Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Tech-
nical Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. All technical engineering employees of Respondent's engineering department in
its New York operation including estimators, technical clerks, designers, draftsmen,
listers, schedulers, hardware coordinators, and other technical engineering employees
doing similar work regardless of assigned classifications, excluding all other employ-
ees, specifically office clerical employees, production employees, salesmen, mechanics,
teamsters, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
3. All technical engineering employees of the Respondent's engineering depart-
ment in its Scranton, Pennsylvania, plant, including draftsmen, designers, listers,
schedulers, hardware coordinators, leadmen (also known as squad leaders whose
duties are strictly in the technical direction of technical engineering employees)
and blueprint operators, and other technical engineering employees doing similar
work regardless of assigned title or classification excluding all other employees and
specifically office clerical employees, production employees, mechanics, teamsters,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. On July 5, 1956, and January 7, 1957, respectively, and at all times thereafter,
Local 66 has been and still is the majority representative of the employees in the
above-described appropriate units for purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
5. Respondent has failed to perform its obligation to bargain in good faith with
Local 66 in and since January 1957, as to each bargaining unit, and has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by the following conduct:
(a) Insisting that shop stewards be chosen from among "senior" employees and
that Local 66 give union withdrawal cards to employees promoted to positions
outside the aforementioned units.
(b) Promising and granting unilateral wage increases and other changes in work-
ing conditions during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the
statutory bargaining representative.
(c) Bargaining directly with employees during a certification year and otherwise
while Local 66 was the statutory bargaining representative and offering employees
better terms than those it offered to Local 66.
(d) Questioning Local 66's representative status and refusing to recognize or
otherwise negotiate with Local 66 during a certification year and otherwise while
Local 66 was the statutory bargaining representative.
(e) Urging, aiding, and inducing employees by promises and grants of economic
benefits, to renounce Local -66 and also to affiliate with a rival organization to Local
66 during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the statutory bar-
gaining representative and also permitting and assisting in such activities during
working hours.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union , Local 218, Laundry,
Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union
and Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga . Case No. 10-CC-435.
April 5,1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed on October 9, 1959, by Apex Linen Service
of Chattanooga, herein called Apex, against Laundry, Cleaning &
Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye
127 NLRB No. 5.
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
House Workers International Union, herein called the Respondent,
the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued a complaint alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b)
(4) (A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the
complaint, charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the
Respondent and Apex.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that since on or about October 9, 1959, the Respondent has
induced and encouraged employees of certain named customers of
Apex and of other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals
in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans-
port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or
commodities or to perform any services with objects of forcing or re-
quiring the said employers and persons to cease doing business with
Apex, and to require Apex to recognize or bargain with Respondent
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Apex,
although Respondent has not been certified as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of said employees pursuant to the provisions of
Section 9 of the Act. On November 9, 1959, the Respondent filed an
answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and assert-
ing affirmatively that it had engaged in "informational picketing"
which is protected by the first amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Between December 18, 1959, and January 7, 1960, all parties entered
into a stipulation waiving a hearing before a Trial Examiner and
the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
and submitting the case directly to the Board for findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and order on a record to consist entirely of the
charge, complaint, and notice of hearing, answer, and a "Stipulation
of Facts" with appended exhibits, including particularly a copy of
the transcript of proceedings entitled "Walter C. Phillips, Regional
Director, N.L.R.B., 10th Region vs. Laundry, Cleaning and Linen
Workers International Union, Local 218, Civil Action No. 3511
(Chattanooga)," in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Northern Division, at Knoxville, Tennessee.
On January 22, 1960, the Board approved the stipulation and
granted the motion of the parties transferring the case to, and contin-
uing it before, the Board. Thereafter the Respondent filed a motion
requesting dismissal of the complaint and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel also filed a brief. For the reasons stated herein-
after, the motion is denied.
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 13
Upon the basis of the stipulation, and from the entire record in the
case, the Board 'makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. Apex is a Tennessee corporation having its principal office and
place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in
the linen rental business. Its annual business is about $400,000, of
which approximately $80,000 represents business done outside the
State of Tennessee.
We find that Apex is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.2
II. Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laun-
dry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. The facts :
About August 15,1959, Respondent demanded that Apex recognize
it as collective-bargaining representative of Apex's production and
maintenance employees. Respondent has never been certified as such
representative. Apex refused the request insisting upon a Board-
conducted election to determine the question of majority. Since
about September 15, 1959, Respondent has been picketing Apex's
premises because of the latter's refusal to extend recognition.
From about October 1, 1959, in furtherance of the dispute with
Apex, Respondent requested Carter's Restaurant, Johnson's One Stop
Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair
Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restau-
rant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant,
Gillespie Grocery, and other customers of Apex to cease using the
linen services provided by Apex.
From about October 9, 1959, Respondent picketed the premises of
Carter's, Johnson's, Haygood's, Ellis', Nick's, Frye's, Kaset's, and
other customers of Apex with picket signs containing the following
legend :
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
TAKE ONE OF OUR HANDBILLS 3
THANKS
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 218
1Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
a Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
s One of the handbills reads : "Informational Only This firm is using products of
APEX LINEN SERVICE which has a labor dispute with Laundry, Cleaning and Linen
Workers' International Union Local '218 " The wording of this handbill was subsequently
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because of a conflict with a city ordinance, Respondent ceased dis-
tributing the handbills and from October 21, 1959, began picketing
premises of customers of Apex with a picket sign reading as follows :
INFORMATION ONLY
THIS FIRM IS USING PRODUCTS
OF
APEX LINEN SERVICES
WHICH HAS A LABOR DISPUTE WITH
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 218
Picketing was conducted in front of the entrances ato the establish-
ments and could be observed by employees of the customer being pick-
eted as well as by employees of suppliers of the customer. In several
instances, employees of suppliers observing the picket line refused
to make deliveries. However, during all times material herein, there
was no work stoppage by the employees of any of the customers
picketed.
Respondent admitted that one of the objects of its picketing was
to persuade customers of Apex to cease using the latter's services.
When a customer agreed to switch his business to a union-approved
linen supply house, the picketing of that establishment ceased.
Discussion
The General Counsel asserts that by the foregoing picketing and
distribution of leaflets, Respondent induced and encouraged employees
of secondary employers to engage in a strike or refusal to perform
services for the proscribed objectives of forcing customers of Apex
to cease doing business with that firm and forcing Apex to recognize
Respondent as bargaining representative of its employees. Respond-
ent contends that the picketing in which it was engaged was for the
purpose only of publicizing its dispute with Apex to the general
public and to Apex's customers and that at no time were the employees
of any employer picketed, induced, or encouraged to engage in con-
certed refusals of any kind in the course of their employment.
Respondent admits that one of the objects of the picketing was to
bring economic pressure upon customers of Apex to induce or en-
courage them to cease doing business with Apex. Another object of
the picketing, it is plain and we find, was to force Apex to recognize or
bargain with Respondent, although the latter had never been certified
as the representative of Apex's employees. The sole question, there-
fore, is whether by its picketing Respondent induced or encouraged
incorporated on a picket sign. The second handbill recounts the alleged grievances of
Respondent against Apex It appears to solicit the support of customers of Apex against
that company.
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 15
employees of secondary employers to engage in a strike or concerted
refusal to perform services. The question must be answered in the
affirmative. In the recent Perfection Mattress case,4 involving facts
substantially identical with those in the present case, the Board ma-
jority said :
The Board has held, with court approval, that conduct consisting
of picketing
necessarily invites employees to make common cause with the
the strikers . . . irrespective of the literal appeal of the
legends on the picket signs 3 Its very purpose . . . is to
exert influences,
as the Supreme Court has recognized.' And directing the printed
appeal to the consumer, in our opinion, does not negate those in-
fluences. It is sufficient that the necessary effect of the picketing
is to induce employees to engage in a work stoppage.5 The Board
made clear its view of common entrance picketing in Southern
Service Company, Ltd.,' where it held that such picketing violates
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by reason of the implicit appeal to
the employees of the retail stores who are employed by employers
who are not parties to the labor dispute. In that case, the notice
which was originally directed to "the public" was later changed to
"Notice to Patrons." The foreseeable consequence, or stated
differently, the natural or probable result, of picketing at an
entrance used in part by employees is to induce a strike... .
The fact that picketing may not be successful in inducing a
work stoppage is not controlling on the question of whether the
picketing is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. That a
work stoppage did not occur does not in any way detract from the
fact that the picketing activity had as its necessary effect the
inducing and encouraging of employees to engage in a work
stoppage in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A).
3 Laundry, Linen Supply d Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No, 928, et at. ( Southern
Service Company , Ltd ), 118 NLRB 1435, 1437, enfd. 262 F . 617 (C.A. 9).
4 Hughes v Superior Court, 339 U S 460.
r Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745 , AFL-CIO
(Associated Wholesale Groce ) y of Dallas, Inc ), 118 NLRB 1251, enfd . 264 F 2d
642 (CA 5).
9 Sup? a.
The correctness of the observation, based upon general experience,
that picketing tends to induce work stoppages by employees regard-
less of the legend on the picket sign is proved by a number of incidents
in this case. Thus, a driver for a beer company refused to make a
delivery to Gillespie Grocery, a customer of Apex, while a picket was
4 United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees , Local 261 , Retail, Wholesale and
Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Perfection Mattress & Spring Company ), 125 NLRB
520 (Members Bean and Fanning dissenting )
16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
carrying the "INFORMATION ONLY" sign in front of the grocery
premises, because "I am not supposed to cross a picket line." A driver
for a biscuit company also refused to cross the picket line in front of
Gillespie'"s in order to make a delivery until assured by the shipping
clerk for his company that it was proper for him to do so. A driver-
salesman for a milk and ice cream distributor passed up a delivery at
Kaset's Restaurant, another customer of Apex, because of the pres-
ence of a picket in front of that establishment carrying the "INFOR-
MATION ONLY" sign.
Under all the circumstances, we find that by picketing at the
premises of the retail customers of Apex, the Respondent has induced
or encouraged employees of th`e retail establishments and of other em-
ployers to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to perform services
with objects of (a) forcing or requiring the retail establishments to
cease doing business with Apex, and (b) forcing or requiring Apex
to bargain with Respondent as the representative of Apex's employees
although Respondent has never been certified as the representative of
such employees under the provisions of Section 9, thereby violating
Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in
connection with Apex and its customers, 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 unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local
218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International
,Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By inducing and encouraging the employees of Carter's Restau-
rant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop,
Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's
Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restau-
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION - 17
rant, Majestic Restaurant, Gillespie Grocery, and other employers
except Apex, to engage in concerted refusals in the course of their
employment to perform services for their respective employers with
objects of forcing or requiring such employers to cease doing business
with Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga and to force and require
Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with
Respondent as the representative of its employees, although Respond-
ent has never been certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that Respondent, Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union,
Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers Interna-
tional Union, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, representatives, successors,
agents, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging
the employees of Carter's Restaurant, Johnson's One Stop Motor
Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling
Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant,
Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant, Gilles-
pie Grocery, and other employers except Apex Linen Service of
Chattanooga, to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the
course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport,
or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com-
modities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force
or require the-said,employers to cease doing business with Apex Linen
Service of Chattanooga, or to force or require Apex Linen Service of
Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with Respondent unless Re-
spondent has been certified as the representative of such employees
under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of Respondent in Atlanta,
Georgia, and at Chattanooga, Tennessee, if it has any, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 con-
5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
560940-61-vol. 127-3
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, signed
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting
by Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga and the retail establishments
referred to above, they being willing, at places where they customarily
post notices to their employees.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL 218, LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORK-
ERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National-Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Carter's Restau-
rant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop,
Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's
Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's
Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant, Gillespie Grocery,and any other
employer except Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, to engage
in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employ-
ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle
or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to
perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require
the said employers to cease doing business with Apex Linen
Service of Chattanooga, or to force or require Apex Linen Service
of Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with us as the representa-
tive of the employees of Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga
unless we have been certified as the representative of such employ-
ees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.
LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION,
LOCAL 218, LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE
HOUSE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice-must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.