American Linen Supply Co., et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 12, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

AMERICAN. LINEN SUPPLY CO., ET AL. 639..
also is - faulty . I did not take - any particular note of the position of the witnesses,
especially since no objection was raised at the time . I am sure however, that I' was
able to and did observe the witnesses when necessary ., At all hearings I take notes
as to my observations of the witnesses , as I did in this case . Since these notes were
destroyed upon completion of my Intermediate Report, I have no specific recol-
lection of any individual witnesses with one exception . This exception , whom I `am
sure all counsel will recall , had a pronounced southern accent and was somewhat of
a comedian . During his testimony I was required to interrupt several times with an
"off the record" until the laughter subsided . This witness was one of those who sat
in front of the judge's bench. I have no recollection as to the number of feet he
sat away from the bench , but I definitely recollect observing not only his face but
most of his body. I recall that he appeared nervous as a witness and was constantly
shifting his position in the witness chair.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The General Counsel urges in his brief that the remedial order in addition to that
previously recommended in my Intermediate Report , should " include the directive
that Respondent Employer cease maintaining and enforcing the contract with Re-
spondent Unions . should provide affirmatively that the Respondent Employer
withdraw and withhold recognition of Respondent Unions until they `shall have
demonstrated [ their] exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board conducted elec-
tion' " In view of the Board 's order reversing the Trial Examiner , I agree with the
General Counsel insofar as the above directive applies to the operations of Re-
spondent Lykes Bros. Inc. of Georgia , and so recommend . With this exception, I
find no reason for changing any of the findings of fact , conclusions of law, and
recommendations as set forth in my Intermediate Report dated November 25, 1958.
American Linen Supply Co ., et al . and Laundry and Dry Clean-
ers International Union , Local 361. Case No. A0-12. August
12, 1960
ADVISORY OPINION
This case is before the Board upon a petition filed by Laundry and
Dry Cleaners International Union, Local 361 (herein called Local
361), under the provisions of Section 102.98 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, for an advisory opinion.
A. Succinctly stated, said petition alleges the following :
1. Laundry and Dry Cleaners Section of Retail Clerks, Loca11116
(herein called Local 1116), has filed seven petitions for representation
and certification with the State of Minnesota, Division of Concilia-
tion, and five similar petitions with the State of Wisconsin Employ-
ment Relations Board, "involving the various employers named in
paragraph II." Said paragraph II names 12 employers, 6 of whom
are located in Duluth, Minnesota, 5 in Superior, Wisconsin, and 1 in
Cloquet, Minnesota, and also refers to General Drivers Union, Local
288 (herein called Local 288) as a party to the State proceedings.
2. The general nature of the business involved in the State board
proceedings is the laundry and dry cleaning industry in Duluth,
Minnesota, and Superior , Wisconsin.
3. At the present time the various laundry and dry cleaner em-
ployers located in Duluth and Superior have a collective- bargaining
128 NLRB No. 85.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
agreement with Local 361. Parties to this agreement are the 12
employers described above, 5 additional employers in Duluth , 2 addi-
tional in Superior, and 1 additional in Cloquet.
4. In the past, these employers have bargained together as multi-
employer units. One multiemployer unit included the Duluth em-
ployers and another unit was limited to the Superior employers. But
the collective-bargaining contract between Local 361 and the two em-
ployer groups "has been identical [except for one minor difference]
for some years past," one contract having been signed by all the Du-
luth employers and another by all the Superior employers. The
Cloquet employers have been a part of the Duluth group and signed
the same agreement as the Duluth employers. Two Duluth employers,
however, sign a slightly different contract with Local 361, although
one of these employers also signs the contract of the overall unit.
These two overall units have "acted together without individual action
[except as noted above as to two Duluth employers] for many years."
5. In the current negotiations between Local 361 on the one hand
and the Duluth and Superior employers on the other hand, one C. H.
Bruns is now representing all of the employers , including those in
Cloquet , it being their announced intention to bargain as one group,
and they have agreed to be one unit.
6. Although there are about 350 to 370 employees in the Duluth
and Superior units, of whom close to 300 are in the Duluth and Cloquet
unit, the number of employees sought to be represented by Local 1116
in Minnesota is approximately 88. In addition , the petitions filed
in Minnesota and Wisconsin only cover part of the employees and
employers in each instance, so that "there is an apparent attempt to
chisel from the overall unit or units individual employers who are a
part of larger multiemployer units."
7. The employers in the Superior unit do "well over half a million
gross business . . . per year in the retail end." They also have "direct
and indirect" interstate purchases of supplies and other necessaries
in an undisclosed amount. Hawkins Co. and Holzberg Co., two of
the Superior employers "do a substantial amount of work, exceeding
$50,000, for the various boats which travel and transport on the Great
Lakes," and they also do "substantial commercial work throughout the
area . . . [and] in Duluth."
8. The employers in the Duluth and Cloquet unit engage in retail
operations the revenues from which far exceed $500,000, and they
make out-of-State purchases of supplies and necessaries in larger
quantities than the Superior unit employers. Peerless Yale, one of
the Duluth employers, receives well over $50,000 in wholesale or com-
mercial accounts. The Board has asserted jurisdiction over American
Linen Company, another Duluth employer, because it is a national
AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY Co., ET AL. 641
organization ; this employer also engages in a great deal of commercial
work. Three Duluth employers (Peerless Yale, American Linen Co.,
and Duluth Laundry Co.) together receive over $500,000 for their
retail operations, and their wholesale operations far exceed the juris-
dictional requirements of the National Labor Relations Board.
9. Local 1116 has attempted to circumvent the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Board by seeking to represent only part
of the unit and by including employers who, being clearly in inter-
state commerce , are within the jurisdiction of the Board; and this at a
time when "the contract has been open for negotiations and the 60-
day period for negotiations is in effect . . . . For this reason [Local
361] asks an advisory opinion so that Local 1116 will not be able
to break up the bargaining unit at a time when the National Labor
Relations Board will not take jurisdiction of a representation pro-
ceeding, namely, the 60-day negotiation period."
B. No response has been received from Local 1116 or Local 288.
C. A response has been received from Charles H. Bruns, executive
director, Employers Industrial Relations Council, collective-bargain-
ing representative for the laundry, dry cleaning, and linen supply
industry in Duluth, Cloquet, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin,
and vicinity. We construe this to be a joint response by the employ-
ers in the above-described Duluth and Superior units. Said pleading
avers that "we have examined the allegations . . . in the . . . peti-
tion and believe that they are correct."
It may be deduced from the above that Local 361 is principally seek-
ing an advisory opinion on the question of the composition of the
appropriate unit, and only incidentally is praying for an opinion re-
garding the Board's jurisdiction over the employers involved. Under
the Board's Rules and Regulations, Section 102.98, advisory opinions
will be rendered only on the question of whether the Board would as-
sert jurisdiction on the basis of its current jurisdictional standards.
But the Board "will not presume to render an opinion on the merits of
the case or on the question of whether the subject matter of the dispute
is governed by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as
amended" (Statements of Procedure, Sec. 101.40). Hence, no opinion
will be rendered herein as to any question relating to the employer
unit.
,On the question of jurisdiction, "it has been the Board's established
policy . . . to apply the concept that it is the impact on commerce of
the totality of an employer's operations that should determine whether
or not the Board will assert jurisdiction." Appliance Supply Com-
pany, 127 NLRB 319, at 320. The Board permits a group of employ-
ers to join together for the purpose of conducting collective-bargain-
ing negotiations . In such instances the employers constitute a single
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employer for jurisdictional purposes (Westside Market Owners Asso-
ciation, et al., 126 NLRB 167, Case No. AO-3) ; and the relevant cri-
terion in determining the Board's jurisdiction is the combined opera-
tions of all the employers in the multiemployer association. Belleville
Employing Printers, 122 NLRB 350, 352; Westside Market Owners
Association, supra.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that:
1. The employers involved are members of two separate multi-
employer associations, i.e., the Duluth group (including Cloquet) and
the Superior group. The Board expresses no opinion as to whether
these two groups have become merged into one larger multiemployer
association, or whether either or both of said employer associations
has survived or may survive in the face of the discrete representation
petitions of Local 1116 now pending before the Minnesota and Wis-
consin State agencies.
2. The Duluth and Superior units are each single employers. Their
members are all engaged in the operation of retail laundry and dry-
cleaning establishments, and some of them additionally are engaged
in sizable nonretail laundry and drycleaning operations. In dealing
with such combination enterprises the Board generally applies the
nonretail standards, unless the nonretail aspect of the operations are
de minimis. It does so without regard to whether the employer's
operations consist of a single establishment engaged in both retail and
nonretail activity or of separate establishments, some of which are
retail and some nonretail. The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company., 117
NLRB 1732, 1733.
3. The operations of some individual members of both the Duluth
and Superior associations are in commerce or affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Thus there is -a
showing of legal jurisdiction with respect to such employers and the
associations of which they are members.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, pursuant to Section 102.103 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, as follows :
With respect to labor disputes cognizable by the Board under Sec-
tions 8, 9, and 10 of the Act :
1. The Board would assert jurisdiction over those individual em-
ployers engaged in nonretail operations who are in commerce, or
whose operations affect commerce, and whose annual inflow or outflow,
direct or indirect, is $50,000 or more.
2. The Board would assert jurisdiction over the Duluth multi-
employer association or individual members thereof if the total inflow
or outflow, direct or indirect, of all the members amounted to $50,000
or more and legal jurisdiction existed over the association or one or
more members thereof.
WASHINGTON ALUMINUM COMPANY, INC. 643
3. The Board would assert jurisdiction over the Superior multi-
employer association or individual members thereof if the total inflow
or outflow, direct or indirect, of all the members amounted to $50,000
or more and legal jurisdiction existed over the association or one or
more members thereof.
4. The Board expressly does not pass on the question of whether
the multiemployer units have merged or the effect, if any, the petitions
of Local 1116 would have on the same.
Washington Aluminum Company , Inc. and Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 5-CA-1696. August 16,1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union),
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region, issued a complaint dated May
5, 1960, against Washington Aluminum Company, Inc. (herein called
the Respondent), alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8 (a) (1) and (5) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of
hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly served upon the Respond-
ent and the Charging Party, herein called the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that the Union was and is the exclusive representative of
all production and maintenance employees of the Respondent in an
appropriate unit, and that on April 21, 1960, and at all times there-
after, Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with
the Union.
Respondent's answer , filed May 9, 1960, admits certain jurisdictional
and factual allegations of the complaint, but denies the commission
of unfair labor practices.
On June 9, 1960, all parties to the proceeding entered into a stipu-
lation of facts, and on the same date jointly agreed to transfer this
proceeding directly to the Board for finding of fact, conclusions of
law, and decision and order. The stipulation states that the parties
have waived their rights to a hearing before a Trial Examiner, and
to the issuance of an Intermediate Report. The stipulation provides
in substance that the entire record in this case shall consist of the
formal pleadings herein together with the entire record in Case No.
5-RC-2682, the Board's Decision, Direction, and Order in the con-
128 NLRB No. 79.