New York Laundry

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1470 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC., D/B/A NEW YORK
LAUNDRY and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
No. 337, AFL
Case No. 10-CA-557.-Decided September 19, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On June 14, 1949, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com-
plaint, and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.:'
The Board 2 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
Intermediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner, except insofar as they are inconsistent herewith.
We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the evi-
dence suports a finding of illegal surveillance by management repre-
sentatives during the 4-day period before May 26, 1948. Union
Organizer Stanley, on whose testimony the Trial Examiner primarily
relies, testified that on the evening of a scheduled union meeting during
the last week of May, employees Youngblood and Johnson reported
1 No exception was filed to the Trial Examiner ' s finding that the discharge of Daisy Mae
Youngblood was not discriminatory.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the Board has dele-
gated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog
and Members Reynolds and Gray].
85 N. L. R. B., No. 227.
1470
NEW YORK LAUNDRY, INC. 14711
to him at the Labor Temple, located at 808 Main Street, that "the
bosses were outside." He offered no direct evidence of any incidents
of surveillance during this period. Youngblood and Johnson testi-
fied that they saw management representatives in front of 808 Main
Street and that it was with respect to that location. that they reported
surveillance to Stanley. But the record clearly shows that the Union
changed its headquarters from 808 to 920 Main Street on April 8,
1948. In his later testimony, Stanley stated that he had referred to
a meeting held at 920 Main Street. In view of this confused testi-
mony, which is the only evidence respecting alleged surveillance during
the last week in May, we deem the evidence insufficient to warrant a
finding of illegal conduct under this allegation of the complaint.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the complaint to that extent.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, New York Steam
Laundry, Inc., d/b/a New York Laundry, Jacksonville, Florida, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation
and activities ; threatening and warning its employees to refrain from
assisting, becoming, or remaining members of Laundry Workers In-
ternational Union, Local No. 337, AFL, or any other labor organiza-
tion ; and threatening to close its plant or to convert it into a warehouse
if the employees voted for the Union;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist Laundry Workers International
Union, Local No. 337, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bar-
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and
all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3)
of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Post at its plant at Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the notice
attached hereto marked "Appendix A." 3 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
having been duly signed by the Respondent, be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty
(60) consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
AND IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects the complaint
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union
affiliation and activities; threaten or warn our employees to re-
frain from assisting, becoming, or remaining members of LAUN-
DRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 337, AFL, or
any other labor organization; or threaten to close our plant or to
convert it into a warehouse if the employees vote for the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named union or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all of such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
I In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Ap-
peals, there shall be inserted in the notice before the words : "A DECISION AND ORDER,"
the words : "A DECREE OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
NEW YORK LAUNDRY, INC. 1473
organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC.,
D/B/A NEW YORK LAUNDRY,
Employer.
By: ---------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated --------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
Mr. James W. Mackle, for the General Counsel.
Mr. I. Walter Fisher, of Atlanta, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. W. H. Stanley, of Jacksonville, Fla., for the union.
0
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a second amended charge filed March 18, 1949, by Laundry Workers
International Union, Local No. 337, AFL, herein called the union, the General
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board 1 by the Regional Director for the
Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated March 18, 1949,
against New York Steam Laundry, Inc., d/b/a New York Laundry, of Jackson-
ville, Florida, herein called the respondent, alleging that respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act as amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
complaint, the charge, and the notice of hearing were duly served on the re-
spondent and the union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
(1) that from about May 22, 1948, and since, the respondent in the operation of its
business, the New York Laundry, by its officers, agents, and employees, more par-
ticularly by Thomas M. Woodell, T. C. Allin (as amended at the hearing), G. A.
Geiger, C. F. Padgett, Mabel Pickett, and A. R. Henderson, and in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, had interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by the fol-
lowing acts : interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliations and
activities ; threatening and warning its employees to refrain from assisting, be-
coming members of, or remaining members of the union ; admonishing applicants
for jobs not to join the union because certain employees who had done so had
been laid off; threatening the employees that the laundry would be closed down
before the union would be permitted to come into the plant ; and spying upon and
keeping under surveillance union meetings and activities; and (2) that in viola-
tion of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) respondent on or about July 10, 1948 (as
amended at the hearing), discharged Daisy Mae Youngblood and thereafter failed
and refused to reinstate her because of her union membership and activities,
'The General Counsel and his representatives are herein referred to as the General
Counsel, and the National Labor Relations Board as the Board.
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thereby discriminating in regard to her hire and tenure of employment in order
to discourage membership in the union.
On April 7, 1949, respondent filed its answer which, aside from admitting its
existence as a corporation, constituted a general denial of the allegations of the
complaint.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on April 12, 13, and 14, 1949, at
Jacksonville, Florida, before the undersigned Trial Examiner designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The General Counsel and the respondent were represented
by counsel and the union by a representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence pertinent to the
issues was afforded all parties.
As the hearing opened the General Counsel moved for a judgment on the
pleadings on the ground that respondent's answer had not been filed within 10
days of the service of the complaint as required by Section 203.20 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations. The motion was denied. The General Counsel thereupon
Loved to strike the answer on the ground that it was not sworn to by a duly
authorized agent "with the appropriate power of attorney affirmed," 2 as re-
quired by Section 203.21. of said Rules and Regulations. The respondent was
given leave to add instanter on the record a verification by its vice president,
T. Al. Woodell, and the motion was thereupon denied.
The General Counsel also filed his motion for a bill of particulars to require
the respondent to state affirmatively whether Daisy Mae Youngblood "was dis-
charged, laid off, or fired for cause and the reason therefor." Said motion was
denied, but in a prehearing conference held under Section 203.35 (g) of the
Rules and Regulations the respondent orally amplified the general denial of its
answer to aver the cause of the discharge as follows : "The services of the par-
ticular employee were not satisfactory. It was felt that her continued em-
ployment was not for the best interests of the Company."
Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
respondent's motion to exclude the witnesses from the hearing room, made after
a witness had been sworn and had begun testifying, were also denied.
At the close of the hearing the General Counsel's motion to conform the
pleadings to the proof as to the spelling of names, dates, and so forth, was granted
without objection. The parties were afforded an opportunity to make oral
argument and file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
An oral argument was made by the General Counsel. A brief has been received
from the respondent.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
New York Steam Laundry , Inc., is a Florida_ corporation and is a nonoperating
parent corporation which owns and controls through its board of directors the
following businesses : New York Laundry, Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaners, and Do-,
mestic Laundry. It does not do business in its own name although it establishes
the over-all operating policies of its three companies, each of which is under
2 The answer had been signed and sworn to by respondent's counsel of record herein but
no power of attorney was attached.
NEW YORK LAUN DRY, INC. 1475
the direction of a general manager who is appointed by the board of directors
and is an officer of the parent corporation.
New York Laundry, with which the present proceeding is concerned, is
engaged in the wholesale and retail processing of laundry and in addition acts
as a soliciting agent for Arrow Zorric Dry Cleaners which pays it a commission
on a volume basis. Its wholesale department processes laundry for railroads,
the Pullman Company, hotels, rooming houses, and a wholesale linen service.
None of this work is delivered outside the State of Florida.
New York Laundry's annual gross sales in 1948 were $689,334, of which
$109,711 was derived from sales to the railroads and Pullman Company, and
approximately $19,000, from sales to hotels and rooming houses.
During the same year the New York Laundry made purchases of approxi-
mately $50,000 in value, of which approximately 5 percent was purchased outside
the State of Florida. At the present time it is not making purchases from
outside the State.
This proceeding involves the same business which the Board considered in
the representation proceeding against the respondent (original decision, 80
N. L. R. B. 4; Supplemental Decision, SO N. L. R. B. 1597; Second Supplemental
Decision, 81 N. L. R. B. 591),3 except that the complaint herein is expressly
limited to the operations of New York Laundry.
It is found, contrary to respondent's contention, that respondent is engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Laundry Workers International Union, Local No. 337, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background; the supervisors
The operations of New York Laundry (hereinafter called Laundry) were
managed by T. M. Woodell, as general manager (and a vice president of re-
spondent), and by T. C. Allin, as superintendent. It was stipulated that they
and G. A. Geiger, C. F. Padgett, Cary M. Bundy, and L. G. Gilbert were
supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.`
Issues whether Mabel Pickett and Sarah Price (frequently referred to in the
record as Sarah Sacks) were supervisors will be resolved preliminarily. The
evidence is not in substantial conflict that both were foreladies over sizable
departments;' they had authority, under certain circumstances, to hire and fire
and to discipline employees, and they had authority generally to effectively
recommend such action ; they assigned employees to their tasks, shifted them
3 The Board takes judicial knowledge of such prior proceedings. Matter of M. L. Town-
send, 81 N. L. R. B. 739.
4It was also stipulated that W. H. Fuller and A. R. Henderson were supervisors of
Arrow Zorric Cleaners. Arrow Zorric occupied a physically separated plant located across
a 25 or 30 foot alley from the Laundry. The evidence is not in conflict that the managerial
and supervisory staffs and the personnel of the two concerns were entirely separate and
distinct.
5 Pickett , for example , was forelady over a group of approximately 22 pressers and
ironers.
857829-50--vol. 85-94
:1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from one job to another, and gave them their orders. It is clear from the evi-
dence that Pickett and Price had, and exercised, authority responsibly to direct
the employees under their supervision and that the exercise of their authority
required the use of independent judgment. It is therefore concluded and found
that Pickett and Price were supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of
the Act.
Respondent's foremen had summary authority to hire and fire as they saw fit
without prior clearance from their own superiors in the managerial hierarchy.
This was because quarrels were not infrequent ; e thus Geiger testified without
contradiction that "squabbles" arose from time to time among the laborers, and
that it was the usual policy or rule to fire one or more of the participants because
"once they start trouble, it don't get over with. You know they carry it on."
Union activity began in January 1948, and frequent meetings were held with
respondent's employees at night and on Sundays at the union hall. Prior to April
8, the meetings were held at the Labor Temple located at 808 Main Street, but
on that date the union moved to the Carpenters' Hall located at 920 Main Street.
The evidence establishes that Main Street was a widely traveled thoroughfare
in the city of Jacksonville (population 173,065; 1940 census) and that the union
halls were located within the business district and only a few blocks from the
main business and shopping center of the city of Jacksonville.
B. Surveillance
The General Counsel offered the testimony of a number of witnesses to sub-
stantiate the charge that respondent's officers and agents had spied on and kept
under surveillance union meetings of its employees beginning in February 1948.
By far the greater bulk of such testimony related to meetings at 808 Main Street
(prior to April 8).' Such evidence established that on frequent occasions during
meetings at night as well as during day meetings on Sunday, Allin, Padgett, and
Geiger, either singly or in pairs, had been observed parked on Main Street directly
across from or near the entrance of the Labor Temple.8
Padgett did not testify. Geiger and Allin admitted their presence in the
vicinity of the union hall on occasions at night and on Sunday but endeavored to
justify their presence by their alleged patronage of various business establish-
ments (drug store, package store, automobile showroom, household furnishings)
in the vicinity. They also denied knowledge that union meetings were in progress
and denied any intention to spy upon the meetings.
The undersigned concludes and finds that there were too many of such inci-
dents to be explained away by the excuses offered by respondent's witnesses,
particularly since the union meetings were held at times when most of the busi-
ness establishments were closed.9 It is also of significance that the surveillance
use
Woodell testified that the policy was established because of "the class of help" that was
d.
a The period prior to May 22, 1948, was, of course, outside the period covered by the com-
plaint. Although the respondent did not object to such evidence, the General Counsel
conceded that since the original charge had been filed on November 22, 1948, the complaint
could not, in view of the provisions of Section 10 (b) of the Act, be based on any acts
prior to May 22, 1948, and stated that the testimony was offered as relevant only on back-
ground and motive.
S These findings are based on the testimony of W. H. Stanley, Daisy Mae Youngblood,
Claudia Mae Youngblood, Aron Johnson, Hattie Robinson, and Rachel Wright.
'The General Counsel offered evidence that on at least one occasion A. R. Henderson,
assistant to W. H. Fuller, the general manager of Arrow Zorric, was observed in the
vicinity. Respondent's evidence establishes, however, that Henderson's duties in connec-
NEW YORK LAUNDRY, INC. 1477
stopped abruptly after Stanley's complaint to Woodell on May 31, next
referred to.
Stanley testified to other incidents of surveillance which occurred after the
removal of the union hall to 920 Main Street, as late as the meeting on the night
of May 26, 1948; that as a result he complained to Woo dell on or about May 31;
that Woodell disclaimed knowledge of such activities on the part of his staff but
assured Stanley that they would be stopped. Although Stanley also testified at
first that he believed he saw some of the respondent's officials in the vicinity of
920 Main Street during June, July, and August, he later testified definitely that
he did not see any of them after his complaint to Woodell.3°
On the evidence in the record as a whole the undersigned concludes and finds
that surveillance of union meetings continued through the meeting of May 26,
1948, but that the evidence is insufficient to establish that surveillance continued
thereafter. It is therefore found that from May 22, 1948, through May 26, 1948,
respondent, through its officers and agents, T. C. Allin, G. A. Geiger, and C. F.
Padgett, spied on and kept under surveillance union meetings and activities, and
that by said acts, respondent engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
0. The discharge of Daisy Mae Youngblood
Daisy Mae Youngblood was discharged on July 10, 1948. The facts are not
in substantial dispute. Youngblood had been employed for over 20 years and
for some time prior to her discharge had worked at folding flat work. She had
been a steady worker and had been praised for her work and never criticized.
Her foreman for about 2 years had been Cary M. Bundy, who was unaware of her
length of service. Bundy had authority to hire and file without reporting to or
obtaining clearance from his superior, Geiger.
For a few months Youngblood had folded linen from a machine which was
being fed by Bernice Jones. According to Jones, Youngblood had "fussed" at
her often and, about 2 or 3 weeks before the discharge, had become outspokenly
critical of the manner in which Jones was feeding the linen into the machine,
and had threatened to fire her or have her fired. Youngblood admitted criti-
cizing Jones about her work. Jones made at least three reports to Bundy that
Youngblood was threatening to have her fired on account of the manner in which
.she was feeding the machine and that Youngblood was not satisfied with the way
the plant was being operated.
Bundy himself checked the manner in which Jones was feeding the linen into
the machine and the manner in which it was going through and found that
tion with Independent Cleaners (the management of which was affiliated with Arrow
:Zorric), which occupied premises adjoining the union hall, justified his presence in the
vicinity. Furthermore, Henderson had no connection with New York Laundry and no
acquaintance with its employees. It is therefore found that the evidence as a whole
-does not support the General Counsel's contention that Henderson engaged in surveillance.
"Ruth Bullard testified to a single occasion when on her way to a union meeting she
saw Geiger driving slowly along Main Street in the 900 block "looking toward the union
hall." Her testimony was quite vague as to the time of the incident. At first she testi-
fied it occurred "some time during the spring" but she didn't know what month ; later that
it was "about the first of the month" in which she was fired (July 12, 1948) ; and then
that it was 2 or 3 days before the discharge. She finally settled on July 10. Her testimony
is without corroboration and is not credited in view of its vague and shifting nature.
Furthermore, even if accepted at face value it is insufficient to establish that Geiger was
-engaged in surveillance on the occasion.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jones was feeding the machine properly and in accordance with his instructions.
However, he did not discuss the matter with Youngblood until after the third
report by Jones: L'undy then called Youngblood in and summarily discharged
her saying that he had heard all around the plant that she was not satisfied with
the way the place was being operated and that "this will have to be the end"
between them.
Bundy did not discuss the contemplated discharge in advance with Geiger or
with any other superior or official. Bundy testified that he had no knowledge of
Youngblood's union membership and Youngblood admitted she had never in-
formed Bundy she was a member.
Youngblood had, however, attended a number of union meetings which, as
found above, had been kept under surveillance down to May 26 by Allin, Geiger,
and Padgett. Youngblood also testified that in June 1948, Bundy had questioned
her about her interest in the union and about attending union meetings, as more
fully recounted under Section D, infra. Bundy denied that testimony.
As further evidence of respondent's general disposition and motive, the Gen-
eral Counsel offered testimony that respondent had discharged the five follow-
ing employees for alleged discriminatory reasons:
Aron Johnson, April 10, 1948.
Claudia Mae Youngblood, May 19, 1948.
Rachel Wright, May 19, 1948.
Ruth Bullard, July 12, 1948.
Callie Mae Gibbs, March 7, 1949.
To support his position that the additional discharges were because of union
activities, the General Counsel pointed to evidence that the dischargees "were
all union members of various degrees of activity on behalf of the union and
were either questioned as to union activity by the foremen or supervisors of
the company and were observed in the vicinity of the union hall." There is
evidence which supports the quoted statement in a general way, but as a whole
the evidence furnishes an insubstantial basis for inferring a discriminatory
motive (cf. Matter of Texas Company; SO N. L. It. B. 862; Matter of National Lime
and Stone Company, 70 N. L. R. B. 637).
First, the evidence establishes that there was a seasonal decline in the Laun-
dry's business, usually in April and May of each year, coincident with the end
of the tourist season, and that a corresponding lay-off of employees was custom-
arily made. In 1947 the adjustment had been made by abolishing a night shift.
% 'The General Counsel 's position on these discharges was shifting and somewhat uncer-
tain. Thus, though it was contended that all of the discharges were on account of union
activity , it was explained that they were not included in the complaint nor litigated as
violations of Section 8 (a) (3) "because charges were not filed on their behalf until the
statute of limitations [ Section 10 ( b)] had run." However , the evidence establishes that
no charge was filed on behalf of Johnson, Wright , Bullard, or Gibbs, either within or without
the statutory period. Yet Bullard's discharge on July 12, 1948, was well within the statu-
tory period when the original charge was filed on November 22, 1948, and the first amended
charge on January 4, 1949 . Furthermore, Gibbs was not discharged until March 7, 1949;
yet no charge was filed on her behalf and no offer was made to amend the complaint to
litigate her discharge as a violation of Section 8 (a) (3).
At first the General Counsel had also contended that the evidence surrounding the dis-
charges also supported the allegations of the complaint which charged violations of Section
8 (a) (1), but that position was abandoned and the position finally taken was that the
evidence was offered and was relevant only as background and "to show motive in the
discharge of Daisy Youngblood." It is considered herein for that purpose.
NEW YORK LAU DRY, INC. 1479
The 1948 reduction was accomplished as follows : On April 10, 1948, Aron John-
son'2 was laid off for the asserted reason that work had fallen off. On May 19,
1948, there was a general lay-off of eight employees in the wholesale department ;
two other employees in other departments were laid off the following week,
and two other employees quit voluntarily"
It is concluded and found that the lay-offs of Johnson, Wright, and Claudia Mae
Youngblood were occasioned by the seasonal decline of business and were not
motivated by the union activities of the employees as contended by the General
Counsel.
Bullard was allegedly discharged July 12, 1948. Reference has already been
made to her vague testimony to an incident of alleged surveillance which she
finally fixed as 2 days before her discharge. She attempted to relate that incident
to her discharge, claiming that in discharging her Pickett had made reference
to her attending union meetings. Bullard's testimony is not corroborated by
other evidence and is denied in all important details by Pickett. It is considered
unnecessary to summarize their testimony in detail. Among other things, Price.
testified that Bullard had quit voluntarily as a result of an altercation with
another employee. Much of Dullard's testimony is consistent with the view
that if she was in fact discharged it was because of that altercation. The
remainder of Bullard's testimony is not credited. It is therefore found that
the evidence does not support the General Counsel's contention that Bullard was
discharged for union activities.
'Gibbs was discharged on March 7, 1.949. She was 20 minutes late for work
one morning because she was sick. Pickett told her to return home and come to
work the next Monday. Gibbs was ill for 2 weeks. In the meantime she sent
a note to the plant for her pay envelope, explaining that she was sick. When
she returned to work Pickett told her she could not use her but did not say why.
There is no evidence that Gibbs was a union member or that she had engaged in
union activities. It is found that the evidence does not support the General
Counsel's contention that Gibbs' discharge was because of her union membership
or activities.
It has been found that the evidence fails to support the General Counsel' s posi-
tion that the discharges of Johnson, Wright, Bullard, Gibbs, and Claudia Mae
Youngblood were based on discriminatory motives. That evidence, relied upon
by the General Counsel to support his contention that the discharge of Daisy Mae
Youngblood was likewise motivated by discriminatory reasons, therefore becomes
without weight or relevance on the latter issue. The question remains whether
the evidence relating directly to Youngblood's discharge as summarized above
affords a substantial basis from which a discriminatory motive is reasonably to
be inferred (Matter of Texas Company, supra).
It is established that Youngblood was an active union member and that re-
spondent , through surveillance by Allin, Padgett, and Geiger , was aware that
she was attending union meetings . It is also found in Section D, infra, that in
the month of June, Bundy questioned Youngblood about her union membership
and her attendance at union meetings, but that Youngblood denied both . Perti-
"The only evidence from which a discriminatory motive may be inferred in his case was
Johnson's testimony that on one occasion he had observed Padgett and Geiger parked on
Main Street in the vicinity of the union hall at the time of a union meeting.
. " Claudia Mae Youngblood and Rachel Wright were among those laid off on May 19.
It is significant that no contention is made that the lay-off of any of the other eight em-
ployees was based on discriminatory motives.
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nent also are Youngblood's record as a steady and efficient worker and the fact-
that Youngblood was fired without previous warning, though three complaints
had been made to Bundy about her provocative actions. Equally pertinent are the
facts that respondent had clothed its foremen with authority to deal summarily
with trouble makers, that Bundy himself was without knowledge of Youngblood's
union activities or membership, and that he acted solely on his own initiative
and did not discuss or clear the matter with any of his superiors.
Indeed, it is plain that had respondent entertained the disposition or motive-
to discharge Youngblood for her union activities and had wanted a good excuse,.
it would not have waited until the month of July. Thus, respondent had knowl-
edge of Youngblood's union activities earlier than April 8, and consequently, the
general lay-off on May 19 would have furnished it the desired excuse to get
rid of her.
The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that the evidence as a whole
does not establish the allegations of the complaint that the respondent discharged.
Daisy Mae Youngblood because of her union membership and activities. It will.
therefore be recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it charges
that respondent violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
D. Other interference, restraint, and coercion
The General Counsel offered the testimony of a number of witnesses as to^
coercive and intimidatory statements made by Woodell, Allin, Pickett, and
Bundy." Some of such testimony related to a period antedating that covered by
the complaint and was offered by the General Counsel only as background and
as bearing on the question of respondent's motivation. Since the earlier state-
ments were similar in character and content to those made within the litigated
period, they are considered as relevant for the purposes offered and will be
briefly summarized:
Daisy Mae Youngblood testified that in the early spring of 1948, Allin made
a speech about the union in which he referred to the presence of a union or-
ganizer outside of the plant and stated that no one could come in and tell him
how to run the plant and that there wasn't going to be a union.
Rachel Wright testified that about 2 weeks before she was laid off (May 19,
1948), Allin asked her how she got "messed up with the union." She also testified
that shortly before she was laid off Allin made a speech in which he said that
before they'd have a union in the laundry they would turn it into something else,
some kind of a warehouse.'
14 Respondent's objection was sustained as to questions put to Daisy Paige, an. employee
of Arrow Zorric, concerning coercive statements made to her by W. H. Fuller, manager
of Arrow Zorric and a stockholder and director of New York Steam Laundry, Inc., on the
ground that the proffered evidence would not come within the allegations of the com-
plaint absent as showing that the statements in question could in some manner be related
to or connected with the New York Laundry and its employees. An offer of proof was
permitted. Neither by said offer nor by other evidence did the General Counsel attempt
to connect the alleged statements to the operations or the employees of New York Laundry
or to show that said statements were communicated or intended to be communicated to
the employees of the latter business. Cf. Matter of Parkside Hotel, 74 N. L. it. B. 809;
Matter of Wingert Contracting Company, Inc., 72 N. L. it. B . 244; Matter of M. Snower &
Company, 83 N. L. it. B. 290.
15 Hattie Robinson , Aron Johnson, and Claudia Mae Youngblood also testified to other
statements made by Allin and by Woodell during the earlier period, but none of such
statements were of coercive effect.
NEW YORK LAUNDRY, INC. 148r.
Testimony concerning the litigated period will now be summarized :
Daisy Mae Youngblood testified that in June 1948, Bundy came to her and.
said, "Daisy, I want to know how deep you are in this union?" She disclaimed
any knowledge of the union. He asked her if she attended the meetings. She-
denied that she did. He referred to various favors that he had done for her
and added, "As far as I can hear and know, there's not going to be a union.
All I can tell you is if you want to be in a union you will have to go where
a union is." Youngblood also testified that on other occasions Bundy had come-
around during working hours and asked her and other employees if they at--
tended the union meetings and if they got letters from the union.
Bundy denied that he had ever discussed the Union with Youngblood.
Ruth Bullard testified to a conversation with Pickett at the time she was al-
legedly discharged on July 12, 1948, in which among other things Pickett askedi
her, "Do you go to the union?" Pickett denied making the inquiry. Bullard's
testimony is not credited for reasons which have already been stated.
Callie Mae Gibbs testified that sometime in January 1949, before the election,.
she had a conversation with Pickett about the union in which Pickett said, "You
may see some of the union men out there when you go out. They have car[d]s,
out there, If they give you any cards, don't take them and if you take them,.
bring them to me."
Rosalie Jones testified that the week before the election, Pickett told her
she had heard that Jones had been going around trying to get the girls to join
the union and that if Jones did it again Pickett would fire her."
Pickett expressly denied Jones' testimony. She made no reference to Gibbs'
testimony but did make the general denial that she had discussed the union with
any employees other than supervisors.
It will be observed that according to the witnesses for the General Counsel,
Allin, Bundy, and Pickett were pursuing parallel courses of antiunion action (cf..
Matter of Macon Textiles, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1525). It is true that the supervi-
sors involved entered a general denial of the statements and incidents. How-
ever, the cumulative weight of the testimony, especially when viewed in the light
of respondent's antiunion attitude as indicated by the earlier background of
similar statements and particularly by the subsequent statements made by
Woodell and Allin shortly before the election (next referred to), convinces the
undersigned, and it is so found, that Allin, Bundy, and Pickett made the state-
ments in substantial form as testified to by the General Counsel's witnesses.
The evidence surrounding the preelection speeches and statements is now sum-
marized. It establishes that a day or two before the election in January 1949,
Woodell made at least two speeches to the employees in the different departments
of the plant and that Allin followed him with talks of his own. Respondent in-
troduced in evidence a typewritten copy of the speech from which Woodell read;
it contained nothing of a coercive character. However, Woodell did not contend
that he adhered strictly to the letter of the written speech 17 It is also undis-
puted that after Woodell finished speaking Allin addressed the employees extem-
poraneously.
" There is no evidence that respondent had any rule forbidding the solicitation of union,
membership.
"Respondent's witness Pickett also testified that Woodell "explained" his speech after'
he finished reading it.
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As might be expected under these circumstances, the evidence is in conflict as
to what was said and by whom. Witnesses for the General Counsel testified to
various statements by Woodell and Allin on the occasion as summarized below :
T. M. Woodell
Sarah Price testified that Woodell stated among other things that "if the
union came in, if we were late in the morning, we would be docked for it or
wouldn't be allowed to get anything to eat and lots of times employees left be-
fore the time and got breakfast and no one objected ... to them going out and
getting a bite of something to eat. Before he'd let the union come in and tell him
what to do, he could-he didn't say he would-close the plant up and still live,
but lots of them he thought couldn't do that."
Hattie Robinson testified that Woodell said he didn't want the union and that
"he'd close the place down and turn it into a warehouse or something."
Gertrude Cross testified that after referring to the impending election Woodell
Stated among other things that he could turn the laundry into something else
and that "If I do that, what will become of you all?"
T. C. Allin
Callie Mae Gibbs" testified that after Woodell spoke Allin made a talk about
the union in which he said among other things that the employees should "look
well" before they voted in the election ; that "You know you've got a job. You
know when you get up Monday morning you've got [a] job, but when the union
gets here you don't know whether you've got a job or not."
Gertrude Cross did not hear all of Allin's speech but testified on cross-examina-
tion that she was sure he did not say anything about turning the laundry into
a warehouse."
Sarah Price testified that Allin referred only to what Woodell had said and
added that he did not have very much that he could say that was any different
to it. Price also testified that the day before the election she had a conversation
with Allin regarding her eligibility to vote, during which Allin quoted Woodell
as saying that before he would have a union in the laundry, he would close up
the place and have a warehouse there. Allin's testimony was not in substantial
conflict with Price's, except he contended that what he said was that if he were in
Woodell's place he would "close the durn place and turn it into something that
would require only two or three employees."
Respondent offered the testimony of a number of witnesses 20 each of whom
testified to having heard a speech by Woodell or by Allin shortly before the elec-
tion. They testified generally to statements that were not of a coercive nature,
and testified that they heard no statement with reference to closing the laundry
or turning it into a warehouse.
In some instances, however, their testimony supported that of the General
Counsel's witnesses. Allin's admission of the conversation with Price has been
11 Callie Mae Gibbs testified to no statements by Woodell which were of a coercive nature.
However, she was not questioned as to whether she recalled specifically the statements
above summarized.
19 There is no testimony by General Counsel's witnesses that any such remark was made
by Allin on that occasion, though such a remark was attributed to Woodell.
20 Madeline Jones, Janie Miller, Alice Brooks, Cornelia Rice, Pickett, and Geiger (plus
Woodell and Allin themselves).
NEW YORK LAU\DRY, INC. 1483
referred to. In addition Madeline Jones testified that among other things
Woodell informed the employees that "It didn't make any difference with him"
how they voted "because lie would be able to live without the laundry." On
questioning by the Trial Examiner about that statement, her testimony was to
similar effect : that Woodell stated that the employees were free to vote either
way ; that he could live whether they voted for the union or against it; and that
he "would be able to live on and on and he could get him a job somewhere. else."
[Italics supplied.]
The following general observations can be made after a consideration and
comparison of the testimony of the witnesses for both parties :
1. Woodell did not adhere to the text of the written speech. This is estab-
lished as well by respondent's witnesses as by the General Counsel's.
2. The testimony of the witnesses is in conflict as to what was said by both
Woodell and Allin and such conflict exists even as between the witnesses for the
same party.
3. The conflicts are largely explainable by the following facts: (a) the falli-
bility of human recollection; (b) at least two separate speeches were made in
different departments of the plant; (c) Allin's extemporaneous statements and
Woodell's interpolations or explanations may well have varied on the different
occasions ; (d) the evidence does not establish clearly that witnesses whose
testimony appears to be in conflict with each other necessarily heard the same
speech; (e) Woodell and Allin had also made speeches early in 1948, and there
is the distinct probability that in some instances the witnesses confused the
earlier with the later speeches.
4. It is improbable that the summary by any single witness of the content of
the speeches was entirely accurate.
Considering such testimony as a whole, however, it is concluded and found
that the speeches by Woodell and Allin did contain both express and implied
threats that the laundry would be closed if the union came in. There are the
express statements by Woodell, as testified to by Price, Robinson, and Cross,
that the laundry would be closed, or converted into some other business,' coupled
with statements that Woodell himself could still continue to live, though express-
ing concern whether the employees could. Testimony as to the latter statements
received significant support from respondent's witness, Madeline Jones, whose
testimony reflected the threat, clearly implied by Woodell, that if the union won
the election, Woodell would take a job elsewhere and thereby live "without the
laundry."
Witnesses for both parties agreed that Allin gave his general endorsement to
Woodell's statements. In addition, Gibbs' testimony (which is credited) con-
tains an implied threat by Allin that a vote for the union would jeopardize con-
tinued employment.
It is therefore concluded and found that Woodell and Allin in their said.
speeches threatened that the laundry would be closed if the union came into the
plant. By said acts and statements respondent engaged in interference, restraint,
and coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
21 Allin ' s conversation with Price supports the view that this was actually management's
attitude toward the union ; and such attitude was obviously known among the employees.
Earlier evidence of such attitude and of the employees ' knowledge of it is contained in
the background testimony of statements by Allin prior to May 22 , 1948 . These findings
make it unnecessary to resolve the question whether Price communicated to employees
Allin 's statements to her concerning his or Woodell's attitude toward the union.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. It has also been found above that Bundy and Pickett interrogated employees
concerning their union affiliation and activities ; that they warned employees to
refrain from engaging in union activities ; and. that Pickett threatened and
warned employees to refrain from assisting, becoming members of, or remaining
members of the union. Such statements do not fall within the protected areas
,of Section 8 (c). It is therefore found that by said acts and statements, re-
spondent engaged in interference, restraint, and coercion in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
It is found that the evidence does not sustain the allegations of the complaint
that respondent has admonished applicants for jobs not to join the union because
certain employees who had done so had been laid off.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the respondent set out in Section III hereof,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in
Section I hereof, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
.and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
Its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under Section 7, in vio-
lation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, it will be recommended that the respondent
-cease and desist from the practices found to have been illegal and from any like
or related practices, and that the respondent take certain affirmative action
-designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Since it has been found that respondent did not discriminatorily discharge or
refuse to reinstate Daisy Mae Youngblood, it will be recommended that the
complaint be dismissed in that respect.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Laundry Workers International Union, Local No. 337, AF'L, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in and is
-engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3),of the Act by discharging Daisy Mae Youngblood or
by refusing to reinstate her.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the respondent, New York Steam Laundry, Inc.,
-d/b/a New York Laundry, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
NEW YORK LAUNDRY, IN C. 1485
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interrogating its employees concerning their union affiliation and ac-
tivities-; threatening and warning employees to refrain from assisting, becoming
members of or remaining members of Laundry Workers International Union,
Local No. 337, AFL, or any other labor organization ; threatening to close its
plant or to convert it into a warehouse if the union should come into the plant ;
and spying on and keeping under surveillance union meetings and activities ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related act or conduct which interferes with,
restrains, or coerces its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
.effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its plant at Jacksonville, Florida, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after having been duly signed by
respondent's representative, be posted by respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous 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 other material ; and
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing within twenty
(20) days from, the date of the service of this Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order what steps respondent has taken to comply with the foregoing
recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless the respondent shall, within twenty
(20) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order,
notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing that it will comply
with the foregoing recommendations, the National Labor Relations Board issue
an order requiring the respondent to take the action aforesaid.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondent discriminatorily discharged and failed and refused to
reinstate Daisy Mae Youngblood in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of
the Act.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, as amended August 18, 1948, any party may,
within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations,
file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C., an original and six copies of a state-
ment in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
Recommended Order or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within
the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support of the
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order. Immediately upon the filing
of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions
and briefs shall designate by precise citation the portions of the record relied
upon and shall be legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall
be double spaced. Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with
the Board shall be promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further
provided in said Section 203 .46 should any party desire permission to argue orally
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case
to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is f>ied as provided by the aforesaid.
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,.
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 14th day of June 1949.
GEORGE A. DOWNING,
Trial Examinaer..
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL E\n'I,OYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations 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 NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union affiliatiom
and activities ; threaten or warn our employees to refrain from assisting,.
becoming members of, or remaining members of LAUNDRY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL No. 337, AFL, or any other labor organization;:
threaten to close our plant or to convert it into a warehouse if the union
should come into the plant; or spy on and keep under surveillance union.
meetings and activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related act or conduct which inter-
feres with, restrains, or coerces our employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
NEW YORK STEAM LAUNDRY, INC.,
D/B/A NEW YORK LAUNDRY,
Employer.
By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
Dated------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the (late hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.