LLoyd's Laundry & Dry Cleaning

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1369 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

LLOYD'S LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING
Lloyd's Laundry & Dry Cleaning and Laundry, Dry
Cleaning & Dye House Workers International
Union, Local No. 2. Case 17-CA-9003
August 4, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
Upon a charge filed on June 4, 1979, by Laun-
dry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers Interna-
tional Union, Local No. 2, herein called the Union,
and duly served on Lloyd's Laundry & Dry Clean-
ing, herein called Respondent, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Re-
gional Director for Region 17, issued a complaint
and notice of hearing on January 21, 1980, against
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that Respondent, by
withdrawing its recognition of the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of its employees
in an appropriate unit, and by failing and refusing
to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
representative of its employees, violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Respondent has refused,
and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative.
On March 26, 1980, the Regional Attorney re-
ceived a letter from Respondent which protested
that all allegations filed in the complaint were false,
and that Respondent's facility was no longer in
business and that there have been no employees
working since August 24, 1979.
On April 7, 1980, counsel for the General Coun-
sel filed directly with the Board a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment. Subsequently, on April 10, 1980,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice To Show Cause
why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment should not be granted. Respondent did
not file a response to the Notice To Show Cause.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
Section 102.20 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
provides:
The respondent shall, within 10 days from the
service of the complaint, file an answer there-
to. The respondent shall specifically admit,
deny, or explain each of the facts alleged in
the complaint, unless the respondent is without
knowledge, in which case the respondent shall
so state, such statement operating as a denial.
All allegations in the complaint, if no answer
is filed, or any allegation in the complaint not
specifically denied or explained in an answer
filed, unless the respondent shall state in the
answer that he is without knowledge, shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and shall be
so found by the Board, unless good cause to
the contrary is shown.
The complaint and notice of hearing issued on
January 21, 1980, received by Respondent on or
about March 6, 1980, as described below, specifi-
cally states that, unless an answer to the complaint
is filed by Respondent within 10 days of service
thereof, "all of the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and may
be so found by the Board."' According to the un-
controverted allegations of the Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, the Regional Director, on January
21 and February 17, 1980, mailed the complaint
and notice of hearing to Respondent by registered
mail. Respondent refused to claim the documents
on both occasions, and they were returned marked
"unclaimed" on February 7 and March 18, 1980,
respectively. On February 19, 1980, a Board agent
attempted to make personal service at the residence
of Lloyd Haynes, Respondent's president. On
March 6, 1980, Lloyd Haynes informed a Board
agent that he had received a copy of the complaint
and notice of hearing. On March 20, 1980, letters
by the Regional Attorney and copies of the com-
plaint and notice of hearing were sent by regular
mail to Respondent's business address and its presi-
dent's home address. These letters stated that, if an
answer was not received by March 27, 1980, the
Regional Director would consider filing a motion
for summary judgment. On March 26, 1980, the
Regional Attorney received a letter from Lloyd
Haynes, Respondent's president, containing the fol-
l A prior complaint had issued on July 16. 1979 (Case 17 CA-9003)
On October 9. 1979, the Regional Director approved a settlement agree-
ment entered into by Respondent on October 10, 1979 By letter dated
January 17. 1980. the Regional Director withdrex his approval of the
settlement agreement because Respondent had failed to comply with the
terms of such agreement
250 NLRB No. 172
1369
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lowing statement: "I protest that all allegations
filed in this complaint are false." Further attempts
by Board agents were made to contact Lloyd
Haynes by telephone on March 26, 1980, to inquire
whether Respondent intended to submit an answer
which comports with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, Section 102.20, but the calls were not an-
swered. Respondent has not filed an answer to said
complaint which comports with the Board's Rules
and Regulations. On March 27, 1980, Lloyd
Haynes called a Board agent and stated that no
representative of Respondent would be present for
the hearing scheduled for April 8, 1980. No answer
which comports with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations having been filed, counsel for the General
Counsel, on April 7, 1980, filed a Motion to Trans-
fer Proceeding to the Board and for Summary
Judgment. On April 10, 1980, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
a Notice To Show Cause. There has been no
answer by Respondent to the Notice To Show
Cause. Therefore, the allegations of the Motion for
Summary Judgment stand uncontroverted.
In view of Respondent's failure to file an answer
which comports with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, and no other good cause having been
shown therefor, the uncontroverted allegations of
the complaint are deemed admitted and are found
to be true. Accordingly, we grant the Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Lloyd's Laundry & Dry Cleaning, a sole propri-
etorship, with its principal place of business at 1305
Cottage, Independence, Missouri, was at all times
material herein, engaged in the operation of a laun-
dry and dry cleaning facility. Respondent, in the
course and conduct of its business operations
within the State of Missouri, annually purchases
and sells goods and services which are valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from and directly to cus-
tomers located outside the State of Missouri, as
well as to customers located within the State of
Missouri, who satisfy the Board's direct jurisdic-
tional standards. Respondent's annual gross volume
of business at the facility exceeds $500,000.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer 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.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Workers
International Union, Local No. 2 is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees of Respondent engaged at the
facility in the preparation of processing of ap-
parel or accessories, or machinery or equip-
ment, including drycleaning machine opera-
tors, head washmen, washroom helpers, bushel
persons, and all other employees, but EXCLUD-
ING executive, non-working superintendents,
office and clerical employees, bookkeeping and
sales control employees, watchmen, telephone,
stenographic, addressographic, multigraphic
and casual employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
B. The Representative Status of the Union
Since about 1956, Respondent and the Union
have been parties to successive collective-bargain-
ing agreements, the latest agreement being in effect
from March 31, 1975, through April 1, 1978,
wherein Respondent recognized and bargained
with Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Work-
ers International Union, Local No. 2, as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the above-described unit. The Union has
been the representative of a majority of the em-
ployees of Respondent in said unit and, by virtue
of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and now is,
the exclusive representative of all the employees in
said unit.
C. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about May 16, 1979, Re-
spondent, through its agent Lloyd Haynes, with-
drew its recognition of Laundry, Dry Cleaning &
Dye House Workers International Union, Local
No. 2, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the above-described
unit. Since that date, and at all times thereafter, Re-
spondent has refused to bargain with the Union re-
garding the terms and conditions of employment of
said employees.
1370
LLOYD'S LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since May 16, 1979, and at all times thereafter, re-
fused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respond-
ent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom, and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
We shall order that Respondent cease and desist
from withdrawing its recognition of the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the aforementioned appropriate
bargaining unit. Affirmatively, we shall order that
Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively
with the Union as the exclusive representative of
all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an un-
derstanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement.
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Lloyd's Laundry & Dry Cleaning is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Dye House Work-
ers International Union, Local No. 2, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. All employees of Respondent engaged at the
facility in the preparation or processing of apparel
or accessories, or machinery or equipment, includ-
ing drycleaning machine operators, head washmen,
washroom, helpers, bushel persons, and all other
employees, but excluding executives, nonworking
superintendents, office and clerical employees,
bookkeeping and sales control employees, watch-
men, telephone, stenographic, addressographic,
multigraphic and casual employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since about 1956 the above-named labor orga-
nization has been and now is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the aforesaid appropri-
ate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By withdrawing its recognition of the above-
named labor organization on or about May 16,
1979, and at all times thereafter, as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the above-described unit, Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Lloyd's Laundry & Dry Cleaning, Independence,
Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively by with-
drawing its recognition of Laundry, Dry Cleaning
& Dye House Workers International Union, Local
No. 2, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees of Respondent engaged at the
facility in the preparation of processing of ap-
parel or accessories, or machinery or equip-
ment, including drycleaning machine opera-
tors, head washmen, washroom helpers, bushel
persons, and all other employees, but EXClIUD-
ING executive, non-working superintendents,
office and clerical employees, bookkeeping and
sales control employees, watchmen, telephone,
stenographic, addressographic, multigraphic
and casual employees, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
1371
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understand-
ing in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its facility in Independence, Missouri,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 2
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 17, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
2 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
by withdrawing recognition of Laundry, Dry
Cleaning & Dye House Workers International
Union, Local No. 2, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All our employees engaged at the facility in
the preparation or processing of apparel or
accessories, or machinery or equipment, in-
cluding drycleaning machine operators, head
washmen, washroom helpers, bushel per-
sons, and all other employees, but EXCLUD-
ING executives, nonworking superintendents,
office and clerical employees, bookkeeping
and sales control employees, watchmen,
telephone, stenographic, addressographic,
multigraphic and casual employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
LLOYD'S LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING
1372