Coyne Textile Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1998

326 N.L.R.B. 1187 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES 1187
Coyne International Enterprises Corp., d/b/a Coyne
Textile Services and Chauffeurs, Teamsters and
Helpers Local Union No. 175, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL–
CIO. Case 9–CA–33978
September 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, LIEBMAN, AND HURTGEN
On March 10, 1998, Administrative Law Judge Law-
rence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and
the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief. The Respondent also filed an answering brief to
the General Counsel’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2
and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Coyne International Enter-
prises Corp., d/b/a Coyne Textile Services, Huntington,
West Virginia, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.

1 The General Counsel has excepted to some of the judge’s credibil-
ity findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an ad-
ministrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are correct.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
2 In affirming the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent’s decision
to close its Charleston, West Virginia facility did not violate Sec.
8(a)(3), we do not rely on his determination that the General Counsel
failed to present sufficient evidence warranting the inference of unlaw-
ful motivation for the decision. We find that the Respondent’s animus
toward grievances filed by the Charleston terminal steward, coupled
with unlawful statements linking the terminal closure to the steward,
met the General Counsel’s threshold burden. We agree, however, with
the judge’s alternative finding that the Respondent showed that it would
have closed the Charleston terminal, even in the absence of the stew-
ard’s grievance activities, because of a continuing and worsening loss
of sales volume there and the potential savings to be gained from the
closing.
We note that the General Counsel’s challenge to the Respondent’s
estimate of those savings omits reference to several factors cited by the
judge, i.e., the elimination of costs for maintenance, insurance, and the
terminal manager’s salary, as well as any reduction in the Respondent’s
debt load resulting from the sale of the terminal itself. Furthermore, at
bottom, the General Counsel’s argument represents an attempt to per-
suade the Board to substitute its own business judgment for the Re-
spondent’s. It is well established that the Board will not do so. Ryder
Distribution Resources, 311 NLRB 814, 816–817 (1993).
Deborah Jacobson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Stephen J. Vollmer, Esq., of Syracuse, New York, for the Re-
spondent.
Russell E. Chandler, Secretary-Treasurer, for the Charging
Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W. CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me in St. Albans, West Virginia, on De-
cember 18 and 19, 1996, pursuant to a complaint issued by the
Regional Director for Region 9 of the National Labor Relations
Board (the Board) on September 30, 1996. The complaint is
based on a charge filed by Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers
Local Union No. 175, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, AFL–CIO (the Charging Party or the Un-
ion) on June 21, 1996. The complaint alleges that Coyne Inter-
national Enterprises Corp. d/b/a Coyne Textile Services (the
Respondent or the Employer) committed violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by threat-
ening “employees by implying that the Charleston terminal
might close as a result of the union activities of union steward,
Joseph Page” on or about March 19, 1996, by its president,
Thomas M. Coyne, and by threatening “employees by inform-
ing them that the union activities of union steward Joseph Page
had caused the closure of the Charleston terminal” on or about
July 29, 1996, by Respondent’s terminal manager, Benny J.
Syner. The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by closing its Charleston
terminal and transferring its Charleston unit employees to its
Huntington, West Virginia facility. The complaint is joined by
Respondent’s answer filed on October 15, 1996, wherein it
denies the commission of the aforesaid allegations and asserts
that the decision to close the Charleston terminal was based on
legitimate business reasons.
On the entire record in this proceeding, including my obser-
vations of the witnesses who testified and after considering the
parties’ positions at the hearing and their briefs, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
A. The Business of Respondent
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that
Respondent was and has been at all times material, a corpora-
tion engaged in the operation of an industrial laundry and uni-
form rental business for industrial customers at various loca-
tions in the United States, including locations in Beckley,
Charleston, and Huntington, West Virginia, that during the 12
months preceding the filing of the complaint, Respondent in
conducting its operations described above, purchased and re-
ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped
to its Beckley, Charleston, and Huntington facilities directly
from points outside the State of West Virginia, and that at all
material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
326 NLRB No. 113
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1188
B. The Labor Organization
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, the Union has been a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
C. The Appropriate Unit
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that at
all times material, the following employees of Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All route salespersons, route jumpers, haul drivers and any
other like classifications that may be added employed by [Re-
spondent] at its Charleston and Beckley, West Virginia, ter-
minals, excluding all executives, managers, supervisors,
maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, plant
protection employees, guards, professional sales and service
employees, and collectors.

D. The Union’s Status as Collective Bargaining Agent of
the Unit
It is further alleged, admitted, and I find that since about
1985 and at all material times, the Union has been the desig-
nated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
and has been recognized as the representative by Respondent
and that this recognition has been embodied in successive col-
lective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was
effective from March 8, 1993, through March 7, 1996.
It is further alleged, admitted, and I find that at all material
times, Respondent and the Union maintained in effect and en-
forced a collective-bargaining agreement, including a grievance
procedure with binding arbitration, covering wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of certain employees
of Respondent at the Charleston and Beckley terminals.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Facts1
In its rental industrial laundry business, Coyne provides its
customers with uniforms, mats, dust control items, and reusable
absorbents. At the time of the hearing it had 16 operating
plants and approximately 20 terminals throughout the Eastern
Unites States. It maintains an operating plant in Huntington,
West Virginia, with terminals in Beckley and Fairmont, West
Virginia, and Betsy Layne, Kentucky. Prior to its closure the
Charleston terminal was also part of the Huntington plant op-
erations. Operating plants, such as Huntington, both deliver
and process Respondent’s products whereas terminals, such as
Charleston do not engage in production work but receive proc-
essed products from a plant and serve as distribution centers. A
plant can perform all of the functions of a terminal. Route
salespeople deliver Respondent’s products to its customers and
service its customers and sell new products and accounts. Re-
spondent also employs “route jumpers” who serve as relief
persons when the route salespersons are unable to cover their
routes, whether because of vacation, illness or otherwise. This
position according to Respondent requires flexibility as route
jumpers are required to drive a variety of vehicles on a variety
of different routes and often receive little notice of which route
they will be required to cover. Respondent’s route salespersons

1 The following is a composite of the credited testimony of the wit-
nesses.
and route jumpers are by a vast majority represented by various
Teamsters local unions in its territory in the Eastern United
States and are paid on a commission basis with a guaranteed
minimum, whereas the Charleston route jumper position had
been paid on an hourly basis. Respondent had acquired the
West Virginia facilities including the Huntington plant and the
Charleston and Beckley terminals. The Charleston and Beckley
employees (route salesmen) have been represented by Charging
Party (Teamsters Local 175) whereas the Huntington plant
employees and route salespeople are represented by Teamsters
Local 505. The two groups of employees were in separate
bargaining units and were covered by separate bargaining
agreements. Employee Joseph Page had worked at the Charles-
ton terminal for 26 years and in the fall of 1995, he held the
position of route jumper at the Charleston terminal covering the
routes of route salespersons who were not available to run their
routes. Under the terms of the Charleston collective-bargaining
agreement, the route jumper was paid time and a half for over-
time which accrued after the completion of an 8-hour day
whereas route salespersons were paid on a commission basis
and did not receive overtime pay.
Page had also been the union steward in Charleston since
Respondent had purchased the terminal in 1985. He testified,
without rebuttal, that during the 10-year period from 1985 to
1995 there had only been 12 to 14 grievances filed at the
Charleston terminal but in 1995, there was a surge in griev-
ances with one filed in June and four in October. Three of the
five grievances were filed by Page. The five grievances were
discussed at a meeting between Respondent’s and the Union’s
representatives on October 31, 1995, with Respondent repre-
sented by its vice president, Dennis Bossi, the Huntington act-
ing general manager, Larry Thompson, and the Charleston
terminal manager, Benny Joseph Syner, and the Union repre-
sented by Local secretary/treasurer, Russell Chandler, steward
Page, assistant steward O’Dell Cyrus and employees Paul
Stowers and Albert Quigley. Page’s October 12, 1995 griev-
ance was discussed; it claimed 9 hours overtime pay was due
Page for Terminal Manager Syner’s failure to give Page first
pick of the open routes and Syner’s running of a route himself
which involved 9 more hours of overtime than the route Page
ran. Page testified that Bossi appeared angry “all red faced and
frustrated” when he questioned Page concerning the grievance.
However, Bossi agreed at the meeting to pay the grievances.
Prior to the end of the meeting Bossi ordered Page to “report to
the Beckley terminal for work from here on.” Page and Chan-
dler objected and driver Quigley told Bossi that Page would be
needed in Charleston to cover his route as he would be off work
on Monday. Bossi replied that it did not matter, that Page
should report to Beckley and punch in there and “stormed” out
of the building with Thompson and Syner. Page testified that
when he went to the garage area to get his car after the meeting,
he was met by Syner who told him “Bossi said that he was
gonna close the Charleston terminal down if the grievances
didn’t stop.” I credit Page’s testimony concerning this threat by
Syner over that of Syner concerning this incident which will be
disccussed infra.
Page testified that when he reported to Beckley the following
Monday, there was no open route for him to run and he was
assigned to ride with a Beckley route salesman for 2 weeks
until one day when he reported to work at Beckley and was sent
to Charleston to work. For the next 3 days he was required to
drive from his home in Charleston to Beckley in his own auto-
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES 1189
mobile, punch in, drive Respondent’s truck back to Charleston,
then run an open route from Charleston using a different truck
of Respondent to return to Beckley and then punch out and
drive home to Charleston in his personal automobile. After
these 3 days Respondent reassigned Page back to the Charles-
ton terminal. Page filed several grievances concerning Bossi’s
actions. Page testified that Syner told him that “the grievances
had better stop.” Page’s testimony in this regard is unrebutted
as Syner did not testify concerning this statement to Page. On
November 14, 1995, Bossi sent the Union a letter stating, “I
now have approval from Tom Coyne (Respondent’s president)
to take a serious look at closing Charleston.” This was the first
written notice to the Union concerning the closing of the
Charleston terminal. No evidence of any prior written commu-
nication, including internal memoranda, concerning the closing
of the Charleston terminal was produced at the hearing.
Following a number of delays as a result of Chandler’s ill-
ness in January and a heart attack suffered by Bossi the parties
met on February 9, 1996, and discussed the possible closure of
the Charleston terminal. Chandler contended that Respondent
was retaliating by its proposed decision to close Charleston
because of the grievances filed by Page. Respondent’s repre-
sentatives contended that the proposed closure was the result of
reduced sales volume in Charleston because of the loss of its
largest customer (DuPont) and the pending loss of another cus-
tomer and told the union representatives that labor costs were
not involved in this decision. When the Union suggested that
the Respondent employ a salesman in an effort to increase vol-
ume, Respondent rejected this suggestion although Respondent
employed a salesperson in Beckley and Huntington but not at
the Charleston terminal.
The collective-bargaining agreement was set to expire on
March 7, 1996, and contract negotiation sessions were held on
February 19 and 28. Respondent proposed a number of con-
tract changes, including eliminating overtime for the route
jumper (Page’s position) at Charleston and the initiation of
flexible starting times as the contract provided for fixed starting
times. It appeared at the hearing that the route jumper’s posi-
tion at Charleston was one of the major concerns of Respon-
dent’s proposed contract changes. Respondent’s president,
Coyne, and legal counsel and board member David O’Hara
testified that the route jumper position at Charleston was the
only one in Respondent’s operations paid on an hourly basis
and with a set starting time and paid overtime on a daily basis
as a result of a contract with the Union which it had assumed
without change when it purchased the Charleston terminal. All
of the other route jumper positions at its other facilities were
paid on a commission basis and were not paid overtime. In its
proposals Respondent also sought to reduce the commission
rate for wholesale accounts. The effects of the closure of
Charleston were discussed but Respondent did not indicate that
its proposed contract changes would influence its decision to
close Charleston. On March 8, 1996, the Respondent sent a
letter to the Union stating that President Coyne had “reviewed
all of the information relative to the Charleston terminal and
had decided it should be closed and the routes run out of Hunt-
ington.” In Bossi’s letter of December 21, 1995, he had rec-
ommended that Respondent “seriously consider closing the
Charleston, West Virginia terminal,” as a result of a 28-percent
decrease in sales at the Charleston terminal in 1995, and a pro-
jected 45-percent decrease in sales in 1996 and that an “actuar-
ial sales decrease thus far for fiscal year 1996 is 40%.” Bossi
also argued in his letter to Coyne that “Charleston has affected
the overall performance of Huntington tremendously, both in
sales and profitability. The result of a 28-percent decrease in
sales has negatively affected the profitability by 6.8 pecent
resulting, as you well know, in a bottom line loss for Hunting-
ton, West Virginia.” Bossi also contended in his letter:

If we close Charleston and the employees operate out
of Huntington, almost all of the Charleston fixed cost will
be saved because there is plenty of room to accommodate
the terminal operations in Huntington. In 1995, Hunting-
ton’s operating profit was significantly below average.
I am in the process of trying to obtain input from Local
175 and our finance people before we make a final deci-
sion.

No evidence of any other internal memoranda relating to Re-
spondent’s decision to close the facility was presented at the
hearing.
The parties next met at a bargaining session on March 19.
Chandler asked if Respondent had set the date to close the
Charleston terminal, reasserted that the closing was retaliatory
and said he would have the Union’s attorneys contact Respon-
dent concerning the closing and any issues concerning it. The
parties then proceeded to discuss the contract issues and after 2
hours, the parties took a caucus. On their resumption, Coyne
informed the union representatives that he had mixed feelings
about the closure of Charleston and offered to delay it to permit
the Union to “come back to us in another meeting.” Coyne also
commented that it was difficult to deal with people you can’t
trust and that he had good relationships with Teamsters all over
the country, but not here. Chandler then said that if Coyne had
any reason he did not trust him, to tell him as his integrity was
important to him. He also told Coyne that the Charleston em-
ployees were long-term employees and that he did not want
Charleston to close if it could be avoided without a lot of con-
cessions but that the employees had heard that Respondent was
closing Charleston because Page would not back off on his
grievances. At that point Coyne said, “[T]he biggest problem
in Charleston is shop steward Joe Page.”
The next bargaining session was held on March 27, and
Chandler asked what it would take to keep Charleston open.
Coyne enumerated contract changes sought by Respondent
such as no increase in health insurance costs, reductions in the
number of times employees could bid on routes, elimination of
overtime for the route jumper position, and a reduction in the
wholesale commission rate. O’Hara said that the constant
“bickering and grievances had to stop.” O’Hara testified that
he had said, “[A]t a bare minimum, you need to resolve, you
need to go line by line through this contract and clarify all of
these issues that led to these grievances.” On instructions from
Coyne at the meeting O’Hara sent Chandler a list of “proposed
contract changes” on March 29 which were basically the same
as those presented at the initial bargaining session of February
19. These proposals were not linked to Respondent’s decision
regarding the closure when first presented on February 19.
The parties met again for a bargaining session on April 2 and
the Union presented a counterproposal. In its response the
Union made significant concessions such as changing the route
jumper position to commission rather than hourly pay and the
elimination of overtime for this position, elimination of the
annual bid, restrictions on scheduling of vacations during holi-
day periods, and some concessions concerning the health insur-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1190
ance plan. However, the Union attached conditions to certain
of these concessions and did not propose to accept all of Re-
spondent’s proposals without change. Following some discus-
sion Coyne became agitated accused the Union of playing
games and left the meeting. O’Hara stayed and told the Union
to “revisit” certain key issues necessary to an agreement.
Chandler told him that the Union would “look at that” but
asked that O’Hara respond to the Union’s proposal.
Coyne wrote to Chandler on April 4 and informed him that
since Respondent had heard nothing further from the Union
after the April 2 meeting, Charleston would be closed on Fri-
day, April 12, which it was. After Charleston was closed all of
the Charleston terminal drivers were transferred to Huntington
and integrated into the bargaining unit represented by Team-
sters Local Union No. 505 which represents the route salespeo-
ple at that plant. Page now commutes 130 miles round trip
each day, is paid on commission and receives no overtime. The
Charleston drivers have been end tailed which will subject them
to layoff prior to the Huntington drivers. Former Charleston
Terminal Manager Syner became the terminal manager of the
Beckley terminal on July 29. On that date employee Ronnie
Burleson whose wife had been the Beckley terminal manager
immediately prior to being replaced by Syner, testified that he
asked Syner, “Are you here to shut this terminal down too?”
Syner replied, “No your buddy Joe Page is the one that shut that
terminal down.” Syner admitted making this statement and
testified that he had spoken in anger as he, himself, had made a
great deal of effort to keep the Charleston terminal open with-
out success.
David O’Hara, Respondent’s general counsel and a member
of its board of directors, testified that in the last 3 years, Coyne
has been reviewing all of its operations on a broad scale in an
effort to economize. This review has been brought on by its
primary lending institution, NationsBank, because Coyne did
not cash flow one-to-one in 1995 and 1996. Coyne is a 60-year
old company which has been a stable company but “grew, in
the last 15 years, probably tripled in size in the last 12 years
maybe 10 years, took on a lot of debt, it’s highly leveraged.”
“On 115 or 120 million dollars worth of annual volume the
corporation only made $800,000 in 1996.” O’Hara and Re-
spondent’s president, Tom Coyne, supervise all labor relations
matters. The Huntington plant produces the product and it is
distributed out of Huntington and several terminals and for-
merly out of the Charleston terminal as well. The Huntington
operation including Charleston was acquired by Respondent in
late 1984 or early 1985. Local 505 represents the sales people
(drivers) and the inside production employees at Huntington.
Local 175 represents the employees at the Beckley terminal
which distributes the product from Huntington and formerly
represented the employees at Charleston prior to its closure.
The entire Huntington operation has lost volume since its ac-
quisition. Charleston was close to Huntington and overnights
(routes which cannot be delivered in 1 day and require an over-
night stay) to deliver the Huntington products were not required
after the closure of Charleston. Charleston had been kept open
to maintain a presence in the state capitol of Charleston, West
Virginia. There had been several management changes in
Charleston which “caused a lot of these grievances that we’re
talking about here today.” There were three route salespersons
with a route jumper in Charleston.
O’Hara testified that the purpose of the February 9 meeting
was contract negotiations, discussion of the closure and discus-
sion of the pending grievances which needed to be resolved
since Bossi had had a heart attack. He opened the meeting and
discussed contract issues and he then moved on to talk about
the closure. He asked Chandler about the Union’s position with
regard to the decision and its impact. Chandler asked if a deci-
sion had been made and he said, “No.” Chandler asked when a
decision would be made and he told Chandler, he was not sure.
Chandler said that certain other terminals should be considered
for closure prior to Charleston. He told Chandler Respondent
was looking at all of these locations, but that it was not likely
that the Beckley terminal would be closed since this would
result in overnights. Chandler suggested putting a salesperson
on the routes to increase the volume. He told Chandler that the
average full-time salesperson in Respondent’s overall system
sells $50 to $75 of new sales a week and that this would not
scratch the surface of the Charleston problem as Respondent
was projected to lose DuPont, its largest customer served by the
Charleston terminal which accounted for $5000 worth of sales
volume a week. Rather the solution had to be the addition of
another major customer which Coyne was working on. He told
the Union that although they were willing to negotiate on be-
half of the Company, there was no obligation to do so in reli-
ance on the management-rights clause of the labor agreement.
He said, “Even though we don’t believe we have a legal obliga-
tion to discuss the decision, we want to discuss the decision and
we want to know the union’s position on the decision and its
impact.” He told them Respondent wanted to know if the em-
ployees would follow the work as soon as possible to ensure “a
more stable transition.” Severance was discussed in a limited
way at the meeting. As soon as he had raised the closure,
Chandler stated that the closure was in retaliation for the filing
of grievances. O’Hara denied this and told Chandler that
Coyne did not know about the grievances and that he, himself,
did not know much about the grievances. O’Hara told Chan-
dler that the recommendation had been made a year prior
thereto by former Coyne Vice President Thomas Hergenroeder
and former Huntington General Manager Brice Laughlin. Her-
genroeder had told the Union at a meeting that the Charleston
terminal would close. Chandler replied that he was aware that
closure of Charleston had been discussed before but that he
thought Bossi was doing this. O’Hara testified further that
Laughlin and Hergenroeder had made a recommendation to
close Charleston a year prior to this but that Coyne had refused
to discuss it and was critical of Hergendroeder for not maintain-
ing the volume. Coyne did not revisit this issue until Bossi, who
had been the prior vice president in charge of this area, became
involved with it again in August or September 1995. Bossi
looked for a way to solve the overtime problem in Charleston
and to economize to keep Charleston from losing even more
money. Bossi estimated that the closure of Charleston would
save $120 to $150 thousand dollars. The projections for Hunt-
ington showed it losing as much as $350,000. In the fall of
1995 volume at Charleston was continuing to go down from
early 1995. Bossi had raised the route jumper position in a
discussion with O’Hara who told Bossi that under the labor
agreement Respondent could transfer the route jumper position
between terminals. Approximately 2 months later Bossi trans-
ferred the route jumper position to Beckley at a meeting with
the Union. Bossi later informed O’Hara that the Union was
contending he had transferred the route jumper position to
Beckley in retaliation for the grievances. Bossi told O’Hara,
that he had become upset at the meeting, walked out and said
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES 1191
the jumper position is transferred. O’Hara advised Bossi that
he could see why the Union would consider this to be in retalia-
tion for the grievances as Bossi had become angry and walked
out of the meeting. O’Hara advised Bossi “just to drop it (the
transfer) because we were going into contract negotiations in
two, three months.” Bossi then had Page sent back to Charles-
ton.
At the February 9, 1995 meeting at the airport O’Hara told
Chandler that absent some new information, it was likely
Charleston would be closed. The Union did not offer any spe-
cific contract proposals and O’Hara asked for their proposals
“in writing, in advance of the next meeting.” At this meeting in
discussing the grievances, he said, “[I]f those facts turn out to
be right we’ll pay you,” and he took over the handling of the
grievances. Tom Coyne gave him authority to decide whether
or not to pay them.
At the next meeting held on February 19, 1996, O’Hara
opened the meeting and said that they needed to discuss the
closure, the grievances and some contract issues. He asked
Chandler for the Union’s contract proposals and Chandler said
he would not give him written proposals prior to receiving Re-
spondent’s written proposals. O’Hara and Coyne then met
outside the room and O’Hara put the Respondent’s proposals in
handwritten form, made copies and handed them to the Union
committee and then Chandler gave him the Union’s proposals.
Item 2 on the Respondent’s proposals related to the Beckley
terminal whose unit employees are also represented by Local
175. Item 4 is entitled “Summary of CTS Proposals on
Charleston Shutdown and Its Impact.” No proposals were
submitted by the Union with respect to the closure decision
although there were some questions by the Union as to why
another salesperson was not added to the Charleston terminal to
increase sales. In this meeting the parties discussed the effects
issues in some detail such as following the work and reached
agreement that the employees would have to decide at the time
of the transfer. Respondent agreed there would be severance
pay but offered 1 week for every 2 years of service. Respon-
dent said they would cooperate with the Union in obtaining
dovetailing of seniority at Beckley where the work was being
transferred with that of the unit employees who were repre-
sented by Local 505 but stated that Respondent had no author-
ity under the contract to dovetail seniority. The parties ulti-
mately went to arbitration on the issue. The Respondent and
Union next met on February 28, 1996. Coyne was not present
and O’Hara was there alone for Respondent. O’Hara opened
the meeting and said that they needed to talk about the contract
issues, asked whether the Union had anything to say about the
closure and impact issues and told the union representatives, he
had additional information about the grievances. They dis-
cussed the grievances, the 401(k) plan and quality in Charleston
and Beckley. It appeared there was agreement that the Charles-
ton employees were going to follow the work and that the par-
ties did not need to discuss severance. Respondent had indi-
cated it would cooperate in dovetailing seniority. They had not
yet decided on the formula for severance pay but did agree that
the employees would decide at the time of the closure if they
were going to follow the work. At every meeting including this
one the Union asked that Respondent make a decision regard-
ing closure.
On March 7, 1996, Coyne met with O’Hara and Bossi con-
cerning the closure of Charleston. Coyne let Bossi “talk for
about two minutes about the savings he thought it would gener-
ate if he closed it. He turned to me [O’Hara] and said, ‘What
do you think,’ and I said, ‘I don’t think you’ve got any choice if
you’re gonna cash flow this company you can’t pass this up.’”
Coyne then said, “Close it.” Coyne was “grouchy” at the meet-
ing and had told O’Hara repeatedly he did not want to close the
Charleston facility noting that it was in the state capitol.
O’Hara faxed a letter to the Union on March 8, 1996, informing
them of the decision.
On March 19, 1996, O’Hara and Coyne attended another
meeting with the Union. O’Hara informed the Union that Re-
spondent had a tentative closure date to deliver out of Charles-
ton up to the next Friday and deliver out of Huntington on the
following Monday. O’Hara asked Chandler if he had anything
further to say on the closure as Chandler had indicated he had
not had an opportunity to discuss it and that O’Hara would hear
from his lawyer. O’Hara asked him what he was talking about
and Chandler said it would be decided in the courts. It was
agreed that the Union’s lawyer would contact O’Hara. Subse-
quently, when the lawyer did not contact him, O’Hara sent a
letter to the lawyer with a copy to Chandler indicating that if
there was to be any further discussion, it needed to be “right
now.” Coyne had agreed informally at this meeting to let the
closure date “slide a little bit” pending this discussion. During
the March 19 meeting there was a caucus and on the parties’
return Coyne made a number of different statements such as he
was not comfortable dealing with people he could not trust and
told the Union not to threaten him with a work stoppage and
complained that the other Teamster unions he dealt with always
gave him at least 24 to 48 hours notice prior to a work stop-
page. During this portion of the meeting Coyne said, “I need to
think about what I’m gonna do with this terminal [Charleston].”
He then said he would go to the Beckley terminal and “get to
the bottom of the quality problems at Beckley.” Coyne then
told Chandler in reference to the closure of the Charleston ter-
minal, “If you have anything more to offer on this, I’ll give you
another opportunity to listen.” Chandler was upset with the
comments about trust as questioning his integrity. He said his
integrity was important to him and “without a lot of conces-
sions I want to see the terminal [Charleston] open.” Coyne
concluded the meeting by telling the Union, representatives,
“You’ve got to get real serious,” and did make the statement
about Page concerning the route jumper position. Coyne was
not aware of the content of the grievances although he heard
something of them, but said to move on to the contract issues.
O’Hara ordered payment on the grievances and started to re-
solve them at the first meeting and they were resolved by the
end of March.
On March 27, 1996, O’Hara along with Coyne attended a
bargaining meeting with the union committee. O’Hara opened
the meeting, and the Union requested some clarifications and
had information on contract issues. Tom Coyne interrupted this
discussion and asked the Union their position on a list of issues
such as the route jumper position, medical insurance, wholesal-
ing and others. At some point in time after Coyne’s questions,
Chandler asked what it would take to keep Charleston open.
Coyne replied they needed a “flexible innovative and coopera-
tive atmosphere between management and the Union,” they
“might be about to find a way to attack this problem and—and
see if we can make something work in Charleston.” There was
then discussion as to what Respondent would do and Coyne
replied he did not know but would bring a management team in
and that the Union would have to be flexible and cooperative,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1192
and that at a “bare minimum, you need to get these issues out of
the way.” O’Hara then said you need to go through the contract
and clarify all of the issues that led to the grievances. O’Hara
also said the starting time for the route jumper could not be set
at a fixed time and they could not pay the route jumper on an
hourly basis but that this had to be the most flexible position in
the terminal. Coyne also mentioned a large account be was
working on obtaining which had not yet been secured. Chan-
dler said, “You tell us exactly what we need to do and . . . we’ll
see where you’re going and we will give you a response.”
Coyne said, “No. I need more. I’m not gonna leave this meet-
ing and delay this date without more of a commitment.” Coyne
then asked if the Union was willing to move on the route
jumper position and said, “[Y]ou’re not gonna have this trial
period if you can’t agree to these things.” Chandler then asked
whether the Union had to agree to everything and Coyne re-
plied, “No, but you got to agree to a lot of it if you want this
trial period.” Chandler indicated the Union would be flexible.
Coyne then directed O’Hara to inform the Union exactly what
would need to be changed in the contract by Friday of that
week. O’Hara sent the memo outlining the changes required by
Respondent on March 29, 1996.
On April 2, 1996, O’Hara and Coyne met with the Union
again. At the start of this meeting the parties discussed clarifi-
cation on certain issues such as a freeze of medical costs. The
Union then caucused and on their return proceeded to go
through the itemized list of demands O’Hara had given them
and specifically responded to each, agreeing to some but not
all. Coyne became upset and left the meeting and O’Hara left
the meeting for a few minutes. On his return O’Hara went
through each item on the list to which the Union had not agreed
and asked why they were important to the bargaining unit to
which they responded with their position. He then told them
they had “to move on these items,” and “if you can move on
those items you get a hold of me and I’ll go to Tom Coyne and
I’ll see if he’ll delay this.” Chandler then said, “We’ve made a
counter-proposal. We want your counter-proposal.” O’Hara
responded, “This is your counter-proposal. You must move on
these items in order to get the delay.” O’Hara then told them,
“I’ll be available this weekend” as the work was to be delivered
out of Huntington the following Monday. The Union did not
contact O’Hara and the work was ultimately delivered out of
Huntington on April 15, 1996, as scheduled.
O’Hara testified that if the Respondent was required to re-
open the Charleston terminal, the economies would be reversed
and $125,000 to $150,000 additional costs would be added to
the loss that is projected to occur at the Huntington plant and
terminal. In addition Respondent would lose the anticipated
$75,000 to $100,000 it is projected will be obtained from the
sale of the Charleston terminal building. These additional costs
will further depress the financial situation at the Huntington
operation which was projected to lose $350,00 in 1996. This
would cause the bank and the Board to close the Huntington
plant and a consequent layoff of the production workers and
Huntington would be reduced to a terminal and the work would
be produced out of other plants.
Respondent’s president, Thomas Coyne, testified that the in-
dustrial laundry business is a highly competitive business and
that the profit margin for the Respondent in the last year was
less than 1 percent ($800,000 on between a $110 to a $115
million of sales). In late 1994 to early 1995, Respondent’s then
vice president, Thomas Hergenroder, had initiated the process
of closing the Charleston terminal. Coyne stopped the closure
because of his reluctance to close facilities and lay off employ-
ees. The problem at Charleston was lack of sales volume.
Subsequently Hergenroder left the Company and Vice Presi-
dent Dennis Bossi took over the Charleston facility under his
responsibilities. In the fall of 1995, Bossi recommended the
closure of Charleston to him. The board of directors and the
bank had also “zeroed in on it.” In late 1995, Bossi had a seri-
ous heart problem and Coyne took over approximately 90 per-
cent of Bossi’s responsibilities in addition to his own responsi-
bilities.
In early February 1996, he attended the first meeting with the
Union along with O’Hara who told the union representatives
that closure “was the big issue” they were there to discuss.
Grievances were also discussed at this meeting which he had
thought had been settled by O’Hara in response to a prior letter
sent him by Chandler. At this meeting Chandler contended that
the closure was in retaliation for the filing of grievances by
Page. He denied that these grievances were the reason for the
closure and notes that Respondent has 24 to 26 Teamster con-
tracts in its system and receives grievances at every plant.
He and O’Hara attended a second meeting about February
19, 1996, with the Union concerning the closure and severance
pay. Chandler again stated that the closure was in retaliation
for the filing of grievances and asked when the facility was
going to close. Coyne was attempting “to get this thing figured
out to keep it open.” On March 8, 1996, he made the decision
to close the Charleston terminal after receiving the recommen-
dations of Bossi, O’Hara and “one of my friends on the Board”
to close it. He had not been able “to convince them that I could
get the sales back up there and put this thing where it had to
be.”
He and O’Hara subsequently attended a meeting with the
Union on March 19, 1996. In the early part of this meeting
there were discussions about various problems and shortages at
the Beckley terminal where the Union also represented the
bargaining unit. The parties took a caucus and he told O’Hara
he wanted to hold off on the closure and have a trial period
wherein if the Union would be more flexible, he might be able
to go to West Virginia and “buy a piece of business.” After the
caucus he told the union representatives of this and noticed a
positive response from union member O’Dell Cyrus and the
rest of the men at the meeting. He also made some comments
about trust during this session. He also told Page at that session
that he was the problem as he had heard from other employees
that Page was holding up an agreement. He was referring to the
hourly paid route jumper position held by Page rather then to
Page personally as Respondent had inherited this hourly
method of paying the route jumper when it originally bought
the facility from another company, which hourly rate is more
expensive than the payment of commission to route jumpers.
He and O’Hara attended another meeting with the Union on
March 27, 1996. They were still attempting to negotiate a con-
tract at Beckley and he had promised the men he would go to
Beckley to look at the problems at that facility but had not done
so yet. Chandler asked him at this meeting what it would take
to keep Charleston open and he told him to review the hand-
written suggestions O’Hara had given him previously. Chan-
dler asked if he needed all of them and he said no but he needed
the “important issues” and we need “some imagination.” “It
doesn’t have to be the way I say it but if you’ve got some way
or a better way to massage these tough issues then get them out.
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES 1193
You know, its getting late.” Chandler said he would like
O’Hara to get the list to Chandler. Chandler said they would
get back to him and see what they could do.
He and O’Hara attended another meeting with the Union on
April 2, 1996, and they went through the whole list and the
Union gave him “an emphatic no on the major issues, medical
six hundred going to eight hundred, flexible starting time.” He
then asked Chandler if he had anything else to add and he said
no. Coyne then said, “O’Hara, I’m out of here. Do what you
want to do and I left.” He was upset because he saw no flexi-
bility although he was “going to go to the bank and the Board.”
The Union did not get back to him after he left the meeting. He
then wrote the letter informing the Union of the closure on
April 12, 1996. On cross-examination Coyne testified that
sales continued to decrease at the Charleston terminal from the
time of Hergenroder’s recommendation to close it in early 1995
until Bossi’s recommendation in the fall of 1995.
Benny Joseph Syner testified as follows: He was a route
salesperson for 5 years and became a member of supervision at
Charleston in October 1994. He was placed as a terminal man-
ager at the Beckley terminal in late July 1996 following the
closure of the Charleston terminal. On July 29, 1996, the day
he started as terminal manager at Beckley, Beckley bargaining
unit member Ronnie Burleson asked him “if I was going to shut
down Beckley in the same manner that I shut down Charles-
ton.” “I said, I did not shut down Charleston. It was your
buddy Joe Page.” Syner testified he was very upset when asked
this by Burleson as he had worked hard to generate sales for the
Charleston terminal and had heard, “they had a second chance
to keep the terminal open and they just—it didn’t happen.”
Syner was also questioned concerning a grievance meeting
he attended with Bossi on October 31, 1995, and at which Bossi
had transferred Page as a route jumper from Charleston to the
Beckley terminal. He recalls having a discussion with a bar-
gaining unit employee but is not sure who it was. He thinks it
was Cyrus and he Syner told him “that I didn’t see the point in
the grievances when they were—when there was previous dis-
cussion of the terminal being closed anyway by Mr. Hergen-
roder who was our vice president at the time and then Brice
Laughlin who was then our general manager.” He testified that
Bossi did not ever tell him that he was going to close Charles-
ton if the filing of grievances continued. He does not recall
ever discussing this issue with Page. I find that this conversa-
tion was with Page rather than Cyrus and credit Page’s version
supra. He had attended a meeting held by then Vice President
Hergenroder in January 1995, with supervisors at Charleston
and at which they said they were having trouble with DuPont
(the largest customer served by the Charleston terminal) and
that “if they lose DuPont, there’s a good possibility it will be
closing.”
Analysis
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the threat issued by Respondent’s president, Thomas Coyne, on
March 19, 1996, that Union Steward Joseph Page was the prob-
lem in discussing the closure of Charleston which was an im-
plicit reference to the filing of grievances by Page. I have con-
sidered Coyne’s explanation that he was merely referring to
Page because Page then held the position of the hourly paid
route jumper at Charleston which Respondent wanted to change
to a commission paid position. I do not credit this explanation.
Moreover Coyne’s intent in issuing this statement is not the
critical factor for determination of an 8(a)(1) finding. Rather
the issue is whether this statement was likely to be perceived as
a threat by employees so as to constitute interference with their
Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activities. Under this
test I find Coyne’s reference to Page as the problem in the over-
all discussion of closure was coercive and a violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
the threat issued by Beckley’s newly appointed Beckley Termi-
nal Manager Syner that the employee could thank Joe Page for
the closure of Charleston as it was on its face an apparent refer-
ence to Page’s activities as a union steward and was likely to
have a coercive effect on the Beckley unit employees to whom
it was directed and the exercise of their Section 7 rights. While
Syner’s explanation for making the statement may be credible,
the effect of his statement was to send a clear message to the
Beckley employees to refrain from union activities.
I find the Respondent did not violate the Act by its closure of
the Charleston facility. I have carefully examined the positions
of the parties and am convinced that the Respondent closed the
Charleston facility because of its drastically reduced volume of
business attributable to the loss of its largest customer DuPont.
The General Counsel points to some background of animus
toward Local 175 and its Secretary Treasurer Chandler and
Charleston shop steward Joe Page and the filing of grievances
by Page and other employees at the Charleston terminal as the
true motivation for the recommendation by Vice President
Bossi to close the terminal and the decision of Respondent’s
president, Coyne to close the terminal. It relies on the two
statements attributed to Terminal Manager Syner with respect
to the closure of the facility as well as Coyne’s statements and
Bossi’s earlier actions in the fall of 1995. However, I find that
the Respondent has amply demonstrated that the closure of the
facility was a lawful decision made because of reduced volume
and an attempt to reduce its expenditures by eliminating the
facility and deriving the sale price of the facility, eliminating
the overhead of operating the facility and the attendant costs of
maintenance, taxes, and insurance as well as the cost of a ter-
minal manager. The record as a whole demonstrates that the
Respondent had contemplated the probable need to close this
facility as early as February 1995, and this information was
made known to the Union and the bargaining unit members.
The Respondent engaged in extensive negotiations with the
Union for a successor contract for both the Charleston and
Beckley bargaining units and offered to and afforded the em-
ployees the right to follow the work. While the give and take
of negotiations concerning a new contract and President
Coyne’s participation and Respondent’s attorney, O’Hara, at
the meetings included numerous references to the closure, I do
not find that the decision to close the Charleston facility was
motivated by Respondent’s animus toward the Union and its
steward Page and its employees for the filing of grievances.
Rather I credit Coyne that he struggled with the decision and
vaccilated back and forth as to how to avoid the closure to
which he was personally opposed. I find that Bossi’s actions in
transferring Page to another terminal without explanation as
found above and Syner’s remarks to Page concerning the filing
of grievances in October 1995 as well as Coyne’s various
statements during bargaining in early 1996 concerning trust and
Page being the problem certainly combined to make the Union
and bargaining members suspicious that the Charleston termi-
nal was being closed in retaliation for the filing of grievances. I
also note the absence of Bossi who made the recommendation
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1194
to close commencing in the fall of 1995 which absence was not
fully explained although O’Hara and Coyne testified concern-
ing Bossi’s health (“died on the table”) and his subsequent
return to work on a limited basis and the absence of evidence of
a clear directive from Respondent’s Board of Directors and
Respondent’s creditor bank. However, I credit Coyne that he
was sincerely seeking ways to keep the Charleston facility open
(sales, “buy a piece of business”) but as a result of his commit-
ments from other of his responsibilities he did not accomplish
this. I further note his pique with the Union’s perceived failure
to meet Respondent’s bargaining demands although there was
substantial movement on the Union’s part as noted by the Gen-
eral Counsel. However at most Respondent merely failed to
reverse its decision to close the facility. I do not find that this
establishes a prima facie case of a violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act. Assuming arguendo that it did, I find the
prima facie case has been rebutted by the preponderance of the
evidence. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982); Nu-Skin
International, 320 NLRB 385 (1995); Weather Tamer, Inc. v.
NLRB, 676 F.2d 483 (11th Cir. 1982).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(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. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or
about March 19, 1996, by threatening employees that the
Charleston terminal might be closed by Respondent as a result
of the union activities of Union Steward Joseph Page.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act on or
about July 29, 1996, by threatening employees by informing
them that the union activities of Union Steward Joseph Page
had caused the closure of the Charleston terminal.
5. The Respondent did not violate the Act by its closure of
its Charleston terminal and the transfer of its Charleston unit
employees to its Huntington, West Virginia facility.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act it shall be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act and to post the appropriate notice at
its Beckley and Huntington facilities and to mail a notice to
each of its bargaining unit employees who were employed at its
Charleston facility in March 1996 and at its Beckley facility in
July 1996, but who are no longer employed at these facilities.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended2
ORDER
The Respondent Coyne International Enterprises, Corp.,
d/b/a Coyne Textile Services, Huntington, West Virginia, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
(a) Threatening employees with closure of its facilities be-
cause of their engagement in protected concerted activities.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Huntington and Beckley facilities, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since March 1996.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail a copy
of the attached notice marked “Appendix” to any employees
who were imployed at the Charleston or Beckley terminals at
the time of the unfair labor practices but who are no longer
employed by Respondent.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid and protection
To choose not to engage in any of these concerted ac-
tivities.

3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES 1195
WE WILL NOT threaten you with closure of our facilities for
engaging in concerted activities including the filing of griev-
ances.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
COYNE INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CORP., D/B/A
COYNE TEXTILE SERVICES