Nu-Life Spotless, Inc.

NU-LIFE SPOTLESS, INC. 357 Nu-Life Spotless, Inc. and Drivers, Salesmen, Ware- housemen, Milk Processors, Cannery, Dairy Em- ployees and Helpers Union , Local No. 695, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,' Petitioner and AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 229, af- filiated with the AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry Clean- ing Interntional Union,' Petitioner. Cases 30-RC-2295 and 30-RC-2300 December 6, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW By MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On May 21 , 1974, the Regional Director for Region 30 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding separate units of truckdrivers and production and maintenance em- ployees, as sought by the respective Petitioners. Thereafter , in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that the unit placement of two dual-function employees, Harold Haas and Ted Wegger , in the production and maintenance unit, rather than in the driver unit or both, is not supported by the record . The Teamsters filed a statement in opposition in support of the Re- gional Director's placement of these employees in the production and maintenance unit. By telegraphic order dated June 17, 1974, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board , in denying the request for review, deferred ruling on the resolution of the unit placement of Haas and Wegger, but allowed them to vote challenged ballots in both units with resolution of their unit placement to be made by the Board, after the opening and counting of the other ballots involved herein if either or both of the Petitioners herein had been selected as bargaining representatives in their re- spective unit. The results of the elections conducted June 17 and 18, 1974, showed that the Laundry Workers was not selected bargaining representative in the production and maintenance unit while the Teamsters was selected as bargaining representative in the driver unit and that challenged ballots were not determinative of the re- sults. Nevertheless, in accordance with our prior order, we shall resolve the unit placement of these two dual function employees on the record before us. Hereinafter referred to as Teamsters. 2 Hereinafter referred to as Laundry Workers Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the laundry and dry- cleaning business in the Madison, Wisconsin, met- ropolitan area. It operates out of a main plant whose approximately 55 employees are in the production and maintenance unit. The Employer also employs approxi- mately eight full-time and part-time truckdrivers who pick up and deliver laundry and drycleaning at five separate retail outlets as well as service individual route customers. Harold Haas is a full-time employee who punches in for work at 7 a.m. and works until sometime between 4 and 6 p.m. Production employees work regularly from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. He serves as a route driver, picking up and delivering garments for regular custom- ers at their premises. He estimates that during the past year, he has spent approximately 60 percent of his time engaged in driving. In addition to his driving, he trains new drivers, performs maintenance and repair work on trucks and production equipment at the plant, and when necessary drives a truck to the location of a truck which is broken down on the road and drives to parts suppliers to pick up needed repair parts. He also oper- ates various pieces of production equipment. He is paid at the rate of $2.45 per hour, a rate similar to that paid other drivers whereas 90 percent of the production employees are paid at the rate of $1.90 per hour and like other drivers he does not have a scheduled lunch or break period as production and maintenance em- ployees have. Ted Wegger is also a full-time employee who punch- es in for work at 7 a.m. and works until sometime between 4 and 6 p.m., depending on whether there is need for any special runs. Approximately 50 percent of his time is spent on daily shuttle runs between the plant and the retail outlets, picking up soiled clothing and delivering laundered clothing. In addition to his regu- lar shuttle runs, he is available to and does make special runs. He receives calls from the retail outlets regarding special deliveries and may assign these special runs to other drivers throughout the day. When not engaged in driving, he works at the plant performing such tasks as checking delivery needs, bagging garments for delivery, inspecting and pulling baskets for loading and delivery, and tracing for missing garments. His hourly rate of pay is $2.25 per hour which he receives regardless of whether he is driving or working in the plant. Although he, like production and maintenance employees, has a 215 NLRB No. 61 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD scheduled lunch period, he does not have scheduled break periods. In cases like this, where elections are to be conducted in two units and some employees perform work in both units, they will be placed in the one unit in which their greater community of interest lies.' Based on the foregoing facts, we find that the hours, wages, and working conditions of both Haas and Weg- ger establish that their interests are aligned more closely with those employees in the truckdriver unit than with the employees in the production and mainte- nance unit. Therefore, contrary to the Regional Direc- tor, we shall include them in the drivers unit repre- sented by the Teamsters. Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re- gional Director for the purpose of issuing the appropri- ate certifications in accord with the findings herein. 3 Cf Mrs Karl's Bakery-Division of Interstate Brands Corporation, 214 NLRB No 25 (1974) ^,c.