Laundary, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers' In'l Union Local 26

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1446 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Laundry , Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers ' International
Union Local 26; Laundry , Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers' Health and Welfare Trust; and Laundry, Dry
Cleaning and Dye House Workers ' Union, Local No. 26, Pen-
sion Plan 1 and Office and Professional Employees, Local No. 3,
Office Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 20-RC-4358. January 30, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Kimball].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9(b) of the Act.'
i The names of the Trusts , hereinafter called the Welfare Trust and the Pension Trust,
respectively , appear as amended at the hearing.
a In asserting jurisdiction over Local 26, we find that it is an integral part of the
International , which has an annual inflow from its 97 affiliated locals in various States of
more than $100,000 . Oregon Teamsters ' Security Plan Office, et el., 119 NLRB 207 As
we find, for the reasons indicated below, that Local 26 is the Employer of the employees
herein involved , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the commerce issues of either Trust.
Of. U.S. Oil and Refining Company, 120 NLRB 863
8 Petitioner seeks a unit of six office clerical employees , four of whom are employed by
Local 26, one by the Welfare Trust , and one by the Pension Trust. Local 26 claims,
inter alia, that neither of the latter employees may properly be included in the same unit
with employees of Local 26 . We do not agree The employees of the Trusts and of
Local 26 work in the same area in close physical proximity, perform similar clerical
duties , use the same office machines , and help one another in their work They are paid
by Local 26 under a reimbursable arrangement between the latter and the Trusts, they
are supervised by the same individual , Palacios , who is president of Local 26, a vice
president of the International , and the chairman of the board of trustees of both Trusts.
Ile is in charge of all labor relations policies affecting these employees and has complete
authority and control over all their employment conditions, other than final discharge,
by virtue of an express delegation to him by the trustees, many of whom serve on both
Trusts. We therefore find that for purposes of this proceeding, the Trusts have consti-
tuted Local 26 as the Employer of the employees herein involved within the meaning of
Section 2 ( 2) of the Act. U.S Oil, etc., supra, and of Hudson Pulp & Paper Corporation,
121 NLRB 1446, 1450 We find, further, that the employees of the Local and the Trusts
have a sufficient community of interest to be merged in the same unit
129 NLRB No. 187.
INT'L HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING, ETC., LOCAL NO. 41 1447
All office clerical employees of Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye
House Workers' International Union Local 26; Laundry, Dry Clean-
ing and Dye House Workers' Health and Welfare Trust; and
Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers' Union, Local No.
26, Pension Plan, at their offices at 355 Hayes Street, San Francisco,
California, excluding confidential employees,4 all other employees,
watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 As Gatell is a member of the executive committee of Local 26 which formulates labor
relations policies , we exclude her as a confidential employee.
International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America , Local No. 41 [A. E. Anderson Construction
Company] and John Jefferies . Case No. 13-CB-900. Janu-
ary 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 26, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a support-
ing brief; the General Counsel filed exceptions to a single finding in
the Intermediate Report and filed a brief in support of the Inter-
mediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in
this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings,2 conclusions, and
recommendations 3 of the Trial Examiner.
' At the outset of the hearing , the parties entered into a stipulation , based upon the
relevant allegations of the complaint , that the Employer was engaged in commerce, and
that the Respondent was a labor organization . Without stating any reasons therefor, the
Respondent , during the course of the hearing , requested withdrawal of the stipulation.
The request was properly denied by the Trial Examiner The change of attitude on the
part of the Respondent is no cause for disregarding the stipulation since the Respondent
did not attempt to establish independently that the facts were other than as set forth in
the stipulation d Casten, Inc, 122 NLRB 1242, 1248.
2In support of the reasons given by the Trial Examiner for finding that the Respondent
had authorized Blalock to act as steward on the night shift, we rely upon Stout's un-
controverted testimony that Stone , the admitted steward on the day shift , informed
Stout, when besought employment on the project, that "Blalock 's the night steward "
8 As there is no substantial evidence in the record showing special justification or neces-
sity for a broad order in this case, we shall limit the scope of the Trial Examiner's
recommended order.
129 NLRB No. 177.