Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their seniority and other rights and privileges and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. All our employees are free to become , remain, or refrain from becoming or re- maining members of any labor organization, except as that right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. We will not discriminate in regard to the hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment against any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any labor organization. JACKSON TILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Company and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11- RC-1173. July 23, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for certification upon consent election duly executed by the parties an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 15, 1958, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region among the employees in the stipulated unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 46 eligible voters, 22 were for the Petitioner, 16 voted for no union, 1 ballot was void, and 7 cast challenged ballots. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, made an investigation of the issues raised by the challenges, and thereafter, on October 30, 1958, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots, in which he recommended to the Board that the challenges to three ballots be overruled and that if they are not determinative of the results of the election a hearing be ordered an the issues raised by the remaining four challenges. The Board adopted the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director,' and accordingly on Jan- uary 9, 1959, after the three challenged ballots referred to above were opened and counted a revised tally of ballots was issued as follows : 22 for the Petitioner, 19 for no union, 1 void ballot, and 4 unopened challenged ballots. Pursuant to the Board's Order the Regional 1122 NLRB 723. 124 NLRB No. 28. DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 241 Director issued an order directing a hearing on the four unopened challenged ballots. A hearing was held on February 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1959, before John H. Fenton, hearing officer. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. On April 17, 1959, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties his report and recommendations, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he found that the four employees in question who cast challenged ballots were supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, he recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained and that the ballots not be opened or counted. The Em- ployer filed timely exceptions to the hearing officer's report. The Board 2 has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report, the + mployer's exceptions thereto and supporting brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the hearing officer to the extent noted below. We agree with the hearing officer's finding that Wallace Bowling and E. H. Bowling, route managers, responsibly direct in a nonroutine manner the work of driver-salesmen and for the reasons stated in his attached report are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We therefore sustain the challenges to their ballots.' As a determination of the challenges to the ballots of Brice Fonvielle, checker, and W. W. Riddle, production manager, could not affect the results of the elec- tion, we do not find it necessary to consider their status and conse- quently do not pass upon the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the hearing officer in regard to their two challenges. Ac- cordingly, as the revised tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast in the election, including the unresolved two challenged ballots, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representa- tive and selected by a majority of the employes in the unit heretofore found appropriate by the Board in its Decision, Direction, and Order, issued on December 29, 1958.] 2 Pursuant 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. See West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co., 122 NLRB 738. 525543-60-vol. 124-17 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHALLENGED BALLOTS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, entered into by and between the Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Company, hereinafter called the Employer, and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Petitioner, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region on October 15, 1958, among certain employees of the Employer. At the conclusion of the election each party was furnished a tally of ballots showing that of approximately 46 eligible voters, 22 cast valid votes for the Petitioner, 16 cast valid votes against repre- sentation by the Petitioner, 7 cast challenged ballots, and 1 cast a void ballot. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on October 30, 1958, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenges. He recommended that the challenges to the ballots of Garage Mechanic W. C. Riddle, Promotion Manager O. C. Man- gum, and Bottle Inspector Thelma Riddle be overruled, He further recommended that, in the event these ballots were not determinative, the Board direct a hearing for the purpose of resolving the conflict in evidence concerning the challenges to the ballots of the remaining employees: Route Managers E. H. and Wallace Bowling, Checker Brice Fonvielle, and Production Manager W. W. Riddle. The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. On December 29, 1958, the Board issued and served upon the parties its Decision, Direction, and Order, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director. The Board further ordered that, in the event a hearing was held, the hearing officer designated for the purpose of conducting the hearing prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the disposition of said challenges. Pursuant to this Decision, Direction, and Order, the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, on January 14, 1959, issued and served upon the parties a notice of hearing on challenged ballots, directing that a hearing be held in accordance with the said Order of the Board, on February 2, 1959, at Durham, North Carolina. The hearing was held before the hearing officer, duly designated for that purpose, on February 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Petitioner, the Employer, and counsel for the Regional Director appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. Upon the entire record in the case, from his observations of the witnesses, and after examination of all exhibits and careful consideration of arguments and the brief submitted by the Employer, the hearing officer makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (1) Background: the Employer's operation, physical establishment, employee complement, and supervisory hierarchy The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the bottling, sale, and dis- tribution of Coca-Cola in and about Durham, North Carolina. Its gross sales are approximately $700,000 annually. Its three managing officials are W. K. Rand, Sr., president; Kenan Rand, Jr., vice president in charge of sales and production; and Hubert Rand, market manager. The extent of W. K. Rand, Sr.'s participation is not clear. Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that Rand, Senior, worked about 5 hours, per day, that he made final decisions on such matters as the purchase of new equip- ment, and that important policy matters are cleared with him. However, Rand. Senior, is 82 years old, and the Employer concedes that the Petitioner was requested to deal with Hubert Rand and Kenan Rand, Jr., and their attorney, rather than with W. K. Rand, Sr. In addition, Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that Rand, Senior, has delegated the actual supervision of employees in the unit to Hubert and himself. Thus, it is the Employer's contention that all supervisory authority over the unit employees is actually exercised by only Hubert Rand and W. K. Rand, Jr. Hubert is primarily charged with responsibility for coin route sales, cooler sales, and adver- tising. Kenan Rand, Jr., is primarily responsible for regular route sales and pro- duction. The bookkeeping and office clericals are supervised by W. K. Rand, Sr., and Kenan Rand, Jr. All hiring is done by Hubert Rand, after con"ultation with the other two. The Employer's physical establishment is composed of three 'buildings. The main plant, housing the production facilities and offices has two stories. The main DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY- 243 section is rectangular, and approximately 100 by 50 feet. In addition there is a triangular section which measures about 50 by 40 by 60 feet. Only the rectangular. part has a second story. The shipping and receiving docks, the production depart- ment, storage space, and the office of W. K. Rand, Sr., are on the first floor. The second floor houses the offices of Hubert Rand, Kenan Rand, Jr., the cashier, book- keeper and stenographer, and additional storage space. Across the street behind the main plant is the garage for the maintenance and repair of the Employer's vehicles. The third building, or "old plant" is completely across town, and houses the advertising cooler departments. There are approximately 42 employees in the stipulated unit, not including the 4 in question here. The production department has a complement of nine employees, including Production Manager W. W. Riddle, whose status is here contested. The garage department includes W. C. Riddle, the mechanic, and a lesser skilled em- ployee. The challenge to the former's ballot was overruled. The advertising department is under Advertising Manager H. L. Blevins and includes a sign painter and one other employee. Blevins voted without challenge. The cooler department includes Cooler Manager Leroy Cooley and two other employees. Cooley was. also permitted to vote without challenge. The coin route department includes four salesmen and one helper. It is directly managed, or supervised, by Hubert Rand. The loading and shipping department includes Checker Brice Fonvielle, whose ballot is challenged, and four platform employees. The regular route sales department is divided into two groups of six salesmen and one group manager each. It also includes two salesmen-in-training, or relief drivers. The ballots of the group managers, E. H. and Wallace Bowling, are challenged. There is also a promotion department under O. C. Mangum, promotion manager, who generally works alone. The challenge to his ballot was overruled. All of the various managers, including the individuals in dispute, are paid straight salaries. The same is true of the relief drivers. The balance of the employees in the unit are paid by the hour, and receive time and one-half for overtime, except the salesmen, who receive $20 per week plus 6 cents a case commission. All em- ployees receive the same hospitalization and life insurance benefits, and the same vacations. All receive an annual bonus, determined by the Rands, and based upon length of service, performance, and degree of responsibility exercised. None of the alleged supervisors possesses the authority to hire, discipline, or discharge. Each of them testified without contradiction that he has no power effectively to recommend changes in the employment status of the men under his direction. They do have authority to grant time off for periods of up to one-half day if, in their judgment, the employee can be spared.' In the absence of such unequivocal indicia of super- visory status, resolution of the issues herein requires a nice weighing of the duties and responsibilities of each disputed individual to determine whether he responsibly directs in a nonroutine manner the employees assertedly under his control. One factor which the Board has consistently deemed highly persuasive in the ultimate determination of supervisory issues, particularly where they are close, is the ratio of supervisors to rank-and-file employees. Exclusion of the disputed cate- gories here would result in what appears to the hearing officer to be a highly dis- proportionate ratio. As noted above, the Employer concedes that there are only two men, Hubert Rand and Kenan Rand, Jr., who actually exercise supervisory authority over the approximately 46 employees in the unit. Some 18 of these are drivers, or relief men, and are regularly on the road. In Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Works, Inc., 117 NLRB 1163, 1178, the Trial Examiner rejected a contention that a ratio of 12 supervisors to 58 drivers, or approximately 1:5, was excessively high. He noted that, in the soft drink industry, an abnormally large number of supervisors is required for drivers because they spend most of their time on the road, and their performance can be checked only by accompanying them on the route. The hearing officer subscribes to this finding, and rejects the contrary testimony of Kenan Rand, Jr. He testified that he made no effort to check upon the drivers' performance by simply asking the route managers, but rather did so,by their sales records, personal observation, and contact with customers. However, Route Manager Wallace Bowling admitted that Rand, Junior, did "usually" ask him how new salesmen were doing, and, at times, how regular salesmen were performing. In this instance as well as others, the hearing officer had the very distinct impression that Kenan Rand, Jr.,. 1 Kenan Rand, Jr., testified that the other managers who were included in the unit were given the same instructions regarding this limited authority to grant time off. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was making a studied effort to minimize the responsibilities and authority of the individuals in dispute .2 (2) The status of Route Manager Wallace Bowling Wallace Bowling has a group of six salesmen. He also has access to two relief drivers. He works approximately the same hours as the salesmen, but in addition works some Saturdays and special events. His salary is somewhat higher than the earnings of the drivers. He wears a uniform, like the drivers, which is sold by the Employer for half of cost. He estimates that 95 percent of his time is spent out on the routes, either substituting for salesmen or assisting them, or training new drivers. It takes about 6 weeks to train a salesman. Bowling knows each route intimately, and therefore is able to substitute for missing drivers with ease. He has been with the Employer for 27 years. He regularly rides with each driver, assisting him as a helper would, and checking upon his manner of operating the route, dealing with customers, and handling the stock, coolers, and advertising materials. Where needed, he makes "suggestions" for improvement, and handles customer complaints. He checks behind the salesmen to see if such suggestions are carried out. He expects them to be followed, and would report a failure to do so to Kenan Rand, Jr., with arecommendation that the individual be corrected. However, he cannot discipline. From time to time Kenan Rand, Jr., solicits his judgment on how the salesmen are performing, and he usually asks him how new drivers are doing.3 Bowling may use his own judgment in deciding whether to assign a particular relief driver, or salesman-in-training to a given route. However he testified that he would leave this to Kenan Rand, Jr., in all but very clear cases. He does not make adjustments in routes, but it consulted by Rand, Junior, as is the affected driver, before decision is made by Rand, Junior. Morning sales meetings are held approximately three times a week. They last about 15 minutes and Wallace Bowling generally presides. If he does not, Kenan Rand, Jr., does. These meetings concern inside advertising materials and methods, and instruction in sales techniques. Sometimes movies are shown. One of the Rands outlines the subject matter to Bowling the afternoon before the meeting, and he then "relays" the information or instruction. There is general discussion of sales methods and problems. These meetings are not a forum for the discussion of em- ployment complaints or grievances. As noted above, Bowling may grant several hours' time off. If a salesman needs assistance, Bowling can assign a helper to him, if available, or provide the needed assistance himself. Customer complaints are taken to the group manager by the driver, before any action is taken. On the basis of this evidence the hearing officer finds that Wallace Bowling re- sponsibly directs the work of the salesmen. He trains them, regularly accompanies them on their routes for the purpose of checking upon their performance and suggest- ing methods of improvement, and has limited authority to make assignments and to grant time off. While it is true that the drivers ordinarily require little supervision and that their commissions constitute an incentive for good job performance, Bowling clearly is responsible for the success of their operations, and does accompany them on trips and presides at meetings, for the purpose of providing guidance and acquaint- ing them with the Employer's policies .4 Further, Bowling provides the only regular supervision which the salesmen in his group receive. Their contacts with the Rands are infrequent, and there is no evidence that they receive any direction from them except at meetings. It would seem unrealistic under these circumstances, and par- ticularly in view of the abnormally low ratio of supervisors to employees which would otherwise result, to hold that Bowling is not a supervisor.5 2In 1.950 the Board, in an unreported decision (34-RC-205; Employer's Exhibit No. A), found that the classifications here in dispute were nonsupervisory. Notwithstanding evidence that the 'duties have not changed, the hearing officer does not consider that decision dispositive, since the instant record is a much more complete one than that presented to the Board in Employer's Exhibit No. B. 3 Bowling believes he has the right to make recommendations. However, Rand, Junior, investigated the matter during the one serious case of recommending correction which Bowling recalls (Charles Staples), and Rand, Junior, denies that Bowling can make effective recommendations, or that he would even consult with Bowling regarding the work performance of salesmen in his group. 4 In this connection, the award of prizes to group managers upon the basis of group performance would indicate that the quality of their leadership is a significant factor. 5 See Gen Pro, Inc., 110 NLRB 12. DURHAM COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY 245 (3) The status of Route Manager E. H. Bowling E. H. Bowling's duties are admittedly identical to those of Wallace Bowling, ex- cept that he does not conduct the morning sales meetings. He does, however, hold meetings with his own group from time to time, for much the same purpose. He was, in the hearing officer's opinion, a good deal less candid than Wallace Bowling in testifying to the extent of his authority and responsibilities. It was the hearing officer's distinct impression that E. H. Bowling made a deliberate attempt to equate a route manager's position to that of a helper's,6 i.e., to eschew any authority to do more than assist the salesmen, to make helpful suggestions, and to replace them when absent. It is not insignificant that, when Bowling was asked whether he would make "suggestions" to Mr. Kenan Rand, Jr., he replied that he would not, that the latter gives the orders. The hearing officer would discredit E. H. Bowling's denial of authority and responsibility. Bowling admits that he can, on his own, make substitutions for absentees when not forewarned in time to clear it with Kenan Rand, Jr. He would report disregard of his suggestions to salesmen if he deemed it important enough. While there is some dis- pute whether his "suggestions" are orders, disobedience is extremely rare. Driver Sheldon Hill testified that Bowling rides with him about once a month, and tells him what, if anything, needs to be done in order to more effectively promote sales. Customer complaints are handled by Bowling, or at least the affected driver clears such complaints with Bowling before handling them. It is the hearing officer's conclusion that E. H. Bowling is also a supervisor. Clearly his authority and responsibility are of a very minor nature. Nevertheless, he does grant time off, select relief drivers and helpers, and regularly rides with the members of his group for the purpose of checking their work and suggesting methods of improvement. A salesman, once trained, does not require a demanding boss, since his pay will reflect the effort and competence of his performance. However it is clear that current familiarity with each route is not the only reason for Bowling's practice of accompanying the salesmen: he gives them the benefit of his greater ex- perience in handling problems. Indeed, where judgment is required, as in the case of complaints from cutomers, the salesman must turn the matter over to Bowling. The hearing officer finds that E. H. Bowling, like Wallace Bowling, does responsibly direct his subordinates in a non-routine manner, and is a supervisor. While this issue seems particularly close, a contrary finding would mean that the salesmen are ef- fectively supervised only by Hubert Rand or Kenan Rand, Jr., men with whom they have infrequent on-the-job contact, and from whom they receive little direction beyond that provided at meetings? (4) The status of Checker Brice Fonvielle Brice Fonvielle has been employed by the Employer for 23 years. He works 45 to 50 hours a week and is paid a straight salary. He earns "twice as much or more" than the four platform workers under his direction. They are hourly paid, and receive time and one-half. As noted above, he receives the same fringe benefits as the other employees, except that his bonus is larger. He has a desk in the sales- room. Fonvielle's principal duty is to check trucks, counting the number of full or empty cases during loading and unloading, and to see that the platform area is clean and free of fire hazard, that his men are present, and that their work is done. He also handles special events, assigning the appropriate employees and seeing that the Coca-Cola is dispatched and delivered as ordered. On occasion he borrows employees from the production department. He grants up to 4 hours off, checking to see that the requesting employee punches the time clock (he does not punch the clock himself), and checks on absenteeism. About three-quarters of his time is spent in actually counting or moving cases.8 Most of the balance is used in checking records. Very little of his time is spent in actually directing the work of the platform employees. The platform procedure is outlined and well known to them. Each has specific jobs to do when not either loading or unloading trucks, and Fonvielle simply tells them to start or to stop loading and corrects them if they do anything wrong. Fonvielle also takes special orders, where it is necessary to inform the sales- men, while out on the route, to make unscheduled deliveries. Fonvielle has the additional duty of assigning overtime to E. E. Jenette, a coin route helper. Jenette works approximately 8 hours' overtime each week, on a volun- Transcript page 562. See Pearl Packing Company, 116 NLRB 1489. e Platform employee Edward Petty testified that Fonvielle does little manual labor. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tary basis, after, completing his work on the routes. He reports to Fonvielle if he wishes work, and Fonvielle has authority to assign it if, in his judgment, Jenette .can be used to good advantage. Fonvielle also trains new salesmen-trainees in platform procedures, and the proper handling of cases and loading of trucks. Kenan Rand, Jr., informed the platform workers that Fonvielle would be "in charge" when the latter became checker. Fonvielle has informed all the platform employees that he cannot get them raises. However, Kenan Rand, Jr., does ques- tion him on the performance of platform employees and has asked him whether particular employees were worthy of raises.9 Fonvielle's responsibility for the correct and proper loading of trucks; his training of new employees; his giving of such limited instruction as the nature of the work requires; his authority, upon his own judgment, to assign work to Jenette, and to grant up to 4 hours' time off; his substantially greater rate of pay; and the absence of evidence of any other immediate supervision of platform employees, convince the hearing officer that Fonvielle is a supervisor.10 (5) The status of Production Manager W. W. Riddle Riddle is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Employer's highly automatic and complicated mixing and bottling machines, and for maintaining uniform quality in the bottled product. He is a trained mechanic and has one assist- ant mechanic (Lee Wallace) in his group. He and Wallace are on straight salaries. The other seven employees in the production crew are hourly paid and receive time and one-half for overtime. The hourly paid employees make from $1 to $1.26 per hour. Wallace makes about $10 a week more than the highest hourly rated em- ployee, and Riddle makes $10 per week more than Wallace. His bonus is $100 more than Wallace's and Wallace gets about $50 more than any employee of equal service. All employees work the same hours, and all but Riddle and Wallace punch the clock. All receive the same "fringe" benefits, and work the same hours. When the plant is in production Riddle calculates the amounts of chemicals needed for water treatment, the amounts of syrup, soda, and water needed for Coca-Cola. He then instructs employees in the proper amounts to be added. He spends most of his time in regularly checking, adjusting and/or servicing the electric eyes, re- frigeration units, water heating equipment, chemical tanks, and carbonation level. About 21/2 hours of his regular 9-hour day are devoted to relieving the bottle in- spector and the filler operator. He testified that no more than a few minutes is spent in actually directing the work of other employees. The machinery is so set that each man must competently perform his assigned task or it will not operate. Thus every man knows his relatively simple job and knows that he must keep pace with the machine to avoid disruption of production. If the machinery is shut down, it immediately comes to the attention of Kenan Rand, Jr., whose office is upstairs. When not supervising production, or engaged in mechanical maintenance or repair, Riddle directs the production crew in unloading shipments of syrup or other material, and empty cases. This occurs once a week. He simply tells the men where to take materials, and helps unload himself, sometimes driving the forklift. Riddle grants time off for short periods. In case of absenteeism, he can select a platform employee to assist in production. When other departments request per- sonnel he decides which employees to assign. He understands that the men in his department take instructions from him, and was told that he was "boss" when put in charge in 1946. However, he is aware that he cannot discipline and testified he would get Kenan Rand, Jr., were his instructions disregarded. He also testified he would "correct" employees who abused the machinery. On one occasion em- ployee Chester McKinnon was discharged after Riddle reported his negligent han- dling of a forklift. It appears however, that Kenan Rand, Jr., made an independent investigation of the matter. If the men have any problem on the job they take it to Riddle. Employee Edgar Green is assigned to other jobs outside the plant, in order to make at least 45 hours every week. He testified that the assignment is made by Riddle. On this evidence the hearing officer finds that Riddle responsibly directs the work of the production crew. The high degree of automation removes the need for 9 This evidence, like similar evidence as to Wallace Bowling, contradicts Kenan Rand, Jr.'s, testimony that he does not seek such information, or recommendations, from the challenged individuals. It, too, persuades the hearing officer that Kenan Rand, Jr., can- not be fully credited. 11 See The Illinois Canning Co., 120 NLRB 669 ; Bordo Products Company, 117 NLRB 313. UP-TO-DATE LAUNDRY, INC. , 247 frequent direction, • since the employees know their relatively simple jobs and must keep pace with the machines. Nevertheless, Riddle daily gives instruction in such matters as the amounts of caustic soda and other ingredients to be added to the tanks, and directs Wallace in the maintenance and service of highly complex ma- chinery, matters which clearly seem nonroutine. In addition, he has limited au- thority to grant time off, must tell the employees what to do when not in production, can assign employees to other departments or borrow them from other departments, and would correct them if need be. He is paid substantially more than his sub- ordinates. There is no evidence that any admitted supervisor actually directs the work of production employees, except on rare occasions. For all these reasons, the hearing officer concludes that Riddle is a supervisor. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Having found that Wallace Bowling, E. H. Bowling, Brice Fonvielle, and W. W. Riddle are supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, it is recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained. Up-to-Date Laundry, Inc.' and AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union , Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2696. July 24, 1959 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 Lawrence S. Wescott, hear- ing 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer contends that it is engaged solely in a retail busi- ness, that its operations do not meet the Board's retail standards for asserting jurisdiction, and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. The record discloses that the Employer performs a significant part of its laundry and dry cleaning work for trading establishments of vari- ous kinds; institutions; industrial, commercial and professional users; and governmental bodies. The Board has found that this type of work is wholesale in nature.' Furthermore, where, as here, an Em- ployer is engaged in both retail and nonretail activities, the Board applies its nonretail jurisdictional standards.3 The Employer also contends that even if its business is considered to be nonretail it does not meet the Board's current jurisdictional standards. We do not agree. The record reveals that the Employer furnished services valued at over $60,000 to various steamship lines whose operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards. Accord- 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. s J. S. Latta f Son, 114 NLRB 1248, 1249. 3 Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB '543. 124 NLRB No. 30.