Loeb's Laundry

LOEB'S LAUNDRY Loeb's Laundry' and Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-3216 June 27, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND ZAGORIA On March 26, 1969, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the conduct of Loeb and other agents of the Respondent in coercively interrogating employees and threatening them with plant closure if the Union came in. Insofar as Loeb's speech of October 15, 1968, to assembled employees is concerned, we agree with the Trial Examiner that, apart from the question of credibility of employee witnesses as to the content of the speech, the speech violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 'At the hearing, the Respondent moved to amend the caption of the case to indicate that the Respondent is "Loeb's Laundry" rather than "William Loeb and Louis G. Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry" as initially stated in the notice of hearing and complaint . The General Counsel agreed to the proposed change and the Trial Examiner granted the Respondent 's motion but inadvertently failed to make the change . Accordingly, the name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing. 'Unlike the Trial Examiner , however, we find it unnecessary to pass on the credibility of the employee witnesses' testimony , and do not rely thereon in finding that the speech violated Sec. 8 (aXl), since the clear implication of the speech , even as documented by the Respondent , is that Respondent would discontinue business if the employees voted for the Union . In that connection, Member Zagoria would find the speech unlawful only on the basis of element (3) noted by the Trial Examiner: I.e., Loeb's flat statement , at several points, that other family laundry and dry cleaning businesses in Memphis, Tennessee, had closed, with a loss of employee jobs after a union got in . Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown agree with Member Zagoria as they would find a threat implicit in Loch's statements, but would also find for the reasons stated by the Trial 143 However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the notice posted by Respondent on the plant bulletin boards on November 7 amounted to a threat that Respondent would discharge employees because of the Union. The notice in question commented, as an incidental matter, on the fact that an employee, Myrtle Gardner, had been discharged from a previous job without the union there being able to help her. In our opinion, the comments amounted to no more than permissible election propaganda. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that Respondent, Loeb's Laundry, Memphis, Tennessee, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. Make the following changes in the Notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision: 1. Delete the first paragraph and substitute the following: "After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the Act and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice." 2. Delete the second and fourth indented paragraphs. Examiner that the speech as a whole was coercive and interfered with employee's statutory rights to organize. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS A. RIccI, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before me at Memphis, Tennessee, on January 30, 1969, on complaint of the General Counsel against William Loeb and Louis G. Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry, herein together called the Respondents, or the Company. The charge was filed on November 15, 1968, by Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the complaint issued on December 27, 1968. The issue presented is whether the Respondents restrained and coerced their employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Briefs were filed after the close of the hearing by the General Counsel and the Respondents. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: 177 NLRB No. 8 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a partnership doing business in the State of Tennessee with its principal office and place of business located in Memphis, where it is engaged in the laundry and drycleaning business. During the past 12 months the Company received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and during the same period it purchased and received supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers in the State of Tennessee, who, in turn, purchased such supplies directly from out-of-state sources. I find that the Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This case arose out of a self-organizational campaign among the Respondents' employees in the fall of 1968. On their behalf the Union filed a representation petition for a Government-conducted secret election, Case 26-RC-3285, on September 19. On October 9 the parties concerned signed a stipulation for a consent election and on the 14th an arrangement to hold the election on November 22 was approved by the Board's Regional Director. The next day William Loeb, one of the two individual owners of the business, talked to his assembled employees on the subject of union or no union . There were then about 230 employees in the plant and he gathered them in three groups, at 2, 2:30, and 3 p.m. in the cafeteria, to hear him; he spoke to each group for about 20 minutes. Six employees testified concerning what Loeb said to them that day and the essential burden of their story is that he threatened to close the plant, and go out of business if the employees should choose to bargain with him through the Union. There is also testimony that after Loeb's speeches, several supervisors, directly or obliquely referring back to what the owner had said, conveyed further to the employees the thought there was danger of plant closing or loss of jobs if they should vote in favor of collective bargaining in the imminent election. The election was not held because the Union filed this charge and asserted that the coercive effect of management's statements made impossible an untrammeled expression of choice by the employees. Owner William Loeb did not testify. Robert Moore, superintendent of the drycleaning department , said he sat up close when Loeb was talking and when 60 or 70 employees were present, and that Loeb did no more than read from a document in front of him. Clarence Campbell, an assistant superintendent , said he too heard one of the speeches and that Loeb was reading while talking. Theresa Kelly, Loeb's secretary and assistant, said she was present at all three of the talks. She testified Loeb had prepared a written speech, that there were several exact copies made, that Loeb spoke only what was written on it, and that she was sure of this because each time Loeb gave the speech she followed him word for word while reading the copy in her hands. She added that in every instance where Loeb departed from the written script, however slight the change, she wrote down on her copy the exact changes made by the owner as he went along . She said she did this three times, and made a note on her copy of even the minutest adlibbing Loeb may have uttered. The Respondent offered into evidence the copy Kelly said Loeb read from, and the copy she said she annotated during the three talks. It is not true she followed her employer as faithfully as she testified; before starting the meetings Loeb made changes on his copy, changes which are not reflected in the one Kelly was then reading. Loeb's Speech; Violation of Section 8(a)(1) The defense to the charge that Loeb committed an unfair labor practice when talking to the assembled employees on October 15 rests upon assertion that not one word came out of his mouth except what is written on the exhibit document which Mrs. Kelly said he had before him when speaking. For reasons that will appear, I do not discredit the employee witnesses. Notwithstanding, if the record showed nothing more than the delivery of the speech according to the exhibit, I would find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in Loeb's words to the employees that day. The exhibit reads as follows: SPEECH BY MR. LOEB TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1968 I want to be sure that every one of you can hear me. Is there anybody back there who can't hear me loud and clear? Please hold up your hand if you can't because what I have to say is very important to every one of you. As all of you know, a union is trying to get in our plant. You have seen the notice up on the bulletin boards that we have already made arrangements with the National Labor Relations Board to hold an election right here in the plant on November 22, so you will have an opportunity to vote on whether or not this union is going to get control of you. I am going to talk to you real straight and tell you exactly how I feel about this union problem. First of all, I am damn disappointed that some of you would let strangers from the outside talk you into signing a union card - talk you into slipping behind your company's back - and even talk some of you into working against and speaking against this company which provides the jobs and paychecks and the benefits that all of you depend on for a pretty decent life. I think you owed it to yourself, your family, and to this company to have talked your problems over with someone in our management before you would take up with some absolute strangers. My first reaction when I heard about this union problem was to say "to hell with the whole business." I guarantee you this laundry is something I don't need. This year this laundry has lost $96,000.00 already. Let me repeat that - despite all the work we have done, despite all of our advertising, all of our good efforts to improve our efficiency, we have still lost $96,000.00. In other words, if this laundry had been shut down on January 1, 1968, and never reopened, I would still have $96,000.00 in my pocket that I don't have today There are some people here - and I want you to understand that I realize it is just a few people - who LOEB'S LAUNDRY think they are pretty smart . They think they know more about this business than I do. They think they and some smooth-talking organizers from the outside can force me or this company into doing something we don't want to do. Well, I have news for them nobody is going to force this company or me to do anything that I don' t think is right for this business. I've got some other news there isn't anybody or anything in this world that can make a business continue to operate when it loses nearly $ 100,000.00 in less than a year. A lot of you folks have been listening to these smart talkers, and for your own good, I am telling you now that you had better take the time to listen to me and your company or we are not going to solve our problems here and we will be faced with closing the doors like so many other laundries have been forced to do. We need cooperation and understanding and teamwork in this plant. What we don' t need is smart-aleck talk and efforts to tear us apart. The family laundry and dry cleaning business is in a period of extremely hard times. There is a long list of laundry and cleaning plants that have gone out of business right here in Memphis. Some of them had unions and some of them didn' t. One thing is certain having a union sure didn' t help. The biggest and oldest family laundry and dry cleaner in this city was Memphis Steam. Very shortly after a union got into its operation , it had to give up the family laundry and dry cleaning business entirely. All that was left was linen supply and industrial business, and we don't have any of that kind of business. The whole guts of our business is family laundry and dry cleaning . Without that we are nothing. Without that none of you would have jobs. When Memphis Steam closed down its family laundry and dry cleaning, 200 men and women lost their jobs. The same thing happened over at Kraus. Their business was almost entirely dry cleaning except for shirts. Again, they were one of the oldest businesses in our city. Again, a union got in there, and again, they went out of business with every employee losing his or her job. Within the past week White Rose has given up the family laundry and dry cleaning business. They have nothing but linen supply and industrial from now on. More people are losing their jobs, and White Rose had the very same union that is after you people right now. I have been told time and time again that I am a fool for trying to fight the battle to keep this business alive. Then when I get kicked in the teeth by finding out that some of my own people are being talked into working against their company and against me, it almost makes me believe that I am a fool for trying to keep this plant going and your jobs secure . And I will tell you, I had to do some mighty serious thinking when I found out about this union mess . But here is the decision I've made. Loeb' s Laundry has been here an awful long time - 81 years to be exact . I am proud of the family tradition that made this business possible and that made it the best and biggest laundry in the whole South . I have pledged to myself that I will make every effort to keep this laundry operating and that if there is any way to stop the losses and to make this laundry operate even on a break-even basis, I am going to continue to do it in order that we can preserve the jobs of the many old and loyal people who have worked here so long. I also came to the conclusion that many of the people who signed union cards had been misled by false 145 information and all the tricks that these organizers are so good at. We made the arrangements with the Labor Board for this election because we believe that a secret vote is the right way to decide such a serious issue. I have made up my mind that we will get you the truth and all the truth about this union. I know it is easy to make an honest mistake and to be misled into signing a union card or into going to a union meeting . I think you are entitled to know the other side of the story, and if you want to know the truth, then I, personally, and every supervisor and management person in this plant, will make every effort to see that you get that truth. I am convinced that when you have the truth and when you get a chance to vote in absolute secrecy where no union outsider can know how you are voting, and when no one can put any pressure on you, that you will vote against the union. I want to warn you that these outsiders will do anything and say anything to lead you down the wrong path. They make their entire living and the money they spend on their big expense accounts by collecting dues and other fees from working folks. They don't produce any products, they don't press any pants or wash any shirts or anything else of value. They live off the money they get out of the paychecks of workers just like yourselves. So watch out for all the stuff they tell you. If you think they will tell you all the facts, then you are making a terrible mistake. Already I think there has been a lot of misleading information spread around. I want you to clearly understand that I am the sole owner of this business. I bought out the other owners two years ago. The mayor doesn't own any part of this business and neither does anybody else. Since I bought this business, I have put in some of our most important benefits - like our hospitalization. We have given steady increases - the best in the history of this business. Even this year we put in a good round of wage increases despite the fact that we were losing large amounts of money. I am trying earnestly in every way that I know how to put this business on a sound basis so that you will not be faced with the same fate as those folks at Memphis Steam and Kraus and Apex and Success and Sun & Franklin, and all those other laundries that went out of business right here in Memphis. We have Mr. Guthiem, an expert engineer in the laundry and dry cleaning business, in this plant working with us to help us get on a basis so we can survive. Mr. Guthiem's services are not free but I was willing to invest that additional money because I want to save our company - I want to save this plant - and I want to protect your jobs. Now you've got a free choice. You can work with me, you can do your best to help accomplish these things, or you can listen to these outsiders and try to hurt all of us. That's up to you. When all this is over, I am going to have the satisfaction of knowing that I did my dead-level best to do the right thing. If this business cannot operate without losses - if we should have a union strike or other union trouble that forces us out of business - then I will be able to sleep in peace, knowing that I did my best to preserve the jobs and preserve the business. I don't need this laundry, as you well know. I don't say that to brag or boast - I simply say it as a fact. The money I have that gives me security did not come from this business. It was left to me by an uncle who had no connection with this laundry at all who did not even live in Memphis. If this laundry were to shut down tomorrow, I could live a life 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of peace and quiet with my family. But I say to you again, I am willing to fight the battle to overcome our problems and to keep Loeb's Laundry in business. I am going to do what is morally right, but unless I can have your loyal support and help, I don't believe we can succeed . I sincerely believe that these union outsiders will hurt us. I know that any serious union trouble would destroy us. I am going to fight to keep this union out of here by every legal means that I have. We are going to get you all the facts and all the truth, and then the decision is going to be up to you in the election. For now - that's all I have got to say. That Loeb was telling his employees a vote in favor of the Union - not a possible strike called by the Union, not conceivably excessive economic demands by the Union, but plain decision by the employees to be represented by a union - would endanger their jobs and might result in the closing of the plant , requires no straining as to the meaning of words . Four facts are stated and restated with the utmost clarity . ( 1) He was opposed to having any union activity among his employees and would resort to extreme measures to prevent collective bargaining. Thus, he was "damn disappointed ," all this was "slipping behind your company's back," those who signed cards were "working against ... this company," union activity would "tear us apart," he felt "kicked in the teeth" by the prounion element in the shop , those who heeded the organizers would "hurt us all," "I am going to fight to keep this union out of here ...." (2) The plant was in danger of closing, its continued existence hung by a precarious thread . Thus, in the first 9 months of the year he had lost "$96,000 in this business," "you had better take the time to listen to me and your company or ... we will be faced with closing the doors ...," "I am a fool for trying . . . to keep this business alive," "I don't need this laundry .... The money I have that gives me security did not come from this business . It was left to me by an uncle." (3) Other laundries in the area had closed, or discontinued major portions of their operations, with the extinction of jobs, when unions had appeared . (4) The sole reason why Loeb was telling all this to the employees was because it had just been determined - the day before - that there would be an election in the plant the next month, and Loeb wanted them to vote against the Union. This juxtaposition of ideas could have but one meaning to the employees who listened : action by them in favor of the Union and action by Loeb putting an end to the business went hand-in-hand. It was a single speech merging all these ideas into a single message, and Loeb set the tone of his talk at the very start by saying his reaction to the entire idea was "to hell with the whole business." In the circumstances of the moment, with the election notice just posted , it would unreasonably strain credulity to believe Loeb did not intend the only conclusion his employees could logically draw from his total remarks. He may have been exaggerating , but the employees could not know this, and $96,000 is a great desl of money for a man to lose in less than 9 months, even if he does have independent means . True or false, the uncial condition did not warrant frightening the help wail the election was scheduled. There is no indication Loeb ever talked to them about it before. In his brief counsel for the Respondent says Loeb did no more than give the employees "bad news," "facts ... unrelated to their union activity," "discussions of plant closure . . . Douched in terms of the realities of economic life ... and the particular problems being faced by the Respondent." Speaking for his client, the lawyer says "the threats to the existence of the business were economic ." It is too late in the development of labor law in America to equate collective bargaining with economic disaster and thereby attempt to justify straight threats to close a plant as a means for choking off self-organizational activities. I find that regardless of how he may have "couched" his message in his speech given to all the assembled employees on October 15, 1968, Loeb threatened to discontinue his business if the employees voted in favor of union representation and thereby restrained and coerced them in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Several employees who had been present gave testimony of what they heard. Understandably they did not remember all Loeb said, and of course they could only quote him by paraphrasing. They are ordinary people and could not be expected to quote Loeb word for word 3 months later. And it may also be that the threat to close the plant was not articulated in the exact direct wording used by the witnesses. Thus, as the witnesses spoke: Myrtle Gardner: "He just said that if the union came in, he could go out of business and he would go out of business; couldn't nobody make him stay in business." Bessie Jackson: . . he said that he was not going to have a union in there; before he would have a union in there he would close the plant down , and go home and stay with his family." Annie Farris: "Well, he went on to say that the union - the Company didn't want the union, that they didn't want the union and they wasn't going to have a union and that, if the union was to come in and get organized, they would close the plant down the first of the year." Barbara Martin: " . . . he was damn surprised at the people letting the union talk them into coming into the place; that he wasn't going to have a union in the place and that, before he would have a union in there he would close the place down, and - I can't remember everything, just a few words." Velma Gibson: "He said before he'll let a union get in his plant, he would close down." Marion Webster: "He started out by saying that he was damn surprised to hear that we were letting some damn outsiders come in and get a union in to try to make us lose our jobs. He said that he was the sole owner of that plant, and that nobody could tell him who to hire or who to fire, and he said, if the union got in there that he would close the plant down January 1st, 1969." The witnesses also variously recalled other details of the speech, such as the extreme losses of the past, the fact the mayor of Memphis, Loeb's brother, was no longer associated with the business, Loeb's financial independence, the pleasure he would have staying home with his family, etc. There is no need for repeating all this for it is set out in the exhibit speech in evidence. The Respondent's attack upon the credibility of these employee witnesses is centered upon the fact each did not quote Loeb in exactly the same words when saying he had threatened to close the plant in retaliation for the union activity. And it is true they were not in precise accord; indeed several even recalled the date of the speech as October 9, instead of October 15. But there is no question they heard Loeb talking, for all the employees were called to the cafeteria that day for that purpose. Supervisor Robert Moore testified Loeb read the talk, but it does not appear he was present all three times it was given. And Mrs. Kelly's statement that she meticulously noted every change Loeb made from the text by so marking her copy is not quite correct . Some of the changes she made in her copy are minuscule and there does not seem to have been LOEB'S LAUNDRY 147 any reason why she should have made them . For example, she changed "learned" to "heard," "there is nobody going to," to "nobody's going to," "mighty" to "awful," "are going to" to "will," "folks" to "people," etc. If her purpose was expressly to create a literal record of what came out of Loeb's mouth , she failed if only because there are other words, deleted by Loeb himself from what is now said to be his own copy, but which Kelly did not strike from hers. To the extent that the employees' testimony means Loeb did some adlibbing , I believe them. He did not appear at the hearing to contradict them. More important, however, is the critical fact that what words the employees attributed to him - about closing the plant if a majority of the employees voted for the union - bespeak exactly the critical point which the speech in its totality was intended to convey. If, in retrospect, those who heard him recalled this to have been his heart message, their testimony is all the more credible. Other acts of illegal restraint and coercion On November 6, still in anticipation of the scheduled election, Loeb gave a second speech to the employees, this one directed primarily to comparing working conditions at the Respondent with those of a competitor laundry, White Rose, where there was a union . He had a certain chart to illustrate his remarks . Among other things, he related how, unlike White Rose, he had always given a Christmas bonus, how his wage rates were higher , and other things of this kind. As an aside to employees sitting next to her, Myrtle Gardner said Loeb was lying about something or other. Later in the day, while Gardner was talking to a group of employees during a break, she again said that Loeb had lied. Moore, the supervisor, heard her, smiled and walked away . The next day two documents appeared on the five or six bulletin boards about the plant ; one was Gardner's employment application , dated August 8, 1968, and the other a notice letter to all employees on the subject of Gardner having called Loeb a liar. In her employment application , Gardner had written that when previously employed by White Rose Laundry, ending in May 1967, she had received a $44 salary , and also the unexplained word "discharge" as the reason for leaving White Rose. The response for the Respondent, signed by Loeb himself, related how verification with the prior employer showed Gardner's wage rate had been $1 per hour while the Respondent was paying at the time $1.08. The letter to the employees closed with the following: Also you will notice that she said she was "discharge" from work at White Rose Laundry . The union was not able to protect her job when the company fired her. Read all this carefully , and then decide for yourself - who is lying and who is telling the truth. Loeb was correct on the wage rates . Gardner said at the hearing she had for years received a Christmas bonus at White Rose, and that she had only said Loeb had lied about this, or about "fringe benefits." Moore quoted Gardner as saying "Everything Mr. Loeb said is a damn lie." Be that as it may, it is clear no one had said anything about discharge. Why did Loeb inject this gratuity? What idea could it conceivably form in the minds of the employees? The logical answer is that Loeb simply saw another opportunity, out of the clear sky, for equating the thought of a union with the thought of discharge. And this was in keeping with the entire tenor of his extended remarks in the speeches of October 15. In fact, it will be recalled one of the employees, Mrs. Webster, quoted him as having said on the earlier occasion that the Union could not "tell him who to hire or who to fire." She may well have confused in her recollection Loeb's words at the speech and the implied message suggested in the notice posted a few weeks later. In any event, Loeb was making the association between discharge and unionism a ringing refrain throughout the plant. I find the deliberate injection of this thought once again on all the bulletin boards on November 7 a repetition of his earlier message to the employees that the unionism could endanger their jobs. A threat is no less a form of intimidation when it is indirectly phrased. I conclude that the Respondent's posting of this notice constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Employee Farris gave further testimony about a conversation she had with her supervisor, Campbell, a few weeks after Loeb's first speeches. She said Campbell engaged her in conversation and started by asking "how did I feel about the union" and that she replied she had not decided. At this point, still according to Farris' testimony, Campbell said he wanted to tell her a story about something that had happened in his hometown. Campbell went on to recall how at a certain place of employment in Kentucky a union had come to organize the employees and the employer, at a meeting, had given a speech to the employees "just like Mr. Loeb did, and told them that if the union was to get organized, they was going to close the plant down." Campbell went on to say that the employees in Kentucky had not believed the employer, had gone on and voted for the Union, and that the following Monday morning the plant had closed. According to Farris, Campbell concluded the conversation with "He wanted me to think about it before I voted, `because the boss means what he says when he says he's going to close the plant."' Campbell remembered this conversation with Farris, but according to him it was the employee who started the talk by complaining that she had not been interviewed for a certain job opening for which she had applied. Campbell said he explained he had known nothing about it and that on the next occasion he would see to it that she was considered for any possible opening. Campbell also recalled that in the course of the conversation the employee said she thought "the union might help," and that It's possible that when she said that about the union might be able to help I told her there were adversities connected with the union, also. I am from Madisonville, Kentucky, the Harlan Coal fields - this is what I told her - and prior to 1940. I told her that I was from the Harlan Coal fields in West Kentucky, Madisonville; that a lot of my relatives had worked in the coal mines . I remembered, when I was a boy they would come to our house and borrow money from my father and the, all at once, somewhere between '35 and '40 all of them had cars and had money, because this huge stripping plant had moved into Madisonville, Century 14, and it was unionized and then they had strikes, and at one time it came to the point, just before I left Madisonville to come to Memphis - there was some talk that the man who owned the stripping plant had said that he could not afford another strike; that he would just have to move the mine, which is highly mobile , a stripping. 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Then they had another strike, and the plant was removed from the town , and my two cousins and two uncles returned to borrow money, to eat on, from my father, which we didn't have too much to loan. Campbell closed his version of this conversation by saying "anytime the union was discussed I would close any conversation with the fact that the employees were to vote as they saw fit. It was a free election with a secret ballot." I credit Farris' testimony . There was nothing in what the employee told the supervisor at that time to give rise to any mention of strikes; her version of Campbell 's story about Kentucky comports with the total tenor of the owners broadside message. I find that albeit in an indirect form supervisor Campbell was reiterating the message of his superior, Mr. Loeb, that there was danger of plant closing if the employees were to vote in favor of the Union. He thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I also find, in the circumstances , that his interrogation as to how Farris felt about the Union was coercive and therefore a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Three employee witnesses testified about being interrogated concerning their union sentiments by their supervisor, Elnor Choate. Barbara Martin said that before Loeb's first speech Choate came to her to say: "Just between you and I . . . It won't go any further, how do you feel about the union?" She replied she favored the Union because she thought it would obtain increases in wages, and that the supervisor then told her Loeb pays more than any laundry in Memphis . Martin also testified that after Loeb's second speech , Choate one day asked her "How do you feel about the union now, since Mr. Loeb talked to you?" Now Martin answered she would have to think it over, and Choate closed with "You know Christmas is coming up and I think you ought to think about it, think about the bonus he gives us at Christmas time." Ellamese Hunt testified that on the last Monday in October, early in the morning one day, Choate asked: "What do you think about this we have to face on the 22nd? . . . I mean, are you for the Union?" Hunt replied that she did favor the Union. Bessie Jackson recalled that Choate called her too the morning after Loeb's talk and asked "what did I think about Mr. Loeb's speech." Jackson answered she did not think much of it, and Choate then asked her "what did I think about the union." Supervisor Choate did not testify and I credit these witnesses. With Loeb's direct threat to close the plant in retaliation to curb the union activities of the employees, this interrogation by the supervisor of all three employees cannot be excused. I find that by interrogating them Choate committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. Early the morning after Loeb's speeches of October 15, supervisor Moore called six or seven employees to meet with him at the elevator as the girls were preparing to start work . At the hearing he said he gathered the women because of a rumor that the place would close and. "I was trying to satisfy them that it was going to stay open." Three of the employees who were present testified about this incident. As Gibson recalled: He was talking about the union . He said the union wasn't any good. He said the union could charge anything they want to, $10.00, and then Marion Webster said, `That's a lie', and he said, `If the union do get in Mr. Loeb will close the ....' As Webster recalled : "He started out by telling us that if the union got in there, that the plant would go out of business, and that we would lose our jobs; and that the union wasn't any good because it couldn't do anything for us, and that the union dues would be $ 10.00 and over." In her direct testimony employee Ruby Armour testified that Moore told them the Union would cost them money and not help them. She said she volunteered it was not exactly salary that concerned her, but conditions of employment, and then spoke to the entire group about how some employees had privileges different from others, such as the white employees enjoying better eating accomodations than the blacks. In cross-examination she rejected the suggestion the supervisor was only explaining Loeb's remarks, and insisted all he said was that "Loeb would close the place down if the union got in ." Armour closed her testimony with the statement she had formed the impression "they wanted us to vote no." The essential burden of Moore's version of the meeting he called was that he was attempting to scotch talk of plant closing. "I told them that Mr. Loeb had told us it wasn't anything connected with the union ; the place wasn't making any money, and that he was keeping the place open for his own personal reasons and for the sake of the employees that were working for him and , as long as he lived, he said, he was going to try his darndest to keep it open." He then admitted that in the middle of all this Marion Webster asked him: "Well, if the union gets in here reckon will he close the place up?," and that he, Moore, replied: "I don't know . You will have to ask Mr. Loeb that question." He denied any talk of union dues or specific complaint having been brought up by the employees at that time. He did recall telling the employees "if they had any problems I'd be glad, you know, to talk with her on it." He expressly denied saying that Mr. Loeb would close the plant, or would close the plant in consequence of the Union activity. Moore's testimony is internally inconsistent. The girls wanted to know why he had assembled them there, and, according to him, "I told her that I called them together to stop the rumor that the place was going to be closed up." But if his purpose had really been to reassure them he would hardly have said the place was losing money and that Loeb was straining to avoid closure . And he admitted that when one employee asked would Loeb close because of the Union, all he answered was he did not know, "You will have to ask Loeb that question." Instead of calming the employees, quieting the rumor - as he later claimed - he was instead adding fuel to the fire. Moreover, the statements attributed to him by the employees are consistent with the very talk the owner had given the day before, that the plant was in danger of closing in the event the employees favored the Union. I credit the employee witnesses and find that on October 16 supervisor Moore reiterated the threat of plant closure in retaliation for union activities and again violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with their operations set forth in section I , above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes LOEB'S LAUNDRY burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By William Loeb's, Robert Moore's and Clarence Campbell's statements to employees that the Company would close its plant, with loss of jobs to the employees, if the employees persisted in their prounion activities, and by Elnor Choate's coercive interrogation of employees concerning their union activities , the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that William Loeb and Louis G. Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry, Memphis, Tennessee, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from threatening employees with closure of the plant and the consequent loss of jobs, coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities, or in any like or related manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at their place in Memphis , Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, shall , after being duly signed by the Respondents' representative , be posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 26, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith.2 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States 149 Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order " 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act we hereby notify our employees that: After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to post this Notice and to keep our word about what we say in this Notice. WE WILL NOT threaten to close the plant because of the Union. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees because of the Union. WE WILL NOT question our employees on whether they wish to be represented by a union or not. WE WILL NOT discourage union activity or membership in Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization. WE WILL respect the rights of our employees to self-organization , to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of employment through said Union, or any representative of their own choosing, or to refrain from such activity , and we will not interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of these rights, except insofar as these rights can be affected by any contract with a labor organization, if validly made in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, whereby membership therein is a condition of employment after the 30th day following the date of such contract or the beginning of such employment, whichever is later. You and all our employees are free to become members of any labor organization, or to refrain from doing so. Dated By WILLIAM LOEB AND Louis G. LEMLE, D/B/A LOEB's LAUNDRY (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 746 Federal Office Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 901-534-3161.