New York Laundry

In the Matter of NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., D/B/A NEW YORK LAUNDRY, EMPLOYER and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 337, AFL Case No. 10-RC-211 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER SETTING ASIDE ELECTION October 19, 1949 On January 20, 1949, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election issued by the Board,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia). Upon the conclusion of the election the parties were furnished with a Tally of Ballots which shows that of the approximately 195 eligible voters, 181 cast ballots, of which 81 were for the Petitioner, 98 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. No other labor organization was on the ballot. On January 24, 1949, the Petitioner filed Objections to the Con- duct of the Election, alleging, among other things, that the Em- ployer's vice president and manager, prior to the election, addressed the employees at meetings during which he made threats of economic reprisals and promises of benefits in connection with the pending election. Thereafter, the Regional Director investigated the ob- jections and on March 24, 1949, issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Objections in which he found that the Em- ployer's vice president and manager, in his speeches to the employees made prior to the election, had threatened to close the laundry or turn it into some other type of business if the Petitioner won the election. The Regional Director accordingly recommended that the election of January 20, 1949, be set aside. The Employer filed ex- ceptions to the Regional Director's report. On May 17, 1949, pursuant to such order, a further hearing in this case was held at Jacksonville, Florida, before Charles A. Kyle, hear- ing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing of- 180 N. L. R. B. 1597. 86 N. L. R. B., No. 87. 635 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Upon the basis of the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct of the Election, the Regional Director's report, the Employer's exceptions thereto, and the entire record in this case 3 the Board 4 finds as follows : It is conceded that Woodell, the Employer's vice president and manager, addressed the employees during the week before the election. The Employer contends that these talks were confined to a written speech which Woodell read to the employees and that that speech was not coercive. There is no controversy as to the contents of the written speech, which we find to be privileged. The record establishes, how- ever, and we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that Woodell departed from the text of the written speech.5 The testimony is conflicting as to whether Woodell, during the course of his speeches, threatened to close the plant or turn it into some other type of business if the Union won the election. Employee Willie Mae Harrison, the Petitioner's witness, testified that Woodell said, ... but he would have to close it up if the union came in, because he couldn't afford to carry it on and he said that the, union was not much good anyway. It wouldn't affect him, but it would affect us employees because the union would take our money on our paydays, come in and collect our money off us, and we wouldn't have very much to go upon, but for his part, it wouldn't hurt him, because him and his baby and his wife During the course of the hearing , Board witnesses at times referred to remarks al- legedly made by Mr. Allen, one of the Employer 's supervisors . The Employer objected to any testimony concerning statements attributed to Mr. Allen, on the ground that the hearing ordered by the Board was for the purpose of adducing testimony confined to the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report and which related only to the speeches made by the Employer's vice president and manager. The hearing officer reserved ruling on this objection for the Board . In reaching our decision herein we have relied only upon the speeches made by the Employer 's vice president and manager. 3 On March 14, 1949, a complaint was issued by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region against the Employer (Case No. 10-CA-637), alleging that the Employer had violated the Act by engaging in certain conduct including the conduct which forms the basis of the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct of the Election. Thereafter, a hearing in the complaint case was held on Ajjril 12, 13, and 14, 1949. On August 16, 1949, the Board issued an order that cause be shown why the record in the complaint case should not be relied upon for the purpose of disposing of the issues in this proceeding. The Board having considered the responses filed by the parties , has decided to rely solely upon the record in this representation proceeding for the purpose of disposing of the issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's report. 4 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog, Members Houston and Gray]. 5 This is supported by the testimony of witnesses for both the Petitioner and the Em- ployer. Woodell testified that he told the employees "practically what is in the speech." .NEW YORK LAUNDRY 637 and his daughter could eat, but he didn't know what would become of us and our children, what would happen to 'us, that the door would be closed in our face without a job. Petitioner's witness, Sara Sacks, formerly employed as a floorlady for the Employer, testified that Woodell said, We now knew we had a job, and if they came in, we didn't know whether we would have a job or not. We would leave home late in the morning and didn't have time for breakfast, none of them objected to us going out and getting something to eat,• but if the union came in and we would not do that, and if the company was closed down, he would get along, but lots of us could not be able to do that. She testified further, He said before he would let the union come in there, he would close the plant down, that he wasn't going to be bothered with the union . . . He didn't say what he would do with it, he said he could turn it into a warehouse. Employee Hattie Robinson, another witness for the Petitioner, when asked whether Woodell said anything about closing down the laundry stated, He said he would close it before he would cooperate with the union. He would cooperate with it awhile, but he said he would close it. He could close it and he said he would. Turn it into something else . . . He said, into some kind of warehouse, I don't know what kind. On the other hand Woodell and employee witnesses for the Em- ployer categorically denied that Woodell had threatened to close the plant down or turn it into some other type of business if the Union won the election. Significantly, these employee witnesses also denied that Woodell made other remarks concerning the Union, which remarks appear in the written speech and admittedly were made. In view of the faulty memory thus displayed by the Employer's witnesses, of the fact that Woodell's assertion that he adhered to the written text of his speech is refuted by the testimony of the Employer's own witnesses, and in view of our finding that such a departure did in fact occur, we credit the testimony of employees Harrison, Sacks, and Robinson and find that vice president and Manager Woodell did threaten to close the plant or turn it into some other type of business if the Union were to win the election. The correctness of our con- 638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. elusion is verified by the Board's finding in the complaint case,° where the same issue was also litigated upon a charge filed by the' Petitioner., that Woodell made these threats in his preelection speeches in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We conclude and find that by Woodell's foregoing threats, the Em- ployer interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their right freely to select a bargaining representative. We therefore sustain the Petitioner's Objections to the Conduct of the Election, and, in accordance with the Regional Director's recom- mendations, shall set aside the election of January 20, 1949. We shall direct a new election at such time as the Regional Director advises us that the circumstances permit a free choice of a bargaining representa- tive among the employees concerned herein. ORDER IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on January 20, 1949, among the employees of New York Steam Laundry, Inc., d/b/a New York Laundry, of Jacksonville, Florida, be, and it hereby is, set aside. "Matter of New York Steam Laundry, Inc . d/b/a New York Laundry, 85 N. L. R. B., No. 227.