Best Industrial Uniform Supply Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 1166 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Best Industrial Uniform Supply Company, Inc. and
Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers,
Local Union No. 218 . Case 23-CA-4600
June 4, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On March 9, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Jo-
seph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Best Industrial Uniform Sup-
ply Company, Inc., Houston, Texas, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
' In part I , sec. D of his Decision , the Administrative Law Judge inadver-
tently stated that the General Counsel introduced into evidence 60 authoriza-
tion cards whereas the record shows that 58 cards were introduced This error
in no way affects the Union 's majority status.
2 The Respondent 's motion to reopen the record in the present case and
consolidate it with Case 23-CA-4684 is hereby denied as lacking in merit
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This case
tried before me at Houston, Texas, on January 24 and 25,
1973, with all parties present and duly represented, involves
a complaint I pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), which
alleges in substance that in the course of an organizational
campaign by Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Work-
1 Issued December 22, based on a charge filed and served November 30
This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1972
ers, Local Union No. 218 (herein the Union or Local 218),
among the employees of Best Industrial Uniform Supply
Company, Inc. (herein Respondent), the latter engaged in
various acts of interference, restraint, and coercion with
respect to the Section 7 right of the employees, discharged
one employee because of her concerted and union activity,
and refused to bargain with the Union as the duly designat-
ed collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit, in violation of Section
8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act. Additionally, the complaint
alleges that a strike engaged in by the employees involved,
which began on October 23, was caused or prolonged by
Respondent's unfair labor practices. By answer Respondent
admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but denied
the commission of any unfair labor practice. For reasons
hereafter detailed, I find the material allegations of the com-
plaint sustained by the evidence, and recommend an appro-
priate remedial order, which will include the requirement
that Respondent bargain with the Union.
At the trial, full opportunity was afforded all parties to
introduce relevant and material evidence, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, and
to submit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submit-
ted by the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively,
have been duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations
of counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire
record in the case, I make the following:
I FINDINGS OF FACT 2
A. The Organization Campaign
Sometime about mid-September, the Union began its
campaign to organize Respondent's employees, and in due
course a number of employees signed authorization cards
on behalf of the Union. Although Respondent contended
at the trial that it was unaware of such organization activity
by the Union, the testimony of Plant Manager Mark dem-
onstrates that the contention does not have substance. Mark
testified that about the latter part of September, he was
informed by his assistant that someone was about the plant
during lunch periods passing out union cards; that he dis-
cussed the matter with Company Vice President Charles
Franklin, and that they decided to take no action in the
matter. The record shows, however, an extensive campaign
of antiunion activity by Plant Manager Mark and Vice
President Franklin in the period of about a month following
the inception of the Union's campaign, as evidenced by the
following incidents.
B. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. Employee Ester Franks credibly testified, in sub-
stance , that in September, Mark approached her at her work
2 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented . The complaint
alleges and the answer admits facts which establish these jurisdictional ele-
ments. I find those facts to be as pleaded.
J The number of such cards and their validity to establish the majority
status of the Union is discussed in connection with the refusal to bargain
aspect of the case
203 NLRB No. 186
BEST INDUSTRIAL UNIFORM SUPPLY CO. 1167
station and asked if she had heard anything about a union
trying to get in the plant, and if she heard anything of that
nature to let him know, and the employees so engaged
would be discharged. Mark additionally told Franks that
owner Franklin did not want a union, and would close the
plant if a union got in, and in such event the employees
would all be without jobs. Additionally, Mark pointedly
reminded Franks that she had received a raise the previous
year, and if she wanted another to bring in the information
he was requesting . Franks further testified that following
the aforementioned incident, Mark came to her some six or
seven times within the space of a few weeks and again asked
if she had learned anything about the Union or about em-
ployees signing cards, and if such came to her attention to
let him know. Each time Franks disclaimed any knowledge
of union activity.
2. Employee Dorothy Macon credibly testified that be-
ginning about October 3, Plant Manager Mark and Vice
President Franklin, both separately, came to her two or
three times and asked if she knew anything about people
joining the Union or passing out union cards. Macon told
Mark that she had no knowledge of such activity. Although
Macon was unable to fix a specific date for each of these
occurrences, she fixed the date of the first incident as the
day after Linda Ray was discharged, which the record
shows was October 2.
3. Ruby Broussard credibly testified that in the latter
part of September, Mark came to her work station and
asked if she knew anything about the Union. When Brous-
sard replied in the negative, Mark added that owner Frank-
lin did not want a union, and would close the plant rather
than permit it.
4. Employee Everie Williams credibly testified that in the
latter part of September, Plant Manager Mark approached
her at her work station and asked if she had heard anything
about a union in the plant. After Williams disclaimed
knowledge of such activity, Mark told Williams that owner
Franklin did not want a union in the plant, and if it came
in he would close the place and all the employees would be
out of a job.
5. Jeddy Robertson credibly testified that about October
10, Mark approached her at her work station and asked if
she had heard anything about a union. After Robertson
replied in the negative, Marks told her to listen around and
if she heard anything to let him know because owner Frank-
lin would rather close the plant than see a union come in,
and that any employee who did join a union would be fired.
In the same week Mark returned 2 or 3 times and asked
Robertson if she had yet heard anything about a union.
Each time she replied in the negative.
6. Employee Emmer Busby credibly testified that ap-
proximately 2 weeks after she signed a union card (which
is dated October 3), and after the discharge of Linda Ray
(on October 2), Mark approached her at her place of work
and asked if she had heard anything about a union. After
Busby replied in the negative, Mark told her to let him know
if she heard anything because owner Franklin did not want
a union , and if it came in he would close the plant. Mark
also told Busby that if anyone asked her to sign a union
card, not to get involved. Busby additionally testified that
during the following week, Mark approached her once or
twice and again asked if she had heard anything about a
union . Busby replied that she had not.
7. Employee Rosalean Scott credibly testified that on a
date she could not recall, but which she thought was Octo-
ber 2, Mark approached her at her duty station and told her
he had heard there was a union trying to organize the plant,
and asked if she knew anything about it. Scott replied that
she knew nothing about a union. Mark then told Scott that
owner Franklin did not want a union, and would close the
plant if a union got in and all the employees would be out
of a job, and that she should talk to the other employees
about this. There is no evidence that Scott did so.
8. Employee Margaret Nell Johnson credibly testified
that on or about September 28, Mark approached her work
station and asked if she had heard anyone discussing the
Union. After Johnson replied in the negative, Mark told her
that owner Franklin did not want a union and would close
the plant if one came in, that any employee caught discuss-
ing a union or signing cards would be discharged, and asked
if she heard any talk about a union to let him know. Mark
then told Johnson that the raise he was considering for her
would not go through if the Union got in.4
C. The Discharge of Linda Jewell Ray
Linda Jewell Ray had been employed by Respondent as
a hanger in the packing department since the early part of
'September. Respondent makes no contention that prior to
October 2 her work performance was in any respect defi-
cient. Shortly before noon on October 2, employees Ester
Franks, Dorothy Macon, and Linda Ray were informed
that they were wanted in the office of Plant Manager Mark.
Also present in the office after they arrived were Mark and
Company Vice President Charles Franklin. After some mi-
nor discussion about how the employees were, Franklin
stated that he was calling the employees in to find out if they
knew anything about a union or employees signing union
cards. Franklin also stated that the employees did not need
a union; that his father did not want a union and would
close the plant before he would have a union; that the
advent of a union would mean that all the employees would
lose their jobs; that any employee found signing a union
card or talking about a union would be promptly terminat-
ed; and that if these employees would let him know if they
learned of discussion concerning the Union, or the signing
of union cards, such informant would receive a raise in pay.
4 The findings in paragraphs I through 8 above are based on the credited
testimony of Ester Franks, Dorothy Macon, Ray Broussard, Evene Williams,
Judy Robertson, Emmer Busby, Rosalean Scott, and Margaret Nell Johnson.
Although the testimony of these witnesses was in some instances unsatisfac-
tory in fixing the date that the incident occurred, I am satisfied upon consid-
eration of the entire record, that they occurred, and that they occurred prior
to October 23, when the strike against Respondent began, and in which each
of these employees joined on that date . The only contrary testimony is that
of David Mark which consists of a denial that he discussed a union with any
employee at any time. He did admit that he discussed the matter of a raise
with Johnson, but claims that he simply told her that he would see about it,
and that the raise was made effective as of the first week in October. The eight
witnesses who testified, as abovedetailed , impressed me as honestly trying to
give the facts to the best of their recollection. Mark did not so impress me,
and I do not credit his denial that he made the statements attributed to him
as above set forth.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Franklin then asked Macon and Franks, in that order, if
they knew anything about a union , and each replied in the
negative . When Franklin put the same question to Linda
Ray, she replied that she was in favor of the Union , and that
he (Franklin) would be also if he were not the owner's son
and worked for $ 1.60 an hour under conditions prevailing
in the plant. Franklin then told Macon and Franks to leave,
but told Ray to punch her time card out. When Ray asked
what he meant , Franklin replied , "I mean punch out. You're
fired . We don't want union workers in this building , because
the union causes trouble." S
D. The 8(a)(5) Allegations
On October 18, the Union wrote Respondent that it had
been selected by a majority of the employees in the produc-
tion and maintenance department of the Houston plant as
their exclusive bargaining representative and requested rec-
ognition and bargaining . Although the letter was sent by
certified mail with a return receipt requested , there is no
evidence fixing the date of its receipt by Respondent. In its
answer, Respondent admitted receipt of the aforesaid letter,
but claimed that it was not received until after the employ-
ees went out on strike on October 23, as hereafter more fully
set forth . Based on the presumption that mailed matter is
received in due course of the mails , the fact that a Saturday
and Sunday intervened , and the fact that Respondent re-
plied to the Union 's demand by letter dated October 27, it
is reasonable to infer, and I find , that Respondent received
the Union's demand letter at least 2 days before the date of
its reply . Thus , October 25 , I find and conclude, is the
critical date by which the Union's majority status is to be
tested .6 In its reply to the Union 's recognition demand,
Respondent expressed doubt that the Union represented an
uncoerced majority of the employees in the unit , but offered
to cooperate with the Board in the processing of a represen-
tation petition should one be filed by the Union.7
To fix the number of employees in the unit on the demand
date, the parties stipulated that General Counsel 's Exhibit
4, modified as hereafter indicated , which as presented con-
tains 84 names , constituted the payroll list for the workweek
beginning Monday, October 23 .1 The modifications agreed
S Based on a composite of the credited testimony of Dorothy Macon, Ester
Franks, and Linda Ray. Both Franklin and Mark denied that any meeting,
such as Macon , Franks, and Ray described , was ever held . Franklin admits
that he discharged Ray about mid-day on October 2, but claims that he did
so because he directed her to move garments from one rack to another, and
that she refused to do so . Again , I have credited the testimony of Macon,
Franks, and Ray, rather than the contrary testimony of Franklin and Mark,
because they impressed me as reliable witnesses who were honestly trying to
relate the events as they occurred
6 It may be noted that counsel for Respondent stated on the record that
the Union 's letter was received on October 24 or 25 , he was not sure which
7 The evidence shows that the Union forwarded a representation petition
and supporting cards to the Regional Office on October 18, which for some
unexplained reason was not received by the latter until October 30; that a
consent-election agreement was executed November 15, fixing the date of the
election as December 12 , but the election was thereafter postponed indefi-
nitely, presumably because of the filing of the instant charge on November
30.
s There is no evidence that the complement of the unit changed at any later
time in that workweek . Hence , whether Respondent received the Union's
demand letter on October 25, or even on October 27, when it replied to that
letter is not particularly material
to were that 15 names should be stricken from the list,' and
that 3 employees should be added . 10 So corrected , the stipu-
lated list contains the names of 72 employees . 11 In addition,
and notwithstanding the stipulation of the parties that Gen-
eral Counsel 's Exhibit 4, modified as above indicated, con-
stituted the unit on the demand date , I add the name of
Linda Jewell Ray, because as hereafter found she was dis-
criminatorily discharged on October 2, and remained in
employee status by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(3)
of the Act, there being no evidence that she thereafter ob-
tained other regular or substantially equivalent employ-
ment . Accordingly , I find that the number of employees in
the unit on the demand date was 73.
To establish union majority in the aforesaid unit, the
General Counsel introduced a total of 60 cards; 8 being
designated General Counsel 's Exhibit 6(a) -(h); 37 designat-
ed as General Counsel 's Exhibit 7(aHoo); 12 13 designated
as General Counsel's Exhibit 8(a)-(k); and 2 cards designat-
ed as General Counsel 's Exhibits 9 and 10 , respectively.
With respect to the 37 cards in Exhibit 7, the parties stipu-
ated that the signatures thereon are genuine , and that
each card was signed on the date indicated thereon. The
cards being dated between September 19 and October 23,
and signed by persons whose names appear on eligibility
lists, I find each of them to be a valid designation of the
Union 13 The eight cards in General Counsel 's Exhibit 6
were proved by the testimony of Ester Franks , who not only
proved her own signature to General Counsel's Exhibit
6(G), but testified that she asked the seven remaining em-
9 These we -e Ronald Barefield , Tomasita Cisnero, Rogers Davis, Jr., Deli-
lah Cuerrcero , Alfred Ray Hall, Janie Leos, Julia Leos, Mary Major, Sandy
Orosco, Jane A Salazer, Linda Sandoval, Vincent Craig Taylor, Larry Ed-
ward Vidnne , James Curtins Walker, and Valerie Yvonne Walker . The basis
for this exclusion is that the parties agreed that the aforementioned employ-
ees were employed part time and not covered by the unit description
10 These are Emmer Busby, Geraldine Hutchinson, and Diana R Trevino,
whose names were inadvertently left off the stipulated list
1 The General Counsel urged at the start of the trial, that four additional
names should be stricken from the stipulated list Mamie Katherine Glaze
because she was a temporary employee , Louis J Johnson because he was
employed as an engineer , Franklin Delano Moore because he was a supervi-
sor, and Yolanda Ysaquirre because she was terminated before October 18
Respondent then contended , but the General Counsel denied , that the name
of Everie Williams should also be stricken from the stipulated list because
she was part time Neither the General Counsel nor Respondent offered any
testimony in support of their respective contentions . There being prima facie
evidence that each of the employees referred to was in employee status on
October 23 , the burden of evidence is on the party seeking to show that such
status did not exist to establish that fact. McCormick Concrete South Carolina,
153 NLRB 1507, 1513, enfd 371 F.2d 149 (C A. 4, 1967), and the cases there
cited As no such evidence was offered , I find the employees referred to be
in the unit on the demand date.
12 Initially there were 41 cards in this exhibit , but 4 cards (7(k), 7(w), 7(11),
and 7(mm) ) were subsequently withdrawn because the names of the employ-
ees executing such cards did not appear on the stipulated eligibility lists.
13 The card signed by Annie Bell Woodberry (G.C Exh 7-CC), and with
respect to which Respondent raised no objection , is dated November 28,
1918 That this date is an error is too plain for argument The entry on the
card as to her age, where she entered "53," convinced me, and I find that
the date she entered was her birth date. It further appears that the card was
among those which the Union sent to the Regional Office on October 18, to
support its representation petition , and was date stamped by the latter on
October 30 On this evidence I find and conclude that the Union had
Woodberry's card in its possession prior to the demand date, and I count her
card toward the Union's majority.
BEST INDUSTRIAL UNIFORM SUPPLY CO.
ployees 14 if they wished to join the Union, and upon receiv-
ing an affirmative reply gave them the card which each
employee,except Crowley, filled out and signed in her pres-
ence , and returned to her. Crowley took the card home and
returned it to Franks the following morning, signed. The
only card in this exhibit to which Respondent objected is
that of Dianne Combs (G.C. Exh. 6D). The basis of the
objection was that the exhibit shows on its face that it was
"not filled out with the same pen at the same time." Dianne
Combs, when called to give testimony about the card, iden-
tified the signature as hers and explained that the pen she
was first using stopped writing, that she obtained another
one and completed filling out the card. There is no testimo-
ny contradicting her evidence in that regard, and I credit it.
Accordingly, I find all eight of the cards in General
Counsel's Exhibit 6 to be valid designations of the Union
as bargaining representative of the employees.
In the series of cards marked General Counsel's Exhibits
8(a)-(k), Respondent objected to the cards of Norma Jean
Wiley and Effie Lee Turner (8g), on the ground that the
hand printed signatures thereon were legally insufficient to
make said cards proper designations for the Union; of Rosie
May Hemphill (8d), because the card was filled out in ink
of two different colors; and of Margie Nell Holman (8f),
without disclosing any ground, counsel saying that he would
introduce testimony with respect to that card. I find each of
the said cards to be valid authorizations to the Union. Nor-
ma Jean Wiley testified that she was given the card by fellow
employee Lawrence Reed, who told her that it was an appli-
cation for membership in the Union; that she filled out the
entire handwritten portion of the card, printing her name on
the bottom line which is designated "signature," and that
when she did so she intended to designate the Union as
bargaining representative. Effie Turner also testified that
she executed General Counsel's Exhibit 8(g) by printing her
name on the bottom line of the card, the manner in which
she customarily signs documents, and that when she did so
she intended that printing to be her signature to the card.
The fact that these employees printed their name, rather
than signing in a formal manner, does not prevent the cards
from being valid designations. McEwen Manufacturing Co.,
172 NLRB 990,993, enfd. 419 F.2d 1207 (C.A.D.C. 1969);
C.A. Froedge Delivery & Trucking Service, 172 NLRB 46.
Rosie May Hemphill testified that her card was completely
filled out by her; that she made the alteration in the date,
because she had misspelled a word, erased the original en-
try, and then wrote it correctly. The testimony going to the
validity of the card signed by Margie Nell Holman, which
Respondent said he would introduce, was not offered. The
card itself was proved by the testimony of Lawrence Reed,
which I credit, that he gave the card to Holman after receiv-
ing an affirmative reply to his question whether she wanted
to join the Union, and that he observed her fill out and sign
the card, which is in all respects regular on its face. Accord-
ingly, I find the cards of Norma Jean Wiley, Effie Lee
Turner, Rosie May Hemphill, and Margie Nell Holman, to
14 These employees were Vivian Batiste, Wilton Carter, Judy Celestine,
Dianne Combs, Nadine Cornet , Mary Crowley, and Silvia Gilcrease. The
name of each appears on the stipulated eligibility list . The cards are dated
between October 2 and October 21.
1169
be valid authorizations of the Union, to be counted in ascer-
taining the latter's majority status.
Having found the 8 cards in General Counsel's Exhibit 6,
the 37 cards in General Counsel's Exhibit 7, as well as at
least 4 cards in General Counsel's Exhibit 8, for a total of
49 out of a unit of 73, are all valid designations of the
Union,15 it follows that the Union was on October 25 the
duly designated majority representative of Respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit.
E. The Strike Against Respondent
On October 23, virtually all of the unit employees con-
certedly ceased work and went on strike against Respon-
dent. Before the strike began, union officials held two
meetings with the employees, the first on October 11, and
the second on October 22. At the first meeting employees
complained to Union Agent Jones, not only generally about
wages and working conditions in the plant, but also about
the interrogation of and threats to employees, and the dis-
charge of Linda Ray, with some proposing an immediate
strike vote. However such a vote was not taken at the time.
At the meeting of October 22, the employees again com-
plained to Jones about the discharge of Linda Ray, and
Respondent's interrogation of and threats to employees,
indicating that Mark's discussion with the various employ-
ees must have become common knowledge. After some dis-
cussion the employees voted to strike to protest
Respondent's conduct, subject to the Union's sanction of
the strike. As employees Franks and Busby testified, in
substance, they went on strike because Respondent had
discharged Linda Ray, and "we didn't have any protection
either; we had to protect her to protect ourselves." The
Union approved the strike and, as above stated, the employ-
ees struck on the morning of October 23. Of the 72 employ-
ees on the payroll on that date, excluding Linda Ray, at
least 63 joined the strike. According to the evidence, about
five of the strikers returned to work within about a week, but
the identity of these is not clear from the record. 16
It. CONTENTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The 8(a)(1) Violations
I find and conclude that Respondent violated Section
15 This finding makes it unnecessary to consider whether the remaining I I
cards introduced by the General Counsel were sufficiently authenticated as
valid authorizations or not . In either event, the majority status of the Union
at the time of the demand is established
16 At the trial Respondent offered two leaflets (R-1 and R-2), which Plant
Manager Mark testified that he observed strikers passing out in the area of
the plant , about mid-November . Exhibit R-1 carries the legend "sponsored
by Local 218 Laundry Workers (afl Int Bro. Teamsters Worker's Action
Movement) " The Union disclaims all knowledge of and responsibility for
the leaflets , and except for the testimony of Mark, there is no evidence from
which such responsibility may be inferred . When asked for a statement of
relevancy , counsel for Respondent replied that the documents read together
demonstrate that the strike against and picketing of Respondent was entirely
economic in nature , and not to protest unfair labor practices To facilitate
the hearing and enable counsel to make his record, I received the exhibits,
telling counsel that in my opinion they were not relevant , so that he could
argue the question of relevancy and effect in his brief The brief submitted
by Respondent does not treat with the question , and I assume the contention
has been abandoned
1170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8(a)(1) of the Act by the following conduce
1. Mark's interrogation of employees Ester Franks, Dor-
othy Macon, Ruby Broussard, Everie Williams, Jeddy Rob-
ertson , Emmer Busby, Rosalean Scott, and Margaret Nell
Johnson , as well as his interrogation of Franks, Macon, and
Ray on October 2, concerning their information about the
Union, and his request that they report to him on the union
activity of fellow employees. The fact that the employees,
many of whom had signed cards before they were interro-
gated, considered it necessary or expedient to deny all
knowledge of union activity, is strong evidence that the
interrogation was coercive in fact.
2. Mark's threat of plant closure if the employees select-
ed union representation , as well as his threat to discharge
employees who signed a union card , or who spoke in favor
of the Union.
3. Mark's offer to grant wage increases to employees who
reported to him on the union activity of fellow employees,
as well as his threat to withhold a wage increase if the Union
became the bargaining representative.
B. The 8(a)(3) Violation
The evidence heretofore detailed demonstrates, and
based thereon I find and conclude , that Linda Jewell Ray
was discharged on October 2, because she revealed to
Franklin that she supported the Union . That her discharge
for that reason violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
is too plain to require the citation of authority.
C. The 8(a)(5) Violation
Additionally, I find and conclude that under the circum-
stances of this case , a bargaining order is proper and neces-
sary and to prevent Respondent from reaping the benefits
of its own unlawful conduct . The extensive violations of
Section 8(ax1) of the Act which became so generally known
as to cause the employees to vote for a strike , coupled with
the discharge of Linda Jewell Ray, are of such a grievous
and pervasive character as to make the holding of a fair
election extremely doubtful, and therefore a bargaining or-
der is appropriate, notwithstanding the absence of a Board-
conducted election , the preferable course under ordinary
circumstances . N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S.
575, 610, 614-15 (1969); Green Brier Nursing Home, Inc.,
201 NLRB No. 73; Honda of Haslett, 201 NLRB No. 128.
As the Board said in Honda of Haslett, " . . . the total
impact of [such] conduct thus impressed upon the employ-
ees in unmistakable fashion the consequences of unioniza-
tion."
D. The Nature of the Strike
As the evidence shows that the strike against Respondent,
which commenced on October 23, was called to protest the
conduct of Respondent herein found to be in violation of
Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, which strike was continu-
ing at the time of the trial , it follows that said strike was
caused and prolonged by Respondent 's unfair labor practic-
es and calls for the customary protective order . Bush Hog,
Inc., 176 NLRB 815, 820-821; Deno Boutiques, Inc., 173
NLRB 1155, fn. 1.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire record
in the case, I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in seciton II,B, hereof, Re-
spondent interfered with , restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. By discharging Linda Ray on October 2 because of her
assistance to and support of the Union , Respondent dis-
criminated against her in regard to her hire , tenure of em-
ployment, or the terms and conditions thereof , discouraging
membership in a labor organization , and thereby engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
5. On October 25, the Union was, and at all times since
has been , the duly designated collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of Respondent 's employees in a unit of production
and maintenance employees, but excluding all truckdrivers,
part-time employees , office clerical employees , guards,
watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act, a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
6. On or about October 25, the Union demanded, and at
all times since has continued to demand, that Respondent
recognize and bargain with it as the duly designated collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the afore-
said appropriate unit.
7. By refusing on October 27, and at all times thereafter,
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the aforemen-
tioned unit , Respondent engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
9. The strike engaged in by Respondent 's employees in
the aforesaid unit , which began on October 23, was caused
and prolonged by Respondent 's unfair labor practices set
forth in Conclusions of Law 3 and 4, above.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is
engaging in, unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it
will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and to take the affirmative action, set forth be-
low, designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Having found that Respondent interfered with , coerced,
and restrained its employees in the exercise of their guaran-
teed Section 7 rights , discriminatorily discharged Linda Je-
well Ray, and refused to bargain with the Union , I conclude
BEST INDUSTRIAL UNIFORM SUPPLY CO. 1171
from the totality of that unlawful conduct that a broad
order is appropriate , and that Respondent should be re-
quired to cease and desist from in any manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B.
v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532 (C.A. 4, 1941); California
Lingerie Inc., 129 NLRB 912, 915.
Having additionally found that Respondent discrimina-
torily discharged Linda Jewell Ray and thereafter failed and
refused to reinstate her, it will be recommended that it be
required to offer her immediate , full, and unconditional
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without prejudice
to her seniority, or other rights, privileges, or working condi-
tions, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suffered,
by paying to her a sum of money equal to the amount she
would have earned from October 2, 1972, to the date Re-
spondent offers her reinstatement , less any amount she may
have earned as wages in that period. Such backpay shall be
computed in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W,
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum , as provided in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Additionally it will be recom-
mended that Respondent be required to preserve and, upon
request, make available to authorized agents of the Board,
all records necessary or useful in determining compliance
with the Board's Order, or in computing the amount of
backpay due.
Having also found that Respondent on October 27, and
at all times thereafter , failed and refused , in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the duly designated exclusive collective -bargain-
ing agent of its employees in the unit herein found appropri-
ate, and that, independent of such violation , a bargaining
order is necessary to prevent Respondent from profiting
from its own unlawful conduct, it will be recommended that
Respondent, upon request, bargain with the Union as such
representative , concerning the wages , hours , and terms and
conditions of employment of the employees in said unit, and
if an understanding is reached , embody the same into a
written signed contract.
Having also found that the strike by Respondent's em-
ployees which began on October 23 was caused and pro-
longed by Respondent's unfair labor practices proscribed
by Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, and was, therefore, an
unfair labor practice strike , I shall in accordance with Board
policy recommend that upon the unconditional offer of the
strikers to abandon their strike and return to work, Respon-
dent shall offer each of them reinstatement to their former
or substantially equivalent employment , dismissing if need
be any person hired on or after October 23, and make each
such striker whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of
Respondent's failure, if any such there be, to reinstate an
employee within 5 days after application, to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement , by paying to such
striker a sum of money equal to the wages he would have
earned during said period , less his net earnings in that peri-
od, in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest at
the rate of 6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 17
Respondent, Best Uniform Supply Company, Inc., Hous-
ton, Texas, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to
their sympathies for or assistance to any labor organization.
(b) Soliciting employees to report to it the union or con-
certed activities of fellow employees.
(c) Promising benefits to employees to induce them to
cease assisting or supporting a labor organization, or threat-
ening to withhold benefits from employees if they assist or
support a labor organization.
(d) Threatening to discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees because they assist or support a labor
organization.
(e) Encouraging or discouraging membership in Laun-
dry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers, Local Union
No. 218, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discriminatorily discharging, or in any other manner
discriminating against any employee in regard to his hire,
tenure , or any term or condition of employment.
(f) Refusing, on request, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid labor organization as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit composed of its production and maintenance employ-
ees, but excluding all truckdrivers, part-time employees, of-
fice clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action found necessary
and designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the aforesaid
labor organization as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment and if an under-
standing is reached embody the same into a signed written
contract.
(b) Offer immediate, full, and unconditional reinstate-
ment to Linda Jewell Ray to her former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without
prejudice to her seniority or other rights, privileges, or work-
ing conditions, and make her whole for any loss of earnings
suffered, in the manner set forth in the section hereof enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to author-
17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for
examination and copying , all payroll records , social security
payment records , timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary or useful in determining
compliance with this order, or in computing the backpay
due.
(d) Upon unconditional application, offer immediate,
full, and unconditional reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, to all employees who
went on strike on October 23, 1972, or thereafter , dismissing
if need be, any person hired on or after that date, and make
whole each such striker for any loss of wages suffered by
reason of Respondent 's refusal , if any, to reinstate any strik-
er beginning 5 days after his application , to the date of
Respondent 's offer of reinstatement.
(e) Post at its premises in Houston , Texas , copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Copies of said no-
tice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
23 (Houston , Texas), shall, after being signed by an author-
ized representative , be posted as herein provided immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be so maintained for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to in-
sure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director in writing,
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith. 1'
16 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
19 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board after
exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified by deleting the
words "receipt of this Decision ." and substituting therefore the words "this
Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a full trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we, Best Industrial Uniform Supply Compa-
ny, Inc., violated the National Labor Relations Act, and
ordered us to post this notice. We will carry out the Order
of the Board or the Judgment of any court enforcing the
same, and comply with the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join or help unions
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with you in the
exercise of the aforementioned rights, and all our em-
ployees are free to become or remain a member of
Laundry Workers Local 218, or not to become or re-
main a member of that or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
regarding their sympathy for or their assistance to any
union.
WE WILL NOT ask you to report to us regarding your
union activities or the union activities of your fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT promise you benefits to induce you to
cease supporting a union or threaten to withhold bene-
fits from you if you do assist or support a union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against employees because they assist or sup-
port a union.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with
Laundry Workers Local 218 as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in an ap-
propriate unit composed of all production and mainte-
nance employees, but excluding all truckdrivers, office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors,
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment, and if an under-
standing is reached reduce the same to a signed written
contract.
As the National Labor Relations Board found that
we violated the law by discharging Linda Jewell Ray,
WE WILL offer her her old job if the same exists and, if
not, a substantially equal job, without any loss in her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and make up to
her the pay she lost with 6-percent interest.
WE WILL, upon the unconditional application of those
employees who went on strike on October 23, or there-
after, offer each of them immediate, full, and uncondi-
tional reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent jobs, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, dismissing, if need be, any
person we hired on or after October 23, and make each
such striker whole for any loss of pay suffered by rea-
son of our refusal, if any such there be, to reinstate such
striker, beginning 5 days after application for reinstate-
ment, to the date we offer reinstatement, with 6-percent
interest.
Dated By
BEST INDUSTRIAL UNIFORM
SUPPLY COMPANY, INC
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Dallas-
Brazos Building, 1125 Brazos Street, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-226-4296.