Uniform Rental Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 187 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 187
WE WILL offer to Louis Prohaska , and upon application to those who went
on strike October 13 , 1965 , immediate and full reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent positions , without regard to their seniority and other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Louis Prohaska and those who went on strike Octo-
ber 13, 1965, for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimina-
tion practiced against them in accordance with the recommendations of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
All our employees are free to become or refrain from becoming members of the
above-named labor organization.
WAHOO PACKING COMPANY,
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
ANTHONY B. CUDAHY
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
JOHN Q. RUNYAN
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify Louis Prohaska and all those employees who went on
strike on October 13, 1965, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64106 , Telephone
221-2732.
Uniform Rental Service, Inc. and Local 215, International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America . Case ?5-CA-2289. October 20, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1966, Trial Examiner W. Edwin Youngblood issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision. lie further found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint and recommended dismissal of the complaint with respect
thereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, a brief in support thereof, and a brief in sup-
port of part of the Trial Examiner's Decision. The Respondent filed
cross-exceptions and a brief in support thereof.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
161 NLRB No. 15.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are herby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
following modifications.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent's letter to
the employees of about July 1, 1965, contained a threat to close the
plant if the employees chose to be represented by the Union, and that
the Respondent thereby violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. How-
ever, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the same
July 1 letter did not contain promises of benefit conditioned upon
employee rejection of the Union.
The alternatives placed before the employees by the letter which is
set forth in the Trial Examiner 's Decision , appear to us to be clear :
Choosing the Union as a collective-bargaining representative would
inevitably lead to the closing of the plant, the threat found by the
Trial Examiner; conversely, a rejection of the Union would open the
clbo'r, to a share of the profits that would only then accrue . We think
that the promise conditioned upon rejection of the Union is as clearly
held out to the employees as the threat of a plant closing if they vote
for the Union. Such a promise is clearly a violation of Section
8(a) (1), and we so find it.
2. The Respondent contends, and the Trial Examiner found, that
Joyce Bartlett was discharged on July 23, 1965, because she removed
certain antiunion newspaper clippings from Respondent's bulletin
board. The General Counsel maintains that the asserted reason for
discharge is pretextual and was used by Respondent to rid itself of
the Union's most active proponent. We agree with the General
Counsel.
Although Bartlett occupied a responsible position with Respondent
and was an admittedly satisfactory employee prior to the removal of
the clippings, she was purportedly discharged for removing the posted
newspaper clippings and the decision to terminate her was made even
before she was confronted with regard to that incident. Bartlett had
been the prime motivating force behind the union organizational cam-
paign. She was the first to contact union agents, had held organiza-
tional meetings at her home which she advertised among the employ-
ees, promptly signed an authorization card, and had solicited and
witnessed the signing of authorization cards which she turned over
to union agents. The Respondent was aware of the Union' s campaign
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 189
and of activity by Bartlett on the Union's behalf. It admitted hos-
tility to the Union and an aversion to the Teamsters representing the
Owensboro employees.
In these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we are not per-
suaded, as the Trial Examiner was, that Respondent discharged Bart-
lett because her conduct in removing the posted material was an act
of insubordination which called for a discharge lest the authority of
the plant manager be jeopardized. Were the posters soliciting funds
for the Red Cross, for example, we think it unlikely that the severe
penalty of a discharge would have been imposed upon an experienced
and satisfactory employee who removed them. But the posters were in
opposition to the Union and Bartlett's removal of them was another
manifestation of her prounion attitude. On this occasion, we find, the
Respondent decided to rid itself of Bartlett because of her prounion
attitude and aedvities, and it thereby violated Section 8(a) (3) of
the Act.
3. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we also find that the Respond-
ent violated Section 8(a) (5) of the Act. As found by the Trial Exam-
iner, the Union made a demand for recognition which was received
by the Respondent on July 15, and the Union enjoyed majority status
on that date as evidenced by valid authorization cards on its behalf,
signed by at least 12 of the 23 employees in the appropriate unit.'
However, the Trial Examiner, noting the absence of a finding of
unfair labor practices after receipt of the Union's request for bargain-
ing, concluded that the Respondent did not refuse to bargain with the
Union in good faith.
It is undisputed that on June 29 the Union sent both a letter to the
Respondent demanding recognition and a petition to the Board seek-
ing an election. The petition was received by the Board on June 30,
but the letter demanding recognition was' inexplicably not received
until July 15. That letter, bearing a June 29 date, claims majority
status, spells out the unit, demands recognition, and requests a meet-
ing to open negotiations. It then goes on as follows:
At such meeting designated by you, if you have any doubts
that we have not been designated by a majority of your employ-
ees in the above-named unit, we shall be happy to prove our
majority status by any means which may be mutually agreeable.
We look forward to an early meeting with you.
Very truly yours,
This letter went unanswered. Hutcheson, Respondent's attorney,
testified that the Respondent did not answer the letter because the
' We need not pass on the validity of certain additional cards which the General Counsel
would count.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union had by that time selected the method it chose to establish its
majority status.2
Unlike the Trial Examiner, we have found that the Respondent
violated the Act, not only by threatening to close down the Owens-
boro operation, but also by promising benefits to the employees condi-
tioned upon their rejection of the Union. More pertinently, following
receipt of the Union's demand, the Respondent violated the Act by
discharging Joyce Bartlett. This termination of the prime mover of
the union campaign was a violation of the type which best serves to
undermine a union.3
In all the circumstances of this case, we find that Bartlett's discharge
was an unfair labor practice inconsistent with a good-faith doubt of
the Union's majority status and inconsistent with any professed desire
by Respondent to rely upon a free election as the means for testing
that majority status 4 We conclude that the Respondent, in bad faith,
refused to bargain with the Union, on and after July 15, 1965, in vio-
lation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent, Uniform Rental Service, Inc.,
has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order the Respondent
to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
However, we shall not order Bartlett's reinstatement with backpay.
Shortly, before her discharge, but unknown to Respondent until after-
ward, Bartlett, without authority, entered Plant Manager Potter's
untended office and removed a letter from his desk. The letter was one
to the employees concerning the Union, and Bartlett showed it to some
of them before its release by Potter. It is unimportant, we think, that
the letter was in fact later distributed to the employees. The question
is simply whether or not an employee who improperly enters her
employer's private office and pilfers a letter has forfeited her rights
to backpay and reinstatement in the circumstances of this case. We
think she has .5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We hereby adopt the Trial Examiner's Conclusions of Law, except
for paragraph 6, and hereby make the following additional Conclu-
sions of Law :
2 Based upon the Union 's petition , a consent election agreement was entered into by the
Union on July 19 and by the Respondent on July 21.
9 N.L.R .B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 , 536 (C.A. 4).
* Cf. Hammond & Irving, Incorporated, 154 NLRB 1071.
5 Offner Electronics, Inc., 134 NLRB 1064 , 1075-77.
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 191
"6 By discharging Joyce Bartlett on July 23, 1965, the Respond
ent violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act"
"7 By refusing, since July 15, to bargain collectively in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1)
of the Act"
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
Respondent, Uniform Rental Service, Inc, Owensboro, Kentucky, its
officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening its employees with closing the plant if they
select the Union to represent them is their collective bargaining
representative
(b) Promising benefits to employees conditional upon their rejec
tion of the Union as their collective bargaining representative
(c) Discouraging membership in Local 215, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of
America, or in any other labor organization, by discriminating against
employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment
(d) Refusing to bargain in good faith concerning rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, with
the above named Union as the exclusive representative of all employ
ees in the approprite unit The appropriate unit is
All production and maintenance employees including route drivers
of Respondent employed at its Owensboro, Kentucky, establishment,
excluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively in good faith with the
above named Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above described appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement
(b) Post at its plant in Owensboro, Kentucky, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix " Copies of said notice, to be fur
nished by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being duly signed
192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Company's representative, shall be posted by the Company
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least
60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced , or covered by any other material
(c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply here
with
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Puisuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment , and other conditions of employment and, if an un
derstanding is reached, WE WILL embody such understanding in
a signed agreement The bargaining unit is
All production and maintenance employees of Respondent
employed at its Owensboro, Kentucky, establishment, includ
ing route drivers, but excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with closing the plant if
they select Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as their bar
gaining representative
WE WILL NOT promise our employees benefits if they reject
Local 215, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as their bargaining
representative
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Local 215, Interna
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, or in any other labor organiz ttion,
discriminating against employment or any term or condition of
employment
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 193
All oui employees are free to become or iemaui members of the
above named Union, or any other Union, and they are also free to
refrain from jouung any union, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by the provisos in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE, INC ,
Employer
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
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
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compli
ante with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Board 's Regional Office, 614 ISTA Center, 150 West Market Street,
Indianapolis , Indiana 46204 , Telephone 633-8921
TRIAL EXAMINERS DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises upon the complaint of the General Counsel Issued Sep0 1965 i upon a charge filed July 29 by Local 215, International Brothertember 3 '
hood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein
called the Union The complaint alleges that Uniform Rental Service Inc herein
called the Respondent or the Company violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act in cer
tam respects more specifically described herein violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging Joyce Bartlett, and violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing
to bargain collectively with the Union Respondents answer to the complaint denies
the commission of any unfair labor practices Disposition of Respondent's motion
to dismiss the complaint is made in accordance with the findings herein.
All parties were represented at the hearing which Trial Examiner W Edwin
Youngblood conducted on January 4 5 and 6 1966 in Owensboro Kentucky
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent.
Upon the entire record including my evaluation of the witnesses based on the
evidence and my observation of their demeanor I make the following
PINpS ros or FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Tennessee corporation with its principal office and place of buss
ness in Chattanooga Tennessee is engaged in the rental and laundering of industrial
uniforms at various location, including the facility involved herein at Owensboro
Kentucky During the year ending September 30 Respondent purchased materials
valued in excess of $50 000 directly from outside the State in which the facility
was located During the same period Respondent performed services for indus
trial consumers valued in excess of $50000 of which services valued in excess of
$50 000 were performed In States other than the State of Tennessee Respondent
admits and I find that it is engaged In commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
i Unless otherwise indicated all dates herein are in 1965
264-188--6T-vol 161-14
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Paragraph 5(a) of the complaint alleges: "On an unknown date in ' the early part
of July 1965, the Employer, by its agent , W. H. Potter, Jr., threatened to discon-
tinue its Owensboro operation and close the Owensboro establishment and impose
other unspecified reprisals if its employees supported the Union and promised
employees unspecified benefits if they rejected or repudiated the Union."
This allegation is based on a letter which W. H. Potter, Jr ., Respondent's Owens-
boro manager , distributed to Respondent 's employees about July 12 The letter reads
as follows:
To all Uniform Rental Employees,
I have just received word that the corrupt . Teamsters Union headed by con-
victed criminal Jimmy Hoffa wants to represent our employees . I want every
one to know that Hoffa and his crowd of goons will not be welcome here, and
I shall do every thing I am legally entitled to do to keep them out. The only
chance that we have to continue this Owensboro operation is to work together
& pull it out of the hole . In my opinion , this cannot be done with the Team-
sters Union . So far, this plant has lost money! Let 's don't shake the boat. When
we start making this plant pay its own way, you employees will get your share
of the benefits . But No Union can ever make this Company do more than it
can financially do, or more than it is willing'to do.
I don't mind telling you all that I feel hurt because some of you seem to
have more faith in the teamsters crowd than you do in me. I have done my
very best to make this operation a success , and I have fought for all of you.
But it can't be a success unless we all work together as a team . So remember,
the future of this plant depends on you.
I cannot believe more than two or three employees here really want the
teamsters union . Uniform Rental Owensboro employees are better people than
that! They will not want to associate with a union which has a criminal
background!
I know that some employees has signed union cards "just to get rid of the
union organizer" or to "avoid an argument," but they really don't want the
Teamsters . I ask you , for the benefit of all of us, to work against Hoffa, and
keep him out of here . I can assure you that I will exercise every legal right
that I have to fight this union , and those who-from this time on-continue
to support it.
Personal regards,
W. H. Potter, Jr.
In the third sentence of this letter, Potter refers to the "only chance that we
have to continue the Owensboro operation is to work together " and pull the Com-
pany out of the hole . It seems clear to me that Potter was here saying that if the
employees and management did not work together the plant would close. Then
Potter states in effect in the next sentence that they cannot work together if
employees are represented by the Teamsters Union. Later in the letter Potter
reiterates the necessity for employees and management to work together and states
that the future of the plant depends on the employees . So reading the letter in
context Potter was saying that the inevitable result if employees selected the Union
to represent them would be the closing of the plant . The Board has held that when
an employer engages in conduct for the purpose of implanting in employees a fear
that loss of jobs would inevitably follow a union victory, such conduct is coercive
and that employer has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Acts Or as the
Trial Examiner put it in S.N.C. Manufacturing Co., Inc ., 147 NLRB 809, 820,
"the letters were no different in their effect than a threat to close the plant"
which the , Board has consistently held to be a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act .4 Accordingly, I find Respondent violated ' Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act by the
foregoing conduct.
This date is based on the testimony 'ofArtie Roberts, infra. I note also that the com-
plaint alleges this occurred in the early part of July. Moreover , from its context , the letter
apparently was written about the time the Union's petition was filed which was June 30.
' Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation , 136 NLRB 95,-97,
enforcement denied 310 F.2d 844 ( C.A. 6). See ' also Bernardin, Inc., 153 NLRB 939.
4 See also Cleveland Woolens, Division of Burlington Industries, Inc., 140 NLRB 87, 93.
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 195
This allegation also refers to Respondent promising employees unspecified bene-
fits if they rejected the Union. The letter refers to employees getting their "share of
the benefits" when the plant starts to pay its own way. I do not read this to con-
stitute a promise of benefits conditioned on employees rejecting the Union. I shall
recommend the dismissal of this part of paragraph,5(a) of the complaint.
The complaint also alleges in paragraph 5(b) and (c) as follows:
(b) On or about July 22, 1965, the Employer, by its agent, W. H. Potter,
Jr., requested employees to publicly disclaim or disavow any interest in the
Union and to support the Employer's opposition to the Union by refusing to
attend Union meetings.
(c) On or about July 22, 1965, and an unknown date in early July 1965,
the Employer, by its agent, W. H. Potter, Jr., threatened to terminate amica-
ble and friendly relations with supporters and adherents of the Union.
The General Counsel stated at the hearing that these allegations rest on Potter's
letter to employees dated July 22 (General Counsel's Exhibit 4-B) which reads
as follows:
To all Uniform Rental Employees,
In order to give all of you an early opportunity to vote against the outlaw
Teamsters Union, we have agreed with the National Labor Board to hold an
election in the lunch area between 3 to 5 in the afternoon of Wednesday
August 18th. I have Confidence that my friends (that includes a large majority
of you) will work against this Union, and on election day will vote "No."
While I recognize the protected legal right of anyone to go to union meet-
ings, I would consider it a personal favor if our employees would not go. If
the union organizers go to the meetings, and only 3 to 4 show up, they will
get the message loud & clear! They will know that Uniform Rental Employ-
ees want nothing to do with the Hoffa Union.
I appreciate my friends
W. H. Potter, Jr.
True enough, the Respondent is here asking employees to vote against the Union
and requesting employees not to support the Union by going to union meetings.
But I do not construe the letter as requesting employees to "publicly" disclaim or
disavow the Union, and I see nothing unlawful in asking them to vote against the
Union or not to attend union meetings. Nor do I read the letter as threatening to
terminate amicable or friendly relations with union adherents. This is not neces-
sarily the converse of advising employees that Potter would consider it a personal
favor if employees would not attend union meetings . I shall recommend the dis-
missal of these allegations.
The complaint alleges in paragraph 5(d) and (e) as follows:
(d) On or about August 26, 1965, by its agent, Clifton Ward, the Employer
promised to consider and grant reclassifications of jobs and raises to employ-
ees if they rejected or repudiated the Union and in order to cause them to
do so.
(e) On or about August 26, 1965, by its agent, Clifton Ward, the Employer
threatened to refuse to recognize or bargain with the Union if its employees
designated it as their representative.
We turn first to the testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel. Carol Keller
testified that in August a group of employees went to see Clifton Ward in his
office about a raise. Ward told the employees that he could not talk to them about
a raise. Someone suggested' Ward come outside and talk to all the employees. Ward
did so and told the employees (about 20) that "there was not going to be a union
and we couldn't have one and he said he wasn't going to negotiate. They were
trying to negotiate but he wasn't going to negotiate." When asked by the General
Counsel if she recalled anything else being said by Ward, Keller replied: "He said
he wasn't going to have no election because we didn't need one." Keller was
vague about when the conversation occurred first placing the month as June then
stating that she did not remember the exact date, and placing the date at some-
time between June when her employment commenced and September 25, when
she quit. On cross-examination, Keller recalled that the conversation occurred when
Potter was on vacation and placed the date as around August 15. Keller added to
her version on direct examination by agreeing that Ward told the employees that
he could not give them a raise because of the situation with the Union which had
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be settled first before be could consider giving any wage increases Keller retter
ated that Ward said that he did not want a union and they were trying to nego
tiate but they were not going to negotiate and that s it
Carolyn Fay Hamilton testified that "We went to Mr Ward and asked for a
raise and he told us he could not talk to us about a raise at this time that the
Labor Board was after him and that he would be back in 2 weeks to talk to each
of us individually concerning the raise and he said at the meeting at this time
that this thing would be settled and he said there definitely would be no negotia
Lions and there would be no union."
Margaret Taylor testified that she heard Ward speak to the employees According
to Taylor the employees went to Ward and asked if they could get a raise and he
replied that he would not talk about a raise until the union matter was settled
When asked by the General Counsel if she recalled whether Ward discussed
negotiations Taylor replied I just think he said he wouldn t talk about it until
the Union matter was settled On examination by the Union Taylor was asked if
Ward said something about reclassifying the girls in 2 weeks and replied that she
did not hear anything about that She reiterated that she did not think he said
anything about not negotiating with the Union . She did recall that he said he did
not want the Union and 'we would lust have to wait and see how things were
going to work out
Judy Williams, another witness called by the General Counsel testified about
the Ward talk during her cross-examuiatwn Williams was asked what Ward said
and replied Well we all went up and asked him for a raise Our supervisor went
ahead of us and was talking to bun Mr Ward and he told her to wait just a
minute that he would tell us all at the same time what he had to say and be said
that if the situation was cleared up that be might see fit to give us a raise but at
the time he couldo t possibly He said that he would return at a later date which
he gave no specific time when he would be back to talk to each and every one
of us as individuals to see as to what work we were doing and he was just saying
that in general that he would be back to talk about it later but right now he
couldn t because things were holding him back I suppose Williams stated that
Ward did not use the word "negotiation " nor did she recall hearing Ward say
whether or not he wanted or would have a union in the plant
Jo Ann Hazelwood testified that she heard Ward talk to the employees Accord
ing to Hazelwood Ward said that he could not talk to the employees about a
raise "right then" because of the Union Further that he hoped to have it settled
in about 2 weeks acid he would be back and talk to the employees then Also Ward
said that the Union wanted to negotiate but 'we re not going to and then Haul
wood went back to work When asked on direct examination if Ward said any
thing about the women being reclassified Hazelwood replied that she really did not
hear that After being shown her Board affidavit Hazelwood testified that Ward
said that he was going to coma back in 2 weeks and talk to the employees as
individuals and would classify them according to what they did.
Turning now to the testimony of Respondents, witnessesm Angela Ball testified
that she heard Ward talk to employees According to Ball, Ward said that he
could not do anything about a raise right then the eduction had to be settled
before he could do anything about a raise Further that Ward said that he would
send a man around or he would come himself when the situation was over and he
would talk to the employees about it Ball testified that Ward did not use the
word "negotiate" or union " Ball did not recall Ward saying anything about
classifying or reclassifying the girls at a later time.
Fester Ward another witness called by Respondent testified that Ward said in
his talk that lie could 8Wt give the employees a raise because of the situation that
was going on and after the situation was over he would see what could be done
Further that he would take each employee iitdttesdually or with two or three at a
time but each employee would have his own say as to what raise he should get
but he would we what he could do or he would send someone to talk to them
if he did not come. Ester Ward, who incidentally is not related to- Clifton Ward
further testified that Ward did not use the word negotiate "
Clifton Ward Respondents president who ordinarily offices in Chattanooga
Tennessee testified that has Company has been dealing with the Teamsters Union
in Chattanooga for approximately 10 years Further that if there was corruption
in the Teamsters Union at the time the Company first bargained with the Union
he did not know it Ward frankly stated that he did not want the Teamsters Union
in the Owensboro operation
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 197
When Potter the plant manager of the Owensboro operation went on vacation
Ward filled in for him On Thursday August 26 Jo Ann Hazelwood and other
employees came to the door of Potters office where Ward was Jo Ann acted as
spokesman and wanted to know when the employees could get a raise When Ward
started to answer someone said that they could not hear and suggested that he
come out of the office Ward agreed to this and suggested getting all the girls
together Ward told the employees that it was impossible at this time to give any
raises because they were tied up with the National Labor Relations Board and
they were not allowed to do or say anything He also advised the girls that the
plant in Owensboro had been in operation for a year and a half and had not made
any money An employee asked if there was anything the employees could do to
clear up this situation Before Ward could answer that question another employee
asked how the employees could get rid of the Union Ward replied that he did
not know Ward further stated that after the situation was cleared up about what
the Company could do about it either he or Jim Beam (in charge of several of
Respondents operations including Chattanooga ) would come back and talk to the
girls at that time At some point in the talk Ward told the employees that he did
not want the Teamsters Union , and that they would do everything they legally
could to keep them out of the Owensboro plant Ward specifically denied that the
word negotiation was even mentioned Ward added that he told the girls that
when they came back after the situation was cleared up they would talk to the
girls individually
The various versions of the Ward talk given by witnesses for the General
Counsel as shown by the recital above were contradictory on major points and
illogical in certain respects For example Carol Keller testified that Ward said the
employees could not have a union and that he was not going to negotiate with the
Union Also that he was not going to have an election because they did not need
one As Respondent and Union had entered into a consent -election agreement
prior to this time it seems unlikely that Ward would have told the employees that
they could not have a union or that he was not going to have an election because
they did not need one Carolyn Fay Hamilton s version does not refer to an elec-
tion at all although she did testify that Ward said there would be no negotiations
Margaret Taylor was asked if Ward discussed negotiations and replied that he just
said that he would not talk about the raise until the union matter was settled
Taylor did not mention any talk about an election Williams did not recall Ward
rising the word 'negotiation Hazelwood stated that Ward said that they were not
going to negotiate with the Union but her version mentioned nothing about an election.
On the other hand Ward s version of the talk was persuasively given is sup
ported by the testimony of some of the General Counsel's own witnesses and is a
logical account of what happened I credit Ward s version and reject the contrary
versions given by some of the General Counsels witnesses It is clear from the
foregoing that the allegations in paragraph 5(d) of the complaint that Ward
promised reclassifications and raises to employees if they rep ideated the Union and
in paragraph 5(e) of the complaint that Ward threatened to refuse to bargain with
the Union if the employees selected it as their bargaining representative have not
been established I shall recommend the dismissal of these allegations
Paragraph 5(f) of the complaint was stricken from the Complaint at the hear
ing at the conclusion of the General Counsels case in chief
B Bartleit's discharge
The complaint alleges that Joyce Bartlett s discharge on July 23 was violative of
Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act
William Potter, manager of Respondents Owensboro operation testified that he
posted some antiunion newspaper clippings on Respondents bulletin board 5 On
Thursday morning July 22 Potter noticed that these clippings were gone Potter
inquired of the washboy Pat Durbin if he knew who had taken the clippings
down and Durbin replied in the negative Potter than asked Artie Roberts who
worked near the bulletin board if she knew who took the clippings down and
Roberts replied that she did know and that others did too Potter repeated his
question and Roberts replied that Joyce Bartlett had taken the clippings down
Potter asked what Bartlett did with the clippings and Roberts replied that Bartlett
took them back in the order department Roberts also said that Margaret Gilmore
and Patsy McCarty had seen Bartlett take the clippings down Potter then talked
5 Three separate sheets were posted which were received in evidence as General Coun
eels Exhibits 4(c) (d) and (e)
198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Gilmore and Patsy McCarty who apparently verified Roberts' story. On Fri-
day Potter took signed statements from Roberts, McCarty, and Gilmore relating
to the incident.
Potter testified that he had been advised by his attorney, William Hutcheson, to
be extremely careful, and anytime he fired an employee if there was any question
at all about it, Hutcheson had instructed Potter to call him and get his advice.
Prior to discharging Bartlett, Potter called Attorney Hutcheson and, after talking
with him, Potter asked employee Bobby Calhoun to witness the conversation with
Bartlett.
Potter testified that when the work stopped in the plant at 3:30 p.m. on Friday,
he called Bartlett into his office, after having previously arranged to have Calhoun
stand at the door and listen. Potter asked Bartlett if she was through with her work,
and she said that she was. Potter asked Bartlett if she had taken "any posters off
that I [he] had put on the bulletin board" and she said that she did not know what
be was talking about Potter then told Bartlett that he had three signed statements
swearing that she had been seen taking the posters down that he had put there.
Bartlett denied knowing what he was talking about, and Potter then told her that
he was sorry but he could not use her any more. Bartlett inquired what that meant
and Potter told her that she was fired. Bartlett expressed the desire to see the signed
statements, but Potter refused to show them to her. Bartlett then left the office, and
Potter also left to go back in the plant. Bartlett apparently turned around and
started back for Potter's office and.seemed upset and told Potter that she intended
to see the statements. Potter refused saying that she was not going to see them
unless there was some legal authority that forced him to show them to her. Potter
added that they had nothing further to discuss and told Bartlett to leave.
Calhoun's testimony supports Potter's version of the discharge conversation, and
specifically supports Potter's testimony that he made inquiries of Bartlett regarding
taking the posters down before he fired her.
Bartlett's version is substantially the same as Potter's version except that she tes-
tified that Potter fired her before inquiring if she had taken the posters down. Bart-
lett testified that she had not told Potter the truth in the discharge conversation
when she denied knowledge regarding who took the posters down, and admitted
that she did in fact take the posters down, and that they were never returned to the
bulletin board.6 Bartlett also admitted falsifying her age in order to obtain employ-
ment with Respondent. In addition, Bartlett's testimony establishes that she first told
the representative of the State Unemployment Security Division who investigated
her claim for compensation that she had not taken the posters down, then admitted
taking them down, but asserted that she returned them about 5 minutes later. Bart-
lett also testified that she told the State representative that she took the posters
down, and kept them down. The Notice of Adjusted Determination issued by the
State dated September 2 (Respondent's Exhibit 2) reflects in part the following,
"Claimant states that she took the -paper down, read it and put it back within 5
minutes times. (sic)" It is to be noted,that. thi& document reflects the decision by
the State that Bartlett's discharge did not constitute misconduct because it was not
"intentional or wilful disregard of the employer's interests. Claimant was discharged
for reasons other than misconduct."
Thomas O. Hampton, department interviewer for the Division of Economic
Security, State of Kentucky, and the examiner who investigated the reason for Bart-
lett's discharge, testified that Bartlett at first denied taking the posters down. After
showing her the signed statements taken by Potter, Bartlett admitted that she had
taken the posters down, but stated that she put the posters back about 5 minutes
later. Hampton did not recall that Bartlett had ever thereafter told him anything
different. It is clear, therefore, that Bartlett's testimony was incorrect on this point.
An issue also arose at the hearing as to whether Bartlett had removed a letter to
employees from Potter's desk. Bartlett denied specifically that she had removed any
papers from Potter's desk. Rosetta Pearl Boulware, Janie Robertson, and Judy Wil-
liams all testified that they saw a one-page letter to employees from Potter which
Bartlett had in her possession, and Boulware and Williams testified that they saw
Bartlett take the letter from Potter's desk. Boulware testified that Bartlett read the
letter to some of the employees, and Robertson testified that she herself read the
letter. The letter, these. employees identified was a copy of Potter's letter to employ-
ees dated July 22, which was received in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibit
4(b). Late in the hearing Bartlett was recalled to the stand by the General Counsel
' 0 Bartlett testified she took the clippings down because Union Representative Foster had
said he would like to have them. She stated, however, that he did not ask her to get them.
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 199
as a rebuttal witness, and admitted removing a copy of one of Potter's letters to
employees from his office, and letting some of the women employees read it.
It is clear from the foregoing' that Bartlett has admitted giving false testimony on
the witness stand, and also that she made statements to both Potter and Hampton
which did not reflect the truth. Potter's testimony is supported by that of Calhoun
and Hampton, and was given in a most candid and persuasive manner. I credit
Potter's testimony, and reject that of Bartlett insofar as it is at variance with Pot-
ter's testimony. But this does not dispose of the issue as to whether Bartlett's dis-
charge was violative of the, Act. Potter testified that he decided to discharge Bart-
lett when he learned that she had taken the posters down. So the decision to fire
her was made before Bartlett lied to Potter during the discharge conversation, and
before Potter learned that she had taken a letter from his desk and shown it to
other employees. The issue is, therefore, whether Potter's testimony that he decided
to discharge Bartlett for taking the posters down was the reason for her discharge,
or whether, as General Counsel contends, this was just a pretext and the real reason
for her discharge was her leading part in the union activities among Respondent's
employees.
Approximately on July 1,7 as Potter was leaving his office, he met Artie Roberts
who appeared to be upset, and Potter asked her what was wrong. Roberts stated
that it was over this "union thing, they're mad at me because I am not for them."
Roberts stated further that some • of the employees had been picking on her and
threatening her, and that she "got mad and cussed them out." Roberts named Jo
Ann' Hazelwood; Joyce' Bartlett, and Edith Moore, and said "practically all of them
over in the Order Department" had threatened her. Roberts said that they were
going to see that she voted the way they wanted her to, and Potter asked who spe-
cifically made a threat to her, but Roberts refused to give him a specific name. Rob-
erts said that she did not want to get anyone fired, she just wanted to be left alone.
Potter told her that if anyone threatened her over any union to let him know and
he would fire them. Potter also testified that Roberts told him that she had attended
a union meeting at the home of Joyce Bartlett.
It is clear from the foregoing testimony of Potter, that he believed, as indeed he
candidly admitted, that ' Bartlett was involved' in the union activities. It is not clear
that Potter knew that she was a ringleader' in the union activities, in fact, Potter
denied even suspecting that she was. But assuming Potter did know of the full
extent of Bartlett's union activities,' and the record certainly establishes that she
was a leader in' the union activities , I cannot find on this record that she was dis-
criminatorily discharged. Potter testified 'that he personally decided to fire Bartlett
when he learned that she was the one who took the posters down. Potter testified
that he discharged Bartlett for what he considered to' be an act against his authority
as manager. Bartlett was at that time "more or less" in charge of the order depart-
ment. Although she was not a supervisor, it was her job to make up orders and to
mark them so they would be distributed properly on the routes. There were four
other employees in this department and she was "more or less" in charge of them.
Bartlett had had more experience than most employees. -Potter testified that he felt
that it would'-jeojiardize his' authority with the other girls in the order department
if Bartlett was permitted to "get away" with this conduct. In short, Potter fired her
for what he considered to be insubordination. I am persuaded that Potter's dis-
charge of this employee stemmed from her act in taking the posters down, and not
from her union activities as such. I base this finding on the generally favorable
impression I received-of Potter on the witness stand, the fact that his explanation of
his reason for discharging Bartlett was a completely reasonable one, and the fact
that he impressed me as being the kind Of man who would keenly resent any act
that he believed was in derogation of his authority. I therefore cannot find that
7 Potter placed the time of this conversation as approximately the month of June, but
did not recall the day of the month. The date July 1 is based on the testimony of Artie
Roberts who testified the conversation occurred about a week or 10 days after the June 22
meeting at Bartlett's house. Roberts was a confusing and rambling witness, and made a
very poor impression on me. I believe her testimony is accurate, however, as to the date
the conversation occurred , and also I accept her testimony that Potter handed her a copy
of his undated letter (General Counsel's Exhibit 4(a)) on this occasion Roberts testified
that she was absent due to illness the day before when this letter was given out to the
employees. I reject Roberts' testimony, which Potter's testimony does not support, that she
told Potter on this occasion that she had seen Bartlett remove a copy of his letter to
employees from his office. I believe if she had so informed Potter he would certainly have
referred to this in his later discharge conversation with Bartlett.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bartlett s act of removing posters from the bulletin board was merely a pretext for
her discharge For this reason I am unable to give the weight General Counsel
-desires to (1) the fact that Respondent discharged Bartlett for this offense rather
than imposing a less harsh penalty and (2 ) to the fact that Bartlett received no
warning in advance of her discharge Nor can I attach the significance General
Counsel desires to the fact that Potter took statements from witnesses which was
apparently not done in earlier discharges This is understandable in the light of the
instructions Potter had received from his attorney But this does not end the discus
sion because it might be argued that the act of taking these posters down was in
itself a form of union activity And in a sense it was these were antiunion clippings
and removing them was a proumon act But I do not believe this action falls within
the category of protected union activities I do not believe the Act grants employees
the protected right to permanently remove literature which an employer posts on
its bulletin board I believe that the right to regulate the posting of documents on
the bulletin board is a management prerogative which should be interfered with
-only where unlike here the evidence of discriminatory motivation is clear and
compelling I therefore find that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of evidence that Bartlett was discriminatorily discharged in violation
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act I shall recommend the dismissal of this allegation s
C The alleged unlawful refusal to bargain
There is no issue as to the appropriate unit , and I find that all production and
maintenance employees including route drivers of Respondent employed at its
,Owensboro Kentucky establishment exclusive of office clerical and professional
-employees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
There is an issue however as to the Union s majority status We turn now to the
evidence in this regard
William Moseley financial secretary of Local 1341 of the Carpenters Union
and business representative for Lower Ohio Valley Council of Carpenters testified
that Joyce Bartlett approached him on June 22 According to Moseley, Bartlett
asked him if there was some way the employees might be able to form a union
Moseley told her that if a majority of her employees would sign cards that they
would like to have an election of their own free will for a union , that it could pos-
sibly set up that way Moseley checked with higher authority en his union,
and was informed in effect that his union did not seek to represent employees in
classifications such as these so Moseley contacted James Foster a Teamster repre-
sentative and asked him if his union was interested in representing these employees
Foster said that his union was interested Moseley then talked to Bartlett about hay
mg a meeting and inviting employees to attend Moseley testified, go that s what
the purpose of the meeting was to have the people come down and we how many
were interested in signing cards to hold an election
About 12 employees attended the meeting held on June 22 in Bartlett s home and
Foster and Moseley were also present Foster informed the employees that he had
the cards and the employees asked questions which Foster answered about how the
Union would benefit them Foster told the employees "that he would have to have
these cards filled out to get a majority rule for an election Foster explained
that what he meant by majority was that two-thirds of the plant could sign cards
a two thirds majority would rule the election and if two-thirds of the employees
signed cards they would be in their legal rights to apply for an election Foster
also said if they won the election they could set up a bargaining committee and
neeotiate with the Company on benefits such as pay raises The card- were
then passed out and the employees present signed cards and returned them to
Foster Bartlett and some other girls took some cards to be passed out to other
employees and then returned to Moselev who agreed to give them to Foster
We turn now to Foster's version of the meeting of June 22 Foster testified that
he explained who he was to the employees there and pointed out the benefits
employees could gain by organizing Foster referred to the fact that his union had
organized the Owensboro Linen Service and referred to various benefits derived
from negotiations Foster stated that his union sought wage increases holidays and
8 In view of this finding I do not consider it necessary to reach Respondent s contention
that in any event Bartlett s conduct in removing papers from Potter s desk would have
caused her discharge or that such conduct renders her unfit for reinstatement
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 201
numerous fringe benefits during negotiations. Foster also stated that the cards were-
for a two-fold purpose. They were applications for membership in the Teamsters'
Union Local 215, and also the card was to be used to authorize the Union to,
legally represent them. Further that he told the employees the Union had to have
a good majority, "a great majority," and would not attempt it without such a major-
ity because if you do not have the support of the people you are wasting their time-
and your time. On cross-examination, Foster stated that it was his usual procedure
to tell employees what he was going to do with the cards, and that he did so that
night. Foster specifically denied, however, telling the employees that he was going
to send the cards to the Labor Board and ask for an election . Foster explained that
the reason he did not tell the employees the foregoing was because he had been
cautioned not to tell employees whom they were trying to organize that the cards
they were signing were "just for an election."
It is apparent that Moseley and Foster differ in their versions of what employ-
ees were told at the meeting regarding the purpose of having the cards signed.
Moseley had no discernible interest in the outcome of this hearing, and impressed'
me as a forthright witness with a good recollection of the events to which he
testified. Foster on the other hand did have an interest in the litigation. Foster did,
not impress me as being as reliable a witness as Moseley, and I note particularly
his evasiveness on cross-examination when he was unsure of the direction the cross-
examiner was taking. Under the circumstances, I accept the version of Union
Representative Moseley, and reject the contrary version of the meeting of June 22
given by Foster and by some of the employees .9
It is clear from the record that enough cards were signed at the meeting of
June 22 to vitiate the Union's majority if the cards are invalid by reason of what
employees were told by Foster at the meeting. Respondent contends in its brief
that the cards were invalid for this reason. Although I have found above, upon
the basis of Moseley's credited testimony, that the employees were told that the
purpose of signing the cards was to get an election, this is insufficient to invalidate
the cards. As the Board said in Shelby Manufacturing Company, 155 NLRB 464,
"The Board has held on a number of occasions that authorization cards are reli-
able evidence of majority status where the solicitor of the cards did not represent-
that they were to be used only to secure an election. Here, while several of the-
employees may have been told that the cards were to be used to secure an election,-
the Trial Examiner did not find any credible evidence to establish that any
employee who signed the card had been told by the Union that the only purpose'
of the cards was to obtain an election." Similarly, in the case at bar there is no,
credible evidence establishing that employees were told that the only purpose was
to obtain an election. In addition, and important in evaluating this question, the
cards are clearly a designation of the Union to represent the employees. The card;
reads as follows:
,e^ ^^^y No
^y^ 1l LICATI(N FOR MEMBERSHIP
6AUTHOR1,,Z'ATION FOR REPRESENTATION
" I -11C NIE S U Ci 1 kJN LO AL No 215
216 N Fulton Avenue - phone a25-5169
Evanw Ill, Ind-nn, 47710
l;/ my non tree I(', I h rehy requnf-1_0_ inh the ahnve nm•d -1- end " 1.au ' bnrl,. lo • Inlon, 11, uaer', V
rep'e ref ullces t6\ to, es a toile L ive har9e n,np soon, ' .11 matte" pe" a n,np 'o ' ale, of pay "eyes ho,.rs
n, ploy,, not, n the. c nd'I,ons and Iran , o rnp n• er n,t union 1 epano In be brood by
end w ,II c o mply wnlh all 'hr. laws rule, , regal ,I cons end c act ,'cf It be ^p undnr ,toM, Ihnl In the -11
M, appi'cnllon and nu II, -I.1- ha , been siyiicd a on9 the -, ryy°llallnn of m 'viioro employee, by tho unity, then
1 ag,ea ,het ' ha,e n , 'ght to r vok, , cancel
t
w,1hdaaw a n dur'ng the wgan , aallon elicit, of the union, tuch
porlod h-- net to aecoed one year from tha date he erf^c
O0 LiGATtOH
1, of my own free 'a,lt end ac cord, in the pretence st the ,. w Ile, ,e,, and o acrad honor , I do now
ewonsnt to keep the affeua of Chia Union stn, 'fly pnv e c aulhr,i ae, i to r veal t`,0µ m
..ill abide by It, icie r, both general and local, and -ill s_sa all honorable mean, to procure amploymant f;v
brother •nembn,s
I11 me ery po,,,ble effort to attend the meet ine , nil wdi pay at due , and a + rl, levied In accord
rte „Itw,h the iternational Brotherhood of Taunter, Chaul-eu,,, Nvc^ousemen and renlpe •,rr laws
I h,lher acre , that ahnllid ' t be ha r m,'., d„c co rred hit I have nude
n
a ml, twain-.-,r at tom ai111c01rsna,
em m mbershlp that 1 be debarred fro m all te-•ahls o ordcd by eh„ L- Ir'li be Oh-eh' to aut^rr,ty, o,d.,ty
In ine actry, , .,Pad fu' In words a, d a che 'Itab•o I„ lu-i amass or I— brolner m .
S
and roll: nary, f.
ntlf-,nol 've, aroerg a b'ot her, or ine hum 11-91d I f I my p=ace to ptea" t It r foll ae'cg ' arxa to '^ It
Vnlr and he-, c ant to subordinate it. tnt,ro,ta 10 tho.a of cr.,. other arganliaatlon •of which I am am, m nay
hareaft .r bacon,, a mamba,
To .11 shill 1 pledge my ,c•,d ward end hcnoe--to Cinema and keep the sa au long to I romsin- a mo,nbw
4 •h0 1hternatI-at Brothorheod of Teamster , Chauffcr ,J.vaniho,xaman and HClper,
0 For example Rosa Kathleen Estes Roberts and Edith Moore both testified in effect that-
Foster said nothing about an election on this occasion.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, I note that the question of how the Union would benefit employees was gone
into at this meeting. I therefore reject Respondent's contention that these cards were
invalid because of what the employees were told as to their purpose.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, I find that there were 23 employ-
ees in the appropriate unit on July 15, the date Respondent received the Union's
letter demanding recognition. The evidence establishes the validity of the cards of
the following persons who were employees of Respondent on July 15: Sherman
Cook, Rhinerson, Earl Cook, Gilmore, Robertson, G. Keller, C. Keller, Paul
Roberts, Williams. McCarty, Bartlett, and Hazelwood. The cards, as set forth above,
reflect in large bold print at the top: "Application for Membership" and "Authori-
zation for Representation," and just below that in slightly less bold print appears the
Union's name "Teamsters Union Local No. 215." I find and conclude from the tes-
timony of the foregoing named employees (except for Earl Cook) that they volun-
tarily signed their cards, and either read them or at least read the bold print at the
top. Although Earl Cook testified that he signed a card, he did not recall whether he
read it or not. Cook did testify, however, that his normal practice is to read what he
signs. I find and conclude therefore that the cards of the 12 employees named above
validly designated the Union to represent these employees, and that the Union repre-
sented a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit on July 15.10
We turn now to the question of whether Respondent's refusal to recognize the
Union was in bad faith. Foster credibly testified that following the meeting of
June 22, and as soon as sufficient additional cards were turned in, he went to his
office on June 29 and issued instructions to send the "warning letter" and also the
petition to the Labor Board. Both the letter and the petition were prepared that day
and Foster's information was that they were both mailed that day. The petition bears
the date of filing of June 30. The demand letter was not received by Respondent
until July 15. The letter reads as follows:
June 29, 1965
Mr. William H. Potter
Uniform Rental Service, Inc.
1216 Wing Avenue
Owensboro, Kentucky
Dear Mr. Potter:
This is to advise you that the Chauffeurs Teamsters, Local #215 affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, has been duly designated as collective bargaining rep-
resentatives by majority of your employees in a collective bargaining unit com-
posed as follows:
All production, maintenance and route drives at your Owensboro, Ken-
tucky establishment, excluding all other employees, clerical, professional
employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
We hereby demand to be recognized as the collective bargaining agents for
the employees in the above named unit and we request that you now desig-
nate a time and place within the next few days when we can meet to open
negotiations.
At such meeting designated by you, if you have any doubts that we have not
been designated by a majority of your employees in the above-named unit, we
shall be happy to prove our majority status by any means which may be mutu-
ally agreeable.
We look forward to an early meeting with you.
Very truly yours,
C. K. ARDEN, President
Attorney Hutcheson took the witness stand and testified that Respondent did not
answer the Union's letter based on his decision not to do so. Hutcheson testified that
the reason he made this decision was because the Union stated in its letter:
If you have any doubts that we have not been designated by a majority of your
employees in the above named unit, we shall be happy to prove our majority
status by any means which may be mutually agreeable.
Hutcheson testified that at the time the letter was received by Respondent, the
Union had selected the course it chose to follow in establishing its majority by filing
a petition. Respondent therefore did not answer the letter.
io In view of this finding, I do not reach the question of the validity of the cards of
Bishop, Small , Boulware, Taylor, and Artie Roberts.
UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE 203
The record reflects that Attorney Berns signed a consent-election agreement on
behalf of the Union on July 19, and that Attorney Hutcheson signed a consent-
election agreement on July 21 on behalf of the Respondent. (General Cousel's
Exhibit 2(b).) As noted above, the charge was filed on July 29, the complaint issued
on September 30, and on October 4 the Regional Director dismissed the Union's
petition becasue of the issuance of the complaint. (General Counsel's Exhibit 2(c).)
The issue is whether Respondent acted in bad faith in not recognizing and bargain-
ing with the Union. In John P. Serpa, Inc., 155 NLRB 99, the Board reiterated the
rule that the General Counsel has the burden of proving that the Employer has
refused recognition in bad faith, and that "this is usually based on evidence indicat-
ing that Respondent has completely rejected the collective-bargaining principle or
seeks merely to gain time within which to undermine the Union and dissipate its
majority." The evidence does not establish any unfair labor practices committed
after the Union's letter was received by Respondent on July 15. Therefore I cannot
find that Respondent refused recognition in order to gain time within which to under-
mine the Union. Nor do I find that Respondent's conduct herein demonstrates a com-
plete rejection of the collective-bargaining principle. The reason given by Hutcheson
for Respondent's action in not recognizing the Union cannot be said to be unrea-
sonable. In fact, it seems completely reasonable for Respondent to conclude in the
circumstances in this case that the Union had chosen to prove its majority by the
election route and therefore that no answer was necessary. And it is significant in
evaluating Respondent's motives to note that Respondent did agree to a consent
election. The only basis for concluding that Respondent acted in bad faith is Pot-
ter's letter to employees which was distributed to employees on about July 1. (Gen-
eral Counsel's Exhibit 4(a).) I have found above that Respondent violated Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act by this letter because it placed employees in fear of the loss of
their jobs if the Union was selected as collective-bargaining representative. But I do
not believe that this conduct demonstrates a complete rejection of the collective-
bargaining process. Respondent did not state or even suggest in this letter that it
would refuse to bargain with the Union. Nor do I believe this single instance of
unlawful conduct warrants the inference that Respondent would do so. Accordingly,
on the record as a whole, I find and conclude that the General Counsel has not sus-
tained his burden of proving that Respondent's refusal to recognize and bargain with
the Union was in bad faith, and I shall recommend the dismissal of this allegation.ii
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's activities found to be unfair labor practices in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
In view of my finding that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, I shall recommend
that it cease and desist therefrom and post an appropriate notice.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees including route drivers employer
at Respondent's Owensboro, Kentucky, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act.
4. The Union at all times material herein has been the exclusive representative of
all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
u Cf Ben Duthier, Inc., 157 NLRB 69; Strydel Incorporated, 156 NLRB 1185; Ham-
mond & Irving, Incorporated, 154 NLRB 1071.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is.
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tions 8 ( a)(1) and 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not violated Sections 8(a)(3) or 8 ( a)(5) of the Act, nor has
Respondent violated the Act in any way other than as found above.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Dee's of New Jersey, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Asso-
ciation, Local 1360, AFL-CIO. Cases 4-CA-3790 and 4-RC-
6528. October 20, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 7, 1966, Trial Examiner John F. Funke issued his Deci-
sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not,
engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that
such allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Gen-
eral Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party filed exceptions to
the Decision and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing 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 briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings herein , we are not to be considered. as.
approving the Trial Examiner's extensive commentary on precedents he considered ap-
plicable to the 8 ( a) (5) aspects of the case . ( See the Trial Examiner 's Decision , infra.)
We also correct certain statements in the Trial Examiner ' s report which are not sup-
ported by the record . However , these corections do not affect our agreement with his.:
ultimate findings herein : ( a) The Trial Examiner stated that employee Ranagan at
tempted to get employee Lind to sign a card on September 19, 1965, whereas the
testimony revealed that such attempt took place on September 9, 1965; (b) the Trial
Examiner stated that Ranagan's card was dated July 7, 1965 , but that Ranagan testified'
that he signed his card the last week in August, whereas the record reveals that his card'
Is dated 7/18/65 and lie testified that he signed his card on August 18 , 1965; (c) the
further finding that Respondent 's secretary -treasurer , David Dion , admitted on cross-
examination concerning the missing television set, that they had called in a part-time
garden supply salesman , Leon Henderson , who admitted that he loaned the television set
to the cook at the Varsity Drug Store to watch a ball game, whereas the record shows that-
this was the testimony of employee Leon Brown who was informed of this incident by,
President Lewis Dion and Leon Henderson.
161 NLRB No. 18.