Up-to-Date Laundry, Inc.

UP-TO-DATE LAUNDRY, INC. 247 frequent direction, since the employees know their relatively simple jobs and must keep pace with the machines. Nevertheless, Riddle daily gives instruction in such matters as the amounts of caustic soda and other ingredients to be added to the tanks, and directs Wallace in the maintenance and service of highly complex ma- chinery, matters which clearly seem nonroutine . In addition, he has limited au- thority to grant time off, must tell the employees what to do when not in production, can assign employees to other departments or borrow them from other departments, and would correct them if need be. He is paid substantially more than his sub- ordinates. There is no evidence that any admitted supervisor actually directs the work of production employees, except on rare occasions. For all these reasons, the hearing officer concludes that Riddle is a supervisor. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Having found that Wallace Bowling, E. H. Bowling, Brice Fonvielle, and W. W. Riddle are supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, it is recommended that the challenges to their ballots be sustained. Up-to-Date Laundry, Inc.' and AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2696. July 24, 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 Lawrence S. Wescott, hear- ing 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 Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer contends that it is engaged solely in a retail busi- ness, that its operations do not meet the Board's retail standards for asserting jurisdiction, and, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. The record discloses that the Employer performs a significant part of its laundry and dry cleaning work for trading establishments of vari- ous kinds; institutions; industrial, commercial and professional users; and governmental bodies. The Board has found that this type of work is wholesale in nature.2 Furthermore, where, as here, an Em- ployer is engaged in both retail and nonretail activities, the Board applies its nonretail jurisdictional standards.' The Employer also contends that even if its business is considered to be nonretail it does not meet the Board's current jurisdictional standards. We do not agree. The record reveals that the Employer furnished services valued at over $60,000 to various steamship lines whose operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, Accord- The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. J S Latta R Son, 114 NLRB 1248, 1249. 'Laundry Oimnets Association of Greater Cincinnati, 123 NLRB '543. 124 NLRB No. 30. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.4 2. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on several other grounds. First, the Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, because there are no employees participating in its activities. However, Petitioner exists for the purposes set forth in Section 2(5) of the Act and the submission of authorization cards to its parent constitutes participa- tion in its activities. Moreover, the Board has found the Petitioner to be a labor organization in Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati.' Second, the Employer contends that the Petitioner is fronting for a noncomplying "paper" local (Local 285) which is the real party in interest. The record indicates that Local 285 is in existence solely to the extent that it has a charter. As the employees involved in this proceeding are not admitted to membership in Local 285, the com- pliance of the Petitioner is sufficient to support this petition." Should the Petitioner win an election, a certificate would not issue if Local 285 or any other local were in fact in the picture at that time, unless such local was in compliance. Furthermore, noncompliance is litigable in an independent proceeding and not in a representation proceeding.' Finally, the Employer alleges that the employees have not desig- nated the Petitioner as their representative because the authorization cards submitted to support the petition bear the designation "Ameri- can Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization and All Affiliated Organizations." Showing of interest is an admin- istrative matter not litigable by the parties to a representation pro- ceeding. Moreover, the Board is satisfied that the designation of a parent labor organization is, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest, a valid designation of a petitioner affiliate." The authorization cards signed by the Em- ployer's employees designated the AFL-CIO, the parent organization of the Petitioner. For the reasons given above the Employer's mo- tion to dismiss the petition is hereby denied.' Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, is the real party in interest, is the organization designated by Employer's employees and the Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. * Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (Member Jenkins concurring specially). r Footnote 3, supra. See, Trade Winds Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 860; Cf. Laundry Owners Association of Greater Cincinnati, supra. 'Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852. 6 General Shoe Corporation, 113 NLRB 905. United States Gypsum Company, 118 NLRB 20. THEATRICAL PROTECTIVE UNION NO. 1, ETC . 249 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer employed at its laundry, and dry cleaning plant and at its retail stores in the Baltimore, Maryland, area, including salesmen, drivers, retail store clerks, and production clerks, but excluding office- clerical and professional employees, watchmen, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act.i° [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 The unit description conforms to the stipulation of the parties. Theatrical Protective Union No. 1 , International Alliance of The- atrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Opera- tors of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. Case No. 2-CD-161. July 28, 1959 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This proceeding arises under Section 10(k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and deter- mine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . .." On February 6, 1958, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., herein called CBS, filed a charge with the Regional Director for the Second Region, alleging that Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 1, had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act and Sections 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing officer, on March 17, 1959, at New York City. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence 124 NLRB No. 29.