Ideal Laundry Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 23, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1259 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

IDEAL LAUNDRY CORPORATION 1259
Ideal Laundry Corporation and Dry Cleaning and
Cleaning and Laundry Workers Local Union No.
304, Laundry , Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers International Union . Cases 27-CA-
2294 and 27-CA-1269
July 23, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On May 10, 1968, Trial Examiner Howard Myers
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaged 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 Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The General Counsel filed an answering brief in
support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
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 these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the
briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and
hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
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
orders that the Respondent, Ideal Laundry Cor-
poration, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
i Contrary to the Trial Examiner, the record shows that the Respondent
replaced the general manager, office manager and two supers hors after it
took over the plant These facts do not, howe%er, affect the Trial Ex-
aminer' s ultimate conclusions or our agreement therewith See Maur
tenance, h aorporated, 148 NLRB 1299, 1300
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD MYERS , Trial Examiner : This con-
solidated proceeding , with _the General Counsel of
172 NLRB No. 138
the National Labor Relations Board (herein called
the General Counsel' and the Board), Ideal
Laundry Corporation (herein called Respondent),
and Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co. (herein
called Ideal) represented by counsel, and Dry
Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No.
304, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Wor-
kers International Union' (herein called the Union)
represented by an official thereof, was heard before
me at Denver, Colorado, on February 27, 1968,
upon a complaint dated November 30, 1967, and
issued by the General Counsel, for and on behalf of
the Board through the Regional Director for Re-
gion 27 (Denver, Colorado),'' and Respondent's
answer duly filed on December 18, 1967
The complaint, based upon a charge and an
amended charge (Case 27-CA-1269) duly filed on
August 3 and on September 10, 1962, and upon a
charge (Case 27-CA-229') duly filed on June 1,
1967, by the Union, alleged, in substance, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act."
' This term specifically includes counsel for the General Counsel appear-
ing at the hearing
Upon his own motion the Trial Examiner corrected the name of the
Union to read as set forth above (See the Regional Director's September
8, 1961, Certificate of Representatises )
, The same day the complaint herein was issued, November 30, 1967,
the aforementioned Regional Director, by the authority vested in him by
Sec 102 33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. Series 8, as amended, is-
sued and served upon the parties herein an order consolidating, for the pur-
pose of hearing, the above-captioned cases
Specifically the complaint alleged that on or about July 19, 1961, a
majority of Ideal's production and maintenance employees, in a Board-
conducted electum (Case 27-RC-2082), designated and selected the
Union is their statutory collective-bargaining representative, that on or
about September 8, 1961, the Regional Director for Region 27, on behalf
of the Board, certified the Union as such representative, that from on or
about September 8, 1961, and until on or about February I, 1966, the
Union remained the statutory bargaining representative of Ideal's produc-
tion and maintenance employees, t'iat from on or about August 6, 1962,
Ideal has refused to honor the certification described above and has
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the statutory representa-
tive of Ideal's production and maintenance employees, that upon a com-
plaint issued by the General Counsel, through the aforementioned Re-
gional Director in Case 27-CA-1269, a hearing was held by a duly
designated -i nal Examiner of the Board on November 1, 1962, and on Oc-
tober 21, 1964, that the Board on February 25, 1963, issued a Decision
and Order and on June 3, 1965, issued a Supplemental Decision and Order
finding Ideal had unlawfully refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the statutory representative of Ideal's production and maintenance em-
ployees and ordered Ideal, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, to
bargain collectively with the Union, on March 2, 1967, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered a decree enforcing the
aforementioned Board order, that on or about February 1, 1966, Respon-
dent and/or its owners or assignors purchased from Ideal all the latter's
physical assets, including, among other things, the plant which employed
the persons for whom the Union was certified on September 8, 1961, as
their collective-bargaining representative, that since on or about February
I, 1966, Ideal has ceased to operate said plant, that since on or about
February 1, 1966, Respondent has operated said plant, that since Respon-
dent purchased said plant, Respondent has operated it with substantially
the same persons Ideal had employed when Ideal operated it, that since on
or about May 17, 1967, Respondent, although requested by the Union to
do so, has unlawfully refused to honor the Union's September 8, 1961, cer-
tification and since May 17, 1967, has unlawfully refused to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the statutory representative of the unit em-
ployees
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case5 and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS OF RESPONDENT
Ideal Laundry Corporation, a Colorado corpora-
tion has its principal offices and a plant at 2500
Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado, where it is en-
gaged in, and at all times material has been engaged
in, the retail and wholesale laundry and dry clean-
ing business.
Respondent annually performs laundry and dry
cleaning services valued in excess of $500,000.
In the course and conduct of its business,
Respondent annually receives goods and merchan-
dise valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points located outside the State of Colorado or
purchases goods and merchandise from various
local suppliers, who, in turn, had received said
goods and merchandise from points located outside
the State of Colorado.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, I find, in
line with established Board authority, that Respon-
dent is , and at all times material was, engaged in a
business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that its busi-
ness operations meet the standards fixed by the
Board for the assertion of jurisdiction.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of Respondent and of Ideal.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Prefatory Statement
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections
dated June 21 , 1961, issued by the Regional
Director for Region 27 , on behalf of the Board, an
election was held under the auspices of said Re-
gional Director on July 19, 1961, among Ideal's
laundry and dry cleaning production and main-
tenance employees who were then employed in
such capacity at Ideal 's 2500 Curtis Street , Denver,
Colorado , plant , exclusive of all office clerical em-
ployees, drivers, guards , and supervisors as defined
by the Act.
Of the 126 eligible voters , 123 participated in the
election of which 59 cast ballots for the Union and
58 against ; 2 ballots were found void, and 6 ballots
were challenged.
' Including the briefs filed by the General Counsel and by Respondent's
counsel on April 10, 1968
Case 27-RC-2082
No witnesses were called at this hearing The General Counsel rested
his case after introducing into evidence the formal documents and the
proceedings in Case 27-RC-2082 Ideal thereupon rested its case Ideal in
said proceeding admitted it refused to recognize or to bargain with the
On July 25, 1961, Ideal filed due and timely ob-
jections to the conduct of the election based,
among other things , upon the six challenged ballots
and the next day the Union filed due and timely ob-
jections to the conduct of the election with respect
to two items.
In a Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives, dated September 8, 1961, the
aforementioned Regional Director sustained the
challenges and excluded from the bargaining unit
found appropriate the six salaried and commis-
sioned drivers who voted at the election.
In his Supplemental Decision and Certification,
referred to immediately above, the Regional
Director overruled Ideal's objections and overruled
Union's Objection I and found it unnecessary to
rule on Union's Objection 2. Thereupon, the Re-
gional Director, acting for and on behalf of the
Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots
at the above referred-to Board-conducted election
was cast for the Union and that by virtue thereof
the Union was the exclusive representative of all
the employees in the appropriate unit, within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
Pursuant to a charge and an amended charge
filed by the Union (Case 27-CA-1269) on August
3, 1962, and September 10, 1962, respectively, al-
leging that Ideal violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by unlawfully refusing to bargain collec-
tively with the Union, a hearing was held before
Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls at Denver,
Colorado, on November 1, 1962, at which hearing
Ideal was represented by John K. Pickens, Esq., the
attorney representing Respondent in the instant
proceeding.
On December 12, 1962, Trial Examiner Boyls is-
sued her Intermediate Report finding, among other
things , that Ideal had unlawfully refused to bargain
collectively with the Union, the statutory bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit ' and recommended that Ideal be or-
dered to cease and desist from said refusal and take
the necessary action to remedy its unlawful activi-
ties.
On February 25, 1963, the Board, upon excep-
tions duly filed by Ideal to Trial Examiner Boyls' In-
termediate Report, issued its Decision and Order.
Therein, after adopting in all respects the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of Trial Ex-
aminer Boyls, the Board ordered Ideal to bargain
collectively with the Union.'
On April 23, 1964, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated the aforesaid
Board February 25, 1963, Decision and Order and
Union and based its action mainly on the ground that the Board erred in its
unit finding in the representation case (Case 27-RC-2082) and that Trial
Examiner Boyls also erred in adopting those findings and in refusing to per-
mit Ideal to adduce further evidence with respect to the appropriateness of
the unit found
" 140NLRB 1412
IDEAL LAUNDRY CORPORATION
remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration
by the Board of its unit determination.'
Pursuant to the court's remand, a hearing was
held before Trial Examiner Boyls at Denver on Oc-
tober 29, 1964.
On January ! 1 1, 1965, Trial Examiner Boyls ' is-
sued her Supplemental Decision, finding that the
unit set forth in the original representation
proceeding (Case 27-RC-2082) was appropriate
and recommended that the Board reaffirm its bar-
gaining order of February 25, 1963.
Ideal filed due and timely exceptions to Trial Ex-
aminer Boyls' Supplemental Decision.
On June 3, 1965, the Board issued its Supple-
mental Decision and Order wherein it reaffirmed its
February 25, 1963, bargaining order and found that
Ideal, by refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the statutory representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit , violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and ordered Ideal to
cease and desist from such unlawful action and to
bargain collectively with the Union.10
On February 2, 1967, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit enforced the Board's
Supplemental Decision and Order."
On March 2, 1967, the Tenth Circuit entered a
decree wherein it "ordered, adjudged and decreed
. that the said [Supplemental] order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board ... be enforced, and
that Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co., its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns abide by and
perform the directions of the Board in said order
contained."
B. The Pertinent Facts
Under date of January 22, 1966, Ideal and
Respondent entered into a written agreement which
provided, among other things, for Respondent to
pay Ideal the sum of $300,000, less the sum due
The Colorado National Bank on the mortgage en-
cumbering Ideal's real estate, for "all of the assests
used in the operation of the business of [Ideal] in-
cluding all real estate and all personal property,
whether tangible or intangible and wherever situ-
ated."
The agreement further provided that (1) the
transaction be closed at 10 a.m. on February 1,
1966, at which "time, if not previously given, title
to all the assets and possession of the property are
to be transferred to [Respondent] and [Respon-
dent] will then pay the net purchase price to
[Ideal] by certified check"; (2) Respondent
"agrees to assume all purchase orders and contracts
I N L R B v /deal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co , 330 F 2d 712
'0 152 NLRB 1130
11 372 F 2d 307
12 Respondent is, in fact , owned and operated by City-Elite, a Denver,
Colorado, laundry and dry cleaning concern, and, as part of an oserall
plan, purchased the assets and business operations of two other Denser
1261
for the purchase of material , supplies and furniture
and fixtures which have been used or contracted
for in the ordinary course of business and which
may be discovered prior to the closing of this con-
tract"; ( 3) Ideal " covenants and agrees that pend-
ing the closing , [ Ideal's ] business will be conducted
as in the past and following the same pattern as
previously done, and this shall be in effect the busi-
ness and operation of [Respondent ]"( emphasis sup-
plied ); ( 4) the transaction involved " is made as of
the close of business on December 31, 1965, and if
there is a deficit or loss for the year 1965, shown by
the financial statement to be prepared by an ac-
countant employed by [ Ideal] and The Colorado
National Bank , then the amount of that deficit is to
be deducted from the purchase price "; and (5)
Respondent agrees to "assume all costs of doing
business from December 31, 1965, to the date of
closing . [ Emphasis supplied.]"
In addition , the agreement , referred to im-
mediately above, contains the following clause:
There is no pending litigation or governmen-
tal investigation as far as [Ideal ] knows except
there is a labor proceeding before the National
Labor Relations Board pertaining to unioniza-
tion of the employees of [Ideal], which
peoceeding has been lying dormant since
November, 1964.
On or about February 1, 1966, Respondent
and/or its owners or assignors12 actually com-
menced operating Ideal 's 2500 Curtis Street plant
with substantially Ideal 's unit employees.
The record is clear, and I find , that at no time
prior to the execution of the aforementioned Ideal-
Respondent agreement was the Union consulted
with respect thereto or was it advised that such an
agreement was in the offing . The record is likewise
clear , and I find , that at no time prior to Respon-
dent commencing operations at 2500 Curtis Street
was the Union aware that Respondent had acquired
said premises from Ideal nor was the Union, prior
to February 1, 1966, given any notice that Respon-
dent intended to operate the 2500 Curtis Street
plant.
Under date of May 12, 1967, the Union , through
its secretary-treasurer, Edward F . Hogan, wrote
Respondent as follows:
The Ideal Laundry Corporation and/or
City-Elite Laundry Company,
2500 Curtis Street
Denver, Colorado 80205
RE N.L. R.B. Case # 27-CA-1269
laundry companies (herein called Lanti and Cascade) On or about April
I, 1966, Cascade merged with Respondent
In addition, on May 22, 1967, City-Elite purchased the laundry and dry
cleaning operations of Capitol Linen and Supply Company, another
Denver, Colorado, company
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Gentlemen,
Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers Local
Union No. 304 requests a meeting with a
representative of your Corporation and/or
Company on Tuesday, May 23, 1967 at 1:30
P.M. at 3245 Eliot Street, Room # 206,
Denver, Colorado for the purpose of collective
bargaining on wages, hours, benefits and work-
ing conditions for employees listed in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board certification.
It is our understanding that one or the other
Corporation or Company is the legal succes-
sors to the Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning
Company.
Trusting that I will hear from you concerning
the above request, I remain
The record is silent as to whether the Union ever
received a reply to the above -quoted letter,''
The record clearly establishes that upon assum-
ing Ideal 's 2500 Curtis Street business operations
on February 1, 1966, (1) Respondent retained,
without any break in their employment , substan-
tially all of Ideal 's production and maintenance em-
ployees for whom the Union had been certified as
their statutory collective -bargaining representative;
(2) Respondent took over Ideal's 2500 Curtis
Street plant entire Supervisory staff , namely, the
general manager , office manager , three sales
managers , finishing supervisor , and the flat depart-
ment manager ; ( 3) Respondent retained , without
any break in employment , Ideal's 2500 Curtis
Street plant entire office personnel , ( 4) Respondent
continued without cessation the laundry and dry
cleaning operations of Ideal at 2500 Curtis Street
on and after February 1, 1966;14 ( 5) Respondent,
except for the sale or scrapping of certain old and
obsolete equipment of Ideal , continued to operate
the 2500 Curtis Street plant with Ideal 's equip-
ment ; 15 (6) Respondent's operations at 2500 Curtis
Street on May 17, 1967, the day the Union
requested Respondent to fix a date to commence
bargaining negotiations, employed 118 production
and maintenance employees in the same classifica-
tions which existed under Ideal's ownership, (7) in
or about April 1966 Respondent proceeded to con-
solidate the newly acquired Cascade operations
with its own operations and transferred to the 2500
Curtis Street plant Cascade's entire sales force con-
sisting of 10 routemen-drivers and then con-
solidated Cascade's original laundry routes with its
own 18 routes, and then making a new route struc-
ture consisting of about 20 routes, (8) between
June 27, 1966, and October 22, 1966, Respondent
transferred 39 Cascade production and main-
tenance employees to its 2500 Curtis Street opera-
tions; (9) presently Respondent is operating under
the trade name of Ideal-Cascade at 2500 Curtis
Street, performing the same work as had been per-
formed there by Ideal; and (10) Respondent started
operations at 2500 Curtis Street with the majority
of Ideal's former customers.
C Concluding Findings
It has long been settled that if the transfer of as-
sets and employees from one employer to another
leaves substantially intact the identity of the em-
ploying enterprise, then the former's duty to recog-
nize and bargain with the statutory representative
of the employees devolves upon the latter as a
"successor employer. The obligation to bargain [in
good faith] binds a successor employer [and] a
mere change in ownership is not so unusual a cir-
cumstance as to affect a certification. 1116
It is likewise well settled that the effectiveness of
a certification is not necessarily limited to the par-
ticular employer operating the business on the date
of its issuance. A certification runs with the em-
ploying industry and the certification is binding
upon the employer assuming said business. Thus,
for example, in N.L.R.B. v. Blair Quarries, Inc., 152
F.2d 25 (C.A. 4), applying the foregoing rule, held
that a bona fide lessee of an enterprise who con-
tinued to operate the business with a substantial
number of the lessor's working force and superviso-
ry personnel was under the duty to honor an other-
wise valid certification issued while the lessor had
operated the enterprise. The rationale underlying
this holding has been stated by the Sixth Circuit in
its frequently cited opinion in N.L.R.B. v. Colten,
105 F.2d 179, 183, in these words:
It is the employing industry that is sought to be
regulated and brought within the corrective
and remedial provisions of the Act in the in-
terest of industrial peace....
It needs no demonstration that the strife which
is sought to be averted is no less an object of
legislative solicitude when contract, death, or
"The parties, howeser, by written stipulation which was received in
esidence is G C Exh I, agreed that since "on or about May 17, 1967."
the Union has been requesting Respondent to bargain collectively as the
statutory representative of the unit employees and that "since on or about
May 17, 1967," Respondent has refused to honor the aforementioned Re-
gional Director's September 8, 1961, certification of the Union's statutory
status as such representative
" For all intents and purposes Ideal was operating the 2500 Curtis Street
plant for and on behalf of Respondent from December 31, 1965
" Certain equipment was moved to the 2500 Curtis Street plant from
Cascade after Respondent had purchased Cascade and new methods of
operations were introduced in the 2500 Curtis Street plant after February
I, 1966 In addition, Respondent, after February 1, 1966, spent large sums
of money modernizing said plant
16 N L R B v Auto Ventshade, Inc., 276 F. 2d 303, 304 (C.A. 5);
see also Maketa Vending, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 387 F. 2d 765 (C.A. 6);
Overnight Transportation Co v. N L.R B., 372 F. 2d 765 (C.A. 4),
N L.R B v John Stepp's Friendly Ford, -Inc, 338 F 2d 833 (C.A.
9), N.L R B v Downtown Bakery Corp, 330 F. 2d 921 (C.A. 6);
N L R B v. McFarland, 306 F. 2d 219 (CA 10), N L.R .B. v Lunder
Shoe Corp , 211 F. 2d 284 (C A 1), N.L R B v. Armato , 199 F. 2d
800 (C A 7)
IDEAL LAUNDRY CORPORATION
operation of law brings about a change of
ownership in the employing agency.
Accordingly, where, as here, the "employing in-
dustry" remains essentially the same after a transfer
from one employer to another, the certification
continues for its normal operative period with un-
diminished vitality and the successor employer is
under an obligation to honor the certification and
bargain with the certified labor organization.17 It
cannot be said with any degree of success that a
change in the legal ownership of a business enter-
prise in itself imports a change in the employees'
choice of bargaining representative. t"
It is significant to note that Respondent does not
contend that the Union lost its majority status
among the unit employees at the time of the
transfer of ownership or at any time thereafter.19
But Respondent's main argument in its attempt to
absolve itself of any liability under the Act is that it
is not under any duty to bargain with the Union
because it is not a successor of Ideal and hence it is
under no obligation to recognize or deal with the
Union as representative of any of its employees. I
find this argument, under the facts of this case, to
be without merit or substance.
Upon the basis of the entire record, as
epitomized above, I find by refusing to bargain with
the Union since on or about May 17, 1967,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act. I further find that by such acts
and conduct, Respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
thereof.
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 busi-
ness operations of Respondent as described in sec-
tion I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and, such of them as have been found
to constitute unfair labor practices, tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
" See, for example, in addition to the cases cited above, Co/onv Mateii-
alt, Inc , 130 NLRB 105, Consolidated American Services, Inc , 148 NLRE
1521, Vallevdale Packets, Inc , 162 NLRB 1486, Hackney Iron Steel Co,
167 NLRB 613
1X Respondent's reliance upon N L R B v Alamo White Eruck Service,
Inc , 273 F 2d 238 (C A 5), is misplaced In Alarm White, the court ap-
plied the test set forth above but found the purchaser was not bound to bar-
gain with the unions which had represented the predecessor's employees
because of the nature and scope of the changes made in the employer-em-
ployee relationship after the transfer The Fifth Circuit has itself, in sub-
sequent cases, limited Alamo White decision to its particular facts See
V. THE REMEDY
1263
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act, I will recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the statutory
bargaining representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, it will be recommended that
Respondent be ordered, upon request, to bargain
collectively with the Union and, in the event an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Since September 8, 1961, the Union has been,
and now is, the statutory collective-bargaining
representative of all Respondent's employees in the
following appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act:
Laundry and dry cleaning production and
maintenance people employed at its 2500 Cur-
tis Street, Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding
office clerical employees, drivers, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4 By refusing since on or about May 17, 1967,
to bargain collectively with the Union, as the statu-
tory bargaining representati e of the employees in
the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
N L R B v Auto Veniihade. Inc , supra , 276 F 2d at 306, 307, N L R B v
7enipest Shirt Mfg Co , 285 F 2d 1, 4 In any event, as shown above, sub-
stantially all of Ideal's employees were retained by Respondent, including
Ideal's supervisory personnel, thus assuring a clear continuity of the em-
ployment relationship
Respondent 's reliance on N L R B v Aluminum tubular Corporation,
299 F 2d 595 (C A 2), is likewise misplaced The facts in Alumuium lubu-
lar are distinguishable from those of the instant proceeding
19 Cf Makela Welding , Inc v N L R. B., 387 F. 2d 40, 46 (C A. 6).
N L R B v Downtown Bakery Corp , 330 F 2d 921,925
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record
in the case, I recommend that Ideal Laundry Cor-
poration, Denver, Colorado, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All the laundry and dry cleaning production
and maintenance people employed at Respon-
dent's 2500 Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado,
plant, excluding office clerical employees,
drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act except in a manner permitted by the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I
find will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the
Union as the statutory bargaining representative of
the employees in the above-described appropriate
unit, with respect to grievances, labor disputes,
wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Post at its establishment at 2500 Curtis
Street, Denver, Colorado, plant copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix."") Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 27, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representative, shall be posted by it im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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 said Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith .21
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that unless on or
before 20 days from the receipt of this Decision
Respondent notifies said Regional Director, in writ-
ing, that it will comply with the above recommen-
dations, the National Labor Relations Board issue
an order requiring it to take such action.
IO In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board.
the words "a Decision and Order" shall he 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 -
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board.
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, 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
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board
and in order to effectuate the policies of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby
notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively, upon request,
with Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers,
Local Union No. 304, Laundry, Dry Cleaning
and Dye House Workers International Union,
as the exclusive statutory bargaining represen-
tative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below with respect to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached em-
body such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All our laundry and dry cleaning produc-
tion and maintenance people, employed at
our 2500 Curtis Street, Denver, Colorado,
plant, exclusive of all office clerical em-
ployees, drivers, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the
above-named labor organization to bargain
collectively with us, or refuse to bargain with
said organization, as the exclusive representa-
tive of our employees in the bargaining unit set
forth above, or engage in any like or related
acts or misconduct.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our em-
ployees in the exercise of their rights to self-or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, to en-
gage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
All our employees are free to become or remain
or refrain from becoming members of the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization, ex-
cept to the extent that such right may be affected
by an agreement in conformity with Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
IDEAL LAUNDRY CORPORATION 1265
IDEAL LAUNDRY This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
CORPORATION tive days from the date of posting and must not be
(Employer) altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
If Employees have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
Dated By communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office, 2240 New Custom House , 721 19th Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202, Telephone
(Representative) (Title) 297-3551'