Champa Linen Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Champa Linen Service Company and Dry Cleaning
and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304. Case
27-CA-2521
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On January 15, 1969, Trial Examiner David F.
Doyle issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom,
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting memorandum
of law.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of theTrial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in the
case, including the Respondent's exceptions and
memorandum, and hereby adopts the findings,'
conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the limited modifications indicated
herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
The Respondent 's exceptions to the Trial Examiner ' s Decision are in
large part directed to credibility resolutions of the Trial Examiner. We will
not overrule a Trial Examiner 's resolutions as to credibility unless a clear
preponderance of all relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Such a conclusion is not warranted here . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C.A. 3).
9'he Respondent's contention that the Trial Examiner erred in failing to
allow a hearing on the issue of appropriateness of the unit is without merit.
On April 16, 1968, the Board by telegraphic order denied the Respondent's
request for review of the Regional Director 's Decision and Direction of
Election . The Board ' s Rules and Regulations, Sec 102 .67 provide that
denial of a request for review shall preclude rehtigation of issues raised by
the Regional Director ' s Decision in any subsequent related unfair labor
practice proceeding . The Respondent ' s contention that the Trial Examiner
erred in failing to allow a hearing on issues raised by the objections to
conduct of an election is also unmeritorious The Respondent failed to
request review of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision The
Board 's Rules and Regulations further provide that failure to request
review of a Regional Director's Decision shall preclude a party from
relitigating issues which could have been raised at the representation
proceeding in a subsequent unfair labor practice proceeding Rules and
Regulations , Sec. 102 .67 and 102. 69(c).
'We note and correct the following inadvertent errors in the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision which do not affect the result in this case . Demeter
did attempt to keep certain of her union activities secret . Vice president
177 NLRB No. 69
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Champa Linen Service Company, Denver,
Colorado, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in and activities on
behalf of Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers,
Local Union No. 304, or any other labor
organization of its employees by discharging
employees or transferring employees or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to their hire or
tenure of employment, or any other terms or
conditions of employment.
(b) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act, by interrogating employees
about their union affiliation and activities; by
threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if
they aid or assist the Union; by making abusive
statements to employees because of their union
activities; by threatening employees with physical
harm because of their assistance to the Union; or by
engaging in surveillance of employees' union
activities.
(c) Making unilateral changes in employees'
working conditions, or otherwise refusing to bargain
collectively with Dry Cleaning and Laundry
Workers, Local Union No. 304, as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit:
All laundry production and maintenance
employees employed at its 2033 Champa Street,
Denver, Colorado location, but excluding all
office clerical employees, route drivers, salesmen,
and all guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(d) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization to form labor
organizations , to join or assist Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Dry
Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No.
Zimmerman testified that he personally saw Demeter hit another
employee.
We rewrite the Order and Notice , to conform more accurately with the
findings and conclusions We do not adopt No 4,(6), of the Trial
Examiner's Conclusions of Law, as the record contains no supporting
evidence
CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY 799
304 as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the above-described appropriate unit with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and other
terms and conditions of employment, and embody in
a signed agreement any understanding reached.
(b) Resume forthwith the supplying of free coffee
to unit employees, and, if Respondent seeks to
discontinue said service, propose such
discontinuance to the Union and bargain on that
subject with the Union.
(c) Offer Flora M. Demeter and Margaret
Martinez immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of wages they may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent's discrimination against
them, in the manner set forth in the section of the
Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
contract and contract bids, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(e) Notify the above-named employees if 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 and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
(f) Post at its plant in Denver, Colorado, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 27, after being duly signed by
an authorized representative of the Respondent,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and 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 the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 27, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership of any of our
employees in Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers,
Local Union No. 304, or any other union, by
discharging employees or transferring employees or in
any other manner discriminating against them in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment or any terms or
conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7
of the Act, by interrogating employees about their
union affiliation and activities; by threatening
employees with the loss of their jobs if they aid or
assist the Union; by making abusive statements to
employees because of their union activities; by
threatening employees with physical harm because of
their assistance to the Union ; or by engaging in
surveillance of employees' union activities.
WE WILL offer Flora M. Demeter and Margaret
Martinez full and immediate reinstatment to their
former positions or ones substantially equivalent thereto
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make whole Flora M. Demeter and
Margaret Martinez for any loss of pay they may have
suffered as a result of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Dry
Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304
as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the appropriate unit described below,
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of work, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and we will
embody in a signed agreement any understanding
reached. The bargaining unit is:
All laundry production and maintenance employees
employed by the Company at its 2033 Champa
Street, Denver, Colorado location, but excluding all
office clerical employees, route drivers, salesmen and
all guards, professional employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL resume forthwith the supplying of free
coffee to employees, and, if we seek to discontinue said
service, we will propose such discontinuance to the
Union and bargain on that subject with the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other 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 Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Workers, Local Union No. 304 or any other
labor organization, 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.
WE WILL notify the above-named employees if
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
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
800
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE
COMPANY
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
Ben Elderman
Harry Zimmerman
Troy McCasland
Rose Piro
Harriet Woodruff
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 260 New
Custom House , 721 19th Street, Denver , Colorado 80202,
Telephone 303-297-3551.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID F. DOYLE, Trial Examiner : This proceeding, with
the parties represented by counsel named above, was
heard by me in Denver , Colorado, on September 24 and
25, 1968 , on complaint of the General Counsel and answer
of the Respondent . The issues litigated were : whether the
Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of
the Act by certain conduct described hereinafter.'
At the hearing the parties were represented by counsel
and were afforded full opportunity to present evidence,
examine and cross-examine witnesses and to present
arguments and briefs on the issues.
Upon the entire record , and my observation of the
witnesses , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company is a Colorado corporation with its
principal place of business and plant at 2033 Champa
Street, Denver, Colorado , where it engages in the business
of linen rental , service and supply . In the course of its
business operations the Company annually purchases,
transfers, and delivers to its Denver , Colorado place of
business goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000.
These goods and materials are transported to Denver
directly from States of the United States other than the
State of Colorado.
It is conceded by the Company, and I find, that at all
times material herein the Company has been , and is, an
employer engaged in commerce and in the operations
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
The Company also admits in the pleadings that the
following named persons occupied the positions set
opposite their respective names and are agents of the
Company and are supervisors within the meaning of
Section 2(11) of the Act:
'In this Decision , Champa Linen Service Company is referred to as the
Respondent or the Company; Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local
Union No 304, as the Union; the National Labor Relations Board, as the
Board ; the General Counsel of the Board and his representatives at the
hearing, as the General Counsel; and the Labor Management Relations
Act, as amended, as the Act.
The original charge in this proceeding was filed on June 19 and an
amended charge was filed on August 1 The complaint herein was issued
by the Regional Director, Region 27, on July 31, and the complaint was
amended on August 27 by the said Regional Director.
It should be noted that all dates in this Decision are in the year 1968
unless specified otherwise.
Christine Capra
President
Vice President
General Superintendent
Supervisor - Flat work
and Finish Department
Supervisor - Seamstress
Department
Supervisor - Order
Department
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
John Cuifi
Pete Dyle
Angelo Melaragno
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted in the pleadings, and I find, that the
Union is now, and at all times material herein has been, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The complaint and its amendment alleged that the
Company, by its officers and supervisors, violated the Act
as follows:
1. Interfered with , restrained , and coerced the
Company's employees by coercive statements of reprisal,
loss of employment , physical harm , verbal abuse , promises
of benefits, denial of benefits previously provided, and acts
of surveillance because of the union activities of the
employees.
2. Discriminatorily transferred and then discharged
Flora Demeter and discriminatorily transferred Margaret
Martinez to less desirable work.
3. Refused to bargain with the Union which at the time
of the refusal was the duly elected collective-bargaining
agent of the employees and unilaterally stopped a free
coffee service previously furnished to the employees.
The duly filed answer of the Company denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
B. Undisputed Facts
It is undisputed that in February 1968 employees of the
Company began the discussion of affiliation with the
Union. In the second week of February, employee Flora
Demeter discussed the matter with Edward F. Hogan,
secretary-treasurer of the Union. At this meeting it was
decided that the organizational campaign would take the
form of having authorization cards signed by the
employees . Demeter received the cards from Hogan and
they were distributed to the employees. Also during the
months of February, March and April, the union officers
held approximately four meetings with the employees.
Thereafter, the Union petitioned the Board for an
election, and on April 23 an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director
(Region 27) of the Board. The Union was selected as the
bargaining representative of the employees by the
following vote: Votes cast for petitioner (Union) - 35;
votes cast against petitioner (Union) - 22.
The appropriate unit in which the election above was
conducted is described as follows:
All laundry production and maintenance employees
employed by the Company at its 2033 Champa Street,
Denver, Colorado location, but excluding office clerical
employees, route drivers, salesmen , and all guards,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in
CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY 801
the Act.
It is undisputed that on June 5 the Regional Director
aforesaid certified the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
this appropriate unit.
Upon the undisputed facts above , I find that the unit
set forth above is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining and that the Union is the duly
designated collective-bargaining representative of said
employees.
It is likewise undisputed that shortly after the election,
Edward F. Hogan, secretary-treasurer of the Union,
requested that the Company start collective- bargaining
negotiations with the Union. On June 14, Eric
Zimmerman , vice president of the Company, in a letter to
Hogan stated that the Company believed that the
decisions of the Board in regard to the appropriate unit
and the Board' s refusal to set aside the election were
erroneous and that it was exercising its right to appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals by refusing to bargain
with the Union.
Upon the above undisputed evidence it is found that the
Company has refused to bargain with the Union and has
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. As will also
appear later herein , it is undisputed that after the election
the Company discontinued providing free coffee to the
employees without consulting the Union, thereby
committing an additional violation of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act by its unilateral change of this working condition.
C. The Discriminatory Transfer and Subsequent
Discharge of Demeter, and the Discriminatory
Transfer of Martinez
Employee Flora Demeter testified credibly that she was
among the employees who first discussed joining the
Union and that it was she who first received the
authorization cards from Hogan , the secretary-treasurer of
the Union. Demeter testified that she made no attempt to
keep her activity on behalf of the Union a secret and she
soon noticed that Rose Piro , her supervisor , began to
ignore her. On approximately March 29, Ben Elderman,
president of the Company, came to her and said that he
was going to put her to work "in the dirty filth, you dirty
Mexican ." Elderman called McCasland, the plant
superintendent , and told him to transfer Demeter from the
mangle, where she was working , to the dirty linen room
upstairs where her task was to sort the soiled linen which
came into the plant. When she was installed in the dirty
linen room , Elderman came up there and told her that she
belonged in the "filthy" linen room because she was a
troublemaker. On several occasions Elderman also
subjected Demeter to verbal abuse , calling her a dirty
Mexican and saying she belonged among "the filth."
Employee Demeter testified that she was called to
Elderman 's office over the loudspeaker on April 1. When
she reached Elderman 's office, she found present
Zimmerman , Company vice president, Leroy Cooper, who
is Zimmerman's brother-in-law , and employee Nina
Villano, with Elderman . Elderman started off by asking
Demeter what Hogan , the union representative was going
to do for her. Then Elderman told Villano that she should
take Demeter outside and "beat the . out of her."
Elderman said the reason that he had put Demeter
upstairs was because he was afraid the rest of the
employees would knife her in the back and that she should
go see Hogan and see what he could do for her . Elderman
then said that employee Nina Villano had complained that
Demeter had called her on the phone late the previous
night and berated her because she would not join the
Union. A few days later, Demeter was called to
Elderman ' s office a second time and on this occasion
Elderman threatened that he would replace all the
employees with "school kids" and asked what Hogan, the
union official, could do about getting the employees jobs.
Elderman also asked Demeter , if she was dissatisfied, why
she had not complained to him instead of going to the
Union.
Employee Margaret Martinez testified credibly that she
had attended a union meeting on April 8 at which she was
chosen to serve as the Union ' s observer in the election
scheduled to be held later in the month. On the day before
the election , Elderman told Martinez that she was being
transferred from the department , in which she wrapped
clean linen for delivery , to the soiled linen department
upstairs, the same department as Demeter . Martinez had
been wrapping the clean linen for delivery for
approximately 9 years previously. Martinez said that she
did not want to go upstairs and that he could fire her, if
he chose. Elderman called to Chris Capra, a supervisor,
and asked the latter to witness the fact that he wanted to
transfer Martinez but that Martinez had said she would
not accept the job and that she would quit. That evening
Elderman waited at the timeclock for Martinez and said
to her that Hogan , the union official , was outside the
plant and that Martinez should tell Hogan to get her a
job. On the following day, Martinez was transferred
upstairs and Elderman told her that he did not want her
coming downstairs and talking to the other employees.
When Martinez was transferred to the dirty linen
department, employee Rose Proctor was transferred to the
wrapping of clean linen . On April 23 , Rose Proctor and
Margaret Valdez acted as observers for the Union in the
Board-conducted election. After the election which the
Union won, Elderman told Margaret Valdez that she was
"a bitch" and also said that he hoped the girls "are
satisfied , you dirty Mexicans."
D. The Discontinuance of Free Coffee
On the day after the election, Elderman came to the
room which the employees used as a lunchroom at
noontime , and announced to them that he was removing
the coffee urn that had previously been provided by the
Company and that he was stopping the serving of free
coffee. According to employee Proctor , he said to the
employees , "let Hogan buy your coffee."
Employee Allen McCasland , the son of plant
superintendent McCasland , who is an employee in the
plant, corroborated the testimony of Demeter. He testified
that he overheard two or three conversations between
Elderman and Demeter approximately a week after
Demeter had been transferred to the soiled linen
department and that those conversations were of an
abusive nature in that Elderman asked Demeter how she
liked working in the "filth" and called Demeter a
Mexican , and on one occasion referred to Demeter as a
"bitch ." McCasland also testified that in one of these
conversations, Elderman referred to Demeter as the
"Union instigator ." Allen McCasland testified in a most
forthright manner . Because of his father's supervisory
capacity, Allen McCasland' s testimony is especially
persuasive . I credit his testimony fully.
The testimony of employee Carl Peiz was also
corroborative of Demeter' s testimony of Elderman's
abusive conduct toward her . Employee Peiz also testified
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that on a Saturday , approximately a week before the
election , he was in the plant ' s head office talking to his
father on the company telephone . During this conversation
he told his father that he had obtained many authorization
cards from employees for the Union and that Elderman
was trying to scare employees out of voting for the Union
in the election . At that moment he heard another phone
slam down and soon Elderman came out of his office and
approached Peiz . When Peiz hung up the phone,
Elderman said , " I heard everything you said." Peiz
replied , "Okay," and walked out of the office. Elderman
followed after Peiz and told him that he was going to be
out of a job because the Company was going to fire Peiz,
and his wife , who was also employed at the Company, if
the Union won the election.
Employee Margaret Valdez testified that after she had
served as an observer for the Union at the election,
Elderman said to her , "I hope you' re satisfied you dirty
Mexican."
E. The Discharge of Employee Demeter
Employee Demeter testified that she was discharged on
July 24 by Harry Zimmerman , vice president of the
Company . After she had been at work about a half hour
on this morning , she was summoned to the main office by
the loudspeaker . There Zimmerman met her and told her
that he had her check ready for her. And he asked her to
sign a particular card. Zimmerman said that she was not
satisfied and "putting it out for the Company, so the
Company was not satisfied with her and putting out for
her either ." Demeter refused to sign the card which was
proffered to her and Zimmerman refused to elaborate any
further on the reasons for her discharge.
F. The Testimony Offered by the Company
Zimmerman , vice president of the Company, was called
as a witness on its behalf. He had assigned a variety of
reasons for the discharge of Demeter. He said that she
was discharged because (1) she fought and argued with the
other girls , (2) her work was unsatisfactory because she
refused to take orders, (3) she violated regulations by
turning off the conveyor belts from the soiled linen room,
(4) she refused to clean the restroom in the soiled linen
department, (5) she threw red napkins in with white linen
which caused red dye to run into the white materials, (6)
she appropriated for her own use silverware which came in
the dirty linen she was sorting.
These reasons were disclosed as specious pretexts by the
testimony of other witnesses presented by the Company
and by the cross-examination of Zimmerman. In the
course of his cross-examination, Zimmerman stated that,
although he discharged Demeter because she violated rules
by stopping the conveyor belt and argued and fought with
the other girls , that he personally never saw her violate
any of the company rules nor had he ever seen or heard
Demeter being in any arguments or fights with other
employees . Zimmerman also admitted that he told
Demeter that her work was not satisfactory, but counsel
for the Company stipulated that on May 4 Demeter was
given a 5 -cent-an-hour wage increase . Also, in the course
of his testimony , Elderman admitted that Demeter was a
good worker , until shortly before the election , when she
became very mean and started to throw things around.
Demeter testified that she had never received any
individual warnings about poor work or any deficiencies
on her part and no company official controverted her
testimony on this point.
Employee Katherine Stieb testified credibly that Plant
Superintendent McCasland had told Stieb that Demeter
was a good worker and that she missed very few days at
work. The plant superintendent was not called by the
Company to testify to this point.
As to the matter of cleaning the restroom in the soiled
linen department , Demeter testified that when her
supervisor , Agular, asked her to clean up the restroom on
one occasion , she refused , as did employee Margaret
Martinez . This matter seems to be of little moment
inasmuch as employee Mary Berg testified that she
volunteered to keep the restroom clean since she used it.
Employee Katherine Stieb also testified that she cleaned
the restroom on some occasions and that if she missed it
Mary Berg did it . Since these employees voluntarily
cleaned the small restroom used by all the employees on
the second floor, it appears to have been no cause of
controversy or friction among the employees or with
management . Supervisor Agular testified that since Stieb
and Berg cleaned up the restrooms , he never reported the
refusal of Demeter or Martinez to management.
Zimmerman's contention that Demeter violated rules
by shutting off the conveyor belt in the dirty linen room
also appears to be a pretext in view of the fact that
Demeter testified that the switch was at the end of the
conveyor belt where she worked and when the girls
working on the line fell behind the conveyor belt, they
would ask her to shut off the line for a moment while they
caught up . These delays occurred no more than once or
twice a day and lasted for no longer than a minute or two.
Supervisor Agular confirmed this testimony of Demeter.
He stated that he considered Demeter a good worker and
that he had cautioned the girls to take care in separating
red colored linen from white linen because of the danger
of having the red dye run into the white. He said that he
had given them instructions to shut down the conveyor
belt at any time they thought that red material had been
mixed with the white . In this way such mistakes could be
corrected. Agular also testified that if he saw one of the
girls make a mistake , and put red linen with white linen,
that he would order that the conveyor belt be stopped and
the error corrected . If, in fact , some red linen became
mixed with the white , Agular testified that he had no way
of knowing which one of the girls had made the error.
There were three girls working on each side of the
conveyor belt, so Agular or no one else could determine
which one had erred in the matter , except when the
observer actually saw the mistake.
Zimmerman testified that a final act of Demeter
leading to her discharge was her having a dispute with
employee Mary Berg . The Company did not call Berg to
testify. Zimmerman admitted that at the time he
discharged Demeter he did not mention her dispute with
Berg. It is clear that Zimmerman did not attempt to
ascertain the facts of this dispute , because he admitted
that he had never spoken with Berg about the incident,
and had spoken only a few words to Berg in the entire
course of her employment . The Company' s claim that
Demeter appropriated to her own use some silverware
which was included in the soiled linen by mistake, a
charge which Demeter denied , likewise appears to be an
unfounded accusation.
President Ben Elderman was called as an adverse
witness by the General Counsel. In the course of his
testimony , he explained that he discontinued the coffee
service because on the day of the election , after it was
announced that the Union had won the election, the
CHAMPA LINEN SERVICE COMPANY
employees "threw the coffee all around the lunchroom" in
their elation over the Union ' s success.
Employee David Sena testified that he was the
maintenance man who took care of the lunchroom and he
was the man who made the coffee in the coffee urn and
kept the premises clean . He testified that on several
occasions he complained to Mr . Zimmerman that the
employees sometimes dribbled or spilled coffee on the
floor and that they did not clean up things after they used
the facilities . Finally , he took the coffee urn out of the
lunchroom on the orders of Zimmerman . In the course of
his cross-examination , Sena stated that each of the girls
provided her own cup and on some occasions they did not
wash their own cups . The tenor of Sena ' s testimony was
that on the day of the election and the day or two
thereafter there occurred no unusual "throwing around"
of coffee.
CONCLUDING FINDINGS
The testimony of the employees in this case was
unusually impressive . They were young ladies who
evidently possessed no special skills and were required by
circumstances to perform the arduous work of a
launderer , or they were older ladies , like Demeter, who
were required to work years after most women are
employed at household tasks . However , these ladies,
without exception , testified in a sincere and candid
manner . This applies to those who are called by the
Company in its defense . In reality , their truthfulness and
candor was not any help to the Company . I credit
completely the testimony of the employees mentioned in
the recital of testimony above. Their testimonies were
mutually corroborative to the point that their composite
testimony cannot be denied.
On the other hand , Elderman, president of the
Company, while on the witness stand , found it impossible
to conceal his hostility and rancor toward the employees
who had assisted the Union . Even as he protested his
innocence , the vehemence of his words , and sometimes his
contemptuous tone , confirmed the testimony of the
employees about Elderman. Harry Zimmerman, vice
president of the Company , appeared to harbor no
resentment against the employees for their union activity,
but the multiple reasons he furnished for the discharge of
Demeter were disclosed as flimsy pretexts , by his own
cross-examination , the testimony of credited employees
and the totality of the evidence.
Therefore , upon the testimony of the employees, I find
that the Company has committed unfair labor practices as
follows:
1. It has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in violation of Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act by (1)
interrogating employees about their union affiliation and
activities; (2) threatening employees with loss of their jobs
if they aided or assisted the Union ; (3) made abusive
statements to employees because of their union activities;
(4) eavesdropped on an employee ' s phone conversation to
determine if he was engaging in union activities; (5)
threatened an employee with physical harm because of her
assistance to the Union ; (6) promised employees benefits
if they did not join the Union or vote for the Union in an
election.
2. Discriminatorily discharged Flora Demeter because
she had engaged in union activities and discriminatorily
transferred Flora Demeter and Margaret Martinez
because of their union activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
803
3. Upon the uncontroverted testimony of employees and
documentary evidence in the case, it has been found
previously and is restated here, that the Company has
refused to bargain with the Union , the duly selected
collective-bargaining representative of the Company's
employees in an appropriate unit , and has also refused to
bargain by unilaterally discontinuing the service of free
coffee to the employees in the lunchroom at noontime, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Company 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 commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged employee Flora Demeter on July 4 , it will be
recommended that the Respondent offer to her immediate
and full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position , which she held prior to her
discriminatory transfer hereafter mentioned , without
prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges,
discharging if necessary any other employee hired since
March 29 to fill the position of the said employee . Since it
has also been found that Margaret Martinez was
discriminatorily transferred from her position of wrapping
clean linen to the soiled linen department on April 22, it
will also be recommended that employee Martinez be
reinstated to her position in the clean linen wrapping
department, without prejudice to her seniority and other
rights and privileges , discharging if necessary any other
employee hired since said date to fill the position of this
employee.
It will be further recommended that the Respondent
make whole Flora Demeter and Margaret Martinez for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them , by payment to each of a sum
of money equivalent to that which each would have
normally earned as wages from the date of their
discriminatory transfer and discharge in the case of
Demeter , and from the date of her discriminatory transfer
in the case of Martinez , to the date of their reinstatment
to their former positions , less any net earnings during said
period . Said backpay is to be computed in the manner
established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon , as computed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
Since it has been found that the Company has engaged
in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain collectively
with the certified representative of its employees in an
appropriate unit, I will recommend that the Company
cease and desist therefrom and, upon request , bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
Having found that the Company has also refused to
bargain with the Union as the chosen representative of its
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees in the appropriate unit by discontinuing the
supplying of free coffee to the employees in the lunchroom
at noontime , it will be recommended that the Company
resume forthwith the supplying of free coffee to the
employees , as supplied prior to the election of April 23,
and, if the Company seeks to discontinue said service, that
the Company propose such discontinuance to the Union
and bargain on that subject with the Union as a condition
of employment as heretofore recommended.
Because the nature and_ extent of the unfair labor
practices engaged in by Respondent evinces an attitude of
rejection to the purposes of the Act in general , I deem it
necessary to recommend that the Respondent cease and
desist from in any other manner infringing upon the rights
of employees guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions and upon the entire record in the case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Champa Linen Service Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Dry Cleaning and Laundry Workers, Local Union
No. 304 is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By transferring and discharging Flora M. Demeter
and transferring Margaret Martinez because of their
activities on behalf of the above-named Union and for the
purpose of discouraging membership in and activity on
behalf of the above-named Union, Respondent has
engaged in , and is engaging in, unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its
employees by (1) interrogating employees about their
union affiliation and activities ; (2) threatening employees
with the loss of their jobs if they aided or assisted the
Union; (3) made abusive statements to employees because
of their union activities; (4) engaged in surveillance of an
employee ' s union activities ; (5) threatened an employee
with physical harm because of her assistance to the
Union; (6) promised employees benefits if they did not
join or vote for the Union, the Company has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain with the Union as the duly
selected collective-bargaining representative of the
Company's employees in an appropriate unit and by
unilaterally changing the employees' working conditions,
the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]