Sanitary Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 53 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SANITARY LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING 53
Sanitary Laundry &,Dry Cleaning Co., Inc . and Sales
Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Help-
ers, Local 952, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 21-CA-9057
documents, I issued an order to show cause, on or before
June 5, why the motion should not be granted. On
Respondent's request, the return date was extended to June
12. For reasons hereinafter shown, the motion is granted.
The Representation Case2
October 22, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On June 25, 1970, Trial Examiner Benjamin B.
Lipton issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders
that the Respondent, Sanitary Laundry & Dry
Cleaning Co., Inc., Santa Ana, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN B. LIPTON, Trial Examiner: On May 18, 1970,1
the General Counsel of the Board filed a Motionfor Summary
Judgment based upon a complaint alleging violation of
Section 8(a) (5) and (1), and Respondent's answer thereto.
On May 19, upon consideration of all pertinent formal
I All dates hereafter are sequentially in 1969 and 1970, unless otherwise
specified.
2 Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 21-RC-9843. E.g., Section 9(d) of the Act; Golden Age Beverage Co.,
On November 9, 1965, the Union filed its election
petition, and on March 11, 1966, an election was conducted
in two appropriate units consisting of production and
maintenance employees, and route drivers. On June 4,
1968, the Board issued its Decision, Order and Direction of
Second Election,3 finding that Respondent committed
certain unfair labor practices which interfered with the
election in the unit of route drivers, and ordered the holding
of a second election at an appropriate time. On July 16,
1969, a second election was conducted, in which, of 10
eligible voters, 8 voted for, and 2 voted against, the Union.
On July 23 and August 24, Respondent filed objections to
the conduct of the election. It alleged, in substance, that the
Union held a meeting with employees less than 24 hours
prior to the election, preventing Respondent from holding a
meeting to present counterarguments; and that the Union
distributed a leaflet among the employees which contained
improper promises of benefit, contained confusing infor-
mation concerning benefits under existing union contracts,
and used confusing job classification titles. On August 13,
the Regional Director, following investigation, issued a
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tive, in which he overruled Respondent's objections as
lacking in merit, and certified the Union as exclusive
representative in the appropriate unit. On August 26, the
Board granted Respondent an extension of time to file a
Request for Review, and on September 8, such a request, in
substantial detail, was filed with the Board. On September
24, the Board denied Respondent's request for review, and
affirmed the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representative. On October 22, the
Board denied Respondent's motion, of October 10, to
reconsider.
The Unfair Labor Practice Case
On March 10, the Union filed and served upon
Respondent an unfair labor practice charge. On April 3, the
complaint thereon was issued by General Counsel alleging
that Respondent refused to bargain upon request with the
certified Union. Dated April 29, an answer to the complaint
was filed by Respondent's president .4 Respondent admits
filing and service of the charge; the Board's jurisdiction;
the appropriate unit; that the Union is a labor organization
under the Act; that the Union on February 4 and February
13 made repeated requests to bargain; and that it rejected
the Union's request on the ground that "when the appeal
rights of the Respondent had been exhausted it would then
be the proper time to bargain collectively if all appeals are
rejected." It generally denies the alleged violations, and
specifically that the Union was certified as exclusive
167 NLRB No. 24, enfd . 415 F.2d 26 (C.A. 5).
3 171 NLRB No. 23.
4 It is not indicated that Respondent retained legal counsel in this
proceeding.
186 NLRB No. 15
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative in the appropriate unit (of which I have
taken official notice), contending that the Regional
Director did not consider the issues (on Respondent's
objections to the election) which could be resolved only
after a hearing.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Summary Judgment
As shown, the Board denied Respondent's request for
review, affirmed the Regional Director's Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative, and denied
Respondent's motion for reconsideration. Thus, over an
extended period of time, Respondent has fully utilized and
exhausted all the procedures in the representation proceed-
ing provided under the Act and in the Board's Rules and
Regulations (Sections 102.67 and 102.69).5 In response to
the show cause order, Respondent does not present, or
claim to present, any newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence. The entire thrust of its position is that
it is entitled to a hearing on its objections to the election.
However, such a hearing is not a matter of right unless
substantial and material issues are raised by the
objections,6 and the contrary here has already been
concluded by the Board.
In these circumstances, the law has long been settled that
issues which were fully litigated in a prior related
representation proceeding may not be relitigated in a
complaint proceeding,7 Here, the representation findings
are the law of the case and binding upon the Trial
Examiner. Respondent is free to file with the Board
exceptions to the instant decision and thereafter to seek full
review of the representation and complaint cases before the
Court of Appeals. Accordingly, as it appears that all
necessary elements are established and that there are no
unresolved issues which necessitate a hearing, the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is found
meritorious.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire
record in the case, I make the following further:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is engaged primarily in the business of
operating a retail and wholesale laundry and dry cleaning
plant in Santa Ana, California. During the calendar year
1969, it furnished services valued in excess of $50,000 to
customers who, in turn, are directly engaged in commerce.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
All route drivers employed by Respondent, excluding all
guards, professionals, production and maintenance em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
At all times since August 13, 1969, and continuing to
date, the Union has been the certified representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Respondent admits in effect, and I find, that it refused to
bargain collectively with the Union. Thus, Respondent has
engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1), and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, and the
entire record in the case, I recommend that Respondent,
Sanitary Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co., Santa Ana,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Sales Drivers,
Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 952,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the following appropri-
ate unit:
All route drivers employed by Respondent, excluding
all guards, professionals, production and maintenance
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) For the purpose of determining the duration of the
certification, the initial year of the certification shall be
deemed to begin on the date that Respondent commences
to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized
exclusive bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.8
(c) Interfering with the efforts of the above-named Union
to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive
bargaining representative.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive representative of
all the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any
understanding reached.
5 Eg, American Federation of Labor, et al v N L R B, 308 U S 401, N L R B, 313 U S 146, 162, Rules and Regulations, Sections 102 67(f) and
405, et seq 102 69(c).
6 E g, N L R B v Bata Shoe Co, 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A 4). 8 E g, Burnett Construction Co, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd 350 F 2d
7 Krieger-Ragsdale & Co, Inc, 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C A 570 (C.A 10)
7), cert denied 389 US 1041 And see Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v
SANITARY LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING 55
(b) Post at its place of business in Santa Ana, California,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."9
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by an
authorized representative of Respondent, be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and be
maintained by Respondent for a period of 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Trial
Examiner's Decision and Recommended Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.10
9 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102.46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event
that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to
read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD."
10 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Sales
Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen & Helpers,
Local 952, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All route drivers, excluding all guards, profession-
als, production and maintenance employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the above-
named Union to negotiate for or represent employees as
exclusive bargaining representative.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the above-named
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit, and if an under-
standing is reached, we will sign a contract with the
Union.
SANITARY LAUNDRY & DRY
CLEANING CO., INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions , may be directed to the Board's Office,
Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway, Los
Angeles, California , 90014, Telephone 688-5229.