Tom's Monarch Laundry and Cleaning Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1967

168 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

TOM'S MONARCH LAUNDRY & CLEANING CO. 217
Tom's Monarch Laundry and Cleaning Co., Inc.
and Laundry and Cleaning Workers Union, Local
No. 56, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case 25-RC-2885
November 15, 1967
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On March 10, 1967, the Regional Director for
Region 25 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he
rejected the contentions of the Employer and the
Intervenor, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 319, that a con-
tract bar exists and that the requested single-em-
ployer unit is inappropriate because the unit
established by the bargaining history is multiem-
ployer in scope. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Employer and the Intervenor filed timely
requests for review of the Regional Director's
Decision on the grounds that in rejecting their con-
tentions, as aforestated, he departed from officially
reported Board precedent, and/or that there are
compelling reasons for reconsideration of Board
policy. The Intervenor also urged that a further
hearing be held, if necessary, to determine whether
or not the employees of the Employer are part of a
multiemployer unit.
On April 4, 1967, the Board by telegraphic order
directed the Regional Director to make findings of
fact as to the alleged history of multiemployer bar-
gaining and to reopen the record for further hearing
if necessary. Pending such action, the Board
deferred its consideration of the requests for review
and stayed the election which had been scheduled.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, the Regional
Director, on April 12, issued his supplemental
findings of fact, in which he made additional
findings of fact based on the existing record.'
Thereafter, on July 24, 1967, the Board by tele-
graphic order granted the requests for review and
stayed the election pending decision on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review, in-
cluding the Regional Director's supplemental
findings of fact and the statements of position in the
requests for review, and makes the following
findings:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of em-
ployees at the Employer ' s single laundry and
drycleaning establishment in South Bend , Indiana.
The Regional Director found that an existing con-
tract between the Employer and the Intervenor was
inoperative as a bar because it contained a union-
security clause requiring the payment of fees and
assessments other than the "periodic dues and the
initiation fees uniformly required" and a holiday
pay clause limiting such pay to members of the In-
tervenor , both of which clauses ' had been found by
the Board to be violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , in Case
25-CA-2296 .2 He further found , without specifi-
cally resolving the contention of the Employer and
the Intervenor that the established unit was mul-
tiemployer in scope , that the bargaining history in
the multiemployer unit could be given no weight in
the determination of the unit because it was based
on an agreement containing the aforestated illegal
provisions.
In their requests for review , the Employer and
the Intervenor , as aforestated , contend that the Re-
gional Director erred in rejecting their contract-bar
and unit contentions . Without passing on the con-
tract-bar contentions , we find that the requested
single-employer unit is inappropriate.
On the basis of the undisputed facts set forth in
the Regional Director's supplemental findings of
fact , we find that the Intervenor has bargained with
the Employer and nine other laundry and dry -clean-
ing firms, fellow members of the South Bend-
Mishawaka Laundry and Dry Cleaning Associa-
tion, on a multiemployer unit basis since 1954. Not-
withstanding the fact that the 1954 contract and all
succeeding contracts contained illegal clauses, we
do not view the mere presence of such illegal
clauses in the contracts , without more , as so taint-
ing the bargaining history as to eliminate it as a fac-
tor in determining the scope of the appropriate
unit.3 In the circumstances , as the Employer has
complied with the Board 's remedial order in Case
25-CA-2296 and as the requested unit is not coex-
tensive with the established multiemployer unit, in
which the Employer wishes to continue to bargain,
we find it to be inappropriate , and we shall dismiss
the petition on this ground alone.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
on May 17, 1965, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
No request for review was filed with respect thereto
1 Tom's Monarch Laundry & Cleaning Company, Inc, 161 N LRB 740
(issued November 3, 1966 ) Although the Board found the maintenance
of such clauses to be illegal, it found no evidence of unlawful practices
thereunder In its remedial order, the Board required the Employer to
cease giving effect to such clauses The Regional Director issued a notice
of compliance with the Board ' s Order on January 23, 1967.
1 Although in reaching this conclusion we have taken into consideration
the absence of a finding in Case 25-CA-2296 of illegal practices resulting
from the aforementioned offensive clauses and the absence of an order
requiring the Employer to withhold recognition of the Intervenor until it
is certified , we do not hold that absence of such factors will in all cases
warrant the same conclusion Whether bargaining history is so tainted by
unfair labor practices as to remove it as a factor in determining the ap-
propriateness of a requested unit is a question to be resolved by examina-
tion of the facts and circumstances of each case See American Broadcast-
ing Company, 134 NLRB 1458, cf Sea-Land Service, Inc, 137 NLRB
546,549
168 NLRB No. 39