New York Steam Laundry, Inc.

In the Matter of NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., ARROW ZORRIC DRY CLEANERS , AND NEW YORK LAUNDRY, EMPLOYER and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 337, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 10-RC-241 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER February 10, 1949 On December 30, 1948, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election 1 in this case. Thereafter, the Em- ployer filed with the Board objections 2 to this Supplemental Decision, wherein the Employer, inter alia, moved the Board for a stay of execu- tion of the aforementioned Direction of Election and, in effect, urged the Board to reconsider its Supplemental Decision. The various matters raised by the Employer are treated seriatim: 1. The Employer asserts that it has been prejudiced by not having proper knowledge of the basis upon which the Board reconsidered the original Decision and Order 3 in this case. As indicated in the Supple- mental Decision, the Board reconsidered the matter at the request of a party to the proceeding 4 and based its reappraisal of the issues upon the original record made at the hearing in which the Employer participated.5 2. The Employer asserts that the Supplemental Decision does not conform with the original petition as amended at the hearing, where- upon the Employer contends that the Supplemental Decision is not based upon a properly amended petition. The original petition sought certification of a unit of employees of "New York Steam Laundry, Inc., and Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaners." As amended at the hearing, the petition sought a unit of employees of "New York Laundry, [including retail and wholesale departments] and Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaning Plant." After the conclusion of the 1 80 N. L. R B. 1597. 2 Entitled "Protest to Order and Direction of Election." 3SON L. R.B.4. a We find no merit in the Employer's contention insofar as it suggests that the Board lacks power to reconsider its own decisions . Matter of Advance Pattern, 80 N. L . it. B. 29. 3 The Employer also filed a brief which was considered by the Board. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 103. 591 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing the Petitioner filed a brief, a copy of which was served upon the Employer's counsel, in which the Petitioner requested elections in separate units at New York Laundry (including retail and wholesale departments) and Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaners, respectively, asserting that the evidence indicated the propriety of such separate units. Throughout the proceeding and apart from other considerations, the Employer contended that a separate unit be established at Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaners as well as separate units at the New York Laundry retail department and the New York Laundry wholesale department, respectively. In its Suplemental Decision, the Board established a single appropriate unit comprising employees of both the retail and wholesale departments of New York Laundry. Clearly, this unit determination was within the scope of the petition, as amended, and based upon considerations (discussed hereinafter) which were fully litigated by the parties, at the hearing and in their briefs. 3. The Employer properly asserts that the Supplemental Decision erroneously stated the Employer's position concerning the inclusion of retail and wholesale departments in a single unit. As stated above, and our Supplemental Decision is hereby accordingly amended, the Employer contended that the wholesale and retail departments should constitute separate units. The record conclusively shows that the retail and wholesale depart- ments are operated as an integrated enterprise. The departments are individually housed in separate, but physically connected, buildings; the general manager of New York Laundry decides personnel and operating policies for both departments; the clerical and bookkeeping work for both departments is done in one office, and there are no sep- arate bookkeeping operations for the two departments; there is a sim- ilarity of work classifications and of employee skills of both depart- ments; a single crew does the maintenance work for both departments without cost allocation to the respective departments; receipts from both departments go into a single account; and, a single group insur- ance covers the employees of both departments. In support of its position, the Employer asserted that the departments are located in separate buildings; separate records, including pay rolls, are main- tained; the wholesale department buys its steam from the city; each department has its own trucks ; and there is no interchange of produc- tion personnel between the departments. Upon the entire record in the case, including a consideration of the contentions of the parties, we find that the afore-mentioned depart- ments are closely integrated in the operation of the Employer's laun- dry business. Accordingly, we affirm our determination that the unit as described in the Supplemental Decision of December 30, 1948, is NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC. 593 appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 4. The Employer properly asserts with reference to Item 1, para- graph 4, of the Supplemental Decision, that the annual gross business of the retail department is approximately $531,000, as correctly stated in our original Decision, and not $231,000. The Supplemental Deci- sion is accordingly hereby amended 6 5. In support of its contention respecting the assertion of jurisdic- tion in the matter, the Employer refers to another recent decision 7 wherein the Board declined jurisdiction on facts similar to those at bar. The Board was aware of that Decision, and our action in the Supplemental Decision in this matter was taken advisedly. To dispel any further misunderstanding, we state explicitly what we believe we earlier did by implication, namely, that insofar as the Supplemen- tal Decision is inconsistent with prior decisions, the law of such prior decisions is hereby overruled. Except as they may be consistent with the above findings and con- clusions, the Employer's objections to the Supplemental Decision and Direction of Election in this matter are without merit, and are hereby denied. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Order. This typographical error does not affect our finding that the New York Laundry is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that a question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4 Matter of Red Star Industrial Service, 80 N. L. R B. 847.