Modern Linen & Laundry Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1305 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

MODERN LINEN & LAUNDRY SERVICE, INC. 1305
rules and regulations of the union referred to in the contract were not litigated
and were not offered in evidence during the hearing . In the Ebasco case,4 the
complaint alleged the execution , maintaining , and enforcement of the identical
clause contained in the second paragraph of the contract herein to be violative of
the Act . There the entire matter was litigated ; the Board passed upon the rules
and regulations therein referred to and considered the acts of the parties enforcing
such agreement . Here in the case at bar it has been found that the acts or omis-
sions of the parties, as alleged in the complaint to be unfair labor practices, did
not occur ; the rules and regulations of the union referred to were not in the record
and the complaint did not allege the execution of the contract to be an unfair labor
practice . While it has been held that an illegal collective -bargaining agreement
violates the Act during each day it is in existence on the theory of a continuing
tort,5 nevertheless the failure here to allege the execution of the contract as an
unfair labor practice or to litigate the matter , preclude any finding of unfair labor
practice in that regard.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and on the entire record in
this proceding , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Company, Eichleay Corporation, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Respondent Corporation, Eichleay Corporation , has not engaged in any
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. The Respondent Unions, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders , Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL; District Lodge 57 and Local
679, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
4. The Respondent Unions, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron
Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers & Helpers, AFL; District Lodge 57 and Local
679, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths,
Forgers & Helpers, AFL, have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (b) (2) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
4 107 NLRB 617.
5 N. L. R. B. v. F. H . McGraw & Co , 206 F. 2d 635 ( C. A. 6).
MODERN LINEN & LAUNDRY SERVICE, INC. and EUGEN PEDERSEN.
Case No. 1-CA-1648. December 10, 1954
Decision and Order
On July 8, 1954 , Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman , issued his
Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that
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. Thereafter the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has also considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief , and the entire record in
the case.
110 NLRB No. 201.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent, a Vermont corporation, is engaged in the laundry and
dry cleaning business. It operates a plant in Rutland and three out-
lets at Rutland and Burlington, all in Vermont. The bulk of its busi-
ness consists of wholesale linen and laundry service to hospitals, hotels,
restaurants, and similar institutions. In 1953 its total income
amounted to $300,000, of which $30,000 was obtained from a linen
supply route in northeastern New York State.
Louis Gordon is the sole stockholder of the Respondent corporation.
Directors and officers are Louis Gordon, Murray Gordon, and Leo
Silver. In addition, Louis Gordon, Murray Gordon, and their fami-
lies own 4 linen supply companies in New York and 2 laundries in
the same city. These individuals and their families also own three
New York corporations, one of which makes uniforms for all the
linen supply companies, including Respondent; another leases trucks
to all the linen supply companies, including the Respondent; and the
third purchases supplies and equipment for all the companies, includ-
ing Respondent.
Louis Gordon is the chief executive of all the companies including
the Respondent. He and Murray Gordon act for all and sign all of
the Respondent's checks. One individual acts as comptroller for all
of the companies on a fee basis. However, there is no interchange
of employees among the various companies, nor is there a uniform
labor policy. Prices of services, delivery schedules of operation,
wages, labor policy, as well as other aspects of the management of
Respondent's business, are determined by the local plant manager
at Rutland.
The Board recently considered the operations of the Respondent in
a representation proceeding.' In that case the Board declined to
assert jurisdiction on the basis that control of Respondent's policies
and operations was not such as to constitute it an integral part of a
multistate enterprise and, if considered alone, Respondent's opera-
tions were insufficient to meet the Board's new jurisdictional
standards.2 Accordingly, and in conformity with that decision, we
find that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over Respondent and we shall, therefore, dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
'Modern Linen & Laundry Service, Inc., Case No. 1-RC-3562, not reported in printed
volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
2 See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.