Mid-Jefferson County Hospital

MID-JEFFERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 831 Lifemark Hospitals of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Jeffer- tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Offi- son County Hospital and Service Employees In- cer's report, contending that five of the individuals ternational Union, Local 706, AFL-CIO, Peti- named above were regular employees and the chal- tioner. Cases 23-RC-4937 and 23-RC-4938 lenges to their ballots should be overruled.4 The December 29, 1981 Hearing Officer based the finding that the employ- ees were casual employees on two facts: first, the DECISION AND DIRECTION employees are not required to work a specific schedule of hours but rather have the discretion to MEM ER ANNIN, ENIN, AN accept or reject assignments without discipline; and, second, the individuals in question do not On April 7, 1981, Hearing Officer Ruben R. Ar- accrue benefits by longevity as do the regular part- mendariz issued a report recommending disposition time employees. of challenges and objections to the elections held We have held in the past that the ability to reject on December 23, 1980.1 work when offered and the receipt of identical Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the benefits are not determinative of an individual's National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- employment status so as to exclude the individual tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- from the unit as a casual employee. Leaders-Na- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. meoki, Inc., 237 NLRB 1269 (1978), and F. P. Pack- The Board has reviewed the record in light of aging, Inc., 236 NLRB 239 (1978). Rather, the indi- the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the vidual's relationship to the job must be examined: Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations, as whether the employee performs unit work and modified below.2 whether the employer has a sufficient regularity of As noted above, the tally of ballots reveals that work to demonstrate a community of interest with 17 ballots were challenged during the election in- the remaining employees in the unit regarding volving Service Employees International Union, wages, hours, and working conditions. System Auto Local 706, AFL-CIO. These challenges included Park & Garages, Inc., 248 NLRB 948 (1980), and F. challenges by the Employer to the ballots cast by P. Packaging, supra. In the instant case, the record Marilyn Kimmey, Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, reveals that the employees in question worked a Glennie Bailey, Jill Benoit, and Nora Varando. In substantial number of hours on a regular basis and his Report and Recommendations on Objections performed the same work under the same condi- and Challenges, the Hearing Officer, finding that tions and supervision as other unit employees. these individuals were employed as casual employ- Thus, these individuals have a substantial communi- ees, sustained the challenges to their ballots.3 Peti- ty of interest with the other members of the unit regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. The elections were conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- We conclude, therefore, that Kimmey, Breaux, tion Upon Consent Election. The tallies of ballots show the following re- ri i n rn r sults: Garcia, Bailey, and Varando were, at the time of Unit "A"-Professional Employees (the Inclusion Question): 10 for the December 23, 1980, election, regular part-time and 8 votes against inclusion with non-professional employees; there employees eligible to vote in the election, and we was I challenged ballot which is insufficient to affect the results on hall overrule the challenges to their ballots. Ac- the inclusion question. Unit "B"-Professional and Non-Professional Employees: 82 for and cordingly, we shall order the Regional Director to 87 votes against the Petitioner; and there were 17 challenged ballots, open and count the ballots of Marilyn Kimmey, a sufficient number to affect the results. Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, Glennie Bailey, and The Employer and the Petitioner have excepted to various credibility findings of the Hearing Officer. It is the established policy of the Board Nora Varando. In his report, the Hearing Officer not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear also found that the Employer, through Supervisor preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the reolu- Barbara Roberts, engaged in coercive interrogation tions are incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961), and Stretch-Tex Ca., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find insufficient basis for disturbing the credibility resolutions schedule. The Employer contends that the employees in question do not in this case. fall within the terms of the stipulation because they are not required to ' In support of the Hearing Officer's finding that six employees should work according to a regular schedule. Contrary to the Employer's con- be excluded from the unit, the Employer further contends that the em- tention, however, the record indicates that the employees in question reg- ployees in question are not covered by the stipulation, defining the appro- ularly receive a schedule of when they are to work for at least some of priate unit, which was entered into by the parties and approved by the their hours. The fact that they may refuse to work the scheduled hours Regional Director. It is well-established Board law that, in stipulated unit or may be called in to work on days they are not scheduled does not cases, the Board's function is to ascertain the parties' intent with regard outweight the fact that a portion of their hours are worked according to to the disputed employees and then to determine whether such intent is a schedule. We therefore conclude that the intent of the parties, as evi- inconsistent with any statutory provision or established Board policy. The denced by the stipulation on its face, was to include the employees in Tribune Company, 190 NLRB 398 (1971). In the instant case, the stipula- question in the unit. tion clearly enumerates that "regularly scheduled part-time employees" in ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt proforma the Hearing various positions are to be included in the unit. On its face, the stipulation Officer's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Jill Benoit be thus includes those part-time employees who work according to a regular sustained 259 NLRB No. 103 MID-JEFFERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 831 Lifemark Hospitals of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Jeffer- tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Offi- son County Hospital and Service Employees In- cer's report, contending that five of the individuals ternational Union, Local 706, AFL-CIO, Peti- named above were regular employees and the chal- tioner. Cases 23-RC-4937 and 23-RC-4938 lenges to their ballots should be overruled.' The December 29, 1981 Hearing Officer based the finding that the employ- ees were casual employees on two facts: first, the DECISION AND DIRECTION employees are not required to work a specific BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND sc h ed u le o f h o u r s b u t r at h e r h a v e t h e d isc re tio n to ZIMMERMAN accept or reject assignments without discipline; and, second, the individuals in question do not On April 7, 1981, Hearing Officer Ruben R. Ar- accrue benefits by longevity as do the regular part- mendariz issued a report recommending disposition time employees. of challenges and objections to the elections held We have held in the past that the ability to reject on December 23, 1980.' work when offered and the receipt of identical Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the benefits are not determinative of an individual's National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- employment status so as to exclude the individual tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- from the unit as a casual employee. Leaders-Na- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. meoki, Inc., 237 NLRB 1269 (1978), and F. P. Pack- The Board has reviewed the record in light of aging, Inc., 236 NLRB 239 (1978). Rather, the indi- the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the vidual's relationship to the job must be examined: Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations, as whether the employee performs unit work and modified below. 2 whether the employer has a sufficient regularity of As noted above, the tally of ballots reveals that work to demonstrate a community of interest with 17 ballots were challenged during the election in- the remaining employees in the unit regarding volving Service Employees International Union, wages, hours, and working conditions. System Auto Local 706, AFL-CIO. These challenges included Park & Garages, Inc., 248 NLRB 948 (1980), and F. challenges by the Employer to the ballots cast by P. Packaging, supra. In the instant case, the record Marilyn Kimmey, Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, reveals that the employees in question worked a Glennie Bailey, Jill Benoit, and Nora Varando. In substantial number of hours on a regular basis and his Report and Recommendations on Objections performed the same work under the same condi- and Challenges, the Hearing Officer, finding that tions and supervision as other unit employees. these individuals were employed as casual employ- Thus, these individuals have a substantial communi- ees, sustained the challenges to their ballots.3 Peti- ty of interest with the other members of the unit regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. *The elections were conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- We Conclude, therefore, that Kimmey, Breaux, tion Upon Consent Election. The tallies of ballots show the following re- n 'i j \r j ^ ti- * r sults:Garcia, Bailey, and Varando were, at the time of Unit "A"--Professional Employees (the Inclusion Question): 10 for the December 23, 1980, election, regular part-time and 8 votes against inclusion with non-professional employees; there employees eligible to vote in the election, and we teincdon 0 whi :> is i nsu ffi c i e n l to aflc t th e inlso °oshall overrule the challenges to their ballots. Ac- Unit "B"-Professional and Non-professional Employees: 82 for and cordingly, we shall order the Regional Director to 87 votes against the Petitioner; and there were 17 challenged ballots., Open and count the ballots of Marilyn Kimmey, a sufficient number to affect the results. Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, Glennie Bailey, and *The Employer and the Petitioner have excepted to various credibility findings of the Hearing Officer. It is the established policy of the Board No r a Varando. In his report, the Hearing Officer not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear also found that the Employer, through Supervisor preponderance ofall the relevant evidence convinces us that the rewrlu- B a r b a r a R o b e rt s, engaged in c o e r c i v e interrogation tions are incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961), and Sirelch-Tex C., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find insufficient basis for disturbing the credibility resolutions schedule. The Employer contends that the employees in question do not in this case. fall within the terms of the stipulation because they are not required to ' In support of the Hearing Officer's finding that six employees should work according to a regular schedule. Contrary to the Employer's con- be excluded from the unit, the Employer further contends that the cm- tention, however, the record indicates that the employees in question reg- ployees in question are not covered by the stipulation, defining the appro- ularly receive a schedule of when they are to work for at least some of priate unit, which was entered into by the parties and approved by the their hours. The fact that they may refuse to work the scheduled hours Regional Director. It is well-established Board law that, in stipulated unit or may be called in to work on days they are not scheduled does not caues, the Board's function is to ascertain the parties' intent with regard outweight the fact that a portion of their hours are worked according to to the disputed employees and then to determine whether such intent is a schedule. We therefore conclude that the intent of the parties, as evi- inconsistent with any statutory provision or established Board policy. The denced by the stipulation on its face, was to include the employees in Tribune Company, 190 NLRB 398 (1971). In the instant case, the stipula- question in the unit. tion clearly enumerates that "regularly scheduled part-time employees" in I In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt proforma the Hearing various positions are to be included in the unit. On its face, the stipulation Officer's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Jill Benoit be thus includes those part-time employees who work according to a regular sustained 259 NLRB No. 103 MID-JEFFERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 831 Lifemark Hospitals of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Jeffer- tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Offi- son County Hospital and Service Employees In- cer's report, contending that five of the individuals ternational Union, Local 706, AFL-CIO, Peti- named above were regular employees and the chal- tioner. Cases 23-RC-4937 and 23-RC-4938 lenges to their ballots should be overruled.' The December 29, 1981 Hearing Officer based the finding that the employ- ees were casual employees on two facts: first, the DECISION AND DIRECTION employees are not required to work a specific BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND sc h ed u le o f h o u r s b u t r at h e r h a v e t h e d isc re tio n to ZIMMERMAN accept or reject assignments without discipline; and, second, the individuals in question do not On April 7, 1981, Hearing Officer Ruben R. Ar- accrue benefits by longevity as do the regular part- mendariz issued a report recommending disposition time employees. of challenges and objections to the elections held We have held in the past that the ability to reject on December 23, 1980.' work when offered and the receipt of identical Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the benefits are not determinative of an individual's National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- employment status so as to exclude the individual tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- from the unit as a casual employee. Leaders-Na- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. meoki, Inc., 237 NLRB 1269 (1978), and F. P. Pack- The Board has reviewed the record in light of aging, Inc., 236 NLRB 239 (1978). Rather, the indi- the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the vidual's relationship to the job must be examined: Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations, as whether the employee performs unit work and modified below. 2 whether the employer has a sufficient regularity of As noted above, the tally of ballots reveals that work to demonstrate a community of interest with 17 ballots were challenged during the election in- the remaining employees in the unit regarding volving Service Employees International Union, wages, hours, and working conditions. System Auto Local 706, AFL-CIO. These challenges included Park & Garages, Inc., 248 NLRB 948 (1980), and F. challenges by the Employer to the ballots cast by P. Packaging, supra. In the instant case, the record Marilyn Kimmey, Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, reveals that the employees in question worked a Glennie Bailey, Jill Benoit, and Nora Varando. In substantial number of hours on a regular basis and his Report and Recommendations on Objections performed the same work under the same condi- and Challenges, the Hearing Officer, finding that tions and supervision as other unit employees. these individuals were employed as casual employ- Thus, these individuals have a substantial communi- ees, sustained the challenges to their ballots.3 Peti- ty of interest with the other members of the unit regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. *The elections were conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- We Conclude, therefore, that Kimmey, Breaux, tion Upon Consent Election. The tallies of ballots show the following re- n 'i j \r j ^ ti- * r sults: Garcia, Bailey, and Varando were, at the time of Unit "A"--Professional Employees (the Inclusion Question): 10 for the December 23, 1980, election, regular part-time and 8 votes against inclusion with non-professional employees; there employees eligible to vote in the election, and we teincdon 0 whi :> is i nsu ffi c i e n l to aflc t th e inlso °oshall overrule the challenges to their ballots. Ac- Unit "B"-Professional and Non-professional Employees: 82 for and cordingly, we shall order the Regional Director to 87 votes against the Petitioner; and there were 17 challenged ballots., Open and count the ballots of Marilyn Kimmey, a sufficient number to affect the results. Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, Glennie Bailey, and *The Employer and the Petitioner have excepted to various credibility findings of the Hearing Officer. It is the established policy of the Board Nora Varando. In his report, the Hearing Officer not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear also found that the Employer, through Supervisor preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the rewlu- B a r b a r a R o b e rt s, engaged in c o e r c i v e interrogation tions are incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961), and Sirelch-Tex C., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find insufficient basis for disturbing the credibility resolutions schedule. The Employer contends that the employees in question do not in this case. fall within the terms of the stipulation because they are not required to ' In support of the Hearing Officer's finding that six employees should work according to a regular schedule. Contrary to the Employer's con- be excluded from the unit, the Employer further contends that the cm- tention, however, the record indicates that the employees in question reg- ployees in question are not covered by the stipulation, defining the appro- ularly receive a schedule of when they are to work for at least some of priate unit, which was entered into by the parties and approved by the their hours. The fact that they may refuse to work the scheduled hours Regional Director. It is well-established Board law that, in stipulated unit or may be called in to work on days they are not scheduled does not caues, the Board's function is to ascertain the parties' intent with regard outweight the fact that a portion of their hours are worked according to to the disputed employees and then to determine whether such intent is a schedule. We therefore conclude that the intent of the parties, as evi- inconsistent with any statutory provision or established Board policy. The denced by the stipulation on its face, was to include the employees in Tribune Company, 190 NLRB 398 (1971). In the instant case, the stipula- question in the unit. tion clearly enumerates that "regularly scheduled part-time employees" in I In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt proforma the Hearing various positions are to be included in the unit. On its face, the stipulation Officer's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Jill Benoit be thus includes those part-time employees who work according to a regular sustained 259 NLRB No. 103 MID-JEFFERSON COUNTY HOSPITAL 831 Lifemark Hospitals of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Mid-Jeffer- tioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing Offi- son County Hospital and Service Employees In- cer's report, contending that five of the individuals ternational Union, Local 706, AFL-CIO, Peti- named above were regular employees and the chal- tioner. Cases 23-RC-4937 and 23-RC-4938 lenges to their ballots should be overruled.' The December 29, 1981 Hearing Officer based the finding that the employ- ees were casual employees on two facts: first, the DECISION AND DIRECTION employees are not required to work a specific BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND sc h ed u le o f h o u r s b u t r at h e r h a v e t h e d isc re tio n to ZIMMERMAN accept or reject assignments without discipline; and, second, the individuals in question do not On April 7, 1981, Hearing Officer Ruben R. Ar- accrue benefits by longevity as do the regular part- mendariz issued a report recommending disposition time employees. of challenges and objections to the elections held We have held in the past that the ability to reject on December 23, 1980.' work when offered and the receipt of identical Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the benefits are not determinative of an individual's National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- employment status so as to exclude the individual tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- from the unit as a casual employee. Leaders-Na- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. meoki, Inc., 237 NLRB 1269 (1978), and F. P. Pack- The Board has reviewed the record in light of aging, Inc., 236 NLRB 239 (1978). Rather, the indi- the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the vidual's relationship to the job must be examined: Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations, as whether the employee performs unit work and modified below. 2 whether the employer has a sufficient regularity of As noted above, the tally of ballots reveals that work to demonstrate a community of interest with 17 ballots were challenged during the election in- the remaining employees in the unit regarding volving Service Employees International Union, wages, hours, and working conditions. System Auto Local 706, AFL-CIO. These challenges included Park & Garages, Inc., 248 NLRB 948 (1980), and F. challenges by the Employer to the ballots cast by P. Packaging, supra. In the instant case, the record Marilyn Kimmey, Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, reveals that the employees in question worked a Glennie Bailey, Jill Benoit, and Nora Varando. In substantial number of hours on a regular basis and his Report and Recommendations on Objections performed the same work under the same condi- and Challenges, the Hearing Officer, finding that tions and supervision as other unit employees. these individuals were employed as casual employ- Thus, these individuals have a substantial communi- ees, sustained the challenges to their ballots.3 Peti- ty of interest with the other members of the unit regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. *The elections were conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certifica- We Conclude, therefore, that Kimmey, Breaux, tion Upon Consent Election. The tallies of ballots show the following re- n 'i j \r j ^ ti- * r sults: Garcia, Bailey, and Varando were, at the time of Unit "A"--Professional Employees (the Inclusion Question): 10 for the December 23, 1980, election, regular part-time and 8 votes against inclusion with non-professional employees; there employees eligible to vote in the election, and we teincdon 0 whi :> is i nsu ffi c i e n l to aflc t th e inlso °oshall overrule the challenges to their ballots. Ac- Unit "B"-Professional and Non-professional Employees: 82 for and cordingly, we shall order the Regional Director to 87 votes against the Petitioner; and there were 17 challenged ballots., Open and count the ballots of Marilyn Kimmey, a sufficient number to affect the results. Susan Breaux, Carol Garcia, Glennie Bailey, and *The Employer and the Petitioner have excepted to various credibility findings of the Hearing Officer. It is the established policy of the Board Nora Varando. In his report, the Hearing Officer not to overrule a hearing officer's credibility resolutions unless the clear also found that the Employer, through Supervisor preponderance ofall the relevant evidence convinces us that the rewrlu- B a r b a r a R o b e rt s, engaged in c o e r c i v e interrogation tions are incorrect. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, 132 NLRB 481, 483 (1961), and Sirelch-Tex C., 118 NLRB 1359, 1361 (1957). We find insufficient basis for disturbing the credibility resolutions schedule. The Employer contends that the employees in question do not in this case. fall within the terms of the stipulation because they are not required to ' In support of the Hearing Officer's finding that six employees should work according to a regular schedule. Contrary to the Employer's con- be excluded from the unit, the Employer further contends that the cm- tention, however, the record indicates that the employees in question reg- ployees in question are not covered by the stipulation, defining the appro- ularly receive a schedule of when they are to work for at least some of priate unit, which was entered into by the parties and approved by the their hours. The fact that they may refuse to work the scheduled hours Regional Director. It is well-established Board law that, in stipulated unit or may be called in to work on days they are not scheduled does not caues, the Board's function is to ascertain the parties' intent with regard outweight the fact that a portion of their hours are worked according to to the disputed employees and then to determine whether such intent is a schedule. We therefore conclude that the intent of the parties, as evi- inconsistent with any statutory provision or established Board policy. The denced by the stipulation on its face, was to include the employees in Tribune Company, 190 NLRB 398 (1971). In the instant case, the stipula- question in the unit. tion clearly enumerates that "regularly scheduled part-time employees" in I In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt proforma the Hearing various positions are to be included in the unit. On its face, the stipulation Officer's recommendation that the challenge to the ballot of Jill Benoit be thus includes those part-time employees who work according to a regular sustained 259 NLRB No. 103 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which entire department, held by Roberts, during which gio23 shall director and supervise she stated that, if the Union won the election, the Diector for Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- the elect i subect to the Boad s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times to vote are those in the unt who were employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of before the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia or reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.5 Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that s [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the lector ior Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the p^ 0 11 p6 "^ ^ding immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the lector ior Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the lector ior Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the tor/or Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the tor/or Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.) 832 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employee Cheryl Shockey. The Employer ex- the revised tally of ballots shows that Petitioner cepted to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that has received a majority of the valid ballots cast, these acts interfered with the conduct of the elec- the Regional Director shall issue the appropriate tion and therefore the election should be set aside. certification of representative. We agree with the Hearing Officer. In so doing, In the event that the revised tally of ballots however, we rely not only on the above-noted mis- shows that Petitioner has not received a majority conduct of Supervisor Roberts, but also on the fact of the valid ballots cast, a second election by secret that, based on the credited testimony of Shockey, ballot shall be conducted among the employees in Supervisor Roberts engaged in additional miscon- the unit found appropriate, at such time as the Re- duct. This misconduct occurred at a meeting of the gn D, appropriate. The Regional entire department, held by Roberts, during which re for Region 23 11 dr an spri she stated that, if the Union won the election, the tor/or Region 23 shall direct and supervise employees would have to start punching a time- t h evo e ct 0ar s u b je c t t o the Board s rules. Eligible clock and take breaks at certain specified times t o v o t e a r e t h o s e ln t h e u n r t w h o w er e employed during the day. These remarks-directed to the during the payroll period ending immediately entire department-constituted a threatened loss of b e fo r e the date of issuance of the Notice of Second privileges and changes in working conditions in the Election, including employees who did not work event of a union victory. This conduct, together during that period because they were ill, on vaca- with the coercive interrogation of Shockey, clearly tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em- warrants setting aside the election and directing ployees engaged in an economic strike which com- that a second election be held, if Petitioner fails to menced less than 12 months before the election receive a majority of the valid ballots cast in the date and who retained their status as such during election conducted on December 23, 1980. the eligibility period and their replacements. Those DIRECTION in the military services of the United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible It is hereby directed that the Regional Director to vote are employees who have quit or been dis- for Region 23, pursuant to the Board's Rules and charged for cause since the designated payroll Regulations, Series 8, as amended, within 10 days period and employees engaged in a strike who from the date of this Decision and Direction, open have been discharged for cause since the com- and count the ballots of: mencement thereof, and who have not been rehired Terrance Barcus Carol Garcia o r reinstated before the election date, and employ- Marilyn Kimmey Addie May Murphy ees engaged in an economic strike which com- Susan Breaux Mary Newton menced more than 12 months before the election David Hodgson Glennie Bailey date and who have permanently replaced.' Those Gail Landry Timmy Williams eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be Betty Sedtal Nora Varnado represented for collective-bargaining purposes by Service Employees International Union, Local 706, and, thereafter, prepare and cause to be served on AFL-CIO. the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said ballots. In the event that [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.)