Loeb's Laundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LOEB'S LAUNDRY
Loeb's Laundry ' and Laundry and Dry Cleaning
International Union, Local 550 , AFL-CIO. Case
26-CA-3216
June 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND ZAGORIA
On March 26, 1969, Trial Examiner Thomas A.
Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision, and a brief in support
thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case 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 brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings , conclusions , and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the conduct
of Loeb and other agents of the Respondent in
coercively interrogating employees and threatening
them with plant closure if the Union came in.
Insofar as Loeb's speech of October 15, 1968, to
assembled employees is concerned, we agree with
the Trial Examiner that, apart from the question of
credibility of employee witnesses as to the content of
the speech, the speech violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.2
'At the hearing , the Respondent moved to amend the caption of the case
to indicate that the Respondent is "Loeb's Laundry" rather than "William
Loeb and Louis G. Lemle , d/b/a Loeb 's Laundry" as initially stated in the
notice of hearing and complaint . The General Counsel agreed to the
proposed change and the Trial Examiner granted the Respondent 's motion
but inadvertently failed to make the change . Accordingly, the name of the
Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.
'Unlike the Trial Examiner , however , we find it unnecessary to pass on
the credibility of the employee witnesses' testimony , and do not rely
thereon in finding that the speech violated Sec. 8 (aXl), since the clear
implication of the speech , even as documented by the Respondent , is that
Respondent would discontinue business if the employees voted for the
Union . In that connection , Member Zagoria would find the speech
unlawful only on the basis of element (3) noted by the Trial Examiner: I.e.,
Loeb 's flat statement , at several points , that other family laundry and dry
cleaning businesses in Memphis , Tennessee, had closed , with a loss of
employee jobs after a union got in . Chairman McCulloch and Member
Brown agree with Member Zagoria as they would find a threat implicit in
Loch 's statements , but would also find for the reasons stated by the Trial
143
However, we do not agree with the Trial
Examiner that the notice posted by Respondent on
the plant bulletin boards on November 7 amounted
to a threat that Respondent would discharge
employees because of the Union. The notice in
question commented, as an incidental matter, on the
fact that an employee, Myrtle Gardner, had been
discharged from a previous job without the union
there being able to help her. In our opinion, the
comments amounted to no more than permissible
election propaganda.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that Respondent, Loeb's
Laundry, Memphis, Tennessee, its agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified.
Make the following changes in the Notice
attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision:
1. Delete the first paragraph and substitute the
following:
"After a trial in which both sides had the
opportunity to present their evidence, the
National Labor Relations Board has found that
we violated the Act and has ordered us to post
this notice and to keep our word about what we
say in this notice."
2. Delete the second and fourth indented
paragraphs.
Examiner that the speech as a whole was coercive and interfered with
employee's statutory rights to organize.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THOMAS A. RIccI, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the
above-entitled proceeding was held before me at Memphis,
Tennessee, on January 30, 1969, on complaint of the
General Counsel against William Loeb and Louis G.
Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry, herein together called the
Respondents , or the Company. The charge was filed on
November 15, 1968, by Laundry and Dry Cleaning
International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union , and the complaint issued on December 27,
1968. The issue presented is whether the Respondents
restrained and coerced their employees in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Briefs were filed after the close
of the hearing by the General Counsel and the
Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses , I make the following:
177 NLRB No. 8
144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a partnership doing business in the
State of Tennessee with its principal office and place of
business located in Memphis, where it is engaged in the
laundry and drycleaning business. During the past 12
months the Company received gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and during the same period it purchased and
received supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from
suppliers in the State of Tennessee, who, in turn,
purchased such supplies directly from out-of-state sources.
I find that the Respondents are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local
550, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
This case arose out of a self-organizational campaign
among the Respondents' employees in the fall of 1968. On
their behalf the Union filed a representation petition for a
Government-conducted secret election, Case 26-RC-3285,
on September 19. On October 9 the parties concerned
signed a stipulation for a consent election and on the 14th
an arrangement to hold the election on November 22 was
approved by the Board's Regional Director. The next day
William Loeb, one of the two individual owners of the
business, talked to his assembled employees on the subject
of union or no union . There were then about 230
employees in the plant and he gathered them in three
groups, at 2, 2:30, and 3 p.m. in the cafeteria, to hear
him; he spoke to each group for about 20 minutes.
Six employees testified concerning what Loeb said to
them that day and the essential burden of their story is
that he threatened to close the plant, and go out of
business if the employees should choose to bargain with
him through the Union. There is also testimony that after
Loeb's speeches, several supervisors, directly or obliquely
referring back to what the owner had said, conveyed
further to the employees the thought there was danger of
plant closing or loss of jobs if they should vote in favor of
collective bargaining in the imminent election. The
election was not held because the Union filed this charge
and asserted that the coercive effect of management's
statements made impossible an untrammeled expression of
choice by the employees.
Owner William Loeb did not testify. Robert Moore,
superintendent of the drycleaning department , said he sat
up close when Loeb was talking and when 60 or 70
employees were present, and that Loeb did no more than
read from a document in front of him. Clarence
Campbell , an assistant superintendent , said he too heard
one of the speeches and that Loeb was reading while
talking. Theresa Kelly, Loeb's secretary and assistant, said
she was present at all three of the talks. She testified Loeb
had prepared a written speech, that there were several
exact copies made, that Loeb spoke only what was written
on it, and that she was sure of this because each time
Loeb gave the speech she followed him word for word
while reading the copy in her hands. She added that in
every instance where Loeb departed from the written
script, however slight the change , she wrote down on her
copy the exact changes made by the owner as he went
along . She said she did this three times, and made a note
on her copy of even the minutest adlibbing Loeb may
have uttered. The Respondent offered into evidence the
copy Kelly said Loeb read from, and the copy she said she
annotated during the three talks. It is not true she
followed her employer as faithfully as she testified; before
starting the meetings Loeb made changes on his copy,
changes which are not reflected in the one Kelly was then
reading.
Loeb's Speech; Violation of Section 8(a)(1)
The defense to the charge that Loeb committed an
unfair labor practice when talking to the assembled
employees on October 15 rests upon assertion that not one
word came out of his mouth except what is written on the
exhibit document which Mrs. Kelly said he had before
him when speaking. For reasons that will appear, I do not
discredit the employee witnesses. Notwithstanding, if the
record showed nothing more than the delivery of the
speech according to the exhibit, I would find that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in Loeb's
words to the employees that day.
The exhibit reads as follows:
SPEECH BY MR. LOEB
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1968
I want to be sure that every one of you can hear me.
Is there anybody back there who can't hear me loud
and clear? Please hold up your hand if you can't
because what I have to say is very important to every
one of you.
As all of you know, a union is trying to get in our
plant. You have seen the notice up on the bulletin
boards that we have already made arrangements with
the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election
right here in the plant on November 22, so you will
have an opportunity to vote on whether or not this
union is going to get control of you.
I am going to talk to you real straight and tell you
exactly how I feel about this union problem. First of
all, I am damn disappointed that some of you would let
strangers from the outside talk you into signing a union
card - talk you into slipping behind your company's
back - and even talk some of you into working
against and speaking against this company which
provides the jobs and paychecks and the benefits that
all of you depend on for a pretty decent life. I think
you owed it to yourself, your family, and to this
company to have talked your problems over with
someone in our management before you would take up
with some absolute strangers.
My first reaction when I heard about this union
problem was to say "to hell with the whole business." I
guarantee you this laundry is something I don't need.
This year this laundry has lost $96,000.00 already. Let
me repeat that - despite all the work we have done,
despite all of our advertising, all of our good efforts to
improve our efficiency, we have still lost $96,000.00. In
other words, if this laundry had been shut down on
January 1, 1968, and never reopened, I would still have
$96,000.00 in my pocket that I don't have today
There are some people here - and I want you to
understand that I realize it is just a few people - who
LOEB'S LAUNDRY
think they are pretty smart . They think they know
more about this business than I do. They think they
and some smooth-talking organizers from the outside
can force me or this company into doing something we
don't want to do. Well, I have news for them nobody
is going to force this company or me to do anything
that I don ' t think is right for this business. I've got
some other news there isn't anybody or anything in
this world that can make a business continue to operate
when it loses nearly $ 100,000 . 00 in less than a year. A
lot of you folks have been listening to these smart
talkers, and for your own good , I am telling you now
that you had better take the time to listen to me and
your company or we are not going to solve our
problems here and we will be faced with closing the
doors like so many other laundries have been forced to
do. We need cooperation and understanding and
teamwork in this plant . What we don ' t need is
smart-aleck talk and efforts to tear us apart. The
family laundry and dry cleaning business is in a period
of extremely hard times. There is a long list of laundry
and cleaning plants that have gone out of business right
here in Memphis . Some of them had unions and some
of them didn ' t. One thing is certain having a union
sure didn ' t help . The biggest and oldest family laundry
and dry cleaner in this city was Memphis Steam. Very
shortly after a union got into its operation , it had to
give up the family laundry and dry cleaning business
entirely . All that was left was linen supply and
industrial business, and we don ' t have any of that kind
of business . The whole guts of our business is family
laundry and dry cleaning . Without that we are nothing.
Without that none of you would have jobs. When
Memphis Steam closed down its family laundry and dry
cleaning , 200 men and women lost their jobs.
The same thing happened over at Kraus. Their
business was almost entirely dry cleaning except for
shirts . Again , they were one of the oldest businesses in
our city . Again , a union got in there, and again, they
went out of business with every employee losing his or
her job.
Within the past week White Rose has given up the
family laundry and dry cleaning business. They have
nothing but linen supply and industrial from now on.
More people are losing their jobs, and White Rose had
the very same union that is after you people right now.
I have been told time and time again that I am a
fool for trying to fight the battle to keep this business
alive . Then when I get kicked in the teeth by finding
out that some of my own people are being talked into
working against their company and against me, it
almost makes me believe that I am a fool for trying to
keep this plant going and your jobs secure . And I will
tell you , I had to do some mighty serious thinking when
I found out about this union mess . But here is the
decision I've made . Loeb' s Laundry has been here an
awful long time - 81 years to be exact . I am proud of
the family tradition that made this business possible
and that made it the best and biggest laundry in the
whole South . I have pledged to myself that I will make
every effort to keep this laundry operating and that if
there is any way to stop the losses and to make this
laundry operate even on a break-even basis , I am going
to continue to do it in order that we can preserve the
jobs of the many old and loyal people who have worked
here so long.
I also came to the conclusion that many of the
people who signed union cards had been misled by false
145
information and all the tricks that these organizers are
so good at. We made the arrangements with the Labor
Board for this election because we believe that a secret
vote is the right way to decide such a serious issue. I
have made up my mind that we will get you the truth
and all the truth about this union. I know it is easy to
make an honest mistake and to be misled into signing a
union card or into going to a union meeting . I think
you are entitled to know the other side of the story, and
if you want to know the truth, then I, personally, and
every supervisor and management person in this plant,
will make every effort to see that you get that truth. I
am convinced that when you have the truth and when
you get a chance to vote in absolute secrecy where no
union outsider can know how you are voting, and when
no one can put any pressure on you, that you will vote
against the union.
I want to warn you that these outsiders will do
anything and say anything to lead you down the wrong
path. They make their entire living and the money they
spend on their big expense accounts by collecting dues
and other fees from working folks. They don't produce
any products, they don't press any pants or wash any
shirts or anything else of value. They live off the money
they get out of the paychecks of workers just like
yourselves. So watch out for all the stuff they tell you.
If you think they will tell you all the facts, then you are
making a terrible mistake. Already I think there has
been a lot of misleading information spread around. I
want you to clearly understand that I am the sole
owner of this business . I bought out the other owners
two years ago. The mayor doesn't own any part of this
business and neither does anybody else. Since I bought
this business, I have put in some of our most important
benefits - like our hospitalization. We have given steady
increases - the best in the history of this business. Even
this year we put in a good round of wage increases
despite the fact that we were losing large amounts of
money . I am trying earnestly in every way that I know
how to put this business on a sound basis so that you
will not be faced with the same fate as those folks at
Memphis Steam and Kraus and Apex and Success and
Sun & Franklin , and all those other laundries that went
out of business right here in Memphis. We have Mr.
Guthiem , an expert engineer in the laundry and dry
cleaning business , in this plant working with us to help
us get on a basis so we can survive. Mr. Guthiem's
services are not free but I was willing to invest that
additional money because I want to save our company
- I want to save this plant - and I want to protect
your jobs.
Now you've got a free choice. You can work with
me, you can do your best to help accomplish these
things, or you can listen to these outsiders and try to
hurt all of us. That's up to you. When all this is over, I
am going to have the satisfaction of knowing that I did
my dead-level best to do the right thing. If this business
cannot operate without losses - if we should have a
union strike or other union trouble that forces us out of
business - then I will be able to sleep in peace,
knowing that I did my best to preserve the jobs and
preserve the business. I don't need this laundry, as you
well know. I don't say that to brag or boast - I simply
say it as a fact. The money I have that gives me
security did not come from this business . It was left to
me by an uncle who had no connection with this
laundry at all who did not even live in Memphis. If this
laundry were to shut down tomorrow, I could live a life
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of peace and quiet with my family.
But I say to you again , I am willing to fight the
battle to overcome our problems and to keep Loeb's
Laundry in business . I am going to do what is morally
right , but unless I can have your loyal support and
help, I don 't believe we can succeed . I sincerely believe
that these union outsiders will hurt us . I know that any
serious union trouble would destroy us. I am going to
fight to keep this union out of here by every legal
means that I have . We are going to get you all the facts
and all the truth , and then the decision is going to be
up to you in the election.
For now - that 's all I have got to say.
That Loeb was telling his employees a vote in favor of
the Union - not a possible strike called by the Union,
not conceivably excessive economic demands by the
Union , but plain decision by the employees to be
represented by a union - would endanger their jobs and
might result in the closing of the plant , requires no
straining as to the meaning of words . Four facts are stated
and restated with the utmost clarity . ( 1) He was opposed
to having any union activity among his employees and
would resort to extreme measures to prevent collective
bargaining . Thus, he was "damn disappointed ," all this
was "slipping behind your company ' s back ," those who
signed cards were "working against ... this company,"
union activity would "tear us apart ," he felt "kicked in
the teeth" by the prounion element in the shop , those who
heeded the organizers would "hurt us all," "I am going to
fight to keep this union out of here ...." (2) The plant
was in danger of closing , its continued existence hung by a
precarious thread . Thus , in the first 9 months of the year
he had lost "$96,000 in this business ," "you had better
take the time to listen to me and your company or ... we
will be faced with closing the doors ...," "I am a fool for
trying . . . to keep this business alive," "I don't need this
laundry .... The money I have that gives me security did
not come from this business . It was left to me by an
uncle." (3) Other laundries in the area had closed, or
discontinued major portions of their operations , with the
extinction of jobs, when unions had appeared . (4) The sole
reason why Loeb was telling all this to the employees was
because it had just been determined - the day before -
that there would be an election in the plant the next
month , and Loeb wanted them to vote against the Union.
This juxtaposition of ideas could have but one meaning
to the employees who listened : action by them in favor of
the Union and action by Loeb putting an end to the
business went hand-in-hand . It was a single speech
merging all these ideas into a single message, and Loeb
set the tone of his talk at the very start by saying his
reaction to the entire idea was "to hell with the whole
business ." In the circumstances of the moment, with the
election notice just posted , it would unreasonably strain
credulity to believe Loeb did not intend the only
conclusion his employees could logically draw from his
total remarks. He may have been exaggerating , but the
employees could not know this, and $96,000 is a great
desl of money for a man to lose in less than 9 months,
even if he does have independent means . True or false, the
uncial condition did not warrant frightening the help
wail the election was scheduled . There is no indication
Loeb ever talked to them about it before . In his brief
counsel for the Respondent says Loeb did no more than
give the employees "bad news," "facts ... unrelated to
their union activity ," "discussions of plant closure . . .
Douched in terms of the realities of economic life ... and
the particular problems being faced by the Respondent."
Speaking for his client, the lawyer says "the threats to the
existence of the business were economic ." It is too late in
the development of labor law in America to equate
collective bargaining with economic disaster and thereby
attempt to justify straight threats to close a plant as a
means for choking off self-organizational activities.
I find that regardless of how he may have "couched"
his message in his speech given to all the assembled
employees on October 15, 1968, Loeb threatened to
discontinue his business if the employees voted in favor of
union representation and thereby restrained and coerced
them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Several employees who had been present gave
testimony of what they heard. Understandably they did
not remember all Loeb said, and of course they could only
quote him by paraphrasing. They are ordinary people and
could not be expected to quote Loeb word for word 3
months later. And it may also be that the threat to close
the plant was not articulated in the exact direct wording
used by the witnesses. Thus, as the witnesses spoke:
Myrtle Gardner: "He just said that if the union came in,
he could go out of business and he would go out of
business ; couldn 't nobody make him stay in business."
Bessie Jackson : . . he said that he was not going to
have a union in there; before he would have a union in
there he would close the plant down , and go home and
stay with his family." Annie Farris: "Well, he went on to
say that the union - the Company didn't want the union,
that they didn't want the union and they wasn't going to
have a union and that, if the union was to come in and get
organized, they would close the plant down the first of the
year." Barbara Martin: " . . . he was damn surprised at
the people letting the union talk them into coming into the
place ; that he wasn 't going to have a union in the place
and that, before he would have a union in there he would
close the place down , and - I can't remember everything,
just a few words." Velma Gibson: "He said before he'll let
a union get in his plant, he would close down ." Marion
Webster: "He started out by saying that he was damn
surprised to hear that we were letting some damn
outsiders come in and get a union in to try to make us
lose our jobs. He said that he was the sole
owner of that plant, and that nobody could tell him who
to hire or who to fire , and he said, if the union got in
there that he would close the plant down January 1st,
1969."
The witnesses also variously recalled other details of the
speech, such as the extreme losses of the past, the fact the
mayor of Memphis, Loeb's brother, was no longer
associated with the business , Loeb's financial
independence, the pleasure he would have staying home
with his family , etc. There is no need for repeating all this
for it is set out in the exhibit speech in evidence.
The Respondent's attack upon the credibility of these
employee witnesses is centered upon the fact each did not
quote Loeb in exactly the same words when saying he had
threatened to close the plant in retaliation for the union
activity. And it is true they were not in precise accord;
indeed several even recalled the date of the speech as
October 9 , instead of October 15. But there is no question
they heard Loeb talking, for all the employees were called
to the cafeteria that day for that purpose. Supervisor
Robert Moore testified Loeb read the talk, but it does not
appear he was present all three times it was given. And
Mrs. Kelly's statement that she meticulously noted every
change Loeb made from the text by so marking her copy
is not quite correct . Some of the changes she made in her
copy are minuscule and there does not seem to have been
LOEB'S LAUNDRY 147
any reason why she should have made them . For example,
she changed " learned" to "heard," "there is nobody going
to," to "nobody ' s going to," "mighty" to "awful," "are
going to" to "will ," " folks" to "people," etc. If her
purpose was expressly to create a literal record of what
came out of Loeb' s mouth , she failed if only because there
are other words, deleted by Loeb himself from what is
now said to be his own copy, but which Kelly did not
strike from hers. To the extent that the employees'
testimony means Loeb did some adlibbing , I believe them.
He did not appear at the hearing to contradict them.
More important, however, is the critical fact that what
words the employees attributed to him - about closing
the plant if a majority of the employees voted for the
union - bespeak exactly the critical point which the
speech in its totality was intended to convey. If, in
retrospect, those who heard him recalled this to have been
his heart message , their testimony is all the more credible.
Other acts of illegal restraint and coercion
On November 6, still in anticipation of the scheduled
election, Loeb gave a second speech to the employees, this
one directed primarily to comparing working conditions at
the Respondent with those of a competitor laundry, White
Rose, where there was a union . He had a certain chart to
illustrate his remarks . Among other things , he related
how, unlike White Rose, he had always given a Christmas
bonus, how his wage rates were higher , and other things
of this kind . As an aside to employees sitting next to her,
Myrtle Gardner said Loeb was lying about something or
other. Later in the day, while Gardner was talking to a
group of employees during a break , she again said that
Loeb had lied. Moore, the supervisor, heard her, smiled
and walked away . The next day two documents appeared
on the five or six bulletin boards about the plant ; one was
Gardner' s employment application , dated August 8, 1968,
and the other a notice letter to all employees on the
subject of Gardner having called Loeb a liar. In her
employment application , Gardner had written that when
previously employed by White Rose Laundry, ending in
May 1967, she had received a $44 salary , and also the
unexplained word "discharge" as the reason for leaving
White Rose . The response for the Respondent, signed by
Loeb himself, related how verification with the prior
employer showed Gardner's wage rate had been $1 per
hour while the Respondent was paying at the time $1.08.
The letter to the employees closed with the following:
Also you will notice that she said she was "discharge"
from work at White Rose Laundry . The union was not
able to protect her job when the company fired her.
Read all this carefully , and then decide for yourself -
who is lying and who is telling the truth.
Loeb was correct on the wage rates . Gardner said at
the hearing she had for years received a Christmas bonus
at White Rose , and that she had only said Loeb had lied
about this , or about "fringe benefits ." Moore quoted
Gardner as saying " Everything Mr. Loeb said is a damn
lie." Be that as it may, it is clear no one had said
anything about discharge . Why did Loeb inject this
gratuity? What idea could it conceivably form in the
minds of the employees? The logical answer is that Loeb
simply saw another opportunity, out of the clear sky, for
equating the thought of a union with the thought of
discharge . And this was in keeping with the entire tenor of
his extended remarks in the speeches of October 15. In
fact , it will be recalled one of the employees, Mrs.
Webster, quoted him as having said on the earlier
occasion that the Union could not "tell him who to hire
or who to fire." She may well have confused in her
recollection Loeb's words at the speech and the implied
message suggested in the notice posted a few weeks later.
In any event, Loeb was making the association between
discharge and unionism a ringing refrain throughout the
plant. I find the deliberate injection of this thought once
again on all the bulletin boards on November 7 a
repetition of his earlier message to the employees that the
unionism could endanger their jobs. A threat is no less a
form of intimidation when it is indirectly phrased. I
conclude that the Respondent's posting of this notice
constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Employee Farris gave further testimony about a
conversation she had with her supervisor, Campbell, a few
weeks after Loeb's first speeches. She said Campbell
engaged her in conversation and started by asking "how
did I feel about the union" and that she replied she had
not decided. At this point, still according to Farris'
testimony, Campbell said he wanted to tell her a story
about something that had happened in his hometown.
Campbell went on to recall how at a certain place of
employment in Kentucky a union had come to organize
the employees and the employer , at a meeting , had given
a speech to the employees "just like Mr. Loeb did, and
told them that if the union was to get organized, they was
going to close the plant down." Campbell went on to say
that the employees in Kentucky had not believed the
employer, had gone on and voted for the Union, and that
the following Monday morning the plant had closed.
According to Farris, Campbell concluded the conversation
with "He wanted me to think about it before I voted,
`because the boss means what he says when he says he's
going to close the plant."'
Campbell remembered this conversation with Farris,
but according to him it was the employee who started the
talk by complaining that she had not been interviewed for
a certain job opening for which she had applied. Campbell
said he explained he had known nothing about it and that
on the next occasion he would see to it that she was
considered for any possible opening. Campbell also
recalled that in the course of the conversation the
employee said she thought "the union might help," and
that
It's possible that when she said that about the union
might be able to help I told her there were adversities
connected with the union, also.
I am from Madisonville, Kentucky, the Harlan Coal
fields - this is what I told her - and prior to 1940.
I told her that I was from the Harlan Coal fields in
West Kentucky, Madisonville; that a lot of my relatives
had worked in the coal mines . I remembered, when I
was a boy they would come to our house and borrow
money from my father and the , all at once, somewhere
between '35 and '40 all of them had cars and had
money, because this huge stripping plant had moved
into Madisonville , Century 14, and it was unionized and
then they had strikes, and at one time it came to the
point , just before I left Madisonville to come to
Memphis - there was some talk that the man who
owned the stripping plant had said that he could not
afford another strike; that he would just have to move
the mine, which is highly mobile , a stripping.
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Then they had another strike, and the plant was
removed from the town , and my two cousins and two
uncles returned to borrow money, to eat on, from my
father, which we didn 't have too much to loan.
Campbell closed his version of this conversation by
saying "anytime the union was discussed I would close
any conversation with the fact that the employees were to
vote as they saw fit . It was a free election with a secret
ballot."
I credit Farris' testimony . There was nothing in what
the employee told the supervisor at that time to give rise
to any mention of strikes; her version of Campbell 's story
about Kentucky comports with the total tenor of the
owners broadside message . I find that albeit in an indirect
form supervisor Campbell was reiterating the message of
his superior, Mr. Loeb , that there was danger of plant
closing if the employees were to vote in favor of the
Union . He thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I
also find , in the circumstances , that his interrogation as to
how Farris felt about the Union was coercive and
therefore a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
Three employee witnesses testified about being
interrogated concerning their union sentiments by their
supervisor , Elnor Choate . Barbara Martin said that before
Loeb' s first speech Choate came to her to say: "Just
between you and I . . . It won't go any further, how do
you feel about the union?" She replied she favored the
Union because she thought it would obtain increases in
wages , and that the supervisor then told her Loeb pays
more than any laundry in Memphis . Martin also testified
that after Loeb's second speech , Choate one day asked her
"How do you feel about the union now, since Mr. Loeb
talked to you?" Now Martin answered she would have to
think it over, and Choate closed with "You know
Christmas is coming up and I think you ought to think
about it , think about the bonus he gives us at Christmas
time ." Ellamese Hunt testified that on the last Monday
in October , early in the morning one day, Choate asked:
"What do you think about this we have to face on the
22nd? . . . I mean, are you for the Union?" Hunt replied
that she did favor the Union. Bessie Jackson recalled that
Choate called her too the morning after Loeb 's talk and
asked "what did I think about Mr. Loeb's speech."
Jackson answered she did not think much of it, and
Choate then asked her "what did I think about the
union."
Supervisor Choate did not testify and I credit these
witnesses . With Loeb's direct threat to close the plant in
retaliation to curb the union activities of the employees,
this interrogation by the supervisor of all three employees
cannot be excused. I find that by interrogating them
Choate committed unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Early the morning after Loeb 's speeches of October 15,
supervisor Moore called six or seven employees to meet
with him at the elevator as the girls were preparing to
start work . At the hearing he said he gathered the women
because of a rumor that the place would close and. "I was
trying to satisfy them that it was going to stay open."
Three of the employees who were present testified about
this incident . As Gibson recalled:
He was talking about the union . He said the union
wasn 't any good.
He said the union could charge anything they want
to, $10.00 , and then Marion Webster said , `That's a
lie', and he said , `If the union do get in Mr . Loeb will
close the ....'
As Webster recalled : "He started out by telling us that if
the union got in there, that the plant would go out of
business , and that we would lose our jobs; and that the
union wasn't any good because it couldn't do anything for
us, and that the union dues would be $ 10.00 and over." In
her direct testimony employee Ruby Armour testified that
Moore told them the Union would cost them money and
not help them . She said she volunteered it was not exactly
salary that concerned her, but conditions of employment,
and then spoke to the entire group about how some
employees had privileges different from others, such as the
white employees enjoying better eating accomodations
than the blacks. In cross-examination she rejected the
suggestion the supervisor was only explaining Loeb's
remarks, and insisted all he said was that "Loeb would
close the place down if the union got in ." Armour closed
her testimony with the statement she had formed the
impression "they wanted us to vote no."
The essential burden of Moore's version of the meeting
he called was that he was attempting to scotch talk of
plant closing . "I told them that Mr. Loeb had told us it
wasn 't anything connected with the union ; the place wasn't
making any money, and that he was keeping the place
open for his own personal reasons and for the sake of the
employees that were working for him and , as long as he
lived , he said , he was going to try his darndest to keep it
open ." He then admitted that in the middle of all this
Marion Webster asked him: "Well, if the union gets in
here reckon will he close the place up ?," and that he,
Moore , replied : " I don 't know . You will have to ask Mr.
Loeb that question ." He denied any talk of union dues or
specific complaint having been brought up by the
employees at that time. He did recall telling the
employees "if they had any problems I'd be glad, you
know , to talk with her on it ." He expressly denied saying
that Mr. Loeb would close the plant, or would close the
plant in consequence of the Union activity.
Moore's testimony is internally inconsistent . The girls
wanted to know why he had assembled them there, and,
according to him , "I told her that I called them together
to stop the rumor that the place was going to be closed
up." But if his purpose had really been to reassure them
he would hardly have said the place was losing money and
that Loeb was straining to avoid closure . And he admitted
that when one employee asked would Loeb close because
of the Union, all he answered was he did not know, "You
will have to ask Loeb that question." Instead of calming
the employees , quieting the rumor - as he later claimed
- he was instead adding fuel to the fire. Moreover, the
statements attributed to him by the employees are
consistent with the very talk the owner had given the day
before , that the plant was in danger of closing in the event
the employees favored the Union. I credit the employee
witnesses and find that on October 16 supervisor Moore
reiterated the threat of plant closure in retaliation for
union activities and again violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act as alleged in the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with their operations
set forth in section I , above, have a close , intimate, and
substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
LOEB 'S LAUNDRY
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , I will recommend that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon
the entire record in the case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By William Loeb' s, Robert Moore' s and Clarence
Campbell's statements to employees that the Company
would close its plant , with loss of jobs to the employees, if
the employees persisted in their prounion activities, and by
Elnor Choate' s coercive interrogation of employees
concerning their union activities , the Respondents have
engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I recommend that William Loeb and Louis G.
Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry, Memphis, Tennessee, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from threatening employees with
closure of the plant and the consequent loss of jobs,
coercively interrogating employees concerning their union
activities, or in any like or related manner interfering
with , restraining , or coercing their employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at their place in Memphis , Tennessee, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 26, shall , after being duly signed by the
Respondents ' representative , be posted by Respondents
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places , including all places where notices to employees 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.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondents have taken to comply
herewith.2
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board ' s Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
149
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals 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 the
Respondents have 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 National Labor
Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that:
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law
and has ordered us to post this Notice and to keep our
word about what we say in this Notice.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant because of
the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees
because of the Union.
WE WILL NOT question our employees on whether
they wish to be represented by a union or not.
WE WILL NOT discourage union activity or
membership in Laundry and Dry Cleaning International
Union , Local 550, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL respect the rights of our employees to
self-organization , to form , join , or assist any labor
organization , or to bargain collectively in respect to
terms or conditions of employment through said Union,
or any representative of their own choosing, or to
refrain from such activity , and we will not interfere
with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of these rights , except insofar as these rights can be
affected by any contract with a labor organization, if
validly made in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Act, whereby membership therein is a
condition of employment after the 30th day following
the date of such contract or the beginning of such
employment, whichever is later.
You and all our employees are free to become members
of any labor organization, or to refrain from doing so.
Dated By
WILLIAM LOEB AND
Louis G. LEMLE, D/B/A
LOEB's LAUNDRY
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal
Office Building , 167 North Main Street, Memphis,
Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.