Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners & Laundries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 17, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 534 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bar. Under these circumstances, and apart from any other considera-
tions, we find, contrary to the Employer-Petitioner, that the Union
is currently demanding recognition, without regard to its majority
status, and that such a demand is sufficient to raise a question of repre-
sentation.3 We further find, in agreement with the Employer-
Petitioner's alternative position, that such question should be resolved
by an election.4
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9'(b) of the Act:5 All production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Miami, Florida, ship construction
and repair operations, including truckdrivers and leadmen, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, timekeepers, time clerks, planning
and estimating employees, draftsmen, salaried employees, plant-
protection employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
a See American Lawn Mower Co., 108 NLRB 1589, 1590.
4 After the close of the hearing , the Employer -Petitioner filed with the Board a motion
that the Board revoke the certification , or take other appropriate action to implement
Section 8 ( d) of the Act, on the ground that a majority of the prestrike employees lost
their employee status by striking in violation of Section 8(d) ; and, contingent upon
this motion being granted , the Employer -Petitioner moved to withdraw its petition herein.
At the hearing , evidence was adduced to show that the Union failed to notify the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service of its dispute with the Employer prior to calling the
strike. The contention with respect to Section 8(d) constitutes an allegation of an
unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b) (3). See Retail Clerks International
Association , Local No, 1179 , AFL (J C. Penney Company ), 109 NLRB 754 . The Em-
ployer has not filed a Section 8 ( b)(3) charge against the Union, and the Board does
not litigate unfair labor practice issues in a representation proceeding . See National
Foundry Company of New York, Inc., 109 NLRB 357. The motion to revoke the certi-
fication is , therefore , denied. Further , as this contention is irrelevant to a representation
proceeding , testimony and documents with respect thereto were erroneously admitted into
evidence by the hearing officer.
5 There is no dispute as to the appropriateness of the unit , which conforms with the
contract unit.
Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners & Laundries, Inc.' and Local Union
No. 44, Laundry & Dry Cleaning International Union, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-PC-1941. August 17, 1959
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition 2 duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Loren P. Jones, hearing of-
Herein called Employer or Association.
a Laundry , Dry Cleaners and Dye House Workers International Union, Local No. 44,
Independent , intervened on the basis of its contract covering employees in the requested
unit. In a motion filed with the Board, it seeks to have the petition dismissed on the
124 NLRB No. 64.
SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CLEANERS & LAUNDRIES, INC . 535
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 3 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer is an association composed of a group of laundry
and dry cleaning establishments in the Shreveport-Bossier area of
Louisiana. It has for a number of years bargained for its members
with the Intervenor and signed contracts on their behalf. However,
no single contract containing a multiemployer unit or recognition
clause has been negotiated. The practice has been to sign a standard
single employer agreement binding upon all its members. The most
recent agreement was negotiated in September 1957 and expires, absent
automatic renewal, in September 1959. The Intervenor contends that
this agreement is a bar to an election at the present time. The Em-
ployer takes no position on the issue, while the Petitioner contends,
inter alia, that in view of its union-security provisions the contract
cannot operate as a bar.
The contract provides in part :
(1) "That members of the Union [Intervenor] only shall be em-
ployed in said laundry or dry cleaning plant, and that they shall be
engaged through the office of the Union if possible...."
(2) That should the Intervenor not be able to supply the needed
employees, the individual employer is free to hire other persons who,
ground that the Petitioner "engaged in illegal, improper and unethical measures" to
procure its showing of interest. It is, of course, well settled that the sufficiency of a
Petitioner's showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination. We have
investigated the charges raised by the Intervenor in its motion. We do not condone the
method by which the Petitioner procured a number of its authorization cards, i.e., by
obtaining signatures on cards which were used in conjunction with a turkey raffle.
However, independently of such cards, we are administratively satisfied that the Peti-
tioner has made a proper and adequate showing of interest. Therefore, the Intervenor's
motion to dismiss on this ground is denied. !See C. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB
616.
$ The Intervenor seeks to have the petition dismissed because a "different association
of employees was substituted at the hearing . . ." for the one named in the original
petition. We find no merit in the Intervenor's position, for the alleged substitution was
in substance only an amendment of the name of the Association representing employees
in the multiemployer unit covered by the petition. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss
for the above reason is , therefore, denied. The Intervenor also moved to dismiss the
petition with respect to those employers which were not duly served with a notice of
hearing in this proceeding. It failed to specify which particular companies, if any, were
not properly served, or in what manner, if any, it was prejudiced by the alleged defects
in service. Moreover, the Association which is the designated agent of the individual
companies was properly served and appeared at the hearing. In view of the foregoing,
we find no merit in the motion to dismiss, and it is hereby denied.
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
however, must by the end of 10 days "comply with all Union regula-
tions, such as becoming a member of Local No. 44 in good standing
with all dues and initiation fee paid in full."
(3) That no person who is not a member of the Intervenor shall be
permitted to start work until he has signed a membership application
and given it to the Intervenor's steward in the plant.
This is essentially a closed-shop preferential hiring provision which
exceeds the permissive limits of union security allowed by the proviso
to Section 8 (a) (3). Accordingly, we find that the current contract
between the Employer and the Intervenor will not bar an election.4
Therefore, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a multiemployer unit including the em-
ployees of all individual employers who were active members of the
Association at the time of the hearing in this proceeding. The Em-
ployer agrees that a unit of such scope is appropriate. The Inter-
venor, though agreeing that a multiemployer unit is appropriate, con-
tends that such unit should include only those employers who were
members of the Association on February 16, 1959, the date the petition
herein was filed. As thus framed, the issue involves specifically the
inclusion in the unit of seven firms which became members of the
Association on March 9, 1959, a date falling between the filing of the
petition and holding of the hearing.
The Board will include specific employers in a multiemployer unit
if the parties agree to their inclusion or if the disputed employers have
for a substantial period of time directly participated in joint bargain-
ing or delegated the power to bind them in such bargaining to a joint
agent.' As for the bargaining history, the record shows that, prior to
their formally joining the Association on March 9, 1959, none of the
seven concerns in dispute had either directly participated in, or
delegated authority to, the Association to bind them in joint bargain-
ing with the Intervenor. At most these seven employers had in the
past taken a close interest in the bargaining sessions between the
Association's and Intervenor's representatives and had adopted,
though without executing, the resulting agreements. However,
neither such informal interest in the negotiations nor the mere adop-
4 Keystone Coat, Apron & Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880. We find no merit
in the Intervenor 's position that we should , in our discretion , not apply our usual
contract bar rules to its contract. In view of our finding that the contract is not a bar
because of its union -security provisions , we need not consider , as urged by the Petitioner,
whether there was a schism in the Intervenor which would remove the contract as a bar.
6Local Union 49 of the Sheet Metal Workers Association (New Mexico Sheet Metal
Contractors Association , Inc.), 122 NLRB 1192; S. en C . Molinelli, Santonl & Freytes
d/b/a Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia La Francesca , at at., 118 NLRB 1010,•
1013-1014.
SHREVEPORT-BOSSIER CLEANERS & LAUNDRIES, INC. 537
tion of the contracts affords sufficient basis for including the disputed
employers in the multiemployer unit.' Accordingly, we find that the
seven employers who joined the Association on March 9, 1959, have
not been a part of the established multiemployer bargaining unit. As
the Intervenor objects to their inclusion we shall not expand the unit
to include them.
Under these circumstances and in accord with the parties' agree-
ment on the composition of the unit, we find that the following em-
ployees of all individual employers' who were active members of
Shreveport-Bossier Cleaners and Laundries, Inc., on February 16,
1959, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing: checker; wet cleaner or helper; dry cleaner; dyer or rug cleaner;
hand silk finisher; inspector; marker; khaki or linen presser; wool
presser ; silk blocker; reweaver; sacker; scrub man; seamstress; seam-
stress , furs; maintenance man or engineer; sewer, buttons; spotter,
silk, first class; spotter, silk, assistant; spotter, wool; porter; assembly
girl; bundle wrapper; hand finisher; flat iron, shakers, feeders,
folders; press operators, khaki, uniforms, family; shirt press opera-
tor; starcher; mender or bottom sewer; head washman-commercial
laundries and other washmen; wringerman or extractor man; tumbler
operator; seamstress , alterations; seamstress , embroidery; soiled linen
assorters ; and maid, excluding office secretarial employees, book-
keepers, drivers, salesmen or drivers' helpers, night watchmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 S. en C. Molinelli, Santon4 & Freytes d/b/a Panaderia La Reguladora and Panaderia
La Francesca, et al., supra.
Q The individual employers whose employees are included in the unit are : 0. W. Dooley,
d/b/a Broadway Dry Cleaners , 4311 Greenwood Rd., Shreveport; J. D. Swenson, d/b/a
Barksdale Cleaners & Laundry, 2 468 Barksdale Blvd ., Bossier City ; Printice Darnell, d/b/a
Darnell Cleaners , 308 East Texas Street , Bossier City ; W. D. Dupree , d/b/a Fairfield
Cleaners , 1400 Fairfield Ave., Shreveport ; E. F. Hardaway , d/b/a Merit Cleaners, 1'432
'Barksdale Blvd., Bossier !City, and d /b/a Post Office Cleaners , 428 Marshall St., Shreveport ;
August Goldstein, d/b/a Model Cleaners & Dyers, 1639 Marshall 'St., 'Shreveport ; Tommy
Woods, d/b/a Morningside Cleaners , 5500 Mansfield Road, Shreveport ; William G. Casten,
d/b/a 0. K. Cleaners, 127 East Kings Highway, Shreveport; T. D. Griffin, d/b/a Overcash
Cleaners , 1219 Wilkinson Street, Shreveport ; John E. Smith, d/b/a Right Way Clean-
ers, 209 East 70th Street, Shreveport; H. L. Lieber, d/b/a Service Cleaners, 1501
Marshall Street, Shreveport ; American Cleaners , 220 East Kings Highway, Shreveport ;
American Linen Service Company, Inc., 1304 Hollywood Avenue, Shreveport, also d/.b/a
Shreveport Industrial Uniform & Towel Service, 1350 Hollywood Avenue, Shreveport ;
College Cleaners, 113 East Kings Highway, Shreveport ; Duval Cleaners, Inc., 628 Marshall
and 4040 Youree Drive, Shreveport ; Louisiana Cleaners, 2329 Greenwood Road and 1413
Louisiana , Shreveport ; Lyles Laundries , Inc., 1921 Market Street, Shreveport ; New
Way Laundry & Dry Cleaning Company, Inc ., 735 Howell Street, Shreveport , also d/b/a
Tidy Didy Diaper Service and d/b/a Louisiana Industrial Towel and Uniform Service ;
'Rickey 's Laundry & Cleaners, 811 Traffic Street, Bossier City ; 'Sunlight Laundries, Inc.,
2435 Lakeshore Drive, Shreveport ;Charles Smith , d/b/a Azalia Cleaners , 732 Azalia Drive,
'Shreveport ; Elite Cleaners & Laundry, 2710 Centenary Blvd., 'Shreveport ; White Cleaners
& Dyers, Inc., 1327 Pierre Ave., Shreveport ; Whi-te's Inc., Cleaners & Dyers, 2487 Texas
Ave., Shreveport ; Youree Drive Cleaners , Inc., 3962 Youree Drive, Shreveport.