Tower Cleaners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 376 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Having found that the Respondents did not commit any of the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint except those resulting from the mere inclu-
sion of the illegal union-security provisions in their contract at all times after
July 4, 1949, I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed insofar as
it alleges the commission of any other unfair labor practices by the Respondents.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The business operations of the Respondent, Port Chester Electrical Con-
struction Corporation, constitute commerce, and activities which affect commerce,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local Union 501, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By keeping in existence an illegal union-security clause in its contract with
the Respondent Union, the Respondent Company has at all times since July 4,
1949, discriminated in regard to the terms and conditions of employment of its
employees , to encourage membership in the Respondent Union, and has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By keeping in existence an illegal union-security clause in its contract
with the Respondent Company, the Respondent Union has at all times since
July 4, 1949, attempted to cause the Respondent Company to discriminate against
its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has restrained
and coerced such employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondents did not commit any of the other unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
WALTER AND SHIRLEY COHEN D/B/A TOWER CLEANERS and CLEANING
AND LAUNDRY WORKERS UNION , LOCAL 457, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-908.
December 10, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John M. Dyer, hearing
officer. 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
97 NLRB No. 10.
TOWER CLEANERS 377
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a group of employees engaged es-
sentially in production and processing work in the Employer's dry
cleaning plant. The, Employer asserts that the more appropriate
unit should also include the store clerks who work at the branch stores
of the Employer.
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a dry cleaning plant
and 12 retail stores in Washington, D. C. Six stores, referred to as
regular stores , are operated directly by the Employer and 6, referred
to as commission stores, are operated by individuals pursuant to a
contract with the Employer.
The employees sought by the Petitioner include 11 pressers, 1 spotter,
2 dry cleaning machine operators, 1 sorter, 1 seamstress , 1 pants
stretcher, 1 wet wash man, and 2 drivers. These employees do not
come in general contact with the public. They perform the sorting,
cleaning and processing of wool and silk garments received from the
branch stores. Virtually all of them work from approximately 8 a. m.
to 4: 30 p. m., 6 days a week.' The pressers are paid on a piecework
basis and the rest on a weekly basis, but all receive certain vacation-
and holiday benefits, and are under the supervision of Pinsky, the
plant superintendent, who is responsible for the operation of the plant.
The store clerks whom the Employer seeks to include in the unit
may be divided into two groups, those who work in the regular stores
and those working in the commission stores. The clerks at both the
regular and commission stores perform the same duties, i. e., receiving
clothes to be cleaned, writing up sales slips, sorting and alphabetizing
clothes returned from the plant, and making cash sales to customers.
They spend the majority of their time waiting on customers.
With particular reference to the regular stores the business hours
are 8 a. m. to 7: 30 p. m., Monday through Saturday. As the clerks in
the regular stores work a 40-hour week more than one clerk is assigned
to a store. They receive from $32 to $40 per week 2 and are on the
same payroll as the plant employees. They have their withholding
I The female employees work a 40-hour week.
2 At one of the regular stores a seamstress is employed. She does alterations as well as
clerking and receives , in addition to her salary, a 10 percent commission on all alterations
she makes.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and social security taxes deducted by the Employer and have the same
paid vacation and holiday benefits as the plant employees. They work
under the supervision of Walter Cohen, one of the owners, who does
the hiring and discharging of regular store clerks and makes daily
inspections of the stores to see that things are running smoothly and
to collect the cash receipts.
As to the commission stores, they are generally operated by a single
family pursuant to a contract with the Employer and, although the
operators must maintain the same hours of business as the regular
stores, they arrange their working schedules for their own convenience.
The clerks in the commission stores are not on the Employer's payroll
and do not have any withholding or social security taxes deducted by
the Employer. They are not eligible for the vacation and holiday
benefits the regular store employees receive. As is customary with
the regular stores, Cohen inspects the commission stores daily and
picks up the cash receipts. Under. the contract the commission store
operators get 45 percent of the store's sales and the Employer receives
55 percent. Out of their share the operators must pay the rent and
utility bills. Cohen may terminate the contract with a commission
store operator on a 7-day notice.
Thus, the store clerks, whether at the regular stores or at the com-
mission stores, differ from the plant personnel in work functions,
general working conditions, and supervision. In addition, they have
relatively little contact with the plant employees and are seldom
interchanged with them. In these circumstances, we believe that a
unit confined to the plant employees as requested by the Petitioner, is
appropriate and we shall exclude store clerks from the requested unit.3
The parties are further in dispute as to the placement of a counter
girl working at the plant. This individual, Emily Johnson, spends
about 6 hours a day working at the counter in the plant, which is an
additional outlet for customer cleaning service. As a counter girl she
performs the same duties as the clerks at the branch stores and, in
addition, works about 2 hours a day in assembling clothes to be de-
livered to the branch stores and distributing clothes to the pressers for
processing. She is assisted in this work by another girl, Doris, who
spends most of her time assembling and sorting clothes and placing
them on the racks for delivery and about 25 percent of her working
time at the counter. Doris works approximately the same hours as
the other plant employees whereas Emily arrives and leaves later.
3 Conger Laundry, 66 NLRB 487 ; Blue Ribbon Laundry, 64 NLRB 645 The Board's
decision in Indianapolis Cleaners and Launderers Club, 87 NLRB 472, which included
store employees in a production and maintenance unit , is distinguishable . In that case,
there was a previous history of bargaining with the Intervenor that included the store
employees and the Petitioner indicated a willingness to represent them
We find it unnecessary to determine whether the commission store operators are inde-
pendent contractors , as contended by the Petitioner.
CHARLESTON SHIPYARDS, INC. 379
While Doris appears to spend most of her time in work related to proc-
essing the garments in the plant, Emily's time is primarily devoted
to waiting on customers coming into the plant. We agree with the
parties that Doris should be included. Moreover, as Emily Johnson
spends a substantial amount of her time performing work covered by
the unit herein, she is likewise entitled to representation with respect
to such work. We shall also include her.4
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's plant in Washington, D. C., including counter girls, but ex-
cliding store clerks, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHARLESTON SHIPYARDS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 687, AFL; LOCAL 776 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 470, AFL; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMB-
ERS AND STEAMFITTERS , LOCAL 470, AFL ; INDUSTRIAL UNION OF
MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 183, AFL, PETI-
TIONERS . Cases Nos. 1O-RC-1481, 10-RC-1520, 10-RC-1525, 10-
BC-1553, 10-RC-1567, and 10-RC-1580. December 10, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held on August 23
and 24, 1951, before John C. Carey, Jr., hearing officer. Thereafter,
upon the filing of the Machinists' petition on August 28, the Board
remanded the proceeding for a further consolidated hearing which
was held on September 26, 1951. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearings 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
4 For the reasons given by the Board in Ocala Star Banner Co., 97 NLRB 384, we find
that Johnson is eligible to vote in the election directed herein.
97 NLRB No. 68.