Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners & Laundries, Inc.

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bar. Under these circumstances, and apart from any other considera- tions, we find, contrary to the Employer-Petitioner, that the Union is currently demanding recognition, without regard to its majority status, and that such a demand is sufficient to raise a question of repre- sentation.3 We further find, in agreement with the Employer- Petitioner's alternative position, that such question should be resolved by an election.4 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9'(b) of the Act:5 All production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Miami, Florida, ship construction and repair operations, including truckdrivers and leadmen, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, timekeepers, time clerks, planning and estimating employees, draftsmen, salaried employees, plant- protection employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] a See American Lawn Mower Co., 108 NLRB 1589, 1590. 4 After the close of the hearing , the Employer-Petitioner filed with the Board a motion that the Board revoke the certification , or take other appropriate action to implement Section 8 ( d) of the Act, on the ground that a majority of the prestrike employees lost their employee status by striking in violation of Section 8(d) ; and, contingent upon this motion being granted , the Employer-Petitioner moved to withdraw its petition herein. At the hearing, evidence was adduced to show that the Union failed to notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of its dispute with the Employer prior to calling the strike. The contention with respect to Section 8(d) constitutes an allegation of an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b) (3). See Retail Clerks International Association, Local No, 1179 , AFL (J C. Penney Company ), 109 NLRB 754 . The Em- ployer has not filed a Section 8 (b)(3) charge against the Union, and the Board does not litigate unfair labor practice issues in a representation proceeding . See National Foundry Company of New York, Inc., 109 NLRB 357. The motion to revoke the certi- fication is, therefore, denied. Further, as this contention is irrelevant to a representation proceeding, testimony and documents with respect thereto were erroneously admitted into evidence by the hearing officer. 5 There is no dispute as to the appropriateness of the unit , which conforms with the contract unit. Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners & Laundries, Inc.' and Local Union No. 44, Laundry & Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-PC-1941. August 17, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition 2 duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Loren P. Jones, hearing of- Herein called Employer or Association. a Laundry, Dry Cleaners and Dye House Workers International Union, Local No. 44, Independent, intervened on the basis of its contract covering employees in the requested unit. In a motion filed with the Board, it seeks to have the petition dismissed on the 124 NLRB No. 64. SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CLEANERS & LAUNDRIES, INC . 535 ficer. 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 Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer 3 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer is an association composed of a group of laundry and dry cleaning establishments in the Shreveport-Bossier area of Louisiana. It has for a number of years bargained for its members with the Intervenor and signed contracts on their behalf. However, no single contract containing a multiemployer unit or recognition clause has been negotiated. The practice has been to sign a standard single employer agreement binding upon all its members. The most recent agreement was negotiated in September 1957 and expires, absent automatic renewal, in September 1959. The Intervenor contends that this agreement is a bar to an election at the present time. The Em- ployer takes no position on the issue, while the Petitioner contends, inter alia, that in view of its union-security provisions the contract cannot operate as a bar. The contract provides in part : (1) "That members of the Union [Intervenor] only shall be em- ployed in said laundry or dry cleaning plant, and that they shall be engaged through the office of the Union if possible...." (2) That should the Intervenor not be able to supply the needed employees, the individual employer is free to hire other persons who, ground that the Petitioner "engaged in illegal, improper and unethical measures" to procure its showing of interest. It is, of course, well settled that the sufficiency of a Petitioner's showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination. We have investigated the charges raised by the Intervenor in its motion. We do not condone the method by which the Petitioner procured a number of its authorization cards, i.e., by obtaining signatures on cards which were used in conjunction with a turkey raffle. However, independently of such cards, we are administratively satisfied that the Peti- tioner has made a proper and adequate showing of interest. Therefore, the Intervenor's motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. !See C. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 616. $ The Intervenor seeks to have the petition dismissed because a "different association of employees was substituted at the hearing . . ." for the one named in the original petition. We find no merit in the Intervenor's position, for the alleged substitution was in substance only an amendment of the name of the Association representing employees in the multiemployer unit covered by the petition. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss for the above reason is , therefore, denied. The Intervenor also moved to dismiss the petition with respect to those employers which were not duly served with a notice of hearing in this proceeding. It failed to specify which particular companies, if any, were not properly served, or in what manner, if any, it was prejudiced by the alleged defects in service. Moreover, the Association which is the designated agent of the individual companies was properly served and appeared at the hearing. In view of the foregoing, we find no merit in the motion to dismiss, and it is hereby denied. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD however, must by the end of 10 days "comply with all Union regula- tions, such as becoming a member of Local No. 44 in good standing with all dues and initiation fee paid in full." (3) That no person who is not a member of the Intervenor shall be permitted to start work until he has signed a membership application and given it to the Intervenor's steward in the plant. This is essentially a closed-shop preferential hiring provision which exceeds the permissive limits of union security allowed by the proviso to Section 8 (a) (3). Accordingly, we find that the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor will not bar an election.4 Therefore, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit including the em- ployees of all individual employers who were active members of the Association at the time of the hearing in this proceeding. The Em- ployer agrees that a unit of such scope is appropriate. The Inter- venor, though agreeing that a multiemployer unit is appropriate, con- tends that such unit should include only those employers who were members of the Association on February 16, 1959, the date the petition herein was filed. As thus framed, the issue involves specifically the inclusion in the unit of seven firms which became members of the Association on March 9, 1959, a date falling between the filing of the petition and holding of the hearing. The Board will include specific employers in a multiemployer unit if the parties agree to their inclusion or if the disputed employers have for a substantial period of time directly participated in joint bargain- ing or delegated the power to bind them in such bargaining to a joint agent.' As for the bargaining history, the record shows that, prior to their formally joining the Association on March 9, 1959, none of the seven concerns in dispute had either directly participated in, or delegated authority to, the Association to bind them in joint bargain- ing with the Intervenor. At most these seven employers had in the past taken a close interest in the bargaining sessions between the Association's and Intervenor's representatives and had adopted, though without executing, the resulting agreements. However, neither such informal interest in the negotiations nor the mere adop- 4 Keystone Coat, Apron & Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880. We find no merit in the Intervenor 's position that we should , in our discretion, not apply our usual contract bar rules to its contract. In view of our finding that the contract is not a bar because of its union-security provisions, we need not consider, as urged by the Petitioner, whether there was a schism in the Intervenor which would remove the contract as a bar. 6Local Union 49 of the Sheet Metal Workers Association (New Mexico Sheet Metal Contractors Association, Inc.), 122 NLRB 1192; S. en C. Molinelli, Santonl & Freytes d/b/a Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia La Francesca, at at., 118 NLRB 1010,• 1013-1014. SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CLEANERS & LAUNDRIES, INC. 537 tion of the contracts affords sufficient basis for including the disputed employers in the multiemployer unit.' Accordingly, we find that the seven employers who joined the Association on March 9, 1959, have not been a part of the established multiemployer bargaining unit. As the Intervenor objects to their inclusion we shall not expand the unit to include them. Under these circumstances and in accord with the parties' agree- ment on the composition of the unit, we find that the following em- ployees of all individual employers' who were active members of Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners and Laundries, Inc., on February 16, 1959, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain- ing: checker; wet cleaner or helper; dry cleaner; dyer or rug cleaner; hand silk finisher; inspector; marker; khaki or linen presser; wool presser ; silk blocker; reweaver; sacker; scrub man; seamstress; seam- stress, furs; maintenance man or engineer; sewer, buttons; spotter, silk, first class; spotter, silk, assistant; spotter, wool; porter; assembly girl; bundle wrapper; hand finisher; flat iron, shakers, feeders, folders; press operators, khaki, uniforms, family; shirt press opera- tor; starcher; mender or bottom sewer; head washman-commercial laundries and other washmen; wringerman or extractor man; tumbler operator; seamstress, alterations; seamstress, embroidery; soiled linen assorters ; and maid, excluding office secretarial employees, book- keepers, drivers, salesmen or drivers' helpers, night watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 S. en C. Molinelli, Santon4 & Freytes d/b/a Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia La Francesca, et al., supra. Q The individual employers whose employees are included in the unit are : 0. W. Dooley, d/b/a Broadway Dry Cleaners, 4311 Greenwood Rd., Shreveport; J. D. Swenson, d/b/a Barksdale Cleaners & Laundry, 2468 Barksdale Blvd ., Bossier City ; Printice Darnell, d/b/a Darnell Cleaners , 308 East Texas Street , Bossier City ; W. D. Dupree, d/b/a Fairfield Cleaners , 1400 Fairfield Ave., Shreveport ; E. F. Hardaway, d/b/a Merit Cleaners, 1'432 'Barksdale Blvd., Bossier !City, and d /b/a Post Office Cleaners , 428 Marshall St., Shreveport ; August Goldstein, d/b/a Model Cleaners & Dyers, 1639 Marshall 'St., 'Shreveport ; Tommy Woods, d/b/a Morningside Cleaners, 5500 Mansfield Road, Shreveport ; William G. Casten, d/b/a 0. K. Cleaners, 127 East Kings Highway, Shreveport; T. D. Griffin, d/b/a Overcash Cleaners , 1219 Wilkinson Street, Shreveport ; John E. Smith, d/b/a Right Way Clean- ers, 209 East 70th Street, Shreveport; H. L. Lieber, d/b/a Service Cleaners, 1501 Marshall Street, Shreveport ; American Cleaners , 220 East Kings Highway, Shreveport ; American Linen Service Company, Inc., 1304 Hollywood Avenue, Shreveport, also d/.b/a Shreveport Industrial Uniform & Towel Service, 1350 Hollywood Avenue, Shreveport ; College Cleaners, 113 East Kings Highway, Shreveport ; Duval Cleaners, Inc., 628 Marshall and 4040 Youree Drive, Shreveport ; Louisiana Cleaners, 2329 Greenwood Road and 1413 Louisiana , Shreveport ; Lyles Laundries , Inc., 1921 Market Street, Shreveport ; New Way Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, Inc ., 735 Howell Street, Shreveport, also d/b/a Tidy Didy Diaper Service and d/b/a Louisiana Industrial Towel and Uniform Service ; 'Rickey 's Laundry & Cleaners, 811 Traffic Street, Bossier City ; 'Sunlight Laundries, Inc., 2435 Lakeshore Drive, Shreveport ;Charles Smith, d/b/a Azalia Cleaners , 732 Azalia Drive, 'Shreveport ; Elite Cleaners & Laundry, 2710 Centenary Blvd., 'Shreveport ; White Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., 1327 Pierre Ave., Shreveport ; Whi-te's Inc., Cleaners & Dyers, 2487 Texas Ave., Shreveport ; Youree Drive Cleaners, Inc., 3962 Youree Drive, Shreveport.