Tom's Monarch Laundry and Cleaning Co., Inc.

TOM'S MONARCH LAUNDRY & CLEANING CO. 217 Tom's Monarch Laundry and Cleaning Co., Inc. and Laundry and Cleaning Workers Union, Local No. 56, a/w International Brotherhood of Team- sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case 25-RC-2885 November 15, 1967 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On March 10, 1967, the Regional Director for Region 25 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he rejected the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 319, that a con- tract bar exists and that the requested single-em- ployer unit is inappropriate because the unit established by the bargaining history is multiem- ployer in scope. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer and the Intervenor filed timely requests for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the grounds that in rejecting their con- tentions, as aforestated, he departed from officially reported Board precedent, and/or that there are compelling reasons for reconsideration of Board policy. The Intervenor also urged that a further hearing be held, if necessary, to determine whether or not the employees of the Employer are part of a multiemployer unit. On April 4, 1967, the Board by telegraphic order directed the Regional Director to make findings of fact as to the alleged history of multiemployer bar- gaining and to reopen the record for further hearing if necessary. Pending such action, the Board deferred its consideration of the requests for review and stayed the election which had been scheduled. Pursuant to the Board's Order, the Regional Director, on April 12, issued his supplemental findings of fact, in which he made additional findings of fact based on the existing record.' Thereafter, on July 24, 1967, the Board by tele- graphic order granted the requests for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, in- cluding the Regional Director's supplemental findings of fact and the statements of position in the requests for review, and makes the following findings: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of em- ployees at the Employer's single laundry and drycleaning establishment in South Bend , Indiana. The Regional Director found that an existing con- tract between the Employer and the Intervenor was inoperative as a bar because it contained a union- security clause requiring the payment of fees and assessments other than the "periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required" and a holiday pay clause limiting such pay to members of the In- tervenor, both of which clauses ' had been found by the Board to be violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , in Case 25-CA-2296 .2 He further found , without specifi- cally resolving the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that the established unit was mul- tiemployer in scope , that the bargaining history in the multiemployer unit could be given no weight in the determination of the unit because it was based on an agreement containing the aforestated illegal provisions. In their requests for review , the Employer and the Intervenor , as aforestated , contend that the Re- gional Director erred in rejecting their contract-bar and unit contentions . Without passing on the con- tract-bar contentions , we find that the requested single-employer unit is inappropriate. On the basis of the undisputed facts set forth in the Regional Director's supplemental findings of fact , we find that the Intervenor has bargained with the Employer and nine other laundry and dry-clean- ing firms, fellow members of the South Bend- Mishawaka Laundry and Dry Cleaning Associa- tion, on a multiemployer unit basis since 1954. Not- withstanding the fact that the 1954 contract and all succeeding contracts contained illegal clauses, we do not view the mere presence of such illegal clauses in the contracts , without more , as so taint- ing the bargaining history as to eliminate it as a fac- tor in determining the scope of the appropriate unit.3 In the circumstances , as the Employer has complied with the Board 's remedial order in Case 25-CA-2296 and as the requested unit is not coex- tensive with the established multiemployer unit, in which the Employer wishes to continue to bargain, we find it to be inappropriate , and we shall dismiss the petition on this ground alone. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein on May 17, 1965, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. No request for review was filed with respect thereto 1 Tom's Monarch Laundry & Cleaning Company, Inc, 161 N LRB 740 (issued November 3, 1966 ) Although the Board found the maintenance of such clauses to be illegal, it found no evidence of unlawful practices thereunder In its remedial order, the Board required the Employer to cease giving effect to such clauses The Regional Director issued a notice of compliance with the Board 's Order on January 23, 1967. 1 Although in reaching this conclusion we have taken into consideration the absence of a finding in Case 25-CA-2296 of illegal practices resulting from the aforementioned offensive clauses and the absence of an order requiring the Employer to withhold recognition of the Intervenor until it is certified , we do not hold that absence of such factors will in all cases warrant the same conclusion Whether bargaining history is so tainted by unfair labor practices as to remove it as a factor in determining the ap- propriateness of a requested unit is a question to be resolved by examina- tion of the facts and circumstances of each case See American Broadcast- ing Company, 134 NLRB 1458, cf Sea-Land Service, Inc, 137 NLRB 546,549 168 NLRB No. 39