Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union

LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Tech- nical Engineers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All technical engineering employees of Respondent's engineering department in its New York operation including estimators, technical clerks, designers, draftsmen, listers, schedulers, hardware coordinators, and other technical engineering employees doing similar work regardless of assigned classifications, excluding all other employ- ees, specifically office clerical employees, production employees, salesmen, mechanics, teamsters, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. All technical engineering employees of the Respondent's engineering depart- ment in its Scranton, Pennsylvania, plant, including draftsmen, designers, listers, schedulers, hardware coordinators, leadmen (also known as squad leaders whose duties are strictly in the technical direction of technical engineering employees) and blueprint operators, and other technical engineering employees doing similar work regardless of assigned title or classification excluding all other employees and specifically office clerical employees, production employees, mechanics, teamsters, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. On July 5, 1956, and January 7, 1957, respectively, and at all times thereafter, Local 66 has been and still is the majority representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate units for purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. 5. Respondent has failed to perform its obligation to bargain in good faith with Local 66 in and since January 1957, as to each bargaining unit, and has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by the following conduct: (a) Insisting that shop stewards be chosen from among "senior" employees and that Local 66 give union withdrawal cards to employees promoted to positions outside the aforementioned units. (b) Promising and granting unilateral wage increases and other changes in work- ing conditions during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the statutory bargaining representative. (c) Bargaining directly with employees during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the statutory bargaining representative and offering employees better terms than those it offered to Local 66. (d) Questioning Local 66's representative status and refusing to recognize or otherwise negotiate with Local 66 during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the statutory bargaining representative. (e) Urging, aiding, and inducing employees by promises and grants of economic benefits, to renounce Local -66 and also to affiliate with a rival organization to Local 66 during a certification year and otherwise while Local 66 was the statutory bar- gaining representative and also permitting and assisting in such activities during working hours. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union and Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga . Case No. 10-CC-435. April 5,1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon charges duly filed on October 9, 1959, by Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, herein called Apex, against Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye 127 NLRB No. 5. 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD House Workers International Union, herein called the Respondent, the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, issued a complaint alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the complaint, charge, and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent and Apex. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that since on or about October 9, 1959, the Respondent has induced and encouraged employees of certain named customers of Apex and of other employers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, trans- port, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services with objects of forcing or re- quiring the said employers and persons to cease doing business with Apex, and to require Apex to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees of Apex, although Respondent has not been certified as the collective-bargain- ing representative of said employees pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. On November 9, 1959, the Respondent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and assert- ing affirmatively that it had engaged in "informational picketing" which is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Between December 18, 1959, and January 7, 1960, all parties entered into a stipulation waiving a hearing before a Trial Examiner and the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, and submitting the case directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on a record to consist entirely of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing, answer, and a "Stipulation of Facts" with appended exhibits, including particularly a copy of the transcript of proceedings entitled "Walter C. Phillips, Regional Director, N.L.R.B., 10th Region vs. Laundry, Cleaning and Linen Workers International Union, Local 218, Civil Action No. 3511 (Chattanooga)," in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northern Division, at Knoxville, Tennessee. On January 22, 1960, the Board approved the stipulation and granted the motion of the parties transferring the case to, and contin- uing it before, the Board. Thereafter the Respondent filed a motion requesting dismissal of the complaint and a supporting brief. The General Counsel also filed a brief. For the reasons stated herein- after, the motion is denied. LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 13 Upon the basis of the stipulation, and from the entire record in the case, the Board 'makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. Apex is a Tennessee corporation having its principal office and place of business in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the linen rental business. Its annual business is about $400,000, of which approximately $80,000 represents business done outside the State of Tennessee. We find that Apex is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2 II. Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laun- dry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. The facts : About August 15,1959, Respondent demanded that Apex recognize it as collective-bargaining representative of Apex's production and maintenance employees. Respondent has never been certified as such representative. Apex refused the request insisting upon a Board- conducted election to determine the question of majority. Since about September 15, 1959, Respondent has been picketing Apex's premises because of the latter's refusal to extend recognition. From about October 1, 1959, in furtherance of the dispute with Apex, Respondent requested Carter's Restaurant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restau- rant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant, Gillespie Grocery, and other customers of Apex to cease using the linen services provided by Apex. From about October 9, 1959, Respondent picketed the premises of Carter's, Johnson's, Haygood's, Ellis', Nick's, Frye's, Kaset's, and other customers of Apex with picket signs containing the following legend : INFORMATIONAL ONLY TAKE ONE OF OUR HANDBILLS 3 THANKS LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 218 1Pursuant 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 Jenkins]. a Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. s One of the handbills reads : "Informational Only This firm is using products of APEX LINEN SERVICE which has a labor dispute with Laundry, Cleaning and Linen Workers' International Union Local '218 " The wording of this handbill was subsequently 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Because of a conflict with a city ordinance, Respondent ceased dis- tributing the handbills and from October 21, 1959, began picketing premises of customers of Apex with a picket sign reading as follows : INFORMATION ONLY THIS FIRM IS USING PRODUCTS OF APEX LINEN SERVICES WHICH HAS A LABOR DISPUTE WITH LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 218 Picketing was conducted in front of the entrances ato the establish- ments and could be observed by employees of the customer being pick- eted as well as by employees of suppliers of the customer. In several instances, employees of suppliers observing the picket line refused to make deliveries. However, during all times material herein, there was no work stoppage by the employees of any of the customers picketed. Respondent admitted that one of the objects of its picketing was to persuade customers of Apex to cease using the latter's services. When a customer agreed to switch his business to a union-approved linen supply house, the picketing of that establishment ceased. Discussion The General Counsel asserts that by the foregoing picketing and distribution of leaflets, Respondent induced and encouraged employees of secondary employers to engage in a strike or refusal to perform services for the proscribed objectives of forcing customers of Apex to cease doing business with that firm and forcing Apex to recognize Respondent as bargaining representative of its employees. Respond- ent contends that the picketing in which it was engaged was for the purpose only of publicizing its dispute with Apex to the general public and to Apex's customers and that at no time were the employees of any employer picketed, induced, or encouraged to engage in con- certed refusals of any kind in the course of their employment. Respondent admits that one of the objects of the picketing was to bring economic pressure upon customers of Apex to induce or en- courage them to cease doing business with Apex. Another object of the picketing, it is plain and we find, was to force Apex to recognize or bargain with Respondent, although the latter had never been certified as the representative of Apex's employees. The sole question, there- fore, is whether by its picketing Respondent induced or encouraged incorporated on a picket sign. The second handbill recounts the alleged grievances of Respondent against Apex It appears to solicit the support of customers of Apex against that company. LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION 15 employees of secondary employers to engage in a strike or concerted refusal to perform services. The question must be answered in the affirmative. In the recent Perfection Mattress case,4 involving facts substantially identical with those in the present case, the Board ma- jority said : The Board has held, with court approval, that conduct consisting of picketing necessarily invites employees to make common cause with the the strikers . . . irrespective of the literal appeal of the legends on the picket signs 3 Its very purpose . . . is to exert influences, as the Supreme Court has recognized.' And directing the printed appeal to the consumer, in our opinion, does not negate those in- fluences. It is sufficient that the necessary effect of the picketing is to induce employees to engage in a work stoppage.5 The Board made clear its view of common entrance picketing in Southern Service Company, Ltd.,' where it held that such picketing violates Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by reason of the implicit appeal to the employees of the retail stores who are employed by employers who are not parties to the labor dispute. In that case, the notice which was originally directed to "the public" was later changed to "Notice to Patrons." The foreseeable consequence, or stated differently, the natural or probable result, of picketing at an entrance used in part by employees is to induce a strike... . The fact that picketing may not be successful in inducing a work stoppage is not controlling on the question of whether the picketing is violative of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. That a work stoppage did not occur does not in any way detract from the fact that the picketing activity had as its necessary effect the inducing and encouraging of employees to engage in a work stoppage in violation of Section 8(b) (4) (A). 3 Laundry, Linen Supply d Dry Cleaning Drivers Local No, 928, et at. (Southern Service Company, Ltd ), 118 NLRB 1435, 1437, enfd. 262 F. 617 (C.A. 9). 4 Hughes v Superior Court, 339 U S 460. r Dallas General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local No. 745 , AFL-CIO (Associated Wholesale Groce) y of Dallas, Inc ), 118 NLRB 1251, enfd. 264 F 2d 642 (CA 5). 9 Sup? a. The correctness of the observation, based upon general experience, that picketing tends to induce work stoppages by employees regard- less of the legend on the picket sign is proved by a number of incidents in this case. Thus, a driver for a beer company refused to make a delivery to Gillespie Grocery, a customer of Apex, while a picket was 4 United Wholesale and Warehouse Employees , Local 261, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO (Perfection Mattress & Spring Company), 125 NLRB 520 (Members Bean and Fanning dissenting ) 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD carrying the "INFORMATION ONLY" sign in front of the grocery premises, because "I am not supposed to cross a picket line." A driver for a biscuit company also refused to cross the picket line in front of Gillespie'"s in order to make a delivery until assured by the shipping clerk for his company that it was proper for him to do so. A driver- salesman for a milk and ice cream distributor passed up a delivery at Kaset's Restaurant, another customer of Apex, because of the pres- ence of a picket in front of that establishment carrying the "INFOR- MATION ONLY" sign. Under all the circumstances, we find that by picketing at the premises of the retail customers of Apex, the Respondent has induced or encouraged employees of th`e retail establishments and of other em- ployers to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to perform services with objects of (a) forcing or requiring the retail establishments to cease doing business with Apex, and (b) forcing or requiring Apex to bargain with Respondent as the representative of Apex's employees although Respondent has never been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9, thereby violating Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with Apex and its customers, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent, Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers International ,Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging the employees of Carter's Restau- rant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restau- LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION - 17 rant, Majestic Restaurant, Gillespie Grocery, and other employers except Apex, to engage in concerted refusals in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers with objects of forcing or requiring such employers to cease doing business with Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga and to force and require Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with Respondent as the representative of its employees, although Respond- ent has never been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (4) (A) and (B) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent, Laundry, Cleaning & Linen Workers Union, Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers Interna- tional Union, Atlanta, Georgia, its officers, representatives, successors, agents, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of Carter's Restaurant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant, Gilles- pie Grocery, and other employers except Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or com- modities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require the-said,employers to cease doing business with Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, or to force or require Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with Respondent unless Re- spondent has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Post at the offices and meeting halls of Respondent in Atlanta, Georgia, and at Chattanooga, Tennessee, if it has any, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 con- 5 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 560940-61-vol. 127-3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD secutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, signed copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix" for posting by Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga and the retail establishments referred to above, they being willing, at places where they customarily post notices to their employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 218, LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORK- ERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National-Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify you that : WE WILL NOT induce or encourage employees of Carter's Restau- rant, Johnson's One Stop Motor Center, Haygood's Barber Shop, Kathryne Parker's Hair Styling Salon, Ellis' Restaurant, Nick's Liquor Store, Frye's Restaurant, Grey's Fish Market, Kaset's Restaurant, Majestic Restaurant, Gillespie Grocery,and any other employer except Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employ- ment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is to force or require the said employers to cease doing business with Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga, or to force or require Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga to recognize or bargain with us as the representa- tive of the employees of Apex Linen Service of Chattanooga unless we have been certified as the representative of such employ- ees under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. LAUNDRY, CLEANING & LINEN WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 218, LAUNDRY, DRY CLEANING & DYE HOUSE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Labor Organization. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice-must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.