Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 25, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1435 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING DRIVERS 1435-
Since these employees perform the duties of guards during some . or all of their
working hours, they must be considered as guards within the meaning of the Act.
and not properly included in this unit of production and maintenance employees.'
(See Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act; Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106
NLRB 1383.)
It will accordingly be recommended that the challenges to the ballots of these
four employees be sustained. The remaining challenges, 10 in number, cannot
affect the results of the election and no ruling is made as to them.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
VOTE "YES"
Be sure to vote-and this is particularly for the girls. Yes, as Mr. Wald said,
no one will know you vote, and that goes for the forelady who has been so busy
trying to prevail upon you to vote against the Union.
People in positions of authority naturally don't like the Union. No Union means
they can be the "cock of the walk." They can take care of their favorites with
complete disregard for length of service and ability. When a Union enters the
picture the boss. is no longer the supreme power. They have to take seniority into
consideration and treat the help fairly, and the company has to give equal pay for
equal work.
We further understand that Mr. Wald called a meeting yesterday morning and
painted a very gloomy picture about what would happen if you voted for the Union.
Let's look at the record.
The C. I. O. first started organizing in Worcester 20 years ago. Today there
are between 15 and 17 thousand C. I. O. members in this city.
Would such progress have been possible if the Union didn't do a good job for
its members?
Mr. Wald also asserted that Vellumoid was paying as good or better than other
area shops for comparable work . Here is just one example : Seybold & Beams
Presses pay $1.90 at Vellumoid, and Kluge Presses pay "$2.02. Workers on the
same type of presses at U. S. Envelope get $2.19 and $2.34a per hour. Don't
believe us. Ask some of your friends who work there.
Much gossip has been circulated about what you'll have to pay in the form of
Dues and initiation fees. In forming a new Local we don't charge initiation fees
or assessments-and the dues are $5.00 a month with $2.50 being returned to your
own Local Union. The Union is yours. What you can gain from having. a Union
will be measured by the support you give the Union.
Your first step to improve your wages and conditions will be taken today. Vote
YES and win Big. The bigger your victory in today's election, the better your.
contract, and the greater your gains in the form of improved wages, pensions,
insurance, vacations and general working conditions.
UNITED STEELWORKERS of AMERICA,
274 Main Street, Worcester, Mass.
#716-2521-usa
Laundry, Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No. 928,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO; and
Local No. 52 , Laundry & Dry Cleaning Workers International,
AFL-CIO and Southern Service Company, Ltd. Case No.
21-CC-P88. September 25,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 23, 1957, Trial Examiner .Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, a copy of
which is attached hereto, finding that the Respondents had not en-
gaged in and were not engaging in any unfair labor practices, and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. There-
118 NLRB No. 193.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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 Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings of fact, except
insofar as inconsistent with this opinion. However, we find, contrary
to the Trial Examiner, that these facts establish that the Respondents
have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
As set forth in greater detail in the Intermediate Report, for a
number of years the Respondents have unsuccessfully sought to or-
ganize Southern's employees. In furtherance of this campaign, the
Respondents told local restaurant owners and a number of other
unions in the area that restaurants which refused to change from
Southern's linen supply service to a union linen supply service would
be picketed. Thereafter, those restaurants which continued to patron-
ize Southern were picketed by the Respondents with signs stating :
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
THIS ESTABLISHMENT 'S LINENS ARE BEING PROCESSED
BY A
NONUNION
LAUNDRY 1
The picket lines were withdrawn from those restaurants which agreed
to change to a union linen service.
.On these facts there can be no doubt, and the Respondents do not dis-
pute, that an object of the picketing was to force or require the res-
taurants to cease doing business with Southern. Nor is there any
question that the Respondents sought to effectuate that object by
means of picketing at the premises of secondary employers, the res-
taurants, and without regard to the presence or absence of Southern's
employees, rather than by means of picketing at the premises of the
primary employer, Southern.' It is well settled that picketing di-
i On December 5, 1956, the first line of the picket sign was changed to read "Notice to
Patrons."
2 The Respondents ' contention that the picketing was carried on partly in furtherance of
a primary labor dispute with the restaurants , on the ground that theespondents sought
to obtain bonuses for the driver -salesmen working for unionized line services by induc-
ing the picketed restaurants to give them new business , is plainly without merit. It
is patent from the record that the Respondents did not represent nor seek to represent
the employees of the restaurants . Fehr Baking Co. v. Bakers' Union, 20 F. Supp. 691,
692-694, 696 (W. D., La. ) ; Jackie Bright v. Pittsburgh Musical Society, American Fed-
eration of Musicians , Local 60, 108 A. 2d 810, 813-814, 379 Pa . 335. Rather , the Re-
spondents ' contention constitutes further evidence that its object was to compel the res-
taurants to cease doing business with Southern , as proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4).
LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING DRIVERS 1437
rected to employees at such locations violates section 8 (b) (4) (A)
of the Act.' However, the Respondents contend, and the Trial Ex-
aminer found, that such picketing did not constitute inducement or
encouragement of employee action, within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (4), but rather looked only to persuading customers by a truth-
ful presentation of facts to withhold their patronage from the pick-
eted restaurants. We do not agree.
The picketing at Madsen's Restaurant and at the two Grisinger
Drive-Ins took place at entrances normally used by restaurant em-
ployees and employees of suppliers, as well as by patrons of the
restaurants. This required the restaurant employees to work behind
the picket lines and employees of suppliers to cross the picket lines in
order to make deliveries. But as we have repeatedly pointed out,
such a picket line necessarily invites employees to refrain from work-
ing behind it irrespective of the literal appeal of the legends on the
picket signs .4 That such is the understanding of employees con-
fronted with a picket line is shown by the response to the pickets set
up by the Respondents here. Although the words on the picket sign
did not request any employees to cease work, some of the restaurant
employees and deliverymen made inquiries as to whether the signs so
implied; several of the deliverymen delayed making their deliveries;
one deliveryman, who testified, "As far as I know, I am not supposed
to cross a picket line," refused to make his delivery, which the sup-
plier later made by a special deliveryman; and another changed his
method of making delivery, in part by requiring restaurant employees
to pick up meat from his truck parked on the premises instead of
bringing it into the restaurant himself, so as to avoid crossing the
picket line. The unsuccessful efforts of one deliveryman who made
his delivery, to find out from a picket and from his union whether
"the strike" or "this picketing" was "official," indicate that if they
were "official" he would not cross the picket line regardless of its
ostensible purpose.5
For the foregoing reasons, we find that by picketing the restaurants
of secondary employers at entrances customarily used by restaurant
employees and employees of suppliers, for the purpose of forcing the
restaurants to cease doing business with Southern, the Respondents
3 Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL (National Trucking Company),
111 NLRB 483, enfd. 228 F. 2d 791 (C. A. 5) ; Commission House Drivers, Helpers and
Employees Local No. 400 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Euclid Foods, Incorporated), 118 NLRB
130 ; and cases cited therein.
'Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745, AFL-CIO (Associ-
ated Wholesale Grocery of Dallas, Inc.), 118 NLRB 1251; Knit Goods Workers' Union,
Local 155, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (James Knitting
Mills, Inc.), 117 NLRB 1468; Knitgoods Workers Union, Local 155, International Ladies'
Garment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO (Packard Knitwear, Inc.), 118 NLRB 577.
8 We also note that 2 suppliers telephone Grisinger that they could not make delivery
because there was a picket line, and that 1 of them told Madsen that its employees did
not want to cross that line.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
induced and encouraged such employees to engage in a strike or a con-
certed refusal to work, and therefore violated Section 8 (b) .(4) (A) .6
The fact that the picketing might also have had as an object an appeal
to members of the consuming public cannot serve as a defense to con-
duct which also involved inducement of employee action with a pro-
scribed object. Associated Wholesale Grocery, supra.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents, Laundry, Linen
Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No. 928, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, AFL-CIO ; Local No. 52, Laundry & Dry Clean-
ing Workers International, AFL-CIO; and their officers, representa-
tives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from inducing or encouraging employees of any
employer, other than Southern Service Company, Ltd., to engage in
a strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment 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 any employer or other
person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise
dealing in the products of Southern Service Company, Ltd., or to
cease doing business with that Company.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at their offices and meeting halls in Long Beach, Cali-
fornia, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."'
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
the Twenty-first Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Re-
spondents' representatives, be posted by them immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to their members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
6 The General Counsel contends that the picketing also violated Section 8 (b) (4) (B)
because it had as an object forcing or requiring Southern to recognize and bargain with
Respondents, which are not the certified representatives of Southern's employees. Since
the Trial Examiner found that "no recent demand for recognition had been made upon
Southern," to which finding the General Counsel does not except; since the record con-
tains testimony which may amount to a denial of testimony by Southern's president that
the Laundry workers' secretary sought to "meet with" him ; and since the order issued
hero will remedy any conduct violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (B), we shall dismiss that
portion of the complaint without passing on its merits.
a 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."
LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING DRIVERS 1439
(b) Mail to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of the notice for posting.at the following restaurants in
Long Beach, California, in places where notices to their employees
are customarily posted, if the owners of such restaurants are willing
to do so: Madsen's Restaurant; Grisinger's Drive-In Restaurant at
4390 Atlantic Boulevard; and Grisinger's Drive-In Restaurant at 1632
East Fourth Street.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, as to what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that Respondents have violated Section 8
(b) (4) (B) of the Act.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND ALL EMPLOYEES
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, as amended, we hereby notify our members and all
employees that :
WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of any employer
other than Southern Service Company, Ltd., to engage in a strike
or concerted refusal in the course of their employment 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 any em-
ployer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, trails-
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of Southern Service
Company, Ltd., or to cease doing business with that company.
LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING
DRIVERS LOCAL No. 928, AFFILIATED WITH
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
LOCAL No. 52, LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL, AFL-CIO,
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.
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Mrs. Edwin Selvin in behalf of Southern Service
Company, Ltd., herein called Southern, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued his complaint against Laundry,
Linen Supply & Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No. 928, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL-CIO; and Local No. 52, Laundry & Dry Cleaning Workers International,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondents, alleging that they had violated and were
violating Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the National Labor Relations Act,
61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act.
In respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges that for a period in
August 1956 and since October 8 of that year the Respondents, by means of picket-
ing, have induced and encouraged employees of customers of Southern and of
suppliers to those customers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course
of their employment to perform services for their respective employers with the
object of forcing and requiring such customers to cease using the services of
Southern and to cease doing business with Southern and to force or require Southern
to recognize or bargain with the Respondents as collective-bargaining representa-
tive of certain of Southern's employees, although neither Respondent has been
certified as such representative pursuant to Section 9 of the Act.
Respondents' answer denies the commission of unfair labor practices, denies that
it has demanded recognition of Southern, and asserts that the picketing had the
sole purpose of inducing customers to refrain from patronizing certain restaurants
in the Long Beach area.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before the Trial Examiner in Los Angeles,
California, on December 17, 1956. All parties were represented and were per-
mitted to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to offer evidence pertinent to
the issues. No witnesses were called. The entire record consists of the transcript
of testimony and exhibits offered and received in an action under Section 10 (1)
of the Act in the United States District Court, Southern District of California,
Central Division, on November 26 and December 3, 1956. The General Counsel
and counsel for the Respondents presented argument on the record.
On the basis of the entire record in the case and in the light of the arguments
advanced, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF SOUTHERN
The parties stipulated and I find that Southern is a California corporation with
main offices in Pomona, California, operating approximately 30 laundries through-
out California, including one in Long Beach called Long Beach Linen Supply.
In 1955 Southern purchased and caused to. be shipped to it from points and States
other than the State of California linens, laundry, and dry cleaning supplies and
equipment valued between $500,000 and $600,000. Because the picketing affected
only a few of Southern's customers, Respondents argue that had it been completely
successful and had Southern been deprived of the trade of these customers, the
overall effect upon Southern's business would have been so slight as to call into
play the rule of de minimis. This argument is rejected. If Respondents' conduct,
detailed below, was unlawful in terms of the Act and successful, the anticipated
effect upon the business of Southern in all its branches could be expected to have
a substantial impact upon commerce.
H. THE FUNCTION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Both Respondents are labor organizations, admitting to membership certain classi-
fications of employees performing work for Southern.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
For a number of years the Respondents have made unsuccessful attempts to
organize employees of Southern, but at the time of the picketing, described below,
no recent demand for recognition had been made upon Southern. Except to the
extent that Southern's employees may have regarded the picketing of Southern's
customers as inducement to join one of the Respondents, no active current organiz-
ing campaign is in effect.
LAUNDRY, LINEN SUPPLY & DRY CLEANING DRIVERS 1441
Learning in late spring or early summer of 1956 that the State convention of the
American Federation of Labor was scheduled to be held in Long Beach, the Re-
spondents protested to the Central Labor Council in Long Beach that such a
gathering of union officials would result in a substantial increase of business to
employers in the area who were using the nonunion service of Southern. When
their protests did not succeed in having the convention moved to another city, the
Respondents told representatives of Long Beach restaurants and officials of other
labor organizations that for the period of the convention, pickets would be placed
outside some or all restaurants in the area using Southern 's linen service to advertise
that fact and thus to encourage the visiting union representatives to refrain from
patronizing such restaurants. In the meantime efforts were made to persuade
Long Beach restaurants to switch their custom to linen service companies employ-
ing members of the Respondents. For the period of the convention, August 13
through 18, pickets were placed outside the customers' entrances to about 15 Long
Beach restaurants. The pickets each carried the following sign:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS ESTABLISHMENT'S LINENS
ARE BEING PROCESSED BY A NONUNION LAUNDRY
All but four of the restaurants picketed had a separate entrance for employees
and suppliers. No pickets were placed at such entrances. Madsen's restaurants
had but one entrance and a picket patrolled before it. The picket also walked
between a sidewalk opening, through which supplies were delivered, and the curb.
At Grisinger's Drive-Ins at two locations the pickets patrolled the drive-in entrances
through which customers and others gained access to the restaurants. At Jack's
Corsican Room, a nightclub, the picket patrolled before the single entrance. No
complaint is made concerning the picketing of restaurants having a separate
employee entrance.
At the four restaurants mentioned in the complaint picketing took place only
during those hours when business was at its height-at usual mealtimes. No picketing
was done at the earlier hours when employees of the restaurants were reporting for
work.' Deliveries were received, however, at no certain hours and in consequence
employees of suppliers approached the restaurant entrances on occasion when pickets
were present. On the first day of picketing Harley Schaefer, an employee of an
ice cream company, prepared to make a delivery at Madsen's when a driver for a
bakery company suggested that Schaefer might be fined by his union if he did so.
Schaefer left without making delivery. He then inquired of his employer and was
told that he could do as he liked.. Going finally to the office of his union he was
told by someone 2 that he should not cross the picket line. Later in the week, however,
coming somehow to the conclusion that it was permissible to do so, Schaefer crossed
the picket line to make a delivery. Henry Nieto, coming to the same restaurant
with an order of meat, asked the picket if the strike was "official." Receiving no
answer, Nieto made his delivery in the normal fashion. Allen Russell, a driver for
a meat company, seeing the pickets at one of the Grisinger restaurants, drove around
the block and approached the delivery point from the rear. From there he signaled
the cook who came to the truck to get the meat. Russell followed this practice for
the time that the picket line existed. Russell testified that he had been driving but
a short time, that he was unsure of any consequence which might follow crossing
the line, that he made no inquiry concerning the matter of his union, and that he
just decided that the safest course was the one he chose to pursue. Before the
picketing, Russell had driven his truck through one of the driveways used by cus-
tomers. No pickets were stationed in the rear where he made the deliveries mentioned
above. Edward Graham, an employee at the Grisinger drive-in restaurant where
Russell delivered, testified that drivers of other suppliers were deterred by the sight
of the picket line and left without making delivery. This occasioned no more than
delay, however, for the drivers later returned and crossed the picket line. No
employee of any of the restaurants failed to report for work or failed in any respect
to perform duties for his employer because of the picketing.
All picketing stopped on August 18 but was resumed at Madsen's on October 8
and was continuing at the time of the hearing.
The General Counsel sees the picketing as an attempt to force recognition from
Southern by the device of inducing and encouraging employees of neutral employers
1 Except perhaps at one of the Grisinger drive-in restaurants. Pickets appeared there at
least on the first day of picketing before some of the employees reported.
2 Schaefer testified that he spoke to a man who had died 2 months before his visit.
I consider this to be an honest mistake on the part of Schaefer and find that he spoke to
someone at that office.
450552-58-vol. 118-92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to cease performing services for their several employers in order that pressure to
accomplish that end be brought upon Southern. He suggests that picketing at
Southern's premises might be permissible but that by picketing the restaurants supplied
by Southern, the Respondents have departed from an appropriate site to a forbidden
one.3 Implicit in the General Counsel' s reasoning is the assumption that any picket
line maintained by a labor organization constitutes an inducement to members of
labor organizations not to cross it for any purpose.
Counsel for the Respondents has a different view of the matter. He asserts that
the picketing had for an objective only the apparent one of persuading customers
by a truthful presentation of facts to withhold their patronage from the picketed
restaurants.
The facts of the case are simple, are not disputed in any important respect, and
have been stated.
The restaurant operators either were notified beforehand or learned during the
week of August 13 that the picketing was not directed to their employees. All labor
organizations whose members worked in the restaurants or for suppliers to the
restaurants had been notified that this was purely and simply an appeal for a con-
sumer boycott 4 None of the restaurant employees refused to perform services for
their employers and the few incidents of delay in receiving supplies are clearly attribut-
able to an assumption, not warranted in my opinion, that the picket line was to be
observed by them.
Because the Respondents openly stated the purpose of the picketing before it
started; because drivers who questioned the propriety of crossing the picket lines
quickly satisfied themselves that observance was not required; because the hours of
picketing were coincident with the hours of meal service rather than with the hours
when employees report for work or the hours when supplies were received; because
employee and supplier entrances, where they existed, were not picketed; and because
the entire conduct of the Respondents in respect to the picketing is rationally con-
sistent with an object to induce a consumer boycott only, I find that no violation
of the Act, as alleged, is here presented. Because I do not find the evidence to sup-
port the General Counsel's contention that the picketing constituted inducement
or encouragement of restaurant employees or of employees of restaurant suppliers,
the cases he relies on dealing with "common situs" situations have no bearing here
and are not discussed.
By reason of the conclusions reached above, it is recommended that the complaint
be dismissed.
3 General Drivers, Salesmen., Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union 984, etc. (The Caral-
dine Company, Inc.), 116 NLRB 1559 and Local 657, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (Southwestern Motor
Transport, Inc.), 115 NLRB 981.
4 I consider that the Respondents are not chargeable for the erroneous instruction given
Schaefer by someone purporting to speak for his union.
Olaa Sugar Company, Limited and Favorite P. Banez
ILWU Local 142 and Favorite P. Banez. Cases Nos. 37-CA-84
and 37-CB-6. September p26,1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On October 26, 1955, the Board issued its Decision and Order herein,'
finding that the Complainant, Banez, was not an agricultural laborer
excluded from the coverage of the Act, finding further than Banez
was discriminatorily discharged under an illegal contract, and issuing
the usual remedial order for such unfair labor practices. On March
12, 1957, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1114 NLRB 670.
118 NLRB No. 195.