Revonah Spinning Mills, Inc.

REVONAH SPINNING MILLS 421 Revonah Spinning Mills, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 4-RC-7736 February 12, 1969 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 15, 1968, by the Regional Director for Region 4 in the stipulated unit. After the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 641 eligible voters, 599 cast ballots, of which 285 were for, and 307 were against the Petitioner, 3 ballots were challenged, and 4 were void. The challenged ballots were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on July 29, 1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his report and recommendations on objections to the election, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled in their entirety. The Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the report, and the Employer filed a memorandum in support of the Regional Director's findings, conclusions, and recommendation. On November 22, 1968, the Board issued an order' remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for further investigation in accordance with its instructions. Following such further investigation, the Regional Director, on December 18, 1968, issued and duly served upon the parties his supplemental report on objections. No exceptions to his supplemental report, and no briefs, were filed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the Not published in NLRB volumes. purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties have agreed that the unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act is: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's East Middle Street and Blettner Avenue (Malcolm Spinning Mills) mills, Hanover, Pennsylvania, including all shipping and receiving employees, plant clerical employees, and firemen, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Director's Report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, the Employer's memorandum in support thereof, and the Regional Director's supplemental report, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Regional Director.2 Accordingly, as we have overruled all the objections and as the tally of ballots shows that the Petitioner did not receive a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid votes in the election held on May 15, 1968, has not been cast for United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and that said labor organizations is not the exclusive representative of employees in the unit found appropriate, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, as amended. 'In The Food Mart , 158 NLRB 1294, cited by the Regional Director, some employees, contrary to the employer's past practice , were reimbursed for transportation costs incurred in attending an employer -sponsored party, those who missed work were paid for 3 hours , and those not scheduled were paid 3 hours at the overtime rate The Regional Director herein correctly points out that the Board in Food Mart did not find a violation of Section 8(a)(1) in that conduct, however, the Board did set aside the election there In the instant case, the Employer waived the charge of $1 which it customarily charges for attendance at parties of the sort it here sponsored It did not , however, pay transportation costs, or for time off (the party spanned a period of time designed to allow employees from all shifts to attend ), and no campaign speeches or discussions took place during the course of the party. Further, there was some reason to charge for past affairs , as they were traditionally held at times when not all employees could attend We find that the "waiver" of the $1 charge here was not such a benefit that could reasonably be found designed to impair the voting choice of the unit employees , and cannot be compared to the substantial benefits granted the employees in Food Mart