Indianapolis Cleaners and Launderers Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1198 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of INDIANAPOLIS CLEANERS AND LAUNDERERS CLUB,.
EMPLOYER and RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE UNION,
CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-047.-Decided September 9, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
4
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold V..
Carey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds :
The Employer, an unincorporated voluntary association of 42 em
ployers, is engaged in the dry cleaning and laundry business at
Indianapolis, Indiana. Its 42 members perform 80 percent of the
laundry work and 65 percent of the dry-cleaning work in Marion
County. During 1948 or the last fiscal year, the association members
together did an annual business of $11,209,738.49, of which $10,396,-
019.05 (or 93 percent) derived from local services to private individ-
uals. Of the remaining $813,773.44, $54 represented services to
private individuals outside the State; $34,359.51 (or .3 percent)
represented services to airlines, interstate railroads, and interstate
bus lines; and $779,359.93 (or 7 percent) represented services to local
industrial or manufacturing companies allegedly engaged in inter-
state commerce. The association members jointly purchased $3,298,-
194.92 worth of equipment and supplies, of which $1,661,887.65 (or
46 percent) were directly out-of-State, $685,160.33 (or 22 percent)
were indirectly out-of-State, and $951,146.94 (or 32 percent) were
intrastate purchases.
1 The requests by four Intervenors for oral argument are denied because the record and
the submitted briefs, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties.
85 N. L. R. B,, No. 202.
1198
INDIANAPOLIS CLEANERS AND LAUNDERERS CLUB 1199
The Employer and the Intervenors 2 contend that the facts in this
case do not warrant the assertion of jurisdiction by the Board. We
agree. We recognize that the volume of out-of-State purchases by
the Employer is substantial; but the laundry and dry-cleaning busi-
ness is essentially local,' and in dealing with essentially local opera-
tions, we have frequently refused to rest jurisdiction on the out-of-
State purchases alone.4 In asserting jurisdiction over a laundry
establishment in Matter of New York Steam Laundry, Inc.,' we
deemed significant.the fact that the firm there involved performed
services to interstate carriers in annual amount in excess of $100,000,
which included laundering of pullman sheets and towels which were
transported in interstate commerce. As noted above, services to inter-
state carriers annually total only $34,359.51 in the instant case. Nor
do we believe that the additional $779,359.93 in services of an undis-
closed nature to unidentified industrial customers allegedly engaged
in commerce has a sufficiently direct effect upon interstate commerce
to change the essentially local character of the Employer's operations.
This case is thus distinguishable from the cases cited in footnote 8 of
the dissent involving concerns which the record showed supplied such
services as power to interstate manufacturers or transported their em-
ployees to and from work, services which we regarded as having a
substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because of the
adverse effect upon such commerce of a cessation of these services. Al-
though we do not find that the Employer's operations are wholly un-
related to commerce, we believe that the assertion of jurisdiction in
this case would not effectuate the policies of the Act. We shall, there-
fore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
As recently as December 30, 1.948,6 without a dissenting voice,
the Board overruled a decision issued only 2 months earlier, and de-
2 The following Unions intervened on the basis of their interest in the current contract :
Laundry Workers International Union, AFL, and its Local No. 350; International
Association of Cleaning and Dye House Workers, AFL, and its Local No. 165; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, and its affiliate Bakery, Laundry , Dairy Employees and Sales Drivers' Local No. 188.
' N. L. it. B. V. White Swan Company, 118 F. 2d 1002 (C. A. 4).
'Matter of Fehr Baking Co., et at., 79 N. L. R. B. 440 (although $1,470,000 worth Af
- out-of -State purchases were involved , jurisdiction was not asserted).
5 80 N. L. R. B. 1597, and 81 N. L. R. B. 591.
Matter of New York Steam Laundry, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1597, overruling 80 N. L. R. B.
.4.
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tided to exercise jurisdiction over a laundry which had gross receipts
of about $740,000 and purchases of about $100,000. All services were
rendered within the State of Florida, and 95 percent of the purchases
were also made within that State. However, the Board held that the
laundry company's operations could not be regarded as essentially
local, because the Employer's services "to interstate carriers, in an
amount exceeding $100,000, does substantially affect trade, traffic, com-
merce, and transportation among the several States."
Without overruling the New York Steam Lautiuky case, the ma-
jority now declines to take jurisdiction over a dry cleaning and laun-
dry enterprise which has gross receipts 14 times as large as those of
the New York Steam Laundry, and purchases 30 times as large, in-
cluding direct out-of-State purchases more than 300 times greater than
those in the earlier case.? The present Employer also renders services
to companies engaged in interstate commerce 8 times greater than sim-
ilar services rendered by the New York Steam Laundry. It seems
plain that a strike among employees of the Employer would have a
far more substantial effect on interstate commerce than a similar strike
of employees of the New York Steam Laundry. Under these circum-
stances, we think it difficult to justify air exercise of discretion in favor
of taking jurisdiction over the smaller employer and declining to exer-
cise it over the larger.
The majority appears to justify the different results reached in the
two cases by the fact that in the New York Steam Lamidry case the
employer serviced particular types of companies engaged in interstate
commerce-common carriers-whereas in the present case the similar
services rendered are predominantly to industrial companies. We are
not aware of any prior case in which the Board has made such a dis-
tinction for this purpose. On the contrary, in numerous cases, the
Board has exercised jurisdiction over companies operating entirely
within a State because they rendered services to companies engaged
in interstate commerce, whether the latter were carriers or manufac-
turing enterprises.' In fact, only 1 month after the New York Steam
Laundry decision, the Board indicated that this would be the practice
followed with respect to laundries, for in dismissing on jurisdictional
7 Like the majority, we treat the association of 42 employers which comprise the
Indianapolis Cleaners and Launderers Club as a single enterprise , and as the Employer,
for the purpose of passing upon this jurisdictional issue.
8 See, e . g., Matter of El Paso-Ysleta Bus Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1068; Matter of
Illinois Electric & as Co., 82 N. L. R. B. 1420; Matter of DeMay's, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B.
1x74 ; Matter of Eunice Iron Works , Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 259.
INDIANAPOLIS CLEANERS AND LAUNDERERS CLUB 1201
grounds a petition involving a small laundry in the Lebanon Laundry,
and Dry Cleaners case,9 the Board said :
in view of the relatively small out-of-State purchases and the•
absence of any out-of-State customers, or customers engaged in,
interstate commerce, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act
to assert jurisdiction in this case. [Emphasis supplied.]
We would follow the logical implications of the New York Steam
Laundry case and exercise jurisdiction over the present Employer.
B Matter of Lebanon Laundry and Dry cleaners, 81 N. L. R. B. 405, (decided by a panel
consisting of Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray).