi-
cally Alleged" be overruled. (See the pertinent
portions of the attached hearing officer's report.)
The hearing officer failed to make credibility reso-
lutions with respect to whether the Petitioner's ob-
server only made hash marks on the unofficial tally
she maintained during the course of the voting ses-
sion, as the Petitioner's observer testified, or
whether she wrote "words" in addition to hash
marks, as the Intervenor's observer testified. The
hearing officer apparently found it critical to this
objection to establish that names were recorded
and in the absence of such a showing found it un-
necessary to resolve the credibility conflict. I do
not agree, and I would remand this proceeding to
resolve the credibility conflict between the testimo-
284 NLRB No. 134
TEXTILE SERVICE INDUSTRIES 1109
fly of the Petitioner's and the intervenor's observ-
ers. 1 In my view, the possible absence of names, as
opposed to other "words" that may have been uti-
lized to describe or otherwise identify voters, is not
dispositive of the issue. The unwillingness of the
majority to resolve the credibility issue reflects a
failure to acknowledge that words of description,
other than names, if utilized with hash marks may
provide a basis here for setting aside the election.
See Masonic Homes of California, 258 NLRB 41
(1981) (observer's keeping a list comprised of
voter's names and hash marks warrants setting
aside the election). In the present posture of this
case, therefore, I find it unnecessary to decide
whether the making of hash marks alone consti-
tutes a sufficient basis for setting aside the election.
Cf. Cerock Wire & Cable Group, 273 NLRB 1041
(1984). Accordingly, I dissent from the issuance of
a certification herein.
In recommending that this objection be overruled, the hearing officer
further relied on the conclusion that the Petitioner's observer made some
attempt to conceal her conduct based on the testimony of the Petitioner's
observer that ,he had a paper on the table m front of her dunng the
voting but that she kept the paper folded so that no one could see what
she was doing. The hearing officer, however, faded to mention and re-
solve the conflict between this testimony and the additional testimony of
the Petitioner's observer that "anybody who came by to pick up a ballot
saw the paper" and that "they could see the marks." This unresolved
issue of whether the Petitioner's observer effectively concealed her con-
duct also requires a remand for further findings by the hearing officer.
APPENDIX
Objection Not Specifically Alleged in the Intervenor's
Objections
This objection alleges that Petitioner's observer at the
Aratex polling site kept a piece of paper in her lap and
made notes or marks on the paper as the voters came to
vote, thus appearing to keep a list of those who cast a
ballot.
Elizabeth Sousa, Petitioner's observer testified that she
did have a paper and pen on the table in front of her
during the voting. She stated that she made a mark for
each employee who voted. (This amounted to more than
100 employees.) She also stated that she kept the paper
folded over so that no one could see what she was doing
and that she only made lines on the paper and did not
write any words. Annie McNeill, Intervenor's observer
testified that she saw Sousa with a pad and pencil during
the voting and that Sousa made marks on the paper as
each employee voted, and then wrote underneath the
marks. McNeil could not read the words as they were in
a language she identified as Spanish. (Sousa testified that
she is Portuguese and cannot write in Spanish.) The
Board Agent apparently was unaware of Sousa's conduct
and McNeil did not bring it to his attention.
It is well settled that election observers are not permit-
ted to make any tally or check list of employees who
have or have not voted. This policy has been strictly en-
forced without any showing of actual interference with
the voting. International Stamping Co. 97 NLRB 921
(1951); Piggly-Wiggly 168 NLRB 792 (1967). In Sound
Refining, Inc. 267 NLRB 1301 (1983) an election observ-
er made a notation next to the name of each voter as
he/she approached to vote. The Board held that the ob-
server was a conspicuous presence at the polls and there
was no evidence of any indication of an attempt by him to
conceal his conduct. This conduct violated the Board's
prohibition against the keeping of any list by election ob-
servers. In fmding that this conduct was not de minimus
the Board noted that the fact that there was no evidence
that any employee witnessed the observer's list keeping
did not detract from its finding a meritorious objection
to the election.
An earlier case, Masonic Homes of California, Inc. 258
NLRB 41 (1981), found that the keeping of a list by an
observer comprised of hash marks and voter's names
during the election warranted setting the election aside.
The Board noted that the list-keeping was done continu-
ously through the morning session and that several em-
ployees observed the list.
Most recently in Cerock Wire & Cable Group, Inc. 273
NLRB 1041 (1984) an election observer had a list of six
names of employees she was to challenge. On the back
of that list the observer kept a tally which bore no names
but consisted solely of hash marks arranged in two un-
identified columns. The observer attempted to conceal
her activity by keeping her arm over the paper. The
Board held that even assuming some voters were aware
of the observer's conduct, the absence of names to which
the hash marks could be related and the failure to label
the columns under which the hash marks were recorded
would make it impossible for them to ascertain the
nature of the tally. The Board held that any breach of its
rules which may have occurred did not constitute
grounds for aside setting the election.
Here as set forth above Sousa undisputably maintained
a count of the voters. She states she counted them by
making lines on the paper. McNeil states Sousa also
wrote words under the lines. However McNeill could
not read the words and there is no evidence that the
words were in fact names. Since Portuguese uses the
English alphabet, if Sousa were writing names and since
McNeill is an employee at the facility it could be as-
sumed that she would recognize some of the names. Fur-
thermore Sousa's tmcontradicted testimony shows that
she made some attempt to conceal from the voters what
she was doing. Thus, based on the fact that there is no
evidence that Sousa's list contained both marks and
names and also that she made an attempt to conceal her
conduct from the voters, I find Petitioner's conduct even
though it is a breach of Board rules, does not warrant
setting aside the election. Cerock Wire & Cable Group,
Inc. supra.
Accordingly, I recommend that Intervenor's Objection
Not Specifically Alleged in the Intervenor's Objections
be overruled.
