Admiral Linen Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 361
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Lawler's Cafeteria & Catering Company is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and Hotel , Motel, and
Restaurant Club Employees Union Local 353, affiliated with Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By interrogating employees with respect to union membership and activity,
threatening them with terminating the business if they selected the above-described
Union or any labor organization to represent them, and engaging in , and attempting
to engage in, surveillance of employees ' union activities , Respondent engaged in
conduct that interfered with , coerced, and restrained employees in regard to the
exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section
8(a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Admiral Linen Service and Local 131, Laundry and Dry Clean-
ing International Union, AFL-CIO
Admiral Linen Service and Local 131, Laundry and Dry Clean-
ing International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1291-2
and 23-CA-1328. August 29, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 23, 1962, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his In-
termediate Report 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 Interme-
diate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to it three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
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 Interme-
diate Report and the entire record in the case, including the exceptions
and brief, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.'
'Concerning the remarks of John and Duff Trimble found violative of 8(a) (1) by the
Trial Examiner , we specifically rely upon the testimony of employee Brown that they said
the employees would no longer get turkeys or chickens for holidays , bonuses, and the
privilege of "breaks "; and of employee Dickerson that they said if the Union came in
the employees would have to start working again on Saturdays and their " time would
be cut " However the Board finds merit in the Respondent ' s exception to the Trial
Examiner 's finding that the speech of Clifford G . Sliawd was violative of Section 8(a) (1)
of the Act. No written text of the speech is in evidence and the only credited testimony
concerning it is that of Shawd himself . Although the noncoerciveness of the effect of
138 NLRB No. 48.
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner with
the following modification.2
these remarks upon the employees involved is not without doubt, we conclude that, under
the circumstances of this case, the speech was not coercive but protected under Section
8(c) of the Act.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent also violated 8(a) (1) by
announcing a wage increase shortly after the Board's direction of election issued, and
note that Respondent has failed to show that this action, though applicable to "both union
and non-union adherents," was part of a normal pattern of wage increases unrelated to
union activity
In connection with the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharge of four of the six
shirt line girls on September 19 was discriminatory because of their membership and
activities on behalf of the Union, he erroneously found that Minter, one of the two not
discharged, as well as Cabellei o, did not attend the September 17 union meeting observed
by Supervisor Craft. Actually, or Mills testified, she saw Minter at the meeting. This,
however, does not affect our agreement with the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion.
We note that earlier, about September 1, Craft had warned an employee not to sign a
union card and said that he would get rid of anyone who did, and that about September 7
he had given written warnings to the four shirt line girls who had signed cards, and none
to the two who had not, although all six left work early. Actually leaving work early
was customary when, as the record here indicates, it was apparent that no more work
would be available on a particular day. When the six again left work early on Septem-
ber 18, the day after the union meeting which was under surveillance by Craft, the four
who had signed cards were discharged and the two who had not were given an oral
reprimand In all the circumstances, including the disparate disciplinary treatment
among the six, we conclude that the Respondent knew that the four girls who were dis-
charged had signed union cards and intended the discharge to discourage union activity,
in violation of Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act
Although we note that the Respondent gave conflicting reasons for the discharge of
Jearline Dickerson, we find that Dickerson's attendance at the Union's first mass meeting
on September 2 is not enough, standing alone, to impute knowledge of her union ad-
herence to the Respondent We further note that in regard to this union meeting which
she attended, there is no allegation that it was under surveillance by the Respondent.
Accordingly, we find merit in the Respondent's exception to the Trial Examiner's conclusion
that Dickerson's discharge on September 5 violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1).
z Reference to Jearline Dickerson is hereby deleted from the Order and notice.
The flu st line of the notice below the signature is amended to read " . . posted for
to consecutive days from the date of posting, . . "
The following note will appear immediately below the signature in the notice
"NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United states of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act after discharge from the Armed Forces."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed in Case No. 23-CA-1291-2 on September 6, 1961, and
thereafter amended , and upon a charge filed in Case No . 23-CA- 1328 on Novem-
ber 3, 1961, and thereafter amended , by Local 131, Laundry and Dry Cleaning In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union , the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board , hereinafter called the General Counsel' and
the Board , respectively, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region
(Houston, Texas ), issued a complaint dated October 23, 1961 , and a second com-
plaint dated December 18, 1961, against Admiral Linen Service , hereinafter called
the Respondent. The complaints alleged that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations
Act of 1947, as amended , herein called the Act . Copies of the charges, amended
charges, complaints , and order consolidating and notice of hearing thereon were
duly served upon the Union and Respondent.
i This term specifically includes the attorneys appearing for the General Counsel at the
hearing.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 363
Respondent duly filed its answers admitting certain allegations of the complaints
but denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing on both complaints was held at Houston,
Texas, on January 17, 18, and 19, 1961, before Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson.
All parties appeared at the hearing, were represented by counsel, and afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce evidence material and pertinent to the issues, and were advised of their right
to argue orally upon the record and to file briefs and proposed findings and con-
clusions or both. Oral argument was waived. Briefs have been received from Re-
spondent and General Counsel on March 2, 1962.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses, the
Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Admiral Linen Service is, and has been at all times material hereto, a corporation
duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Texas, having
its principal office, plant, and place of business at Houston, Texas, where it is en-
gaged in the business of commercial and industrial linen and uniform rental service
and supply. Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations at its
Houston, Texas, plant, during the past 12-month period, a representative period, pur-
chased goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000, which goods and supplies were
transported to its Houston, Texas, plant directly from points outside the State of
Texas. During the same period, Respondent's gross volume of income received from
sales and business operations was in excess of $500,000.
The complaints alleged, the answers admit, and the Trial Examiner finds that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II. THE UNION INVOLVED
Local 131, Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The facts
1. The Trimble speeches
Sometime about the middle of August 1961,2 John P. and Duff Trimble, father and
son, respectively, and Respondent's president and its plant manager, were vacation-
ing in California when they were notified by telephone from the plant in Houston
that an attempt to organize Respondent's employees by the Union was believed to be
imminent. It was well known to Respondent through daily newspapers and reports
from trade associations to which it belonged that the Union had been organizing
the employees of nearby Mechanics Uniform Supply Company, that it had suc-
ceeded in so doing early in July at a Board election, and that it intended to attempt
to organize the whole laundry industry of Houston as soon as possible.
By August 17 or 24,3 John and Duff Trimble were back at Respondent's plant in
Houston and had decided to assemble and speak to Respondent's employees because,
as John Trimble put it, during an earlier organizational attempt at the plant in 1949
by another union, he discovered that some of his employees had not realized at
that time that Respondent did not want them organized. He did not wish to commit
that mistake again.
So on August 24,4 Respondent had its employees assembled during working hours
so both John and Duff Trimble could "point out our side" to the employees.
In preparing his speech John Trimble had studied an undated release by the Texas
Restaurant Association entitled "What To Do and Not To Do About Unions" in
which the following suggestions were made:
2 All dates herein are in the year 1961 unless otherwise specified
2 The witnesses for General Counsel tended to place this meeting on the earlier date
whereas John Trimble calculated it to be "on or about August 24 " The actual date is
unimportant because In either event it was prior to any actual organizing attempt at the
Respondent's plant
'For convenience the Trial Examiner has here accepted Respondent's date.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, so long as he [employer] does not use threats or promises of re-
ward, the employer can make any argument against a union to his employees
as he sees fit. . . .
He can point out that a union simply does not fit a small retail business like
his. . Without the Union they can deal with one another on a man to man
basis. If a union comes in, an outside stranger comes between the operator and
his employees. . . . It costs to belong to a union... .
The operator can point out to his employees the benefits and advantages that
he has given them without their having a union He can point out what he has
done and that he is doing everything for them that his narrow margin of profit
will permit. He can emphasize that he can not do any more than his narrow
margin of profit will permit even if they add a union to his restaurant. The
operator can point out to his employees that a strike doesn't generally happen
at a place of business where there is not a union but that they know from read-
ing the papers and from their own experience that strikes are quite common in
business places where there is a union . When a strike happens, both the em-
ployer and the employees lose... .
* * * * * * *
4. Do it now. The best time for a restaurant operator to protect himself
against the Union is before the union organizer comes to his employees-not
afterwards. Get your house in order. Don't wait. Do it now. Get closer to
your employees now. Talk to your employees now. See what you can reason-
ably do to improve their working conditions, and do it now. Ask yourself what
you would be willing to do, pay, or give to keep from having a union in your
restaurant or your establishment if you were at the point where your employees
had already joined the Union and you were up against either signing a union
contract or facing a picket line. When you have answered that question, do
it now.
After the employees had assembled, John Trimble spoke from his own prepared
notes. It is clear from these notes, which Trimble testified he followed "fairly
closely," that he started his talk, as the witnesses for the General Counsel testified,
describing the cost of union organization to employees: $3 per month dues, assess-
ments, fines, and night meetings which would require babysitting expenses. Next
he stressed the fact that the Union would be a "stranger" butting in the happy re-
lationship of employer and employee.
Following this Trimble stressed the benefits which the Respondent had voluntarily
given the employees without the necessity of there being a union in the plant: (1) the
Booster Club which made loans to employees at 5-percent interest thus making it
cheap to borrow money and giving those with savings a "good return" on their
money; (2) Respondent's profit-sharing plan with its usual Christmas and June
bonuses; (3) the rest periods; 5 (4) vacations with pay; (5) the chickens Respondent
gave employees at Thanksgiving and the turkeys and candies given them at Christmas;
(6) the fact that Respondent had raised the plant roof 6 feet in order to cool off the
working place of the employees; and (7) the fact that in June Respondent had elim-
inated work on Saturdays.
These notes show that Trimble ended his speech on the theme that Respondent
would "pay all we can and still show -a profit" and, as proof that the Respondent was
not "making a big profit," Trimble cited the fact that he had lived in the same house
for 23 years.
Employee witnesses testified, and Trimble denied, that in addition Trimble had
stated in the course of his speech that, if the Union came, in, Respondent would have
to eliminate at least some of the benefits cited, particularly the chickens, the turkeys,
and the candy and would perhaps have to return to working on Saturdays. One
witness recalled that Trimble also said that, if the Union came in, a lot of innocent
people would be hurt.
When John P. Trimble at the conclusion of his talk inquired of his son Duff if he
had anything to add, Duff made a little speech in which, as he testified, he said:
I am sure you have covered this subject very well, but one thing I think you
might have left out is that I understand at Mechanics Uniform where they now
have a union, the employees are required to stay, at their breaks, stay at their
stations during their breaks, whereas now where we have our breaks we are
6 John Trimble 's handwritten notes on this point reads as follows, "III Rest Periods
(at Mechanics stay at press)."
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 365
allowed to leave the premises or do anything that the time allows us to do.6
[Emphasis supplied.]
The Trimbles and the other witnesses for the Respondent denied, although many
of these denials were of the "do not remember," "do not recall," or "did not hear"
variety, that any threats were made in these speeches. Thus there is a direct con-
flict between the testimony of the witnesses for the General Counsel and those for
Respondent. The Trial Examiner is convinced that the Trimbles did, in fact, threaten
to curtail the benefits given by Respondent to the employees if the Union were
voted into the plant.? He so finds.
2. Glodine Williams
As of August 29 one of Respondent's regular pressers was on vacation. A week
or so before Respondent had sought the help of another laundry in locating a presser.
As a result of this inquiry one Beatrice Holton (or Horton) had been contacted and
accepted for employment by Respondent. But since that time Holton had not re-
ported for work. Respondent therefore had several presses standing idle.
About 7 a.m. on August 29 Glodine Williams applied to Respondent's Assistant
Superintendent John Berry for work and requested work as a checker. Under ques-
tioning by Berry, Glodine denied having had experience as a presser despite the fact
that she had had several years of such experience. In spite of her professed inex-
perience, Berry promptly assigned Glodine to a vacant press.
Although Respondent did not and could not have realized it at the time of hire,
Glodine was in fact the spearhead of the Union's organizational drive which Re-
spondent had been anticipating at least since August 24. She had applied for work
directly from union headquarters.
Glodine had worked for some 14 years for Mechanics Uniform Supply Company,
had signed a union authorization card while still employed there, but had been
discharged for reasons not disclosed in this record sometime in early July. She
applied for work with Respondent because she needed a job and at the request
of the Union in order to try to organize the employees of Respondent.
During August 29 and 30,8 Glodine let it be known to the employees during the
break periods that she had union authorization cards for distribution and that she
would have some such cards under her purse lying on her press for any employee
who might want one.
A number of the employees including Marie Brown and Evelyn White accepted
such authorization cards from Glodine, signed them, and returned them to Glodine
at her press. Both the named employees also secured other authorization cards from
under Glodine's purse on the press, had them executed by other employees, and then
returned them to Glodine at her press during working hours. In all the Union
received some 29 signed authorization cards through these effort of Glodine.
Glodine herself testified that, so far as she knew, none of Respondent's officials or
supervisors had seen her engaging in these union activities
In his testimony Duff Trimble admitted that he had seen some union authoriza-
tion cards in the front of the plant (where the presses are located) but was not sure
whether he had seen them before or after the discharge of Glodine.
It is obvious that the mere acts of passing out and returning as many as 29 union
applications from and to Glodine's press over a period of 1 or 2 days in a plant
of 188 employees under the direct supervision of two assistant superintendents, John
Berry and Les Craft, must necessarily have created a considerable amount of un-
6 Regarding this statement of affairs at Mechanics Uniforms referred to above, Duff
Trimble also testified as follows: "I never said it is a fact because I did not know it to
be a fact and don't to this day."
7 The parenthetical reference to Mechanics Uniform Supply Company in John Trimble's
notes, noted in footnote above, as well as Duff Trimble 's own description of his talk on this
occasion prove that through these talks Respondent intended to convey the implication at
least of the probable loss of fringe benefits to the employees if they should become inter-
ested in union representation . That would be the only possible purpose for Respondent's
even mentioning the fact that rest periods had been curtained at Mechanics with the
advent of the Union in that plant Duff made the threat quite explicit. Honest appear-
ing witnesses for the General Counsel testified that John Trimble was explicit in his
threats also . Under these circumstances the Trial Examiner cannot credit John Trimble's
denials thereof.
8 Glodine testified that the first day she distributed union cards to the employees was on
August 30 but apparently some of the employees either secured such cards from her on
August 29 or else were mistaken as to the date on which they secured such cards.
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
usual and noticeable activity at or near the press of Glodine Williams With Berry
and Craft having just been alerted to the probability of just such unusual activity
within the week, it is inconceivable that such activity could have gone unnoticed by
both supervisors long, especially as Duff, whose work was mostly in the office, admits
to having seen such cards. Under these circumstances the Trial Examiner cannot
credit Respondent's claims that it knew nothing of Glodine's activities.
As Glodine was preparing to depart from the plant on August 30, her second day,
Berry asked her if she was "satisfied." Glodine answered that she was only trying
to find out how many pieces she had pressed that day.
Glodine reported for work at the usual time on Thursday, August 31, cleaned up
her press as required, and was beginning to press when Berry walked up, stood silently
watching her for several minutes, and then said, "There is no use your going to work,
go in the office and get your money."
As ordered, Glodme clocked out and received her pay. She has never since been
employed by Respondent.
3. Other events
On August 31, John Trimble received a telephone call from Bailey, president of
the Union, in which Bailey claimed that the Union represented a majority of the
Respondent's employees. John Trimble claimed that this was the first informa-
tion that he had regarding the union organizational drive. In view of Duff Trimble's
testimony, however, this seems hardly likely.
Either just before or just after the discharge of Glodine Respondent hired the
nonlawyer management and labor relations consultant, Clifford G Shawd of San
Antonio, Texas,9 to take care of what Respondent considered, according to Shawd, its
"number one problem." the Union's organizational drive.
Shawd's first suggestion to Respondent on this problem was that Respondent post
a sign or rule against "solicitation" in the plant. Although the testimony shows that
such a no-solicitation sign was in fact posted, Respondent was unable to locate same
to produce at the hearing
On September 1 the Union handed out leaflets at the plant to the employees.
Employee Evelyn White was at her work station folding towels while perusing
one of these leaflets. There was a batch of such leaflets at the end of her table.
Les Craft walked up to her and asked White if she "had read the signs saying that if
they caught anybody reading handbills that they were going to fire them." White
denied having seen such a notice. Craft then ordered her to throw her own and
the batch of handbills into the trash can 10
About this same time Craft inquired of employee Marie Brown if she had signed
a union card. When Brown answered that she had not, Craft answered that she
"better had not " On several other occasions Craft inquired of Brown if she knew
of any employees who had signed union cards. On one occasion, at least, he added
that he did not want the Union in the plant and was going "to get rid" of anyone who
had signed a union card.l'
0 This is one date about which the witnesses for Respondent , including Shawd, were
almost studiously uncertain Shawd's testimony was that he was hired "about the first
of September " But Shawd also was uncertain as to whether he had been consulted about
the discharge of Glodine prior to that event or not . According to his testimony , his un-
certainty stemmed from the fact that he had heard so much about that discharge. Duff
also was uncertain as to whether he had consulted Shawd prior to that discharge but
finally came to the conclusion that he had not because the first question Shawd had asked
upon being employed was whether anyone had been discharged which, of course , brought
up the Glodine Williams' ease.
10 Craft admitted having had a conversation with White regarding leaflets His explana-
tion was that he merely admonished her about reading anything on working time. Craft's
credibility as a witness will be discussed hereinafter The Trial Examiner credits the
testimony of White.
11 The following direct examination of Les Craft is typical of Craft as a witness:
Q. . . . did you on or about September 1, 1961, prior to that or after that date,
interrogate any employee concerning her union membership , activities and desires?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever ask any employee whether she was a member of the Union or had
signed a union card?
A. I don ' t remember. I might have I am not sure
Q. You don't recall whether you did or not?
A. No, sir.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 367
4. Jearline Dickerson
Jearline Dickerson had worked for Respondent off and on ever since Respondent's
plant opened in 1948, 14 years or so before the hearing. Jearline had returned
from a 13-month maternity leave in March or April 1960 and had worked for Re-
spondent continuously thereafter . In September Jearline was working at 65 cents
per hour in Respondent 's soil room rolling soiled roller towels on a machine and
tying them up for washing The evidence shows that this was a rather intricate job
of folding these ( 100-foot roller towels to certain specified lengths and then securely
tying them a certain way preparatory to washing . If the job was not done correctly,
it caused trouble in washing the towel.
On either August 29 or 30 Marie Brown had secured a few union authorization
cards from Glodine Williams at her press . She gave one of these to Jearline who
signed the same and returned it to Marie Brown in the back of Respondent 's plant
which was under the supervision of Les Craft . Marie Brown in turn returned it to
Glodine Williams at her press in the front of the plant which was under the super-
vision of Assistant Superintendent Berry.
On September 2, the Union held its first mass meeting for Respondent's employees
at a hall on West Street . Jearline attended.
Monday, September 4, was Labor Day which apparently is no holiday in Texas as
Respondent had instructed its employees that they were all expected to work that
Monday.
Jearline's baby took sick early on the morning of September 4. Early that morning
she took her baby to the clinic where the baby was treated by a doctor . 12 Jearline
did not go to the Respondent 's plant that Monday.
There is a dispute between Jearline and Craft as to whether Jearline made any
effort to telephone Respondent 's plant to request permission of the Respondent to
be absent that day in order to take her child to the doctor Jearline testified that she
called and notified whoever answered the telephone about 6 a.m. Craft on the other
hand testified that, when Jearline failed to appear for work , he inquired of one
of the two employees who were at the plant prior to its opening for the employees
at or about 7 a.m., if he had received any message from Jearline regarding her absence.
This man, according to Craft, denied having received any such telephone call from
Jearline. Craft was indecisive as to whether he had or had not talked to the other
man, a Trimble , on duty at the plant at 6 a m., about the matter . Respondent failed
to call either Trimble or the other man on duty to refute Jearline's testimony of her
6 a m. telephone call. Respondent made no showing that either of these men was
unavailable . Under all these circumstances , the Trial Examiner would have to find
that Jearline made the telephone call as she testified-if such finding were necessary
to a decision here which the Trial Examiner does not believe it is
Sometime during the afternoon of Labor Day, Craft informed Duff Trimble of
Jearline's absence, that she was "irregular " in attendance staying away frequently
Q. Well , did you ask Marie Brown whether she had signed a union card or was a
member of the Union?
A. I don ' t remember . I might have I am not sure.
Q All right Did you ever threaten Marie Brown or any other employee with
discharge or other reprisals if she became a member of the Union'
A. No, sir
Q You did not'
A No, sir
Q Did you ever make any statement to Marie Brown or to any other employee that
you were going to get rid of one , anyone who belonged to the Union?
A No, sir
Q. Did you ever ask Marie Brown if she knew who else had signed up with the
Union or belonged to the Union?
A I don ' t remember
Q. Well, to the best of your recollection did you or did you not?
A Well , to the best of my recollection I didn't
In comparison with actuality the printed page makes Craft appear an incisive witness
He was anything but The one decisive answer he knew was that he had "not coerced or
intimidated or threatened " any employee . Yet Respondent amended its answer at the
beginning of the hearing to admit that Craft had kept a union meeting on September 17
under surveillance Obviously Craft 's definition of a "threat" was not that of the courts
, or of the Board The Trial Examiner was unable to credit Craft 's denials.
12 The doctor ' s receipt for this bill dated September 4 was produced in verification of
this testimony.
368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on Mondays and Fridays because of "toothaches," and was a `little slow" in her
work. They decided to discharge Jearline.
When Jearline reported for work on the morning of September 5, Craft told her
to "get her money." When Jearline inquired why she was being discharged, Craft
told her that she "was not getting the work out."
Jearline then appealed to Berry and thereafter to John Trimble. Neither knew
the reason for the discharge. But after Jearline mentioned the fact that Craft had
stated that she was irregular in attendance, John Trimble went to the Respondent's
social security records where he purported -to find confirmation of this claim of ir-
regular attandance and, hence, he testified he backed the decision to discharge Jearline.
Actually Jearline's timecards disprove any irregularity.
Jearline was thus discharged and has never been recalled to work.
5. The shirt lines
In September 1961, Respondent used two lines of three girls each to press shirts.
The first girl on the line pressed the cuffs, collars, and sleeves, the second girl pressed
the fronts and backs, and the third girl on the line folded the pressed shirts. Both
lines operated exactly in the same fashion.
In the above order of operations, the first line consisted of Katherine Miller,
Climett Mills, and Melvin Minter while the second line was Carlotta Caballero,
Rosetta Hall, and Laydell Robinson.
On August 30 Hall had secured union authorization cards from Glodine Williams.
Miller, Robinson, Hall, and Mills each signed such a card and Mills returned the,
signed cards to Glodine. Only Caballero and Minter did not sign.
On Friday before Labor Day Craft told the girls on the shirt line that they
would have to work on Labor Day, Monday, September 4, but would probably-
only have to work half a day until they got out all of the work.
On September 2 Mills, at least, attended the first union meeting held that day._
She saw neither Caballero nor Minter at the meeting.
On Labor Day the two shirt lines worked until about 4:45 p.m. when, althoughi
there was still some work left to be done, all six decided to, and did, quit work for-
the day. All of them left the plant and went home except Caballero who apparently
waited in the plant for her daughter who also worked there to finish up.
When Craft reported to Duff Trimble that the girls had all left the plant, Duff`
testified that he ordered "the girls" fired and that they should not be permitted to,
work thereafter.
However, the next morning Craft, not having any replacements, put the girls.
back to work.
Upon seeing the shirt lines back at work that morning, Duff telephoned Cliffordi
Shawd 13 for advice as to what action he should take. After Shawd "weighed the:
whole thing" and decided that "it might possibly not be sound" to discharge them
at that time, he advised that the girls be given a written warning which he dictated
to Duff over the telephone.
On September 7 Respondent handed Mills, Miller, Robinson, and Hall each a copy!
of the following letter:
On September 4, 1961, you refused to work overtime as you were requested
to, work by your supervisor. As you know and as you have been regularly
scheduled to work, it is the practice for you to continue working until that day's
production has been completed. This you were specifically requested to do,
by your supervisor on the above date.
Please, therefore, be warned that this company cannot and will not tolerate'
such insubordination and refusal to work overtime. Further instances of this.
type may result in your being discharged.
It is admitted the neither Minter nor Caballero received warnings.
At the hearing Respondent explained its failure to give such warnings to Minter
and Caballero on the ground that they had been in the plant and available to con-
tinue to work. The timecards prove that Caballero and Miller were the first girls
on the lines to check out. It is uncontradicted that Minter, who checked out 12
minutes or less later than the other girls drove off while Mills was still waiting- for
her bus.
18 Shawd had been hired by Respondent by this time at least. From the fact that
Shawd was promptly consulted on what appears to have been only a plant disciplinary
problem, it appears that Craft and Duff at least considered this matter to be part and,
parcel of Respondent's "number one problem," the union organizational drive
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 369
On Friday , September 15, Craft notified the shirt line girls that the Respondent
would operate on Saturday but that by so working they probably would only have
to work half a day on the following Monday. It is to be recalled that John Trimble
had mentioned in his August 24 speech as one of the benefits Respondent had given
its employees was Saturday as a nonworkday.
The two shirt lines worked a full day that Saturday.
Another union meeting for the employees was scheduled for Sunday , Septem-
ber 17. Sometime on Saturday, September 16, Craft told Duff Trimble, "Well, I
think I will go down there [to the union meeting ] tomorrow." Duff answered,
"Well, that probably is a good idea."
On September 17, Craft sat in an automobile outside the union meeting hall watch-
ing all the employees go by. Mills spotted him watching her as she went into the
meeting. Respondent 's amendment to its answer at the beginning of the hearing
admitted that Craft had kept this union meeting under surveillance.
Thereafter Craft reported back to Duff and John Trimble and gave them the
names of at least some of the employees he had seen going to the meeting. Re-
spondent 's witnesses were all certain that Craft had reported the names of employees
Cooper, Melvin Minter , and Mills as having attended the meeting . Both Cooper
and Minter happened to still be employed by Respondent at the time of the hearing.
Outside of these three names Respondent's witnesses became uncertain . Duff "was
not certain" but thought it "possible" that Craft had also reported the names of Mills,
Miller, Hall, and Robinson as having been in attendance . Craft recalled having seen
Cooper, Minter, and Mills but after that his memory again forsook him.
On Monday , September 18, the two shirt lines finished up the work on hand by
about 11:30 a.m., and, as was customary , when the work was finished , all six put
on their street clothes, punched out, and started home. Before they had gotten far
Craft called them back and told them that there was one lot of "stock shirts that had
to be gotten out." 14 Craft also told the girls that these shirts would be out "in a few
minutes."
A "lot" of shirts consists of from 40 to 300 shirts.
While waiting, the girls located three "nets " of starched shirts consisting in toto
of about 40 shirts which they pressed in about 15 minutes and then sat down to wait
again.
After waiting another hour or more the girls inquired again when the shirts would
be finished and were again informed "in a few minutes" At 1:30 p.m., when the
shirts still had not appeared, all the girls punched out and went home. The last
one to depart apparently was Minter whose departure was 6 minutes or less after
that of the others.
The record fails to disclose when the lot finally appeared.
That afternoon Duff set about trying to locate a new crew of shirt pressers while
Craft and Berry tried to train a new crew from employees in the plant . The evidence
is that it takes a new girl several weeks in order to match the speed of experienced
shirt pressers.
When Hall, Robinson , Mills, and Miller reported for work as usual on Septem-
ber 19, they found a new pressing line working with Caballero on the shirt lines.
Minter failed to report for work that morning 15 but Respondent permitted her to
return to work on the shirt line the following day. Hall , Robinson, Mills, and Miller
were discharged and have never since been reemployed.
Duff testified that Respondent gave Caballero and Minter verbal reprimands for
having left work early on September 18 but did not discharge them as they had re-,
ceived no written warning as had the others on September 7. He gave no explana-
tion for the change from written to verbal reprimands.
6. Shawd 's speech
It was only a few days thereafter during the third week of September that the
Respondent decided to assemble its employees in the parking lot during working
hours to hear a speech by Clifford G. Shawd.
Employee Rebecca Gonzales , subsequently discharged for reasons other than union
activity , recalled Shawd's speech at that time as follows:
Q. (By Mr. HELMS. ) In this meeting in the latter part of September, what
did Mr. Shawd say?
14 Stock shirts are those unrented shirts which Respondent has on hand in reserve which
it hopes at some time to rent to some customer
15 Minter reported to Mills that she had been off sick on September 19
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A. Well, he said that the union was not good and that they were just out try-
ing to get our money and that if the union would win in the plant that strikers
could be replaced permanently.
* * * *
A. Yes, he showed us pictures of some individuals that I couldn't see very
well from the distance where I was standing.
A. Well, he identified them as union organizers, that they had apparently
swindled some people out of their money, or something.
A. He told us that if we voted for the union and it didn't win that the ones
that had voted for the union would be fired.
* * * * * *
A. Yes, he also said that you had to be a citizen to vote and if you were not
a citizen you would be deported.
Gonzales also estimated without contradiction that at this time approximately
three-quarters of Respondent's employees were of Mexican descent.
On direct examination Shawd described the speech he made at this time as follows:
In the first meeting I was introduced by Mr. John Trimble. Then I intro-
duced myself and my topic, telling them I came sort of as a doctor, that when
employers had problems such as this, they called me in to see what went wrong.
Those were the exact words I used, I am certain.
I told them that I could probably see both sides of this thing, that I had been
a personnel director in two different firms, and had been recognized by the
management as having been a little bit too much for the employees in those
situations.
Now, I shall have to go on and I cant's keep it in order as to how I brought
up the subjects.
Q. Well, as best you can recall, say what you said and the order that it was
said in.
A. I told them that this, after all, was a good place to work, that they had
asked for jobs there, had remained there It must be a good place to work
They had been treated right, and that this matter of being treated right was
the number one thing to make employees happy on the job
That they were getting fair wages for the industry, and I don't recall what
benefits the company had, but I mentioned some of the benefits that the com-
pany had
I pointed out that they had what you call the open door, that if an employee
had some matter that they wanted to talk to the boss about, the boss was quite
willing to receive them and welcomed them, that they did not need anybody
there to hold their hands and take them to the boss.
That they should look around, and I stopped my talk and gave them a chance
to look around, and said, "Do you see anybody here that can do a better job
of taking you by the hand and representing you than you can represent your-
self? Certainly you don't. You don't need a steward You don't need a union "
I pointed out that this was a matter of not the union and the employees being
against the company, this was a matter of the union against the company and
that they were trying to get the employees who were in the middle on this thing,
that what they wanted were their dues and the assessments and the initiation
fees.
I had pictures there, magazine clippings from Look Magazine, and I believe
from Life Magazine, and from U. S. News & World Report, and possibly from
Newsweek.
I also had newspaper clippings pertaining to the trials and in some case con-
victions and previous convictions of high people in the labor work to show
them that after all, their money was being used for things that they should
not want to be a party to.
I pointed out that if the union asked for the things the union normally asked
for, that many of the things the union would ask for would be things that the
company would not believe would be good for the company and some of them
not good for the employees, and that the company would-now, what came
first ahead of that was about the election. What I said just now was true but
something else came in ahead.
I pointed out how the matter would be resolved, that there would be an
election. The election would be secret and possibly at the early meeting, at
least at one, I took a piece of paper approximately the size of a ballot. I acted
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 371
like I was marking an X on it. I folded that ballot. I showed them how it
would be put in a ballot box and that nobody would know how they voted.
I emphasized that the ballot would be secret, that nobody would know, the
union would not know, and therefore they need not fear to be coerced by the
union.
I told them that the company would not know how they voted, that no
matter how they voted their job would go on.
That I did say two or three times in each meeting.
Q. Go ahead, sir.
A. I am trying to connect up what came next.
I pointed out to them that there. was no coercion upon the part of the com-
pany. We are assuring them that their vote is secret, but that we wanted them
to be on guard and not be intimidated by the union side, that the story was
getting to us that some of them were being threatened that if the union won that
they would lose their job, the union would see that they got fired, and said
that the company would not be a party to that, that it would be a violation of
State law, and in one meeting I took the law book published by the Secretary
of State and read the Texas law pertaining to it being illegal to discriminate
in the matter of job tenure or employment because of a person's membership
or nonmembership in a labor organization.
I said that that law was backed by the Texas Rangers, the men in the black
Imperial, and that surely they didn't want to monkey with them.
Q. All right. What else do you recall that you said in these meetings?
A. I brought out questions that had been asked in other organizations and
some of the people there were interested in them, as to what would happen
if the union won. I asked-the question I referred to would be "Would every-
body have to belong to the union?" I said, "The answer is no. That is up to
you „
"Would everybody have to pay dues?" "No, you will never have to pay
dues in this organization to work at Admiral Linen Service," that that was
Texas law, too.
I asked-the question was raised "if there was a strike would we lose our
jobs?" And I pointed out that if the union in its effort to force the company
to agree to the union's proposal would then, if the union would then call a
strike, it would be what is known as an economic strike, and that the law pro-
vided that we could replace those who went on strike, if we replaced them with
permanent help, and I "picturized" that they would be on the outside in such
circumstances, those who were on strike, carrying a stick with a sign on it on a
nice rainy day, or a nice hot day, or cold rainy day, and their jobs would be
taken by other people going through the gate, jobs which had rightfully orig-
inally belonged to them.
I pointed out how the big steel strike lasted, I thought, one hundred forty-two
days.
I pointed out that that was over twenty weeks and how in the early days
it would seem like a vacation because they didn't have to work. Then it would
get a little tough because they would lose things, they would have to maybe
lose a washing machine, possibly lose a television or something of that nature.
And that pretty soon they would be in pretty hard straits if they held out
in a strike like that, and that furthermore, the way it worked, that when the
election was held, if the union should win, that the law provided that the com-
pany and the union should sit down and bargain in good faith.
Now, I said, "What is bargaining in good faith9 It means that we must
meet with them at reasonable times and discuss what they want and what we
want and give sensible answers, sensible reasons for why we do want this and
why we don't want that."
I said, "That is the bargaining."
7. The wage increase of October 28
On September 6, 1961, the Union filed a petition for election among the employees
of Respondent. This petition was docketed in the Board files as Case No. 23-RC-
1748 (not published in NLRB volumes).16 Following a hearing on this petition
held on September 28, an Order and Direction of Election was issued on October
19, 1961.
1 The Trial Examiner has taken administrative notice of Case No. 23 -RC-1784.
662353-63-vol. 138-25
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the pay period ending October 28 , 1961 , Respondent granted wage in-
creases to 32 hourly paid employees working at the plant. It was stipulated that
these increases "were given to employees including both union and non-union
adherents."
According to the testimony of John Trimble, Respondent had 88 employees at
the time of said increases of whom 15 were paid piecework rates. Thus there were
at the time 73 hourly paid employees working for Respondent.
B. Conclusions
1. The Trimble speeches
In one aspect the present case is almost unique: Respondent fired the first shot.
In other words, Respondent opened its antiunion campaign a week or more before
the Union even started to try to organize Respondent's employees.
In fact, John and Duff Trimble were vacationing in California when they received
word by telephone that it was believed that the anticipated union campaign in the
plant was imminent. Within the week, the Trimbles were back at the plant letting
the employees know that Respondent did not wish them to organize. According to
John Trimble, in 1949 he discovered that his employees did not even know that Re-
spondent did not want them to organize at a time when another union was attempt-
ing to organize the plant. Trimble was not going to commit that error in 1961.
As found heretofore, John Trimble went beyond the mere expression of the Re-
spondent's opposition to union organization by threatening the employees with loss
of privileges and benefits voluntarily given the employees in the past by the Re-
spondent in the event they should vote for union representation. He and Duff spe-
cifically spelled out how the employees of Mechanics Uniform had lost their rest
period privileges after joining the Union. The implication therefrom was unmis-
takable. That the employees got the message John and Duff Trimble intended them
to receive is clear from the testimony of the employees.
As Respondents intended to, and did, threaten the employees with loss of benefits
and privileges in order to discourage them from union membership and activities
guaranteed the employees by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
2. Other instances of interference
As previously noted, Respondent admitted that Assistant Superintendent Les Craft
kept the union meeting held on September 17, under surveillance by sitting in his
automobile across from the union hall and watching all the girls going into the
meeting. Promptly thereafter, he reported back to John and Duff Trimble the
names of the Respondent's employees who were in attendance at the meeting.
The evidence shows also that Duff Trimble knew and approved of this surveillance
in advance. In fact. Duff thought it a "good idea." There can be no doubt that this
surveillance was an intentionally planned part of the Respondent's "going campaign"
to defeat the Union.
No citation of authority is necessary to show that such surveillance amounts to a
coercion and a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
In its brief, Respondent admits the violation, but seeks to excuse it on the theory
that Craft's surveillance was "an isolated event." Unfortunately for Respondent's
contention, the facts show that, far from being "isolated " as claimed, this surveillance
was not the only violation of the Act by Craft alone.
The evidence proved, and Craft in effect admitted,17 that Craft interrogated em-
ployee Marie Brown and other employees concerning not only their own union mem-
bership and activities, but also that of other employees in the plant, that he threatened
"to get rid" of any employee who was for the Union, and also threatened Evelyn
White with discharge under an alleged company rule authorizing the discharge of
any employee caught reading union leaflets.18
As all these actions of Craft were intended to, and did, interefere with, restrain,
and coerce the employees in an effort to discourage union membership and activity
among the employees, Respondent did thereby violate Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.
'? See the portions of Craft's testimony quoted supra.
's In view of Craft's proven authority to discharge , It Is Immaterial whether Respondent
had actually posted such a rule as Craft referred to or not. The coercive effect on the em-
ployee was the same in either event . The purported rule as described by Craft was itself
a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act not being limited as to time or place
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 373
3. The discharge of Glodine Williams
Glodine Williams was the Union's original secret assault force at Respondent's
plant. On August 29, Respondent, unwitting of the above fact, hired Glodine. On
the next day, Glodine passed out unsigned authorization cards and received the signed
cards back at her workplace in the plant. On the third day, Respondent discharged
Glodine almost before she was able to get to her work station.
A stronger prima facie case is hard to imagine.
To this Respondent interposed two main defenses: (1) it had no knowledge of
Glodine's union activity; and (2) it had no work for Glodine.
Glodine herself very honestly testified that, so far as she knew, no official or
supervisor of Respondent saw her distributing or receiving authorization cards.
But the fact of the matter is that Glodine had walked into a plant which had just
been alerted to the probability of an immediate union organizational drive among
its employees. Glodine's supervisor, Berry, was not only alerted for union activities
but also Glodine had informed him that she was an inexperienced operator on the
press. Berry, therefore, had two good reasons to keep a close eye on Glodine and
her work.
Then the mere act of various and sundry plant employees picking up and returning
29 or so authorization cards to Glodine in a period of 1 or 2 days must necessarily
have caused considerable strange and unusual activity around Glodine's press during
her employment by Respondent. It is inconceivable that so much activity in such
a short period of time around the workplace of a new and supposedly inexperienced
employee could have gone unnoticed under the alert eyes of two supervisors. The
facts indicate that it in fact did not. The Trial Examiner so finds, especially in view
of the fact that Duff Trimble, whose work in large part kept him in the office, ac-
knowledged that he had seen union authorization cards in the front of the plant
where Glodine's press was located.19
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner finds that this defense of lack of knowledge is
without merit.
Secondly, Respondent claimed that it actually had no work for Glodine and that
Berry merely gave her a day or two of work out of sympathy for her. The evidence,
however, shows that Respondent had several vacant presses at the time and that
one regular presser was on vacation. The situation on pressers was such that a week
or so before August 29, Respondent had applied to another laundry in its efforts to
locate a presser. Through the good offices of this other laundry, Respondent had
succeeded in locating a presser named Beatrice Holton. Respondent promptly
"hired" Holton as a presser. But the facts also show that after she had been hired,
Holton failed to report for work. Consequently when Glodine applied for work on
August 29, Berry immediately hired her and assigned her to a pressing machine.
The fact that Berry promptly assigned Glodine to a vacant press despite her claimed
inexperience thereon further indicates how badly Respondent needed pressers at this
time.
As a sort of corollary to the above, Respondent also contended that, when Holton
finally reported for work about noon on Glodine's second day of employment,
August 30, Respondent honored its commitment of employment made to her a week
or so before because that commitment was made prior to the actual employment of
Glodine. In a plant where the labor turnover admittedly runs between 200 and 300
percent per year and where employment is described in its own brief as being
"casual," this argument verges on the ridiculous. Nor, as will be seen, is this the only
instant in this record where Respondent treated its employees in a disparate fashion
depending upon whether the employee involved was known to be a union adherent
or was known to be antiunion.
Thus it becomes perfectly apparent that the reasons Respondent chose to assign
for the discharge of Glodine Williams are without merit.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must find that Respondent discharged Glodine
Williams on August 31 because of her union membership and activities and in order
to discourage such membership and such activities among its employees in violation
of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
4. Jearline Dickerson
Whereas Glodine was the active type of union adherent, Jearline Dickerson was
more the passive type. When employee Marie Brown brought Jearline an authoriza-
tion card in the plant on August 30, Jearline signed it and had it returned to Glodine.
19 Duff's only uncertainty was as to the time, whether he saw those authorization cards
before or after the discharge of Glodine.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The only other noticeable union activity Jearline indulged in was to attend the
first union meeting on September 2. There is no evidence in this record that Re-
spondent had this meeting under surveillance so there is no evidence that Respondent
knew of Jearline 's attendance on September 2.
At the hearing the Respondent contended that it had discharged Jearline for cause
because: (1) she failed to request permission to be absent from work on Labor Day;
(2) her alleged irregular attendance; and (3) her failure to get out the work.
As indicated before, the evidence presented here has required a finding against
Respondent in regard to Respondent's first point.
At the hearing Respondent produced a number, but not all, of Jearline's timecards
for the year 1961. These records disprove Respondent's contention that Jearline
was irregular in attendance. These records show a steady employment record with
only a day off on August 10 and a half day off on June 8 and that the last time prior
to her discharge she had been absent on a Monday was on Monday, April 24, and
that the last Friday she missed was on February 17.
Craft's claim that Jearline was "a little slow" in her work is refuted by the fact
that he had no one trained to replace Jearline despite her alleged shortcomings.
The evidence, in fact, proves that Craft had difficulties on Jearline's job after her
dismissal.
Respondent's brief speaks of employment at Respondent's plant as, being "casual."
In view of the admitted turnover annually in employment of 200 to 300 percent, this
description appears accurate. But, on the other hand, it makes the Respondent's ac-
tion in discharging Jearline, a veteran of some 13 years' employment with Re-
spondent, for allegedly failing to request permission to be absent on 1 day for
the purpose of taking her baby to the doctor, verge on the ludicrous. Obviously there
was more to the discharge of Jearline than just this one supposedly missed telephone
call.
Respondent's precipitant discharges of Glodine and Jearline when compared with
the consideration given to an employee Holton who had failed to report for work
for practically a week after supposedly being hired raises the question of the dis-
parity of treatment by Respondent of those suspected of union activity as against
those not so suspected.
The following testimony by Superintendent Berry thus becomes illuminating:
Q. Now, at the time Jearline Dickerson was terminated did you have any
knowledge concerning any union activity on her part?
A. I will be honest with you, I didn't think Jearline had signed one of those
cards.
TRIAL EXAMINER: You didn't think that shehad signed one?
THE WITNESS: No, I really didn't.
TRIAL EXAMINER: What made you think she had not signed one?
THE WITNESS: Well, lust the way she acted.
TRIAL EXAMINER: How was that?
The WITNESS: Well, she just didn't act like some of them around there that
had signed one.
Berry later amplified this interesting theory as follows:
Q. Well, now can you tell me how you came to the conclusion from her actions
that Jearline had not signed a card?
A. Well, it was because she acted just like she always did. She didn't change
a bit, as far- as I could see, just exactly like she always did, no difference in her
whatever that I could see.
Q. Some of the employees, some of the other employees did change?
A. Oh, yes, some of them would get so smart around there, they would think
they owned the place, you couldn't fire them or anything.
* * * * * * *
Q. Did you think that you could tell when a girl had joined the Union or not?
A. No, I really-I wasn't-not any thought entered my mind. But if you
had been working a girl for 4 or 5 years, and she always did her job right,
knew was particular, you know, raised sand, and then take a piece of linen
with a big hole in it and put it in the linen going out to a customer that she
knew was particular, you know, raised sand, and then take a piece of linen
that was good and all it had was a little burnt place in it, and take it and tear it
up and put it in the rags, I wouldn't let them tear up anything, because if they
started tearing up the good linen, I would take another woman, pay another
woman in the room to inspect all linen, and if there was anything that had .to be
in the rags, I would let her do it.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 375
Q. Well, now let me ask you, I am interested, did you think that this woman
who tore up that sheet had signed a union card, is that what you are trying to
tell us?
A. I figured something was wrong with her. She had been working for me
for a good while and all at once she just got out of hand. I don't know, wouldn't
it make you think it?
Q. Well, I don't know, I am asking you. You made this remark that Jearline
didn't look as though she had signed a card.
A. That's right, she didn't act like it to me. I don't know, I didn't see any
difference in it.
From the total lack of merit in the reasons assigned by Respondent for the dis-
charge of Jearline, it becomes obvious that, while Berry may not have thought that
Jearline had changed enough to merit the conclusion that she had signed a union
card, Duff Trimble and Craft considered that her failure to report for work on
Labor Day sufficiently "smart" or "out of hand" as to prove her adherence to the
Union and thus cause her discharge.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must find that Respondent discharged Tearline
Dickerson on September 5, because it knew or suspected that Dickerson had joined
or assisted the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. Discharge of four shirt line girls
Respondent employed six girls on its two shirt lines. On August 30, four of them
(Rosetta Hall, Climett Mills, Laydell Robinson, and Katherine Miller) signed Union
authorization cards while two (Carlotta Caballero and Melvin Minter) refused. Hall
had secured the blank cards from Glodine Williams in the plant while Mills returned
the signed cards to Glodine.
On September 4, Labor Day, all six girls decided to quit work for the day about
4:30 p.m. although there were still some shirts to iron. The four were given
written warning slips by Respondent for this failure to work overtime,20 the other
two were not.
On September 18 all six of the girls again quit work early in the afternoon after
waiting for an hour and a half or 2 hours without pay for one lot of shirts which
Craft had told them would be ready in a few minutes at the time they started waiting.
The four were peremptorily discharged the next day. The two continued to work
for Respondent.
Why this obviously disparate treatment of the four as contrasted with the treat-
ment afforded the two, especially as all six had been guilty, if any were guilty, of ex-
actly the same offense at the same time?
Respondent says that the reason the two did not receive the written warnings
for the September 4 episode was that Caballero and Minter were still in the plant
available for work when Craft discovered that the lines had ceased working. But
the undisputed facts show that Caballero was the second of the six girls to punch
her card out that day and that Minter drove away from the plant while Mills was
still waiting for her bus at the coiner. If the two were in fact available when Craft
discovered that the lines had quit for the day, then Craft's discovery had been made
with almost split second accuracy.
As to the September 18 episode Respondent contends that the two were not dis-
charged with the four because the two had not been given written warnings for
the previous occasion as had the four. This sounds like a "fine" distinction but it
does not explain why on September 18 Respondent again reversed its policy of written
warnings and failed to give the two the same written warnings for their part in
the Septembef 18 episode which Respondent had given the four for the episode
of September 4. Thus, on September 18 Respondent engaged in more and further
disparate treatment between that accorded the two as against that given the four.
The "offenses" were identical but not so the discipline meted out 21
However, there is one distinguishing feature between the four and the two. The
four were active union adherents, having signed union authorization cards and having
attended union meetings. The two were not. As found heretofore, Craft kept the
20 As Respondent consulted Shawd , the man whom it had hired to run its antiunion
campaign for it, it would seem that Respondent considered the matter to be of more
significance than just an ordinary matter of plant discipline.
n Duff Trimble testified that he was sure that on September 19 both Caballero and
Minter received "verbal"-not written-warnings . But Minter did not report for work
on September 19.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
union meeting of September 17 under surveillance for an hour and promptly there-
after reported the names of the employees who attended that meeting to the Trimbles.
All witnesses agree that Craft both saw and reported Mills. Thereafter Craft's
mind, as was not unusual at this hearing, went blank as to any other union adherents
he had reported although he did recall reporting the names of employees Minter
and Cooper, both of whom were still employed by Respondent. Duff Trimble re-
called the fact that Craft reported the above three names and "possibly" the names
of Rosetta Hall, Laydell Robinson, and Katherine Miller.22
Although Craft purported to report the name of Minter, Mills did not see her at
the meeting so that there is a conflict between these two witnesses as to whether
Minter attended the meeting or not. Although there was no showing that Minter
was unavailable, Respondent did not see fit to call her as a witness to resolve the
conflict. The inference growing from this failure is that her testimony would not
have assisted Respondent. As Mills gave all the appearances of being an honest,
straightforward witness, whereas the same cannot be said of Craft, the Trial
Examiner accepts Mills' testimony that Minter did not attend the union meeting of
September 17. As Craft kept that meeting under surveillance, he and Respondent
both knew that Minter was not in attendance despite any report which he may have
made to the Trimbles.
Consequently the Trial Examiner believes, and therefore finds, that Respondent
engaged in the aforementioned disparate treatment between the two groups because
Respondent knew that the four were active union adherents whereas it also knew
that the two were not.
This also explains why Respondent discharged the four and not the other two.
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must find that the Respondent discharged Rosetta
Hall, Climett Mills, Laydell Robinson, and Katherine Miller on September 19,
1961, because of their membership in and activities on behalf of the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
6. The Shawd speech
The speech by Shawd was an integral portion of Respondent's "going campaign"
to win the employees from the Union at the anticipated Board representation elec-
tion. It was deliberately given by Respondent and its agent, Shawd, with the
intent and purpose of defeating any possibility that the employees would at that
election select the Union to represent them in collective bargaining with Respondent.
Respondent is, therefore, responsible for that speech.
If this speech had been given by Shawd as a theoretical exercise before an audience
learned in the law of labor relations, it would have to be understood and judged
on the basis of the sophistication of that audience. Such an audience would no
doubt say that the speech was what is euphemistically called a "noncoercive speech"
in that, with one possible exception, there is not one threat or promise of benefit
explicit therein.
But on the occasion at issue here, Shawd's audience was not composed of labor
relations experts but, on the contrary, his audience consisted exclusively of employees
untrained in the intricacies and the technicalities of the laws of labor relations, many
of whom no doubt were then engaged in their first attempt at union organization.
Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees "the right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist labor organizations. ." Section 8(a)(1) of the Act forbids
an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
Accordingly, in order to determine whether Shawd's speech violated the freedom
to engage in union activities guaranteed to employees in Section 7 and Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act. Shawd's speech must be understood and interpreted as the ordinary
employee unlearned in the law of labor relations who stood and listened thereto
would have understood and interpreted it. The question at issue here really becomes
what did that theoretical, ordinary, listening, unsophisticated employee understand
Shawd to mean by his words in the light of the existing circumstances as that ordinary
employee knew them to be and what effect those words and that meaning under
the circumstances was intended to have upon that employee.
The preamble to Shawd's speech was, of course, that the Respondent's was the best
of all possible places to work although, at the hearing at least, Shawd was unable
to recall what benefits, if any, Respondent gave to its employees. Shawd specifically
mentioned that the employees were getting "fair wages for the industry." However,
22 It is to be recalled that at the commencement of the hearing Respondent amended
its answer in order to admit the Craft surveillance . This in turn gave Craft the oppor-
tunity to recall having reported the name of Minter.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 377
'within a month thereafter, the Respondent had discovered that 43 percent of its em-
ployees were, in fact, being underpaid and by unilateral action raised their wages.
Shawd made no mention of this prospect.
Then Shawd got to the meat of his speech: unions were bad for the employer and
the employee and were only interested in the money they could extract from the
employees. Here he raised the question of the high costs of union organization: the
dues, the assessments, and the initiation fees. Thereby he raised the fear among the
employees of the high monetary expense of any unionization to them.
Having raised the fear of the costs, Shawd next showed pictures from national
magazines of allegedly unscrupulous labor leaders who had purportedly bilked their
union members and milked the union treasury of the funds contributed by its mem-
bers, thereby raising the fears of the listening employees both as to the integrity
of union leadership and of the safety of the money they themselves would be
contributing to the union treasury.
Following this Shawd assured the employees that "there was no coercion on the
part of" Respondent. But these employees had seen Glodine Williams discharged
the day after she had been distributing union authorization cards, Jearline Dickerson
dismissed after 13 years' employment 2 days after she had attended a union meeting,
and, only a few days previously, four girls fired by Craft 2 days after he had been
seen keeping the union meeting of September 17 under surveillance. These things
did not amount to "coercion?" Thereby Shawd raised in the employees the fear
of loss of employment by engaging in union activities such as distributing authoriza-
tion cards and attending union meetings.
Shawd contrasted the "no coercion from the Company" theory by warning the
attentive employees against all coercion by the unions. He said he had reports that
the Union was threatening employees that if it won the election, the employees would
lose their jobs, the Union would get them fired.23 Thereby Shawd sought to create
fear among his audience that a union victorious in the election would cost them
their jobs and on the other hand, to place Respondent in the role of the savior of
their employment, implicit, of course, on the contingency that the Union lost the
election.
Shawd next brought forth the Texas right-to-work law saying "that law was backed
by the Texas Rangers, the men in the black Imperials, and that surely they [pre-
sumably the employees and the Union] didn't want to monkey with them [the
Rangers]." As the Texas Rangers are far-famed criminal policemen, Shawd thereby
sought to raise among the employees the fear of some sort of criminal liability
growing out of union activity. The sophisticate knows that "the men in the black
Imperials" have little, if any, jurisdiction in labor relations. But the theoretical
employee would not. Shawd's threat here was practically explicit.
From that Shawd turned to the fact that, if the Union called a strike in order to
get its demands, "the law provided that we could replace those who went on strike"
so that other persons would take the jobs in the plant "which had rightfully originally
belonged" to the strikers who would have to remain outside the plant carrying "a
stick with a sign on it."
,Of course in this connection Shawd made quick mention of the fact that he re-
ferred to an "economic strike." He omitted any mention of an unfair labor practice
strike. But does the ordinary, unsophisticated employee working for 65 cents per
hour recognize the subtle legal distinction between "economic" and "unfair labor
practice" strikes? All the ordinary unskilled employee bearing Shawd's description
knows is that if he goes on strike he will lose his job. The testimony of employee
Gonzales proves that she so understood Shawd's remarks. Did Shawd really expect
untrained employees to understand this legal distinction? Especially when such
experts as the Board, the courts, and even Trial Examiners sometimes make errors
in these subtle distinctions.
Thus Shawd created among his listeners the fear that they lost their jobs when and
if they struck and that strikes were almost inevitable when unions represented the
employees in collective bargaining. Shawd then, in his words, "picturized" for the
employees the results of loss of employment through striking, and the hardship of
such strikes on employees with their resultant loss of prized personal possessions
such as televisions and washing machines, etc. Thus Shawd created the fear of finan-
cial ruination.
Having thus instilled among his hearers the fear of the monetary cost of unioniza-
tion, the fear of unscrupulous labor leaders, the fear of loss of union funds, the fear
"At the hearing Shawd could not even be sure from whom he supposedly received such
purported reports. ' Furthermore Respondent made no effort to substantiate the truth of
this claim.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of doss of jobs through striking, the fear of ,loss of employment through union efforts
and coercion, and the fear of financial ruination, Shawd turned to the utter futility
of the whole union representation effort by paraphrasing Section 8(e) so as to define
collective bargaining as meaning that Respondent would need only to state "sensible
reasons" for not doing what the Union requested and for doing only that which
Respondent wanted. Thus Shawd added the idea of the complete futility of the
unionization effort to the fears already raised.
Thus through the use of this dual theme of fear and futility Shawd sought to
coerce the employees into abandoning their efforts at unionization in order to retain
the employment they had. The use of this "fear and futility" theme is not free speech
or the expressing of "views, argument, or opinion" such as is protected by Section
8(c) of the Act. The deliberate creation of the feeling of fear and futility among
the employees amounts to coercion whether it be explicit or implicit. This coercion
was implicit throughout Shawd's speech and was used for the purpose of forcing
the abandonment of the union effort.24
Accordingly, the Trial Examiner must find that the September speech made by
Clifford G. Shawd amounted to interference, restraint, and coercion of Respondent's
employees and in order to force them to abandon their efforts at unionization in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. Wage increases
It was stipulated at the hearing that "during the pay period ending October 28,
1961, 32 hourly-paid employees working in the plant were given wage increases.
Further these increases were given to employees including both union and nonunion
adherents."
The evidence also shows that during this payroll period Respondent employed 88
production employees of whom 15 were paid piece-work rates rather than hourly
rates.
The official records of the National Labor Relations Board in the case of Admiral
Linen Company, Case No. 23-RC-1784, shows that the Union filed an R petition
on September 6, 1961, on which a hearing was held on September 28, 1961, and a
decision issued on October 19, 1961.
Thus the facts show that 'the wage increases to 43 percent of Respondent's em-
ployees became effective 9 days after the Direction of 'Election had been issued in
the 'Union's R petition.
In view of the timing of 'these two events, it becomes apparent that the wage in-
crease of October 28, granted'by the unilateral action of Respondent, had at least
some connection with the anticipated election which, however, was never held because
of the pendency of this complaint case.
It is therefore found that the wage increase of October 28, 1961, was designed
to discourage union membership among Respondent's employees by indicating to
its employees that such union representation was not necessary or desirable in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described 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 burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Glodine Williams on August 30, 1961, of Jearline Dicker-
son on September 5, 1961, and of Rosetta Hall, Climett Mills, Laydell Robinson,
and Katherine Miller on September 19, 1961, by discharging each of them, the Trial
Examiner will recommend that Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make each of them whole for
24 See Hay'nee Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Corporation , 136 NLRB 95.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE 379
any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of said discrimination against her
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that which she would have earned as
wages from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of her reinstate-
ment, less her net earnings during such period and in accordance with a formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Because of the variety of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, the
Trial Examiner senses an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in gen-
eral, and hence the Trial Examiner deems it necessary to order that Respondent
cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed its em-
ployees in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Glodine Williams on August 30, 1961, Jearline Dickerson on
September 5, 1961, and Rosetta Hall, Climett Mills, Laydell Robinson, and Kath-
erine Miller on September 19, 1961, thereby discriminating in regard to their hire
and tenure of employment, and discouraging union activities among its employees,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (3) ad (1) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner recommends that Admiral Linen
Service, Houston, Texas, its officers, labor relations advisers , agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership or activities in Local 131, Laundry and Dry Clean-
ing International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, or the right
of its employees to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection by discriminatorily discharging any of
them, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist Local 131,
Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor or-
ganization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized by Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Glodine Williams, Jearline Dickerson, Rosetta Hall, Climett Mills,
Laydell Robinson, and Katherine Miller reinstatement to her previous or substan-
tially equivalent position and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings each
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner set
forth in this Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended order.
(c) Post at its plant in Houston, Texas, copies of the notice attached hereto marked
"Appendix A." 25 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
25 In the event that these Recommendations be adopted by the Board the words "A De-
cision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial
Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a
decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the
United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words
"Pursuant to a Decision and Order."
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the Twenty-third Region , shall, upon being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentatives , be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by
it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-third Region, in writing, within
20 days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps have
been taken to comply with the foregoing recommendations 26
The Trial Examiner further recommends that, unless within 20 days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondent has notified the Regional
Director that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Board issue
an order requiring Respondent to take the aforesaid action.
21 In the event that these Recommendations be 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 Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in, and activities on behalf of, Local.
131, Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees, or by
discriminating in any other manner in regard to hire and tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL offer to each of the employees named below immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent employment and make
each of them whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination practice against her:
Jearline Dickerson Climett Mills
Rosetta Hall Laydell Robinson
Catherine Miller Glodine Williams
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist Local 131, Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of the above-named or any other labor organization.
ADMIRAL LINEN SERVICE,
Employer.
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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 650
M & M Building, 1 Main Street, Houston, Texas, Telephone Number, Capitol 2-7201,
Extension 041, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.