Bergmann's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 1020 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of BERGMANN 'S INC. and CLEANING & LAUNDRY WORKERS
UNION LOCAL 457 , ACWA, CIO
Case No. 5-C-P062 .Decided December 13 , 1946
Mr. Sidney J. Barban, for the Board.
Mr. Louis A. Spiess, of Washington , D. C., for the respondent.
Messrs. Jack Kutner and William Barron, of Washington , D. C., for
the Union.
Mr. Julius Topot , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On July 24, 1946, Trial Examiner Victor Hirshfield issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
On December 5, 1946, the Board, at Washington, D. C., heard oral
argument in which the respondent participated; the Union did not
appear.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings • are hereby approved. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions, the contentions
advanced by the respondent at the oral argument, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
71 N. L. R. B., No. 172.
1020
BERGMANN'S INC. 1021
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Bergmann's Inc., Washing-
ton, D. C., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Cleaning & Laundry Workers
Union Local 457, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. 1. 0.,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately at its plant in Washington, D. C., copies of
the notice attached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Ap-
pendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive
days thereafter, iii i:onsplcuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HEazoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Sidney J Baa ban, for the Board.
,11r. Loads A. Spiess, of Washington, D. C., for the respondent.
Messrs. Jack Kintner and William Barron, of Washington, D. C, for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union, Local 457,
ACWA, CIO, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Mary-
land), issued its complaint dated June 12, 1946, against Bergmann's Inc.; herein
This notice, howeNer, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first para-
graph thereof, the words: "RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and sub-,
stunting in lieu thereof the Ovoids "A DECISION AND ORDER" In the event that this
order is enfoiced by a decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted, before
the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words "A DECREE OF THE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING "
I The respondent's name was spelled as Bergman's Inc in both the charge and complaint
herein At the hearing, the pleadings were amended to show the piope' spelling as indi-
cated above
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called the respondent alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act Copies of the complaint accompanied by a
notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that from on or about December 4, 1945, to and including the date of the com-
plaint, the respondent had (1) villified, disparaged, and expressed disapproval
of the Union and other labor organizations, their leadership and purposes, and
warned its employees that they would receive no benefits from the Union; (2)
urged its employees to deal with it individually with respect to wages, vacations,
holidays, and other conditions of employment, for the purpose of discouraging
legitimate union activities among them; (3) promised and granted increased
wages, vacations and holidays in order to persuade, coerce, and induce its em-
ployees to refrain from assisting, joining or remaining members of the Union
or to vote for it in a scheduled election ; (4) issued to its employees a series of
circulars for the purpose of inducing, restraining, and coercing them to refrain
from assisting, becoming or remaining members of the Union, or voting for the
Union in the aforesaid election; (5) compelled its employees to listen to speeches
delivered by its president at its plant, during working hours, for the purpose of
urging, persuading, warning, and coercing its employees to refrain from assisting,
becoming or remaining members of the Union or voting for the Union in the afore-
said election; (6) informed its employees that it would not bargain with the
Union concerning certain conditions of employment which are normally subjects
for collective bargaining, for the purpose of inducing, persuading, and coercing
them to refrain from assisting, becoming or remaining members of the Union or
voting for it in the election ; and (7) by such acts engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section S (1) of the Act
The respondent duly filed its answer in which it admitted the allegations of
the complaint pertaining to its corporate structure and the nature and chin ac-
ter of its business, but denied all the allegations of the complaint pertaining to
the commission of any unfair labor practices The respondent asserted that:
it has in due course granted increases in wages, given vacations and
holidays, to its employees because it felt that the employees were entitled
to such consideration by reason of the increased cost of living, and for
the further reason that such increases . . had . become the usual
practice in a large number of laundries in the Metropolitan area of the
District of Columbia, all of which laundries are competitors of Bergman's
Inc (sic) . in the matter of employees
. . The Company . knows of no law which prohibits it'from advising
its employees that it will not under amp cotidcttob enter into a closed-shop
contract .. .
. This Company takes the position . and has so adNised its employees,
that in the opinion of the officers of said Company, a Union closed-shop
contract is not only illegal, but is un-American, and interferes with the
freedom and legal lights of workers to be free of coercion in deciding
whether they will or will not join a Union, or face dismissal from their
present employment I Italics added.]
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 27 and 28, 1946, at Washing-
ton. D C, befoe the undersigned, the Trial Examiner, duly designated by the
Chief Ti jai Examiner The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel and the Union by two official representatives Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
BERGMANN'S INC. 1023
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the close of the Board's case
the undersigned denied, with leave to renew, a motion by the respondent to
dismiss the complaint; upon renewal of the same motion at the close of the
entire case, the undersigned again denied the motion.
At the close of the presentation of evidence the motion of counsel for the
Boaid to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to the correction
of names, dates, and other matters not going to the material allegations of the
complaint, was granted without objection At the same time, counsel for the
Board and counsel for the respondent argued orally before the undersigned.
Subsequent to the hearing, counsel for the respondent filed a brief with the
undersigned
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT'
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Bergniann's Inc., is a Delaware corporation, engaged ni the laundry and clean-
ing business in and adjacent to the District of Columbia The respondent
operates a laundry plant, a direct customer collect and delivery service, and
three stores One store adjoins its l.iunch y plant located in the District of
'Columbia, another store is in Hyattsville, Maryland, and the third is located
in Ros'lyn, Virginia These stores *are used as stations for the receipt and
issue of laundry, dry cleaning, and rugs The laundry, dry cleaning, and rugs
are transported after collection, by the respondent to its plant in the Distlict of
Columbia to be serviced, and after servicing are returned directly to the customer,
or to the afore-mentioned stores
During the 12-niontlh period preceding December 4. 1945, the respondent pur-
chased supplies consisting chiefly of soaps, chemicals, blueing, and equipment,
having an approximate value of $300,000, in excess of 50 percent of which was
obtained from points and places outside of the District of Columbia, and de-
livered to the respondent's plant in the District of Columbia. During the same
period, the respondent performed setvices at its plant valued at approximately
$900,000, approximately 60 percent of which was for patrons living in the
District of Columbia and the remaining 40 percent for patrons living in nearby
areas in the States of Maryland and Virginia'
The respondent concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
H THE ORGAN1'ZATiON INVOLVED
Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union Local 457, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of Amnetica, afhliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , is a labor
organization adinitInig to menibership employees of the respondent.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Intiodhuctima
The respondent employs approximately 339 employees in' its business These
employees vary irons highly skilled and well paid cleaners to semi-skilled and
comparatively low paid catchers
- Guie" otheiwi',e indic,ited, the findings of fact are based upon admitted facts or un-
Contraihcted eiidence which the undersigned credits
`1110 tuts 1e,pecting the respondent's business quoted heiein ate trmn the Board's Deci-
sion au0 Ordci iii Case No 5-1t-2151, dated February 12, 1046 There has been no sub-
stantial chaihc in the respondent's business spice that date
717734 -47-vol 71 66
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in June, 1945, several of respondent's employees approached Jack Kutner,
business agent for the Union , and told him that the workers at the plant were
dissatisfied because wages were low and because the respondent did not give
its employees sufficient holidays, or any vacation with pay. Shortly thereafter
the Union undertook the organization of respondent's employees.
The Union continued its organization campaign, and thereafter filed a Petition
for Certification of Representatives in Case No. 5-R-2151. A hearing was held
on this Petition on December 4, 1945, and in a decision dated February 12, 1946,
the Board ordered an election The Regional Director ordered the election set
for March 8, 1946. However, at 12: 10 p. in. on March 8, 1946. Kutner telegraphed
the Regional Director and asked hum to postpone the election ° The Regional
Director ordered the election postponed, and on March 19, the board ordered, in
substance , that the election be postponed until such a time as it might ap-
propriately be held. On March 20, 1946, the Union filed the charge in the instant
case
B. Interference , restraint , and coercion
1. Vacations, holidays, and increases in pay
In the latter part of July or the first part of August, 1045, the Union' s organi-
zational campaign came to the attention of George P. Bergmann, president of
the respondent. He thereupon called upon Louis A Spiess, his attorney, and
asked him for advice respecting his legal rights "pertaining" to the union ac-
tivities in his plant Spiess asked Bergmann about the wages he was paying,
and then advised Bergmann that if he was not then paying a "going wage," . . .
"to at least pay what the" other laundries in the area were "paying " Bergmann
did nothing about this advice until on or about December 12, 1945, when the
following notice appeared on the plant's bulletin board at Bergmann's direction:
NOTICE TO E1IPLOYEES
Beginning January 4, 1946 the Company will give one week's vacation with
pay to all employees who have been in the employ of the Company con-
tinuously for one year or more.
Vacations are to be taken during the months beginning April 1, 1946' and
ending September 30, 1946 with permission of the Department Managers.
The Company will also give time off, with Straight-tine pay, for the following
six holidays :
New Year's Labor Day
Memorial Day Thanksgiving
Fourth of July Christmas
If it should be necessary for employees to uiork on any of the above holidays,
additional straight-time pay will be paid to such employees. You are ad-
The text of this telegram follows '
Re Bergmanns Inc election scheduled for today in Washington company has engaged
in campaign of intimidation and coercion including threats to employees and attacks
on union Meeting of employees was held by company president yesterday at which
employees weie intimidated and attacks made on union Company thereafter dis-
tributed to all employees letter containing threats and attacks with respect to pending
election Union is compelled to demand postponement of election pending investiga-
tion and filing oI unfair labor practice charges.
5 Beigmann testified that on October 30, 1945 , approximately 30 other laundries in the
area applied to the Wage Stabilization Board for permission to raise wages , and to the
OPA for permission to increase prices. The iespondent ' s laundry did not join in either
petition.
BERGMANN'S INC. 1025
wised, however, that no holiday pay will be given any employee who is
absent on a workday prior to a holiday or a workday after a holiday
You are advised that the Company is preparing, and will soon submit to
the Government, an application to increase wages, provided the OPA will
permit the Company to increase its service charges to earn the money
necessary to pay such increased wages. The following increases in wages
will be requested of the Government :
Those receiving 5O or less per hour to get a 50 per hour increase
Employees making over 55¢ per hour to receive an increase of 21/20 an hour,
up to brackets including 85¢ per hour.
Agaoi, please understand that this application to increase your wages is
conditioned upon the OPA glantimg the Company an increase in its service
charges. [Italics added.]
The policy of granting a week's vacation with pay and 6 holidays annually,
was an innovation for the respondent. Hitherto Bergmann had allowed his
employees 2 holidays per year, namely, July 4 and Christmas, and there had
been no vacation policy.
Early in'January 1946, the Union distributed a leaflet to Bergmann's em-
ployees in which the following statement appeared :
CONGRATULATIONS
When you workers joined the UNION the officials of the UNION told you
that you will get a raise in wages, 6 holidays with pay and one weeks
(sic) vacation with pay.
NOW LO AND BEHOLD I ! ! Here it is. Your Boss promised to give it
to you.
DO N 01' BE FOOLED, REMEMBER ! 1 ! Without a UNION CONTRACT
anything the Boss gives you TODAY he can take back TOMORROW.
With a UNION CONTRACT he can never take it back. STICK TO THE
UNION FOR MORE MONEY AND BETTER WORKING CONDITIONS °
[Emphasis in original.]
On January 25, 1946, the respondent distributed to its employees a letter which
referred to the union statement noted above, in the following manner:
The Union also tells you in this document: "Stick to the Union for more
money and better working conditions." This is to inform you that as and
when this Company pays more money and gives employees better working
conditions in this plant, such improvements will be made by the Company
Management, and the Union will have no influence on such matters 7
Between February 1 and 13, 1946, the respondent applied to the Wage Stabili-
zation Board for permission to increase the wages that, it was paying its em-
ployees. Bergmann testified that the lapse in time between December 12, 1945 and
the (late in February 1946, referred to immediately above, was due to the fact that
he was required to submit with his application for permission to pay higher
wages, a copy of a 2-week pay roll either before or after a holiday, and that it
took more than 3 weeks to prepare this information. At the same time, the
respondent prepared a request to the OPA for permission to increase its prices.
As the employees were leaving the plant on March 7, 1946, the day before the
scheduled election, the respondent distributed another letter to them. This letter
The full text of this document will be found in Appendix B herein
The full text of this document will be found in Appendix C herein.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
also served as the basis for speeches made by Bergmann to his employees, prior
to its distribution
The letter read in part as follows :
It has been ascertained by an examination of our records , that the grant-
ing of an increase in wages will work a great financial hardship on the
Company, and for that reason an application has been filed with the OPA,
to grant the Company a price increase to take care of the proposed wage
increases However this is to inform you that if OPA officials advise us
that we are not entitled to a price vnerease , or if we are advised that we are
entitled to such an increase , the increased 'cages posted on the bulletin board
will go into effect ' [Italics in original ].
On April 20 , 1946, the respondent granted increases in pay to its employees
although the OPA had not authorized any price increases at the time.
2. The interviews
In the period between January 1, 1946, and March 7, 1946, Bergmann inter-
viewed three of his employees individually in his office These three employees
were Eugene Glenn, Adie 1-Iall, and Helen Branch Glenn, an employee of the
iespondent since October 1944, testified credibly and the undersigned finds, that
Bergmann called hum into his office and asked him why he favored the Union
Glenn replied that he wanted the Union "tor better working conditions," "vaca-
tions," and "getting paid when you are sick - Bergmann said that he had never
heard of a union giving donations when employees were sick He added that he
had been operating the plant for many years, and that "no one is going to tell him
how to run his shop . . ," and.that before he would let anyone "tell him what to,
do, how to run his plants . . ." he would "shut the plant down." Bergmann
also told Glenn that "after the Union" came in, he would "not lend [the employ-
ees] no more money I (Bergmann) have been good to you all I have no more
money I don't let you all have no more money." ° Glenn testified that he under-
stood Bergmann to mean that it would be better for Glenn it lie did not vote for
the Union
Bergmann testified that at about the time that his convei sation with Glenn
occurred, the latter had been "continuously" going "off in a corner with 2 or 3
employees and discussing things . . . and I took it for granted that lie was
interested in the Union and trying to get other people to loin " He testified
further, however, that he did not discuss with Glenn the fact that lie was leaving
his work, because the place where Glenn worked Was "a hot place, and they
will lease and go to the alley to get air, and when it is a hot day, I don't inter-
fere" Bergmann admitted that the only reason he called Glenn in was because
lie saw hint engaging in what he, Bergmann, presumed to be union activity " He
did not contradict Glenn's testimony in any respect and testified that the inter-
view occurred on or about February 1.5, 1916
Neithei Adie Hall nor Helen Branch testified However, Bergmann testified
that lie had asked Adie Hall whether she belonged to the Union and that she did
not answer his question He also testified that the reason lie questioned her
about her status with respect to the Union, was because she was one of his oldest
employees, and had shown some interest in the Union With respect to Helen
8'I1ho full test of this document is cited below
°Latci testimony indicated that what Bergmann was iefeiring to here was the practice
of has employees who came to him in and-week and obtained advances on their wages
whnh wire not iegulaily paid until Saturday
10 The icspoudent did not have any iules respecting union activity during working hours.
BERGMANN'S INC. 1027
Branch, Bergmann testified that she came to him for a loan, at which point he
said to her, "Helen, if you Were to be a member of the Union, do you think you
could go to the union and get this money?" Branch did not answer him
Glenn also testified that on June 2S, 1946, the day of the hearing, he showed
a subpoena he had received from the Board to Lindsay Thompson, his depart-
mental manager. Thompson asked Glenn why he was testifying "against Mr.
Bergmann " Glenn did not reply, except to say "I don't know. I am going
down and find out, myself." Bergmann admitted that after hearing Glenn
testify he had asked Thompson, who admittedly was a supervisor, whether this
conversation had occurred He testified that Thompson told him that Glenn's
version was substantially correct. Thompson did not testify.
3. The letters N
The respondent distributed three letters to its employees during the course of
the organizational campaign. The first was distributed on or about January
25, 1946, the second on or about March 1, 1946, and the third and last on March
7, 1946, the day before the scheduled election.
In the first letter the respondent stated in part:
Who are the people connected with this Union who are so interested in
your welfare, and why are they so interested? Do they tell you that their
interest in you is without compensation, such as dues, assessments and
fines imposed by the Union, or are they interested in you without compensa-
tion because they think you need their help'
Other laundries in this area, without ever having heard of this Union's
operations, have been doing what this Company has been doing-increasing
wages and improving working conditions of their employ ees whenever it has
been financially possible to do so You know that laundries must make
money to stay in business, and the Union, so far as we have been infoimed,
does nothing, and has never done anything, to improve the earning power
of any company it seeks to organize. It does improve the Union's financial
condition by inducing employees of companies to join its organization and
pay dues, assessments and fines that may be imposed by said Union. This
Company has never asked its employees for any compensation for any
improvement in your wages, holidays, vacations, or other working condi-
tions"
The following is a quotation from the second letter distributed on or about
March 1, 1946
The National Labor Relations Board has ordered all election to be held
next Friday at 1:00 to 4:30 P. M, for our employees to determine , by vote
whether they want the Union to represent them or prefer to deal more directly
with the Company as to wages , hours of work , and other working conditions.
From now until the time of voting , it is to your best interest to make
inquiry of other laundry wokers who are employed in plants not represented
by the Union as to whether or not their wages, vacations , holidays with pay,
and other working conditions are not as good as the employees working in
laundries represented by the Union who now seeks to represent you. If you
take the time to look into this, the answer will be that those employees in
plants not represented by the Union are doing as well, and in some cases,
perhaps better, than the employees working in plants represented by the
Union . Those employees who are working under those conditions , not rep-
21 The full text of this document w ill be tound in Appendix C herein.
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
resented by the Union, do not have to pay monthly dues or assessments to
the Union nor attend Union meetings, subject to fines if they do not attend.
Therefore, it is to your best interest to determine the facts with respect
to this matter and after finding out what the true situation is, to present
yourself at the voting place and vote, between 1 :00 and 4 :30 P. M. on Friday
next 32
The full text of the third letter, distributed on March 7, 1940, follows :
There is to be an election tomorrow between 1 P. M and 4 P. M., on the
question of whether you want the Union to represent you in your relations
with this Company, or whether you prefer to deal with officials of the
Company direct. I believe it is only fair to you that I should give you this
statement to read carefully prior to the election, because it contains many
matters extremely important to you.
I have been informed that the Cleaning and Laundry Workers' Union,
Local 457, that is trying to (sic) hard to get your vote, has tried to mislead
you into believing that I, George P. Bergmann, am not fair and that I will
make promises today and take them away two or three days later. I have
managed this plant since 1917, which is 25 yews During that 25 years, I
have had dealings with hundreds of employees, and I do nbt know of any
employee of this Company who has been mistreated. I have always tried to
play fair and square with you, and I do not believe there is an employee
working for us who will say that I am unfair. There are a lot of people
in this plant who have worked here a long time, and most of you know me
better and longer than you know any official of the Union. If you have not
been here long, ask anybody who has I want to inform you that any remarks
about my being unfair are not true.
This Company has never signed any contract nor granted any demands of
the Union, and do not be misled into believing that the Union has gotten you
any pay raises, vacations, or anything else from the Company.
Before you vote, ask yourself these questions:
1. Do you need the Union to represent you?
2 Are you willing to have dues deducted from your pay. to be paid over
to the Union?
3 Are you willing to pay assessments or fines, if the Union decides to
make them?
4. Is there anything you feel you should have for which you cannot
ask us?
5. Are you treated fairly now through your department heads, superin-
tendents, management and the Company?
We all know what the Company has already done for you Let me
repeat some of the things that have made for close relationship between
you and us, long before any Union organization attempted to represent you:
1. During the entire war, when costs of living increased, this Company
has voluntarily given wage increases whenever it could.
2 Wages and salaries were frozen during the war, and each and every
time that we were permitted to increase wages by the Government, we did
so, without an increase in price from OPA.
3 Just recently, we applied to the Wage Stabilization Board for per-
mittion (sic) to nicrease your wages, provided we got a price increase
from OPA.
" The full text of this document will be found In Appendix D herein.
BERGMANN'S INC. 1029
4. It has been ascertained by an examination of our records, that the
granting of an increase in wages will work a great financial hardship on
the Company, and for that reason an application has been filed with the
OPA, to grant the Company a price increase to take care of the proposed
wage increases. However, this is to inform you that if OPA officials ad-
vise us that we are not entitled to a price increase, or if we are advised
that we are entitled to such an increase, the increased wages posted on the
bulletin board will go into effect.
5. For years the Company has paid bonuses at Christmas to make your
holiday happier. The doois are always open to you to discuss your work or
personal matters.
6. Many times we have interceded in law suits for you, and have lent
you money when you needed it.
7. We have also notified you, with the poster on the board, that beginning
January 4th, you are to receive vacations with pay if employed a year or
more, also six holidays a year.
We are not seeking a pat on the back for these things. They are all done
to make your job more pleasant. Work, at its best, is not all fun; but to
most of us it is necessary, so we may as well enjoy it as much as possible.
All of these benefits and advantages have been extended to you without
the payment of any dues or assessments on your part, and without your
having any responsibilities or obligations to any outside organization.
The Union tells you that we, the employers, do not like the Union-we
don't-for the simple reason that we believe when the Union comes in, the
close personal relationship which has existed in the Company for years
goes out. We do not feel that you, the employees, or we, the employers,
need have any fear of the tuture and what it may bring, in view of the
records of the past, which is your assurance of the treatment in the future.
We feel that we can continue to maintain the position which we hold in the
Laundry Industry.
The purpose of the election is to determine whether or not you desire
to be represented by the Union. If you want to be represented by them, you
vote "yes." If you do not, want to be represented, vote "no." The law re-
quires that the voting be done by secret ballot and that you should not be
interfered with or misled by others In simple language, no one is to tell
you how to vote or for whom to vote. You are to vote as you feel. Whether
you belong to any organization or union will not affect your job here, -]low or
any other time. No one has the right to force you to vote one way or the
other, and if anyone tries to do so, please notify us at once, so that we may
advise the proper authority. No one will know how you vote. That is the
purpose of the secret ballot. I do expect every employee to vote, whether
he wants the Union or not. If you are not interested in the Union, you
should vote, because each vote counts.
The Union will never have the power to give you any of the increases
they have been talking about. The most they can do is try to persuade or
force this Company to grant them. As you know from the newspapers, one
of the ways they do this is by ordering strikes. So, I ask you to consider
whether you should vote for or against the Union, from the standpoint of
your own interests.
I have been told that one of the things the Union wants is a closed shop.
I wonder if you know what a closed shop would mean? It would mean that
all of you would have to belong to the Union whether you wanted to or not;
pay Union dues and any fines or assessments levied against you by the Union,
and I could not hire an employee or reinstate an old employee, who was
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not a member of the Union. Also, the Union can increase its dues, fines and
assessments against its members whenever it wants to. I believe it would
be against the interest of you employees, as well as the Company, to have
a closed shop in this plant
Further, I am opposed to a closed shop because I believe it is an illegal
restraint on the right of individuals, to work without, being forced to become
members of a labor organization, just'as it would be improper for me to
attempt to force you to belong to some religious organization contrary to your
own religious belief A closed shop is also against the American principle of
freedom for individuals, which the men and women of this country have
fought wars to maintain. I have never felt, nor have other officials of this
Company felt, that we have a right to attempt to force an employee into
any kind of an organization, on the condition that should they not agree
to our dictates, they cannot work here. That policy this Company will
never adopt.
4. The speeches
On March 7, 1946, the day before the scheduled election, Bergmann, respond-
ent's president, made a series of speeches to his employees. These speeches were
delivered during the working hours of the employees, who were ordered to assem-
ble in the departments where they worked by their foremen for the express
purpose of heating Bergmann.
Glenn testified credibly, and it is found, that in the department where he
worked, Berginann told the employees that before he would sign a closed-shop
agreement with the Union he would close the plant's doors Bergmann also said
that there had been rumors that there would be strikes and fighting, but "that
that would never be," because he could have "plenty of protection from the
Police Department." Glenn testified that Bergmann also said: "Those that
have signed, it is not too late for them to get their cards back, . . ." and that
they could get their cards back within 15 clays.
Elizabeth Tabbs had been employed by the respondent since September 11, 1945.
She testified, and it is found, that although she did not hear his whole speech
she did hear Bergmann tell the employees in her department that it was un-
American for the Union to ask for a closed-shop, and that before he signed a
closed-shop agreement, he would close his doors. She also testified that Berg-
mann told these employees that if the Union won the election, and if they did not
want to remain members in the Union, they might withdraw within 15 days'
time At a different meeting which Mrs. Mary Watkins" attended, Bergmann
did not apparently discuss the closed-shop issue, nor did he indicate that the
employees there might withdraw from the Union within 15 days. Instead he
there elaborated on the details of the election machinery
Bergmann testified that he told the employees substantially what was contained
in his letter of March 7, which is quoted in its entirety above. He testified in
addition, that lie had told the employees that he "would refuse to sign a closed
shop contract" and that he would consider an "open shop" if the Union would
accept it. In the latter event, he testified he said, "I called their attention to
the fact that . . they had an escape clause of 15 days after to escape if they
wanted to get out of the Union " He added that lie had made the same state-
ment in all the departments. Bergmann also testified that he had told all his
employees that they could do just as well dealing with hint directly rather than
having a union represent them. He pointed out that if they chose to deal with
him directly they would save the cost of clues and assessments.
13 Marv Watkins had woiked for the respondent "off and on ' since 1936 She worked as
a "catcher" on a mangle
BERGMANN'S INC. 1031
C Conclusions
The facts set forth above, are, in all essential details, uncontradicted and
denied Thus there is no question that the respondent granted vacations with
pay and hoilda} s and promised its employees an increase in wages ; that the
respondent issued certain letters to its employees; that the respondent called in
certain of its employees and spoke to them with respect to the Union ; that the
respondent, on the clay preceding the scheduled election, ordered its employees
on working time to assemble and to listen to a speech by Bergmann ; and that the
respondent told its employees that it would close its doors before it would grant
the Union a closed shop.
With respect to the vacation and holidays granted to the employees there is no
question that if the respondent granted these holiday and vacation privileges in
the normal course of its business, or to meet the competition of other employers
in the same area, as it alleges, it would have a perfect right to do so. But the
facts herein indicate clearly that these were not the respondent's true motives.
Thus, the respondent's president, Bergmann, testified that, in July or August 1945,
he visited his attorney as soon as he heard of the union organization in his plant
and asked him what his rights were with respect to the Union The advice lie re-
ceived was to raise wages, at least to the level that his competitors were paying.
However, such advice must be interpreted in the light of what the respondent did
with respect to it The respondent did precisely nothing at that time It was not
until December 12, 1945, 8 days after the healing held on the Union's petition for
an election, that the respondent posted its not ice that the number of holidays
granted to the employees was to be tripled, and a vacation policy, hitherto non-
existent, was to be instituted. That notice also referred to wage increases which
would be forthcoming it the OPA were to grant the r espoirdent per m, issioiv to voice
its prices . Nevertheless, on March 7, 1946, the day before the scheduled election,
respondent notified its employees in a letter 14 that it would grant these increases
regardless of the OPA's decision on the pending application to increase prices.
The respondent contends that it promised wage increases and granted holiday
and vacations with pay to its employees because other laundries in the area had
done so. The record presents insufficient facts to indicate that other laundries
did raise their wages or grant vacations and holidays on or about December 12,
1945, or March 7, 1946. The undersigned therefore makes no finding with respect
to any increases in pay, or vacations or holidays b anted by other laundries in
the area to their employees at those times In any event, the undersigned does
not consider this contention to have merit since it is clear that the respondent
promised a raise in wages to its employees on March 7, 1946, the day bel ore the
election, for another reason which had little or nothing to do with what the
respondent's competitors were doing with respect to vacations, holidays or wages.
The distribution of this letter on the eve of the election was, in effect, an
adroitly tinned maneuver intended by the respondent to persuade its employees
to repudiate the Union The respondent knew between February 1 and 13, 1946,
that it had the right to raise wages without consulting OPA, and according to
the respondent, understood that it was required to do so since it had already
"promised" to do so in its notice posted on December 12, 1945. But it did not
make the announcement of its intentions to its employees until the evening of
14 Although Bergmann testified that he used this letter as the basis of the speeches he
made to the employees, his own version of the speeclies,as well as the testimony of Board
witnesses on the subject does not clearly indicate that he spoke in respect to this part of
th letter However, the letter was distributed immediately before the employees left the
plant tor the night and as has been noted, the election was scheduled for the following day,
so that the undersigned finds that the effect was essentially the same as if Bergmann had
specifically referred to the question of wages in his speech.
1032 DECISIONS OF \TATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
March 7, 1946.Ia Respondent 's choice of this opportune moment for notifying its
employees was not a coincidence , but a studied move to lead the employees to
cast their votes against the Union . By its well-timed announcement of this
economic concession as well as by other means , the respondent sought to show
the employees that they could rely exclusively upon it for economic advantages
and minimized the need for a collective bargaining agent. The effects of such
an object lesson in the futility of self-organization upon the free exerdisd by the
employees of their right to choose a bargaining representative needs little
elaboration."
The respondent 's motive for promising increases , grantin g vacations and in-
creasing holidays was to persuade the employees that they should not vote for
the Union in the scheduled election , and that they should repudiate thou, member-
ship in the Union , and the undersigned so finds.
The respondent did not rely entirely upon its program of increasing the
number of holidays it granted its employees, granting vacations with pay, and
promising wage increases , to sway the Union's members from their loyalty to
their organization . Thus the interviews with Glenn, Hall , and Branch were,
clearly intended by the respondent , and are here found to be , intimidatory in
effect. Although Bergmann denied that he actually knew whether any of the
three employees referred to above were members of the Union , that is immaterial.
His conduct in asking Glenn and Hall whether they belonged to the Union, and
more particularly his threat to Glenn that if the Union came in he would withdraw
some of the privileges which the employees were then enjoying , was a threat of
economic reprisal , and per se violative of the Act.
There is little doubt that the statement in respondent 's first letter , which in
substance accused the Union of being interested in organizing the workers only
"to improve the Union 's financial condition" was intended to be , and was in
effect, vilification , disparagement and an expression of disapproval of the Union,
its leadership and its purposes . The respondent requested the employees to deal
with it individually by stating in its second letter that the election was in effect,
an opportunity for the employees to decide whether they wanted " the Union to
represent them or deal more directly with the Company ." The employees were
invited to find out for themselves what the respondent asserted to be true,
namely that employees in non-union laundries were enjoying conditions equal to,
or superior to, those enjoyedi by employees working in plants organized by the
Union . They were told that, in addition , such non -union employees did not have
to pay union dues or assessments . Such conduct , while generally permissable
under the right of free speech when standing alone , in the instant case becomes
part of a course of conduct and must be considered as such. The undersigned,
15Bergmann testified that two sit-down strikes by veiy small groups of employees
occurred between January and February 1946 He testified that these strikes were
prompted by the strikers' desire that the posted wage schedules (referred to herein as the
December 12 notice) be put, into effect. Nevertheless, respondent did not actually-raise
wages until April 20, 1946, and the undersigned does,not find merit in the respondent's
implied contention that it notified its employees on March 7, 1946, about the impending
raise, solely because of these minor strikes between January and Febi nary 1946
m See for example- N L R B v The S Frieder and Sons Company, 62 N I. R. B 880,
155 F (2d) 268 (C. C A. 3). See also Medo Supply Corp v. N. L. R. B, 321 U. S.
678, 686 ; N. L R. B. v Jahn it 01lier Engraving Co., 123 F. (2d) 589, 592-593 (C. C. A 7) ;
N. L R. B v. Bradley Lumber Company of Arkansas , 128 F. (2d) 768, 770 (C. C. A 8) ;
Reliance Manufacturing Company v N. L. R B., 143 F. (2d) 761, 762-763 (C C. A. 7, on
contempt). See also May Department Stores Co v. N L R. B., 326 U. S 376, where the
Supreme Court, enforcing the order of the Board held that " the manner of presenting and
publicizing the application had the effect of coercing the employees " because it "Minimize( d]
the influence of collective bargaining . . . [ and] interfere [d] with the right of self-
organization by emphasizing to the employees that there is no necessity for a collective
bargaining agent "
BERGMANN'S INC. 1033
having so considered it, finds that the respondent in its second letter was en-
deavoring to coerce its employees into dealing with it directly''
The third letter, in addition to containing the statements which have been
cited in other sections of this part of the Intermediate Report, contains references
to the respondent's determination not to grant a closed-shop to the Union if and
when it was successful in the election then pending These sections of the letter
will be discussed immediately below.
The culmination of the respondent's attempts to defeat the Union's organi-
zational campaign was contained in the speeches which Bergmann made on
March 7, 1946, and in the letter, hereinbefore referred to, which he distributed
to his employees on the same day.
The employees were summoned to the meetings by their supervisors who told
them only that Mr Bergman wished to speak to them. The meetings were held
on company time and property. The uncontradicated testimony indicates that
the respondent told its employees that before it would sign a closed-shop agree-
ment with the Union it would close the plant's doors.
The respondent contends, in substance that the M. T. Stevens case is authority
for its right to make the aforesaid speeches respecting the close shop. The
undersigned does not find merit in the respondent's contention.
In the Stevens case," the Board said.
In his letter of October 30, Stevens made the following statements:
a * #
4. If and when an election is held, the Company's position will be as
follows :
D. That at no time will the Company compel an employee to become a
member of any particular union as a condition of employment.
E. That under no condition will the Company agree to deductions in wages
against any employee's wishes to cover dues or assessment,.
As indicated above, these statements were made in response to specific
inquiries contained in the employees' letter of October 18 . . . While
we agree . . . that the closed shop and the check-off are proper subjects
for collective bargaining, we do not believe that by its statements quoted
above, the respondent did in fact indicate to its employees a fixed determina-
tion not to bargain as to those matters. The respondent declared in response
to the inquiries of employees, what its "policy" would be. But a policy, how-
ever strongly held, may, and often does, yield at the bargaining table.
. . . we do not concur in [the] conclusion that, in the complete absence
of any other unfair labor practices, such statements, isolated as they were,
tend to coerce employees . . [Italics added.]
The Board then went on to distinguish the Stevens case from the Commas case"
which had been cited by the Trial Examiner, saying :
. . . there the statements did riot stand alone, but were an integral part
of a whole course of unlawful conduct.
11 The iespondent relied upon N. L R. B. v. Ford Motor Company, 114 F (2d) 905, 912,
919. 914. 915 (C C A. 6), and N L R. B v American Tube Bending Co., 134 F. (2d) 993
(C. C. A. 2), in support of its contention that Bergmann's statements and letters to the
employees were privileged under the free speech doctrine. The undersigned is not impressed
with the merit of this contention inasmuch as it is well established that where the respond-
ent was using such speeches and letters to its employees as part of a whole course of
conduct to coerce its employees, the protection of the Constitution may not be invoked.
'b In re M. T. Stevens & Sons Company, 68 N. L R B. 229.
is Matter of Julius Cohen d/b/a Comas Manufacturing Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 208.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board, while distinguishing the Stevens case from the Comas case, did
not set the latter case aside The Board clearly pointed out that there were
certain distinguishing differences between the two cases. Those differences were
(1) the lack of any other unfair labor practices in the Stevens case, and (2)
the fact that the respondent's statements in the Stevens case were made in
response to a request for information from its employees. In its rationale, the
Board pointed out that Stevens had said that it was not his "policy" to grant
the closed shop, and the Board declared that a "policy" was subject to change,
and might well be changed when the parties reached the bargaining table In
the instant case, these distinguishing features of the Stevens case are absent. -
The respondent has committed several other unfair labor practices as herein-
before described; the statements relative to the closed shop were not solicited
by the employees, but rather, were thrust upon them at a meeting on company
time to which they were summoned by their supervisors Furthermore the
word "policy" appears only in passing in the respondent's March 7 letter, and
the evidence shows that Bergmann did not deliver the speeches on a word-for-word
basis from the letter, but rather used it as a basis for his speeches Uncontra-
dicted testimony clearly indicates that Bergmann said very plainly that he
would close the plant before he would negotiate a closed-shop agreement. Such a
statement by an employer on the day preceding an election, considered in the
context of other unfair labor practices, cannot be considered as a statement of
"policy," subject to later modification at the bargaining table It is clear that
Bengmann's purpose in making the statement was to coerce the employees so
that they would not vote for the Union, and thus make it unnecessarv for Berg-
mann to bargain with the Union thei eafter A threat to close its dooi s if the
Union asks for a term or condition of employment which the Board has held
to be a proper subject of collective bargaining cannot properly be said to be
without coercive effect The threat to close his doors remains thei efore what
Bergmann intended it to be, namely a device for coercing the employees in their
free choice of a bargaining representative.
Upon the entire record, and viewing the respondent's course of conduct as a
whole, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent's speeches
and letters, its attempts to bribe the employees, its intimidations and its threats,
were all part of a whole course of conduct The respondent's intent was clearly
to fight the Union with every weapon at its command These weapons included
the granting of extra holidays, vacations with pay, the promise of wage increases,
the questioning of its employees as to their union affiliation, the threat that
benefits presently existing would be withdrawn if the Union won the election,2°
the characterization of the Union as being interested in organization solely for
whatever financial benefits might accrue to it, and finally the threat to close the
doors of the plant before a closed shop would be granted to the Union. The
undersigned finds that the totality of these activities of the respondent was
intended to, and in tact did, interfere with, restrain, and coerce its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It is further con-
cluded and found that since the respondent's campaign statements were an
integral part of the respondent's couise of conduct, which interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of such rights. the statements
were not privileged under the Constitution
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR L_1OOii PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I, above,
20 Sec Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc v N L 11 B, 144 F. (2d) 520 (App D C.).
BERGMANN'S INC. 1035
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and within the District of Columbia, and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing conuneice and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE RE\CEDY
As has been found above , the respondent violated Section 8 ( 1) by its speeches,
its letters to its employees , its threats to its employees , its granting of increased
holidays and vacations , its promises of wage increases , and its questioning of its
employees respecting their union atldiation . The varied methods employed by
the respondent has disclosed upon its part a propensity and a determination to
engage ni persistent efforts, but not necessai ily by the same method , to continue
to defeat self-organization by the employees . Because of the respondent ' s unlaw-
ful conduct a nd its underlying purpose, the undersigned is convinced that the
unfair labor practices co initteed by the respondent are related to other unfair
labor practices prosci ibed by the Act, and that danger of commission of such
other unfair labor practices in the future is to be anticipated from the respond-
ent's conduct in the past . The preventive purposes of the Act will be thwarted
unless the recommended order is coextensive with the threat . In order therefore
to make effective the interdependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recur-
rence of unfair labor practices , and thereby minimize industrial strife which
burdens and obsti nets commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will
be recommended that the respondent be ordered to cease and desist from ui any
manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case . the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union Local 457, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, C I 0 , is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act
2 By inteifering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in, and is engaging in, untan labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act
3 The aforesaid unfair lahoi practices are unfair labor practices affecting
conmei ce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, Bergmann's, Inc, Washington,
D C, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner inteifering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exei rise of the i ight to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to joui
or assist Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union Local 457, Amalgamated Clothing
AVorkei s of Ainei ica, C I 0 , or any other labor organization, to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other nuitual aid or
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post immediately at its plant in Washington, D C , copies of the notice
attached hereto, marked "Appendix A" Copies of said notice, to be furnished
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Regional Director of the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
the respondent 's representative , be posted by the respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof , and maintained by it for sixty ( 60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(b) Notify the Regional Director of the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
in writing, within ten (10 ) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report,
what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Di-
rector in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board , Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945 , any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen ( 15) days from the
date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Sec-
tion 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rocham-
beau Building , Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statement
in writing , setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any
other part of the record or proceedings ( including rulings upon all motions or
objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of a brief
in support thereof . Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions
and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a
copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional
Director . As further provided in said Section 33, should any party desire permis-
sion to argue orally before the Board , request therefor must be made in writing
to the Board within ten (10 ) days from the date of the order transferring the case
to the Board Any party desiring to submit a brief in support of the Intermediate
Report shall do so within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the
order transferring the case to the Board, by filing with the Board an original and
four copies thereof, and by immediately serving a copy thereof upon each of the
other parties and the Regional Director.
VICTOR HIRSHFIELD,
Trial Examiner.
Dated July 24, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
We will not in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist Cleaning & Laundry Workers Union Local 457,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. P. 0 or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
BERGMANN'S INC. 1037
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. All our employees are free
to become or remain members of this union, or any other labor organization.
BERGMANN 'S, INC.,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By-----------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days Irom the (late hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material
APPENDIX B
BERGMAN' S LAUNDRY EMPLOYEES
CONGRATULATIONS
When you workers joined the
that you will get a raise in wages
with pay.
NOW LO AND BEHOLD!!!
you.
UNION the officials of the UN1ON told you
6 holidays with pay and one weeks vacation
Here it is. Your
DO NOT BE FOOLED, REMEMBER ! ! !
anything the Boss gives you TODAY he can
Boss promised to give it to
Without a UNION CONTRACT
take back TOMORROW. With a
UNION CONTRACT lie can never take it back
STICK TO THE UNION FOR MORE MONEY AND BETTER WORKING
CONDITIONS.
If you have not signed your UNION card yet, DO SO TODAY. DO NOT
DELAY
IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH
CLEANING AND LAUNDRY WORKERS UNION
LOCAL 457
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA
C. I. O.
1353 You Street, N. W. DEcatur 2893
Earle Building EXecutive 3962
APPENDIX C
To OUR EMPLOYEES :
No doubt you have received and have read, the announcement put out by
the Cleaning and Laundry Workers Union, Local 457, in which the Union
attempts to mislead you into thinking that the Union got you the raise in wages,
holidays with pay, and vacations, which this Company promised to give you,
subject to O. P. A. approval of price increases.
This statement to you by the Union is untrue. This Company does not know
who, or how many of you, have joined the Union, but the raise in wages and
other improvements in your working conditions apply to everyone of you
in the Production Department irrespective of whether you are a member of
the Union, or are not a member. Furthermore, let me say that your job with
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this Company is not dependent upon your being It Union member, or not a Union
member. Your job is dependent upon your efficient work.
The Union also tells you in this document: "Stick to the Union for more money
and better working conditions " This is to inform you that as and when this
Company pays more money and gives employees better working conditions in
this plant, such improvements will be made by the Company Management, and
thg Union will have no influence on such matters
Who are the people connected with this Union who are so interested in your
welfare, and why me they so interestedt Do they tell you that their interest
in you is without compensation, such as clues. assessments and fines imposed
by the Union, or are they interested in you without compensation because they
think you need their help?
Other laundries in this area, without ever having heard of this Union's
operations, have been doing what this Company has been doing-increasing
wages and improving working conditions of their employees whenever it has
been financially possible to do so You know that laundries must make money
to stay in business, and the Union, so far as we have been informed. does nothing,
and has never clone anything, to improve the earning power of any company
it seeks to organize It does improve the Union's financial condition by induc-
ing employees of companies to join its organization and pay clues, assessments
and fines that may be imposed by said Union This Company has never asked
its employees for any compensation for any improvement in your wages, holidays,
vacations, or other working conditions
APPENDIX D
BFRG--%iANN INC.
To the Ent-ploijees of Berjnvmnnls Laundry:
The National Labor Relations Board has ordered an election to be held next
Friday at 1: 00 to 4: 30 P M, for our employees to determine, by vote, whether
they want the Union to represent them or prefer to deal more directly with
the company as to wages. hours of work. and other working conditions
Fiom now until the time of voting, it is to your best interest to make inquiry
of other laundry workers who are employed in plants not represented by tale
Union as to whether or not their wages, vacations, holidays with pad. and other
working conditions are not as good as the employees working in laundries repre-
sented by the Union who now seeks to represent you If you take the time to
look into this, the answer will be that those employees in plants not 'represented
by the Union are doing as well, and in some cases, perhaps better, than the
employees working in plants represented by the Union Those employees who
are working under those conditions, not represented by the Union. do not have
to pay monthly clues or assessments to the Union nor attend Union meetings,
subject to fines if they do not attend
Therefore, it is to your best interest to determine the facts with respect to
this matter and after finding out what the true situation is, to present yourself
at the voting place and vote, between 1 00 and 4: 30 I' M on Friday next.
Remember this-whether the Union is selected to represent the employees
or whether the Union is not selected to represent the employees, will make no
difference so far as your continued employment in this company is concerned.
Also remember that the voting will be secret and no one will know how you vote.
A more complete statement will be fuunshed later.
BEROMANN ' S, INC.