Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 680 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-and thereafter prepare and serve upon the parties to this proceeding
a supplemental tally of ballots, including therein the count of such
challenged ballots.
-HARVEY STOLLER D/B/A RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS and
LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197 AFFILIATED WITH
LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL and IRENE HALLEN-
BECK, FLORENCE JONSON, NOLAND TEAL, DONALD DONAHUE, ALMA
DONAHUE. Cases Nos. 19-CA-302, 19-CA-303, 19-CA-305, 19-
CA-307, 19-CA-308, 19-CB-103, 19-CB-104, 19-CB-106, 19-CB-
110, and 19-CB-111. March 6, 1951
Decision and Order
On November 6, 1950, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re-
spondents filed joint exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the Respondents' exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as noted below.
1. The Board agrees with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent
Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act, and that the Board should exercise jurisdiction in this case. Our
decision that it would best effectuate the purposes of the Act to
exercise jurisdiction here is based solely on the Respondent Em-
ployer's relationship to the national defense effort, arising from his
license to do business on a United States reservation devoted to atomic
energy. The Board does not rely on the Trial Examiner's finding of
fact that the Respondent Employer's business is an essential element
in the life of a community which has been established as part of the
national defense program. In the Board's opinion, any employer
doing business on such an atomic energy reservation, whether or not
his business is absolutely essential to the inhabitants of the commu-
nity, is nonetheless so identified with the Government's national de-
fense program as to warrant the full exercise of the Board's power
to assert the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Act.
93 NLRB No. 102.
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS 681
2. As no exceptions nave been filed to the Trial Examiner's findings
of fact 'on the merits of the case, we adopt then without discussion.
Order
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
1. The. Respondent Employer, Harvey Stoller d/b/a Richland
Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Richland, Washington, and his agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Recognizing Laundry, and Dry Cleaners Union, Local 197,
affiliated with Laundry Workers International Union, AFL, or any-
successor thereto, as the representative of any of his employees for
the purposes of dealing with the Respondent Employer concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, unless and until said labor or-
ganization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations.
Board.
(2) Performing or giving effect to his contract of January 25,
1950, with Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union, Local 197, affiliated-
with Laundry Workers International Union, AFL, or to any modifi-
cation, extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, or to any other-
contract, agreement, or understanding entered into with said labor-
organization relating to grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless.
and until said labor organization shall have been certified by the.
National Labor Relations Board.
(3) Entering into, renewing, or giving effect to any agreement with-
Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union, Local 197, affiliated with Laundry
Workers International Union, AFL, or any other labor organization,.
which requires its employees to join, or maintain their membership.
in, such labor organization as a condition of employment, unless such
agreement has been authorized as provided by the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended.
(4) Encouraging membership in Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union,
Local 197, affiliated with Laundry Workers International Union, AFL,
or in any other labor organization of his employees, by discharging-
any of his employees or discriminating in any other manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of
their employment, except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a)
(3) of the Act.
(5) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or top
°682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refrain from engaging in activities guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such'right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Laundry and
Dry Cleaners Union, Local 197, affiliated with Laundry. Workers
International Union, AFL, as the representative of any of the Re-
spondent Employer's employees for the purpose of dealing with the
.Respondent Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment,
-unless and until said organization shall have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board.
(2) Offer to Irene Hallenbeck, Florence Jonson, Noland Teal,
-Donald Donahue, and Alma Donahue immediate and full reinstate-
ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
-prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
(3) Upon request, make available to the National Labor Relations
Board, or its agents, for examination and copying all payroll records,
_social security payment records, time cards, personnel records and
reports, and all other `records necessary for a determination of the
-amounts of back pay due and the rights of reinstatement under the
-terms set out herein.
(4) Post at his office and place of business in Richland, Washington,
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix A.' Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
-Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Employer,
-be posted by him immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by him for at least 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 this Re'pond-
ent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
-any other material.
(5) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent Employer has taken to comply herewith.
2. The Respondent Union, Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union, Local
-197, affiliated with Laundry Workers International Union, AFL, its
officers, representatives, and agents, shall:
1In'the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Couit of Appeals,
there shall be inserted before the words, "A Decision and Order," the words, "A Decree of
.the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing." -
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS 683
(a) Cease and desist from:
(1) Causing, or attempting to cause, Harvey Stoller, d/b/a Rich-
land Laundry & Dry Cleaners, his agents, successors, or assigns, to
discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees in violation
oof Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(2) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Har-
vey Stoller, d/b/a Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners, his agents,
.successors or assigns, in the exercise of their rights to engage in, or
to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted activities
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a. condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Immediately notify, in writing, Irene Hallenbeck, Florence
.Jonson, Noland Teal, Donald Donahue, and Alma Donahue, at their
last known places of residence, and Harvey Stoller, d/b/a Richland
Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Richland, Washington, that it withdraws
its objections to the employment of the complainants by the Respondent
Employer and that it requests said employer to offer them immediate
and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privi-
leges.
(2) Post in conspicuous places in its business offices, and wherever
else notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the notice
attached hereto as Appendix B.2 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by an official representative of the Respondent Union,
be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it
for a period of at least sixty (60) days thereafter. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by it to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(3) Mail to the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region signed
copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix B, for posting, the
Respondent Employer willing, at the Richland, Washington, office
and place of business of Harvey Stoller, d/b/a Richland Laundry &
Dry Cleaners in places where notices to its employees are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director
for the Nineteenth Region, shall, after being signed as provided in
paragraph 2 (b) 2 of this Order, be forthwith returned to said Re-
gional Director for said posting.
3 See footnote 1.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(4) Notify the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent Union has taken to comply with.
3. Harvey Stoller, d/b/a Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners, his
agents, successors, and assigns, and Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union,
Local 197, affiliated with Laundry Workers International Union,
AFL, its officers, agents, representatives, successors , and assigns, shall
jointly and severally make whole Irene Hallenbeck, Florence Jonson,
Noland Teal, Donald Donahue, and Alma Donahue in the manner set
forth in the Section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy,"
for any loss of pay they may have suffered by Respondents' discrimi-
nation against them. _
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 WITIIDRAW and withhold all recognition from LAUNDRY
AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197, AFFILIATED WITH LAUNDRY
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, as the representative of
any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us con-
cerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until
said labor organization shall have been certified by the National
Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL CEASE PERFORMING or giving effect to our contract of
January 25, 1950, with LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL
197, AFFILIATED WITH LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL, or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal
thereof, or to any other contract, agreement, or understanding
entered into with said labor organization relating to grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, unless and until said labor organiza-
tion shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board.
WE WILL NOT ENTER INTO, renew, or give effect to any agreement
with LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197, AFFILIATED
WITH LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, or any
other labor organization, which requires our employees to join,
or maintain their membership in, such labor, organization, as a
condition of employment, unless such agreement has been au-
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS 685
thorized as provided by the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in LAUNDRY AND DRY
'CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197, AFFILIATED WITH LAUNDRY WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, or in any other labor organization
oof our employees, by discharging any of our employees or dis-
criminating in any other manner in regard to their hire or tenure
of employment, or any terms or condition of their employment,
except to the extent authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to
engage in or to refrain from engaging in activities guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below immediate and
full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and
privileges, and we will make them whole for any losses of pay
they may have suffered because of the discrimination against
them.
Irene Hallenbeck Donald Donahue
Florence Jonson Alma Donahue
Noland Teal
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from
:becoming or remaining, members of the above-named union or any
other labor organization, except to the extent that this right may be
Affected by an agreement in conformity with Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
HARVEY STOLLER , d/b/a RICIILAND
LAUNDRY c^ DRY 'CLEANERS,
Employer.
----------------------------------------
By HARVEY STOLLER.
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.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION,,
LOCAL 197, AFFILIATED WITH LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HARVEY STOLLER, D/B/A
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, RICHLAND, WASH.
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, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT CAUSE, or attempt to cause, HARVEY STOLLER,
D/B/A RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS , his agents, suc-
cessors, or assigns, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
employees in violation of Section " 8 (a) (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act. -
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of HARVEY STOLLER, D/B/A RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS,
his successors or assigns , in the exercise of their right to engage
in, or to refrain from engaging in, any or all of the concerted
activities guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , except to the extent that such rights may be affected by,
an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment , as authorized by Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
WE WILL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY IRENE HALLENBECK , FLORENCE
JONSON, NOLAND TEAL, DONALD DONAHUE, AND ALMA DONAHUE,
AND HARVEY STOLLER, D/B/A RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS,
that we have,no objection to the immediate reinstatement of said
employees to their former or substantially equivalent positions.
WE WILL MAKE WHOLE IRENE HALLENBECK , FLORENCE JONSON,
NOLAND TEAL , DONALD DONAHUE, AND ALMA DONAHUE for any
loss of pay suffered because of the discrimination against them-
LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANERS UNION, LOCAL 197,
affiliated with LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL,
Labor Organization.
Dated -------------------- By -------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
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
Melton Boyd, Esq., of Seattle, Wash., for the General Counsel.
Bassett & Geisness, by Samuel B. Bassett, Esq., of Seattle, Wash., for the Union-
Mr. Harvey Stoller, of Richland, Wash., pro se.
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS
STATEMENT Or THE CASE
687-
Upon charges duly filed by Irene Hallenbeck, Florence Jonson, Noland Teal, _
Donald Donahue, and Alma Donahue, herein called the Complainants, the-
General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,' by the Regional
Director for the Nineteenth Region (Seattle, Washington), issued a complaint-
dated July 19, 1950, against Harvey Stoller, doing business as Richland Laundry
& Dry Cleaners, herein called the Employer, and Laundry and Dry Cleaners
Union, Local 197, affiliated with Laundry Workers International Union, AFL,,
herein called the Union , and jointly called the Respondents , alleging that the,
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1), (2), and ( 3) andj
Section 8 ( b) (1) (A) and ( 2), respectively , 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, accompanied by an order consolidating the cases and
notice of hearing, and copies of the respective charges, were duly served;
upon the Respondents. ,
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that: ( a) On January 25, 1950, the Respondents entered into an agreement which,
unlawfully provided , inter alia, that the Union was the representative of the.
Employer 's nonsupervisory employees and that, as a condition of employment, all
such employees were to apply for membership in the Union and all new employees
to secure permits from the Union ; ( b) on certain days during March 1950,
the Employer , at the request of the Union, discharged the Complainants, and,
thereafter failed and refused to reinstate them , thereby giving effect to said±
agreement ; and (c ) by said acts and conduct , the Union violated Section,
8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act, and by said acts and conduct, and by threaten-
ing harsh treatment of and to discharge his employees for exercising the rights-
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , the Employer violated Section 8 (a) (1),
(2), and (3) of the Act.
On July 28, 1950 , the Union filed its answer which , as amended at the hearing,
tacitly admits certain allegations of the complaint concerning its contractual
relationship with the Employer and that particular discharges occurred under
the circumstances alleged, but denies that the Employer is subject to the juris-
diction of the Board and that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labor-
practices On the same day, the Union also filed a motion to dismiss the com-
plaint upon the ground that the Board lacked jurisdiction. This motion was
referred to Trial Examiner Charles L. Ferguson for ruling and, on August 8,
1950, he denied it. On October 10, 1950, the day of the hearing herein, the
Employer filed ' his answer , adopting a position substantially in accord with
that of the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on October 10, 1950, at Richland,
Washington , before the undersigned Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner . The General Counsel and the Union were represented
by counsel, and the Employer by himself, and all participated in the hearing
Full opportunity to examine and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties At the opening of
the hearing, the Union renewed its motion to dismiss, which had been denied by-
Trial Exariner Ferguson , and the Employer joined in the motion . I took it
under advisement. At the close of the General Counsel's case, the motion was
' The General Counsel and the attorney representing him at the hearing are referred
to as the General Counsel . The National Labor Relations Board is referred to as the-
Board.
i688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
renewed by both Respondents, and was continued under advisement. It is hereby
denied. The Respondents chose not to produce witnesses in their own behalf, and
rested their cases.' The General Counsel moved to conform the complaint to
the proof as to minor matters, and this motion was granted without objection.
The parties did not avail themselves of an opportunity to argue orally, but pur-
suant to leave granted they filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses,
I make the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The principal question in this case is whether the Board has jurisdiction.
Involved is an aspect of the Board's recently expressed policies on jurisdiction,
namely, enterprises which substantially affect the national defense.'
The Employer operates a laundry and dry cleaning establishment in Richland,
Washington. His business is entirely localized to that area. During the Em-
ployer's fiscal year ending August 1950, he purchased supplies, including soap,
cleaning solvents, and paper, amounting to approximately $24,000 in value, about
one-half of which was shipped to him from points outside the State of Wash-
ington. The General Counsel contends that the Board should exercise jurisdic-
tion in this proceeding because of the relation of the Employer's business to the
atomic energy program, as discussed below, and it appears that in the absence
of this relationship the Board would not assert jurisdiction.4
Richland, Washington, was an incorporated municipality prior to World War
H. It is now a reservation of the United States Government, along with ter-
ritory adjacent thereto, and its population has increased substantially to 23,000
persons. During the war, the Government obtained the land and buildings in
Richland , and it became the principal residential area of persons employed in
the nearby Hanford Engineering Project which is devoted to the atomic energy
program. That project and Richland are operated by General Electric Company,
a New York corporation, as the prime contractor with the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, - herein called the Commission. The lease of the land and buildings in
Richland is handled by General Electric as rental agent for the Commission s
During the Employer's fiscal year ending August 1950, and earlier fiscal years,
he leased the laundry and dry cleaning establishment, including all equipment
and fixtures therein, from the Commission at a guaranteed annual rental of
$18,000 and with all profits over 6 percent of the Employer 's gross income to be
paid by him to the Commission. The Employer's current contract, executed at
the beginning of the present fiscal year, provides for the lease of the building
for a period'of 5 years at a fixed monthly rental of $560, with an option to renew
for a like period, and for the sale of the equipment and fixtures to the Employer
with payment therefor to be over a maximum period of 10 years.
During the last fiscal year, the Employer's gross income approximated
$240,000, of which about $200,000 represented services to persons in Richland
and the -nearby area. The remaining $40,000 represented services to the prime
2 Stoller, the Employer , and W Al Battershell , the Employer 's office manager , had been
called by the General Counsel in the presentation of his case
3WVestport Moving and Storage Company , 91 NLRB 902 , 26 LRRM 1581, decided
October 11, 1950. See also LRR for October 9, 16 and 23, 1950
4 Joseph S . North, d/b/a Capitol Laundry and Dry Cleaners , 91 NLRB 923, 26
LRRM 1582, decided October 13, 1950
' In General Electric Company , 85 NLRB 1316 , and General Electric Company, 89 NLRB
1247, the Board considered certain aspects of General Electric ' s relationship with the
Commission.
RICHLAND LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS 689
contractor, subcontractors, the United States Army, and a local competitor, and
included : $19,600 received from General Electric for cleaning garments worn by
patrolmen and firemen, and $3,600 received from the Army for unspecified
laundry services.'
The Employer is a subcontractor of General Electric, the prime contractor in
the operation of the Hanford Engineering Project and the community of Rich-
land. The Employer's business is an essential element in the life of a community
established and maintained by the United States Government as a part of the
national defense program. For these reasons, coupled with the volume of serv-
ices rendered by the Employer to General Electric and the United States Army,
I find that the Employer's operations are a part of the national defense effort.'
The Respondents contend, with factual support, that the Employer does not have
a monopoly of the laundry and dry cleaning business in Richland and that there
are competitors in that community and the nearby area. It is not controlling,
however, that in the event of a cessation of the Employer's operations because
of industrial strife, similar services could be rendered by the competitors!
I find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that, under applicable
decisions of the Board, jurisdiction should be asserted in this proceeding.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Laundry and Dry Cleaners Union, Local 197, affiliated with Laundry `York-
ers International Union, AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Employer.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Agi ced facts
The parties are in agreement that the Employer and the Union executed a
contract on January 25, 1950, under which the Union was recognized as the
exclusive representative of nonsupervisory employees, and that the Union had
not been designated by a majority of said employees to act as their bargaining
representative The parties are also agreed that the contract required all such
employees to apply for membership in the Union and all new employees to se-
cure permits from the Union, as a condition of employment, and that the Union
had not been certified by the Board as authorized to negotiate and conclude
an agreement requiring membership in it. Finally, the parties are agreed that
the Employer, at the request of the Union and in conformity with the union-
security provisions of the contract, discharged Irene Hallenbeck and Florence
Jonson on March 17, 1950, and Donald Donahue on March 27, 1950, and there-
after refused to reinstate them, because of their refusal to become members of
the Union.
The $3,600 figure covers services of 21,_ months only, and is not iopresentative of the
services rendered to the Aimv on an annual basis
The Respondents gigue that Geneial Electiic does not coutiol the Eniploler's em-
ployment policies, including the fixing of wages, nor the piece scale for cleaning seivices
This factor is not controlling In the 11'estport Moving and Storage case, above cited,
the employer's operations included the manufacture of boxes for the shipment of the
peisonal effects of military personnel The employer' s gross annual income was only
$21,000, of which an undisclosed portion was received from Fifth Army Headquai tern toe
the m