Wash Well No. 2, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 417 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

WASH WELL NO. 2, INC., ETC. 417
Wash Well No. 2, Inc ., Wash Well No. 3, Inc., Wash Well of
Tucson , Inc., Brickman Cleaners and Laundries , Inc., and
Robert Brickman Laundry and Dry Cleaners , Inc. and Laun-
dry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union,
Local 200. Case No. 28-CA-774. October 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 4, 1962, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Intermediate Report 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 Interme-
diate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report. The Respondent also filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
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 Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.'
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent's operations have a
"substantial impact on national defense," and on that basis concluded
that the Board had jurisdiction here. The General Counsel urges that
Respondent's operations meet the Board's retail standard and that
jurisdiction can be asserted under this standard, too. We agree with
the General Counsel that the Board's retail standard has been satisfied.
The five corporations named as Respondent herein constitute, as the
Trial Examiner found, a single employer generally engaged in the
laundry and dry cleaning business. While it is apparent that a por-
tion of Respondent's business is of a nonretail character, e.g., its serv-
ices performed for motels, it is clear that Respondent also deals with
retail customers. The Board has determined that it will assert juris-
diction over a single integrated enterprise, encompassing both retail
and nonretail operations, if the employer's total operations meet either
the Board's retail or nonretail jurisdictional standards 2 Here the
1 Interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum shall be added to the backpay to be com-
puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing f Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. For the
reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in that case, Member Leedom would not award
interest.
2 Harry Tancredi, 137 NLRB 743 ; Joseph Crowden and Thomas Crowden, a partnership,
d/b/a Indiana Bottled Gas Company, 128 NLRB 1441 ; Man Products, Inc., 128 NLRB 546
139 NLRB No. 37.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record establishes that in calendar year 1961, the gross business income
of Respondent was approximately $650,000. Included in this total is
the sum of $54,100 derived from the performance of contracts with
post exchanges located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Fort
Huachuca Army Proving Ground. Purchases of supplies originating
outside the State totaled about $1,400, and Respondent invested ap-
proximately $34,000 in capital equipment, which came to it from points
outside the State. As Respondent's annual gross volume of business
exceeded $500,000, the Board's retail jurisdictional standard has been
met. Further, we find that statutory, or legal, jurisdiction has been
shown not only by the $1,400 inflow of supplies but also by the capital
equipment purchases totaling $34,000. Accordingly, we find that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
In view of our holding that Respondent's operations meet the
Board's retail jurisdictional standard, we find it unnecessary to pass
upon the Trial Examiner's conclusion that jurisdiction may be asserted
under the "national defense" standard.
ORDER
The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial
Examiner.'
8 The notice appended to the Intermediate Report is hereby amended by deleting the
phrase "This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof ," and substitut-
ing therefor the phrase "This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting"
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came on to be heard before Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster in
Tucson, Arizona, on March 13, 14, and 15, 1962. The amended complaint 1 of the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board alleges that Wash Well of
Tucson, Inc., herein called Wash Well 1, Wash Well No. 2, Inc., herein called Wash
Well 2, Wash Well No. 3, Inc, herein called Wash Well 3, Brickman Cleaners and
Laundries, Inc., herein called Brickman 1, and Robert Brickman Laundry and Dry
Cleaners, Inc., herein called Brickman 2, all collectively referred to hereinafter as
the Respondent , had by unlawful interrogation and threats interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, and by the discharge of Gilbert O. Lopez, unlawfully discriminated in regard
to Lopez' tenure of employment . It is alleged that the Respondent had thus engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3 ) and Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act.
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, from my observation of the
witnesses , and in consideration of the briefs filed by counsel , I make the following:
1Issued February 5, 1962 , upon a charge filed December 28, 1901 , by Laundry, Dry
Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union , Local 200, herein called the Union
WASH WELL NO. 2, INC., ET C. 419
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Wash Well I was formed in 1952 to provide a drive-in laundry service. All
laundry and dry cleaning services are performed on its premises. Wash Well 2,
incorporated in 1954, is a similar operation at a different location. Wash Well 3,
incorporated in 1958, is a coin-operated laundry and also operates pickup stations
where customers may leave laundry and dry cleaning for finishing at another of
Respondent's laundries. Brickman 1 was incorporated in California and did not begin
operations in Arizona until August 1961. Backman 2 from February 1961 until
August of that year operated a family route laundry business in Tucson and also
performed laundry and dry cleaning on articles received at pickup stations located
within the limits of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and Fort Huachuca, both military
installations in Arizona. In August 1961, Brickman 2 transferred the laundry
operation to Brickman 1. From August 1961 to February 1962, Backman was in-
active. In the latter month it established some pickup stations for the receipt of
laundry and dry cleaning and had the work performed by Brickman I at the latter's
plant
Robert Brickman is the president of each of the five corporations. His two sons,
Melford and David, are vice president and treasurer and vice president and secretary
of each, respectively. All of the stock in the corporations is owned by Robert
Brickman except for a minority interest held in Wash Well 2 by David Brickman
Robert and Melford Brickman have their offices on the premises of Brickman 1
and it is here that the records of all five corporations are maintained. Melford
Brickman is the manager of Brickman 1. David Brickman is the manager of Wash
Well 1. James King manages Wash Well 2. Melford Brickman, David Brickman,
and James King are salaried employees of these separate corporations Although
the managers have authority to hire and discharge, the policy of the Respondent
is determined by its president, Robert Brickman Decisions upon major purchases
are made in consultation with Robert Brickman It is clear that he is the effective
operating head of Respondent's enterprises. In the circumstance I find that the Re-
spondent in its several corporate aspects constitutes a single employer within the
meaning of the Act 2
In calendar 1961 the gross business income of the several corporations was as
follows: Wash Well 1, $167,000; Wash Well 2, $148,000; Wash Well 3, $89,000,
Brickman 1, $217,000, Brickman 2, $28,000. Thus the gross business of the Re-
spondent in 1961 was approximately $650,000. The record leaves some uncertainty
as to the precise character of Respondent's business. It is clear enough that Wash
Well 1, Wash Well 3, and Brickman 2 deal primarily with retail customers. Wash
Well 2 has a retail custom and also what might be termed a wholesale trade in
that it performs laundry and dry cleaning for several motels Early in his testimony,
Robert Brickman said that Brickman I operated 10 or 12 trucks in servicing laundry
routes in and about Tucson and that the families served by these routes were the
customers of Brickman 1. Later he testified that the routemen owned the trucks and
were franchised by Brickman 1 to operate the routes. It is thus the sense of his
later testimony that the relationship between Brickman I and the routemen was
that of wholesaler to retailer and that the family customers were in fact customers
of the routemen. However, the work brought to Brickman 1 by reason of the
pickup stations at the two military installations is clearly of a character to be de-
scribed as a retail operation. It seems probable, considering Brickman's first re-
sponse to questions addressed to him on the point, that he considers the families on
the routes served by Brickman 1 to be the customers of that laundry and that the
laundry deals with them on a retail basis. But it is by no means improbable that
there exists a franchise arrangement with the drivers which in contemplation of law
constitutes them as separate business entities interposed between Brickman 1 and the
customers Brickman's later testimony is clearly to this effect. In this state of the
record I consider that I am left to speculation on the question whether Brickman 1
is solely a retail or a combined retail and nonretail operation. If the latter, then
a further question arises concerning the amount of gross receipts coming to Buckman
1 and Wash Well 2 from nonretail trade This may be a very substantial percentage
of the Respondent's $650,000 gross income and, of course, it may not In the cir-
cumstances there exists no firm basis fora finding that the Respondent's income from
The Family Laundry, Inc, Standard Coat. Apron and Linen Service, Inc., 121
NLRB 1619
672010-63-vol 1;9 -28
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
retail operations meets the $500 , 000 figure established by the Board as a condition
to an assertion of jurisdiction.
In 1961 , the Respondent invested approximately $ 34,000 in capital equipment
which came to it from points outside the State of Arizona There is testimony
which is believed that all of this equipment has a probable useful life of several years
and that some of it at least will not need replacement for about 20 years. As the
bulk of these purchases , if not all of them , are of a nonrecurring character , the Board
will not base a finding of jurisdiction solely upon them. Purchases of supplies
originating outside the State of Arizona totaled, according to the computation of the
General Counsel, about $ 1,400. Although this amount is not de mmimus and
is sufficient to give the Board statutory jurisdiction , it is far short of the $50,000
inflow required to satisfy the jurisdictional standard adopted by the Board for a
nonretail enterprise I do not find on the basis of this record that the business
of the Respondent is sufficient to meet either the retail or nonretail standards adopted
by the Board.
In March 1958 , Tucson Laundry Dry Cleaners and Linen Service, Inc ., herein
called Tucson Laundry, entered into an agreement with Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base Exchange to operate a washeteria and a laundry and dry cleaning pickup delivery
station on the base. This agreement, renewed in March 1960, has a terminal date
of March 26 , 1962. By this arrangement, Tucson Laundry was provided space in
buildings on the base for its operations , and paid a percentage of its gross receipts
as rent to the exchange . In February 1961, Brickman 2 succeeded to this and some
other aspects of the business of Tucson Laundry and operated the washeteria and
pickup station on the base, presumably as an assignee of Tucson Laundry, until
Brickman 1 took over the business in August of that year . In 1961 Brickman 1 and
Brickman 2 grossed $47,000 from business at the base.
On June 2, 1961 , Brickman 2 entered into a similar agreement with United
States Army Eelectronic Proving Ground Exchange at Fort Huachuca . Brickman 2
was provided space at the fort for laundary and dry cleaning pickup and delivery.
In August 1961, Brickman 1 took over the performance of this contract . In 1961,
Brickman 1 and Brickman 2 derived revenues of $7,100 from Fort Huachuca
business.
It is argued in behalf of Respondent that the contracts in respect to Davis-Monthan
and Fort Huachuca are not with the Federal Government or with a military agency
It is clear enough that the exchange is an activity of the departments of the Army
and the Air Force Although it is true that no appropriated funds of the United
States are involved, I find that these arrangements are with agencies of the United
States Government . It is further argued that the performance of laundry and
dry cleaning services for personnel on the bases , both civilian and military, can
not be said to have a "substantial impact on national defense " so as to bring into
play the Board's policy in respect to asserting jurisdiction over enterprises so de-
scribed .3 Although I am not entirely certain just what the Board may have had in
mind in using the words "substantial impact on national defense," it seems unlikely
that it intended thus to determine whether the services in question were necessary
or important . It is always possible, and , no doubt, sometimes probable, that one
not directly concerned with the operation under scrutiny would be quite unaware
of the many reasons impelling responsible Government officials to contract for serv-
ices at a military base. I doubt that the Board would exercise a judgment in this
respect. It is sufficient for me, as I think it is for the Board, that the responsible
exchange officers at Davis-Monthan and at Fort Huachuca have concluded that it
is in the interest of the operations at these two bases to permit the Respondent to
do business there Because the amount of business done by the Respondent at the
two bases exceeds $50 , 000 annually , I conclude and find that the described opera-
tions exert a substantial impact on national defense as this phrase is used in the
decision cited
The motion of counsel for the Respondent made at the hearing and renewed in
his brief to dismiss the complaint upon jurisdictional considerations is hereby denied.
T find that the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent 's operations , that it is such
jurisdiction as would have been asserted under the standards prevailing on August 1,
1959, and that the Board thus has no discretion to decline it.
I find that the operations of the Respondent are in and affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and ( 7) of the Act.
"Ready Mixed Concrete & Materials, Inc, 122 NLRP, 318-320
WASH WELL NO. 2, INC., ETC. 421
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Union , concededly a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act, some time in November 1961 solicited employees of the Respondent to
become its members. About December 11 or 12, Robert Brickman spoke to the
employees at Brickman 1, telling them that he had heard of the organizing effort
and that they could become union members if they desired . Brickman told the
employees that he thought he had treated them pretty well over the years and had
done things for them not ordinarily to be expected of an employer. In his testimony,
Brickman explained that he had frequently lent some sums of money to the em-
ployees at Brickman 1, and at the other laundries , had aided employees faced with
garnishment proceedings , and in general had attempted to assist them in such diffi-
culties. Mary Segura, then an employee at Brickman 1, testified that Brickman on
this occasion said he had often helped the employees in matters of loans but that
they should not expect such aid from him in the future . On December 13, em-
ployee Gene Puga , according to Brickman , told Brickman that he had signed a
card for the Union while he was intoxicated and that he desired to withdraw his
application for membership Obligingly Brickman had his secretary type a with-
drawal request which Puga promptly signed . Mary Segura reflecting , she testified,
that unless she withdrew from the Union she would lose a source of financial relief
in Brickman , followed Puga 's example. Two other employees also signed the
withdrawal request.
About December 27, according to Robert Brickman , James King, manager of
Wash Well 2, said that a number of employees there had inquired of him about
how they might withdraw from the Union . Brickman supplied King with the same
form of withdrawal request that had been signed by employees at Brickman 1.
When he received this, King testified , he gave it to an employee at Wash Well 2,
Mattie Hunter , who had asked him how she might get out of the Union . According
to King, Hunter signed the paper and then passed it around to other employees.
King told the employees on this occasion that they had a right to join the Union
if they wanted to and that they were not required to sign a withdrawal . Barbara
Duvo testified that King said that although he had nothing against unions, the one
attempting to organize the laundry employees was not a good one. King told the
employees , still according to Duvo, that Robert Brickman would not tolerate a
union, that a result of joining would be that Brickman would put up a "false front"
and abandon dry cleaning , and that many would be out of work. Duvo signed
the request . Georgia Gustin testified that she didn 't pay much attention to what
King said although she signed the withdrawal request. She did recall , however,
that King said "he was going to send the clothes out to the other place " Mildred
Gipson testified that King said that the employees could sign the withdrawal request
if they cared to but that he went on to say that Robert Brickman would rather do
the work at one store than have the Union come in. Mattie Hunter testified that
King told her sometime prior to December 27 that rumors about a union had come
to him and asked Hunter if she had joined . Hunter answered that she had and
inquired if King knew of any way that she could get out of the Union. Later on
King gave her the withdrawal request, and Hunter was the first to sign. King
asked her , Hunter testified , to tell the other employees that they could sign it or
not, as they desired
Based upon my observation of the demeanor of the several witnesses in respect
to the words spoken by Robert Brickman and James King in connection with the
withdrawal request , I am convinced and find that Segura, Duvo, Gustin, Gipson,
and Hunter testified truthfully in attributing to Robert Brickman or James King,
as the case may be, the words set forth in their several testimonies . Segura and
Duvo in particular , I thought , demonstrated a forthrightness which made their testi-
mony convincing . Both Brickman and King, on the contrary , were evasive. I find
that, about December 11 or 12, Robert Brickman told employees at Brickman 1
that membership in the Union would signal an end to the benevolent practice of
giving them financial assistance and that he thus encouraged employees to withdraw
from the Union . I find that on or about December 28, James King suggested to
employees that if the Union came in, unemployment would result and that Robert
Brickman would close some one or more of the laundries. This , I find, was cal-
culated to encourage employees to withdraw from the Union as many of them
thereupon did By the threats to discontinue benefits 4 and to close a portion of
the business , and in that context by aiding employees to withdraw from the Union,5
4 English Mica Company, 92 NLRB 766, 767
a Shelly Gordon and Palmer Gordon , pai tners d/b/a Lakeland Cement Company, 130
NLRB 1365, 1366
422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
Gilbert Lopez worked as laundryman at Wash Well 2 for nearly 6 years. On
November 29, 1961, he asked King for a raise , and was told that there was no
probability of receiving it. On this occasion , according to King, Lopez said that he
would quit and, still according to King, placed the date for leaving as some time
in February 1962. Lopez denied that he said anything about quitting his job and
testified that although he had several months earlier looked about for other work,
in late November he was not actively seeking and had no prospect of another job
Lopez had, however, been one of two employees active in soliciting members for
the Union. On December 1, according to Mary Segura, King asked her if she
was connected with the Union. Segura answered that she was; that she had talked
with Lopez on the telephone about it. King did not deny that he questioned Segura
about the Union and conceded that she said Lopez "might be in the Union." King
testified that he considered this to be no more than a rumor and thought little of it.
At the close of the workday on December 22, King told Lopez that he was dis-
charged. According to King, Lopez, although a highly capable laundryman, had
in the past several months evidenced a disinterest in his work with the result that
he did not perform it to King's entire satisfaction. King explained that January
and February were the busiest months at Wash Well 2 and that he could not sensibly
expose the business to the possibility of being without a laundryman in such a period
Learning that Jerry McArter, an employee at Wash Well 1, was dissatisfied with
his job there, and in the belief that McArter with some additional training could
take over the work performed by Lopez, he discharged Lopez and arranged for
McArter to replace him, fearing that delay might operate disadvantageously; McArter
might find other employment and thus be unavailable for transfer. King testified
that he arranged with David Brickman at Wash Well 1 and cleared the matter with
Robert Brickman before discharging Lopez and arranging for his replacement by
McArter. King denied that any consideration of union membership or activity
played any part in the decision to discharge Lopez.
As has been said , Lopez denied in his testimony that he made any mention of
quitting to King on November 29. I am not wholly convinced that Lopez' recollec-
tion is entirely accurate in this particular. It seems not unlikely that when the
requested raise was denied to him that Lopez might well have said that he would
have to find a better paying job in order to support his family.6 On December 22,
according to Lopez, King said that he had been talking to Robert Brickman and that
Brickman was "so damned mad he was jumping that high" (here the witness in-
dicated with his arm a distance of about 30 inches from the floor) because he
had discovered what Lopez was doing. Lopez asked King when he was to leave
the job, and King answered "immediately," commenting that it was bad to discharge
a man just before Christmas but that Backman thought only of his own pocketbook.
King then asked Lopez what kind of a job he would like to get. Lopez answered that
just about anything that paid union wages King said that unions were "a bunch of
crooks" and suggested that Lopez might find work as a guard at a missile site. King
went on to say that he was going to call a friend of his who might assist Lopez in
finding work Leaving the plant,? Lopez went to the Union's office and, at the
suggestion of a union representative, telephoned King and said that he had to give
a reason for discharging in order to get some unemployment benefits. According
to Lopez, King said, "Well, Gil, you know what you've done." Lopez asked if it
was because of the Union and King answered equivocally "Well, you know what
position I am in, I can't say yes or I can't say no." King then asked if Lopez would
be home on Sunday and said that he would attempt to find work for Lopez.
David Brickman testified that the arrangement to transfer McAarter from Wash
Well I to Wash Well 2 was made shortly before it took place. Indeed, McArter
left Wash Well I before any replacement for him there had been arranged, with the
result that David Brickman found it necessary to work as a laundryman there for
about a week. Then a new employee to take over this job was hired When it is
6 Virginia Scott, an employee at Wa°h Well 2, and David lrickman both testified that
King told them in late November that Lopez had expressed an intention to quit.
7 Lopez was delayed in leaving Wash Well 2 because his final check had not been pre-
paied. The amount due to him was calculated at Respondent's main office at Brickman 1
and sent over by a driver to Wash Well 2 This circumstance suggests that the discharge
had not been decided upon until late in the afternoon of December 22 Otherwise it seems
probable King would have had the check at hand at the time he told Lopez of the
termination
WASH WELL NO. 2, INC., ETC. 423
considered that Lopez was discharged on a Friday before he had finished his
normal workweek of 6 days and that McArter was brought in to take his job at a
time when no replacement for McArter had been obtained, it becomes obvious that
the discharge was made precipitately. If the Respondent and King had been con-
cerned with the possibility that Lopez might quit in February, leaving them without
a laundryman, it is obvious that the discharge would not have taken place as it did.
Surely if McArter was regarded as a desirable replacement, an arrangement would
have been made to bring in a substitute for him at Wash Well 1 before making the
transfer. I am convinced and find that Lopez testified truthfully and accurately
concerning his final conversation with King on the occasion of his discharge. The
graphic description he attributed to King of Robert Brickman's reaction to what Lopez
"was doing" is believed. I also credit Lopez in his account of the subsequent
telephone conversation with King in which the latter failed to deny that considera-
tions of union activity motivated the discharge. It is of course obvious then that the
Respondent did not on December 22 have any belief that Lopez had other employ-
ment in view. The somewhat apologetic offer of King to assist Lopez in such a
quest is evidence that King was aware that Lopez had no employment prospect.
Considering Respondent's opposition to the possibility of having the Union represent
its employees, the circumstances surounding Lopez' discharge, including the timing,
and the angry reaction of Robert Brickman to Lopez' actions, I find that Lopez
was discharged on December 22 because of a well-founded belief on the part of
the Respondent that he was an employee active in promoting the interests of the
Union.
I find that by the discharge of Lopez on December 22, the Respondent discouraged
membership in and activity in behalf of the Union and that it thereby violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
M. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The operations of Respondent described in section I, above, in connection with
the unfair labor practices described in section II, 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 obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent violated the Act in certain particulars, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take cerain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that the Respondent has discriminatorily discharged Gilbert Lopez,
it will be recommended that it offer to him full and immediate reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position at Wash Well 2 and that he be made
whole for any loss of pay from December 22, 1961, the date of his discharge,
to the date of offer of reinstatement less his net earnings during that period. Backpay
shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wash Well 1, Wash Well 2, Wash Well 3, Brickman 1, and Brickman 2
constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By discharging Gilbert Lopez on December 22, 1961, the Respondent has dis-
couraged membership in a labor organization and has thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By the discharge, by threatening to withdraw employee benefits, by warning
employees of possible shutdown and unemployment, by questioning the employees in
connection with their union membership or interests, and in that context aiding em-
ployees to withdraw from the Union, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon,
the entire record in the case, I recommend that Wash Well No. 2, Inc., Wash Well
No. 3, Inc., Wash Well of Tucson, Inc., Brickman Cleaners and Laundries, Inc., and
Robert Brickman Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc., all of Tucson, Arizona, their of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership ,in Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers
International Union, Local 200, or in any other labor organization of their em-
ployees, by the discriminatory discharge of any of their employees or by discrdminat-
ing in any other manner in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment.
(b) Threatening to withdraw benefits or to lessen work opportunity, or question-
ing employees concerning their interest in the Union or in any other labor organiza-
tion, or in such context aiding employees to withdraw from the Union, or in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the-
Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or
all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Offer Gilbert Lopez immediate and full reinstatement to his former or sub-
stantially equivalent position at Wash Well 2, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the
section of this report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents,
for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary or useful to
an analysis of the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(c) Post at the several locations where employees of the Respondent are employed,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-eighth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted by it 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 ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-eighth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps have been
taken in compliance 9
It is recommended that unless on or before 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Recommended Order the Respondent notifies the said Regional Director in writing
that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations. the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the action aforesaid.
S In the event that this Recommended Order he adopted by the Board, the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order "
e In the event that this Recommended Order be 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 ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommended order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
SAVOY LEATHER MFG. CORP. 4255
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye
House Workers International Union, Local 200, or any other labor organiza-
tion, by discharging employees, or by discriminating against them in any other
manner in regard to their hire, tenure of employment , or any term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL offer Gilbert Lopez immediate :and full reinstatement to his former
or substantially equivalent position at Wash Well 2, without prejudice to his
seniority or other rights and privileges , and make him whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of his discharge.
WE WILL NOT by threatening to discontinue benefits or to close some portion
of the laundry operations or by interrogations or in such context by aiding
employees to withdraw from the Union, or in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization , to join or assist the above named Union or any other labor organ-
ization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WASH WELL No. 2, INC., WASH WELL No. 3, INC.,
WASH WELL OF TUCSON, INC., BRICKMAN CLEANERS
AND LAUNDRIEIS,INC., AND ROBERT BRICI MAN LAUN-
DRY AND DRY CLEANERS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify the above-named employee presently serving in the Armed
Forces of the United States of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Resident Office, 230
North First Avenue, Federal Bldg ., Phoenix , Arizona, Telephone Number, 261-3717
if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Savoy Leather Mfg. Corp. and International Leather Goods,
Plastics & Novelty Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No.
1-CA-3755. October 24, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 27, 1962, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in
another certain unfair labor practice, and recommended that the
complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegation. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief, which were concurred in by the Charging Party.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
139 NLRB No. 28.