Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc.

In the Matter of SUNSHINE WET WASH LAUNDRY, INC. and SUNSHINia LAUNDRY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 560, PARTY TO THE CONTRACT Case No. C-1454.-Decided January 20, 1940 Laundry and Dry Cleaning Industry-Settlement: stipulation providing for compliance with the Act, including reinstatement of two employees and the placing of five employees on a preferential hiring list-Complaint : dismissed as to allegations of discrimination against 18 employees and as to allegations of violation of Section 8 (5)-Order: entered on stipulation. Mr. Martin I. Rose, for the Board. Mr. Maurice A. Pompan, of New York City, for the respondent. Mr. John F. X. Landrigan, of Bayonne, N. J., for the Association. Mr. Jacob Friedland, of Jersey City, N. J., for the Brotherhood. Mr. Harold M. Weston, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon amended charges duly filed by the Sunshine Laundry Em- ployees Association, herein called the Association, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) issued its complaint dated September 5, 1939, against Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., Bay- onne, New Jersey, herein called the respondent, alleging that the re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accom- panied by a notice of hearing were duly served upon the respondent, the Association, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 560, herein called the Brotherhood. Regarding the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged, in sub- stance, that the respondent, in or about August 1936, discharged 19 N. L. R. B. No. 82. 764 SUNSHINE WET WASH LAUNDRY, INOORPORATED 765 Edgar H. Wode, employed at its Bayonne plant, and has since refused to reinstate him, because he joined and assisted the Association and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection ; that from in and about March 1936, and thereafter to the date of the issuance of the complaint, the respondent, by its officers and agents, has urged, per- suaded, and warned employees at its Bayonne plant to refrain from becoming or remaining members of the Association, has threatened them with discharge and other reprisals if they became or remained members thereof, and has kept under surveillance the meetings and meeting places of the members of the Association; that on or about August 24, 1936, 24 named employees 1 of the respondent went out on strike because of the above-described unfair labor practices and that said strike was prolonged by the unfair labor practices hereinafter set forth; that on or about September 1, 1936, and at all times there- after, the respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Associa- tion as the exclusive representative of all production and maintenance employees, including male truck drivers and salesmen, at its Bayonne plant, although the majority of these employees designated the As- sociation. as their representative for the purpose of collective bargain- ing and said employees constituted an appropriate unit for that pur- pose; that on or about September 3, 1936, the respondent entered into a closed-shop contract with the Brotherhood in respect to the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment of the male truck drivers and salesmen of the respondent, although on said date the Brother- hood had not been designated by and did not represent a majority of any of the employees of the respondent, and that said contract was, on March 7, 1938, renewed by the Brotherhood and the respondent; that on or about September 5, 1936, the respondent refused and thereafter continued to refuse, to reinstate the striking employees referred to above, because they joined and assisted the Association and engaged in other concerted activities for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and other mutual aid and protection and, more par- ticularly, because they went out on strike; and that by the aforesaid .acts, and refusals to act, the respondent has interfered with, re- strained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. 'The names of the 24 employees are : Helen Beach, Ethel Burnell, Josephine Caiola, Helen Charmel, Albert Demanjovich, Anna Stefko Demanjovich, Mrs. Julia Demanjovich, Gladys Fraser, Mrs. Anna Prokop Furchak, Carrie Kolakowski, Tessie Levandowski, Fran- ces Loch, James Lowery, Anna Papson, Tessie Polakowski, William Pomel, Thomas Shaw, Mrs. Alice Sodrick, Arthur Trainor, Susan Tucker, Emily Wilson, Gus Wolfle, Henry Frommer, and Helen Sosnowski. Tessie Levandowski, Thomas Shaw, Arthur Trainor, Susan Tucker, and Gus Wolfle are referred to, respectively, as Tessie Levandowski Deman- jovich, Thomas Schaul (Shaw), Anthony Trainor, Susan Tukar (Tucker), and August Wolfe, in the stipulation entered into by the parties in settlement of the case and in the order which we shall issue thereon. 766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On September 16, 1939, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint. In its answer the respondent admitted the execution of the contract with the Brotherhood alleged in the complaint, and the renewal thereof, but denied the jurisdiction of the Board and all averments of unfair labor practices, and affirmatively alleged that the discharge of Wode and all of its acts with respect to its truck drivers and salesmen were in conformity with, and in the exercise of its rights under individual contracts of employment en- tered into between the respondent and said employees. On September 19, 1939, the Brotherhood filed its answer to the complaint, admitting that it had entered into a closed-shop agree- ment with the respondent, but denying that, at the time of the con- summation of said contract, the Brotherhood had not been designated by and did not represent a majority of the chauffeurs employed by the respondent, and also denying all allegations with respect to the unfair labor practices. On September 29, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of postponement of the hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the respondent, the Association, and the Brotherhood. On November '17, 1939, the respondent, the Association, the Brotherhood, and counsel for the Board entered into a stipulation in settlement of the case. This stipulation provides as follows : It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., respondent herein, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 560, affiliated with the A. F. of L., party to the contract, Sunshine Laundry Employees Association, and Martin I. Rose, attorney for the National Labor Relations Board, that : 1. Upon charges duly filed by Sunshine Laundry Employees Association, the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting pursuant to authority in Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act (49 Stat. 449), and its Rules and' Regulations, Series 2, Article IV, Section 1, issued its complaint on the 5th day of September 1939, against Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., respondent herein. II. Respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., is and has been since June 1, 1925 a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New Jersey, having its principal office and place of business at 29 West 30th Street, City of Bayonne, County of Hudson, State of New Jersey, and is now and has been continuously engaged at a place of business at 29 East 30th Street, City of Bayonne, SUNSHINE WET WASH LAUNDRY, INOORPORATED 767 County of Hudson, State of New Jersey, hereinafter called the Bayonne plant, in the general laundry and dry cleaning business including the collection, laundering, dry cleaning and distribu- tion of cloths and clothing and related products. III. The chemicals, material and fuel used by respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., in operations in said Bayonne plant are : acetic acid, oxalic acid, tri-chlor ethyln, boxes, paper, gum tape, twine, oil. A. The respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc. pur- chases and uses annually in the operations of said Bayonne plant between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 of such materials, chemicals and fuel, amounting in bulk to approximately 1 ton, of which 50% is shipped during such period to said Bayonne plant from places outside the State of New Jersey. Some of such places from which said materials, chemicals and fuel are shipped to said Bayonne plant are New York and Pennsylvania. Such shipments are by truck. B. The annual volume of business of respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., is in dollar value approximately between $100,000.00 and $150,000.00 and by bulk approximately 1,200,000 lbs. of cloths, clothing and related products laundered and dry cleaned in said Bayonne plant. Approximately 12% of such annual business in dollar value and by bulk is done outside the State of New Jersey, namely, in the State of New York. C. Respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., operates a fleet of 13 trucks as a necessary and integral part of its busi- ness. By means of such trucks, cloths, clothing, and related products are collected and delivered to said Bayonne plant and after having been laundered and/or dry cleaned in said plant are shipped and distributed from said plant to said respondent's customers including customers outside the State of New Jersey. The drivers of said trucks also solicit business and make col- lections of payments due said respondent. Such solicitation and collection is performed within and without the State of New Jersey. D. The total number of employees normally employed by respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., is: production 50, clerical 2, shipping 13. E. Respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., advertises in Bayonne which circulate in New Jersey. IV. Respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., is en- gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court thereunder. 1768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. Sunshine Laundry Employees Association and Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 560 , are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the National, Labor Relations Act. VI. This stipulation, together with the charge, amended charges, complaint , notice of hearing and postponements thereof, answers, and Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board may be introduced as evidence by filing them at Washington, D. C., with the Chief Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board. VII. The taking of testimony or evidence in this proceeding and the making of findings of facts and conclusions by the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act are hereby expressly waived by the respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., Inter- national Brotherhood of 't'eamsters , Chauffeurs , Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 560, affiliated with the A. F. of L., and the Sunshine Laundry Employees Association. VIII. Upon this stipulation, if approved by the National Labor Relations Board, and upon the record herein, an order may forth- with be entered by said Board and by the appropriate United States Circuit Court of Appeals, without further notice of the application for the enforcement thereof, providing as follows : The respondent Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., and its officers, agents, successors and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist (a) From in any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization , to form, join , or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; (b) From discouraging membership in Sunshine Laundry Employees Association , or any other labor organization of its employees, by discriminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any condition of employment or in any other manner; 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Anthony Trainor and August Wolfe immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and SUNSHINE WET WASH LAUNDRY, INOORPORATED 769 other rights and privileges and all employees hired after August. 24, 1936 shall, if necessary to provide employment for the afore- said persons to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed. (b) Place Albert Demanjovich, Tessie Levandowski Deman-- jovich, Carrie Kolakowski, Frances Loch and Helen Beach on- a preferential list and offer them employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment be- comes available and before other parties are hired for such work; (c) Post immediately, upon receipt of a copy of the order to be entered by the Board, in conspicuous places throughout its Bayonne Plant, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that said respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b), of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps said respondent has taken to comply herewith. IX. It is further stipulated and agreed that the complaint insofar as it relates to International Brotherhood of Teamsters,. Chauffeurs, Stablemen R Helpers of America, Local No. 560,. party to the contract, and Edgar H. Wode, Ethel Burnell, Jose- phine Caiola, Helen Charmel, Anna Stefko Demanjovich,, Gladys Fraser, Anna Prokop Furchak, James Lowry, Anna Pap-- son, Tessie Polakowski, William Pomel, Thomas Schaul (Shaw),, Alice Sodrick, Susan Tukar (Tucker), Emily Wilson, Henry Frommer, Helen Sosnowski, Mrs.' Julia Demanjovich be dismissed. X. It is further stipulated and agreed. that the complaint insofar as it alleges that respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the National Labor Relations Act be dismissed. XI. It is further stipulated and agreed that this stipulation is subject, to the approval of the National Labor Relations. Board. XII. It is further. stipulated and agreed that this stipulation contains the entire agreement of the parties and there is no verbal agreement of any kind which varies, alters, modifies or adds: to this stipulation. On January 2, 1940, the Board issued its order approving the. above stipulation, making it part of the record, and transferring the. proceeding to the Board for the, purpose of entry of a decision and order by the Board. 770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the above stipulation and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, maintaining its principal office and . place of business in Bayonne, New Jersey, is engaged , at its Bayonne plant, in the general laundry and dry-cleaning business , including the collecting , laundering, dry cleaning, and distribution of cloths and clothing and related products. The respondent normally employs 50 production and maintenance, 13 shipping, and 2 clerical employees. In the operation of the Bayonne plant the respondent purchases and uses annually between $2,000 and $3 ,000 of materials, chemicals, and fuel, consisting of acetic acid, oxalic acid, tri-chlor ethyln, boxes, paper, gum tape, twine, and oil and amounting in bull. to approxi- mately 1 ton, of which 50 per cent are shipped to the respondent :from points outside the State of New Jersey. The annual volume of the respondent's business is between approximately $100,000 to $150,000, and by bulk amounts to approximately 1,200,000 pounds of cloths, clothing, and related products. Approximately 12 per cent of such business is done outside the State of New Jersey. The respondent operates a fleet of 13 trucks as a necessary and in- tegral part of its business . By means of such trucks, clothing, and related products are collected and delivered to the respondent's Bay- onne plant and after having been laundered and/or dry cleaned in said plant are shipped to the respondent 's customers, including cus- tomers outside the State of New Jersey . The drivers of said trucks also solicit business and make collections of payment due to the re- spondent, both within and without the State of New Jersey. We find that the above-described operations "constitute a continuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, stipulation, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Sunshine Wet Wash Laundry, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through SUNSHINE WET WASEI LAUNDRY, INCORPORATED 771 representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; (b) Discouraging membership in Sunshine Laundry Employees Association, or any other labor organization of its employees, by dis- criminating against employees in regard to hire or tenure of em- ployment or any condition of employment, or in any other manner. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer to Anthony Trainor and August Wolfe immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges and all employees hired after August 24, 1936, shall, if necessary to provide employment for the aforesaid persons to be offered reinstatement, be dismissed; (b) Place Albert Demanjovich, Tessie Levandowski Demanjovich, Carrie Kolakowski, Frances Loch, and Helen Beach on a preferential list and offer them employment in their former or substantially equivalent positions as such employment becomes available and before other parties are hired for such work; (c) Post immediately, upon receipt, a copy of this order, in con- spicuous places throughout its Bayonne plant, and keep posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the manner set forth in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) and that it will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order; (d) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it relates to International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 560, party to the contract, and Edgar H. Wode, Ethel Burnell, Josephine Caiola, Helen Charmel, Anna Stefko Demanjovich, Gladys Fraser, Anna. Prokop Furchak, James Lowery, Anna Papson, Tessie Polakowski, William Pomel, Thomas Schaul (Shaw), Alice Sodrick, Susan Tukar (Tucker), Emily Wilson, Henry Frommer, Helen Sosnowski, and Mrs. Julia Demanjovich, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint in so far as it alleges that the respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.