Central Coat, Apron & Linen Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 958 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Minneapolis, Minnesota, operation, excluding the dispatchers and
order takers, the owner-driver who is on the Employer's board of
directors, all office clerical employees, managerial employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Central Coat , Apron & Linen Service, Inc., Maryland Laundry
Corp ., and the Puritan Laundry & Linen Supply, Inc.' and
Local 285, AFL-CIO , Laundry & Dry Cleaning International
Union, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2926. March 4, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis Aronin, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman
Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
'Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Union executed an agreement on May 10,
1959, in which the Employer (1) recognized the Union as the bar-
gaining representative for all the "production employees" at its plant,
and (2) agreed to negotiate a contract with the Union at some indefi-
nite time in the future. The agreement contained no substantive
terms relating to work, hours, or conditions of employment, but was
confined solely to the above-mentioned provisions. The Employer
contends that this agreement bars the present petition filed on October
8, 1959. We find no merit in the Employer's contention. An agree-
ment which provides only for the recognition of a Union is not a
contract which would bar a petition,2 and according to well-established
precedent, a labor organization is entitled to the benefits of Board
certification, notwithstanding its recognition by an employer.'
Under these circumstances, we find that the recognition agreement
of May 10, 1959, is not a bar to the petition herein, and that a question
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160, 1163.
a See Bell Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277; The Purdy Company, 123 NLRB 1032.
1126 NLRB No. 120.
CENTRAL COAT, APRON & LINEN SERVICE , INC., ETC. 959
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer's linen supply business, located at one plant in
Baltimore, Maryland, is divided into the two operations of production
and distribution, the employees in which are on two different pay-
rolls. The 27 production employees perform the washing and press-
ing, while the distribution employees deal with the finished product
and include 8 'sorters, menders, route girls, and examiners, and 12
drivers and 2 salesmen; in addition there are 2 office clerical employees,
and 2 maintenance employees. Petitioner seeks a unit of all "produc-
tion workers" including apparently the route girls, sorters, menders,
and the other inside distribution employees,' but excluding the main-
tenance employees, the 12 drivers, the 2 route salesmen, and the office
clerical employees. The Employer would include all these employees,
contending that its operations are so integrated that only an overall
unit is appropriate. There is no controlling history of collective
bargaining.-'
Petitioner would exclude the maintenance employees, the truck-
drivers, the route salesmen, and the office clerical employees, on the
grounds that it traditionally represents only production employees;
that even where it does seek and win an election in an overall unit,
it requests the employer to recognize other unions as representatives,
of these nonproduction employees; and that in the instant case it has
agreed with other unions to refrain from seeking representation of
nonproduction employees, in order to allow such unions to seek their
representation in the near future. We find no merit in these conten-
tions, as a union's jurisdictional or other limitation concerning classi-
fications of employees in no way restricts the Board in its determina-
tion of the appropriateness of a bargaining unit .6
The two maintenance employees, an engineer and a mechanic, see
that the plant operates efficiently by maintaining the power and steam
facilities and the production equipment. While the mechanic does
spend a substantial amount of time in the garage working on the
trucks, this garage is in the same building as the laundry. Since no
s From the record it is not completely clear whether Petitioner seeks to represent the
inside distribution employees . Although these employees are on a separate payroll from
the production employees , both groups work in the same area , have close contact with
each other during the working day, and daily interchange duties. It is clear , therefore,
that the inside distribution employees have a close community of interest with the pro-
duction employees sought by the Petitioner . In these circumstances , we shall include the
inside distribution employees in the unit.
e The recognition agreement of May 10 , 1959, described above, and any action , such as
discussion of working conditions or settlement of grievances , taken by the parties in
connection therewith, is not the type of bargaining history which the Board considers
controlling See Ryan Indlustrie8, Inc., 100 NLRB 1435; Aerovom Corporation , 93 NLRB
1101 , footnote 3. Moreover , the parties are in dispute as to the meaning of that agree-
ment and the actions taken thereunder.
0 See Florence Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 92 NLRB 185.
.960 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other union is presently seeking to represent the maintenance em-
ployees separately, there is no controlling history of collective bar-
gaining, and Petitioner has advanced no cogent reason which would
mitigate against the normal community of interest which the Board
has traditionally found to exist between production and maintenance
employees, we shall, in conformity with the Board policy, include the
maintenance employees in the unit.'
The record shows that both the truckdrivers and the route salesmen
are out on the road all day driving trucks, and that both make deliv-
eries. When necessary, the two route salesmen substitute for the
truckdrivers. The route salesmen have the additional duties of check-
ing customers' complaints and servicing their accounts. The truck-
drivers, however, also have personal contact with the customers, as
they collect money from them for deliveries made. Unlike the other
employees, both the truckdrivers and the route salesmen are paid on
a salary basis, and receive commissions for new accounts. Although
the truckdrivers and the route salesmen are under the same supervi-
sion as the plant employees, they do not interchange duties with them,
and, in general, have relatively little contact with them. In view of
the foregoing, we find that the drivers and the route salesmen do not
have a sufficient community of interest with the plant employees to
warrant their inclusion in the same unit.8 Therefore, in accord with
Petitioner's request, we shall exclude them from the unit. We shall
also exclude the route supervisor, as he works solely with the drivers
and has no connection with the production and distribution employ-
ees. Therefore, we shall not make any finding as to his alleged super-
visory status.
The office employees, whom the Employer would include, work in
the general office, apart from the production area, and perform such
normal operations as billing, filing, and typing. Although they go
into the plant to obtain the drivers' routebooks for purpose of making
entries and billing, they work on these books only in the office. As
the duties and interests of these office employees are dissimilar to
those of the production and distribution employees whom we have
included in the unit, we shall exclude them from the unit.'
The parties are also in dispute as to the unit placement of the fore-
man of the plant, and the girl in charge of the linen room. The
Employer would include these employees, and Petitioner would
exclude them as supervisors. As the record shows that the foreman
7 See Florence Manufacturing Company, Inc., supra. As the record shows that any
direction the engineer may give the mechanic is merely that of a more experienced
employee to a less skilled one, and as there is no evidence that he possesses any of the
other statutory indicia of supervisory authority, we find, contrary to the contention of
the Petitioner, that the engineer is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
8 See Family Laundry, Inc., et al ., 121 NLRB 1619.
9 See Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB 543.
SHELTERED WORKSHOPS OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 961
of the -plant oversees the entire inside laundry operation, and respon-
sibly directs approximate 35 employees, who are engaged in both
production and distribution, we find that he, is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, and shall accordingly exclude him from the
unit.1Q
The girl in charge of the linen room routes, sorts, and inspects the
linen for distribution. Although she is salaried, she works alongside
the other employees, and any direction she gives the employees is
routine in nature. She has neither the authority to hire, discharge, or
effectively recommend such action; nor does she have any of the other
statutory indicia of supervisory authority. We therefore find that
she is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly,
include her in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following` employees of the Employer
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production
and maintenance employees at the Employers' Baltimore, Maryland,
plant, including the eight inside distribution employees, the engineer,
the mechanic, and the girl in charge of the linen room, but excluding
the truckdrivers, the route salesmen, the office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, the foreman of the plant, and all
other supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
10 See Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, supra, (Clifford Brown,
foreman).
Sheltered Workshops of San Diego, Inc. and United Association
of Handicapped, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-5825. March 4,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing in this case was held before Norman H.
Greer, hearing officer. The hearing, officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
Sheltered Workshops of San Diego, Inc., herein called the Work-
shop, is a xionprofit California corporation, which is engaged in pro-
viding work experience under controlled conditions for persons
unemployable elsewhere because of their physical, mental, emotional,
or social disabilities. It does this by providing an environment which
will prepare them as soon as possible for regular employment in the
business community. The Workshop also assists those handicapped
126 NLRB No. 119.
554461--60-vol. 126-62