Erlich's 814 Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 1237 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

ERLICH'S 814, INC.
Erlich's 814, Inc.; Erlich's Northwest, Inc.; Capri
Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc. and Laundry,
Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers' Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 108, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Erlich's 814, Inc.; Erlich's Northwest, Inc.; Capri
Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc.; Erlich Cleaning
Company and Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye
House Workers' International Union, Local No.
161, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America. Cases 14-CA-9244 and 14-CA-
9298
September 8, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On December 9, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ries issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondents filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
also filed exceptions.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge to the
' The General Counsel additionally filed. on behalf of all the parties, a
motion and stipulation to reopen the record for receipt of additional
evidence and stipulation of fact. stating that Respondent, at its location at
6200 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, Missouri, employs one counter person
or counter girl whose terms and conditions of employment were covered by
the collective-bargaining agreement between Respondents and Laundry,
Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers' International Union, Local No. 161,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter called Local 161). The
motion is hereby granted and the stipulation received. Based on this
additional evidence, we find that Local 161 is the exclusive bargaining
representative of all store persons, counter persons, and cleaning production
employees at Respondents' facilities at 814 Washington Avenue, 1400
Washington Avenue, 6200 Natural Bridge Road, and 8351 Olive Road, and
we will modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly.
2 The Respondents have excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Drr Wall Products,
Inc.. 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
:' It is clear from the Administrative Law Judge's Conclusion of Law 8
and provisions in his recommended Order and notice that he intended but
inadvertently failed to specifically find that the employees who went out on
strike on March 18. 1976, or thereafter, were engaged in an unfair labor
practice strike precipitated and prolonged by Respondents' violations of the
Act and were therefore unfair labor practice strikers entitled to reinstate-
231 NLRB No. 127
extent consistent herewith, 3 to modify his remedy, 4
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein. 5
Although agreeing with the Administrative Law
Judge as to those violations of the Act found by him
and affirmed herein, the General Counsel excepts to
the failure to find three other separate violations of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. We find merit in these
exceptions.
According to the credited testimony of employee
Jessie Estes, Respondents' president-owner, Max
Erlich, clearly indicated to her during a March 20,
1976, conversation that her March 20-27 workweek
schedule would be reduced to only 8 working hours
as a result of her union activities. Since Erlich never
actually implemented any reduction in Estes' hours
for that week, the Administrative Law Judge found
no illegality with reference to this specific aspect of
the March 20 discussion. We find and conclude,
however, that the Respondents violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when Erlich threatened Estes with
an abbreviated workweek because of her continued
union adherence, whether or not the threat was
subsequently realized.
We further find that Erlich's statement to Estes
during the aforementioned conversation that,
"Maybe I will have something for you," constituted
an unlawful promise of benefit in violation of Section
8(a)(1) as alleged in the complaint, inasmuch as
Erlich made the statement immediately after threat-
ening to discharge Estes if she refused to withdraw
from the Union and in response to her inquiry about
what would happen if she did withdraw. We find it
ment to their former or equivalent positions upon their unconditional
request for such reinstatement. It is clear from the record as a whole that the
strike began immediately after the secretary-treasurer for Laundry. Dry
Cleaning and Dye House Workers' International Union. Local No. 108.
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (hereinafter called Local 108) ascer-
tained that Respondents' president-owner. Max Erlich. had not, as earlier
promised, signed a contract with Local 108 because of an alleged but
unsupported doubt of the majority status of Local 108. It can, therefore.
reasonably be concluded that the strike was caused and prolonged by
Respondents' unlawful refusal to recognize Local 108. General Drivers and
Helpers Union, Local 622, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America /Rice Lake Creamer), Co.] v.
N.LR.B., 302 F.2d 908 (C.A.D.C., 1962). See also Moore Business Forms.
Inc., 224 NLRB 393. 408 (1976).
4 In accordance with our decision in Florida Steel Corporation. 231
NLRB 651 (1977), we shall apply the current 7-perccnt rate for periods prior
to August 25. 1977, in which the "adjusted prime interest rate" as used by
the Internal Revenue Service in calculating interest on tax payments 'was at
least 7 percent.
-5 The Administrative Law Judge failed to include provisions in his
recommended Order and notice which refer to his conclusion that
Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(1) when their owner-president. Max Erlich.
informed employee Jessie Estes on March 29, 1976. that she had lost herjob
because of her refusal to withdraw from the Union. The General Counsel
excepted to this omission. and we will modify the recommended Order and
notice to include the appropriate remedial language
1237
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
irrelevant that the benefit promised was keeping a
job rather than some extra benefit not then enjoyed.6
Estes also testified that on March 27, 1976, Erlich
asked her whether she had secured a union with-
drawal card. Although the Administrative Law Judge
found that the sum of Erlich's statements during this
confrontation constituted an illegal threat to dis-
charge Estes, he made no specific finding with
respect to the withdrawal card inquiry. We find and
conclude that Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1)
when Erlich coercively interrogated Estes concerning
her continuing union membership.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dents, Erlich's 814, Inc.; Erlich's Northwest, Inc.;
Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc.; Erlich
Cleaning Company, St. Louis, Missouri, their offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
herein modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(c):
"(c) Threatening employees with discharge or
reduced working hours or promising them benefits in
order to restrain them from freely exercising their
rights to join and assist unions, coercively interrogat-
ing employees with respect to their continuing union
membership and sympathies, or telling employees
that they have lost their jobs because they refused to
withdraw from the union."
2. Insert "6200 Natural Bridge Road," between
"1400 Washington Avenue," and "and 8351 Olive
Street Road." in paragraphs l(e) and 2(e).
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
i Chairman Fanning agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that the
statement "Maybe I will have something for you" was not an unlawful
promise of benefit, but was merely another way of threatening Estes with
loss of employment if she did not withdraw from the Union. Erlich
originally stated "if you want to work for me, you have to get a withdrawal
card from the Union." Clearly, that statement implied that Estes could
continue to work for Erlich's only if she did, in fact, withdraw. Accordingly.
Chairman Fanning considers Erlich's subsequent statement to Estes to be
merely a reiteration of his earlier threat, in the same conversation, that Estes
could save herjob only by her withdrawal.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees
for supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT engage in direct bargaining with
employees who are represented by a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or reduced working hours for supporting a
union, and WE WILL NOT promise them benefits to
weaken their support for a union.
WE WILL NOT question any of our employees
about their union membership or sympathies and
WE WILL NOT tell employees that they have lost
their jobs because they refused to withdraw from
a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of their right to form, join, or assist
unions, to bargain collectively through represen-
tatives of their own choosing, or to refrain from
such activities.
WE WILL, if we have not already done so, offer
to reinstate Jessie Estes to a job substantially the
same as her former job, without any loss of salary
or other rights, and WE WILL make Jessie Estes
whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered, together with interest, because we
discharged her.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers' International Union, Local No. 108,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, with respect to the wages, hours
and other terms and conditions of employment of
the employees in the following appropriate
bargaining unit:
All laundry production employees, exclud-
ing office and clerical employees, watchmen
who perform no production work, store
managers or store clerks who do no produc-
tion work, and supervisory employees who
do not perform production work regularly
and consistently in one single operation and
who have authority to hire and discharge or
effectively recommend such action, working
at our stores at 814 Washington Avenue,
1400 Washington Avenue, and 8351 Olive
Street Road.
1238
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively
with Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers' International Union, Local No. 161,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America, with respect to the wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of employment of
the employees in the following appropriate
bargaining unit:
All store persons, counter persons, and
cleaning production employees, excluding
office and clerical employees, watchmen
who perform no production work, and
supervisory employees who do not perform
production work regularly and consistently
in one single operation and who have
authority to hire and discharge or effectively
recommend such action, working at our
stores at 814 Washington Avenue, 1400
Washington Avenue, 6200 National Bridge
Road. and 8351 Olive Street Road.
WE WILL, upon unconditional application, offer
all employees who went on strike on March 18,
1976, or thereafter, immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former positions or, if such positions
are no longer available, to substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL make
such employees whole, plus interest, for any loss
of pay they may suffer for our unjustified refusal
to reinstate them within 5 days after we receive
such unconditional offer. Further, in order to
reinstate them to their former or equivalent
position, WE WILL, if necessary, discharge any
individuals who have replaced said strikers.
ERLICH'S 814, INC.;
ERLICH'S NORTHWEST,
INC.; CAPRI LAUNDERERS
& DRY CLEANERS, INC.;
ERLICH CLEANING
COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BERNARD RIES, Administrative Law Judge: A hearing
was held in these cases on August 10 and 11, 1976, at St.
Louis, Missouri, pursuant to an order consolidating cases,
complaint and notice of hearing issued by the Regional
Director for Region 14 on June 8, 1976. The complaint
I Certain errors in the transcnpt herein have been noted and corrected.
2 Carolina Supplies and Cement Co.. 122 NLRB 88. 89(1958).
:' The transcript is somewhat unclear on this, however, Respondent's
briel'acknowledges that 1975 gross sales by Erlich's West, Inc.. was $86,180
and b) Erlich's Service Centers, Inc., $258.922 There is a third shoe repair
alleges that the named Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
by refusing to sign a written agreement with Local 108 and
by negotiating in bad faith with Local 161; and they have
further violated the Act by engaging in direct bargaining
with an employee, by promising employees benefits if they
would withdraw from union membership, by threatening to
discharge employees unless the employees abandoned
union membership, by reducing an employee's working
hours in reprisal for the employee's refusal to withdraw
from union membership, by interrogating an employee
coercively, by telling an employee that the employee was
being discharged for refusal to withdraw from union
membership, and by discharging employee Jessie Estes on
or about March 29, 1976. The complaint further alleges
that a strike which began on March 18, 1976, was an unfair
labor practice strike.
Briefs have been received from counsel for the General
Counsel, Respondents, and Local 161, and have been
carefully considered. Upon the entire record' and my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION OF RESPONDENTS
Much time at the hearing was consumed with litigating
the question whether the Board should assert jurisdiction in
this matter. The parties have renewed that struggle in their
briefs.
Max Erlich is the principal shareholder and guiding light
of several corporations in the St. Louis area which are
engaged in the laundry and drycleaning business. It is out
of these operations that the charged unfair labor practices
arise. However, the Erlich laundry and drycleaning
enterprises do not yield sufficient gross revenues to meet
the Board's discretionary standard of $500,000 for retail
enterprises.2 Gross sales by the laundry entities involved
here amounted in 1975 to about $314,000. General Counsel
contends, however, that certain shoe repair operations
conducted by corporations controlled by Erlich should be
considered as constituting a "single employer" with the
laundry and drycleaning operations. The gross revenues
from the shoe repair operations amounted to some
$399,000 3 in 1975 and, accordingly, melding the gross sales
of the two enterprises would amply satisfy the Board's
retail standard. Respondent insists, with vigor, that the two
sets of operations may not be so combined for jurisdiction-
al purposes. The relevant facts are summarized below.
Max Erlich has been in the laundry and drycleaning
business for some 20 years, operating under the name of
various corporations, which had been created and dis-
solved occasionally, at various locations in the St. Louis
area. While the record indicates that Erlich had an interest
in other laundry enterprises in addition to those hereafter
discussed, the record centers only on those which relate to
the alleged unfair labor practices. Capri Launderers & Dry
corporation, Erlich's, Inc., operating in the Stix. Baer & Fuller department
store in downtown St. Louis which, as I read the transcnpt, had gross sales
of $54,000 in 1975. Since the General Counsel stated, without contradiction.
that the total gross sales from the seven entities amounted to $713,000. the
gross shoe repair operations indicated in the text must be the correct figure.
1239
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cleaners, Inc., where Erlich's office is located, operates one
laundry and drycleaning establishment at 8351 Olive Street
Road. Erlich's 814, Inc., operates one such establishment at
814 Washington Avenue. Erlich's Northwest, Inc., is a two-
location corporation, operating establishments at 1400
Washington Avenue and 6200 Natural Bridge. Erlich
Cleaning Company is a partnership which, at material
times, operated a drycleaning pickup establishment at 916
North Whittier Street.
Max Erlich is the majority stockholder of the three
named corporations; he and his father are partners in
Erlich Cleaning Company. Erlich is president of the three
corporations, an individual named Joseph Chused is the
vice president of all three corporations, and Erlich's father,
Ben, is the secretary-treasurer of all the corporations. Max
and Ben Erlich and Chused constitute the board of
directors of the corporations.
None of the locations discussed above employ a large
number of employees; perhaps the greatest number is eight
employees at a single location. Erlich Cleaning Company,
the partnership, had, for some time before it was virtually
closed in March 1976, only a single regular employee.
Depending on the size of the employee complement, Erlich
has a "full" manager in the location or something close to a
manager. While Erlich attempted to convey the impression
that the operations were virtually autonomous, he reluc-
tantly conceded that the managers consulted with him on
"major" decisions and problems. Despite the fact that he
had entered into collective-bargaining agreements on
behalf of the laundry establishments, he took the position
that he does not set labor policy for the stores "in its
entirety."4
Erlich also testified that he visited the stores regularly.
For some years, as a member of an employer association,
Erlich signed several successive collective-bargaining
agreements with the Charging Unions on behalf of the
employees in all of the locations covered by the agree-
ments. Erlich finally conceded 5 that recommendations for
merit increases for the employees at the various stores have
been made to him by the managers, both orally and by
written memorandum. Pat Charles, manager of the 814
Washington Avenue location, testified that Erlich tells her
how she is "supposed to operate." While she said that she
has the authority to discharge employees and discipline
them without consulting anyone, she may have discharged
an employee on one occasion only after consulting with
"the other managers and Mr. Erlich."
Erlich also operates shoe repair enterprises through three
corporations. Erlich's Service Centers, Inc., operates six
such establishments in six stores of the Famous-Barr
department store chain in the St. Louis area, under a lease
Erlich was as evasive and untrustworthy a witness as I have seen in
some time. He plainly understood the "single employer" issue involved in
this case and at every point attempted to deny any operational authority
over the managers of these small shops, to the point of stating that, if he
instructed a manager to fire an employee and the manager refused to do so,
he would do nothing about it: "they probably had a good reason, you have
to listen to the manager." Another example of Erlich's dishonesty follows:
JUDGc RliS: You mentioned that the managers recommended merit
increases for employees and have done so over the years. Those
recommendations are made to whom?
TitHE wrIINtS: To the bookkeeper.
agreement. Erlich's, Inc., operates a shoe repair department
under lease with Stix, Baer & Fuller, a local department
store, at its downtown location, also under a lease
agreement. Finally, there is Erlich's West, Inc., about
which the record does not give a clear account. The record
shows only that the corporation operates one location at
"the West Roads shopping center," but the briefs of both
General Counsel and Respondents state that this operation
is also located within a Stix, Baer & Fuller store (in
"Richmond Heights, Missouri," according to Respondents'
brief).
Max Erlich is the majority stockholder of these corpora-
tions and he, Joseph Chused, and Ben Erlich are again the
principal officers of the corporations. As with the laundry
corporations, they are also the members of the boards of
directors of the three corporations, with the exception of
Erlich's West, Inc., in which Erlich's wife owns "almost
half the stock" and may be a member of the board.
The license agreement between Erlich's Service Centers,
Inc. (signed by Max Erlich as president), and the Famous-
Barr Company has been in effect at least since October
1970, the date of the agreement which is in evidence. The
agreement authorizes Erlich to operate departments "for
the sale of shoe repair services, leather repair services, and
where space permits, the operation of a dry cleaning 'pick-
up' station and all business incidental thereto but for no
other purpose or business whatsoever."
The lease agreement and the testimony show that
Famous-Barr maintains a substantial amount of control
over Erlich's operations in its stores. Within the stores, the
shoe repair departments do not give any impression of
being independently operated. Erlich uses receipts for
goods which are marked "Famous-Barr Co. Shoe Service
Centers." Famous-Barr retains much authority over the
appearance and performance of Erlich's shoe repair
departments, and the license agreement states that Erlich
shall conduct his business in the departments, "insofar as
the public is concerned, under the trade name 'Famous-
Barr' and as an integral part of the business of Famous-
Barr."
Several clauses of the license agreement deal with the
matter of employees. While the agreement states expressly
that the employees are "to be at all times employees" of
Erlich's Service Centers, Inc., it also contains provisions
relevant to their tenure and working conditions. Thus,
Erlich's may not engage any employee to whom Famous-
Barr objects and must "immediately remove from service
in the departments, when requested to do so by Licensor,
any person to whom Licensor shall object." The agreement
further states that "whenever and as requested by Licen-
sor," Erlich's will obtain from its employees and prospec-
JUDGE RtES: To the bookkeeper?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE RIES: Who is the bookkeeper?
THE WITNESS: Me or the bookkeeper.
JUDGE RIES: What is meant by me or the bookkeeper? This is a
federal proceeding. Mr. Erlich. it is subject to federal laws covering
perjury. material misstatements of fact, therefore you should be very
careful in the answers that you give. Now, do you want to answer that
question again?
THE WITNESS: To me.
5 See the preceding footnote.
1240
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
tive employees, and submit to Famous-Barr, such informa-
tion about those employees as Famous-Barr may reason-
ably require from time to time for the purpose of passing
on their character and suitability.6
A provision of the agreement stressed by Respondents
reads, in relevant part:
Licensee agrees to provide in respect of its employees in
the departments working hours, vacations, sick leave (it
being understood that as respects sick leave, all
employees of the departments shall be considered as
"new hires" as of the date hereof), bonuses and salaries
(including sales commissions if any are paid by
Licensee) substantially equivalent to those earned from
time to time by comparable employees of Licensor in
its own selling departments in Famous-Barr with
comparable lengths of service. Licensee shall not be
required, however, to provide retirement plan benefits
or a group insurance program for the said employees.
Employees of Licensee in the departments shall be
entitled to the benefits of any and all employee
cafeterias in Famous-Barr and to receive services from
employee hospitals or clinics, if any, in said stores upon
the same basis as such benefits and services are from
time to time received by comparable employees of
Licensor in its own selling departments in Famous-
Barr.
All persons employed by Licensee in the conduct and
operation of the departments shall at all times be
subject to and abide by the same rules and regulations
as those promulgated from time to time by Licensor for
its own employees and/or employees of other licensed
departments.
Admitted into evidence is an employee handbook which
is issued to employees of Famous-Barr and, according to
Erlich, also issued to his employees in the stores. It
contains the "rules and regulations" to which the license
agreement refers.
8 Erlich testified that, in fact, all hiring was done by the Famous-Barr
personnel department. This seems rather dubious in view of the foregoing
provision, which appears to contemplate that Erlich will do the hiring
subject to such possible investigation as Famous-Barr "ma) reasonably
require from time to time." As noted, it is most difficult to believe Erlich in
many respects, and I am dubious about Erlich's testimony in this regard.
even though it was uncontradicted.
Erlich also testified that Famous-Barr had fired two employees in his
department before he was even notified of such action. This was not
contradicted. Given Erlich's evasiveness and lack of candor, and, in view of
the license provision that the licensee shall "immediately remove from
service in the departments, when requested to do so by Licensor, any person
to whom Licensor shall object," it seems more likely that if there were such
discharges, they were done in accordance with the quoted provision.
I For jurisdictional purposes, it should be noted, the Stix, Baer & Fuller
revenues received by Erlich are not necessary to reach the $500.000
standard: the laundry operations and the Famous-Barr revenues would
together surpass that amount.
M The record shows the following colloqu):
Q. Don't you visit all these places every day?
A. Not every day.
Q. Is there any of them you don't visit at least a couple times a
week?
The license agreement between Erlich's, Inc., and Stix,
Baer & Fuller is in evidence and is not unlike the one
discussed above. The Stix agreement, however, specifically
provides that "if any new employees are to be engaged,
they shall first be submitted to and passed upon by the
employment department of the STORE." That agreement
further states that Erlich's "personnel policies, recognition
of agents, if any, for the purpose of collective bargaining,
and any collective-bargaining agreement, or agreements,
shall, so far as may be lawful, in all respects be coordinated
with the similar policies, recognition, and agreements of the
STORE and shall be subject to approval of the STORE."
Erlich testified that he has a "supervisor who goes to all
the shoe repair departments." His name is Arnold Lierman
and his office is at 1015 South Brentwood, which is a
different location from Erlich's own headquarters. The
record is less than adequate as to Lierman's functions.
Aside from "going to" the shoe operations, the record also
shows that Lierman purchases supplies for the shoe
businesses. These supplies are paid for by the separate
corporations for which they are purchased. Thus, while
Lierman, according to Erlich, "works for Erlich's Service
Centers," and presumably is paid by that corporation, he
also purchases for Erlich's, Inc., and Erlich's West, Inc.
The record indicates that Erlich himself visits the shoe
establishments as well as the laundry operations.8 Again,
Erlich testimonially contended that he exercised virtually
no control over the managers of the shoe repair depart-
ments in the department stores, a protestation which I find
incredible.
There is evidence demonstrating a functional and
administrative relationship between the laundries and the
shoe repair departments. Jessie Estes, a longtime employee
of Erlich's, who was employed at the 916 North Whittier
drycleaning pickup store until March 1976, when she was
terminated, testified that she had worked at the downtown
Stix location at the instance of Erlich. Erlich denied that
Estes or any of the other laundry and drycleaning
employees had ever been sent to work at the shoe repair
locations, but I found Estes to be a totally credible witness
and I accept her testimony.9
A. Not always.
Q. What places don't you visit a couple times a week?
A. About half of them.
Q. Do you visit all of them at least on a weekly basis?
A. Not always.
While the immediately preceding testimony had included references to
the shoe repair operations as well as the laundry operations, and Erlich had,
moments before, been asked if he was "responsible for the day to day
operation of all those corporations," I am not entirely sure that Erlich
understood the questions about visiting "all these places" and "all of them"
to refer to the shoe repair operations as well as the laundry operations, in
view of subsequent testimony which seems to indicate that he may have
been focusing only on the laundry establishments. However, the record
clearly lends itself to the construction that he was refemng to both shoe
repair and laundry enterprises. Furthermore, having observed Erlich. a
rather vital man, I cannot believe that he restricted his visits to only the
handful of laundry and dry cleaning outlets, and did not personally oversee
his more lucrative investments, the shoe operations.
9 How often Estes worked at the Stix store is debatable. General Counsel
uses the term "frequently" in his bnef. I am not sure that Estes' testimony
admits of such a construction but that testimony. set out below, suggests
(Continued)
1241
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record also shows that at the Erlich's West shoe
repair location (as indicated above, described in Respon-
dents' brief as "located at Stix, Baer & Fuller store in
Richmond Heights, Missouri"), there is a laundry and
drycleaning pickup station operated in connection with the
shoe repair business. The laundry and drycleaning left at
the Erlich's West location is processed by Erlich's Capri
Launderers. Erlich testified that there is no written contract
underlying this relationship; reimbursement is based on "a
fair percentage of the sales." 10 Erlich also testified that, at
the 6200 Natural Bridge laundry location, he operates a
shoe repair establishment which he has leased from another
company. Finally, paychecks for employees at all loca-
tions, both in the shoe repair business and in laundry and
drycleaning, are prepared by a bank, pursuant to a
contract between the bank and Erlich.
In Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union
1264, etc. et al. v. Broadcast Service of MoJile, Inc., 380 U.S.
255, 256 (1965), the Court described the factors relevant to
a determination of"single employer" as follows:
The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in
Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, com-
mon management, centralized control of labor relations
and common ownership.
No one of the four criteria is dispositive, N.L.R.B. v.
Welcome-American Fertilizer Company, 443 F.2d 19, 21
(C.A. 9, 1971). Nor do all of the criteria have to be present.
For example, even though common control of labor
relations policy has often been emphasized, e.g., Gerace
Construction, Inc., 193 NLRB 645 (1971), the Board has
held that ". . . the presence or absence of a common labor
relations policy is not conclusive in determining whether
separate legal entities constitute a 'single employer' for
jurisdictional purposes. The fact that the record does not
show that Carp or any official of Carp's, Inc., personally
intervenes in labor relations matters of the 25 corporations
is relevant, but not decisive. The Board has on several
occasions made a finding of a single employer status in the
absence of evidence of a common labor relations policy,
and has found two corporations to be single employer even
though it was affirmatively shown that each corporation
established its own labor relations policy." Canton, Carp's,
Inc., 125 NLRB 483, 484 (1959). Similarly, the Board has
found two corporations to constitute a single employer
despite a demonstrable lack of operational (i.e., horizontal)
integration between the actual business enterprises being
that she did it more than once:
Q. (By Mr. O'Shea) Ms. Estes, did Mr. Erlich ever have occasion
to send you personally to work down at Famous-Barr?
A. No, I worked at Stix.
Q. You went to Stix from downtown?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do at downtown Stix?
A. Taking shoes. You know, the customers come in, I wnte up
their order on whatever they want done to the shoes. I take it to the
shoemakers. Sometimes it was a wait on and sometimes it was a pick up
later.
Q. How long ago was that?
A. They stopped working there in December a year ago, it was.
Ever since he had had it, I was floating around to all the Targets and
the Gem Stores and everything. When I got through up on Whittier I
conducted. Cockatoo, Inc., 145 NLRB 611 (1963); D. H.
Overmyer Co., Inc., 190 NLRB 341 (1971); The Catholic
Bishop of Chicago, A Corporation Sole, 220 NLRB 359
(1975).
Given the generality of the foregoing guidelines-that
there are four controlling criteria, none of which is
conclusive, and not all of which need be present-it must
be said that the determinations in this area have been, in
the past, somewhat impressionistic. This, I hasten to add, is
not to fault the Board, for the subject is a complicated one,
but it is difficult to find in the decisions a unifying policy
objective which would illuminate the manner in which the
criteria should be weighed, or indicating whether, as might
be argued, the factors should be weighed differently
depending on the purpose for which the determination of
"single employer" is being made."
The impact of a labor dispute at one of the corporate
employers upon the operations of the other might seem to
be a useful standard, but the Board appears to have
mentioned this only in passing in occasional cases, see
Piedmont Wood Products Co., Inc., 156 NLRB 151, 152
(1965), Kennecott Copper Corporation, 99 NLRB 748, 751
(1952). And there are many cases in which it is obvious that
the existence of a labor dispute at one of the operations
would have had no direct effect on the other but in which
the Board nonetheless found a single employer relation-
ship. In addition to those earlier cited, see, e.g., V.I.P.
Radio, Inc., 128 NLRB 113 (1960); G. E. Tyner and A.
Petrus, Partners, d/b/a/ Tyner-Peters Co., 81 NLRB 380
(1949); American Theatre Corporation, d/1/a Pussycat
Theatre, etc., 220 NLRB 295 (1975).
Indeed, in Central New Mexico Chapter, National
Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., 152 NLRB 1604,
1608 (1965), where the Board found "ample evidence" to
support the conclusion that two separate corporate entities
constituted a single employer under the Act, it nonetheless
refused to find an employerwide bargaining unit appropri-
ate, "particularly in view of the separate supervision of
employees of the two firms, their separate location, the lack
of employee interchange, the absence of evidence showing
functional integration, and the fact that the labor policies
of NMECO, a residential contractor, are based on its own
needs and are not dependent on those of Gamblin, a
commercial and industrial contractor .... "
Respondent argues that the lack of interrelationship of
operations between the laundry enterprise and the shoe
repair enterprise should be decisive in this case. As
discussed above, however, the record discloses that the two
would get on the truck and go to another store, or I would catch the bus
and go downtown.
Q. Were there other people that you worked with that did the
same thing?
A. Marlene.
Q. Wasshea memberof 161?
A. Yes, she was.
i0 It should be noted that the license agreement between Erlich and
Famous-Barr provides for "where space permits. the operation of a dry
cleaning 'pick-up' station and all business incidental thereto .... " Thus,
express provision has been made for an integration of Erlich's drycleaning
operations into his shoe repair operations at Famous-Barr.
" See, e.g., Royal Typewriter Company, etc., et al. v. N. LR.B., 533 F.2d
1030, 1043 (C.A. 8, 1976).
1242
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
enterprises are functionally and operationally related.
Erlich has sent employee Estes, and perhaps another
employee, from a laundry operation to work at a shoe
repair establishment. The Erlich's West shoe operation (of
which Max Erlich is president and majority stockholder)
has an unwritten agreement with Capri Launderers (of
which Max Erlich is president and majority stockholder)
under which Erlich's West performs a pickup service on
behalf of Capri and reimbursement is based on "a fair
percentage of the sales." As the Board noted in Overton
Markets, Inc.; et al., 142 NLRB 615, 619 (1963), this is a
circumstance "not . . . characteristic of the arm's length
relationship found among unintegrated companies." In
addition, in contrast to some of the cases earlier noted in
which the Board has found a single employer despite the
lack of potential impact on one entity of a labor dispute at
another, here such a dispute at Erlich's West could have a
direct adverse affect on the business of Capri, and vice
versa. As also set out above, the wages of employees of all
the corporations are paid under a banking arrangement
entered into by Erlich on behalf of all the corporations.
The fact that the two enterprises do not operate hand in
glove has been held to be a matter of little moment, as in
Central New Mexico Chapter, supra, where the Board found
a single employer relationship despite the "absence of
evidence of functional integration." This same holds true in
a number of cases, some cited above, and another good
example of which is The Family Laundry, Inc., etc., 121
NLRB 1619 (1958). In Family Laundry, members of the
Maslow family owned a majority of the stock in, and were
the officers and directors of, a group of 15 corporations
engaged in .8 States in the laundry and linen supply
business. A union sought to represent the employees of two
of the corporations in Maine, which themselves did not
meet the jurisdictional standard. There was no evidence of
horizontal integration of operation of the laundries, each of
which "operated independently of the other local corpora-
tions." However, the Board, tracing back the centralized
authority vested in one of the members of the Maslow
family, who traveled to Maine "several times yearly" to
supervise the two laundry businesses there, and relying on
other indicia of central control from the New York office,
held that the laundry units in the State of Maine were,
together with the other corporations, a single employer,
and that jurisdiction should be asserted over the Maine
corporations.12
Common ownership is undisputed here; Max Erlich
owns the majority of the stock in all the laundry and shoe
repair corporations. With one possible exception, the
officers and the board of directors for each of the
corporations are identical. I think it is also clear that the
active management of all the enterprises is centralized and
resides in the person of Max Erlich. There can be no doubt
that Erlich is in direct charge of the laundry and
drycleaning establishments; his office is located at the
address of the Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners, and he
12 In an advisory opinion, Swift Cleaners, Inc.. etc., 191 NLRB 597
11971). the Board thought it "reasonable to assume." citing Family Laundr)y
that three corporations, operating laundry and drycleaning establishments
and a men's clothing store, could constitute a single employer for
jurisdictional purposes.
i:' The record indicates that Erlich also operates cleaning and shoe repair
goes to these stores with some frequency. I think it is also
free from doubt that Erlich personally exercises active
supervisory authority over the shoe repair enterprises.
Although he seemed to imply that the supervision of these
establishments was left to Arnold Lierman, who "goes to"
the shoe repair locations, Erlich also, as I have found, visits
these places. As noted above, it appears that, in 1975,
Erlich's, Inc., had gross sales of about $54,000, Erlich's
West, Inc., had gross sales of some $86,000, and Erlich's
Service Centers, Inc., had sales of some $259,000, for a
total of $399,000. Thus, the gross revenues of the shoe
repair operations exceeded those of the laundry and
drycleaning enterprises involved here by some $85,000 in
1975.13 After studying this record and having observed
Erlich at the hearing, as well as having given proper regard
to the indisputable human instincts implicated here, I
cannot believe that Erlich would not pay the closest
personal attention to the aspect of his enterprises which
produces the greatest amount of income, and I refuse to
believe that Arnold Lierman, who did not testify at the
hearing and whose duties are only vaguely described, has
been delegated any kind of close supervisory authority over
the shoe repair operations to the exclusion of Erlich.
I believe the same inference may be drawn regarding the
factor of the centralized control of labor relations. Before
he withdrew recognition from the two Charging Parties
here in 1975, Erlich, as a member of an employer
association, had participated in collective-bargaining nego-
tiations 14 and had signed agreements on behalf of the
laundry enterprises. The record shows, as Erlich finally
admitted, that managers of the laundry stores make
recommendations for merit increases directly to him, both
orally and in writing. It further shows, as discussed, that he
personally transferred an employee from one store to
others. In addition, striking employee Ella Sykes testified,
without contradiction, that in December 1975, Erlich came
to her place of employment and personally told the
employees that he was giving them a 10-cent raise. To the
extent that any major policy decisions with respect to labor
relations and personnel policies are necessary at the shoe
repair operations, I am quite confident that they are made
by Erlich.
Respondent argues, however, that "Max Erlich has little,
if any, power to control labor relations" at the Stix, Baer &
Fuller and Famous-Barr locations. It is true that the license
agreement between Erlich and Famous-Barr reserves
considerable control over the behavior standards to be
applied to Erlich's employees in Famous-Barr. However, it
appears to me that Erlich's agreement to provide wages
and benefits to his employees which are "substantially
equivalent" to those earned by employees of Famous-Barr
is nothing more than an attempt to maintain "area
standards" in the stores. There is certainly no reason to
believe that Erlich could not provide greater benefits than
those being received by Famous-Barr employees.'5 It is
clear that there is room within the license agreement for
businesses at other stores in the area. but no details were adduced as to these
operations.
14 Horton, of Local 161. testifed that Erlich had served as a member of
the employer association bargaining committee.
is The license agreement, sec. 10.2. states that Erlich "shall not be
required, however, to provide retirement plan benefits or a group insurance
(Continued)
1243
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exercising discretion in the treatment of employees, and I
think it unquestionable that Erlich is the one who exercises
that discretion.' 6
Had Erlich created just one corporation to perform the
laundry and shoe repair services he is now providing,
instead of setting up the "mere shells" (American Theatre
Corporation, 220 NLRB 295, 297 (1975)) which he has
erected and dissolved over the years, we are told by Acme
Paper Box Company, 201 NLRB 240, 241 (1973), that there
would be no question that a single employer entity existed
("However, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction
where there is only a single corporate entity involved, as
here, conducting different operations, even though such
operations are not integrated and or of a different nature,
the totality of the employer's operations are considered for
jurisdictional purposes."). Accord, Emil Denemark, Inc.,
120 NLRB 1059 (1958). The fact that Erlich has created
these "mere shells" 17 should not preclude a determination
that what we deal with here is essentially a single
enterprise, guided and controlled by a single personality,
with a single labor relations mind-set. Together with the
evidence of intimate intercorporate dealings, such as the
informal agreement between Erlich's West and Capri
Launderers, there is ample basis for the Board to conclude
that its discretionary standard, for what Respondents refer
to as the "limited purpose" of asserting jurisdiction, has
been met in this case. 18
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
I find, despite Respondents' challenges thereto, hereafter
discussed, that Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers' International Union, Local No. 108 and Local
No. 161, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(5) With
Respect to Local 108
Local 108 represents laundry production employees. For
some 20 years, Erlich's corporations have executed collec-
tive-bargaining agreements on behalf of the laundry
production employees with Local 108 through the St. Louis
program for the said employees." Thus, while Erlich is not required to
provide such benefits, it is clear that he is free to do so. This is undoubtedly
true of many other benefits which could be conferred upon employees. In
Duane's Miami Corporation, 119 NLRB 1331 (1958), the Board found the
employees to be employees of the licensee, despite a provision requiring the
licensee to conform to "minimum standards established by the licensor with
respect to earnings, hours, and other basic conditions of employment." And
in HerJerl Harvey, Inc., 171 NLRB 238 (1968), the test of assertion of
jurisdiction was whether the contractor retained sufficient control over
employment conditions to permit effective bargaining with a union.
i' That Erlich regards himself as the direct employer of his shoe repair
employees at the Famous-Barr stores is suggested by his testimony that the
employee manual in evidence is given by Famous-Barr to "any new
employee they send to me."
" The sheerness of these particular corporate veils is indicated by a letter
written by Erlich to Jessie Estes on the letterhead of"Erlich's West Laundry
& Cleaning Co.," listing the address of that entity as "8351 Olive." The
record indicates that "Erlich's West" is only in the shoe repair business, and
Dry Cleaners Exchange, an employer association. The last
such agreement bore an expiration date of November 30,
1975.
Prior to September 1975, Local 108 gave notice to the
Exchange that it intended to terminate the existing
agreement. On September 25, 1975, Erlich sent a letter to
Local 108 stating that he also desired to terminate the
agreement and that he intended to negotiate with Local
108 on an individual basis. He asked the Union to contact
him "so that we may arrange for a mutually acceptable
date for the purpose of negotiating a new agreement."
According to Thomas W. Smith, secretary-treasurer of
Local 108, after negotiations with the Exchange had begun,
Smith, around December 10, 1975, called Erlich to inquire
about negotiating separately with him. Erlich replied that
"he wanted to wait and see what they done downtown." A
few days after negotiations with the Exchange were
concluded on January 9, Smith called Erlich and told him
about the contractual changes which had been effected by
the Exchange agreement.' 9 He asked if Erlich was ready to
sign the contract. Erlich told him to put a copy in the mail
"and let him read it over." Smith testified that "Mr. Erlich
wanted to, for us to get the rest of the members signed and
he said as soon as they signed that he would sign the
contract." He also asked, however, that a copy be sent to
him to "read it over first."
Shortly before March 15, the Exchange contract was
signed by the employers who had not dropped out of the
Exchange.2 0 On March 15, Smith, together with Roy
Suaraz, the president of Local 108, and Emeilo Horton, the
secretary-treasurer of Local 161, went to the Capri location
and talked with Erlich. Erlich arranged to have lunch with
Smith and Suaraz the next day. At that lunch meeting,
Erlich said that he could not afford the increase in the
pension and welfare benefits negotiated by Local 108 with
the Exchange. He also told Smith that he was thinking
about closing one of the stores; asked Smith "how much it
would take for [Smith] to forget to sign a contract";21 and
"mentioned that the members at his plant did not want to
belong to the union." Erlich "said he would be in touch
with me." Smith said that if he did not hear from Erlich
that evening he was going to call a strike.
That afternoon, Smith received some erroneous informa-
tion that Erlich was going to sign the agreement. This
misapprehension was corrected on March 18, when Smith
ascertained that Erlich had not signed the contract. On that
the address given is that of Capri Launderers. In addition. Eleanor
Hoffman, manager of the Capri operation on Olive Street Road, identified
herself as an employee of "Erlich's West Laundry." Similarly, Pat Charles,
manager at 814 Washington, nominally owned by Erlich's 814, Inc.,
described herself as an employee of "Erlich's Cleaning Company," which,
according to the record, operates only the 914 North Whittier location.
Erlich himself was quite unsure of the names of the corporations and their
holdings at the hearing.
is The record adequately establishes legal jurisdiction. based on indirect
inflow.
'9 That agreement was reached in January, but was not formalized until
March.
20 Most apparently had decided to negotiate individually.
21 Erlich's testimonially weak denial of this remark and his admitted
failure to have been incensed at what he testified was a misconstruction by
Smith of his remark lead me to believe that he did in fact attempt to bribe
Smith.
1244
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
day, he went to the 1400 Washington Avenue location,
where Erlich was present, and told Erlich that the Union
intended to strike. Picketing, by both Local 108 and Local
161, then began at 1400 Washington Avenue and eventual-
ly moved to Erlich's locations at 814 Washington Avenue
and Olive Street Road. The picketing ended about 6 weeks
later.
The complaint alleges that Respondents violated Section
8(a)(5) by refusing, since on or about March 16, 1976, "to
sign a written agreement . . . agreed upon between said
Respondent Laundry and Local 108." The General
Counsel thus relies on the testimony of Smith that Erlich
had promised that "as soon as [the other members of the
Exchange] signed that he would sign the contract." Erlich,
in effect, denied ever promising to sign the Exchange
agreement. He testified that when Smith called him,
sometime in January or February, described the Exchange
agreement, and asked if Erlich would go along with it, he
told Smith "I want to think about it." He again said this to
Smith when he met with him on March 16.
Although Smith appeared to be an honest witness and
Erlich precisely the opposite, I am inclined to believe that
Erlich's version more accurately captures the January
conversation between the two men. Since Erlich had gone
to the trouble, on September 25, 1975, of withdrawing from
the association and expressing his desire to engage in
individual bargaining, it seems unlikely to me that he
would have told Smith in January that he would sign the
association contract as soon as the other members of the
association signed. In my judgment, Erlich, a devious and
untrustworthy person, probably couched his reply in such a
manner that Smith may have misconstrued its intent, but I
doubt that Erlich simply committed himself without
reservation to sign the Exchange agreement.
There is more to the case, however. At the hearing,
counsel for Respondents announced that "there was
withdrawal of recognition at the meeting with Mr. Smith
on [sic] March . . ." The same contention was impliedly
made at the hearing and is reasserted in Respondents'
brief, with respect to Local 161. The contentions thus
necessarily concede a refusal to bargain with the two
Unions.22 The bases for the withdrawal of recognition were
described at the hearing as multiple: that "this union is not
a union"; that the Union "does not and never has
represented a majority of the employees"; and that there
were "objective considerations which gave rise to reason-
able basis for good faith doubt of majority status."
22 Respondents' position is a melange of contentions, described by
counsel at the hearing as "a little bit of a mixed bag."
2.: The record indicates that Erlich shamelessly lied about the origin of
this petition. The petition, captioned "We do not wont to be lone to loicol
108 [sic ] any more," and signed by three employees of the Olive Street Road
location, where Erlich's office is located, and three employees of the 814
Washington Avenue location, was said by Erlich to have appeared on his
desk one morning when he arrived at work and was, in its present form,
"definitely" the way he found the document. He testified that he had no
knowledge as to how the petition traveled from one facility to another.
However. Eleanor Hoffman, Erlich's manager at Olive Street Road,
subsequently testified that she found the petition lying on her desk in
January and that she gave it to Erlich. She said she was "positive" that at the
time she gave it to Erlich there were only three signatures on it. It is thus
obvious that Erlich was instrumental in moving the petition from Olive
Street Road to 814 Washington, contrary to his testimony. In making the
argument that Respondents had a good-faith basis for a doubt of union
The contention that "this union has never, during the
course of the recent contract, represented the employees
within the meaning of the Act" is grounded on some vague
and imprecise testimony by Erlich and two of his managers
that they had heard grumbling among the employees about
the representation given to them by the Unions and that
union representatives had seldom, if ever, visited the stores
or processed any grievances. The same sort of evidence is
relied upon to argue that Erlich had a good-faith doubt of
majority support as of March 1976; in addition, a petition
purportedly signed by six employees represented by Local
108 was introduced into evidence by Respondent. 2 3
There is no basis in the record for concluding that Local
108 abandoned the employees it represented during the
term of the last contract. There is equally little basis for
concluding that Erlich had a good-faith doubt based on
objective considerations that Local 108 represented a
majority of the employees in the unit. Putting aside the
suspect petition, discussed above, the unspecific testimony
of the two managers, to the effect that they had been
regularly, and for several years, communicating to Erlich
the fact that employees were disenchanted with the
Unions, obviously had given rise to no doubt of majority
status in Erlich's mind as of September 25, 1975, when he
wrote to both Unions asking them to contact him so that
arrangements could be made "for a mutually acceptable
date for the purpose of negotiating a new agreement." 24
Although, as indicated, Respondents' counsel stated that
Respondents withdrew recognition at the meeting with
Smith, Erlich testified that he told Smith "I want some
more time to think about it." However, I feel that I must
accept counsel's representation that Respondents have
withdrawn recognition from the Union.
Given that statement of position, I conclude that there
was no basis for taking such action. Accordingly, while I
cannot find that Respondents, as charged, violated the Act
by refusing to honor an agreement to sign the collective-
bargaining contract, I do find that by withdrawing
recognition from Local 108 on or about March 16, 1976,
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
B. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(5) With
Respect to Local 161
Local 161 has represented a unit of "all store girls,
counter girls and cleaning production employees" of
Respondents' drycleaning operations. On September 25,
majority, Respondents' brief, demonstrating a certain sense of grace. makes
only passing reference, in a footnote, to the petition, although an argument
could be made that the six signatures constituted a majority of the
employees represented at the various stores by Local 108 (this, however, is
unclear; while Erlich testified that he had a total of only nine Local 108
employees, three at each of three locations, Manager Pat Charles testified
that she had four employees performing Local 108 work at her store, as did
Manager Eleanor Hoffman).
24 Erlich testified that he sent these letters to the Unions because "I
realized that most of my people were unhappy with the situation, with
belonging to the Union." This non sequitur is characteristic of Erlich. who
exhibited unfettered willingness to conform his testimony to the needs of the
litigation. It is obvious that, if an employer truly believed that "most of my
people were unhappy with the situation," he would not have sent letters
inviting the negotiation of new agreements: his letters would have, at that
point, withdrawn recognition.
1245
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1975, Erlich sent Local 161 a letter identical to that sent to
Local 108, requesting individual bargaining.
Emeilo Horton, the secretary-treasurer of Local 161,
testified that, after receiving Erlich's letter, he called him
and finally made contact with him "after two, three, four
calls," between October and January. When he finally
spoke to Erlich in January, Erlich told Horton that he had
to leave town and would be gone for some 10 days and
"maybe we could get together when he came back."
"Somewhere between January and February," Horton
happened to run into Erlich on the street. He asked Erlich
when they were going to confer about the contract. Erlich
said, "Well, I don't know when we are going to get
together." Erlich exhibited indecision about whether he
would sign the Exchange contract which had been
negotiated with Local 161 and Horton told him that the
only alternative contract he had available was the indepen-
dent contract: "If you are independent the contract goes
up more." Erlich told him that he had seen the independent
contract and he was not going to sign it. Horton testified
that thereafter he tried to call Erlich "about five or six
times," leaving his name each time, but Erlich never called
back.
On March 18, Horton was contacted by Smith of Local
108 with the news that Erlich was not going to sign a
contract. He joined Smith and went to several of Erlich's
establishments to call his members out on strike. He saw
Erlich at 814 Washington, at which time he asked Erlich
why he had not signed the agreement. Erlich said, "I'm not
going to let somebody push me into something I don't want
to go into." Erlich denied having received any messages
that Smith had called him. I credit the testimony of
Horton, a most impressive witness, and I infer that Erlich
deliberately made himself unavailable to Local 161 in its
efforts to negotiate a new bargaining agreement.
The complaint alleges that since on or about March 16,
1976, Respondents have been negotiating with Local 161
"in bad faith and with no intention of entering into any
final or binding collective-bargaining agreement." It is
apparent, from statements made by counsel for Respon-
dents at the hearing and in their brief, that Respondents
are taking the same position with regard to Local 161 as
they have with respect to Local 108: viz, that Local 161 "is
not a union" and that Respondents have withdrawn
recognition from Local 161 because of a good-faith doubt
based on objective considerations which caused them to
believe that Local 161 did not represent a majority of the
employees in its bargaining unit. There is no more warrant
in the record for these contentions with respect to Local
161 than there is with respect to Local 108. And since it is
clear that any claim of a perceived loss of majority was
asserted after Respondents engaged in bad-faith stalling
tactics, the claim, not being asserted in a context "free of
unfair labor practices," may not be properly advanced
here. Bartenders, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employers
Bargaining Association of Pocatello, Idaho, 213 NLRB 651
', Contrary to the complaint allegation that Respondents' bad-faith
bargaining commenced "on or about March 16, 1976," the record indicates
that Erlich's avoidance of his bargaining obligation began sometime in
January. when he first failed to return Horton's telephone calls. However.
the General Counsel has not sought to amend the complaint to reflect an
earlier date, and I shall consider the evidence only as indicative of Erlich's
overall bad faith.
(1974). I reject the attacks made on the majority status of
Local 161 and on its status as a labor organization. I
conclude, accordingly, that Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by their refusal to bargain with
Local 161.25
C. Violations With Respect to Melvin Jones
As of March 1976, Melvin Jones had worked for Erlich
for about 25 years. In March, Jones was employed at the
Capri Launderers location at Olive Street Road. He lived
in some accommodations at 916 North Whittier Street,
where Erlich operated a drycleaning pickup store. Accord-
ing to Jones, on March 18, after the strike started, Erlich
called Jones and asked him if he knew about the strike.
When Jones said that he did, Erlich asked him what his
plans were. Jones, a member of Local 161, replied that he
would have to go along with the Union.
Jones was customarily picked up by an Erlich driver at
the Whittier Street location and taken to the Olive Street
Road store. On March 19, the driver did not show up.
Jones called Erlich and asked what had happened to the
driver.26 Erlich told him there was no use picking him up
since Jones was not going to work. Erlich further "told me
that if I would get a withdrawal card he would put me on a
Blue Cross, Blue Shield work plan and I could come back
to work and I would have a job." Erlich also proposed that
Jones take over the 916 North Whittier store at "a 20
percent on the dollar basis." Jones refused.
Erlich denied making any statements to Jones about
getting a withdrawal card from the Union or furnishing
Jones with Blue Cross, Blue Shield benefits. He testified
that, maybe "6 or 9 months" before the strike, he offered to
let Jones to take over the Whittier location on a "whole-
sale" basis. I credit the testimony of Jones, who appeared
to be a most trustworthy witness.
I think General Counsel is correct in contending that the
offer to provide Jones with insurance benefits and a job if
he would withdraw from the Union constituted both direct
bargaining in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and an unlawful
promise of benefits in violation of Section 8(a)( ), and I so
find.
D. Allegations Relating to Jessie Estes
Jessie Estes worked for Erlich at various locations
operated by him from 1952 to March 27, 1976, when her
employment came to an end. Her last place of employment
was Erlich's store at 916 North Whittier Street; she worked
there and also "floated around." It appears that she was the
only regular employee at the Whittier Street location,
although evidently another employee occasionally worked
there.
According to Estes, on March 20, 2 days after the strike
had begun, Erlich and his son Bruce came into the North
Whittier Street store. Erlich said, "Well, this is it. Next
Saturday for sure I am closing this store and if you want to
26 Jones explained at the hearing that, while he intended to go on strike,
he would not do so before the Union told him that he should strike.
Accordingly, his intention was to enter the Olive Street Road premises and
work "until somebody pulled me out."
1246
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
work for me you have got to have a withdrawal card from
the Union. I am not going to have anybody working for me
in the Union." Estes asked where she would work if she got
a withdrawal card. Erlich said, "Maybe I will have
something for you." Erlich's son had with him two signs,
one of which read, "From 9 to I on Wednesday," and the
other, "From I to 5 on Saturday." Erlich indicated that the
store would be open only those hours. Estes pointed out
that the schedule amounted to only 8 hours a week. Erlich
said, "Well, that is all I am offering." Estes told him that
she could not accept the offer. Up to that time, Estes had
been working a schedule of 7 a.m.-5 p.m. on Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday, and 7 a.m.-2 p.m. on Tuesdays
and Saturdays, the store being closed on Thursday. Before
leaving, Erlich told Estes that "the next Saturday, which
was the 27th, would be my last day if I didn't get a
withdrawal card."
On the following Saturday, March 27, Erlich came into
the store. He asked Estes, "Did you get it?" Estes replied
that she had not. Erlich said, "I figured that. You are
sympathizing with the Union." Estes replied, "I am not
sympathizing with anybody. You are only offering me 8
hours a week." Erlich said, "That is more than what the
Union is going to give you. They are offering you nothing."
Estes reiterated that she was not going to work 8 hours
"when I have been with you all these many years." Erlich
then suggested that Estes take over the location "on a
commission" of 20 cents on the dollar, which Estes refused.
He then proposed that she take over the store "as a
wholesale customer." Estes "told him that he was pulling
something, that he would have me out of business like he
did Lois, in less than a month's time." Subsequently, Estes
told Erlich that she would "think about" his proposition.
However, on Monday, March 29, she called him and said
that she did not want the place. She also told him that she
had given the keys to another employee. Erlich said, "You
know you don't have a job." Estes replied, "That is o.k.
You said that the 27th was my last day and that is what I
am holding you to. The cash register is cleaned out and [the
truck driver] has the keys and all the receipts." On June 28,
1976, after the complaint had been issued in this case,
Erlich sent Estes a certified letter offering her employment
at his Olive Street Road store and stating in part:
We have received notification from the National Labor
Relations Board that you apparently believe your
employment was involuntarily terminated at the 916
North Whittier store location. This is contrary to my
understanding and knowledge of the facts relating to
your termination, which was that you voluntarily quit
since you did not wish to operate the store under a lease
arrangement. At that time, in March of this year, you
advised me that you preferred to discontinue your
employment rather than transfer to another location.
Erlich testified that he had been trying to sell or lease the
Whittier Street location for several years because it was not
doing much business, testimony which was confirmed by
Estes. Erlich also testified that he had on "several
27 Erlich testified that he knew Estes had been a member of Local 161
because he deducted dues from her salary.
occasions" made an offer to Estes, as he had to Jones, to
take over the Whittier Street store. Estes' testimony
suggests that Erlich had indeed made such a proposition to
her prior to the strike. However, Erlich further testified that
the last time that he made such a proposal to Estes was
perhaps 10 days prior to the strike, at which time Estes said
that she would accept the proposal. He testified that he had
no conversation with Estes subsequent to the prestrike
conversation about her taking over the store. According to
Erlich, Estes worked after the strike began and then he
received the keys from her through an intermediary. He
assumed that the receipt of the keys meant that she had
decided against operating the store under a lease arrange-
ment. He had no "further conversation with her about this
wholesale takeover of the property," the reason being that
"it was evident that she didn't want it, she sent the keys
back." Erlich denied ever asking Estes to get a withdrawal
card from the Union and denied ever discussing the Union
with her.
The demeanor of Jessie Estes was enormously impressive
and I credit her testimony in full. Although, as indicated,
Erlich testified that he had "no further conversation" with
Estes subsequent to the conversation allegedly occurring 10
days before the strike started in which Estes agreed to take
over the store, his letter of June 28, 1976, refers to a
conversation "in March of this year, [when] you advised
me that you preferred to discontinue your employment
rather than transfer to another location."
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, I conclude that
Erlich's statement to Estes on March 20, 1976, that he was
going to close the store on the following Saturday "and if
you want to work for me, you have got to have a
withdrawal card from the Union. I am not going to have
anybody working for me in the Union," constituted a
threat to discharge Estes unless she withdrew from
membership in Local 161.27 General Counsel contends that
a separate violation should be found, based on that same
conversation, with regard to Erlich's answer to Estes'
question as to where she would be working if she did get a
withdrawal card-"maybe I will have something for you."
I do not think that this is an unlawful promise of benefit, as
asserted by the General Counsel; it seems, rather, simply
another way of threatening Estes with loss of employment
if she did not withdraw from the Union. The complaint
further alleges that Erlich reduced Estes' working hours "in
retaliation for [Estes'] refusal to withdraw from member-
ship in Local 161." The record does not support a finding
that there was an actual reduction of working hours as of,
and after, March 20. It does not appear from the testimony
that the signs which were brought in on March 20 to
indicate that the store hours would be cut to 8 hours a week
were posted at that time or that Estes' working hours for
the week of March 20-27 were reduced. I would therefore
recommend dismissal of the latter two allegations of the
complaint.
As to the March 27 conversation, I conclude that when
Erlich asked Estes if she had secured the withdrawal card
and then accused her of sympathizing with the Union,
coupling these statements with an offer to Estes to take
1247
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over the store, he made it clear that her continued
adherence to the Union would result in the closing of the
store which afforded her present employment, in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
As to the March 29 conversation, I find that, when Erlich
told Estes, "You know that you don't have a job," he was
reiterating, as both fully understood from the context of
their previous conversations, that her refusal to withdraw
from membership in Local 161 was the basis for her failure
to retain employment with the Erlich enterprises. This
constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(l).
It is obvious from the foregoing that the termination of
Estes on March 27, 1976, resulted directly from her refusal
to abandon the Union. The fact that Erlich had been
attempting to get rid of the North Whittier Street location
for several years, but only took drastic action in conjunc-
tion with the strike, at which time he suddenly decided to
reduce the number of hours the store was open, clearly
indicates a relationship between the virtual closing of the
.store and the union activities of the employees. Had there
not been a strike, it seems clear that the store would have
continued operating even under the adverse financial
conditions which had been facing Erlich for years, if Estes
had agreed to withdraw from the Union.25 Furthermore,
Estes' refusal to withdraw from the Union and Erlich's
antagonism toward her for "sympathizing with the Union"
were, as Erlich indicated to her, the obstacles to her being
placed in other employment. As noted, once the complaint
issued in this case, Erlich offered Estes a job in his Olive
Street Road store. It is clear that in normal circumstances,
such an offer would have been routinely made to an
extremely valuable employee such as Estes, with some 24
years seniority, even assuming the legitimacy of the
reduction of hours at the Whittier Street location.2 9 Erlich's
failure in March to make such an offer, particularly when
some of the employees at the other stores had gone out on
strike and vacancies had occurred, strongly implies that
Erlich's refusal to attempt to place Estes elsewhere was a
product of her adamance about resigning from the Union.
I conclude, therefore, that the termination of Estes on
March 27, 1976, was violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents Erlich's 814, Inc.; Erlich's Northwest,
Inc.; Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc., and Erlich
Cleaning Company are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers'
International Union, Local No. 108 and Local No. 161,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are
labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By withdrawing recognition from and refusing to
bargain with Local No. 108 on and after March 16, 1976,
Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with Local 161
and by withdrawing recognition from Local 161 in and
2i Erlich testified that he still owns the store, but leased it out around
May 10, 1976.
', Erlich's June 28 letter to Estes indicates that such a transfer would
after March 1976, Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By terminating the employment of Jessie Estes on or
about March 27, 1976, Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
6. By engaging in direct bargaining with employee
Melvin Jones and by promising him benefits if he would
withdraw from membership in Local 161 on March 18,
1976, Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act.
7. By threatening to discharge employee Jessie Estes on
March 20, 1976; by threatening Estes on March 27, 1976;
and by informing Estes on March 29, 1976, that she had
lost her job because of her refusal to withdraw from the
Union, Respondents have violated Section 8(aX)(1) of the
Act.
8. The strike which began on or about March 18, 1976,
was caused and prolonged by the unfair labor practices of
the Respondents.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have committed certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they be
ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and take
such affirmative action as I find necessary to remedy the
effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
The record is less than precise as to the scope of the units
in which bargaining should be ordered. As noted, Local
108 represents laundry production employees. The com-
plaint alleges, in effect, that Local 108 is the bargaining
representative of laundry production employees at Erlich's
814, Inc. (which has one location at 814 Washington
Avenue), Erlich's Northwest, Inc. (which has two locations,
one at 1400 Washington Avenue and another at 6200
Natural Bridge), and Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners,
Inc. (which has one location at 8351 Olive Street Road).
The last contract negotiated between Local 108 and the
Exchange was signed by Erlich on behalf of "Erlich
Laundry." So far as the record shows, there is no such
corporate or other legal entity in existence. Erlich testified
that, prior to 1976, he had recognized the two Unions as
representing the appropriate employees at all "dry cleaning
and laundry operations that [he] owned or controlled in
the St. Louis area." However, he also testified that he has
only three locations which perform laundry production
work and that only three of the stores have been
represented in the past. Local 108 President Suaraz
testified that his Union represented only the employees at
1400 Washington, 814 Washington, and 8351 Olive Street
Road. Local 108 Secretary-Treasurer Smith also indicated
that the Union only represented employees at those three
locations. Accordingly, although there is some indication
in the record that the 6200 Natural Bridge establishment
has a laundry production function, I do not think it
have occurred as a matter of course: "At that time, in March of this year,
you advised me that you preferred to discontinue your employment rather
than transfer to another location."
1248
ERLICH'S 814, INC.
appropriate to find on this record that Local 108 represents
any employees at that location, and I shall limit the
bargaining unit to the three locations designated by the
union officials.
As to Local 161, the complaint, in essence, alleges that
Local 161 represents the store girls, counter girls, and
drycleaning production employees at 814 Washington,
1400 Washington, 6200 Natural Bridge, 8351 Olive Street
Road, and 914 North Whittier. The Erlich signature block
on the 1970-75 multiemployer agreement with Local 161
appears as follows:
ERLICH CLEANERS
Erlich's 4-Hr
814 Washington
916 Whittier
Erlich's GEM
By Max Erlich
In the prior contract, 1967-72, Erlich had merely signed
on behalf of "Erlich Cleaners." There apparently is no
organization formally known as "Erlich Cleaners." The
reference in the 1970-75 contract to "Erlich's 4-Hr" is to
one of Erlich's corporations about which there is little
information in the record, and there is no indication in the
record of a separate corporation called "Erlich's GEM."
Despite the apparent limitation on the corporations on
behalf of which Erlich signed the 1970-75 Local 161
contract, it is clear that he recognized the Union at other
locations. For example, Eleanor Hoffman, the manager of
the Olive Street Road establishment, which is nominally
operated by Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc.,30
understood that Local 161 represented at least one of her
employees. Erlich testified that he thought that at the
beginning of 1976 he had a total of some "seven or eight"
employees represented by Local 161. It is very unlikely that
this many employees would be represented by Local 161 at
only the 814 Washington and the 916 North Whittier
locations (at 916 North Whittier, as discussed above,
essentially the only person employed at that time was Jessie
Estes). In view of Erlich's testimony (qualified as to Local
108) that he recognized the two Unions at all "dry cleaning
and laundry operations that [he] owned or controlled in
the St. Louis area," the testimony by Local 161 Secretary-
Treasurer Horton that the Union represented employees
"at some stores, and we had out at 8351, who is out at the
main office on Olive Street Road, we had anywhere from
one to two working there. And then down here, we had
some at 814 and some at 1400, pressers and baggers and so
forth," I conclude that the parties intended that recognition
be extended at the 8351 Olive Street Road establishment
and at the locations at 814 Washington Avenue and 1400
Washington Avenue. Accordingly, I shall order bargaining
in that unit.31 I feel constrained, however, to amend the
unit designation so as to remove any reference to the
gender of the employees.
:"' But see fn. 17. supra.
:" Since the 916 North Whittier location has been leased out, I shall
exclude that location from the unit.
:2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
I shall further recommend that Respondents be required
to offer to Jessie Estes full and immediate reinstatement to
a position substantially equivalent to her former one
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and
privileges. I shall not recommend reinstatement to her
former position since the record shows without contradic-
tion that Respondents have leased the 916 North Whittier
location. I shall defer to the compliance stage a determina-
tion of the question whether the June 28 letter to Estes
constituted an adequate offer of reinstatement; the issue
was not litigated in this proceeding and there is no clear
indication that she even received the letter. I shall also
recommend that Respondents be required to make Estes
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her
of a sum of money equal to that which she normally would
have earned from the date of the discrimination against her
to the date that Respondents have offered, or shall offer,
valid reinstatement, less earnings, if any, during such
period, to be computed in the manner prescribed in F W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I shall also
recommend that Respondents be required to post the usual
notices to employees.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this case, I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 32
The Respondents, Erlich's 814, Inc.; Erlich's Northwest,
Inc.; Capri Launderers & Dry Cleaners, Inc.; and Erlich
Cleaning Company, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, support for, or activi-
ties on behalf of Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers' International Union, Local No. 161, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other
labor organization, by discriminating against their employ-
ees in regard to their hire, tenure, or terms and conditions
of employment, because of their union membership,
sympathies, or activities.
(b) Engaging in direct bargaining with employees
represented by a union.
(c) Threatening employees or promising them benefits in
order to restrain them from freely exercising their rights to
join and assist unions.
(d) Refusing to bargain collectively with Laundry, Dry
Cleaning and Dye House Workers' International Union,
Local No. 108, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the following unit:
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1249
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All laundry production employees, excluding office and
clerical employees, watchmen who perform no produc-
tion work, store managers or store clerks who do no
production work, and supervisory employees who do
not perform production work regularly and consistently
in one single operation and who have authority to hire
and discharge or effectively recommend such action, at
Respondents' facilities at 814 Washington Avenue,
1400 Washington Avenue, and 8351 Olive Street Road.
(e) Refusing to bargain collectively with Laundry, Dry
Cleaning and Dye House Workers' International Union,
Local No. 161, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the following unit:
All store persons, counter persons, and cleaning
production employees, excluding office and clerical
employees, watchmen who perform no production
work, and supervisory employees who do not perform
production work regularly and consistently in one
single operation and who have authority to hire and
discharge or effectively recommend such action, at
Respondents' facilities at 814 Washington Avenue,
1400 Washington Avenue, and 8351 Olive Street Road.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in their right to self-organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of mutual aid and protection as guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) If Respondents have not already done so, offer Jessie
Estes immediate and full reinstatement to a position
substantially equivalent to her former position and make
her whole for any loss of earnings, in the manner set forth
in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
':' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
(b) Upon request, recognize and bargain with Local No.
108 and Local No. 161, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye
House Workers' International Union, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representatives of the employees in
the bargaining units described above, with respect to
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
(c) Upon unconditional application, offer immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, to all those employees who went on
strike on March 18, 1976, or thereafter, dismissing, if
necessary, any persons hired on or after March 18, 1976.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(e) Post at their places of business at 814 Washington
Avenue, 1400 Washington Avenue, and 8351 Olive Street
Road, St. Louis, Missouri, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."33 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 14, after
being duly signed by Respondents' representative, shall be
posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations of the
complaint not found in the foregoing Decision to constitute
violations of the Act be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
1250