Yale Laundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of LIBERTY LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. T/A YALE LAUNDRY
and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A. F. L
Case No. 5-R-1891.-Decided July 10, 1945
Mr. Louis A. Speiss, _of Washington, D. C., for the Company.
II'Ir Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. Robert A Wilson, of Washington, D. C .
for the Union.
Mr. Bruce C Heath, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Laundry Workers International Union,
A. F. L., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Liberty
Laundry Company, Inc., T/A Yale Laundry of Washington, D. C., herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Marvin Wahl, Trial Examiner
Said hearing was held at Washington, D. C., on May 12, 1945. The Com-
pany and the Unions appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to he heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence hearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Liberty Laundry Company, Inc., T/A Yale Laundry, is a District
of Columbia corporation . The Company is engaged in a general laundry
and dry cleaning business in the District . In its operations the Company
'Cleaners and Laundry Workers Union , C 1 0 was served with notice of bearing but did not
appear.
62 N. L R . B., No. 164.
1235
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
carries on both a wholesale and retail laundry service. The Company main-
tains a plant and several branch retail stores within the District, where
clothing and laundry are received which are processed in the plant and
returned to the customers. During the year 1944, the annual purchases of
the Company amounted to approximately $110,000, and during the same
period, its annual gross sales approximated $500,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
a
The Laundry Workers International Union, affiliated with the American.
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Union, by an undated letter, served notice on the Company in March
1945 that it represented substantial numbers of the Company's employees
and requested a conference for the purpose of negotiating an agreement.
The Company replied, through its attorney, by letter date March 21, 1945,
suggesting a conference the following week. For some reason the conference
did not materialize and the petition in the instant case was filed on March
30, 1943.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number 6f employees
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of all of the employees of the Company in its
several departments, which include marking, washing, flat-work, assorting,
shirts, press and hand ironing, miscellaneous production, dry cleaning,
miscellaneous indirect, sales, and wholesale delivery department ; but ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, branch store employees, the mechanic,
firemen, engineer, engineer's assistant, retail delivery route salesmen, the
office managers, route supervisors, and all other supervisory employees
The Company does not generally oppose such a unit but contends that it
should also include the retail delivery route salesmen, since the Union has
asked for the inclusion of the drivers in the wholesale delivery department.
The evidence reveals that the Company, under normal operations, em-
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 115 authorization cards, that the navies
of 102 persons appeal ing on the cards were listed on the Cbmpany's pay troll of Apt it 7, 1945, which
contained the names of 174 employees in the appropriate unit, and that the catds wcic Gated
betwceu October 1944 and Febtuaiy 1945
LIBERTY LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC. 1237
ploys three drivers and five helpers in the wholesale delivery department.
Two of the drivers operate 2/ ton trucks and are assisted by helpers. The
drivers pick up soiled articles and linens at hotels and clubs and carry them
to the plant and deliver them after they have been laundered. Most of the
customers of the wholesale laundry department are credit customers and
the drivers make no collections; however, some of the smaller customers
of this department pay cash and the drivers make these collections. The
drivers and helpers handle large, heavy bundles. The third driver works as
a dispatcher in the wholesale flat-work department preparing articles for
the next delivery. All of the employees of this department are under the
supervision of the assistant superintendent. The drivers are paid a fixed
salary and they have the same hours and working conditions as the plant
employees.
The retail delivery route salesmen each drives a three-quarter ton truck
and they do nothing but outside work. They have no helpers. They pick up
and deliver laundry and dry cleaning for residential customers. They are
required to make collections and account for the money so collected Each
has a running account on the Company's books, and has on deposit $100 to
cover any shortages. These drivers receive a commission of 14 percent of
their gross sales with a guaranteed minimum, and in their spare time they
are expected to sell laundry service and secure new customers. The hours
of employment vary among the several drivers, depending upon when they
can find their customers at home. They also have power to investigate and
adjust complaints and claims when they think that it would further their
own interests. Their weekly average earnings are considerably higher than
the wages of the drivers in the wholesale delivery department ; also they
are under different supervision' There is no interchange of drivers between
the wholesale delivery department and the retail route salesman. Thus, it
appears that the terms, hours of employment, and working conditions of
the wholesale drivers are considerably different from those of the retail
drivers. The responsibilities of the retail drivers are greater and their suc-
cess depends upon their personal contacts. It is evident that the retail drivers
are essentially salesmen while the wholesale drivers are closely integrated
with the Company's plant operations, and allied in interest with the inside
plant employees. We shall include the drivers in the wholesale delivery
department and exclude the retail delivery route salesmen.'
We find that all the employees of the Company, including those in the
marking, washing, flat-work, assorting, shirts, press and hand ironing,
miscellaneous production, dry cleaning, miscellaneous indirect, sales,' and
3 Their immediate superiors are the route supervisors.
4 See Matter of Manhattan Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 1339; Matter of Elite Laundry Co., Inc.,
53 N. L. R. B. 1212.
,There are four employees in the sales department at the plant. They do not actually sell the
Company's service , but prepare delivery lists , assist in assorting bundles , search for lost articles,
etc.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wholesale delivery departments, but excluding office and clerical employ-
ees, branch store employees, the mechanic, firemen, engineer, engineer's
assistants, retail delivery route salesmen, route supervisors, office manager,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
V THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. ,
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with Liberty Laundry Company,
Inc.. T/A Yale Laundry, of the District of Columbia, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during the pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by Laundry Workers International Union, A. F. L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
I