NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,458, SCAMP AUTO RENTAL 1, INC. dba DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR and TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 385 aw INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO., (Sep. 12, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Sep 12, 1994)

SCAMP AUTO RENTAL 1, INC. dba DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR and TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 385 aw INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO.

314 NLRB No. 174.Case Nos. 12-CA-15719 and 12-RC-7622. September 12, 1994 Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Stephens and Devaney.

Dallas Manuell II, for General Counsel. William deMeza and Richard Danson, for Respondent. Joseph Egan, Jr., for Charging Party. [1]

Election Objections--Filing--Findings Within Scope of Charge.--An administrative law judge’s finding that sustained a portion of a union’s representation election objection, which was based upon an assertion that an employer improperly promised benefits during a preelection period, was proper. The ruling was not outside the scope of the objection because the employer’s implied promise was closely related to other allegations contained in the objection and, therefore, the judge had jurisdiction to consider the employer’s conduct. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2790.325.

Elections--Rerun--Employer’s Serious Violations.--Due to the serious nature of an employer’s conduct during a period immediately preceding a union representation election, a second election was ordered. The employer’s unlawful conduct included interrogating an employee regarding her union activities, improperly prohibiting employee solicitation and promising benefits to induce the employees to abandon the idea of union representation. Section 9(c).

Back reference: ¶2790.034.

Interference--Fact Finding--Coercive Remarks.--On the facts, an employer interfered with a union representation campaign by interrogating an employee regarding her union activities and prohibiting another employee from soliciting for the union. Section 8(a)(1).

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, [2] and conclusions, [3] as modified below and to adopt the recommended Order, as modified.

The judge sustained a portion of the Union’s Objection 1--which alleges that the Respondent Employer offered “pay raises to employees within the PDI [predelivery inspection] classification who would vote no”--based on his finding that during mass employee meetings just prior to the election Claire McChristy, the Respondent’s director of employee relations, led the employees to believe that if they voted against the Union, they would receive the same raises as the Tampa employees had received during their recent rejection of union representation.

The Respondent’s exceptions contend that his finding is outside the scope of Objection 1. We disagree. We find, as did the judge, that McChristy’s promise to the assembled employees is closely related to the allegation of Objection 1. The promise of pay raises to all unit employees necessarily included any promise made to the PDI-classified employees, who are included in the unit and also specifically mentioned in Objection 1. [4]