Excelsior Laundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 455 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

EXCELSIOR LAUNDRY 455
Excelsior Laundry and Communications Workers
of America , AFL-CIO. Case 28-CA-1519
September 18, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
102.45 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, and that proceedings thereafter were to be in
accord with said Rules and Regulations; and (4) the
parties reserved the right to file briefs with the Trial Ex-
aminer and waived oral argument.
The complaint issued April 6, 1967, based on a charge
filed April 3, 1967, alleged that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
Both the General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
Based upon the aforesaid record and consideration of the
briefs, I make the following:
On July 14, 1967, Trial Examiner Allen
Sinsheimer, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire
record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Ex-
aminer.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Excelsior Laundry, Al-
buquerque, New Mexico, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.'
Delete from paragraph 2(b) of the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order that part thereof which reads "to be furnished " and substitute
therefor "on forms provided . "
The telephone number for Region 28 , appearing at the bottom of the
notice attached to the Trial Examiner 's Decision, is amended to read
Telephone 247-0311, Extension 2538
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Trial Examiner- This case is
before me for decision without hearing on the basis of a
stipulated record in lieu of hearing.
On May 16, 1967, all parties entered into a document
entitled "Stipulation in Lieu of Hearing" which provided
that: (1) hearing before a Trial Examiner was waived; (2)
the entire record was stipulated to and consisted of the
formal Board exhibits and attached joint exhibits all sub-
mitted therewith; (3) the matter was being submitted to
a Trial Examiner for decision in accordance with Section
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent, a New Mexico corporation, is engaged in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the business of providing
laundry and drycleaning services. During the 12-month
period prior to April 6, 1967, it purchased and received
directly from outside New Mexico goods, supplies, and
materials valued in excess of $50,000; and during the
same period it sold goods and services, the gross value of
which exceeded $500,000. Respondent admits and I find
that it is engaged in commerce or in operations affecting
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (herein called the Act).
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Union), is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Case Proceeding
On October 21, 1965, the Union filed a petition for a
representation election. Thereafter, on November 15,
1965, the Respondent and the Union entered into a Stipu-
lation for Certification Upon Consent Election agreement
providing for an election to be held on December 2, 1965,
in the following agreed-upon unit:
All routemen and production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at the employer's main plant and
branch plants; excluding all clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, watchmen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.'
At the election held on December 2, 1965, a majority
of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots was not
cast for the Union.2 On December 7, 1965, the Union
filed timely Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results
of the Election. The Regional Director for Region 28
caused an investigation of the objections to be conducted,
and on December 23, 1965, issued his "Report and
Recommendations on Objections to Conduct Affecting
the Results of the Election." Therein he recommended
that the election be set aside and a new election be
directed. Thereafter Respondent filed timely and detailed
"Exceptions to the Regional Director's Report and
I The foregoing unit (modified only by adding the word "office" before
the word "clerical") was alleged in the complaint as an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining and Respondent, in its answer, ad-
mitted the appropriateness of said unit.
2 Of 153 valid ballots 67 were for the Union , and 86 against the Union
There was also one void ballot
167 NLRB No. 64
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Recommendations on Objections to Conduct Alleged to
Affect the Results of the Election." On March 4, 1966,
after considering said exceptions, the Board rendered a
"Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election" in
which it ordered that the election of December 2, 1965,
be set aside and directed that a second election be con-
ducted "among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate' at such time as the Regional Director deems
appropriate."4
On March 18, 1966, the second election was held.
Results of this balloting reflected that the challenged bal-
lots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election.', Respondent filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of said second election. Thereupon
on May 12, 1966, the Regional Director, after causing an
investigation to be made of the challenges and Respond-
ent's aforesaid objections issued his "Report and
Recommendations on Objections to Conduct Affecting
the Results of the Election" and on challenged ballots. He
recommended that Respondent's objections be overruled
in their entirety and that a hearing be held on the chal-
lenges to the ballots of 12 voters."
The Regional Director in his report recommending a
hearing as to the aforesaid 12 challenged ballots stated (as
indicated) that with respect to 11 thereof the evidence ad-
duced during the investigation was contradictory as to
each one's possession and exercise "of supervisory
authority" or "of indicia of supervisory authority."
Respondent filed exceptions to said report and recom-
mendations. The Board, on July 21, 1966, issued a "Sup-
plemental Decision and Order Directing Hearing" in
which it ordered that the Employer's objections be over-
ruled in their entirety and that a hearing be held for the
purpose of receiving evidence to resolve the issues raised
with respect to the aforesaid 12 challenged ballots.
Thereafter, pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held
before a Hearing Officer who, on September 30, 1966, is-
sued "Hearing Officer's Report on Challenged Ballots
with Findings and Recommendations." Respondent filed
exceptions to said Hearing Officer's report and to his
recommendations.7
- On January 25, 1967, the Board issued an "Order
Directing Regional Director to Open and Count Chal-
lenged Ballots." In said Order the Board adopted the
recommendations of the Hearing Officer to which no ex-
ceptions had been filed and accordingly sustained the
challenges to the ballots of three persons and overruled
the challenges to the ballots of the four persons as recom-
mended by the Hearing Officer together with the chal-
lenged ballot of one other person, Vangie Segura (Nee
Gilliam)" who had been challenged but by stipulation had
subsequently been agreed to be eligible. It deferred action
on the challenges to the ballots of the five persons with
respect to whom the Respondent had filed exceptions.
3 Which is the same as the stipulated unit set forth supra as modified by
adding the word "office" before the word "clerical "
' The Board in setting the election aside relied on objection 1 sum-
manzed by the Regional Director as follows
Agents, officers and representatives of the Employer harassed em-
ployees by soliciting them to sign a form repudiating the Union
5 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots totaled 163 Of these 78
were for the Union, 72 were against the Union, and 13 were challenged
6 In his report the Regional Director stated that of the 13 challenged
ballots, I 1 were challenged by the Union "on the grounds that each pos-
sesses and exercises supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act
and that they therefore are ineligible " The ballot of Henry Livingston was
challenged by the Board agent because his name did not appear on the
furnished eligibility list. The ballot of Vangie Segura (Nee Gilliam) was
The Board accordingly directed that the ballots of the 5
persons aforesaid as to whom challenges had been over-
ruled (out of a total of 13 challenges), should be open and
counted. The Board further ordered that thereafter there
should be prepared and served upon the parties a revised
tally of ballots including the count of the aforesaid chal-
lenged ballots which it directed be opened and counted.
A revised tally of ballots was issued on January 31,
1967, which reflected that the remaining undetermined
challenged ballots were sufficient to affect the results of
the election.9 On March 15, 1967, the Board issued a
"Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives." In its decision it determined that of the
remaining five challenged ballots as to which it had previ-
ously deferred ruling and which were sufficient to affect
the results of the election, four of the challenges should be
sustained (and that it was unnecessary to rule on the
remaining challenge). In so doing the Board said it was
unnecessary "to pass on the hearing officer's findings
with respect to their possession and exercise of super-
visory authority."
The Hearing Officer had found that one Henry Benton
regularly exercised supervisory authority and was a su-
pervisor as defined in the Act. He further stated that as-
suming arguendo that Benton did not responsibly exer-
cise supervisory authority he would find him to be a su-
pervisor since the record was clear he was in training for
a supervisory position and "in accordance with
established Board precedent [citing cases relating to ex-
clusion of trainees for supervisory positions] he should
be excluded from the unit as a supervisor." In the case of
Clarke Goodman the Hearing Officer said: "Because
Goodman was undergoing training as a supervisor and
because he apparently exercised supervisory authority I
find he was a supervisor." (Citing same cases as above.)
With respect to the other two persons, Kennedy and Van-
derventer, he found they "were in training to become su-
pervisors and as trainees they were supervisors " (Citing
same cases as above:) The Board based its decision on
the ground that it was conceded and found that the four
employees were supervisor-trainees, that the stipulated
unit did not specifically include or exclude supervisor-
trainees and that the record contains no evidence as to the
intent of the parties with respect to them. The Board said
that in such circumstances it construes the agreement of
the parties to be in accord with established Board unit
placement policy and that it was "well-established Board
policy to exclude employees who are in training to
become supervisors." The Board found that there were
a total of 155 valid votes plus I challenged ballot and that
the revised tally of ballots showed 79 votes cast for peti-
tioner. The Board said that it accordingly received a
majority and that the remaining challenge could not affect
the results. The Board thereupon certified the petitioner
challenged by the Board agent because she identified herself by her mar-
ned name which did not appear on the furnished list, instead of her maiden
name which did The parties stipulated that her ballot could be opened and
counted which was subsequently done when certain other of the chal-
lenged ballots were later ordered opened and counted by the Board (See
infra )
' The Hearing Officer had recommended that the challenges to eight
ballots be sustained and the challenges to four ballots be overruled. The
Respondent took exceptions to the Hearing Officer 's report only insofar
as he found that five specified persons of those challenged "were super-
visors" and recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained.
See in 6, supra
This revised tally showed 79 votes for the Union, 76 votes against the
Union , and 5 undetermined challenged ballots
EXCELSIOR LAUNDRY 457
as "the representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit."10 -
B. The Unfair Labor Practices, the Refusal To Bargain
Following the certification, the Union sent a letter to
the Respondent dated March 24, 1967, which was
evidently received by Respondent on that date. It
requested that Respondent meet and confer with it "for
the purpose of negotiating an agreement covering wages,
hours and other conditions of employment." By letter of
the same date Respondent advised that it did not recog-
nize the Union "as the bargaining representative of its
employees and will not enter into collective negotiations
with this Union at this time." It stated that its refusal to
bargain was based on two reasons (1) that in its judgment
the Board erred in its decision of March 4, 1966, in
sustaining the Union's objections to the conduct of the
first election setting it aside and ordering the second elec-
tion, and (2) that the Board erred in its "Decision and
Certification of Representative" dated March 15, 1967,
in which it sustained challenges to four specified ballots
and declined to rule on one ballot The Respondent con-
cluded: "The sole purpose of our refusal to bargain with
your union at this time is to obtain a judicial review of the
Board's decisions and orders as provided by law.""
Argument
The General Counsel's contention is "that in the
absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence, the Board will not permit litigation in a com-
plaint case of issues which were decided or could have
been litigated in a prior related representation proceed-
ing," and that in the instant case there is no such conten-
tion. He argues that all of Respondent's contentions in
the representation matter have been considered and ruled
on by the Board and that the determination of the Board
of the representative status of the Union is the law of the
case and binding on the Trial Examiner. He further con-
tends that accordingly the Trial Examiner on the instant
record before him "must find that the Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) by its admitted refusal to bargain
with the duly certified representative of the employees it'
the appropriate unit."
The General Counsel requests first that Respondent be
directed to bargain upon request with the Union and em-
body in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
In addition he states that since this case simply involves
"a technical refusal to bargain in order to obtain a court
review of the Board's determination in the representation
case" that he requests the Trial Examiner to issue "a
recommended order that the Respondent make unit em-
ployees whole for wages and benefits they might have
received but for the Respondent's refusal to bargain."
The General Counsel refers to certain recent decisions of
Trial Examiners where similar remedies have been
recommended.12 The General Counsel further requests
that the remedy provide that the certification period be
extended to begin on the date the Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative (citing authority).
The Respondent's position is essentially as follows:
First it admits that it has refused to bargain with the
Union for the asserted reason that "the Union never has
been selected as the representative of a majority of the
employees in the stipulated unit and that the Board's Cer-
tification of the Union as the representative of Employer-
Respondent's employees in the stipulated unit is there-
fore invalid."
Respondent asserts that the Board's certification is in-
valid on two grounds: (1) that the Board erred in the
Decision of March 4, 1966, in sustaining the Union's ob-
jections to the conduct of the first election, in setting it
aside on the ground that the Employer-Respondent had
coerced employees by soliciting them to sign a form repu-
diating the Union, and in ordering a second election; (2)
that the Board erred in its "Second Supplemental Deci-
sion and Certification" issued March 15, -1967, in
sustaining challenges to the ballots of four persons on the
ground they were "supervisor-trainees" and in declining
to rule on a challenge to another ballot.
Respondent acknowledges awareness of the rule that
in the absence of newly discovered or of previously
unavailable evidence the Board will not permit litigation
in a complaint case of issues which were decided or could
have been litigated in a prior representation case.13
However it argues that where the disputed matter in-
volves a legal, as distinguished from a mere policy, issue
the Board will reconsider such underlying legal premise
if it believes the earlier resolution was incorrect; citing
American Broadcasting Co., 134 NLRB 1458. This is
the only case'' referred to by Respondent where the
Board did engage in such reexamination of issues reached
in the related representation case in contrast to the nu-
merous cases cited by both Respondent and the General
Counsel where such was not done.15 The Board therein
indicated its reluctance to do so and pointed out the par-
ticular significance of supervening Supreme Court
holdings as a basis for its reconsideration. Further it
should be noted that the action of reconsideration even
under these circumstances was that of the Board itself
and not of a Trial Examiner.'6
Respondent, relying on the language of the Board deci-
sion in American Broadcasting Co., supra, that "where
the disputed matter involves a legal, as distinguished from
a mere policy, issue we will reconsider such underlying
legal premise if we believe our earlier resolution to be in-
correct, particularly in view of supervening Supreme
Court holdings," argues that both points raised by it in-
10 The complaint alleges and the Respondent admits that the Board is-
sued such certification of representative
11 As previously set forth, the Respondent in its answer admits that the
Board certified the Union as exclusive collective- bargaining representa-
tive in an appropriate unit on March 15 but asserts that such certification
was not lawful and that the Union did not become the exclusive bargaining
representat ive in the unit set forth Further, in its answer , the Respondent
asserts as separate defenses essentially the same contentions raised in its
letter to the effect that the action of the Board in setting aside the first
election and ordering a second election "was wrongful, arbitrary and con-
trary to law," and as a separate second defense that the Board erred in its
determinations "on the challenged ballots of four employees in said
second election ." and "in not ruling on the challenged ballot of a fifth
employee, and that the Board "acted wrongfully, arbitrarily and contrary
to law in connection with such challenged ballots "
11 See Ex-Cell-O Corp, Case 25-CA-2377, TXD-80-67, andZinke's
Foods, Case 30-CA-372, TXD-662-66
13 See cases cited fn 19 & 20, infra
11 For another case involv ing both a statutory issue and an intervening
Supreme Court case, where first the Trial Examiner and later the Board
reconsidered a legal issue, see International Telephone and Telegraph,
159NLRB 1757
Among such see fn 19, infra
Is I have noted above in fn 14 , supra , the International Telephone and
Telegraph case where under the special factual and legal situation therein
both the Trial Examiner and the Board reconsidered a legal issue
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
volve legal as distinguished from factual or policy rules.
It further contends with regard to its second conten-
tion-that the Board erred in its ruling on certain chal-
lenged ballots-that the first opportunity to contest the is-
sues on the basis decided by the Board is herein. Its posi-
tion is that the only issue raised with regard to these chal-
lenged ballots prior to the Board's final determination was
whether the challenged persons actually possessed and
exercised supervisory authority. It contends this was the
issue framed in the hearing on challenged ballots and in
the Hearing Officer's report and the Employer-Respond-
ent's exceptions thereto. Respondent argues it was
never afforded an opportunity to argue the legal merits of
the Board's decision to rest its final determination regard-
ing these challenges on Board policy with respect to ex-
clusion of supervisory-trainees from a unit. Respondent
further states its legal argument as to this is subject to
consideration by the Trial Examiner since the issue was
not and could not have been litigated in the representation
proceeding.' 7
As to Respondent's contentions with respect to the
Board's sustaining the Union's objections to the conduct
of the first election, setting it aside and ordering another
election, I conclude that the issues raised by Respondent
were litigated before, considered and determined by the
Board in the representation case. For reasons more fully
set forth, infra, I further conclude that nothing submitted
herein would warrant any reexamination thereof by me.
With respect to the challenged ballots, I note first the
Hearing Officer (as previously set forth) in his report did
indicate an alternative ground for his recommendation,
citing cases in which the Board had excluded supervisor-
trainees from bargaining units 18 Second, it is neither
unique nor improper for the Board or a court to rest a
decision on grounds not specifically urged or argued but
which manifestly are present, involved and form a proper
basis for the decision. Third, there is no indication in the
record herein of any request by Respondent in the
representation case proceedings for reconsideration by
the Board of its decision and certification. Fourth, and
finally, I do not consider that there has been presented
any legal issue that would warrant a reexamination of the
issue or issues decided by the Board such as in the
International Telephone and Telegraph case, supra, nor
has anything been presented to indicate that the Board
upon reexamination of the legal issue or issues would
change the resolution thereof it made in the representa-
tion case.19
In conclusion, subject only to the sole exceptions noted
aforesaid, no matter that was resolved or litigated in a
representation case may properly be litigated again in a
subsequent complaint case. It is established Board policy,
in the absence of newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, not herein involved, not to permit
litigation in a complaint case of issues which were or
could have been litigated in a prior related representation
proceeding.20
The Respondent may, of course, in exceptions to this
Decision request the Board to reconsider the determina-
tions made in the representation case and in the event of
17 Respondent cited court cases purportedly contra to the Board's
determination
'" He referred specifically to Cherokee Textile Mills, 117 NLRB 350,
351, The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, 135 NLRB 926,
928
1" Cf Memphis Moldings, inc , 146 NLRB 265, 268, fn 4 (TXD)
20 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S 146, 162,
an unfavorable final order by the Board the Respondent
may request review thereof in an appropriate court of ap-
peals. At this stage of the proceedings, however, absent
newly discovered evidence, the Board's disposition of the
representation matter is binding on the Trial Examiner.21
The refusal to bargain with the certified Union, as
previously set forth in the correspondence and the
answer, is clearly admitted and established. Accordingly,
I find that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) by refusing to bargain with the Union as the cer-
tified representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. With
respect to the request of the General Counsel that I
recommend the Respondent make unit employees whole
for wages and benefits they might have received but for
the Respondent 's refusal to bargain , I shall decline to do
so. I am familiar with the Trial Examiner ' s opinions
referred to by the General Counsel , supra, with which I
do not concur . Rather than attempt herein to effectuate in
detail my reasons therefor , first I consider that there are
involved herein both legal and policy questions which
would appear to call for the initial consideration of the
Board . Second , I particularly rely in so declining on the
recent Board decision in Monroe Auto Equipment Com-
pany, 164 NLRB 1051 , where the Trial Examiner
discussed such a proposed remedy at length but the
Board in a footnote stated , "We deem it inappropriate in
this case to depart from our existing policy with respect
to remedial orders in cases involving violations of Section
8(a)(5) and therefore deny the said request ." As for the
request that the certification period be extended to begin
on the day the Respondent commences to bargain in good
faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining
representative, the Board has found such to be ap-
propriate in Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB
785, and see also Commerce Company d/bla Lamar
Hotel , 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd. 328 F . 2d 600 (C.A. 5),
and Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,
1421, enfd . 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10). 1 shall accordingly
recommend that such be done.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
Collins and Aikman Corp, 160 NLRB 1750, Krieger-Ragsdale & Com-
pany, Inc, 159 NLRB 490, The Puritan Sportswear Corp , 162 NLRB
13, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 579 FollettCor-
poration, 164 NLRB 378, Howell Refining Company, 164 NLRB 512
11 In addition to cases cited in fn 19, supra , see also Douglas County
Electric Membership Corporation, 148 NLRB 559, 567, Air Control
Products of St Petersburg , Inc, 139 N LRB 413
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
EXCELSIOR LAUNDRY 459
1. Excelsior Laundry, a corporation, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. All routemen and production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at the Respondent's main plant and
branch plants, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, watchmen and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On or about March 15, 1967, the Board certified
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in said unit.
5. Since on or about March 24, 1967, and continuing
to date the Union has requested the Respondent to bar-
gain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, and
hours of employment, working conditions and other
terms and conditions of employment with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid unit, but the Respondent
then refused and continues to refuse to do so.
6. By refusing on March 24, 1967, and thereafter to
recognize and bargain with the Union, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend the
following
ORDER
A. For the purpose of determining the effective period
of duration of the certification, the initial year of certifica-
tion shall be deemed to begin on the day the Respondent,
Excelsior Laundry, Albuquerque, New Mexico, com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate
unit.22
B. Excelsior Laundry, Albuquerque, New Mexico, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate bargaining unit:
All routemen and production and maintenance em-
ployees employed at the Respondent's main plant and
branch plants, excluding all office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, watchmen and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent the employees in said ap-
propriate unit as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Communi-
cations Workers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and embody
in a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at all its Albuquerque, New Mexico, plants
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."23
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for Region 28, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Recom-
mended Order what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.24
22 The purpose of this provision , asset forth in the section of this Deci-
sion entitled "The Remedy," is to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the statutorily prescribed services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law See case cited in
"The Remedy," supra
23 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
24 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 28, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em-
ployees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the fol-
lowing employees:
All routemen and production and maintenance
employees employed at the Respondent's main
plant and branch plants, excluding all office cler-
ical employees , professional employees , guards,
watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of their rights under the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
bargaining unit, and if an understanding is reached
we will sign a contract with the Union.
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
EXCELSIOR LAUNDRY days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
(Employer) defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
Dated By or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
(Representative) (Title) directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 500 -Gold
Avenue , S.W., Room 7011 , 7th Floor, Albuquerque,
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive New Mexico 87101, Telephone 247-2583.