Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners

294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the Employer's objections and exceptions do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct or results of the election, and they are hereby overruled. As the tally shows that a majority of the valid votes have been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified united Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Lincoln Plastics Corporation in the unit found to be appropriate.] Ili rlu,R LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners and Laundry Workers Inter- national Union, Local 197, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 19-RC- 16044. April 19,196:; DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELIWTION Upon a petition duly filed tinder Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Oliver E. Kearns, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-lnenlber panel [Cbalrman Farmer and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' 'At the hearing the Ilutplo}er ilaoned to dutniss the petition on the ground that the Board would not assert jurisdiction o%er the Emplo.Ner under its recently announced Juris- dictional standards On March C 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Order finding that the employer had contributed support and assistance to the petitioner in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) and ordering llie employer to cease from recognizing the petitioner as bargaining Iepresentative for an.N of its emplo}(PS unless and until the petitioner shall be certified by the Board. On September 23, 1953, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- caul enforced the Board's cider See Hari e, Stoller d/b/a Richland Lanndrif and Dry Cleaners, 93 NLRI; 680, enfd 207 F 2d 305 (C A. 9), cert denied 347 TI S 919, petition for rehearing denied 347 IT S 958 In the prior proceeding the Board assented juiisdic- tion solely on the ground that the employer's place of business was located on an atomic energy reservation since the issuance of this decision, the Board has revised its juris- dictional standards and under piesent policy would not assent jurisdiction here How- ever, the Board's order in this case, issued in 1951, vcas proper Mica made and has been enforced by court decree For the reasons set out in C'o(a-Cola Bottluxq Company of Stockton, 110 NLRB 840, the Enaplote1 s motion to dismiss the petition lieicin is denied. 112 NLRB No. 58 F. M. REEVES AND SONS, INC. 295 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Rich- land, Washington, places of operation, including counter employees s and plant clerical employees' but excluding office clerical employees, truckdrivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Teamsters, warehousemen, Garage Employees and Helpers, Local 839, AFL, inter- vened at the hearing but does not desire to appear on the ballot 'The counter employees work at the Employer's various substations They wait on customers, who deliyei and call for laundn5 and cleaning at these branches At the Em- ployer s main plant, entplu3ee 1.i1han Nance spends a substantial portion of her time per- forming the duties of i counter girl, and also perlonis some office clot ical- dtities She is paid at the same rate a nd is apparentlj under the sanie supeivision as the counter em- ployees We include Inn nn the unit i lllanch Moss perform, clen(al duties i elated to the production open ations In agree- ment with the parties, ae find her to he 71 plant clerical employee and include her in the unit F. M. Reeves and Sons, Inc. and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 492, AFL, Petitioner. Case 11'0. 33-RC-500. April 19,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hudson , hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with ibis case to a three-member panel [Chairman Farmer and Members Murdock and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' 1 The Employer contends the Board should not assert jurisdiction over its Roswell operation in the light of F if Rect,cs and Sons, Inc. 111 NLRB 186, wherein the Board dismissed a representation petition because the Employer's operations did not meet its jurisdiction standards The record now before the Board shows the Employer's Roswell operation sold, under contract, materials valued ',It about $110,000 to contractors perform- ing work at a military installation, the walker An Force Base As the Employer's opera- 112 NLRB No 59.