National Laundry Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 961 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. and CLEANERS AND
LAUNDRY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 188-IB, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-3361.Decided February 244, 19/3
Jurisdiction : laundry and dry cleaning industry.
Unfair Labor Practices /
Inter fer•ence, Restraint, and Coercion: anti-union statements; ordering employees
to quit their employment if they continued to discuss organizing in the plant
when there was no rule against talking; refusing to deal with union committee
and indicating it would not deal with union; questioning employees about their
union membership and activities ; and telling employees how to vote in a Board
election.
Discrimination: charges of, dismissed.
Collective Bargaining: majority established by certification-refusal to bargain
by: taking position during negotiation that wages were excluded from the
scope of collective bargaining; employer's contention that refusal was justified
since prior certification by the Board of the union was erroneous, by reason
of the fact that although a majority of those voting in the Board election had
designated the union, such employees constituted less than a majority of those
eligible to vote, found to be without merit.
Remedial Orders : cease and desist unfair labor, practices; upon request to
bargain collectively.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : employees of respondent, including
truck drivers but excluding office, clerical (including sales clerks), managerial,
and supervisory employees.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 6, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and that
it had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found
and take certt in affirmative action, as set out in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto, and that the complaint be dismissed
as to the remaining allegations, Thereafter the respondent and the
Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in sup-
port of the exceptions. Oral argument, in which the respondent and
47 N. L. 1t.13., No. 122.
961
513024-43-vol. 47-a1
962 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union participated,-was had before the Board on January 19, 1943.
The Board has considered 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 considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs, and the entire record in
the case,-and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, except in the respects noted below :
1: The Trial Examiner found that Mae Bell had engaged in certain'
anti-union activities and that the respondent was responsible 'for her
conduct, because her duties as inspector and checker gave her some
authority over the respondent's employees who were finishing shirts.
We agree with the Trial Examiner and find, in addition, from Bell's
testimony that her duties as a checker and inspector are substantially
the same as those which she had previously exercised as forelady and
that the respondent's responsibility for her activities is clear.
2. The Trial Examiner found that Gearhart, by her statement to the
employees on September 2, 1941, that if there was another stoppage of
work she would "fire" all who took part in it, interfered with, 're-
strained, and coerced the respondent's employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. We do not agree, and
find that, under the circumstances, the remarks were insufficient to
constitute a violation'of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the respondent
has refused to bargain collectively with the Union, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (5) of the Act. While it may be true, as the Trial
Examiner found, that the respondent refused to make any counter-
suggestions or proposals with respect to the Union's demands as to,
wages, the union shop, and compulsory arbitration, thereby indicating"
a lack of good faith in dealing with the Union, it is unnecessary for
us to pass upon this phase of the matter. We deem it sufficient to find
a refusal to bargain from the respondent''s position during negotia-
tions on the question of wages and from its contention before us that
it was under no duty to bargain with the Union, since the'Board's
certification was invalid.
The respondent's refusal to bargain collectively with respect to
wages, a most important condition of employment, was made strikingly
apparent by its position at the conference of March 3, 1942, that the
question of wages was a prerogative of management. Although the
respondent thereafter on April 4, 1942, asserted to the Union, in re-
sponse to a direct question, that it believed wages to be a subject of col-
lective bargaining, it, nevertheless, refused, after rejecting the Union's
proposal, to set forth the terms upon which it would enter into an
agreement as to that condition of employment and foreclosed any
negotiation on the subject by stating that its employees were receiving
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 963
approximately as high pay as similar employees in other plants. Thus
the respondent clearly indicated that it had not in fact receded from
its former position that wages were excluded from the scope of col-
lective bargaining.
- The respondent defended its refusal to bargain with the Union on
the ground, among others, that the latter was at no time selected as the
bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit.
The respondent's contention in this respect is that the prior certifica-
tion of the Union by the Board on January 22, 1942, was erroneous,
for, although a majority of those voting in the Board election held on
December 22, 1941, had designated the Union, such employees con-
stituted less than a majority of those eligible to vote. The authority
of the Board to issue a certificate under these circumstances is, well
settled,' and the respondent's contention is consequently patently lack-
ing in merit.
4. The Trial Examiner found that the respondent has not engaged
in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, as to 10 employees named in the complaint. We agree with the
ultimate findings as to each 'of these employees, but, in most instances,
for different reasons. '
Like the Trial Examiner, we find that Elizabeth Tabbs,' Rochelle
Glover, and Louis Miller were discharged for cause.
In concluding that the respondent had not discriminated against
Henrietta Wright, Elizabeth Tabbs (as to her transfer on 'July 22,
1941, and her lay-off on November 7, 1941), Hattie Rivers (as to her
lay-off on September 1, 1941),3 and Ida Mae Davenport, the Trial
Examiner found that the respondent's defense had been established in
each case and that the allegations of the complaint in these respects
were, therefore, without support in the record. While we are not
convinced that the respondent has in fact proved that its conduct as
to each of these'employees was'for good and sufficient cause and while
the cases are not free from doubt, we, nevertheless, consider the evi-
dence-insufficient to warrant a finding of discrimination against these
individuals because of union activity.
5. A determination of the question of whether- the respondent dis-
criminated against employees Cora Tolbert, Sarah Morton, Eliza
Myers, Edith Jenkins, and Hattie Rivers (as to the failure to rein-
See Virginian Railway Co . , v System Federation No 40, Railway Employees Department of
the American Federation of Labor, et al, 300 U S . 515 ; New York Handkerchief Mfg. Co. v.
N. L. R B, 114 F . (2d) 144 ( C C. A 7 ); Matter of Tlie American Thread Company and
Kerr Mills and Weavers Protective Association (A. F. T. 0 .), 35 N L . R. B. 579.
2 This finding is as to the discharge of^Tabbs on November 16, 1941. Her transfer to the
night shift on July 22, 1941 , and her lay -off on November 7, 1941 , are herein treated apart
from' ber discharge
3 The respondent 's failure to reinstate Rivers to her former employment in January 1942,
is herein treated apart from her lay-off.
11
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
,state her to her former' employment in January 1942) turns entirely
on the credibility of the various witnesses. The Trial Examiner
,credited the testimony of the respondent's officials and discredited for
the most part the testimony of these employees, concluding that the
complaint as to them was consequently not supported. We are un-
able, from the state of the record, to resolve these conflicts; we find,
therefore, that the allegations of the complaint that these employees
were discriminated against, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the
Act, are without support.
6. The Trial Examiner recommended that the respondent be ordered
to include in its notices to be posted a statement that its employees
are free to become or remain members of the Union. In view of our
dismissal herein of the allegations of discriminatory discharges, we
shall, in accordance with our usual practice, not order the inclusion
of such a provision.
ORDER,
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, National Laundry Com-
pany, Inc., Washington, D. C., its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Cleaners and Laundry
Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as
the exclusive representative of its employees, including truck drivers'
but excluding office, clerical (including sales clerks in stores of the
respondent), managerial and supervisory, employees, and officers;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective-bargaining or other mutual aid and
protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
4 There are certain inaccuracies in the Intermediate Report as to dates, duration of inci-
dents, and names of participants in events and conversations Thus , for example , the Trial\
Examiner ' found that Hattie Rivers participated in the work stoppage of July 1941. Upon
consideration of all the evidence , we find that Rivers did not join the stoppage, as she was
employed on the night shift at the time and the stoppage occurred on the day shift. How-
ever, Rivers ' union activity is otherwise established . The Trial Examiner also found that
in June 1942, just before Jenkins left the respondent 's employ, Bell repeated in the presence
of Morton and Jenkins that she would like to join' the Union if she were not afraid that
Gearhart would discharge her. We find that Sarah Morton was not then employed by the
respondent and not present during this conversation , but we , nevertheless, agree with the
Trial Examiner that Bell made the statement in question In view of the fact that the
remaining instances are of a minor and insubstantial character, we do not deem itneces-
sary to make any corrected findings in relation to them.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANT•Y, INC. 965
"2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board, finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain' collectively with Cleaners and Laundry
Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as
the exclusive representative of its employees, including truck drivers
but excluding office, clerical (including sales clerks in stores of the
respondent), rilanagerial and supervisory employees, and officers, at its
Washington, D. C., plant in respect to rates of'pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Wash-
ington, D. C., plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60)
consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees
stating that (1) the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b)
hereof; and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set
forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminated against Henrietta Wright, Elizabeth
Tabbs, Cora Tolbert, Ida Mae Davenport, Hattie Rivers, Edith Jen-
kins, Sarah Morton, Louis Miller, Eliza Myers, and Rochelle Glover,
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed. `
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert E. Ackerberg, for the Board.
Mr. Louis A. Spiess, of Washington, D. C., for the respondent.
Mr. Jack Kutner, of Washington D. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On a third amended charge duly filed on July 20, 1942, by Cleaners and Laundry
Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0.,
herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland),
issued its complaint dated July 23, 1942, against National Laundry, Inc.,' herein
called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engag-
ing in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8 (1), (3) and (5), and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by
notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
1 By stipulation, during the bearing the name, of the respondent was amended to National
Laundry Company, Inc.
966 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint as amended at the
hearing2 alleged in substance that the respondent (1) since on or about June 1,
1941, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by (a) urging, persuading, and warning
employees to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Union, (b) mak-
ing disparaging and derogatory statements about the Union and its members,
(c) threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals if'they joined or
assisted the Union, (d) conducting espionage, surveillance, and interrogation to
determine the identity of the union members and the nature of their union
activities, and (e) laying off employees and assigning them less desirable work
because of their union activity; (2) discriminated as to the hire and tenure of
employment of 10 employees 3 on various dates, by (a) transferring Henrietta
Wright and Elizabeth Tabbs on July 22, 1941, Ida Mae Davenport on December
13, 1941, and Cora Tolbert on January 24, 1942, from their regular jobs on the
day shift to jobs on the night shift and refusing thereafter to reinstate them to
their former positions, (b) laying off Henrietta Wright and Hattie Rivers, on
September 1, 1941, and Elizabeth Tabbs on November 7. 1941, (c) refusing to per-
mit Hattie Rivers to work on January 20, 1942, Sarah Morton to work on May 13,
1942, and Edith Jenkins to work on July 4, 1942, and at all times thereafter
refusing to reinstate them to their former or substantially equivalent positions,
(d) discharging Louis Miller on August 30, 1941, Elizabeth Tabbs on November
16, 1941, Eliza Myers on June 18, 1942, and Rochelle Glover on June 24, 1942, and
thereafter refusing to reinstate said employees,' because they joined and assisted
the Union and engaged in concerted activities with other employees for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection; and (3) on
or about January 30, 1942, and thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit
concerning, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment. -
On August 1, 1942, the respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations
with respect to its business but denying the alleged unfair labor practices. In
its answer, the respondent also affirmatively averred that certain of the transfers,
lay-offs, refusals to permit to work, and discharges occurred on or about the dates
specified in the complaint and gave its reasons therefor. The reasons stated in
the answer are set forth in Section III B, infra.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Washington, D. C, from August 3
to 12, 1942, before the undersigned, Webster Powell, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by its representative. Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing upon the issues was affoided all parties At the close of the hearing the
undersigned granted a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the complaint
to the proof with respect to names, dates, and other formal matters At the
conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Board and the respondent availed them-
selves of an opportunity to argue orally before the undersigned. Such argument
was incorporated in the record. Although the parties were advised of their right
to file briefs, no briefs were filed.
2 The complaint was amended as to various dates on which discrimination as to hire and
tenure of employment was alleged to have occurred.
S Henrietta Wright, Elizabeth Tabbs, Cora Tolbert, Ida Mae Davenport, Hattie Rivers,
Edith Jenkins, Sarah Morton, Louis Miller, Eliza Myers, and Rochelle Glover.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 967
- Upon the record thus made and from his observation of the witnesses, the
undersigned makes, -in addition to the above , the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. YEE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
National Laundry Company, Inc, is a Delaware corporation 4 which operates
a laundry and dry cleaning establishment in Washington, D. C, most of its busi-
ness being conducted in the District of Columbia It does some minor part of
its business in the States of Virginia and Maryland. The respondent does an
average gross business of approximately $45,000 per month. It admits that it
is engtiged in commerce within the meaning of the-Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing
Workers of America, affiliated with 'the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is
a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Union began its organizational efforts among the respondent's employees
in the latter part of June or early July 1041. About the third week in July, the
active union leaders in the plant, particularly Hazel Carroll and Edmond Reed,
called upon the rest of the employees to stop their work, in protest against an
alleged attempt of the respondent to force them to perform work which the union
leaders believed came from the Arcade-Sunshine Co., Inc., hereinafter referred
to as Arcade-Sunshine, a laundry against which the Union was then conducting
a strike.' Practically all of the production employees, including the nine girls
alleged in the complaint to have been discriminated against, participated in the
stoppage. There is no showing that Miller, the otlier employee named in the
complaint, took part in the stoppage. The stoppage began with the employees
working on the No. 4 ironing machine 0 in the flat work department, who refused
to run the work through their machine on the grounds that it had come in an
Arcade-Sunshine laundry bag and they did not wish to handle the work of a
plant that was on strike John F. Gravely, general superintendent, John B.
Houck, office manager and auditor, and William Taylor, member of the re-
spondent's board of directors, went upstairs to the second floor where the em-
ployees were congregated around the No. 4 iron and told them to go back to
work. After a short discussion, the employees resumed their work and com-
pleted the laundry which had been the cause of the stoppage.7
4 The company was erroneously designated as a District of Columbia corporation in the
complaint and answer This error was corrected by a stipulation entered into between
counsel for the Board and for the respondent at the hearing.
6 Actually , the woik which caused the stoppage had at one time been handled by Arcade-
Sunshine, but at the time of the stoppage it was an account of the Senate and House of
Representatives restaurant secured directly from the customer by the respondent and was
not turned over to the respondent by Arcade -Sunshine.
O Elizabeth Tabbs and Henrietta Wright were two of the employees working on the No 4
machine at this time . Other employees on the machine were Anna Gorham, Josephine
Ellis , Lucille Bradshaw , and one to whom a witness referred as "Elinor."
4 The basis upon which they resumed work is not pertinent to the issues of the instant
proceeding Some of the witnesses for-the Board testified that they returned to work upon
being assured that they would be given no more Arcade-Sunshine work after they completed
the work fiom Arcade -Sunshine then at the laundry.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Immediately after the stoppage the respondent sent, for, police, who remaine&
in and about the premises for approximately two weeks. During this period and
for several weeks after, the police were withdrawn, the employees discussed the
possibility of going out on strike. The respondent continued to'handle the work
of the Senate and House of-,Representatives restaurants after the stoppage.
During July, August, and September the tablecloths and other laundry sent by
this customer to the respondent suffered considerable damage and the employees
in general were less efficient in the performance of their duties. In August the
respondent operated at a loss.
,The day after the stoppage Gravely told Elizabeth Tabbs that she was "a lit-
tle bit too active" and that she "ought to stop talking so much to the girls." Some-
time during the first week in August, upon the request of Ethel Gearhart, presi-
dent and owner of the respondent, Gravely made a brief speech to the employees
on the day shift, in which he stated in substance that lie had heard a lot of
talk around the plant about organizing; that he did not care what the
employees did outside of the plant but that while they were in the plant he did
not want to hear any more about organizing; that the girls were in the plant to
do eight hours of work for which they were being paid and that if they did not
want to do eight hours of work they should go to the office and get their money.8
At this time there was no rule against talking in the plant, and talking was
freely engaged in by the employees.
Viola Johnson joined the Union sometime in July 1941 Sometime•during,,.the
following month Gravely asked Johnson who had joined the Union. About the
middle of the summer, Russell Alexander, day shift foreman, asked Eliza Myers
if she belonged to the Union. Several times during the summer Alexander also
asked Myers whether she had attended union meetings °
During the last week in August, one Zwicker, who took charge of the plant on
or about August 26 after Gravely left the respondent's employ and remained
superintendent until sometime between September 20 and 25, 1941, told Henrietta
Wright, according to her undisputed testimony, that he "was going to get shut of
union girls,and get some new girls out of the street."
On September 1, 1941, a number of girls were laid off, including Wright. On
the following morning, the employees stopped work for about 15 minutes in protest
against Wright's lay-off and the respondent' s failure to immediately reinstate
her, as hereinafter set forth in detail . Between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon
on September 2, Gearhart addressed the employees, stating among things that
they should not have stopped work, but should have taken the matter of Wright's
lay-off up with her. In her speech Gearhart also said that she was not afraid to
discharge any of the employees and that if there was another stoppage of work she
would "fire" all who took part in it 10
B These findings are based upon the undisputed testimony of Tabbs When Giavely was
asked about this speech while on the witness stand he testified that he told the employees
that he did not care what they did outside the plant but he did expect them to do eight
hours of work inside the plant and if they did not wish to do that they should go to the of-
fice and get their , money Gravely , however , did not deny that he stated that he had heard
a lot of talk around the plant about organizing . Wright testified that Gravely told the em-
ployees to keep all the talk he was hearing on the outside and not bring it into the plant
0 These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Johnson and Myers respectively. J
The tiansciipt states that when asked what year she joined the Union Johnson replied
"1942". However , in view of the testimony of previous witnesses and the surrounding
context , it is clear that Johnson actually joined the Union in July 1941, and the under-
signed so finds.
10 These findings are based on notes of Gearhart ' s talk taken by Hazel Carroll at the time
the talk was made . Gearhart was not in the plant at the time the lay -off oceurred nor
was she there when the stoppage took place on the following day.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANTY^ INC. 969'
Sometime in September 1941, the union committee, consisting of Hazel Carroll,
Elizabeth Tabbs, Edmond Reed, Ruth Pratt, and another employee named
Whittel, met with Gearhart to discuss the grievances of two boys in the cleaning
and pressing department named Ernest Roebuck and Curtis. Gearhart asked the
union representatives what they wanted. Carroll, acting as spokesman, replied
that they were members of the union committee and wanted to discuss the pay'
received by Roebuck and Curtis. Gearhart then told the members of, the
committee that they should not have come to see her ; that this was a matter
that should be straightened out between the two men and herself ; and that she
did not have to meet with the committee or recognize pit or the Union. She
then ordered the union representatives out of her office and discussed the griev-
ances with Roebuck and Curtis alone."
About three or four clays before the election of December 22, 1941," Mattie
DeVore was standing in front of the bulletin board at the respondent's plant
reading the notice of the election, when W. H. Kunkel, who succeeded Gravely as
plant superintendent; asked her what she thought about it. She, in turn, asked
him what he thought about it, to which he replied, "You should not ask me.
They tell me you are a union member . . About the same time Arthur
Divver, a' shift foreman in charge of night work, approached the witness while
she was reading one of the sample ballots prepared in conjunction with the elec-
tion. Divver took the ballot from DeVore, looked at it, and handed it back to
her saying, "There is no need to read that. There is nothing to it."
On December 22, 1941, immediately prior to the election,, sometime in the early
afternoon during working hours, Gearhart read the following speech to the
employees :
It'had 'not been iiiy intention to speak to any of you about the coming
election. I did not ask for it. It is your affair, not mine, and I had
preferred to remain entirely out of it, hoping that the information as
posted upon the bulletin board would be quite clear and sufficient guidance
for all of you, but-since some of you have come to me individually and in
groups asking for information about the election, I have come before you
today, to explain briefly just what it is all about.
Some, among you desire to have a Union represent you, while others of you
wish to continue dealing with me directly, as before. This election is to
make it possible for each of you to express his own wish in the matter,
therefore, it is desirable that each of you go and cast his vote. You do not
have to go-no one can force you to-but I repeat, it is desirable that each of
you go and cast his vote.
As explained to you on the bulletin board, you will go to the Douglass
School, where you will be handed a ballot. If you wish to continue as
before, dealing with me directly, rather than through someone else, you
will mark "No" on your vote, which means, "No, I do not want the Union
to represent me."
However, since I am told by some of you that you have been threatened
with- the loss of your jobs if you do not vote "yes," I want to make this one
i] These findings are based on the mutually corroborated testimony of Tabbs, Carroll and
Reed On an eaiher occasion the same committer saw Gearhart in connection with the
reinstatement of Henrietta Wright, hereinafter set forth At that time Gearhart objected
to the committee's coining down to see her.
v^ The election was conducted pursuant to the Board's decision and direction of election
of November 24, 1941 Matter of National Laundi p, Inc, and Cleaners and Laundry Work-
ers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. 1. 0., 36-N L. R. B.
1204.
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thing clear to you, you all know that you can depend on what I tell you.
because I have never given you reason to doubt me, and I say to you now,
that no one but me, regardless of what you have been told, will decide
whether or not you are to work for the National Laundry, no matter how the
election goes Neither the Union representatives or I will have any possi-
ble way of knowing how you vote. Your vote is secret, and will be kept
secret from both soles. Vote as you wish to vote, with perfect freedom from
fear. No one has the right to forge you to vote one way or another. This
is to be a free election - '-
Gearhart 's speech from begin n ing to end was a skillfully phrased exhortation
to the employees not to join the Union This appears most strongly in her
analysis of the change which would be effected by union organization : " if you
.wish to continue as before , dealing with nie directly , rather than through some-
one else, " and in her assurance against loss of jobs for voting "No." There was
no counter-balancing assurance against loss of jobs for voting "yes."
On several occasions Mae Bell , an employee , discussed the Union with some
of the other employees in the family finishing department. The respondent con-
tended that during 1941 Bell was not a supervisory employee and hence that the
respondent was not responsible under the Act for her activities . Bell 'liad been
a forelady in the family finishing department sometime during the period between
1925 and 1930 . In 1941 she was one of three inspectors and checkers in the
family finish department In that capacity, Bell gave out the work to and in-
spected the work of the seven girls engaged in shirt finishing in that department.
She sorted the work and classified it according to whether it was well or poorly
ironed and returned such shirts as'were poorly ironed or dirty to be rewashed
or re-ironed . She collected the work when it was finished and checked it out
to the customers . Sometimes Bell reported . to the superintendent when work
was done poorly . The superintendent would in turn speak to the employee in
question about\the work Sarah Morton and Edith Jenkins both testified that
they took orders from Bell Bell did not have the power to lure or discharge
or to recommend the discharge of employees . However, her position as described
gave her some authority over the employees who were finishing shirts. From
the foregoing the undersigned finds that Bell is an employee whose activities are
attributable to the respondent within the meaning of the Act.'a
Sometime in July 1941, about two or three days after Jenkins had joined the
Union, Bell asked her in the presence of Morton if she had joined the Union.
Jenkins replied in the affirmative About a month later Bell asked Jenkins if
the Union was still in existence in the plant . On one of these occasions Bell
stated that it would be very nice if they-had a union in the laundry and that
she would like to join but that she was afraid of Gearhart "letting her lose her
job" if she did. In June , 1942 , just before'Jenkins left the respondent's employ,
Bell repeated, in substance , that she would like to join the Union if she were not
afraid that Gearhart would discharge her. Morton was present during these
conversations . She testified that, in addition to questioning Jenkins and herself
about the union meetings , Bell informed them that in the event that the Union
won the election "Gearhart would never stand for it" Maria Tinnin , an employee
in the family finishing department , testified that on-several occasions after union
meetings she heard Bell asking Morton and - Jenkins what had transpired at the
union meeting the night before, and that in June or July 1942 Bell asked her if
the Union was still in existence , to which she gave an affirmative reply. Bell
admitted that she talked about the Union and explained her views about the
>a International Association of Machinists V. N. L. It. B, 311 U. S 72.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 971
Union to various employees . She denied, however, that she ever told anyone
that she would like to join the Union but was atraid if she did so Mrs. Gearhart
would discharge her. In view of the fact that a large part of the testimony of
Jenkins, Morton, and Tinnin as to these conversations was undisputed , and that
Bell admitted talking to employees about the Union, and from his observation
of the witnesses , the undersigned credits the above testimony of Jenkins , Morton,
and Tinnin as to conversations between Bell and themselves during 1941 and 1942
The undersigned finds that the respondent, by ordering the employees to quit
its employ if they continued to discuss organizing in the plant when there was
no rule against talking, by threatening to discharge employees who engaged in
any work stoppages, by refusing to deal with the union committee and indi-
cating it would not deal with the Union, by questioning employees about their
union membership and activities, by telling them how to vote in the election,
by making remarks derogatory to the Union, and by indicating that it would
discharge employees who joined or belonged to the Union, as hereinabove set
forth, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
I
B. Alleged discrimination. as to hire and tenure of employment
The complaint alleged that iQ named employees were discriminated against as .
to hire and tenure of employment because they joined and assisted the Union.
In its answer the respondent admitted that it had transferred, laid off, refused
to permit to work, or discharged said employees, as alleged in the complaint, but
denied that it had discriminated against any of the 10 employees within the
meaning of the Act. The answer affirmatively averred that these employees were
transferred, laid off, refused permission to woik, or discharged for a variety
of reasons therein set forth.
All of the employees allegedly discriminated against as to hire and tenure of
employment except Louis Miller participated in the work stoppage in July 1941.
The Board relies heavily upon this factor in support of its allegations that the
employees were discriminated against because of their union activities. How-
ever, it is clear from the record that both union and non-union employees par-
ticipated in the stoppage. Furthermore, there is no evidence that at the time of
-the stoppage the respondent knew which employees belonged to the Union and
which did not, except for a handful of union leaders, who clearly indicated by
their actions during the stoppage that they did belong to the Union The record
reveals that no action with respect to their hire or tenure of employment was
taken against Hazel Carroll, Edmond Reed and-Ruth Pratt, all leaders. of the
Union during the stoppage and during the period immediately after the stoppage.
The records of the respondent further reveal that numerous persons, identified
during the hearing as belonging to the Union, working in jobs similar to those
occupied by employees allegedly discriminated against were neither shifted to
night work, laid off, refused employment following an 'illness, or discharged
'Under these circumstances, the undersigned is unable to agree with the implied
contention of the Board that the respondent specially selected the 10 employees
named in the complaint for transfer, lay-off„or discharge primarily because of
their participation in the work stoppage
Henn ietta WrsgA•t was employed by the respondent on January 17, 1941. She
worked in the'conimercial flat work department on the day shift from that date
until July 22, 1941, when she was transferred to the night shift without any
change in her rate of pay. On September 1 she was laid off. On September 9
she was reinstated in the same department on the night shift and was still work-
ing on the night shift at the time of the hearing. The Board alleged' that
972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Wright's transfer,, her lay-off and the failure to transfer her back to the day
shift are violations of -Section 8 (3) of the Act. The respondent contended that
Wright was placed on the night shift because of her experience and to enable the
company to operate more efficiently with new help on the night shift.
Wright joined the Union as soon as it began, organizational activities in the
ulant sometime, in June or early July. At the time of the work stoppage she told
Gravely, "This is not our work," referring to the laundry the employees believed
was from Arcade-Sunshine which Gravely had ordered the employees to put
through the No. 4 ironing machine. She attended union meetings but otherwise
was not particularly active in the Union. In the latter part of August, Superin-
tendent Zwicker told Wright he was going to get "shut of" some of the union
employees."
As hereinabove set forth, at the time of the work stoppage during the second
or third week of July, 1941, Wright was one of the employees working on the No.
4 ironing machine. According to. the undisputed testimony of Houck, which is
credited, the employees working on this machine were largely responsible for
the damage done to the laundry sent the respondent by the Senate and House of
Representatives restaurants during the months of July and August, 1941. How-
ever, the respondent was unable to determine which employee or employees in
the ironing crew on the No. 4 machine were actually responsible for the damage.
Houck further testified, and the undersigned finds, that the No. 4 ironing crew
was disbanded on or about September 1, 1941, and thereafter the amount of
damaged laundry in the flat work department decreased.
The reason for Wright's transfer on July 22, 1941, is not clear from the record.
Gravely testified without contradiction that, in general, the experienced em-
ployees were put on the night shift to help break in green help. Superintendent
Kunkel testified that Wright was an extremely versatile employee who was
conversant with all five operations of the automatic folding (ironing) machine.
Although the respondent (lid not contend in its answer that damage to its cus-
tomers' property was one of the reasons for shifting Henrietta Wright to night
work,, Houck in his testimony maintained that the entire No 4 ironing crew was
shifted for that reason. Houck placed the date as September 1, 1941. However,
Houck was extremely vague as to dates, and it is consistent with Houck's general
explanation of what happened in the plant during the weeks immediately follow-
ing the work stoppage to find, and the undersigned does find, that Wright was
changed from the day shift to the night shift on July 22, 1941, in part, at least,
in an attempt to prevent any further damage to the laundry from the Senate and
House of Representatives restaurants.
About 11: 30 p. in. on the evening of `September 1, Superintendent Zwicker
informed Wright that she could check out at midnight that night as he was
"getting rid of some of the girls" On the morning of September 2, Wright
,came to the plant to get her uniforms. While Wright was conversing in a loud
tone with some of the girls she met Houck. who told her to leave the plant
because she was bothering the girls She explained to Houck she was looking
for her uniforms. About this time Zwicker came along and ordered her to
leave the plant, stating that if she did not leave he would throw her out.
During this altercation between Wright. Houck, and Zwicker, the employees
stopped work in protest against Wright's lay-off The union committee requested
an opportunity to see Gearhart, who was not in the plant at the time, concern-
ing Wright's reinstatement. Wright was unable to see Gearhart that day and
left the plant shortly after the above conversation with Zwicker. The union
"Zwicker was not available for corroboration or refutation of Wright's testimony that
be had threatened to "get shut of" the union girls.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 973
committee saw Gearhart that afternoon on Wright's behalf . Gearhart prom-
ised to put Wright back to work the next day, according to the undisputed
testimony of Edmond Reed, who was a member of the committee . Sometime
later during the afternoon of September 2, Gearhart made a speech in which
she admonished the girls not to stop work again for any reason and threatened
to discharge anyone who participated in a work stoppage . Shortly thereafter,.
Wright saw Gearhart and informed her that she had been in the respondent's
employ for two years and was therefore entitled to remain at work because
she had seniority over the other girls in the same department who were retained.
Gearhart promised to put Wright back to work . After a further conversation
concerning matters not pertinent to the issues herein , Wright left the plant,
She was not put back to work the next day, according to Gearhart , whom the
undersigned credits, because Gearhart discovered that, instead of having worked
for the respondent for two years , she had worked only approximately eight
months.
A day or two after Wright's severance from employment , the Union filed
charges with the Regional Office of the Board in Baltimore , Maryland, alleging
that the respondent had discriminatorily discharged Henrietta Wright on or
about September 1, and Hattie Rivers and Mamie Bailey on or about Septem-
ber 2, 1941 . ' The Board contends that these employees were actually discharged
on the above dates, but that the respondent changed its mind after it learned
that the Union had filed charges against it . The Board claims that a letter
from the Board dated September 8, 1941, informing the respondent of these
charges, was mailed to the respondent . The respondent denies that such a
letter was ever received . 35 The undersigned finds there is no evidence that
the respondent did receive a letter from the Board advising it of the above
charges , and further finds that the Board 's contention is not substantiated
by the evidence.
Witnesses for the respondent ' testified without contradiction that generally
there is a falling off in work at the end of the summer season . Gearhart and,
Houck both ' testified and the undersigned finds that the respondent 's business
was operating at a loss during August. Gearhart testified without contradic-
tion that she became alarmed at the amount of the deficit, toward the end of
August and ordered her supervisors to take steps to reduce the pay roll in
order to prevent the respondent from going out of business . To the same end
in the latter part of August , Gearhart called in a firm of efficiency experts
to reorganize the business so as to make it as productive and as profitable as
possible. Zwicker was one of the men put in charge of the plant by this concern.
At the time of Wright 's lay-off approximately 20 employees were laid off in
response to Gearhart's order to reduce the pay roll. Wright received a tele-
gram from the respondent about 2 30 in the afternoon of September 9 request-
ing her to report to work , which she did that night At the time Wright was
recalled to work, nine other employees who had been laid off were likewise
recalled . Shortly thereafter five of the remaining 10 employees were recalled
to work by telegram.
The respondent 's explanation of Wright 's transfer to the night shift, as con-
tended in its answer and at the hearing, as having been made in order to utilize
her experience in breaking in new girls after she had been taken off the No. 4
ironing machine crew which had been damaging, customers' property is supported
by the evidence . Wright and Tabbs were shifted on July 22, 1941, and the rest -
of the No. 4 ironing crew was shifted sometime later, probably about September
1, 1941 . Wright did not complain about her shift to night work until about 3
15 Sometime in September or October 1941 the Union witluirew its charges.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIATIONS BOARD
weeks before the date of the hearing. As hereinafter set forth, Kunkel, after
experimenting with the rotation of employees between the day and night shifts
during November and part of December, decided that it was more efficient to
keep some employees permanently on either one shift or the other. Inasmuch-
as Wright was one'of his valuable employees and she did not complain about
being kept on night work until the summer of 1942, it is reasonable to assume
that these were factors taken into consideration by Kunkel in failing to transfer
Wright back to the day shift. That Kunkel's behavior in this respect was not
due to Wright's union activities is further borne out by the fact'that two other
union employees, Eliza Myers and Cora Tolbert, both worked for limited periods
on the night shift and were then transferred back to the day shift.
The respondent's explanation that Wright's lay-off from September 1 to 9, 1941,
was effected in order to reduce the size of the pay roll in the course, of a re-
organization of its business is also supported by the evidence 18 The' investigation
by efficiency engineers and Gearhart's request for immediate reduction of oper-
ating personnel in the summer of 1941 have already been discussed. The fact
that Wright, one of about 20 employees laid off on September 1, was one of the
first, 10 of the 20 girls that were laid off to be sent telegrams 'summoning them
back to work is some indication that her lay-off was not for the purpose of
disciplining her for union activities. Wright continued in the respondent's employ
from September 9 to the date of the hearing. After her lay-off, Wright protested
in no uncertain terms against being laid off, causing a disturbance in the plant
which resulted in a 10-minute stoppage of work on the part of the girls generally
throughout the plant. The fact that she was called back to work 8 days after
this incident is indicative that the respondent was not eager•,to avail itself
of the possible reason for discharging Wright presented by her disorderly conduct.
The undersigned finds that Wright's lay-off and transfer were for the reasons
assigned by the respondent, and not for the purpose of discouraging her from, or
penalizing her for, participating in union activities.
Elizabeth Tabbs went to work for the respondent sometime in 1932. During
the first half of 1941 she was on the day shift as a.feeder on the No. 4 ironing
machine in the commercial flat work department as a member of the same crew
as Henrietta Wright. On July 22, 1941, she was transferred to the night shift
where she worked until November 7. She was laid off from November 7 to 16,
1941, and reported back to work on the night shift on November 16. She was
discharged on November 16, 1941. The transfer, lay-off, and discharge of Tabbs
were alleged to be discrimination as to hire and tenure of employment. The
respondent contended that when Tabbs was recalled to work on or about November
16, 1941, after her lay-off, she refused to accept the position assigned to her which
was similar to the one she had occupied before her lay-off.
Along with Wright, Tabbs was active during the work stoppage.in July, re-
fusing to do the work which she thought came from Arcade-Sunshine. The day
before she was transferred to the night shift Gravely told her that she was too
active and should stop talking so much to the other girls. Tabbs was a member
of the Union shop committee and on two occasions in September 1941 conferred
with Gearhart with respect to the grievances of employees, one of these being
16 Counsel for the Board contended in oral argument at the close of the hearing that it
was the respondent's practice to lay off employees in accordance with their departmental
seniority, other -factors, particularly efficiency, being equal, and that the respondent had
violated this practice with respect to Wright and the other employees alleged to have been
discriminatorily laid off From all the evidence the undersigned finds that the respondent
had such a practice - However, no evidence was introduced that Wright or,any of the other
employees named in the complaint were laid off while other employees In the same depart-
ment who had less seniority and were less efficient were retained
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COIVIPANY, `INC. 975
the lay-off of Henrietta Wright,.and the other the wage grievances of Roebuck and
Curtis During the week of November 7 to 14, Tabbs gave a party for Edmond
Reed, an employee active in the Union, who was leaving for army service. Kunkel
was.one of, the guests attending this party.
Tabbs made no protest on being transferred to night work on July 22. She ad-
mitted that some of the tablecloths and other laundry were torn on the No. 4
ironing machine, but denied that this had been clone deliberately following the
stoppage. Tabbs was, transferred to the night shift at the same time and under
the same circumstances as Wright _ She received no reduction in pay as a result
of the transfer.
When she was laid oft on November 7, 1941, Kunkel told Tabbs and a number of
other girls who were laid off at the same time that the lay-off was occasioned by
slack work and that he was going to lay off everybody in the plant a week at a
time Kunkel also told Tabbs that she would get her old job back at the end
of the week.
Tahhs was laid off during the change in the respondent's, schedule, which
affected a number of other employees regardless of length of service, efficiency, or
any other factor considered during periods of normal lay-off During the week of
November 7 to 14; 1941, 27 employees were absent from work. A few of them were
absent because of illness or other reasons, but the bulk of these employees were
laid off In addition, it was during this period that the respondent was experi-
inenting with the rotation of work among the employees so that all of them
would eventually receive a certain amount of night work during the year. This
experimentation lasted for a period of 6 to'S weeks, following which, according
to the undisputed testimony of Kunkel, the respondent decided that it was more
satisfactory to retain as many employees its possible permanently on the clay
shift or the night shift. rather than iotate therm from day to night shift a and
back again throughout the year. -
The undisputed facts surrounding the discharge of Tabbs are as follows : She was
recalled to work by the respondent on or about November 16, along with Lucille
Bradshaw and Josephine Ellis, other employees who had been laid off for the
Ni-eek `ending November 14 They reported to Russell Alexander, day shift fore-
man in the flatwork department Alexander assigned Ellis and Tabbs to machines
other than the ones they had occupied prior to their lay-off." Tabbs advised
Ellis not to work on the machine to which she was assigned and herself refused to
work at a different machine Ellis and Tabbs both protested to Kunkel and asked
for the machines they had formerly worked on Ellis; however. after Kinkel
had explained to her that some reorganization had taken place during the lay-
off, agieed to work on the No 3 iiibning machine ' Tabbs refused to work on
any machine except the one she had woiked on prior to her lay-off Tabbds an
Kunkel -gave conflicting versions as to exactly what transpired at this point.
Tabbs first testified that Kunkel shouted at her when she refused to work at the
machine to which she was assigned and asked her what difference it made where
she worked, finally stating, "If you want your job, get down on No. 3 . "
and that she then retorted, "After all, there is a way to talk to a dog better
than that, so don't holler:" whereupon Kunkel discharged her. Later, on cross-
examination, Tabbs testified that Kunkel did not tell her what machine she was
to work on. Kunkel testified that Tabbs used profane language in refusing to
*ork at the No. 3 ironing machine to which she was assigned, and denied that
lie had shouted at Tabbs ' Ellis testified that she did not hear Kinkel raise his
voice in speaking to Tabbs and herself, and that Tabbs had used'piofane-lan-
"There is no testimonv as to whether Bradshaw was assigned to the same machine she,
had previously woiked on
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
guage in speaking to her but that further conversations between Tabbs and
Kunkel had occurred outside of her presence. Alexander did not testify. In view
of the contradiction in Tabb's testimony as to whether or not Kunkel told her
where she was to work, and in view of the fact that Ellis was told where to work,
the undersigned credits the testimony of Kunkel and finds that Tabbs was assigned
to work on the No. 3 ironing machine. Kunkel testified without contradiction,
and the undersigned finds, that the work to which Tabbs was assigned on the
No. 3 ironing machine was the same as that which she had previously performed
on the No. 4 ironing machine
From the foregoing, the undersigned is convinced and finds that the transfer,
the lay-off, and the discharge of Tabbs were for the reasons given by the
respondent, and not in consequence of her union membership or activities.
Ida Mae Davenport began working for the respondent in October 1934. During
the, first 8 months of- 1941 she worked in the family finish department, finishing
shirts. The day shift was the only shift in this department On August 2, 1941,
she went -home sick and remained away from the plant until-October 2, 1941.
She again became ill and returned to woi k about December 18, 1941, and was
put on the night shift, where she worked until February 3, •1942, when she quit
her job. Thereafter she never sought work with the respondent to the date of
the hearing. The complaint alleged that Davenport was shifted to night work
and thereafter was refused reinstatement to her former job on the night shift
because she joined and assisted the Union The respondent contends that follow-
ing her illness Davenport was given lighter work which she continued-to perform
until February 1942, when she left her employment without reporting that she
was leaving, and that thereafter she never asked for reinstatement
Davenport joined the Union in June 1941 and attended union meetings during
that summer. She also solicited members for the Union Davenport also par-
ticipated in the stoppage in July 1941 with several other employees from the
family finishing department Sometime in the latter patt of September 1941,
the, boiler at the respondent's plant went out of order and the girls were laid off
on a Saturday afternoon for a few hours while it was being repaired They
came back to work in the evening in order to make up the time that had been
lost. Kunkel rebuked Ruth Pratt, another employee, and Davenport for load
talking and laughing and threatened to discharge Pratt if she persisted in this-
behavior. Davenport told Kunkel that lie could not fire Pratt, since she had
done nothing and was still working. Kunkel called Davenport and Pratt into
his office later on that evening and reprimanded them for their conduct. On
this occasion Davenport informed Kunkel that she had joined the Union. -
When Davenport returned to work on October 2, 1941, she was given light work,
shaking shirts: She performed this duty for a few weeks, when she again be-
came ill and was away from the plant for more than a month When-she re-
turned, about December 18, she was put on the night shift, a new employee who
formerly worked for the Palace Laundry having been transferred to her posi-
tion while she was ill. After she had been on the night shift a day or two she
protested and asked to be transferred back to the day shift. Kunkel told her
to stay on the night shift until he was ready to transfer her Thereafter she
again requested a transfer and asked Arthur Divver, her foreman, when he
thought she would be transferred back to the day shift Divver replied that so
far as he knew she would be permanently on the night shift. On February 3,
1942, she quit her job. The respondent explained that Davenport had been trans-
ferred from the day to the night shift bE-cause tier place on the day shift had been
filled while she was sick Gravely test fled without contradiction that while he
was superintendent it was his practice to keep the places of sick employees open
NATIONAL LAUNDRY 'COMPANY INC. 977
wherever possible for 2 or 3 weeks. It was Kunkel's undisputed testimony, and
the undersigned finds , that he almost "religiously" filled the place of a sick
employee after a 2-weeks' absence. During 1941 the number of employees working
for the respondent was approximately 600. The normal pay roll during this
period was about 300, making a personnel turnover of 100 percent during 1941.
The undersigned credits the respondent's explanation that Davenport's transfer
to the night shift was due to the fact that her place on the,day shift had been
filled during her absence of more than a month. The undersigned accordingly
finds that Davenport quit her job after she was transferred to the night shift
and that the transfer of Davenport to the night shift and the respondent's
failure to reinstate her to the day shift thereafter were not occasioned by her
union activities.
Cora Tolbert first went to work for, the respondent in 1931. During 1941
she worked in the flat work department on the day shift. She continued in that
capacity until January 24,'1942, when she was shifted to night work. She
continued to do night work until February 6, 1942, when she was again trans-
ferred to the day shift. Tolbert was working for the respondent at the time
of the hearing. 11
The complaint alleged that the respondent's shift of Tolbert to night work and
refusal thereafter to reinstate her to her former position on the, day shift was
discriminatory. The respondent contended that Tolbert was transferred' to the
night shift in order to avoid laying her off, a reduction in the number of em-
ployees having been made at the time of the transfer.
Tolbert joined the Union in July 1941, attended meetings, and solicited members
on behalf of the Union among the respondent's employees. Tolbert also stopped
work during the work stoppage in July of that year.
In December 1941 Kunkel told Tolbert that she would either have to take a
week off or go' on night work. Tolbert elected to take a week off rather than
go on night work. Following her return to work she worked one week on the
day shift and was then told to come to work at night the following week. Tolbert
protested, saying that she had nobody to take care of her children. Kunkel
stated that that made no difference to him. Tolbert then went to Gearhart and
told the latter that she could not work the night shift because' she had children.
Gearhart called Kunkel to her'office and told Kunkel that in view of the fact
that Tolbert had children she would not require her to work at night. Never-
theless, on January 24, 1942, Kunkel again informed' Tolbert that she must do
night work and that lie was giving her warning in advance that she would have
to get somebody to take care of her children Tolbert then told Kunkel that
there was a new girl named Christine who just came to work for the respondent
before Christmas and that Divver had informed Christine that she would not
have to work at night. Kunkel told Tolbert, in substance, that if she was a
"good girl" he might put her back on the day shift. When she asked him what
she had done, he told her, "maybe nothing " Kunkel testified without contra-
diction, and the undersigned finds, that at the time of Tolbert's transfer he'
either had to lay her off or transfer her to night work because there was no
work for her on the day shift Although Tolbert protested, she was kept on
the night shift until February 6, 1942. `
Tolbert only worked 2 weeks on the night shiftie When sufficient work
became available she was transferred back to the day shift and continued on the
day shift to the date of the hearing. She was not particularly active, in the
Union, and there is no evidence that the respondent actually knew about her
union connections, aside from the fact that she participated in the work stop-
She had suffered no reduction in pay as the result of her transfer to the night shift.
513024-43-vol. 47-62
978 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
page in Inly 1941, along with the rest of the employees, both union and non-union.
The undersigned finds no, evidence that Tolbert's temporary assignment to the
i night shift was the result of any intention on the part of the respondent to
discipline her for union activities.
Hattie Rivers was employed on December 27, 1940, and worked as a mangle
operator on the night shift. She was.laid; off from September 1 to 13, 1941, and
then' resumed her previous employineift. She was out sick from about the middle
of December 1941 until about January 20, 1942, when she returned to the plant
and requested but was not permitted'to return to work. Up to the date of the
hearing she had not been reemployed by the respondent.
The complaint alleged that Rivers was discriminated against as to her hire and
tenure of employment by her lay-otf and by the respondent's failure to rehire her
in January 1942 or thereafter. The-respondent contended that Rivers failed to
notify- the,,respondent when she remained away from the'plant because of illness
in December 1941; that after several days she sent word to the company that she
would be back to work on a certain date but actually did not return to work on
said date and, instead came back 3 weeks later, at which time her job had been
filled. i
Rivers joined the Union in July 1941.- Shortly thereafter, while she was dis-,
cussing the Union with Louise Baker, Gravely came up to her machine and
stood about 3 feet away from Rivers. While he was standing there, Rivers told
Baker that she had joined the Union. Rivers attended union meetings and
stopped work at the time of the work stoppage in July 1941
As has previously been found, Rivers was one of 20 employees laid off on
September 1, 1941. Along with Wright, she was reinstated within a period of 2
weeks of her lay-off and remained in the respondent's employ until the middle of
December 1941 without any further interruption of her work. It has already been
found that the lay-off of September 1 was occasioned by the necessity for the
respondent to reduce its pay roll.
When Rivers left the plant on the occasion of her illness, she failed to notify
the respondent that she would not be able to work the following day, in accord-
ancewith•the respondent's rule. Later,in the week Rivers herself notified Kunkel
that she would be able to, work on the next Monday. However, she did not
actually report for work until about 2 weeks after this time Kunkel testified
that when Rivers returned to work he had already filled her job, but that he asked
her to keep in touch with him and told her he would put her back to, work, the
first opening he had.. Kunkel added that he had not seen Rivers from that day
until her appearance at the hearing. Rivers, on the other hand, testified with
respect to her return to work that Kunkel, told her that he would keep in touch
with her and if he had an opening he would let her know ; that thereafter she
returned to the-plant'on two occasions.and inquired as to whether there was any
work, and that she further telephoned the plant on three occasions, all before the
end of January, asking for employment ; that on each occasion she was told that
someone was in her place and that there was no work for her at that time. There
is no evidence that Rivers sought work from the respondent after January 1942.
Rivers was replaced in accordance with the respondent's usual custom. The
respondent did not customarily notify employees of openings in the plant after
they had been out sick for moie than 2 weeks unless they were extremely capable;
nor was Rivers shown to have been such an experienced or capable operator that
Kunkel would have been likely to send for her. Furthermore, the undersigned
was not impressed with Rivers' testimony or her demeanor on the witness stand.
She seemed to have difficulty in remembering specific instances and dates. The
undersigned credits Kunkel's testimony that he asked her to keep in-touch with
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC . 979
him and told her he would put her back to work in the first opening he had,
and does not believe Rivers' testimony that Kunkel prbiuised to notify her when
there was an opening.
From the foregoing, -the undersigned is convinced that neither the respondent's
lay-off of Rivers on September 1, 1941, nor its failure to employ her in January
1942 or thereafter, were due to Rivers' union membership or activities
Sarah Morton went to work for the respondent on September 30, 1939, as a
hand ironer and,finisher, and worked in the tamily finishing department until
-January 1942, when she was shifted to the flat work department. She worked
there until February 18, 1942, when she was injured in a streetcar accident and
remained away from the plant because of her injury until Wednesday, .May 13,
1942, at which time she returned to the plant and requested employment. She
was told that there was-no work for her. She had not been employed by the
respondent from May 13, 1942, to the date of the hearing
The complaint alleged that the refusal to permit Morton to work and subsequent
refusal to icinstate her to her former or substantially equivalent position was
discriminatory. The respondent contended in\ its answer that Morton left her
job prior to May 13, 1942, because of illness and when she returned to the plant
for back pay she was asked if she was ready to work and she then stated to the
plant superintendent that she was still pretty shaky and she did not believe that
she was yet able to remain on her feet throughout the day, and that after this
conversation she never sought reinstatement.
Sarah Morton joined the Union when it first started at the plant in June or
July 1941, attended union meetings and solicited members on, behalf of the Union.
With the rest of thd• employees, she' participated in the work stoppage in July
1941. On at least one occasion in October Kunkel passed her on the street outside
the plant while she was talking to Kutner, the union organizer, while the latter
was handing out union handbills. Kunkel learned who Kutner was sometime in
the fall of 1941.
During the period of her illness, Morton was notified on two occasions by
employees from' the- plant speaking on behalf of Martin Young, her, immediate
superior, that'as, soon, as she'waS well'e4iongh to work she vvoufd'be'given a job.
On May 13 Morton reported to Young, who told her that he was glad to see her
back and asked her to wait until lie could place her Subsequently, Kunkel told
Young in her hearing that he would not have any place for Morton. Young then
informed Morton that there was no work for her that day, but that Kunkel wished
her to call him on the following Friday. She telephoned Kunkel on Friday eve-
ning and he told her he was sorry but work was very slack. He added that if
she would wait a week or so maybe he would be able to find work for her. Morton
went to the laundry on the following Monday to get her uniform and back pay,
and at that time saw Bessie 'Smith working on the No. 1 mangle io While she
was in the respondent's office getting her money, Kunkel stated to her, "Sure looks
like you are in kind of a big hurry to go to work." Morton told Kunkel that jobs
were too plentiful to beg for, them and informed him of her dissatisfaction at the
Ii She testified that while she was waiting for further orders on May 13 , she talked with
two gills who were then applying for employment, one of whom was named Bessie Smith,
who had previously been employed at.the Palace Laundry, where Kunkel had worked before
he assumed his position with the respondent and that following this conversation Kunkel
called Smith and assigned her to work The respondent' s records show, and the undersigned
finds, that Bessie Smith went to work as a flat work honer on May 6 , 1942, one week before
Morton returned to work The record also shows that Smith had had 7 yeais' experience
in the Palace Laundry prior to her employment by the respondent
980 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fact that he had hired Smith instead of herself. Morton did not return to the
plant or seek employment with the respondent after this incident =° Kunkel tes-
tified that when Morton came to the plant seeking work about the middle of May
be asked her how she felt and that she replied that she was still a little shaky
and she didn't think she would 'be able to do a full day's work. Kunkel further
testified that following this conversation Morton went to the office to get her back
pay and that he had not seen or heard from Morton from that time to the date
of the hearing. Morton was.not questioned concerning this testimony of Kun-
•kel's'1 The undersigned credits the testimony of Kunkel that Morton stated she
was unable to go to work a full day, and finds that this conversation took place.
Inasmuch as Morton was absent for nearly three months because of illness, it
is obviously unreasonable to expect that the respondent would have kept her
place open for her. There is no' evidence that Kunkel's offer to see what he
could do if Morton waited a week was made in bad faith. Furthermore, there is
a complete absence of either direct evidence or any basis for a reasonable infer-
ence that the respondent's failure to reemploy Morton was due to her member-
ship in'the Union or to her participation in the work.stoppage which had occurred
the previous July. The undersigned finds that the respondent's failure to offer
Morton employment was not due to her union activities.
'Edith Jenkins went to work for the respondent about 1927. In 1941 she was a
press operator on the day shift in the family finishing department. She con-
tinued to work in this capacity until about May 30, 1942, when she became ill.
She reported back to work on July 4, 1942, and was informed that there was no
work for her. She has not been employed by the respondent since that date.
The complaint alleged that the respondent's refusal to permit Edith Jenkins
to work on July 4, 1942, and its subsequent failure to reinstate Jenkins to her
former or substantially equivalent position was discriminatory. In its answer,
the respondent contended that Jenkins left her work, because of illness and, after
6 weeks' absence, requested reinstatement, and that she was told by its super-
intendent that there was no position open for her at the time, but it she would
report to him on a specified date he would put her back to work ; and that she
never reported nor requested reinstatement after that conversation.
Jenkins joined the Union in July 1941 and thereafter solicited members on
behalf of the Union. During the summer of 1941 she informed other employees
where they could obtain union cards. Jenkins was one of the girls in the
family finish department who left her work and went to the No. 4 ironing mangle
during the stoppage in July 1941 She also discussed the Union with Bell on
various occasions during the summer of 1941, as hereinabove set forth.
Jenkins testified that on July 4, 1942, she informed Kunkel that she was
ready to return to work, and that Kunkel told her that he had placed another
girl in her job so that he could not use her; that Kunkel further instructed her
to return to the plant'on Tuesday and get her money; that on the following Tues-
day,, July 7, when she returned to the plant, she met Houck and informed him
that she had been laid off ; and that Houck replied that there was no reason for
her being laid off and that if they found an opening they would put her back to
work Kunkel testified that Jenkins requested reinstatement in the middle of the
week sometime in the early part of July and that he informed her he could not,
aD These findings are based on the undisputed testimony of Moiton
st Both Martha Torrence and Marie Archibald, two fellow-employees, testified that they
saw Morton come into the plant on two occasions after her illness and that on the second
occasion Morton had on hei uniform ready to go to work Apparently the Board offered
this evidence in an attempt to discredit Kunkel's testimony that Morton stated she was
unable to work a full day when she returned to the plant. However. this testimony, if
acc.ep,ed as true , does not disprove Kunkel ' s testimony. I
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 981
place her at that time but would put her back to work if she reported on the
following Tuesday, and that she never requested reinstatement after this con-
versation. Kunkel further testified that Jenkins did come to the plant on Tues-
day, but that when she arrived he was busy and when he looked for her about 20
minutes later in order to put her to work she had already left the plant. Jenkins
denied that Kunkel ever told her to come back on the following Tuesday in order
to obtain work: Houck did not testify concerning this incident.
The evidence sustains the respondent's contention that Jenkins was replaced
by another employee during her illness. Assuming that Houck made the state-
ments testified to by Jenkins that if they found an opening they would put her
back to work, there is nothing in,the record to indicate that by such a statement
Houck meant to imply,that the respondent would send for Jenkins contrary to its
usual practice of employing applicants for work at the plant. In view of Jenkins'
failure to wait even 20 minutes to see Kunkel on her visit to the plant on the
Tuesday following her illness, her relative inactivity in union affairs, her absence
for 5 weeks, and in the absence of any practice on the part of the respondent of
recalling former employees whose positions had been filled while they were ill,
the undersigned is convinced and finds that Jenkins was not discriminated against
through the respondent's failure to rehire her. '
Louis F. Miller worked for the respondent from sometime in the week of July 4
to August 30, 1941, as a silk spotter and wet cleaner in the dry cleaning depart-
ment. He was discharged on August 30.
The respondent in its answer contended that Miller was an inefficient employee
who, upon being questioned, by his foreman about the amount of work being
produced, stated that if the foreman could get anyone else to perform his duties
satisfactorily he should do so, and that thereupon the foreman replaced Miller.
Miller joined the Union during the third week in July 1941, and attended meet-
ings regularly thereafter. He was designated shop chairman of the dry cleaning
department . On one occasion during the last week in July Louis Miller overheard
Foreman Cecil Miller speaking over the telephone about the union that was then
organizing "upstairs," and Cecil Miller stated that he did not know of any organi-
zational movement in the dry cleaning department. He did not participate in
the Arcade-Sunshine stoppage. There is no evidence that at the time of his
discharge any officer or supervisory employee of the respondent knew that Louis
Miller belonged to the Union. ? ,
According to Louis Miller's own 'testimony, during August 1941 Foreman Miller
continually found fault with his work. Foreman Miller testified without contra-
diction that Louis Miller was not able to keep up with his work and that he got
further behind in his work as the summer progressed. His testimony is likewise
undisputed that on Wednesday, August 27, he informed Louis Miller that he would
either have to catch up with his work or the respondent would have to replace
him. To this remark Louis Miller replied that if'Foreman Miller could find some-
body else to do the job he should do 22 - Thereupon Miller did find someone to take
Louis Miller's place. The undersigned finds that Miller was discharged for rea-
sons other than his union activities. /
Eliza Myers went to work for the respondent in 1935 or 1936. She worked in
the flat work department as a catcher on the day shift. On June 18, 1942, she was
laid off and told that she would be off for 2 or 3 weeks and to look for a job
a' Louis Miller testified that he had an altercation with Foreman Miller on the morning
of his discharge and that on this occasion the foreman cursed him and he denounced the
foreman for cursing him Foreman Miller testified he had no recollection of this incident.
Assuming it to be true, there is nothing in the record to indicate that this incident was
connected in any way with the Union, and the undersigned so finds._
k
982 DECISIONS - OF - NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
elsewhere . Myers had not sought work from - or been recalled to-work by respond-
ent between June 18 and the date of ' the hearing.
The complaint alleged that Myers was discriminated , against by her lay-off
and the respondent 's refusal or failure to reinstate her thereafter . In its answer
the respondent contended that Myers was given a temporary lay-off about the
middle of June 1942 during a reduction in the number of employees because of
seasonal slackness in the work . and that follow ing -herslay-off she never requested
reinstatement.
Myers joined the Union in July 1941 , attended meetings once a month and
solicited members on behalf of the Union.' She participated in the ' work - stoppage
in July 1941 along with the rest of the employees. On several occasions she
talked to Foreman Alexander about the union meetings and upon being questioned
informed Alexander that she , belonged to the Union These conversations took
place during the summer of 1941
According to the uncontradicted testimony of both Kunkel and Myers, Myers
was laid off on June 18, 1942, during the slack season in the respondent 's business,
and had not reported back for work up to the date of the hearing . Kunkel testi-
fied without contradiction that Myers was selected for lay-off -becaose on one or
two occasions as he passed her,-machine he saw work piling up in front of her
and he said Myers seated at her machine resting her head on her hands , almost
asleep. Houck also testified that he had seen Myers almost asleep at her machine,
with her work piling up in front of her. Kunkel further testified that Myers was
not a very good operator and that she had been selected for lay-off because of
this fact and because of instances when she did not appear to be doing her
work as herein set forth."-3
Myers testified that she did not report for work after her lay-off because she
understood that the respondent would send for her when it needed her. She
further testified that she based this understanding on. the fact that other em-
ployees had been sent for at the end of the lay-off period . However, no one in-
formed her at the time of her lay-off that she would be sent for when the re-
spondent needed her . Kunkel testified , in substance , and the undersigned finds,
that after Kunkel became superintendent it was the respondent 's practice to
either inform an employee that she was permanently laid off or - to inform her
that she was laid off for a definite period. In the latter case, employees who
reported at the time specified were rehired , but if they, did not report for work
the respondent did not necessarily send for them 24 The undersigned finds, that
it was Myers' responsibility to_report 'for work and not the duty of the respondent
to send for her, inasmuch as her lay-off was for two or three weeks. The under-
signed finds that Myers' lay-off and the failure to recall her to work were not in
violation of Section 8 (3) of-,the Act.
Rochelle Glover was employed by the respondent in 1936 . She worked as a
shirt backer in the family finishing department . She was discharged on June 25,
1942. The Board alleged that her discharge was discriminatory . , In its answer
the'respondent contended that Glover was discharged because of her refusal to
perform work which she was ordered to do in her line of duty.
23 Myers denied that Kunkel had over reprimanded her for being half asleep on the job
or for allowing her work to pile up but did not deny that she had been almost asleep
on the job or had allowed her-wort: to pile up. The undersigned credits Kunkel and Houck
as to the above incident. -
24 Kunkel testified that on occasion he sent for employees whom he had laid off permanently
or indefinitely and whom he later discovered he could use . ' Apparently, the practice under
Gravely was to rely more on notification and less on the setting of a definite period at
which employees were to return after a lay -off, and this is probably what Myers referred to. -
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 983
c
Glover joined the Union about the third week in July, attended the meetinggs,
and solicited members for the Union. During the stoppage of work in July
-Glover, who worked on the second floor of the plant, went down to the flat work
department on the first floor. While she was there with the other girls, Taylor
told some of the employees, including herself, to go back to work. She replied,
"We are not. If Arcade Sunshine work is here they are on strike, and we are
just taking bread out of their mouths to do their work."
On June 25, 1942, Kunkel, while making a routine inspection trip through the
laundry, stopped alongside Geneva Williams, the bosom press operator. Accord-
ing to his testimony, which is credited, Kunkel noticed that the side of the shirt
which was then on the bosom press was wrinkled and ordered Rochelle Glover,
who operated the body ironing machine, to re-press the shirt then on Williams'
machine, inasmuch as the bosom press could not eliminate the wrinkle on the
side.' Glover then refused to re-press the shirt, stating "Damned if I'm going
to do that; that is not my job." Kunkel then tried to persuade Glover to elimi-
nate the wrinkle, telling her that it was necessary to cooperate with the other
ironers in order to do the work properly She continued to refuse. Finally,
Kunkel told her she would either have to do the shirt over or be discharged.
Glover thereupon asked `for her time ' The undersigned finds that Glover was
not discharged because of her union membership or activities.
Inasmuch as the undersigned has found that the respondent did not discrim-
inate in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Henrietta Wright, Eliza-
beth 'pabbs, Cora Tolbert, Ida Mae Davenport, Hattie Rivers, Edith Jenkins,
Sarah Morton, Louis Miller, Eliza Myers, and Rochelle Glover, he will recommend
that the complaint be dismissed with respect to said employees.
C. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
On September 24, 1941, the Union filed with the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland), a petition alleging that a question affecting,
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the respond-
ent After an investigation and hearing on the petition the Board issued its
decision and direction of election of November 24, 194177 The Board found that
the employees of the respondent including truck drivers, but excluding; office,
clerical, (including sales clerks in stores of the respondent) managerial and
supervisory employees and officers constituted a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. None
"-1 The bosom press operation is the last honing operation performed on a shirt before
it is completely ironed and ready for the customer. This press is so constructed that it
can only properly iron the bosom of the shirt Glover occupied the machine next to Williams.
28 Glover testified that Kunkel first asked Williams to re-press the shirt and that Williams
refused; that after Williams had been again requested to press the shirt twice and again
refused Williams then stated that the job Kunkel was asking her to do was Glover's job;
whereupon Kunkel asked her to press the shirt and she then refused, stating that it was not
her job but Williams'-job Glover, however, did not deny that the wrinkle in the shirt in
question extended beyond the bosom to the side, which was admittedly her job From the
foregoing. the undersigned finds that Kunkel was justified in requiring Glover to first press
the wrinkle out of the side of the shirt before having Williams press the shirt on the bosom.
Although the undersigned credits Kunkel's testimony about where the wrinkle was in•the
shirt, and whose job it was to iron it out, his finding as to the alleged discrimination would
be no different if Glover's testimony had been accepted There is no evict nce that, Kunkel
discharged Glover for any reason other than her admitted insubordination.
27 See footnote 12, supra
984 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the parties in the present proceeding contended, that, this finding should be
altered 2'
The undersigned therefore finds that the employees of the respondent including
truck drivers but excluding office, clerical, (including sales clerks in stores of
the respondent) managerial and supervisory employees and officers constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of th'e Act.
' ''2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
In its decision and direction of election of November 24. 1041, the Board directed
the Regional Director to conduct an election by secret ballot to determine whether
the employees within the appropriate unit wished to be represented by the Union
for the purposes of collective bargaining. On December 23, 1941, the Regional
Director filed with the Board an election report on the secret ballot held December
22, 1941, giving the results of such election and disclosing that six ballots were
challenged and two ballots were declared void. On December 27, 1041, the.re-
spondent filed an objection to the issuance of a certification of representation and
requested a hearing on such objection' On January 6, 1942, the Regional Director
acting pursuant to Article III, Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series II-as amended-issued a report finding that the
objection of the respondent was without merit. Thereafter the Board duly con-
sidered the objection of the respondent, and the Regional Director's report thereon
and found that the objection was without merit. On January 22, 1942, the Board
issued its supplementary decision and certification of representation,' overruling
thebbjection of the respondent, denying its request for a hearing on such objection,
and certifying the Union as` the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the unit previously found to be appropriate.
The undersigned finds that on January 22, 1942, and at all times thereafter the
Union was the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees in the
'appropriate unit and pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act was the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit for the'purposes of collective bar-
gaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
3. The refusal to bargain
a. History of bargaining prior to certification
On July 9, 1941, a conference was held between Samuel Levine, attorney for the
Union, Jack Kutner, local union representative, and Louis Simon, another repre-
sentative of the Union, and Louis A. Spiess, attorney for the respondent. At this
conference the union representatives submitted oral proposals in respect to a pro-
posed contract. Spiess did not question that the Union represented a majority
of the employees as claimed by the union representatives. Spiess made notes of
the provisions suggested for inclusion in the contract but stated that he would
have to take up the suggested terms of the contract with his client. On July 12
Spiess informed the union representatives that the respondent particularly ob-
^ In its answer the respondent admitted the appropriateness of this unit.
2e The basis for the respondent 's objection , which was repeated in substance at the hearing,
was that the Union was not selected as bargaining representative on December 22, 1941, by
a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit, inasmuch as out of a total
of 234 persons eligible to vote In the appropriate unit, only 111 voted in favor of the Union,
less than a majority of those eligible to vote.
90 Matter of National Laundry , Inc., and Cleaners h Laundry Workers Union,-Local 188-B,
Amalgamated Clothing Woihers of America, C . I. C. 38 N. L R. B. 473.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY INC. - 985
jected to the union shop provision. Spiess stated that the respondent had no
counter-proposals to offer.
On July 29, 1941, a further conference was held at which the Union was repre-
sented by Levine, Kutner, Norman Jetlery, and John J. Abt, special counsel 'for
the Amalgamated Clothing `workers of America At the beginning of the confer-'
ence Spiess stated that, although the presence of the Union in the respondent's
plant was unwelcome, since the Union had organized the respondent's employees,
the respondent was willing to do whatever the law affirmatively required, but no
more. At this conference the Union submitted a written form of agreement.
Spiess went over the agreement and stated that the respondent would not approve
any of the provisions and further stated that the respondent would not submit any
counter-proposals., Spiess also stated during the conference that the respondent
would not consider a contract of less than 5 years duration. At this conference
Spiess would not agree to bargain with the Union without an election, although he
indicated that lie was satisfied a majority of the employees had designated the
Union as their bargaining representative." No further communications took place
between the Union and the respondent until after the election.
b. Attempts by the Union to bargain subsequent to the certification
On January 30, 1942, the Union by letter requested the respondent to meet
with representatives of the Union for the purpose of negotiating a collective bar-
gaining agreement On February 6 a preliminary conference was held at which
Spiess suggested that the union 'representatives prepare a written agreement for
his consideration. On February 10 a proposed agreement was forwarded to the
respondent with a request that the respondent advise the Union as soon as the
respondent was prepared to discuss the agreement. After the respondent-had
failed to answer this letter and after several telephone communications between
Abt and Spiess, union representatives Bloomberg, Jeffery, and Abt met with Spiess
in the latter's office on March 3, 1942. Spiess began the discussion by again
stating that although the Union was not welcome in the plant, since it had sue-
ceeded in organizing the respondent's employees , the respondent would deal with
the Union to the extent affirmatively required by law The terms of the agree-
ment were then discussed one by one. After some discussion, a tentative agree-
ment was reached only with respect to the provisions in the proposed agreement
relating to the employees to be covered by the terms of the contract, recognition
of the Union as exclusive bargaining representative, hours of work, and grievance
procedure Spiess raised particular objection to the clauses providing for a union
shop, wage increases, and compulsory arbitration of wages, discharges, and other
complaints or grievances.
The principal differences between the Union and the respondent at the end of
the discussion ofthe proposed agreement related to wages and compulsory arbi-
tration The union representatives then suggested that the question of wages be
submitted to arbitration. Spiess stated that he was, unwilling to submit the
question of wages to arbitration and that the question of wages was a preroga-
tive of the management. However, Spiess agreed to take up with Gearhart the
question of the inclusion in the contract of a general arbitration clause , and the
question of wage arbitration. On March 25 Abt wrote Spiess reminding him
that he had agreed to let the Union know as soon as Gearhart had indicated
"However, in a letter of August 20 , 1941, from Spiess to John A Penello , Acting Regional
Director of the Board (Baltimore , Maryland ), Spiess stated in part that he did not know,
whether the Union represented a majority of the employees or not. He agreed; however,
to submit the written signatures of all employees of the respondent embraced in the bargain-
ing unit for comparison with the union records. Thereafter Spiess furnished this , information.
986 DECISIONS ' OP 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARb
whether or not she would be willing to agree on these two matters, and request-
ing a reply . On March 28, Spiess replied that the respondent would not agree
to the proposed submission of the question of wage increases to arbitration or to
a provision for the submitting to arbitration of all disputes which arose between
the parties that could not be settled by mutual agreement . Spiess' letter con-
cluded :
The Company states that the employees in the unit are receiving approxi-
mately as high pay as any similar employees engaged in other plants. The
Company also takes the position that to submit disputes between the em-
ployees and the management to arbitration takes from the Company its right
to operate its business as it deems best for all concerned.
On March 30, 1942, Abt sent a letter to Spiess stating as follows :
I have your letter of March 28th. I gather from this letter that it is your
client's position not only that it refuses to refer the wage question to arbi-
tration, but that since "the employees in the unit areereceiving approxi-
mately as high pay as any similar employees engaged in other plants", your
client does not regard the wage question as one for collective bargaining.
If I am incorrect in this assumption, I shall be pleased to receive any pro-
posal which your client has to make on the question of wages.
On April 4, 1942, Spiess replied to Abt's letter'of March 30 stating:
I have given careful consideration to your letter of March 30, 1942, in
which you state:
"but that since `the employees in the unit are receiving approximately as
as high pay as any similar employees engaged in other plants', your client
does not regard the wage question as one for collective bargaining".
Under the law, the wage question is a matter for collective bargaining,
but I am not familiar with any law pertaining thereto which requires an
employer to submit the question of wages to arbitration.
There has been no further communication between the Union and the respondent
since the Union's receipt of the letter from Spiess of April 4, 1942. During
oral argument on the record toward the close of the hearing, counsel for the
respondent stated, "... the respondent takes the position that under the law
it is not obligated to submit counterproposals to the union."
c. Conclusions in regard to the refusal to bargain
The question at issue is whether or not the respondent, pursuant to its, duty
to bargain collectively, took an active and sincere part in the negotiations to
the end that an agreement should be reached if possible'2 The actual bargain-
12 Cf. for example, N. L. R. B. v. Reed & Prince Mfg. Co., 118 F. (2d) 874 (C. C. A. 1),
cert. den , 313 U. S 595, where the Court stated* The respondent ... was legally bound to
confer and negotiate sincerely with the representatives of its employees. It was required
to do so with an open mind and a sincere'desire to reach an agreement in a spirit of amity
and cooperation.
Similarly in N. L. R. B. v George P. Pilling & Son Co., 119 F. (2d) 32 (C. C. A. 3), the
Court stated Bargaining presupposes negotiations between parties carried.on in good faith.
The fair dealing which the service of good faith calls for must be exhibited by_ the parties in
their approach and attitude to the negotiations as well as in their specific treatment of the
particular subjects or items for negotiation. For such purpose, there must be common
willingness among the parties to discuss fieely and fully their respective claims and demands
and, when these are opposed, to justify them on reason. When the proffered support fails
to persuade or if, for any cause, resistance to the claim remains, it is then that compromise
comes into play . But, agreement by way of compromise cannot be expected unless the one
1
NATIONAL LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 987
ing negotiations were conducted from January 30 to April 4, 1942. The respond-
ent during that period indicated its willingness to agree to certain provisions of
the contract proposed by the Union. It flatly refused, however, other terms of
the proposed contract pertaining to wage increases, the union shop, and com-
pulsory arbitration which the Union regarded as most important. The respond-
ent took the position.that while=the question of wages was a question for col-
lective bargaining, it would make no concessions with respect to wages, main-
taining it was paying approximately as much to its employees as similar plants
in the industry were paying. The Union in its letter of March 30 stated in
substance that if it was incorrect in assuming that the respondent did not
consider the wage question as a matter for collective bargaining it would be
pleased to receive any proposal which the respondent had to make on the
question of wages. The respondent in its letter of April 4 did not reply to-that
portion of the letter of March 30 although it stated in its letter that it did
regard the question of wages as a matter for collective bargaining Further
more, the respondent had indicated in negotiations prior to the certification of
the Union as exclusive representative that it did not regard it the duty of
the 'respondent to make any counter-proposals to proposals submitted by the
Union. This position was reiterated by counsel for the respondent during the
hearing. Though the respondent claimed that it was paying the prevailing
wages in the -industry; `it made no , abtempt to satisfy the Union that such was
the case. From the history of the bargaining negotiations by the respondent
and the Union it is clear thaf the respondent was at all times willing to enter
into conferences with the Union but at no time regarded it as incumbent upon
itself to take the initiative and to discuss freely and fully the claims and demands
of the Union and to justify its refusal to accede to demands made by the
Union. The failure of the respondent to make any counter-suggestions or pro-
posals with respect to proposals of the Union which it flatly refused or to
justify its reason for retusing to make counter-proposals was indicative of a
lack of good faith. • Under the circumstances of this case it was the duty of
the respondent to exhaust the possibilities of reaching an agreement with the
Union and to.examipe each suggestion of the Union with an open mind instead
of which the respondent took a position and now takes the position that it is
in no way obligated to make counter-proposals to the proposals -submitted' by
the Union. A further indication that the respondent did not actually intend
to enter into a contract with the Union is evidenced by the statement made by
the respondent during the negotiations prior to the certification of the Union
and also on March-' , 1 42,,when Spiess stated in substance that the Union was
not welcome in the, plant, but that since it had succeeded in organizing the
employees, the respondent would deal with the Union, but only to the extent
affirmatively required by law. During these earlier negotiations the respondent
stated flatly that it would not consider a contract of less than 5 years. From
all the evidence the undersigned is convinced and finds that the respondent has
failed to bargain in good faith with the Union."
rejecting a claim or demand*ls willing to make counter -suggestion or proposal . And, where
that is expressly invited but is refused , in such circumstances the refusal may go to support
a want of good faith and , hence, a refusal to bargain. The considerations are especially
applicable to negotiations looking .to collective bargaining and have been so regarded by the
courts. [Citations omitted.] -
" In the Matter of Montgomery Ward & Company and Warehousemen 's Union, Local No.
206, Chartered by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Stablemen and
Helpers of America, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. In the Matter of
Montgomery Ward & Company and Retail Clerk's International Protective Association, Local
No.,L'57, affiliated with , the American Federation of Labor, 37 N. L. R. B. 100... _
988' DECISIONS OF NATIONALS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned finds that on April 4,' 1942, and at all times thereafter the
respondent refused to bargain- collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment and
has thereby Interfered with, restrained, and coerced'its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The' undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in' Section
III above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to,
trade, traffic, and commerce within the District of Columbia, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, the
undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action which the undersigned finds necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the representative of its employees, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment the undersigned
will recommend that the respondent, upon request, bargain with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees within the appropriate unit.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of,America, C I. 0, is a labor organization within the meaning of
section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The employees of the respondent, including truck drivers but excluding
office, clerical, (including sales clerks in stores of the respondent) managerial
and supervisory employees, and officers, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Since January 22, 1942, Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union, Local 188-B,
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., has been the exclusive
representative of all employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4 By refusing on April 4, 1942, and at all times thereafter to bargain col-
lectively with Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, C. I 0., as the exclusive representative of its
employees within the appropriate unit, the'respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the
Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining. and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
and-is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices' are"unfair,-labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
NATIONAL LAUNDRY •COMPAN` , INC. 989
7. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (3) of the Act. "
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned hereby recommends that the respondent, National Laundry Com-
pany, Inc, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from : t
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Cleaners and Laundry Workers
Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C I.' 0., as the
exclusive representative of its employees, including truck drivers but excluding
office, clerical, (including sales clerks in stores of the respondent) managerial
and supervisory employees, and officers;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist
labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives. of their own
choosing, and to engage 'in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Cleaners and Laundry Workers
Union, Local 188-B, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C. I. 0., as the
exclusive representative of its employees, including truck drivers but excluding
office, clerical, (including sales clerks in stores of the respondent) managerial
and supervisory employees, and officers, at its Washington, D. C, plant in regard
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment ; ,
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Washington, D. C.,
plant and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the
date of posting, notices stating (1) that the respondent will not engage in the
conduct from which it is ordered to cease and'desist in paragraph 1 (a) and (b)
hereof; (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action, set forth in
paragraph 2 (a) hereof; and (3) that the respondent's employees are free to
become-or-remain members of Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union, Local
188-B;'-Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, C I. 0.;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply, herewith.
It is further recommended that,unless on or before twenty (20) clays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid. J
It is further recommended that the complaint, in so far as it alleges that the
respondent has discriminated against Henrietta Wright, Elizabeth Tabbs, Cora
Tolbert, Ida Mae Davenport, Hattie Rivers, Edith Jenkins, Sarah Morton, Louis
Miller, Eliza Myers, and Richelle Glover within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of'
the Act be dismissed.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of' the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended-any party may within
thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of the order' transferring the case
to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations,
0
990_ DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
file with the Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C., an original and four
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermedi-
ate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings
upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and
four copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within twenty (20) days after
the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
WEBSTER POWELL, ,
Trial Examiner.
Dated : October 6, 1942.
0
0