Indian Rivier Uniform Rental, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Indian River Uniform Rental , Inc. and Local 218,
Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers
Union and General Sales Drivers & Allied
Employees Union , Local No. 198 , International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases
12-CA-4320-1 and 12-CA-4320-2
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND ZAGORIA
On March 28, 1969, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
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 the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner as herein modified.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial, Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent , Indian River
Uniform Rental , Inc., Fort Pierce , Florida, its
'These findings are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the
Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted . After careful review
of the record , we conclude that these credibility findings are not contrary
to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence . Accordingly, we
find no basis for disturbing these findings Standard Dry Wall Products, 91
NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C A. 3).
'The record contains reliable evidence that , at the time of the respective
demands , each Union represented a majority of the employees in each
appropriate unit, and that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices of
such a substantial nature as to preclude the holding of a fair and free
election . N.L R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 . In these
circumstances , we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent violated Sec . 8(aX5) and ( 1) of the Act by refusing to bargain
with the Unions . However , we find that the refusal to bargain with
Teamsters Local 198 occurred on August 27 ; the date Respondent sent a
telegram to Local 198 expressly refusing to recognize it, and with Laundry
Workers Local 218, the refusal occurred on August 29, the date James
Bailey, the Union ' s organizer , was personally refused recognition.
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner: These cases were heard
at Fort Pierce, Florida, on December 10-12, 1968,
pursuant to charges filed by Local 218, Laundry, Dry
Cleaning & Dye House Workers Union (herein called the
Laundry Workers) and by General Sales Drivers & Allied
Employees Union, Local No. 198, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (herein called Sales Drivers) and
;-a, complaint issued on October 30, 1968.' The complaint,
as amepded.„•at the hearing, alleged that during
membership campaigns engaged in by both Unions at its
plant the Respondent had engaged in various acts of
interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and that thereafter the Respondent, in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, had refused to recognize and
bargain collectively with both Unions, the Sales Drivers
having requested recognition on behalf of the
Respondent's routemen and the Laundry Workers having
sought recognition on behalf of the Respondent's
production and maintenance employees.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses, and upon consideration of the thorough and
competent briefs filed by the parties, I make the
following:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE NATURE OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
The Respondent , a Florida corporation , is engaged at
Fort Pierce, Florida , in the laundering and renting of
uniforms to industrial customers . During the last
12-month period prior to the issuance of the complaint the
Respondent purchased and had shipped to its plant from
out-of-State suppliers more than $50,000 worth of goods,
materials , and supplies. Upon these facts I find, as the
Respondent admits , that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Laundry Workers and the Sales Drivers are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Respondent's Acts of Interference, Restraint,
and Coercion and Its Refusal To Recognize and
Bargain Collectively With the Unions, in Violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
'The charges of the Laundry Workers were filed on September 3 and
October 4, 1968, and Sales Drivers charges were filed on September 16
and October 4, 1968, respectively.
177 NLRB No. 20
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC. 657
1. The Unions sign up a majority of the employees in
both the routemen ' s unit and the production and
maintenance unit
At least five of the Respondent 's seven routemen met
with Eli Schutzer , a representative of the Sales Drivers, on
the night of August 16, 1968 . After Schutzer explained to
the men the procedure used in organizing , five routemen
signed cards applying for membership in the Sales Drivers
and authorizing it to act as their collective -bargaining
representative . A sixth routeman signed a card on August
19.2
The Laundry Workers held organizational meetings of
the Respondent' s production and maintenance employees
on the nights of August 20 and 22, 1968 . James Bailey, an
organizer for the Laundry Workers, told the employees
about the benefits which his organization had been able to
secure in contracts in the Fort Pierce area and about the
procedure normally followed in organizing employees.
With respect to the latter , Bailey explained that he needed
to have a majority of the production and maintenance
employees sign union application cards before he could
ask for recognition . At the meeting on August 22 Bailey
read to the employees a letter to the Respondent which he
had brought with him in which , after offering to prove the
Laundry Workers majority status , he requested
recognition and bargaining as the exclusive representative
of the Respondent's production and maintenance
employees . By the close of the August 22 meeting the
Laundry Workers had obtained signed bargaining
authorization cards from 31 of the Respondent's 44
production and maintenance employees . In the period
from August 23 to 30 five additional production
employees signed authorization cards.
2. The Unions ' requests for recognition and
bargaining
On August 17, the Sales Drivers had the following
telegram delivered to the Respondent ' s office:
JIM BEARDEN , CARE INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL 2610
ORANGE AVE FT PIERCE FLO
GENTLEMAN THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU TEAMSTERS UNION
LOCAL UNION 198 REPRESENTS A MAJORITY OF YOUR
ROUTE SALESMEN AND REQUEST A MEETING TO
NEGOTIATE A UNION CONTRACT OFFICIAL LETTER WILL
FOLLOW.
ELI SCHUTZER TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 198 1119
WEST FLAGLER ST MIAMI FLORIDA
The envelope containing this telegram was received by the
Respondent on August 17, but because Ernest Settle, the
Respondent' s general manager , was away on vacation it
remained unopened until August 20 when Settle called the
office and was informed by Grover Leslie, the
Respondent ' s office manager , that a telegram had come
for Mr . Bearden . (C.W. Bearden was an absentee owner
of the Respondent ' s business and was Settle's "boss," as
he testified .) Settle told Leslie to open the telegram. At
this point Leslie commented that the telegram was
addressed to Jim Bearden but Settle nevertheless
instructed Leslie to read it to him. After the telegram had
been read to him, Settle advised Leslie to consult with the
Respondent' s local attorney , John McCarty . McCarty
recommended , in view of the statement in the telegram
'The seventh driver, Mike Cybuliak, credibly testified that when John
Fitzgerald, the Respondent' s assistant general manager , questioned him on
August 26 or 27 concerning whether he had joined the Sales Drivers he
replied that "all the boys had and [he] did too."
that a letter would follow , sitting tight and doing nothing
about the telegram at that time.
On August 22 an envelope bearing the return address of
the Sales Drivers on the front thereof was delivered by
certified mail to the Respondent ' s plant with the notation
on it , "Postage Due , 4 Cents." It was addressed , like the
telegram from the Sales Drivers which General Manager
Settle had instructed Leslie to read , to Mr . Jim Bearden,
Indian River Uniform Rental , at the Respondent's
address . Leslie refused to accept delivery of this letter,
because , as he explained at the hearing , "it was addressed
to Jim Bearden and I didn ' t know who Jim Bearden was
and it had postage due."
On the night of August 22 the Laundry Workers sent
by certified mail the letter requesting recognition and
bargaining which Organizer Bailey had read to the
employees at the meeting that evening . It was addressed
to Mr . Jim Bearden , Indian River Uniform Rental, at the
Respondent' s address . The envelope bore the Laundry
Workers name and return address on the front thereof.
Two days later the unopened envelope was received back
at the Laundry Workers unopened , marked "Refused."
On August 26 the Sales Drivers sent another letter to
the Respondent requesting recognition and bargaining
identical with the one which had been refused by the
Respondent . It is as follows:
August 26, 1968
Mr. C. W. Bearden
Indian River Uniform Rental
2610 Orange Avenue
Fort Pierce, Florida
Dear Mr. Bearden:
This is to notify you that a majority of your
employees in the collective bargaining unit described
below have designated GENERAL SALES DRIVERS
& ALLIED EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 198
as their exclusive collective bargaining representative.
In view of such designation , we demand recognition for
purposes of collective bargaining , as the exclusive
representative of such employees . The collective
bargaining unit in which we demand recognition;
-onsists of the route salesmen.,
We request a meeting between your company and
one of our representatives for the purpose of
negotiating a collective bargaining agreement . Please
notify us when such meeting will be convenient for you.
We are willing to permit a neutral person to check our
authorization cards at the time of such meeting for the
purpose of verifying our majority status.
In the event of any discrimination against any of
your employees because of their union activities, or in
the event of your refusal to bargain with us , we will
take prompt action to remedy such discrimination or
refusal to bargain.
Respectfully yours,
Eli Schutzer, Sec.-Treas.
and Business Manager.
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT
799868
The Laundry Workers also sent a second letter
requesting the opening of bargaining negotiations. This
letter , which was mailed on August 27, 1968, is as follows:
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
August 27, 1968
Mr. C. W. Bearden
Indian River Uniform Rental
2610 Orange Avenue
Fort Pierce , Florida
Dear Mr. Bearden:
Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House
Workers Union has been authorized by the Majority of
the employees in the maintenance and production unit
of your plant in Fort Pierce, Florida , excluding Route
Men, Route Salesmen , Office Clerical Employees,
Professional Employees, Guards, and Supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act as
amended, to represent them for purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay and conditions of
employment.
This Union is prepared to promptly prove its
majority and is requesting a meeting with you at a time
and place agreeable to do so and to undertake collective
bargaining for the employees in this maintenance and
production unit, to achieve a contract between the
Union and your Company covering wages and
conditions of work.
Please give this your prompt attention and let us
hear from you immediately.
Yours very truly,
Paul Jones,
Business Agent.
James L. Bailey,
Organizer.
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT
799867
3. The Respondent's efforts to counteract the Unions'
organizing activites
a. Coercive conversations with routemen
Assistant General Manager Fitzgerald: As noted above,
the Respondent learned that the Sales Drivers claimed to
represent a majority of its routemen on August 20, when
Office Manager Leslie opened the telegram requesting
recognition and bargaining . Within the next 24 hours
Assistant General Manager Fitzgerald , who was in charge
of the plant in General Manager Settle ' s absence,
questioned four of the Respondent' s seven routemen
concerning whether they had signed up for the Union. As
Fitzgerald admitted , all four routemen told him that they
had. And, as found below, during this period Ivan
Harbor , the Respondent' s sales manager , who was in
charge of the Respondent ' s routemen , also engaged in
questioning concerning union affiliation.
Fitzgerald , after questioning Lyle Lamb about his union
affiliation , added , as Fitzgerald in substance admitted,
that "he didn ' t think it would do [him] any good by
signing a union card, they wouldn ' t be able to help us."
Fitzgerald had a longer conversation on August 20 with
Driver Enoch Myers about the Union . After Myers
acknowledged to Fitzgerald that he had signed a union
card , Fitzgerald went on to say, as Myers testified:
Well, you realize if you get the union that probably
some of the Company benefits , the little things that we
do for you will be taken away from you such as driving
the trucks home at night and the little contests that we
might have , all that would be taken away from you.
Fitzgerald then recounted to Myers an experience which
he had had as a union member years before, in which
after participating in a strike and picketing for about 10
weeks and "damn near starv[ing] him and his family to
death," the union settled for a few cents an hour raise.
Before closing the conversation Fitzgerald mentioned,
Myers testified, that he knew that "if the Company had to
pay union scale they would probably have to close down."
Fitzgerald admitted having a conversation with Myers
on this occasion along the lines testified to by Myers, and
he placed a different emphasis on his words, stressing that
the detriments which he stated the employees would suffer
as a result of union affiliation would be the consequence
of the Respondent's yielding to the Union's demands. For
reasons more fully explained below, I conclude that
Myers' version of the conversation with Fitzgerald is
entitled to credit.
Fitzgerald talked to routeman Richard Coker about the
Union on August 21. In Coker's words:
Mr. Fitzgerald approached me and asked me if I had
heard anything about the union and I told him I had
and he asked me if I had heard much and I told him I
had heard quite a bit. He said that he had heard a
rumor that the union was trying to organize the plant
and I told him it was no rumor, that Mr. Grover Leslie
had received a notice from the union that 51 percent of
the drivers had signed up for the union.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked me if I had signed up and I
told him "Yes." He asked me didn't I know I could
lose my job for this? and I told him, "No," I couldn't
because for the reason that I had admitted to him that
I did sign a card for the union and subsequently
protected my job rights.
Fitzgerald, following the pattern of his talk with Myers,
then told Coker the same story about the unsuccessful
strike in which he had participated years earlier.
Fitzgerald concluded his talk with the following, as Coker
testified:
He told me that he didn't think that the Company
could afford at this time for the union to come in. To
enforce union wages would be to break the Company
and we would all be out of a job, they would have to
close the door. We would be out looking for another
job.
Fitzgerald remembered this conversation with Coker and
denied making any threats against Coker, asserting that
he merely questioned Coker concerning what he hoped to
gain from union affiliation. For reasons discussed below I
believe Coker's testimony regarding this aspect of the case
in preference to Fitzgerald's.
That same day, August 21, Fitzgerald also questioned
routeman William Wegener as to whether he had signed a
union card. When Wegener admitted that he had,
Fitzgerald related the same sad experience he had earlier
as a member of a union that he had told to Myers and
Coker. Then Fitzgerald commented, according to
Wegener, "You understand you could be discharged for
this and probably will be fired." Wegener replied, as he
stated, "You have to be kidding."
Fitzgerald denied Wegener's testimony above quoted.
Fitzgerald ' s version is as follows:
I asked Bill if he had heard anything about the union
and he said, "Yes," and I asked if he had joined it and
he said, "Yes," and I asked him what he hoped to gain
from it and Bill in his usual way just gave a big
boisterous laugh and I walked away.
As stated below, I find Wegener ' s version more in accord
with the probabilities of the situation.
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC.
On August 26 or 27 Assistant General Manager
Fitzgerald asked the fifth routeman, Mike Cybuliak,
whether' he had joined the Union. When Cybuliak
admitted that he had, and added that "all the boys had,"
Fitzgerald stated, as Cybuliak testified, that "if we joined
the Union, . . . the boss would let us go and replace us."
According to Fitzgerald, Cybuliak gave him no answer
when he; asked him if he had joined the Union "and the
conversation faded there." I believe Cybuliak.
In re4ching the conclusion that Cybuliak, and Myers,
Coker, and Wegener, as well, are entitled to credit in
preference to Fitzgerald, I have been influenced by the
fact that; the testimony of all four routemen who testified
to threats being made by Fitzgerald indicates that
Fitzgerald followed a similar pattern in his approaches to
the routemen. And, as found below, the testimony of four
of the production employees who testified that they were
threatened by Fitzgerald indicates that Fitzgerald followed
a similar pattern of conduct in talking with them about
the Union. Fitzgerald admits that he related his story
about the unsuccessful strike in which he participated
years earlier to a number of the employees. It is
noteworthy that six employees in all attributed threats of
possible loss of employment to Fitzgerald in almost
identical form, i.e., after the employee admitted signing a
union card, Fitzgerald asked, "Do you know this could
cause you to lose your job." Two other employees testified
to threats of loss of jobs by Fitzgerald in other forms.
Three employees testified that in his conversations with
them he used the same high dues pitch against the Unions.
Since the witnesses in this case were sequestered and none
of the employees heard any other witness testify, the
uniformity of the testimony of the employee witnesses is
significant . To accept Fitzgerald' s denials in the face of
this degree of uniformity in the testimony would be
tantamount to concluding that a substantial group of the
Respondent's employees have engaged in a scandalous
conspiracy to perjure themselves. I have observed the
employee witnesses on the stand and have no hesitancy in
saying that in my opinion such a conclusion is out of the
question. This is not to say, however, that all of the
testimony of employee witnesses is entitled to credit. As
found below, I have found it necessary to discredit all of
the testimony of one of the employee witnesses and have
rejected portions of the testimony of other employee
witnesses.
Sales Manager Harbor.' On August 26 Ivan Harbor, the
Respondent's sales manager , also had a conversation with
routeman Wegener about the Union. Harbor, who was in
charge of the Respondent' s routemen , had known
Wegener for several years. Prefacing his remarks with the
statement that he wanted to talk to him "as a friend,"
Harbor, after mentioning the fact that the routemen had
joined the Sales Drivers, asked him why the men had
decided 1lo join. Wegener mentioned, among other things,
job security and the lack of attention to the routemen's
complaints. According to Wegener, Harbor disputed his
assertion, that the routemen's complaints were being
ignored, and that the Respondent was "trying to do
better," and went on to say, according to Wegener, that
"a union had no business coming into the Company and
trying to run it."
Wegener added that Harbor also stated on this
occasion that "as far as he knew, the Company or himself
would not allow the Union to come in ." While admitting
asking Wegener what the men "expected to get from the
Union," Harbor denied saying anything about the
Company not allowing a union in the plant. In an
659
affidavit given a Board investigator about 2 weeks after
this conversation, Wegener mentioned that "the Union
had no right to take over a Company" but failed to
mention Harbor's alleged statement about the Company's
not allowing a union to come in. Under all the
circumstances I conclude that this latter was an
elaboration by Wegener which went beyond Harbor's
actual statement on this occasion. I find that Harbor
confined himself to stating at this time that "the Union
had no right to take over a Company."
Office Manager Leslie: On Wednesday morning,
August 28, Wegener went into the Respondent's office to
get his paycheck. Observing him there, Leslie told
Wegener that he wanted to talk to him a minute,
"personally." According to Leslie's own testimony, he
told Wegener in effect that he was hurt, after having
listened patiently to the men's complaints for 3-1/2 years,
to have the men turn to a union the moment he had left
town (Leslie had been on leave the week the men signed
cards for the Sales Drivers). Leslie's testimony continues
that he then asked Wegener, as follows:
Bill, just for my own personal information, what
brought this on? What have we done or what have we
not done that would bring - cause you to go to the
union?" and he didn't say much for a minute and I
said, "Well, is it job security or what is it?" I said,
"Bill, it bothers me because we have been real close and
we have had many long conversations." . and he
said, "Well, it's security. We would like for the
Company to participate in the insurance program and
on the hospitalization," and I said, "Well, Bill, we are
paying part of that," and he said, "You are?" I said,
"Yes. You are not paying the full part of the policy
Blue Cross-Blue Shield, the Company is paying."
He said, "Well, we would like a retirement program
and paid holidays and this business of not being able to
take a vacation except during the summertime," and I
started to counter it with repeating the conversation
that Mr. Settle and I had had several months before in
regard to these things, about these problems of
vacation, and I started to say it and then I said, "No,
I'm not going to say it, Bill, because it sounds like I
am trying to argue out of this because I don't know
what the Company is going to do. I'm in no position to
say that we will accept the union or fight the union. I'm
not in any position in authority to say."'
b. Coercive conversations with production employees
Sales Manager Harbor: Linda Hobbs, who worked in
the stockroom, had much closer contact with the
routemen than a typical production employee. Harbor
asked Hobbs around August 21 whether she had "heard
anything about the union or anything pertaining to it."
She replied that she "had heard some rumors." Harbor
then pressed Hobbs further, asking her "if [she] was sure
[she] hadn't heard anything about it or who was trying to
organize it." Hobbs told him, "No." Harbor confirmed
the truth of Hobbs' testimony, stating "she said that she
had heard some rumors, but she did not know who was in
the union at all."
'Wegener's account of this conversation is to the same effect except that
he attributed to Leslie an express request that Wegener tell him what
"could be done to discourage the union movement " In my opinion, in so
testifying Wegener was expressing his conclusion concerning Leslie's
purpose in having this long "personal" conversation with Wegener. I credit
Leslie' s denial that he expressly asked Wegener what could be done to
discourage the union movement
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Assistant General Manager Fitzgerald: According to
the credited testimony of Barbara Cannon, Fitzgerald
asked her on August 21 "if we had been talking about the
union ." Cannon answered in the affirmative. Fitzgerald
also inquired as follows:
He asked us who had talked to us about the union
and he asked us if it was Dick Coker or all of the
drivers and I told him, "All the drivers."
Fitzgerald went on to say
Well, if the union was to come in that we wouldn't be
allowed any breaks, we wouldn't be able to go into
town, we wouldn't be able to talk, and there would be
no overtime. That the union would hire other people to
work instead of us on overtime. That he was going
to ... "suggest to the boss" to put on two or three new
trucks and two or three new drivers and cut the regular
drivers' routes in half and tell them to build them back
up again , and if they couldn ' t build them back up again
they would have a reason to fire them.
Fitzgerald concluded with his favorite story about his past
experience in belonging to a union . Cannon' s testimony in
this regard is as follows:
He said that he received $12 a week while they were out
on strike and when they went back they only got 3 or 4
cents an hour raise , that it wasn ' t the same any more.
The plant wasn't as friendly and they weren't allowed to
leave their machines and he said when he wanted to quit
the union , they made sure that he was out of a job.
Fitzgerald admitted questioning Cannon about whether
she had joined the Laundry Workers, about which
employees had talked to her about that organization, and
as to the benefits she expected to gain from her union
membership. Fitzgerald also conceded that he had told her
about his past experience as a member of a union.
However , Fitzgerald denied making the remaining
incriminating statements attributed to him by Cannon.
The Respondent strenuously urges that Cannon is an
incredible witness . While I believe that Cannon was in
part confusing statements made to her by Fitzgerald on
August 21 with those made a week later in the presence of
Petrinnia McBride , I conclude for the reasons stated
above that Cannon is a more reliable witness than
Fitzgerald . Cannon ' s testimony concerning Fitzgerald's
proposed suggestion "to the boss" about cutting the
regular routemen 's routes in half has the ring of truth to it
and in my opinion is not the kind of a threat that an
employee would be likely to fabricate. Under all the
circumstances I credit Cannon ' s testimony.
On August 23 or 24 Fitzgerald approached Christine
Jones as she was shaking pants in the laundry and asked
her whether "she knew anything about a union." When
Jones said no, Fitzgerald commented, according to Jones,
.. well, if I joined the Union, it would cost so much
money to be in a union that I wouldn ' t make nothing
after I joined...."
Fitzgerald denied having any conversation with Jones
about a union . However , Fitzgerald admitted talking to a
number of other employees about the Union and asking
them whether they had signed cards.4 As found below, two
other production employees, Barbara Cannon and
Petrinnia McBride, testified to similar statements being
made to them by Fitzgerald about the high cost of joining
and remaining members of the Laundry Workers. I credit
Jones' testimony.
'Among these is Phil Hamilton , a production worker , who is not
otherwise mentioned in this Decision
Petrinnia McBride testified that on one occasion, which
I find to be about August 23,' Fitzgerald walked up to the
worktable where she and Barbara Cannon were standing
awaiting their next work assignment and started talking
about the Union. In the course of this conversation
Fitzgerald stated that "there would be a fee of about $50
and dues would be high." Cannon's testimony is to the
same effect. As the conversation ended, Cannon asked
Fitzgerald where they should go next. Fitzgerald replied,
as Cannon testified, "I would tell you where to go except
the union would get mad." Fitzgerald admitted the
testimony about the latter part of the conversation, but
denied having any conversation with either McBride or
Cannon about the high cost of joining the Laundry
Workers. In view of the mutually corroborative testimony
of McBride and Cannon, the testimony of Jones that
Fitzgerald made a similar statement to her, and my
doubts about Fitzgerald's credibility, I find that Fitzgerald
made the statments to McBride and Cannon which they
attributed to him.
Lillie Thomas testified that on August 23 Fitzgerald
came up to her at her worktable and asked her whether
she had signed a union card . After she answered , "Yes,"
Fitzgerald stated, "Do you know you could lose your job
by signing the card?" Fitzgerald denied having any
conversation at all with Thomas about a union. For the
reasons stated above, I do not credit Fitzgerald ' s denial
and find the facts to be as stated by Thomas.
Margaret Jenkins testified that about August 26 or 27
Fitzgerald approached her at her work in the plant and
spoke to her about the Union. The portions of the
transcript quoted below set forth Jenkins' account of
Fitzgerald ' s remarks on this occasion:
Q. Do you recall what Mr. Fitzgerald said?
A. Well, he asked me had I heard anything about a
union being organized and I asked him what he meant.
He said he had heard that some cards had been passed
out and signed and I must know about it and he asked
me had I signed a card and I said , "Yes."
Q. Do you recall whether he said anything else?
A. He asked me if I knew that it was a cause that I
lose my job for signing a card.
Q. Do you recall whether or not he said anything
regarding numbers of people who had signed?
A. He said he had, you know, he thought that the
majority of the girls were signing up. He had heard
that.
Q. (By Mr. Jacobs) Was there anything further said
in that conversation, ma'am, between you and he?
A. No more than telling me that he had worked
under a union once and the union had good points and
bad points.
Fitzgerald denied having any such conversation with
Jenkins. I conclude, however, that Fitzgerald had so many
conversations with employees about the Union that he
could not accurately remember which ones he had talked
to and which ones he had not. Jenkins impressed me as a
straightforward witness . Her account of Fitzgerald's
conduct on this occasion follows the pattern testified to by
a number of other witnesses. Accordingly, I credit
Jenkins' testimony.
'McBride testified that this conversation occurred "a week after the
20th." In view of the fact that McBride was on vacation the week
beginning August 27, 1 conclude that McBride was in error about the date
of this conversation.
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC. 661
Loretta Leisen testified upon cross-examination by the
Respondent's counsel that about 4 p.m. on August 29
Fitzgerald had the following conversation with her at the
folding table:
He asked me first if I had joined the union and
before I could answer him he asked me if I had signed
a card and I said, "Yes."
*
He said, "Do you know you can lose your job?" and
I never answered him.
Gladys Coker's testimony fully corroborates Leisen's.
Thus Coker testified that on August 29 she overheard
Fitzgerald question Leisen about signing a card and heard
him warn her, when she responded yes, "Do you know
that you could lose your job."
Leisen also testified that at breaktime earlier that
afternoon Fitzgerald had had a conversation with her,
Georgia Beard, and Stockroom Supervisor Robert Roush.
In Leisen's words, Fitzgerald
. started to talk about the strike, when he was up
north and he said that he got $12 a week while they
were out and when they back started in he only got 8
cents, on the hour and he quit and he said if the union
got in the plant that the girls wouldn't be able to leave
their machines to go to the bathroom or to get a drink
of water when it was hot.
Fitzgerald could not recall having a conversation with
Leisen, Beard, and Roush on August 29. However, the
testimony of Roush, a witness for the Respondent,
confirms the fact that these individuals did have a
conversation on that day.
In view of Fitzgerald's faulty memory in this regard, I
have serious doubts as to the weight to be given to
Fitzgerald's denial that he warned Leisen that she would
be unable to leave her machine if the Union came in and
his further denial that he related to Leisen on this
occasion his oft-repeated story about his past unhappy
experience with a union during and after a strike. Leisen's
account of Fitzgerald's story contains sufficient details to
be convincing and it jibes with the story Fitzgerald
admittedly told other employees. While Roush denied
hearing any of the comments attributed to Fitzgerald
during this breaktime incident, Roush was unable to recall
what was said during this conversation, except for a
question concerning the health of Beard's baby. At the
time of,the hearing Roush was a newly hired "supervisor"
in the stockroom and as such was hardly the "neutral"
witness which the Respondent characterizes him to be.
Weighing all the pros and cons concerning this breaktime
conversation, I conclude that Leisen's testimony regarding
it is entitled to credit.
With respect to the later conversation that day in which
Leisen attributed to Fitzgerald the threat that she could
lose her job because of the Union, Fitzgerald admitted
that he had asked Leisen if she had joined the Union, but
testified that after Leisen said yes, "the conversation faded
there, and I let the matter drop." The Respondent notes
in connection with Leisen's testimony in this regard that
she failed to mention this threat in a statement given to a
Board investigator less than 2 weeks after the event.
Ordinarily such an omission would raise considerable
doubt in my mind concerning the truthfulness of
testimony concerning such a serious threat. However, in
view of the fact that Leisen's testimony is fully
corroborated by that of Gladys Coker, the fact that the
threat to Leisen, according to Leisen and Coker, followed
the same pattern as those ascribed to Fitzgerald by three
other employees, and my serious doubts about Fitzgerald's
credibility in general , I conclude that Fitzgerald did
threaten Leisen on this occasion with the possible loss of
her job because of the Union.'
General Manager Settle: Settle had left on his vacation
on August 16. When he called in to the plant on August
20 the Sales Drivers' telegram was read to him. Settle
returned earlier than he had originally expected on the
evening of August 27 and called Office Manager Leslie
that same night . Leslie briefly told him of the union
activity at the plant and that routeman Coker had
admitted at the sales meeting that he was the "instigator
of the organizing activities."
Early the next morning Settle called Coker into his
office. (Settle and Coker were both members of the
Mormon Latter Day Saints Church.) Settle opened the
discussion by asking whether Coker understood and
believed in the brotherhood of the priesthood. (Settle
explained at the hearing that their church has no paid
ministery and that all male members of the church are
members of the priesthood.) After Coker answered in the
affirmative, Settle replied, as Coker testified:
"Well, you have violated the ethics of the priesthood,
you have betrayed me." He said, "I returned last night
and talked to Mr. Leslie on the telephone and he tells
me that you are the ring leader that has organized the
plant against me." He says, "This is what I am talking
about." He says, "You are a Judas to me, you have
betrayed me, you have betrayed my family. If the union
comes in," he says, "I will lose my job, I will lose my
home, I won't be able to send my daughter to college. I
will have to take my son off his church mission." He
said , "This is what you have done to me, this is how
you have betrayed me."'
Settle then asked Coker, "How many drivers are signed
up?" Coker said, "all seven." Settle inquired, "Well,
why!" Coker mentioned "job security," Fitzgerald's
"antics," and a desire for a "few other incidental things."
The conversation continued as follows, according to
Coker:
He asked me what they were so I told him,"... ever
since I have been back to work the route men have
wanted an air-conditioned office in order to do their
work, their paperwork. They wanted a simple thing like
a light in the unloading area and this type of thing." So
he said, "Well, what size of office would you men like
to have?" and I told him the size of the office and he
said , "Well, I can fix that up with just a couple hundred
dollars." He said , "You have got it. What else do you
want?"
*
'The General Counsel contends that Fitzgerald threatened Louise
Bowick that if anybody signed a union card they would be replaced This
contention is based upon Bowick's testimony to this effect However,
Bowick 's testimony varies considerably from the account given a Board
investigator about 2 weeks after the event. And other employees who were
admittedly in the immediate vicinity when the alleged threat was made,
failed to support Bowick 's testimony At least one of these, Margaret
Jenkins, showed no hesitancy about attributing threats of discharge to
Fritzgerald Under all the circumstances I do not credit Bowick's
testimony The allegations of the complaint based on Bowick's testimony
are hereby dismissed
Settle's testimony concerning this portion of the conversation is in
accord.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
He said, "As far as the light goes, this is just a
matter of a couple of dollars." Then I said , "Well, this
is fine . What about wages?" and he said, "Well, you
know that we are a growing company and last year we
didn't make much money. We only cleared about
$5,000 , but as soon as the company gets on their feet
and gets money coming in, we are going to put the
money back into the company. I have got four or five
things that I want to do for the route men and I want
to improve their working conditions , et cetera."
After reminding Coker of how good he had been to him
in the past and of the times he had saved Coker ' s job at
the plant for him, Settle asked Coker
- if [he] was too involved with the union , could [he]
help him, could [he] make a reversal and help him get
rid of the Union.
When Coker answered that he did not know , Settle went
on to say that
if [he] could help him get the union off his back , that he
could have most any job that [he] wanted ....r
Coker turned the discussion to "the girls in the back"
and the following conversation ensued, as Coker testified
without contradiction:
[Settle] said , "What about them?" I said , "Well, what
about the girls in the back?" He said , "We aren't
talking about them , we are talking about the drivers,"
and I said , "Well, don ' t you know, haven ' t you heard?"
and he said , "No, what?" I told him, I said , "didn't
Mr. Leslie tell you the girls were signed up in the back,
about 90 percent for the union?" and . . . he tilted his
chair back and looked at the ceiling and he said, "Oh,
my God, No!"
He asked "Why?" and I said, "Well , because of
Fitzgerald . The girls signed up because of Fitzgerald,"
and he said , "Well, would it help if I fired Fitzgerald?"
I said , "Well, I don't know, it would be a good start,"
and he said , "Well, I'll see about this." We didn't talk
about the girls too much.
I believe he then told me that our conversation was
strictly between us as friends and as fellow priesthood
bearers in the church and that he expected to keep my
conversation with him in strict confidence and asked me
would I do the same, which I said , "Yes."
Settle received a telephone call at this point and the
conversation was abruptly terminated.
Settle also had a conversation with routeman Mike
Cybuliak on August 28. As Cybuliak was passing Settle's
office, Settle called him in . After discussing the matter of
paying Cybuliak for some extra work which he had done,
Settle turned the discussion to the union activity then
going on in the plant. According to Cybuliak, the
following conversation then occurred:
He asked me if I could help him because he was in
plenty trouble and I asked him in what way I could
help and he said , "You boys have all been joining the
The above quotations are from Coker 's testimony . Settle admitted that
he had mentioned in this conversation that the Sales Drivers had petitioned
for an election and stated that Coker "voluntarily gave [him] his
assistance." In Settle ' s words, Coker stated " 'Well, I will do all I can to
help,' or something to that effect." When asked by the General Counsel
"Didn't you , in fact, ask for his help in return for the favors that you had
done him in the past?" Settle answered, "I don 't think I did in a direct
statement." In my opinion a realistic evaluation of the testimony of Coker
and Settle on this point requires acceptance of Coker's version that Settle
sought during this discussion to obtain Coker s help in getting rid of the
Sales Drivers . It may be that the request was put in more veiled terms
than Coker's testimony indicates , but I have no doubt that a request for
such aid was conveyed by Settle to Coker on this occasion.
union and I want somebody to help me out." I says, "I
don't know if I can help you at all." He said, "When
you come to vote, vote no." He says, "Nobody will
know about it," and he says, "That will help me quite a
bit."
Settle testified that it was Cybuliak who started talking
about the Union by saying that he was the last one to sign
a card. According to Settle, he told Cybuliak:
Well Mike, I can 't talk to you about this ... The only
thing I can say to you, Mike is that I loaned you this
money and I helped you out.
I do not believe Settle's testimony. According to Coker,
Settle had sought his help in combating the Sales Drivers,
using the same approach of reminding him of past favors
accorded him. Settle's own testimony tends to confirm
that he made a similar appeal to Cybuliak. I credit
Cybuliak's testimony which is quoted above.
c. The Respondent's announcement of drastic
penalties against the routemen for talking to
production and maintenance employees
The Respondent usually holds a meeting of its
routemen on Monday mornings. Fitzgerald does not
usually attend, but he attended the meeting on the
morning of August 26. Harbor opened the meeting by
asking that the routemen not interfere with the girls in the
back because they were behind schedule. Harbor stated at
this time that if any of the men had a problem with
shortages, they should look up a supervisor . Harbor
commented that this rule had been in effect for some time
and that a violation of the rule could constitute grounds
for dismissal . At this point Fitzgerald interjected as
follows, as he testified: "I will emphasize the fact a little
bit stronger. If you don't stop it, this will be cause for
immediate dismissal."
Both Lamb and Wegener protested this requirement,
asserting that they needed to talk to the girls in order to
serve their customers properly. Wegener charged that
"this has all come about due to the fact that we are
wanting a union ."' Office Manager Leslie joined the
discussion at this point and denied this , asserting that the
Respondent had spoken to the routemen about disturbing
the production employees before. Lamb heatedly accused
Fitzgerald of being responsible for their shortage
problems, and Wegener asserted that Fitzgerald did
nothing but give the men a "hard time " when they went
to him with such problems. Coker jumped up and said, as
Leslie testified,
"Let's calm down . We all know what they are after.
They are wondering if we are union and, well, we are.
You are wondering about the people in the back, they
are, too . I don't want you to blame anybody but me, it
is my doing and I am behind the whole thing."
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent on
August 26 promulgated for the first time a rule
prohibiting the routemen from talking to the production
employees in order to thwart the organizational efforts of
the routemen among the production and maintenance
employees. The evidence indicates, however, that while the
Respondent did not have a formal rule banning talking to
the production employees, it had over the past several
years spoken to routemen at widely scattered intervals
about talking to the "girls in the back."
'This is the testimony of Claude Clark , the former general manager of
the plant, who at the time of the hearing was serving as a routeman. Clark
was not included in the stipulated appropriate unit of routemen , however
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC.
The question remains whether the Respondent in
threatening to enforce the ban at this time was motivated
by a desire to forestall any further spread of the
organizational activities which it knew were going on in
the plant. The Respondent learned from the telegram
addressed to Jim Bearden which was opened on August 20
that a majority of the routemen had signed cards for the
Sales Drivers and that the Sales Drivers were demanding
recognition. An envelope bearing the return address of the
Sales Drivers also addressed to Jim Bearden , which the
Respondent had ample reason to believe was the
confirmatory letter mentioned in the telegram, was
received by the Respondent on August 22 and refused.
Another envelope bearing the return address on the front
thereof , of the Laundry Workers, and similarly
misaddressed to Jim Bearden, was refused by the
Respondent on August 23. Even though this letter from
the Laundry Workers was refused by the Respondent, the
similarity in the addressing of the envelopes-both wrongly
addressed to Mr. Jim Bearden-was enough to suggest to
the Respondent , in my opinion , that its production and
maintenance employees were also involved in the
organizing activities , and that perhaps the Laundry
Workers was also seeking recognition . Although the
routemen frequently had occasion to seek the help of the
production employees in locating missing garments, the
Respondent had not in the 2 years Harbor had been at the
plant ever taken any disciplinary action against routemen
for talking to the production employees. The Respondent's
entire course of conduct in this case plainly shows its
desire to avoid bargaining with either Union . Under all
the circumstances I conclude that the Respondent
announced the drastic penalty of discharge for any
routemen found talking to production employees in an
attempt to stop the further spread of the union movement
in the plant.
4. The Respondent' s refusals of the Unions' requests
for recognition; the Laundry Workers strike threat
a. The Sales Drivers request
As found above, the Sales Drivers first requested
recognition on behalf of the Respondent's routemen in its
telegram of August 17 which was opened and read by the
Respondent on August 20. After its first confirmatory
letter was refused by the Respondent on August 22, the
Sales Drivers on August 26 sent a second letter requesting
recognition and scheduling of a date for a bargaining
meeting.
On August 27, the Respondent answered this letter with
the following telegram:
YOUR TELEGRAM OF SATURDAY, AUGUST 17, ADDRESSED
TO JIM BEARDEN AT INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL AND
RECEIVED AUGUST 19, IS ACKNOWLEDGED. LETTER
ADDRESSED TO HIM WITH POSTAGE DUE WAS
ERRONEOUSLY RETURNED. NO JIM BEARDEN ASSOCIATED
WITH COMPANY, PRESUME YOU MEAN C. W. BEARDEN.
FOR SEVERAL REASONS INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL
DOUBTS THAT YOU REPRESENT AN UNCOERCED MAJORITY
OF OUR EMPLOYEES IN THE APPROPRIATE UNIT. SINCE
YOU HAVE FILED REPRESENTATION PETITION WITH
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE CERTIFICATION
PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY THE NLR ACT WOULD SEEM
APPROPRIATE MEANS OF SETTLING QUESTION OF
REPRESENTATION. ' s
"Although the Sales Drivers had not mentioned in its letter the filing of
a certification petition with the Board , the Respondent had by this time
663
b. The Laundry Workers request
As found above, the Respondent refused to accept
delivery of the Laundry Workers original letter requesting
recognition on August 23. The Laundry Workers mailed a
second letter requesting recognition and bargaining on
behalf of the Laundry Workers on August 27, which was
presumably received by the Respondent on August 28.
About noon on August 29, James Bailey, an organizer
for the Laundry Workers, went to the Respondent's office
and asked to speak to General Manager Settle. After a
few minutes Settle came out of his office. Bailey
introduced himself to Settle as a representative of the
Laundry Workers and asked for several minutes of his
time to discuss recognition of the Laundry Workers.
Settle said that he had a luncheon appointment and did
not have time to talk to him. Bailey urged that would not
take long, and asserted, "I have the authorization cards
here with me and a stipulation for recognition and I
would like to show you." Settle insisted that he did not
have time, suggested that Bailey talk to his attorney, John
McCarty, and gave Bailey McCarty's telephone number.
Bailey attempted to call McCarty between 1 and 2 p.m.
that day and McCarty returned Bailey's call shortly after
2 p.m. Over the telephone Bailey introduced himself to
McCarty as a representative of the Laundry Workers,
offered to show McCarty the bargaining authorization
cards signed by the production and maintenance
employees, and told McCarty that he would like him to
sign a stipulation providing for recognition of the Laundry
Workers. Bailey explained that he knew Mr. Settle, that
he had worked with him in Jacksonville, and that he
wanted to be cooperative. McCarty replied that he was
not in any position to stipulate about anything, that his
partner handled most of the Respondent's work, and that
he was unavailable. Bailey concluded the conversation by
saying that he was having a meeting that night with the
production and maintenance employees, that the routemen
had decided to go along with whatever decision was
reached by the production and maintenance employees at
the meeting, and that "he would have to see what
developed there that night as to what transpired"
thereafter with respect to whether the employees "would
be out on the street in the morning.""
5. The Respondent's preparations to cope with the
threatened strike
Faced with the demand for recognition from the
Laundry Workers and the threat of a strike, McCarty
called for advice from the law firm in Atlanta which is
representing the Respondent in this proceeding. Then
McCarty called Settle and informed him of his
conversation with Bailey and relayed on to Settle the
Atlanta firm's advice that he should make a talk to the
employees still on duty so as to get management's point of
view before the employees in advance of the union
meeting that night . McCarty dictated over the telephone
specific suggestions concerning the content of his talk to
the employees.
received copies of papers relating to the certification proceeding from the
Board.
"These quotations are from McCarty 's testimony . My Endings on this
aspect of the case are based upon a blend of the testimony of Bailey and
McCarty On the principal matters of substance their testimony is in
accord . With respect to the exact sequence of events, however , I believe
that McCarty 's recollection is more accurate than Bailey's
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A few minutes after 4 p.m. Settle had the employees
remaining at the plant assembled. According to Settle's
recollection, he told the employees as follows:
"I have called you together today or at this meeting
because I understand that you are having a meeting this
evening and I have just returned from vacation and my
desk is piled up with mail and other work and I haven't
had a chance to open it and to catch up on my work. I
would appreciate you giving me an opportunity to do
this. I would hate to see you act in haste. As a matter
of fact, I certainly urge you not to do anything hastily,
that I would like for you to have the opportunity to
vote in an election supervised by the NLRB according
to the democratic process.
That we are in a service business and we must of
necessity serve our customers. Anyone who absents
himself from his job will be replaced. I would also like
to tell you that Florida has the right-to-work law which
means that no one of necessity must belong to any
labor organization and has a right to work as they see
fit.... 11
Shortly after 5 p.m. McCarty called Settle to ascertain
the reaction of the employees to Settle's talk. While this
call was in progress McCarty's telephone rang, and
McCarty interrupted his conversation with Settle to
answer . It turned out to be Bailey, whereupon McCarty
told Settle he would call him back. In McCarty's words,
the following conversation with Bailey then took place
over the telephone:
- his first comment was to the effect that I was letting
my client get out of hand and I said , "I don't know
what you mean," and he said, "Well they have just had
a meeting out there and he said some things and Mr.
Fitzgerald said some things that I don't like," and I
said "Well, I'm sorry about that. I wasn 't present but I
have a vague idea of what he said ," and he said, "Well,
I'm going on to this meeting tonight and if the things
that I have heard so far are true, why, the workers will
be on the street in the morning."
McCarty replied, "I'm sorry that it has come to that
point." 12
After McCarty called Settle back and reported to him
about Bailey's latest strike threat, Settle called Fitzgerald,
Harbor, and Leslie into his office. According to the
Respondent' s witnesses , Settle told the others that he had
received a telephone call informing him that the Laundry
Workers representative had threatened that the employees
would go out on strike the following morning and that it
was necessary to do some planning about "how we could
operate the plant in case the employees did go out on
strike." While the Respondent' s witnesses did not give the
details of this discussion , I find, in view of the fact that
only an hour earlier Settle had warned the production
employees that "anyone who absents himself from his job
will be replaced," that replacement of striking production
employees was discussed at this meeting. Also discussed,
according to the Respondent's witnesses, was who would
handle the various routes in the event that the drivers
failed to report for work the next day. Routes 21, 9, 8,
and 6 were mentioned . After allocating various runs to
various supervisors, Settle declared that the one route
which was not covered could be taken care of on
"The foregoing findings are based largely on McCarty ' s testimony
While McCarty and Bailey differ in their testimony concerning the details
of the conversation and the sequence of events of this particular afternoon,
there is no disagreement between them as to the substance of what
occurred on this afternoon
Saturday. The prospect of bringing the supervisors' wives
in over the long weekend" to prepare the garments for
shipment which were scheduled for delivery on the
following Tuesday and Wednesday was also discused at
this meeting, according to the Respondent's witnesses.
Production worker Barbara Cannon and routeman
Richard Coker each in turn eavesdropped on this meeting
from the restroom which is adjacent to Settle's office.
While in the restroom on the previous day Coker had
accidentally discovered that the plywood partition
separating Settle's office from the restroom was not
soundproof.'
Cannon and Coker testified to additional statements
being made at this meeting on August 29, which are
strenuously denied by all of the participants in the
meeting . Cannon's testimony is as follows:
[Settle] said to let the regular route men take their
clothes out the next day and to ship as much as
possible, and I also heard him say that "When the
union comes in, we will close the doors." He said,
"There are some people out there that have joined the
union, but I don't think the majority has, just some."
He said he had to worry about routes 4, 6, 9, 11, and
20.
Coker's testimony is as follows:
The first words that I recall hearing is Mr. Settle
stating: "Well, we have three routes now; we have six,
nine , and twenty. Do you know who we can get to
operate these routes for us?" No one seemed to know
who they could get to operate these three routes and
then he said, "We will have the girls work as late
tomorrow night" - that would be Friday night - "and
Saturday evening and probably Sunday. We will have
them work as much as they can to ship as far ahead as
they can and then Tuesday supervisors and their
families will come in and work so that we will be ready
Tuesday morning." Monday was a holiday. "So we will
be ready Tuesday morning and just keep the doors
closed and we will operate the plant ourselves as long
as we can."
"Labor Day was the following Monday
"Coker testified that about 10 minutes after his long conversation with
Settle on August 28 he went into the restroom where he overheard his
name being mentioned Coker' s testimony continues as follows-
This was the first time I knew you could hear through that wall
Well, I heard my [name] mentioned and I couldn ' t hear anything so I
reached over and turned off the light and this shut off the exhaust fan up
on the ceiling and again I heard my name mentioned and I was curious
It takes no effort at all to hear through that wall. It's so thin that if
someone leans against it on the inside of Mr Settle's office, the wall
bends out in the restroom.
Mr. Settle was telling his supervisors the exact conversation we had
just had , and I was dumb-founded to say the least because of the
confidence that Mr . Settle was going to hold our conversation in, that
this conversation was in strict confidence , and Mr Settle blew whatever
help right then that I was going to give him
Coker testified to overhearing Settle make further statements to the
assembled supervisors on this occasion , including the statement that "he
didn ' t have to worry about the drivers, that I would take care of the
drivers for him ," a statement about replacing the production employees,
and another statement to the effect that he was "not going to have the
union in [his ] plant telling [him] what to do " All of the supervisors alleged
to have been present at this meeting denied that any such statements were
made on this occasion or any other occasion. I think it more likely that
these statements were made , if at all, at the meeting of supervisors on
August 29 The Respondent had neither received a demand for recognition
from the Laundry Workers nor been confronted with a strike threat on
August 28. The use of the term "replace" is more logical in a strike threat
situation . However , I need not resolve the conflicting testimony in this
regard because it would not affect my ultimate conclusion herein
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC. 665
As indicated above, Settle, Fitzgerald, and Harbor all
denied that anything was said at this meeting about the
Respond'ent's closing its doors. Settle was not the owner
of the Respondent' s business and was thus not in a
position to be able to decide to go out of business rather
than deal with unions . For this reason I think it unlikely
that he would voice a determination "to close the doors"
rather than deal with the Unions in what he thought was a
private meeting with his departement heads. Under all the
circumstances I conlude that Cannon and Coker heard
fragments of the conversation in Settle's office, including
the statement about replacing production workers, and
jumped to erroneous conclusions about the import of the
portions of the conversation which each of them
overheard. I credit the testimony of the Respondent's
witnesses as to what was said at this August 29 meeting
and find the facts to be as stated above.
6. The Laundry Workers meeting on the night of
August 29; the strike
The Laundry Workers held the meeting, as scheduled,
at 8 p.m. on August 29. Approximately 28 of the
Respondent's 44 production and maintenance workers and
7 of the Respondent's routemen attended. Laundry
Workers Organizer Bailey reported to the employees that
the Respondent's attorney had claimed that he did not
represent the Respondent in labor matters and said that
he had received no reply to his demand for recognition.
Coker reported to the group that he had overheard Settle
say that he was looking for replacements for certain
drivers and also that he was planning on discharging the
production employees and replacing them. Cannon also
made a report at this meeting about what she had
overheard through the restroom wall, but the nature of
this report is not disclosed in the record. Several other
employees made reports about threats from the
Respondent's supervisors. Routeman Wegener observed,
as Coker testified, "that it looked like that Mr. Settle was
getting ready to hit us and if we waited and let him get
both feet on the ground, we were going to be making a
big mistake . . . that we should hit him first." Bailey
asked the group what they wanted to do about it. The
response was, "Walk out." A vote was taken by a show of
hands and all voted to walk out the next morning. Bailey
made arrangments to have employees meet him at the
plant in the morning and the meeting was adjourned.
Early the next morning 6 routemen16 and approximately
30 production and maintenance employees congregated
across the street from the plant. Picketing with
hand-lettered signs commenced about 7 a.m. During the
first week of the strike the Unions involved paid strike
benefits to 34 production and maintenance employees and
7 drivers. Settle admitted that only about six production
and maintenance employees reported for work on August
30, the first day of the strike.
7. Conclusions concerning the Respondent's
interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
As found above, as soon as the Respondent was
informed that its routemen had signed authorization cards
for the Sales Drivers and that that organization was
claiming bargaining rights, the Respondent embarked on a
campaign to undermine the Sales Drivers. Within 24
hours Assistant General Manager Fitzgerald questioned
four of the Respondent's seven routemen concerning their
support of the Sales Drivers and, in the course of these
conversations with three of the routemen, uttered threats
of the loss of various privileges, and in two cases, their
very jobs, if they adhered to the Sales Drivers. Later on,
after questioning the fifth routemen concerning his union
sympathies, Fitzgerald threatened him with replacement if
he joined the Union.
Fitzgerald followed the same general strategy with the
production and maintenance employees. He questioned at
least six of the production employees concerning their
interest in the Laundry Workers and sought to ascertain
the identity of the employees who were promoting it.
Fitzgerald warned four of the six that the advent of the
Laundry Workers might mean either the loss of privileges
in the plant or their jobs.
There can be no question but that Fitzgerald's threats
to numerous employees concerning the adverse
consequences of unionization constituted interference,
restraint, and coercion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. And in the atmosphere engendered by these
threats Fitzgerald's questioning of employees about their
union sympathies and the identity of its promoters took
on coercive coloration and therefore constituted further
interference, restraint, and coercion violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
General Manager Settle, after he returned to the plant
on August 28, also sought to undermine the allegiance of
the routemen to the Sales Drivers. In his conversation
with Coker, Settle clearly exceeded permissible bounds
when he sought by offers of future benefits and reminders
of past favors to induce him to lead the routemen out of
the Sales Drivers. Settle followed the same technique in
his conversation with Cybuliak but was slightly more
subtle in his approach. The Act does not permit such
offers of rewards, express or implied, to induce employees
to renounce their duly chosen bargaining representative.
The conversations of Sales Manager Harbor and Office
Manager Leslie with routeman Wegener also violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Both supervisors sought to
ascertain from Wegener what it was that prompted him to
seek union affiliation, and when Wegener stated what the
men were seeking, Harbor, at least, intimated that the
Respondent would try to do something about the men's
complaints. The Act, in my opinion, entitles employees
who have chosen a collective-bargaining representative to
be free from such prying conversations with their
superiors - conversations which are obviously intended to
wean the employees away from their bargaining agent.
And particularly in the context of this case - with Assistant
General Manager Fitzgerald repeatedly threatening
employees that they would be discharged because of the
Unions - such questioning assumes coercive proportions.
The facts summarized above relating to the
Respondent's announcement at the August 26 sales
meeting of the drastic penalty of discharge for any
routeman found talking to a production worker, in my
opinion, warrant the conclusion that this action was taken
by the Respondent in an effort to stop all contact between
the Respondent's routemen, whom it knew to be
organized, and its production workers, whom it was
fearful would become organized. The Respondent's
adoption of this stringent enforcement policy at this time
for such an antiunion reason violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Hill & Hill Truck Line, Inc., 266
F.2d 883, 885 (C.A. 5).
"The seventh routeman was on vacation.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8. Conclusions regarding the Respondent's refusal to
bargain collectively with the Unions
a The Unions' majority status in appropriate units
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the
Respondent's routemen, with the usual exclusions, and
that the Respondent's production and maintenance
employees , with the usual exclusions and excluding also
the routemen, constituted two separate units, each of
which was appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
The parties further stipulated that there were 7 employees
in the routemen's unit and 44 employees in the production
and maintenance unit. Cards signed by six of the seven
routemen authorizing the Sales Drivers to act as their
bargaining representative were received in evidence
without objection. Five of these six cards were dated
August 16 and the sixth was dated August 19." Similarly,
cards designating the Laundry Workers as "sole
bargaining agent," signed by 36 of the 44 employees in
the production and maintenance unit, were received in
evidence without objection. All but five of these cards
were dated between August 20 and 22. The remainder
were signed between August 23 and 30. Upon the
foregoing facts I conclude that at all times on and after
August 16, 1968, the Sales Drivers was the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Respondent ' s routemen,
and that at all times on and after August 22, 1968, the
Laundry Workers was the exclusive bargaining
representative of the Respondent's production and
maintenance employees.
b. The Respondent's refusal to bargain collectively
with the Unions
As found above, the Sales Drivers had in both of its
letters requesting recognition offered "to permit a neutral
person to check [its] authorization cards." And Fitzgerald,
by his own admission , had ascertained by questioning four
of its seven routemen that the four men had authorized
the Sales Drivers to act as their bargaining representative.
Fitzgerald ascertained this fact at least by August 21.
Notwithstanding these facts, the Respondent, in its
telegram to the Sales Drivers dated August 27, stated that
it doubted that the Sales Drivers represented "an
uncoerced majority" of its employees in the appropriate
unit and suggested that this question be settled through
the certification procedures of the Act.
With respect to the Laundry Workers request for
recognition, it also had offered to prove its majority status
in its letters requesting recognition . Bailey in his personal
requests for recognition had twice offered to submit its
authorization cards for inspection by the Respondent. The
first time he offered them to General Manager Settle
himself, and the second time to the Respondent's attorney,
McCarty. Even in the face of a strike threat the
Respondent's answer to these requests for recognition in
effect was that it would replace the strikers, if necessary.
It is settled that where a union representing a majority
of the employees (a fact which may be evidenced, as here,
by authorization cards) requests recognition and
bargaining , and the employer declines such a request upon
the ground the union lacks the requisite majority support,
the employer may be held to have refused to bargain
"The seventh routeman testified that he had told Fitzgerald that he had
joined the Sales Drivers
collectively in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act if the evidence justified the conclusion the employer's
refusal "is motivated, not by any bona fide doubt as to
the union 's majority, but rather by a rejection of the
collective bargaining principle or by a desire to gain time
within which to undermine the union." Joy Silk Mills,
Inc., 85 NLRB 1263, 1264, enfd. 185 F.2d 732, 741-742
(C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 341 U.S. 914; Skyline Homes,
Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 323 F.2d 642, 647-649 (C.A. 5);
Independent Inc. v. N.L.R.B. 406 F.2d 203 (C.A. 5); The
Madison Courier, Inc.. 162 NLRB 550, 593-596, enfd.
405 F.2d I (C.A.D.C.), and cases therein cited.
With respect to the Respondent's claimed doubt as to
the Sales Drivers "uncoerced majority" status, it is to be
noted that the record is barren of the slightest suggestion
of any coercion or misrepresentation in connection with
the routemen' s signing of authorization cards. The same is
true with respect to the signing of the Laundry Workers
cards.
In view of this fact and the further fact that Fitzgerald
admittedly by his own questioning of routemen, was well
aware that a majority of them had signed cards for the
Sales Drivers, the Respondent's lack of good faith in
rejecting the Sales Drivers request for recognition is
abundantly clear on these facts alone. But these are not
the only facts casting light on the Respondent's lack of
good faith in refusing to recognize the Sales Drivers. And
these facts illuminate the Respondent's motives in
rejecting the Laundry Workers request for recognition, as
well.
The Respondent's refusals to accept certified mail from
the Unions, although it certainly had reasonable grounds
to believe in the case of the letter from the Sales Drivers
that the letter was intended for the Respondent and that it
was the confirmatory letter mentioned in the earlier
telegram from the Sales Drivers, clearly reflects the
Respondent's desire to avoid dealing with the Unions. The
Respondent's conduct from the time it opened the Sales
Drivers telegram on August 20 establish that this was not
a mere whim , but a fixed determination to avoid
bargaining with the Unions. Thus every one of the
Respondent's top officials and supervisors spoke to at
least one of the routemen in an effort to dissuade them
from adherence to the Sales Drivers. Assistant General
Manager Fitzgerald talked to five of the seven routemen,
and to four of them he threatened loss of employment or
some other form of retaliation if they continued with their
union affiliation. General Manager Settle appealed to two
of the routemen to turn against the Sales Drivers, using
both promises of future rewards and reminders of past
benefits accorded them as inducements to them to take
such action.
Assistant General Manager Fritzgerald also actively
sought to coerce the production employees into rejecting
the Laundry Workers. Six production workers credibly
testified to hearing Fitzgerald threaten the loss of their
jobs or the loss of benefits or privileges because of their
union affiliation . Other production employees gave
credible testimony about coercive conversations with the
Respondent' s supervisors about their own union
affiliation, the union sympathies of their fellow employees,
and the identity of the instigators of the union movement.
Even when the Respondent was faced with the threat of
having its entire operation shut down as a result of a
strike, the Respondent made no effort to communicate
with the representatives of either Union in an effort to
resolve the differences separating them. On the contrary,
the Respondent promptly informed the production
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL, INC.
employees that it would replace them if necessary to keep
its business in operation At a time when tensions were
high among the employees and a conciliatory word from
the Respondent might have eased the strained relations
between the parties, the Respondent chose to adopt the
provocative tactic of threatening to replace any striking
employees. Although the strike effectively halted the
Respondent's operations for a time and the Respondent
could observe a substantial majority of its employees
standing around outside the plant in apparent support of
the picketers (admittedly, only about six of the
Respondent's production workers and none of the
routemen reported for work on August 30)," even then the
Respondent did not get in touch with the representatives
of the striking employees in an effort to resolve the
controversy.
The foregoing facts, in my opinion, fully warrant the
conclusion that the Respondent's refusal of both Unions'
requests for recognition was not based on a good-faith
doubt as to either Unions' majority status, but rather
stemmed from its determination to avoid bargaining with
the Unions in any event. Under the authorities cited
above, therefore, the Respondent in refusing the requests
of the Sales Drivers and the Laundry Workers for
recognition has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
9. Conclusions concerning the cause of the strike
At the meeting of the Laundry Workers on the night of
August 29, Organizer Bailey reported on his efforts to
gain recognition that day and said that he was unable to
get an answer from the Respondent. Some employees told
of the threats voiced by the Respondent's supervisors
during the past week Routeman Coker reported that he
had overheard the Respondent's supervisors planning to
replace certain drivers and discharge the production
workers. This was erroneous, as I have found, since what
Settle discussed with his supervisors at the meeting on the
afternoon of August 29 was the replacement of any
employees who went out on strike. At the end of the
union meeting that night the employees present, 28 of
them, voted unanimously to go out on strike the next
morning.
The Respondent contends that the strike was caused by
Coker's report that the Respondent was planning to
discharge the employees, and that since this report was
untrue, the strike was not an unfair labor practice strike
While I agree that Coker's erroneous report was a factor
in the causation of the strike, it was not, in my opinion,
the sole cause of the strike. Organizer Bailey's
unsuccessful efforts to gain recognition that afternoon
were discussed at the union meeting, as were the unlawful
attempts by the Respondent's supervisors to coerce the
employees into abandoning their unions. And there can be
no question upon this record but that the grant of
recognition to the Unions involved would have brought
about the immediate end of the strike. As the Board and
the courts have held, it is immaterial that other factors
may also have influenced the employees to decide to go
out on strike, for if "unfair labor practices were a
"Cf Independent, Inc v N L R B, 406 F 2d 403 (C A. 5) While it is
true that the Board held in Wilder Mfg Co , 173 NLRB No 30, that the
presence of a majority of an employer ' s employees on a picket line does
not in and of itself establish the absence of a good-faith doubt of majority
status on the part of the employer, this ruling was arrived at in a case
wholly devoid of evidence of unfair labor practices or of any other conduct
tending to prevent the holding of a fair election This ruling is plainly not
applicable on the facts of this case
667
contributing cause of the strike" it may be held to be an
unfair labor practice strike. N.L.R.B v. Birmingham
Publishing Company, 262 F.2d 2, 9-10 (C.A. 5), General
Drivers and Helpers Union, Local 662, Teamsters v.
N.L.R.B., 302 F.2d 908, 911 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 371
U.S. 827. Cf Simmons, Inc v. N L.R B., 315 F 2d 143,
146 (C.A. 1) Upon all of the facts I find that the
Respondent's interference, restraint, and coercion, and its
refusal to recognize the Unions were contributing causes
of the strike. Accordingly, I conclude that the strike was
an unfair labor practice strike.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. All routemen employed by the Respondent at its Ft
Pierce, Florida, plant, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, salesmen, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
2 At all times on and after August 16, 1968, General
Sales Drivers & Allied Employees Union, Local No. 198,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousmen and Helpers of America, has been the duly
designated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the aforesaid unit of routemen.
3 By refusing on and after August 19, 1968, to
recognize and bargain with General Sales Drivers &
Allied Employees Union, Local No 198, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, as the exclusive representative of
the employees in the routemen's unit, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its Ft. Pierce, Florida, plant,
excluding all routemen, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
5. At all times on and after August 22, 1968, Local
218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers
Union has been the duly designated exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the aforesaid production and maintenance unit.
6. By refusing on and after August 23, 1968, to
recognize and bargain collectively with Local 218,
Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers Union, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the
production and maintenance unit, the Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
7. By threatening employees with discharge or other
adverse consequences because of their affiliation with the
Unions; making promises of rewards to induce employees
to renounce their union affiliation, coercively questioning
employees concerning their union affiliation and what
prompted them to seek it; coercively questioning
employees about the identity of union supporters and
leaders; and by announcing for antiunion reasons that
routemen will be discharged for talking with production
employees, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8. The strike in which the Respondent's employees in
both appropriate units engaged commencing on August
30, 1968, was an unfair labor practice strike.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent had engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act, my Recommended Order will provide that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that the Respondent's unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
were a contributing cause of the strike among the
Respondent ' s employees which commenced on August 30,
1968. In order to restore the status quo disrupted by the
Respondent' s unfair labor practices, my Recommended
Order will provide that the Respondent , upon application,
offer immediate reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to
their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all of the
strikers , dismissing, if necessary , any replacements hired.
The Respondent shall also make whole such strikers for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
Respondent' s refusal, if any, to reinstate them, by
payment to each of them of a sum of money during the
period from 5 days after the date on which he applies for
reinstatement to the date of the Respondent 's offer of
reinstatement . In computing backpay the formulas
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289,
291-294 , and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716, shall be followed.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed , the commission by the Respondent of similar
and of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated. I
shall, therefore , make my Recommended Order herein
coextensive with the threat and order that the Respondent
cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
hereby issue the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Indian River Uniform Rental, Inc.,
Ft. Pierce, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
General Sales Drivers & Allied Employees Union, Local
No. 198, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of all its employees in the
appropriate unit of routemen stated in the Conclusions of
Law above.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers
Union, as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the appropriate unit of production and maintenance
employees stated in the Conclusions of Law above.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or other
adverse consequences because of their affiliation with the
Unions; making promises of rewards to induce employees
to renounce their union affiliation; coercively questioning
employees concerning union matters; and announcing for
antiunion reasons the imposition of drastic penalties for
infractions of employer work practices.
(d) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights quaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is
found will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with General Sales Drivers & Allied Employees Union,
Local No. 198, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousmen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive representative of all the employees in the
appropriate unit of routemen stated in the Conclusions of
Law above.
(b) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively
with Local 218, Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House
Workers Union, as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the appropriate unit of production and
maintenance employees stated in the Conclusions of Law
above.
(c) Upon application, offer immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions to all those employees who went out on strike on
August 30, 1968, or thereafter, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, dismissing if
necessary all persons hired on or after that date, and
make such applicants whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to reinstate
them, in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial
Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Notify any of the persons entitled to reinstatement
under this Recommended Order 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.
(e) 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, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(f) Post at its Ft. Pierce, Florida, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 12, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days therafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM RENTAL , INC. 669
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner 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, upon request , recognize and bargain
collectively with General Sales Drivers & Allied
Employees Union, Local No. 198, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America , as the exclusive representative
of all the employees in the bargaining unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment , and other conditions of employment and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such an
understanding in a signed agreement . The bargaining
unit is:
All our routemen employed in our Ft . Pierce,
Florida , plant , excluding all other employees, office
clerical employees , salesmen, guards , professional
employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request , recognize and bargain
collectively with Local 218, Laundry , Dry Cleaning &
Dye House Workers Union as the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The
bargaining unit is:
All our production and maintenance employees
employed in our Ft . Pierce , Florida, plant, excluding
all routemen, office clerical employees, professional
employees , guards and supervisors , as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL, upon application , reinstate the employees
who went out on strike on August 30, 1968, - or
thereafter , without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
WE WILL notify the employees entitled to
reinstatement, 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.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
other harmful consequences because they join or
support a union ; make promises of benefits or rewards
to persuade employees to renounce their union
membership ; coercively question employees about union
matters ; and announce or impose for antiunion reasons
drastic punishment for infractions of our work rules or
practices.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right
to join a union and to participate in union activities.
Dated By
INDIAN RIVER UNIFORM
RENTAL, INC.
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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 , Room 706,
Federal Office Building , 500 Zack Street, Tampa , Florida
33602, Telephone 813-228 -7711, Extension 227.