Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati

LAUNDRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CINCINNATI 543 It has been found that the Respondent discriminatorily , and to discourage union activity and membership, discharged employees Boston and LaRocca. The Trial Examiner will recommend that the Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without loss of seniority or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by payment to each of them of a sum of money he would normally have earned from the date of the discrimination against him to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during said period, and in a manner consistent with Board policy as set out in F . W. Woolworth Com- pany, 90 NLRB 289 and Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440. It will further be recommended that the Respondent , upon reasonable request, make available to the Board and its agents all payroll and other records pertinent to the analysis of the amounts due as back pay. Since the violations of the Act which the Respondent has committed are related to other unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, and the danger of their commission in the future is reasonably to be anticipated from its past conduct, the preventive purposes of the Act may be thwarted unless the recommendations are coextensive with the threat. To effectuate the policies of the Act, therefore, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed by the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Insurance Agents' International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of George Boston and Frank P. LaRocca, thereby discouraging membership in, and activity on behalf of, the above-named labor organization , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati and AFL- CIO Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Peti- tioner. Case No. 9-RC-3499. April 1, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry David Camp, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fan- ning]. 1 The Intervenor, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers International Union, Local 248, was permitted to intervene ion the basis of its contractual interest. 123 NLRB No. 77. 5 '44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, here- inafter called the Association, is a group of laundry, dry cleaning, and linen rental service establishments. Some of these employers are corporations, some are partnerships, while still others are single proprietorships. The Association includes retail establishments, dealing directly with the consuming public, as well as employers which provide services to hotels, restaurants, and other business establishments. Thus, the latter group is engaged in activities which are nonretail in character.' The Board has held that where an employer engages in both retail and nonretail activities, the non- retail jurisdictional standard will be applied.3 Here, during 1957, the Zeigler Towel Supply Co., an Association member, located in Cincinnati, Ohio, performed services for customers located in the State of Kentucky in the amount of $159,000. As the Association has direct outflow in excess of $50,000, it meets the Board's standards for asserting jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises' The Board finds that the Association is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case. 2. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner is fronting for its Local 248, which has not com- plied with the filing requirements of Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The Petitioner has issued a charter for Local 248, but that local has held no organizational meetings, has elected no officers, and has received no funds. However, the petition filed herein lists Local 248 as an affiliate having or soliciting members in the unit involved or which will serve such employees in the event the Peti- tioner is certified. The record also shows that the Petitioner re- quested recognition of the Association in the name of Local 248 and that the Petitioner submitted some authorization cards which desig- nated Local 248 as bargaining representative. Under these circum- stances, while we shall direct an election, we shall issue no certifica- tion to the Petitioner in the event it wins the election, unless Local 248 complies with the filing requirements of Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Both the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purpose of dealing with employers on behalf of employees concerning griev- ances, labor disputes, wages, hours, and other conditions of employ- ment. The Board finds that both the Petitioner and Intervenor are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act, and that both labor organizations claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 2 Buesey-Williams Tire Co.. lve., 122 NLRB 1146: J. S. Latta & Sons , 114 NLRB 1248. 3 The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732. The Board treats all members of multiemployer associations as collectively a single employer for jurisdictional purposes. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. 4 Siemons Mailing Service, supra. LAUNDRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CINCINNATI 545 3. The Intervenor contends that the petition is untimely because it was filed while a valid contract was in force between it and the Association. However, the contract here is one of 3 years' duration, terminating on March 31, 1959. The Board has held that a contract having a fixed duration will be a bar for only so much of its term as does not exceed 2 years.5 As the instant petition was filed on November 21, 1958, subsequent to the first 2 years of the contract, we find that the contract does not bar the petition here. The Intervenor further contends that, by reason of certain con- duct hereinafter indicated, it is without adequate funds with which to prepare for an election and that, under the Kearney ct Trecker case,6 the instant petition should be dismissed. The Association has filed an interpleader action in the action in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, and pursuant to an order of that court, the Association is now paying into court all moneys collected from the employees of the employer members of the Association under the checkoff provisions of the current contract. However, unlike the case in Kearney cC Trecker, no rival union has seized funds of the Intervenor nor has its funds been used to coerce employees. Nor is this a situation where the representation election will deter- mine the disposition of a cash stake, as was the case in Kearney cC Trecker. We find that neither the pendency of the interpleader action in the State court nor the impounding of the checked-off dues by the court is a bar to the conduct of a free and uncoerced election in this case. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) of the Act. 4. Petitioner seeks a unit composed of "all employees of the Em- ployer members of the Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, including janitors, but excluding all office-clerical em- ployees, watchmen, timekeepers, machinery maintenance employees, firemen, engineers, drivers, salesmen, professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended." The Employer contends that the employees of only those members of the Associa- tion who are in good standing should be included within the unit; the Intervenor contends that, even though the Excelsior Laundry Company, Crystal Laundry Company, Kays Laundry & Cleaning, Inc., and the Peerless Laundry Co., are no longer Association mem- bers, nonetheless they should be included in the unit found appro- priate here; the Petitioner is willing to represent the employees of these four employers if the Board should find that they are part of the multiemployer bargaining unit. 5Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990. °Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 210 F. 2d 852 ( C.A. 7) ; Kearney & Trecker Corporation, 112 NLRB 69. 508889-60-vol. 123' 3 6 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These four employers participated in the last Association bargain- ing sessions with the Intervenor in 1956. Peerless, Excelsior, and Kays resigned from Association membership after these negotiations; Crystal was expelled from the Association for nonpayment of dues in November 1958. Crystal, Kays, and Excelsior participated in Association bargaining with another labor organization, the Laun- dry Drivers Union, during 1958, even though Excelsior and Kays were not members of the Association at that time. Kays, Excelsior, and Crystal stated at the hearing that they wished to participate in the next contract negotiations in which the Association participates. However, as the relationship of these four employers with the Asso- ciation has been terminated and as the Association does not wish to represent them, we shall exclude them from the unit.7 Several of the employers in the Association employ part-time help, either on the basis of several hours per day or of a certain day or days each week. We find that these employees are regular part-time employees and shall include them in the units Many of these employers operate retail outlets, employing clerks to receive soiled clothing, to make out sales slips, and to return the finished laundry and dry cleaning to the customers. The retail clerks have traditionally been excluded from the Association pro- duction unit. The Intervenor, however, contends that those clerks who work at plant stores and perform such production duties as the marking of clothes in addition to their clerical duties should be in- cluded in the production unit. The Petitioner contends that all retail clerks should be excluded from the unit. The record shows that even those clerks who do some clothes marking spend only a very small part of their working time in this operation. As their duties and interests are similar to those of the other retail clerks rather than to those of production employees, we shall exclude them from the production unit .9 The Intervenor contends that certain employees of the member- Employers classified as watchmen or janitor-watchmen should be included in the unit found appropriate, while the Petitioner contends that any employee who spends any part of his time doing guard duties should be excluded from the unit. The evidence shows that the employees in question act as "night watchmen" at certain plants of the employers and in addition do janitorial work during the night hours when the plants are closed. Some of these watchmen punch clocks and carry weapons while others do not. We find that, even 7 Standard Overall Cleaning Co. was permitted to intervene for the limited purpose of adducing evidence that it is not a member of the Association for collective-bargaining purposes . While Standard Overall is a member of the Association , it has consistently bargained on an individual basis and intends to do so in the future. Standard maintains its membership in the Association for purposes other than collective bargaining . Accord- ingly, we shall exclude Standard Overall from the unit found appropriate herein. s Dixie Wax Paper Company, 117 NLRB 548, 550. 0 Walter and Shirley Cohen, d/b/a Tower Cleaners, 97 NLRB 376. LAUNDRY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER CINCINNATI 547 though these watchmen spend part of their time doing janitorial work, they are guards within the meaning of Section 9(b) (3) of the Act. We shall therefore exclude these employees from the unit found appropriate.10 The Intervenor further contends, contrary to Petitioners, that the following individuals or categories should not be excluded as super- visors because they spend substantial portions of their time doing production work in addition to their supervisory duties : (a) The routers at Modern Dry Cleaners and Launderers who assign jobs and direct the work of the employees under them; (b) Letha Griffin, pressroom "supervisor" at the Abbot Linen Supply Company, who has authority to make effective recommendations as to hiring and discharge of employees; (c) Roy Cope and Louise Ware who are in charge of the dry cleaning and laundry departments, respectively, at Master Launderers and Cleaners, Inc., both have authority to hire and discharge employees; (d) Martha Duwel, who is in charge of the mangle department at the Domestic Laundry, assigns and directs the work of the five employees under her, who work at a location in the plant separate from the other production employees, and has authority to grant time-off to employees in her group; (e) Clifford Brown, who is "foreman" at the Superior Laundry and Towel Sup- ply Co., is in charge of a plant having approximately 45 production employees and assigns and directs all work and adjusts grievances of these employees. Even though some of the personnel noted above in this paragraph perform some production work, we find that all are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them." Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employ- ers listed in Appendix A working at the locations shown in Appendix A constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees, including janitors, and regular part-time employees, but excluding all office-clerical employees, watchmen, janitor-watch- men, timekeepers, machinery maintenance employees, firemen, engi- neers, drivers, salesmen, retail clerks, professional employees, the routers at Modern Dry Cleaners and Launderers, the pressroom supervisor at the Abbot Linen Supply Co., the individual in charge of the dry cleaning department at Master Launderers and Cleaners, Inc., the floor lady in charge of the laundry department at Master Launderers and Cleaners, Inc., the individual in charge of the mangle department at the Domestic Laundry, the foreman in charge of the plant at Superior Laundry and Towel Supply Co., and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 Walterloro Manufacturing Co., 106 NLRB 1383, 1384. "The Woodman Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1784, 1785. 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A 1. Abbott Laundry Company, 29 Back Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 2. Abbot Linen Supply Company, 29 Back Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 3. Astor Launderers, 3912 Reading Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 4. George D. Luechauer, d/b/a Alpha Linen Service, 708 Richmond, Cincinnati, Ohio 5. American Linen Supply Company, 2136 Reading Road, Cincin- nati, Ohio 6. Crown Laundry Company, Inc., 1056 Water Works Road, New- port, Kentucky 7. Bernard H. Berding, d/b/a Domestic Laundry, 1407 Denman, Reading, Ohio 8. Fame Laundries, Inc., 227 Court Street, Covington, Kentucky 9. L. Harrison and H. Kulback, d/b/a Home Laundry, 1314 Wheeler St., Covington, Kentucky 10. Imperial Laundry Service, Inc., 4533 West Mitchell Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 11. Mariemont Laundry, Inc., 5601 Wooster Pike, Mariemont, Ohio 12. Master Launderers and Cleaners, Inc., 1646 Hoffner St., Cincin- nati, Ohio 13. E. George Emmick, George L. E. Emmick, and Robert H. Em- mick, d/b/a Modern Dry Cleaners and Launderers, 3112 Syra- cuse, Cincinnati, Ohio 14. New Way Linen Supply Co., 526 Livingston, Cincinnati, Ohio 15. Progress Launderers and Dry Cleaners, Inc., Vine St. and De- Camp St., Cincinnati, Ohio 166. Superior Laundry and Towel Supply Co., 1901 Western Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 17. Walnut Hills Laundry Co., 1022 Foraker Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 18. Ziegler Towel Supply, 2020 Dunlap, Cincinnati, Ohio Universal Producing Company and District Lodge 105, Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 18-RC-3669. April 1, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election 1 issued by the Board on September 10, 1958, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on October 1, 1958, under the direction and supervision of I Unpublished. 123 NLRB No. 67.