Broward County Launderers & Cleaners Association, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 20, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 256 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Broward County Launderers & Cleaners Association , Inc., Peti- tioner and Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers' International Union, Local 222. Case No. 12-RITI-19. Novem- ber 20, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin Sacks and Frank H. Parlier, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Union contends that the Broward County Launderers & Cleaners Association, Inc., is not an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act and moves that the petition be dismissed. The record discloses that the Association has been in existence on an informal basis for some 18 years and has consisted of various em- ployers engaged in laundry and dry cleaning.' One of the purposes of the Association was to "tak[e] care of any trouble [with respect to] labor disputes. . . ." A labor committee was formed by the Associa- tion about 2 years ago to handle labor relations matters. The Associa- tion was incorporated. on February 5, 1959, and the charter was amended on July 27, 1959, to formalize the labor relations aspects of the Association's activities. This amendment authorizes the Asso- ciation to act in behalf of all member companies in negotiating collec- tive-bargaining agreements with labor organizations and to appoint a negotiating committee with final authority to bind the member companies with respect to any collective agreement negotiated by said committee. As the employers herein have delegated to the Asso- ciation the authority to represent them in labor negotiations, we find that the Association is an employer within the meaning of the Act .2 Accordingly, the Union's motion to dismiss the petition is denied. We find that the Association is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case. 'At the time of the hearing the 10 members of the Association were : Green Mill Cleaners & Laundry, Inc.; New Peerless Laundry Company, Inc. ; Fort Lauderdale Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. ; Seven Hours Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. ; Mercury Linen Service, Inc. ; Warren Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.; John G. Myers d/b/a Florida Cleaners & Laundry ; Bond Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. ; Dania Riverside Laundry ; and Jack Hayworth Laundry & Dry Cleaners. 'Oregon Coast Operators Association , et al ., 113 NLRB 1338, and cases cited therein. 125 NLRB No. 41. BROWARD COUNTY LAUNDERERS & CLEANERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 257 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. A question concerning commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Association's primary contention is that the multiemployer bargaining unit should consist of employees of all 10 of its employer- members. However, alternatively, the Association would agree to restrict this multiemployer unit to the employees of eight of the em- ployers, excluding Dania Riverside Laundry and Jack Hayworth Laundry & Dry Cleaners. The Union takes the position that a multi- employer unit limited to the employees of the eigh. employers is the only appropriate unit. It would exclude the employees of Dania Riverside Laundry and Jack Hayworth Laundry & Dry Cleaners whom it has never claimed to represent. There is no bargaining his- tory in this case on a multiemployer basis. As the Association and the Union seek multiemployer bargaining, and as no party is seeking single employer units, collective-bargaining history is not a pre- requisite to finding a multiemployer unit appropriate.4 In these circumstances, we find that, as the Association and the Union agree to the establishment of a multiemployer unit of the employees of the eight employers, such unit is appropriate.5 The Association has alternative contentions with respect to the composition of the unit. In order of preference they are : (1) all production and maintenance employees, including driver-salesmen; (2) separate units of production and maintenance employees, and driver-salesmen; and (3) all production and maintenance employees, excluding driver-salesmen. The Union contends that only the Asso- ciation's third alterntaive is appropriate. The record discloses that driver-salesmen pick up laundered and/or cleaned items at the em- ployer's establishments and deliver them to the customers. While running their routes, they also collect soiled items which they return to the plant. Unlike the production and maintenance employees, they are paid on a salary basis plus commission. They do not inter- change with the plant employees and, in general, have relatively little contact with them. In view of the foregoing, we find that the driver- salesmen do not have sufficient community of interest with production 4 3 The Freight Drivers , Warehousemen , Helpers, Bakery Salesmen and Dairy Employees, Local Union No. 390, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, appeared at the first hearing, failed to appear at the second hearing and filed a letter of disclaimer with the Board. In view of the foregoing, we find that Local 390 has withdrawn and does not claim to represent the employees in- volved herein. Therefore, we shall not place its name on the ballot in the election directed herein. 4 Calumet Contractors Association , 121 NLRB 80. 6 Molinelli, Santoni & Freytes, S. en C. , d/b/a Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia La Francesa, et at ., 118 NLRB 1010, 1015. 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and maintenance employees to warrant their inclusion in the same unit.6 As the Association in its third alternative agrees with the Union to the exclusion of driver-salesmen and the Union does not seek to represent them separately, we shall not direct a separate election for them. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees of Green Mill Cleaners & Laundry, Inc.; New Peerless Laundry Company, Inc.; Fort Lauder- dale Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. ; Seven Hours Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.; Mercury Liven Service, Inc.; Warren Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. ; John G. Myers, d/b/a Florida Cleaners & Laundry ; and Bond Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., at their plants,in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, excluding driver-salesmen, office clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] "The Family Laundry Inc., etc., 121 NLRB 1619, 1621. Florida Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia d/b/a Cadillac Hotel 1 and International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 491, 491A and 491B, AFL-CIO I and Hotel Employees Union Local 255, AFL-CIO,' Petitioners. Cases Nos. 12-RC-461 and 12-RC- 524. November 20, 1959 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Claude B. Calkin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Hotel Employees, in Case No. 12-RC-524, seek a unit of all employees at the Employer's Miami Beach, Florida, hotel, including 1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 Herein called the operating Engineers. 8 Herein called Hotel Employees. 125 NLRB No. 40.