New York Laundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 635 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., D/B/A NEW YORK
LAUNDRY, EMPLOYER and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL No. 337, AFL
Case No. 10-RC-211
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER SETTING ASIDE ELECTION
October 19, 1949
On January 20, 1949, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order,
and Direction of Election issued by the Board,' an election by secret
ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia). Upon
the conclusion of the election the parties were furnished with a Tally
of Ballots which shows that of the approximately 195 eligible voters,
181 cast ballots, of which 81 were for the Petitioner, 98 were against
the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. No other labor organization
was on the ballot.
On January 24, 1949, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Con-
duct of the Election, alleging, among other things, that the Em-
ployer's vice president and manager, prior to the election, addressed
the employees at meetings during which he made threats of economic
reprisals and promises of benefits in connection with the pending
election. Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the ob-
jections and on March 24, 1949, issued and duly served upon the
parties his Report on Objections in which he found that the Em-
ployer's vice president and manager, in his speeches to the employees
made prior to the election, had threatened to close the laundry or
turn it into some other type of business if the Petitioner won the
election. The Regional Director accordingly recommended that the
election of January 20, 1949, be set aside. The Employer filed ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's report.
On May 17, 1949, pursuant to such order, a further hearing in this
case was held at Jacksonville, Florida, before Charles A. Kyle, hear-
ing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing of-
180 N. L. R. B. 1597.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 87.
635
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the basis of the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct of the
Election, the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in this case 3 the Board 4 finds as
follows :
It is conceded that Woodell, the Employer's vice president and
manager, addressed the employees during the week before the election.
The Employer contends that these talks were confined to a written
speech which Woodell read to the employees and that that speech was
not coercive. There is no controversy as to the contents of the written
speech, which we find to be privileged. The record establishes, how-
ever, and we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that
Woodell departed from the text of the written speech.5
The testimony is conflicting as to whether Woodell, during the
course of his speeches, threatened to close the plant or turn it into
some other type of business if the Union won the election. Employee
Willie Mae Harrison, the Petitioner's witness, testified that Woodell
said,
... but he would have to close it up if the union came in,
because he couldn't afford to carry it on and he said that the,
union was not much good anyway. It wouldn't affect him, but
it would affect us employees because the union would take our
money on our paydays, come in and collect our money off us,
and we wouldn't have very much to go upon, but for his part,
it wouldn't hurt him, because him and his baby and his wife
During the course of the hearing , Board witnesses at times referred to remarks al-
legedly made by Mr. Allen, one of the Employer ' s supervisors . The Employer objected to
any testimony concerning statements attributed to Mr. Allen, on the ground that the
hearing ordered by the Board was for the purpose of adducing testimony confined to the
issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report and which
related only to the speeches made by the Employer's vice president and manager. The
hearing officer reserved ruling on this objection for the Board . In reaching our decision
herein we have relied only upon the speeches made by the Employer 's vice president and
manager.
3 On March 14, 1949, a complaint was issued by the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region against the Employer (Case No. 10-CA-637), alleging that the Employer had
violated the Act by engaging in certain conduct including the conduct which forms the
basis of the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct of the Election. Thereafter, a hearing
in the complaint case was held on Ajjril 12, 13, and 14, 1949. On August 16, 1949, the
Board issued an order that cause be shown why the record in the complaint case should
not be relied upon for the purpose of disposing of the issues in this proceeding. The Board
having considered the responses filed by the parties , has decided to rely solely upon the
record in this representation proceeding for the purpose of disposing of the issues raised
by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[Chairman Herzog, Members Houston and Gray].
5 This is supported by the testimony of witnesses for both the Petitioner and the Em-
ployer. Woodell testified that he told the employees "practically what is in the speech."
.NEW YORK LAUNDRY 637
and his daughter could eat, but he didn't know what would
become of us and our children, what would happen to 'us, that
the door would be closed in our face without a job.
Petitioner's witness, Sara Sacks, formerly employed as a floorlady
for the Employer, testified that Woodell said,
We now knew we had a job, and if they came in, we didn't
know whether we would have a job or not. We would leave
home late in the morning and didn't have time for breakfast,
none of them objected to us going out and getting something to
eat,• but if the union came in and we would not do that, and if
the company was closed down, he would get along, but lots of
us could not be able to do that.
She testified further,
He said before he would let the union come in there, he would
close the plant down, that he wasn't going to be bothered with the
union . . . He didn't say what he would do with it, he said he
could turn it into a warehouse.
Employee Hattie Robinson, another witness for the Petitioner, when
asked whether Woodell said anything about closing down the laundry
stated,
He said he would close it before he would cooperate with the
union. He would cooperate with it awhile, but he said he would
close it. He could close it and he said he would. Turn it into
something else . . . He said, into some kind of warehouse, I don't
know what kind.
On the other hand Woodell and employee witnesses for the Em-
ployer categorically denied that Woodell had threatened to close the
plant down or turn it into some other type of business if the Union
won the election. Significantly, these employee witnesses also denied
that Woodell made other remarks concerning the Union, which remarks
appear in the written speech and admittedly were made.
In view of the faulty memory thus displayed by the Employer's
witnesses, of the fact that Woodell's assertion that he adhered to the
written text of his speech is refuted by the testimony of the Employer's
own witnesses, and in view of our finding that such a departure did in
fact occur, we credit the testimony of employees Harrison, Sacks, and
Robinson and find that vice president and Manager Woodell did
threaten to close the plant or turn it into some other type of business
if the Union were to win the election. The correctness of our con-
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
elusion is verified by the Board 's finding in the complaint case,° where
the same issue was also litigated upon a charge filed by the' Petitioner.,
that Woodell made these threats in his preelection speeches in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
We conclude and find that by Woodell' s foregoing threats, the Em-
ployer interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of their right freely to select a bargaining representative.
We therefore sustain the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct
of the Election, and, in accordance with the Regional Director's recom-
mendations, shall set aside the election of January 20, 1949. We shall
direct a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises us
that the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representa-
tive among the employees concerned herein.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 20, 1949,
among the employees of New York Steam Laundry, Inc., d/b/a New
York Laundry, of Jacksonville, Florida, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
"Matter of New York Steam Laundry, Inc . d/b/a New York Laundry, 85 N. L. R. B.,
No. 227.