Boss Overall Cleaners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1210 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the president, treasurer, and chief accountants, to the vice president and general
manager, to the vice president in charge of sales, and to the personnel manager,
the typist clerk in the office of the production manager, the engineer draftsman,
the draftsman, the tracer, the gauge checker, the test mechanic, the shipping
clerk, the receiving and stores clerk, the expediter, and all supervisors as defined
in Section 2, subsection (11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local 416, CIO, was on September 6, 1951, and at all times since has
been, the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on and after September 12, 1951, to bargain collectively with the
aforesaid Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid unfair labor practice the Respondent has been and now is
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8.(a) (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Boss OVERALL CLEANERS and ODDIS ROGERS
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING Woiix nS OF AMERICA, LocAL 268, CIO and
ODDIS ROGERS. Cases Nos . 21-CA-1097 and 21-CB-351. Septem-
ber 23,1952
Decision and Order
On January 22, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support of their exceptions.
The Board 1 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 Inter-
1 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].
100 NLRB No. 199.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1211
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner with the following additions and
modifications.
1. The Trial Examiner found and we agree that the Respondent
Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case.
We find no merit in the Respondent Company's contention that the
Trial Examiner, in determining the combined percentages of inflow
and outflow of goods and services required for the assertion of juris-
diction under the Board's jurisdictional formula,2 erred in taking
into account the Company's sales to Los Angeles Transit Lines and
Long Beach City Lines as the record does not show that these transit
lines are public utilities. In the Hollow Tree Lumber case the Board
announced that it would assert jurisdiction over enterprises that fur-
nish goods or services necessary to the operations of other enterprises,
where such goods or services are valued at $50,000 per annum or more
and are sold to "(a) public utilities or transit systems," or to other
specified groups of enterprises. Indeed, the Board has said that local
public transit lines "have such an important impact on commerce as
to warrant our taking jurisdiction over all cases involving such enter-
prises, where they are engaged in commerce or in operations affecting
commerce, subject only to the rule of de minimis." 3 In this case the
lines involved are huge transportation systems serving large cities
within which operate a great number of enterprises engaged in inter-
state commerce.4 Their effect on commerce is obvious.5 We find
therefore that the inclusion of the Respondent Company's sales to
these transit lines was proper.
Contrary to the contention of the Respondent Company, it was the
policy of the Board even before it announced its present jurisdictional
policy in October 1950 to take jurisdiction over employers engaged in
the laundry business, unless such business was purely local in char-
acter . Thus, the Board asserted jurisdiction over a laundry which
sold a substantial part of its services to interstate carriers .s The
2 See Hollow Tree Lumber Co., 91 NLRB 635, and The Rutledge Paper Products Inc.,
91 NLRB 625.
3 Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623 . See also Texas Electric Bus Lines, 100 NLRB 67.
4 See Moody's Public Utilities for 1951 , which describes Los Angeles Transit Lines as a
bus and streetcar transportation system operating in and around the City of Los Angeles
covering an area of about 400 square miles , serving a population of 1,900, 000 and carrying
a total of 117,000,000 passengers in 1950, and having a gross annual operating revenue of
$22,060,000. Long Beach Lines is described as a bus transportation system serving a
population of 343,000 with an annual gross revenue for 1951 of $1,887,726.
5 See N. L. R. B. v. Baltimore Transit System , 140 F. 2d 51 ( C. A. 4), cert. den. 321
U. S. 725.
" New York Stearn Laundry, Inc., 80 NLRB 1597 (December 30, 1948).
1212, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
Board also asserted jurisdiction in a case involving an employer en-
gaged in the laundry business whose dollar volume of out-of-State
purchases and whose sales of services to customers engaged in com-
merce belied the allegation that its operations were essentially local
in character 7 In any event, the unfair labor practices found herein
occurred after the Board had announced its present jurisdictional
policy in October 1950.$ Therefore, the Respondents were on notice
at the time they engaged in such conduct that the Respondent Com-
pany's operations were subject to the assertion of jurisdiction by the
Board .9
2. In adopting the Trial Examiner's finding that the Respondent
Company violated Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act on April 13,
1951, by discharging six named employees because of their failure
to comply with the illegal union-security provisions of its contract
with the Respondent Union, we find it unnecessary to, and do not,
rely upon the admission by its counsel in his letter of April 30, 1951,
to the field examiner of the Board.
3. The General Counsel contended at the hearing that Respondent
Union should be disestablished. The Trial.Examiner rejected this
contention on the ground that the complaint does not charge domi-
nation of the Union by the Company and also because since the advent
of a new business representative, Respondent Union has demonstrated
signs of independence. The Trial Examiner merely recommended
the issuance of a usual cease-and-desist order enjoining the Company
from recognizing the Union, giving effect to its contract with the
Union, and continuing its support to the Union. As no exception
was taken to this recommendation, we will adopt the remedy recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner.
Also, in the absence of exception and without necessarily subscribing
to his legal conclusion, we adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that
the statements made by the Company's Labor Relations Consultant
Dick Heffern at the December 5 and 18 meetings of the employees
that they did not need an active labor organization to represent them
were an expression of his opinion privileged under the Act.
Order
Upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that :
1. Respondent Company, Boss Overall Cleaners, Anaheim, Cali-
7Indtianapolis Cleaners and Launderers Club, 87 NLRB 472 (December 8, 1949).
See Hollow Tree Lumber Co., supra ; The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., supra.
Cf. Almeida Bus Service , 99 NLRB 498.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1213
forma, its partners, John Kirsch, Fritz Goosens, Deu Wayne (Jack)
Shinn, Carl Heinz, their agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Recognizing Amalgated Clothing Workers of America, Local
268, CIO, or any successor thereto, as the representative of any of its
employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning 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.
(2) Performing or giving effect to its agreement of January 5,
1943, with Amalgated Clothing Workers of America, Local 268, CIO,
or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal thereto,
or to any other contract, agreement, or understanding 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) Encouraging membership in Amalgamated Clothing Workers_
of America, Local 268 CIO, or in any other labor organization of
its employees, or discouraging membership in Laundry Workers
International Union, AFL, or in any other labor organization of
its employees, by discriminating against its employees in any manner
in regard to their hire or tenure of employment, except to the extent
permitted by Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(4) Contributing support to Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, Local 268, CIO, by paying the dues of its employees.
(5) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any
or all of the activities guaranteed them by 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.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Mozelle Raburn,
Oddis Rogers, Annie Wilson, Quency Ferguson, Alberta Casey,
Evelyn Stull, and Mary Ellen Stein to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges.
(2) Make whole Mozelle Raburn, in the manner set forth in the
section of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy," for any
loss suffered by reason of the discrimination against her.
(3) Upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for
examination or copying all payroll records, social security payment
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due under the terms
of this Order.
(4) Post at its plant at Anaheim, California, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix A.7 1e
Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, shall, after being signed by Respondent Com-
pany's authorized representative, be posted by it 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 Respondent Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(5) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this Order
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.
II. Respondent Union, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of
America, Local 268, CIO, its officers, agents , and representatives,
shall :
(a) Cease and desist from :
(1) Causing or attempting to cause Boss Overall Cleaners, its
partners, agents, successors, or assigns, by giving recognition to their
agreement of January 5, 1943, or any extension, renewal, or supple-
ment thereto, to discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees
because they are not members in good standing of Respondent Union,
except in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act.
(2) In any other manner causing or attempting to cause Boss Over-
all Cleaners, its partners, agents, successors, or assigns to discriminate
against its employees, except in accordance with the provisions of
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
(3) Restraining or coercing the employees of Boss Overall Cleaners
in the exercise of their right to engage in or refrain from engaging
in any or all of the concerted activities guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
(b) Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(1) Notify Respondent Company , Boss- Overall Cleaners, in
writing, that it has no objections to the employment of Rogers, Wilson,
Ferguson, Casey, Stull, and Stein.
10 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking the words "The
Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A
Decision and Order." In the event that this order is enforced by decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and
Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing
an Order."
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1215
(2) Notify the above-named six employees, in writing, that it has
no objections to their employment with Respondent Company.
(3) Post at its business office copies of the notice attached to the
Intermediate Report and marked "Appendix B." 11 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director of the Twenty-first
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an official representative of
'Respondent Union, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof
and maintained by it for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
-notices to members are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent Union to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(4) Mail to the Regional Director of the Twenty-first Region
signed copies of the notice attached hereto as Appendix B for post-
ing, Respondent Company willing, at the latter's plant at Anaheim,
California, in places where notices to employees are customarily
posted.
III. Respondent Company, its partners, agents, successors, and
assigns and Respondent Union, its officers, agents, representatives,
successors, and assigns, shall :
(1) Jointly and severally, make whole Oddis Rogers, Annie Wil-
son, Quency Ferguson, Alberta Casey, Evelyn Stull, and Mary Ellen
Stein for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, in the manner described in the section
of the Intermediate Report entitled "The Remedy."
(2) On or before ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Re-
spondent Company and Respondent Union shall notify the aforesaid.
Regional Director, in writing, as to what steps they have taken to
comply herewith.
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate charges duly filed by Oddis Rogers, an individual, against
Boss Overall Cleaners, herein called Respondent Company, and against Amal-
gamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 268, CIO, herein called Respond-
ent Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, California),
caused the cases to be consolidated and issued a consolidated complaint dated
August 6, 1951 , against Respondents . The complaint alleged that Respondents
had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce , Respondent Com-
pany within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3 ) and Section 2
11 This notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking the words "The
Recommendations of a Trial Examiner " and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A Deci-
sion and Order " In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court
of Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words " Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat. 136, herein called
the Act, and Respondent Union within the meaning of Sections 8 (b) (1) (A)
and (2) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Copies of the charges, the consolidated
complaint, the order consolidating cases, and notice of hearing thereon were
duly served upon Respondents and Rogers.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended, alleged
in substance that: (1) Respondents entered into an illegal collective bargaining
agreement on or about January 5, 1943, and at all times material were given
effect to,its allegedly illegal union-security provisions; (2) Respondent Union
did on or about April 13, 1951, cause Respondent Company to discharge six
employees, Oddis Rogers, Anne Wilson, Quency Ferguson, Alberta Casey, Evelyn
Stull, and Mary Ellen Stein, because they were not members of Respondent Union,
and under the color of the aforesaid illegal contractual provisions; (3) Re-
spondent Company discharged the six above-named employees because of their
membership in and activities on behalf of Laundry Workers International Union,
A. F. of L., because they engaged in concerted activities, and under the color
of said illegal contractual agreement, in order to encourage membership in
Respondent Union; (4) Respondent Company did on or about January 11, 1951,
discharge Mozelle Raburn' because of her membership in and activities on
behalf of Laundry Workers International Union, A. F. of L., to encourage
membership in Respondent Union, and because she had engaged in union and
concerted activities; (5) Respondent Company had interfered with and con-
tributed support to Respondent Union by (a) paying Respondent Union sums
of money amounting to $1.50 per employee per month; (b) requiring its em-
ployees, under penalty of discharge, to sign new applications for membership
in Respondent Union, together with cards authorizing the withholding of a
portion of their pay for the benefit of Respondent Union; (c) advising its
employees that it would be to their advantage for Respondent Union to remain
dormant and inactive; (d) conducting an election among its employees to
determine whether Respondent Union would remain inactive: (e) withholding
without authorization a portion of its employees' pay and transmitting such
sums to Respondent Union ; and (f) instructing its employees under penalty
of discharge to join Respondent Union and advising them that they would receive
no benefit from a labor organization. Respondent Company denied in its
answer that Respondents had entered into an illegal collective bargaining
agreement and further denied the commission of any unfair labor practices.
Respondent Union, in its answer, denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on various
dates between October 11 and November 6, 1951, before the undersigned
Trial Examiner, Martin S. Bennett. The General Counsel and Respondents were
represented by counsel who participated in the hearing and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the hearing the undersigned
denied various motions by Respondents to dismiss the complaint on the grounds
that Respondent Company was not engaged in commerce, that the operations
of Respondent Company did not fall within the formula of the Board relative
to the assertion of jurisdiction, and that no substantial evidence had been
presented in support of the allegations of the complaint. These motions were
renewed at the close of the hearing and ruling was reserved ; the motions are
hereby denied. A motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to
the proof with respect to purely formal matters was granted. All parties were
1 Also appearing in the complaint as Rayburn.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1217
afforded an opportunity to argue orally and to file briefs and/or proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law with the undersigned. Oral argument
was waived and subsequent to the close of the hearing, upon motion by
Respondents, the time for filing of briefs was extended ; briefs have been
'received from Respondents.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
L THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
Boss Overall Cleaners is operated as a partnership by John F. Kirsch, Fred P.
Goosens (named in the complaint as Gossens ), Carl J. Heinz , and Den Wayne
(Jack) Shinn, at AHaheim, California' Its primary business endeavor is that
of an industrial laundry which supplies and cleans work clothes for industrial
concerns, although, as will appear, it also sells work clothing to a limited extent.
During the 12-month period ending in March 1951, Respondent Company pur-
chased raw materials, supplies, and equipment valued at approximately $110,000,
of which materials, supplies, and equipment valued at $17,568 were shipped to its
plant from points outside the State of California. During the same period Re-
spondent Company sold products and services valued at $384,264, including new
work clothing valued at $8,330 which was sold and shipped outside the State
of California.
The General Counsel contends that the operations of Respondent Company
meet the requirements recently laid down by the Board with respect to the as-
sertion of jurisdiction and places reliance on the decision in The Rutledge
Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625. In that decision, the Board enunciated
the policy that in determining whether or not to assert jurisdiction it would
consider the inflow and outflow of materials and services in ratio to the re-
spective minimum requirements enunciated by the Board and would assert
jurisdiction when percentage totals in those categories were together equivalent
to the minimum requirements in either category. Also to be considered herein,
as contended by the General Counsel, is that percentage of Respondent's op-
erations which is devoted to necessary services rendered to (1) firms which are
public utilities or transit systems; and (2) companies which send merchandise
out of the State valued at $25,000 per annum or more. Hollow Tree Lumber
Co., 91 NLRB 635; Capitol Transfer Co., Inc., 96 NLRB 1066; West Coast Fer-
tilizer & Rendering Co., 96 NLRB No. 94; Charlotte Barth Howell, 95 NLRB 1028;
United Mine Workers of America, District 2, 96 NLRB 1389; and Hart Concrete
Products Co., 94 NLRB 1565.
Thus, the direct sales of Respondent Company moving directly outside the
State amount to $8,330, which is 33.3 percent of the minimum requirement of
$25,000 for assertion of jurisdiction over employers in that category. Stanislaus
Implement & Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618. The direct interstate pur-
chases by Respondent Company amount to $17,568, which constitutes 3.5 percent
of the minimum requirement for the assertion of jurisdiction based upon direct
inflow of merchandise. Federal Dairy, Inc., 91 NLRB 638. These two factors
total 36.8 percent.
The record further shows that Respondent Company services work clothing
for Southern California Edison Company, Los Angeles Transit Lines, and;Long
Beach City Lines. As these concerns are public utilities and transit systems,
Inadvertently referred to in the complaint as located at Fullerton , a neighboring
community.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the services furnished them may be computed in arriving at a decision relative
to the assertion of jurisdiction . Hollow Free Lumber Co., supra. The figures.
are as follows :
Percent of
Amount of $50,000
Name of Company Sales Requirement
Southern California Edison Co-------------------- $330.00 0.7
Los Angeles Transit Lines ----------------------- 13, 352. 00 26. 7
Long Beach City Lines___________________________ 3,261.00 6.51
33.9
As stated, the services furnished to the three above-named concerns total
.33.9 percent of the minimum requirement. Added to the foregoing percentages
relative to direct inflow and outflow which total 36.8 percent, the total stands
at 70.7 percent of the minimum requirement. To make up the remaining 29.3•
percent requirement to meet the jurisdiction standards, the General Counsel
relies upon services rendered to various concerns. Some of these are listed
below in two groups, the first consisting of firms over which the Board has
previously exercised jurisdiction and which it is apparent meet the minimum
requirements relative to direct shipments in'interstate commerce. The second
group lists firms which manufacture and ship merchandise outside the State
valued in excess of $25,000 each per annum. As appears below, this category
constitutes 53 percent of the minimum requirement.
(a)
Firm
Amount of
Services
Rendered
Percent of
$ 50,000
Requirement
Aluminum Co. of America________________________ $2,730.00 5. 5
General Electric Co------------------------------ 126.00 .3
General Motors Co------------------------------- 9,646.00 19.3
Richfield Oil Co. (refinery) ----------------------- 1,075.00 2.2.
U. S. Rubber Co. (tire factory) ------------------- 1,787.00 3.6
Food Machinery & Chemical Co------------------- 1,910.00 3.8
34.T
(b)
Amount of
Services
Firm Rendered
Percent of
$ 50,000
Requirement
Golden Citrus Juices, Inc-------------------------- $421.00 0.8
Hart's Food Products Co-------------------------- 1, 190.00 2. 4
Mutual Citrus Products Co., Inc --------------------- 6,229.00 12.5
Real Gold Citrus Products_________________________ 1,297.00 2.6
18.&
Total percent______________________________ 53.01
s The services to these three concerns involve washing and cleaning of shop coats,
coveralls , and, to a small extent, shop towels. All payments are made direct to Respond-
ent Company by the respective employers. It appears that in the -case of Los Angeles
Transit Lines that concern in turn charges its men for one-third of the laundry costs.
The fact still is, however, that this is a necessary service rendered to an employer who
deals directly with Respondent Company. Also deemed immaterial herein is the fact
that in some instances the work clothing is owned by Respondent Company rather than
by the particular employer involved. -
4 The transcript erroneously in one place refers to Mutual Citrus Products, whereas the
General Counsel in propounding a query referred to Real Gold Citrus Products. An inspec-
tion of General Counsel's Exhibit 10, to which reference was made at the time, discloses.
the error.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1219
The foregoing percentages add up to 123.7 per cent of the respective minimum
requirements for the assertion of jurisdiction. The Rutledge Paper Products,
Inc., supra. Consequently, the undersigned finds, in accord with the contention
of the General Counsel, that the operations of Respondent Company affect com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and, further, that it would effectuate the
purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. Office Towel Supply Com-
pany, 97 NLRB 449; Pacific Tent & Awning Co., 97 NLRB 640; Beavers Packing
Co., 97 NLRB 233; Gagnon Plating and Manufacturing Co., 97 NLRB 104; and
New York Steam Laundry, Inc., 80 NLRB 1597.
If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 268, 010, and Laundry
Workers International Union, A. F. of L., are labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of Respondent Company.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction; the history of the Union at Respondent Company
1. Contractual relations
Respondent Company is an industrial laundry which at present employs ap-
proximately 60 people, this figure including 12 drivers. It originally entered
into contractual relations with Laundry Workers Union Local 357 of the Ainalga-
mated Clothing Workers of America, CIO, sometime in 1940, according to Partner
John Kirsch. Another contract was entered into by the same parties on January
5, 1943. The latter contract is currently recognized by both Respondents and
is the contract which is attacked by the General Counsel in this proceeding.
Respondent Union, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 268,
CIO, did not come into the picture until sometime late in 1949 when Local 357
was dissolved and its place taken by Respondent Union. The Company admit-
tedly recognizes Respondent Union as the successor to the contracting party
in the 1943 contract, and the General Counsel does not challenge the validity of
the suecessorship. Stated otherwise, Respondents claim to be bound by the 1943
contract which names Local 357 as a party. The General Counsel in effect
accepts this premise and claims that they are thereby giving effect to a contract
which contains illegal union-security provisions.
Turning to the provisions of the contract itself, section 15 thereof provides
that it
... shall become effective on the 5th day of January, 1943, and shall
supercede any existing Agreement between the parties hereto previously
entered into and continue until the 5th day of January, 1944, and thereafter
from year to year, provided, however, that if either of the parties desires
any change of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement, then they
shall give notice in writing thirty (30) days prior to its expiration date,
and if no notice is given by either party in writing, by registered mail, this
agreement shall continue from year to year subsequent to January 5, 1943.
The contract also provides as follows :
SECTION 3-UNION SHOP: That only members of the Union in good
standing shall be employed in said laundry, and that they shall be engaged
through the office of the Union; provided, however, that in the event the
Union cannot supply the employer with help within two (2) hours of the
request, then the employer shall have the right to employ other persons
under the following conditions
227260-56-vol. 100-78
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In the event any person is employed by the Company who is not a
member of the Union, [it] is agreed that such person shall be discharged
by the employer unless such person shall have made application to
the Union for membership within one (1) week after such, employment
begins and shall have become w member of the Union in ,good standing
within two (2) weeks after such employment. [Emphasis added.]
Such employee furnished by the Union, at the time of his employment
must be required to produce for the Company's and Head steward's in-
spection , a work card duly executed and signed by the authorized business
agent of the Union; said work card to indicate that the bearer thereof is
a member in good standing of the said Union and that he or she has com-
plied with the rules and regulations thereof.
SECTION 12. In case of the necessity for additional or temporary
help, or in the event of emergencies, or on a holiday week, then the Com-
pany may hire additional , temporary or emergency help who shall be
employed through the office of the Union, as provided for in Section 3
of this Agreement.
That no new employees will be hired until the employees now working
in the plant of the Company, and members of the Union , have enough
work to put in full time of forty-eight (48) hours each week.
SECTION 13-FEES, DUES AND ASSESSMENTS: The Company
agrees to collect from its employees , members of the Union, all fees, dues
and assessments which may be due from such employees to the Union,
on the first pay day of each month.
After the signing of this agreement , Respondent Union, insofar as the record
indicates , took no further interest in the employees of Respondent Company,
save for acknowledging the receipt of dues payments as appears below. Ac-
cording to Partner Kirsch , he did not see a representative of Respondent Union
or its predecessor from 1943 until approximately November 1950. Fritz Goosens,
a partner since May 1946, did not see a union representative until December
1950. In fact, when Respondent Union succeeded Local 357, Goosens was not
advised of the change and Isadore Weisgal, an organizer for Respondent Union
since July 1950, was unaware , presumably based upon his familiarity with
union records, of any union activity at Respondent Company after the signing
of the contract other than the receipt of dues. This is substantiated by the
testimony of various employees . For example , Evelyn Stull, an employee since
October 1944, had not , prior to November 1950, heard of Respondent Union or
its predecessor.
When. Local 357 was initially recognized , according to the testimony of
employee Ilde Brown and Partner Den Wayne (Jack) Shinn, the employees were
unwilling to pay dues and attend meetings . Hence, Respondent Company agreed
to pay the dues for them and did pay these dues thereafter . According to Part-
ner Goosens , this practice continued until approximately November 1950 , despite
the fact that it was not provided for in the contract. Although it is not clear
when the practice started, Respondent Company adopted the custom of crediting
the employees once a month with earnings of $1.50 each for overtime work
which was actually not worked , and then deducting this sum from the pay check ;
a 1949 check reflects this custom . Goosens claimed that during the early part of
1951 Respondent commenced deducting dues from employees. Mozelle Raburn,
who made out the payrolls until her discharge on January 11, 1951, testified,
however, that she never deducted dues from pay checks. As Raburn was em-
ployed from April 1950 to January 11, 1951, it would appear, as Goosens in one
place in his testimony indicated, that Respondent sometime during 1950 aban-
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1221
doned the practice of making a fictitious overtime pay entry in the amount of
union dues, but did continue to contribute and pay the dues for the employees
without making any bookkeeping entry to that effect. Each month Respondent
sent and still sends to Respondent Union a sum representing the dues of the
group of employees.
The 'employees did start at an uncertain date to pay their own dues. Some
of those discharged on April 13, 1951, testified and the undersigned finds that they
did not pay dues ; therefore, at least until that date, Respondent Company con-
tinued to pay the dues of some of its employees. Driver Edward Allen testified
that the drivers now pay their own dues to the office manager and that he per-
sonally started paying them in this fashion in January 1951. As it may be that
the drivers started paying their own dues before the other employees, the under-
signed finds that this group of 12 started paying their dues in January 1951 and
that as of April 13, 1951, Respondent Company had not yet started to uniformly
collect union dues from its employees. This tallies with the testimony of
Business Representative Weisgal of Respondent Union that the employees have
been paying their own dues since April of 1951. At present, the Company collects
dues from all employees save 3 who have asked that their dues not be deducted ;
the record does not indicate whether the Company is paying their dues for them.
This practice with respect to dues is well demonstrated by the testimony of
Mary Ellen Stein, which is credited in full. On or about December 5, 1950,
employee Aloysius Simons handed her a card indicating that her dues in Respond-
ent Union were paid for the month of November ; this was a complete revelation
to Stein from whose pay check no deduction for this purpose had been made.
Later, on January 10, 1951, Stein had occasion to question Shinn about the con-
tract with Respondent Union and asked to see it. Soon thereafter Shinn came
over to Stein and handed her a similar card covering payment of her December
dues. This too took Stein by surprise but Shinn offered her no explanation
2. Return of the Union ; intervention of the Company
Isadore Weisgal was appointed an organizer for Respondent Union in July of
1950. He noted that there had been no union activity among the employees of
Respondent Company save for the regular receipt by the union office of a sum
of money for application to dues, even though the union records of some of those
or whom the money was earmarked indicated that those employees were non-
members of the Union. Weisgal went to the plant sometime in November and
introduced himself to Shinn as the representative of the employees. Weisgal,
according to Shinn, brought some CIO cards with him on this occasion. As will
appear, another partner, John Kirsch, made use of these cards at a later date.
Weisgal requested and was granted permission by Shinn to become acquainted
with and address the employees. Accordingly, on several occasions, he walked
through the plant and spoke to various employees, apparently doing little other
than to introduce and identify himself.
On or about December 5, during the noon lunch period, the employees were
summoned to a meeting by Morris Turner, who was a foreman and assistant to
Shinn. Weisgal presided and attempted to distribute CIO cards and address
the employees. The employees immediately reacted unfavorably ; the cards were
torn, and various employees shouted that they did not want a union. Weisgal
pointed out that Respondents had ,been under a contract for many years, but this
statement was greeted with more shouting. Despite the conciliatory efforts of
some of the employees, the commotion continued and Weisgal was compelled to
6 Shinn admitted that Stein had asked to see the contract. He was not questioned
concerning the latter part of Stein 's testimony.
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
give up his attempt to address the assemblage . It was on this occasion or there-
abouts that Mary Ellen Stein was given a CIO dues receipt by Aloysius Simons
covering dues for the month of November 1950. -
Some of the employees were desirous of hearing what Weisgal had to say on
the subject of unionization . Oddis Rogers, whose discharge is hereinafter dis-
cussed, telephoned Weisgal and arranged for him to meet with a group of em-
ployees on December 7 at the home of Quency Ferguson , also later to be dis-
charged. Weisgal passed out 010 cards on this occasion and Rogers signed one.
He urged the group to obtain other signatures and explained that the Union had
been receiving dues from Respondent Company, but that the help were not ob-
taining representation and it was his intention to remedy this situation.
The hostile reception with which Weisgal was greeted on December 5 appar-
ently troubled Respondent Company. For either on the afternoon of Decem-
ber 5 or within a few days , the employees of the plant were convened at an
afternoon meeting.' Kirsch introduced Heffern as a personal friend who was a
labor mediator and would speak to them. According to Kirsch, in introducing
Heffern, he explained that Heffern would answer their questions as to their rights
insofar as a labor organization was concerned . The record does not disclose
all of the remarks of Heffern, who is in fact a labor relations consultant in the
area and secretary of the local Employers Council. He did, however, mention
that Respondent Company operated a small place of business where the em-
ployees did not need a labor organization as they could take their problems direct
to the employer and thus avoid the need of attending union meetings. As will
appear, Respondent Company equated not having a union with the retention of
the status quo, namely, a working relationship with Respondent Union, as de-
scribed above, consisting solely of the regular payment by the Company to Re-
spondent Union of the dues of the employees in return for an inactive bargaining
representative.
3. The December 1S meeting
Approximately 2 weeks before December 18, 11 of Respondent Company's 12
drivers met with Weisgal. He persuaded drivers Allen and Frisby to serve on
a committee to help organize the plant and to hold a meeting of the employees
at the plant in order, as Allen testified, "to see whether we would remain as we
were or to be an active CIO union." Allen went to Partner Fritz Goosens and
requested permission to hold a meeting at the plant , stating that the purpose was
to decide whether or not the existing union arrangement with Respondent Union
would be left as it was. Goosens granted permission and stated that the group
could do whatever they chose. The meeting was then scheduled for December
18;' however, it was not permitted to remain solely an employees' affair, for
Partner John Kirsch invited Labor Relations Consultant Heffern to appear at
this meeting, informing him that some employees desired a number of questions
to be answered; the record does not disclose the identity of these employees.
° The testimony of employees Rogers and Casey places this meeting on the afternoon of
December 5. Ferguson placed it on or about December 5, and Stein thought it took
place a few days thereafter . Dick Heffern , who spoke to the employees on this occasion,
claimed that he did not appear at the plant until December 18 when another meeting, to
be discussed below. was held His testimony is flatly contradicted , however, by that of
Partners Kirsch and Shinn The former testified that he arranged for Heffern to appear
at a meeting held prior to the December 18 meeting because an employee had inquired
concerning the rights of employees with respect to union representation ; and Shinn testi-
fied that Heffern was present on December 5. Hence Heffern's testimony is not accepted
herein
i The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Weisgal, Allen , and Goosens,
which is in substantial agreement.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1223
The meeting was held on the evening of December 18 at the plant checking
room and was attended by approximately 50 employees ; it was presided over by
Allen. After first conversing with Heffern in an anteroom, Allen proceeded to
open the meeting and presented Heffern to the group. Heffern pointed out to
the assembly that the employees did not require an active labor organization
and directed attention to the burden of attending union meetings. He stated
that there would be no advantage to having the union because the employees
could currently take their problems directly to their employer.
Allen then intervened and stated that the issue to be voted upon was whether
the plant would remain as it was, with an inactive union, no attendance at
union meetings, and union dues paid by the company, or whether they would
become an active union, which would involve attendance at union meetings and
the election of a shop steward. Allen called for a vote on this issue. The re-
sulting vote was approximately 37 to 4 in favor of leaving Respondent Union in
its existing inactive status. According to Heffern, he left the room prior to the
taking of the vote. Several days later Weisgal was advised of the results. As
is apparent, this scheduled meeting of employees became a meeting which was
addressed by a representative of Respondent Company who urged the employees
to maintain the existing relationship with Respondent Union!
B. Advent of the AFL
1. Organizational efforts ; the strike of January 8
Some resentment developed among certain of the employees who felt that
Weisgal was not progressing with his efforts to interest the employees in con-
certed activities and self-organization. They decided to ascertain what a
representative of the AFL would have to offer. Several days prior to December
29, Oddis Rogers contacted Floyd Buckalew, president and business repre-
sentative of Local 52, Laundry Workers International Union, AFL, and a meet-
ing was arranged for the evening of December 29 at the home of an employee,
Hortense Harper, not directly involved herein. Approximately 15 employees
attended and were addressed by Buckalew who read and explained to them the
provisions found in AFL contracts then in effect in other laundries in the area.
He also distributed AFL designation cards which were signed by, among others,
complainants Rogers, Casey, Ferguson, Stein, and Stull;' Wilson and Raburn also
signed AFL designation cards on January 2 and 3 respectively. The AFL sup-
porters, including all those named in the complaint, promptly commenced to wear
AFL buttons at work.
On Saturday, January 6, the Company peremptorily discharged complainant
Annie Wilson and Harper.1° This action upset the AFL adherents who decided
that the Company would carry out further discharges if prompt action was not
taken. Rogers contacted Buekalew and a meeting was immediately arranged
for the following evening at the Harper home. Eighteen or nineteen employees
attended, including the present complainants ; they agreed that immediate action
should be taken and voted to meet again on the following morning.
Approximately 13 employees, including the 6 complainants, absented them-
selves from work on the next morning, Monday, January 8, and met again at the
8 Findings herein are based upon the testimony of Rogers, Wilson, Casey, Stein, and
Allen, with which the testimony of Heffern is in substantial agreement.
° Paradoxically, these four, as well as the other two dischargees on April 13, had pre-
viously signed CIO cards during December.
10 The General Counsel does not contend that this conduct on January 6 was discrimi-
natory, although the surrounding facts do render it suspect; however, the issue is not
before me
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harper home. It appears that the Company did not receive advance notice of
their absence. The group decided that the AFL represented a majority of the
production employees, excluding maintenance and clerical personnel." A wire
was dispatched to the Company stating that the,AFL represented a majority of
its inside employees. The employees at the January 8 meeting then decided to,
go to the plant in a group and present their views to management. Accordingly,
approximately at noon, several cars with workers proceeded to the plant. Buck-
alew, as spokesman, entered, accompanied by another labor organizer interested
in representing the driver employees. They proceeded to confer with Partners
Kirsch, Goosens, and Shinn for approximately 30 minutes while the employees
waited outside the plant.
Buckalew informed the partners that his union represented a majority of the
employees and proposed that a cross-check be made of AFL designation cards
with company payrolls. Kirsch replied that the Company had been under con-
tract with the CIO since 1939. Buckalew questioned the legality of the existing
contract, claiming that the contract was old, and had neither been renewed nor
applied.
Buckalew then urged that the Company reinstate Harper and Wilson, stating
that it was his position that they had been discharged for AFL activity Kirsch
replied that he intended to confer with an international vice president of Buck-
alew's organization and that he would inform Buckalew on Wednesday, January
10, of his decision. Buckalew asked whether the employees would be permitted
to return to work without any discrimination. Kirsch assured him that there
would be none. It was agreed that the employees would report for work on the
following morning, January 9, and Buckalew proceeded to advise them to that
effect."Z All of the strikers returned to work on January 9 as agreed. Buckalew
appeared at the plant, when the employees reported, and conferred with Shinn
who assured him that Harper and Wilson would be permitted to return to work ;
they did return along with the strikers. According to Shinn, their reinstatement
was due to the intervention of Weisgal, the representative of Respondent Union.
The latter, learning of the discharges on January 6 and the resulting strike, con-
ferred with Shinn on January 8. After some discussion, Shinn, at the behest of
Weisgal agreed to reinstate Harper and Wilson. In fact, Weisgal called at
Wilson's home and informed her of the decision.
2. The January 10 speech
The January 8 walkout and the demand on that date by the AFL for recogni-
tion were swiftly followed by certain significant conduct on the part of the
Company. Thus, on the morning of January 10, all the plant personnel, save
drivers, were convened. According to Partner Heinz, the partners decided to
call the meeting in order to settle unrest brought about by the walkout. Present
were the partners and Labor Relations Consultant Heffern.
The chief speaker was Kirsch who stated that the Company had a contract
with the CIO and that the employees were to sign up with the CIO in 2 weeks
to 30 days. He announced that he wanted no talking in the plant and that if
the employees engaged in any other strikes, they would automatically be dis-
charged. Kirsch, as he testified, had some CIO cards with him and hoped to
obtain the signatures of all the employees to them. He pointed out to the
assemblage that he had the cards in his possession, displayed them, and announced
"Whether or not this view was correct is deemed to be immaterial to the present
issues
12 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Buckalew which is substan-
tially corroborated by that of Kirsch and Shinn.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS, 1225
that the employees could come to the office and sign them if they wished. In
fact, later that morning, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Mary Ellen
Stein, she observed employee Murray take a card and ask Kirsch "if he was
sure that this was what he wanted hereto do . . . sign the card" ; to.this Kirsch
replied in the affirmative."
On leaving the meeting, Oddis Rogers chanced to speak for several moments
with two employees. She was observed in this act by Angela Merlier, who is in
charge of Respondent's retail store, adjacent to the plant." As was her practice,
Merlier forthwith reported to Shinn that she had observed Rogers engaged in
conversation immediately after the meeting. Shinn immediately summoned
Rogers to the office. Heffern, who was present, informed her that the Company
had a binding contract with the CIO and that there could not be two unions in
the plant. He asked if she had ever been an AFL organizer or agent and if
she had said anything in the plant relative to an AFL meeting. Shinn accused
Rogers of speaking to the two employees ; Rogers admitted that she had done so.
Shinn then advised her to stop talking to employees and to obtain other work
if she was dissatisfied. As demonstrated, Rogers was a leader in the AFL
faction in the plant and Shinn, in the view of the undersigned, equated talking
by Rogers with advocacy of the AFL, for the record discloses that talking was
common in the plant and was not censored"
3. Later incidents
On the day following the January 10 meeting, Mozelle Raburn was discharged ;
her case is treated hereinafter. Apparently her discharge brought matters to a
head, for the AFL sympathizers concluded that other discharges would follow.
An action in equity was instituted ins the California courts on January 16 by
Buckalew and most of the complainants against Respondents. A temporary
restraining order was issued restraining them from discharging persons for
activity in behalf of the AFL and interfering with their rights to self-associa-
tion. The order was dissolved at an undisclosed date subsequent to March 14,
1951, and the record does not disclose any later developments in the action.
During this period, AFL buttons were worn in the plant by AFL adherents.
including the six complainants ; in addition, there was solicitation and discussion
in the plant concerning the organizational campaign by most if not all of the com-
plainants . That Respondent Company was not inactive or neutral during this
period is demostrated by the testimony of Florence Mustard who testified herein
as a witness for the Company. According to her uncontroverted testimony, she
"There was some disagreement among almost all of the witnesses as to what took place
on this occasion The foregoing findings are based upon a synthesis of the testimony of
various witnesses In finding that Respondent Company gave the employees 2 weeks
to 30 days to sign CIO cards, reliance is attached to the fact that in March Respondent
posted a notice referring to the union-seciurity provisions of the CIO contract, and, as
appears below, in hiring a new employee in mid-February, Shinn asked her to sign a CIO
card
The record does not disclose whether Merlier was a supervisory employee within the
meaning of the Act. It does reveal, however. that she was in the habit of reporting to
Shinn and office clerical Mozelle Raburn her observations relative to the union activities
of employees . In fact , she had , at an earlier date, reported to Raburn in the presence of
Shinn that Rogers was in favor of a union and this had been the subject of discussion
between Raburn and Shinn . Similarly, she had reported to Raburn concerning the
progress of union affairs on occasions when Shinn was nearby in the office.
15 Findings herein are based upon the testimony of Rogers which is credited herein as
elsewhere . Heffern did not recall if he had asked Rogers whether she had been a union
organizer and denied making reference to the CIO contract . His version and that of
Shinn, which are not accepted , confined the incident to a warning to Rogers to stop talking.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entered its employ on February 15 or 16 , 1951. Several days later , she was
sent to the plant office , where Shinn showed her a CIO card and stated that
"We ask our employees to sign this union card ." After Shinn added that all
the employees signed them, Mustard signed the card , together with a social
security withholding slip"
C. The April 18 discharges ; the contract
1. The notice posted on March 28
On or about March 28, Respondent Company posted the following notice on
the plant bulletin board. It remained posted at least until April 13 when six
employees were discharged, as later found, pursuant to its provisions. It reads
as follows:
NOTICE
TO ALL EMPLOYEES:
You are hereby notified that the Agreement between Boss Overall Clean-
ers and Cleaners and Dyers Union, Local 268, Amalgamated Clothing Work-
ers of America, C. I. 0., provides in part as follows :
In the event any person is employed by the Company who is not a mem-
ber of the Union, it is agreed that such person shall be discharged by the
employer unless such person shall have made application to the Union
for membership within one (1) week after such employment begins and
shall have become a member of the Union in good standing within two
(2) weeks after such employment.
Dated : March 28, 1951.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS
By (signed) Jack D. Shinn
The quoted extract is from the 1943 contract between the parties, portions
of which appear hereinabove. According to Partner Goosens, who approved
the March 28 notice prior to its posting, the notice was posted so that "we
would have a . . . better understanding between the employees . . . there was
quite a little unrest in the plant. In order to do away with that we posted
[the notice]." He elsewhere testified that "We posted the notice so the people
would belong to the union and then everything would be in harmony." [Emphasis
added.]
Similar testimony was presented by Partner Shinn, the signer of the notice.
He testified that he had conferred with his counsel concerning the fact that
some of the employees did not know "whether they were union or not." The
latter suggested that a portion of the 1943 contract be posted, prepared the
notice quoted above, and turned it over to Shinn who signed and posted it
forthwith. It was Shinn's view that the 1943 contract was in force and, in
fact, this was the precise position taken by representatives of Respondent
Union who had conferred with the partners during December of 1950 and January
of 1951 relative to the contract ; this is still the contention of both Respondents
and was so stated at the hearing, despite a contrary statement in the Company's
answer.
16 Shinn made a similar request of Aloyslus Simons, another witness for Respondent, but
the latter placed the time at an unidentified date prior to January 10, 1951. Accordingly,
although no finding of an unfair labor practice is predicated upon the statement to
Simons, it does reflect the Company's position toward the CIO.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1227
While Partner Kirsch attributed to Shinn the statement that Respondent
Union had requested the posting of the notice, Shinn and CIO Representative
Weisgal denied that such a request had been made. Kirsch was somewhat
uncertain concerning this portion of his testimony and no weight is attached
to it herein. Moreover, it is not vital to the present issue for both Respondents
insisted and still insist that they had and have a contract in effect ; the quoted
union-security language was among its provisions ; and, as will appear, Shinn
proceeded to enforce precisely this provision of the contract. Hence, the
undersigned rejects Shinn's testimony that he did not intend to enforce the
contract's union-security provisions.
2. The discharges
No further reference was made by Respondent to the March 28 notice relative
to union security until Friday, April 13, when employees Rogers, Wilson,
Ferguson, Casey, Stull, and Stein were abruptly discharged without any advance
notice or warning. At approximately 3 p. m. on that date, Partner Shinn
distributed the regular pay checks customarily handed out on Fridays for
work performed during the previous week. The six above-named employees
were separately instructed, during the check distribution process, to report to
the plant office. They did so and found Partners Shinn and Goosens present.
It is not clear if Partner Heinz was present and Partner Kirsch, who was not,
testified that he had not participated in the decision to make the discharges.
Shinn opened the discussion by stating that the six employees knew why
they had been summoned to the office. Although none of the six had received
any direct information concerning the purpose of the meeting, Rogers replied
that they had a fairly good idea of what was to take place. Shinn then
announced that the six had not complied with the notice on the plant bulletin
board and that as a result he was discharging them. He also stated that
there had been considerable confusion in the plant and that he intended
to'put a stop to it. At or about this point, Ferguson asked Respondent to
provide the dischargees with a written reason for their discharge and Shinn
replied that he was unwilling to give them any written statement. He then
distributed their final pay checks, representing earnings up to that date, and
the meeting ended. The employees have not since been offered reinstatement"
It may be noted, accoi ding to Partner Goosens, that this was the first group
discharge during his tenure of almost 5 years. Also significant is the fact that
there is no evidence of any other notice on the bulletin board or claim that
reference was made to any notice other than that of March 28, quoted
hereinabove. Paradoxically, it appears that all six complainants had applied
for CIO membership shortly prior to the time they manifested interest in
the AFL. -
3. Contentions, analysis, and conclusions
a. The Section 102 argument
As set forth, Respondents currently recognize a contract entered into in
January of 1943. Although this contract on its face provides for a greater degree
11 The foregoing findings are based upon the testimony of Stull , a clear and concise
witness, with whose testimony that of the other five complainants herein is in close agree-
ment Goosens did not supply a version of the talk. According to Shinn, he told the
six that they were discharged because they had created a disturbance by talking in the
plant and that their discharges "had nothing to do with the notice on the bulletin board."
His version , concerning which more appears below . is not credited.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of union security than is permitted by the Act and therefore would be otherwise
illegal, Respondent Union contends that Section 102 of the Act protects the
contract . That section states, in part, as follows :
... the provisions of section 8 (a) (3) and section 8 (b) (2) of the
National Labor Relations Act as amended by this title shall not make an
unfair labor practice of the performance of any obligation under a col-
lective-bargaining agreement entered into prior to the date of the enactment
of this Act . . . if the performance of such obligation would not have con-
stituted an unfair labor practice under section 8 (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act prior to the effective date of this title, unless such agreement
was renewed or ea,tended subsequent thereto. [ Emphasis added.]
It is contended that the discharges under this contract were protected under
the broader " union-security provisions of the original Act prior to its amend-
ment in 1947 . The General Counsel contends , firstly, that this contract was
reviewed subsequent to the effective date of the amendments to the Act and,
secondly, that the discharges would have been violative of the original Act
as well. Inasmuch as the undersigned finds merit in the first position of the
General Counsel he deems it unnecessary to treat with the second . Paren-
thetically , it may be noted that this contention of Respondent Union conflicts
with the position of Respondent Company whose contention , rejected herein-
after, is that these six employees were discharged for reasons in no way related
to union security.
Turning to the General Counsel 's contention that the contract renewed itself
subsequent to the 1947 amendments to the Act, Respondent Union claims that
there has been no such renewal and places reliance on the recent decision in
N. L. R. B. v. Clara-Val Packing Co., 191 F . 2d 556 ( C. A. 9). In that case, the
court rejected the Board's contention that a collective bargaining agreement
which antedated the amended Act had renewed itself within the meaning of
Section 102 and that its broad union security provisions were accordingly invalid
under the amended Act . The court pointed out that :
Nowhere in the contract is there a provision for a renewal of any char-
acter . . . An agreement which "shall continue without expiration date"
until terminated or modified by the act of the parties within a fixed period
from its anniversary date is not terminated on its anniversary date where
the parties take no action . It continues . It is not renewed.
In rejecting the Board 's contention that the contract in that case had been
renewed, the court stated that the authorities cited by the Board in support of
its position were not apposite . It pointed out that, unlike the contract in the
Clara-Val case, the Board had cited, as an instance of a renewed contract, a
contract which :
provided that it "shall remain in effect for one year and for renewal periods
of one year thereafter" [ Green Bay Drop Forge Co., 57 NLRB 1417].
Similarly in United States Pipe and Manufacturing Co., 78 NLRB 15. In
Groveton Paper Co., 52 NLRB 1256, the contract was expressly made a
"year to year" contract . In each of the following cases, the contract was
for a specific period of a year and for "year to year " thereafter . [ Cases
cited. ]
It is clear that the court, in the above extract, recognized and agreed with
the Board that a contract which renews itself from year to year does renew
itself within the meaning of Section 102. Turning to the language of the con-
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1229
tract in the instant proceeding, it becomes readily apparent that it is closely
similar to those referred to immediately above. For it provides that it
... shall become effective on the 5th day of January 1943, and shall
supersede any existing Agreement between the parties hereto previously
entered into and continue until the 5th day of January, 1944, and there-
after from year to year, provided, however, that if either of the parties
desires any change of any of the terms and provisions of this Agreement,
then they shall give notice in writing thirty (30) days prior to its expira-
tion date, and if no notice is given by either party in writing, by registered
mail, this Agreement shall continue from year to year subsequent to January
5, 1943. [Emphasis added.]
In view of the foregoing considerations, this contention is rejected.
b. The argument that the Board is es topped front asserting jurisdiction herein
It is contended that for a period of time prior to the issuance of the instant
complaint, the Board declined to assert jurisdiction over laundries and that it
is therefore estopped from asserting jurisdiction over Respondent Company.
There is no evidence of a specific refusal to assert jurisdiction over the opera-
tions of Respondent Company in any proceeding before the Board.
Assuming the accuracy of this contention, insofar as it purports to state prior
Board policy, it presupposes that action taken by employers or unions becomes
lawful if the Board declines to assert jurisdiction and thereby refrains from
enforcing the Act with respect to these parties, even though that abstention is
predicated solely upon administrative choice. But abstention based upon such
considerations does not thereby confer a right upon the parties to engage in
conduct which the Act defines as unlawful. Nor can it be argued that abstention
by the Board constitutes validation or approval of action which is otherwise
violative of the Act. Cf. N. L. R. B. v. Toumsend, 185 F. 2d 378 (C. A. 9).
Parties frequently make determinations as to their conduct without the aid
of administrative agencies or courts at the risk of having such determinations
declared unlawful at some future date. N L. R. B. v. Baltimore Transit Co.,
140 F. 2d 55 (C. A. 4), cert. denied 321 U. S. 795. Moreover, as stated, this is
not a situation where the Board has declined to assert jurisdiction over the same
parties. And there is nothing to indicate that the Board would not have
asserted jurisdiction over the parties during some earlier period. Accordingly,
this contention is rejected. N. L. R. B. v Star Beef Co. 193 F. 2d 8, (C. A. 1),
and Guy F. Atkinson Co., 90 NLRB 743
c. The merits
As hereinabove described, Respondents currently recognize a contract which
they entered into in January of 1943. This contract, which antedates the em-
ployment of the six complainants, renewed itself subsequent to the 1947 amend-
ments to the Act. Its union-security provisions provide (1) for preferential
hiring of union members, and (2) that all nonunion employees hired must be-
come members of Respondent Union within 2 weeks. This is a greater degree
of union security than is permitted by the Act and the contract, which has no
severability clause, is therefore illegal. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536;
American Coating Mills et at., 97 NLRB 638; and Von's Grocery Company, 91
NLRB 504.
Despite the contract with Respondent Union, there was no union activity at
the Company for a number of years ; nevertheless, Respondent Company, in
one form or another, paid dues for its employees directly to Respondent Union.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In November of 1950 the latter, with the advent of a new business representative,
attempted to interest the employees in taking an active interest in the union.
This, together with the knowledge for the first time on the part of some employees
that they were represented by a labor organization, created considerable unrest
in the plant.
Respondent Company intervened at this point. On December 5 it arranged
for Labor Relations Consultant Dick Heffern to address the employees. He
urged them to maintain the status quo, pointing out that there was no need of
attending union meetings ; he made no reference to the union dues then being
paid to the Union by the Company. On December 18, after some employees were
granted permission to hold a meeting, the Company again arranged for Heffern
to address the assemblage. He pointed out that they needed no union inasmuch
as they could take up their problems directly with the Company. The em-
ployees then voted 37 to 4 to leave Respondent Union in its existing inactive
status. This choice was explained to the assemblage at the time as a vote not
to engage in any union activities but rather to maintain the existing situation
whereby the Company continued to pay the dues of employees to the Union.
At this point some of the employees, including the 6 complainants discussed
herein, became interested in obtaining AFL representation. An initial meeting
was held on December 29; 4 of the 6 signed AFL cards on this occasion, and
the remaining 2 signed several days later. The AFL supporters immediately
commenced to wear AFL buttons at the plant.
The discharge of two employees on January 6 resulted in a meeting of approx-
imately 18 AFL adherents on January 7 under the supervision of AFL Repre-
sentative Buckalew. Under his guidance, a number of the group, including
the six complainants, absented themselves from work on the morning of January
8. At noon on that date they, with Buckalew as their spokesman, appeared at
the plant. Buckalew conferred with the partners, announced that the AFL
represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, and proposed
that a cross-check of AFL cards with the payroll be made to determine the
question of majority. Partner Kirsch then informed Buckalew that the Com-
pany was under contract with the CIO. After further talk, the work stoppage
was settled by an agreement that the employees would return to work on the
morning of January 9 without any discrimination. However, on January 10,
Respondent Company actively demonstrated to the employees that it was opposed
to AFL activities on their part, and that it favored the existing relationship
with the CIO. On that date, the employees were convened for the admitted
purpose of settling the unrest caused by the walkout. Partner Kirsch an-
nounced, as he had informed Buckalew, that the Company was under contract
with the CIO and that the employees had 2 weeks to 30 days to sign up with the
CIO. He displayed CIO designation cards to the employees and invited them to
come to the office and sign them. In fact, later that morning, in response to
a question, he assured an employee that he did want her to sign a CIO card.
Furthermore, on the same morning, Partner Shinn questioned complainant
Rogers, later to be discharged, concerning her prominent AFL activities in
the plant.
AFL activities continued thereafter in the plant and all six complainants
wore AFL buttons at work. Partner Shinn admitted that he had seen com-
plainant Ferguson, as well as other unidentified employees, wear some kind of
button. On March 28, the Company posted a notice advising the employees
that the contract with Respondent Union required that nonunion members be
discharged unless they applied for membership within 1 week and joined
the Union within 2 weeks after the commencement of their employment. As
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1231
Partner Goosens admitted , "We posted the notice so the people would belong
to the Union and then everything would be in harmony ." Slightly over 2 weeks
later, the six complainants were abruptly discharged without any advance
notice. The language used on that occasion is most significant . Partner Shinn,
after summoning them to the office , announced that there had been too much
confusion in the plant , that they had not complied with the provisions of the
notice on the bulletin board, and that they were therefore discharged. Be
refused to supply them with a written statement concerning the reasons for
the discharge.
The foregoing , and particularly the March 28 notice on the bulletin board and
statements made at the time of discharge , constitutes , in the view of the under-
signed, strong and well-nigh irrebuttable evidence that the six complainants
were discharged under the provisions of an illegal union -security clause because
of their espousal of the AFL rather than the Company 's choice, Respondent
Union. Nor , even if the clause were a legal union-security clause, is there any
evidence that the discharges were brought about by reasons other than nonpay-
ment of initiation fees or dues. In fact, the dues of the employees had been
paid for years by the Company , all six complainants had applied for CIO member-
ship prior to developing interest in the AFL , Shinn testified that he considered all
six to be CIO members at the time of their discharge , and CIO Representative
Weisgal testified that four of the six were. And if it be argued that the contract
had terminated through operation of law, the net result would be that discharges
for reasons of union security would be automatically unlawful.
In an effort to rebut the foregoing , Respondent Company claims that the
six complainants were discharged for causes unrelated to union security; Re-
spondent Union claims that it did not request the discharge of the six, and
there is, in fact , no evidence that it ever made such a request . Accordingly,
the undersigned will at this point treat with the various causes assigned for
the discharges.
Oddis Rogers entered the employ of the Company in 1944 , worked for approxi-
mately 1 year , and then left of her own accord . She reapplied and was rehired
in August 1947 as a shirt folder and worked until discharged on April 13, 1951.
There is no evidence that Respondent Company considered her anything but a
satisfactory employee, at least until the advent of the AFL in January of 1951,
and this is demonstrated by the fact of her rehiring.
It is contended that Rogers, along with the other five complainants in this
group, did most of the talking which the Company herein complains of. Partner
Shinn testified that complaints were made by various employees concerning
these six , but was unable to identify any. Purported evidence of specific
misconduct on the part of Rogers was presented by several witnesses for the
Company. Thus, employee Ilde Brown testified that Bill Lewis, a nonemployee
and the son of a plant employee , appeared at the plant on several occasions
and spoke to Rogers during working hours. Employee Letha Wolverton, who
worked near Rogers , testified that Lewis came to the plant on several occasions
after the January 10 meeting and conversed with Rogers for a few minutes on
each of these. According to Rogers , her place of work was near the plant entrance
and Lewis , who apparently entered for the purpose of visiting his mother, would
pass by Rogers ' place of work. She also testified that she recalled but one
instance when Lewis had entered the plant after January 10. Wolverton ad-
mited that she had never registered any complaints concerning Rogers and
there is no evidence that Rogers' brief talk or talks with Lewis were ever
reported to management . The undersigned does not credit Brown 's testimony
that-Lewis conversed with Rogers on several occasions after January 10. In
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD
so finding , the unaersigned gives weight to Rogers ' uncontroverted testimony
that she had seen Partner Shinn converse with Brown at work subsequent to
January 10 for 20 to 30 minutes at a time ; in any event it is apparent that at
best these were occasional and brief talks with a visitor to the plant who passed
by Rogers ' place of work , and that they were of a most insignificant nature.
Aloysius Simons, a singularly unimpressive witness, testified that on one
occasion after January 10 he saw Rogers speak to complainant Stull, and on
various occasions saw Rogers speak to complainant Ferguson . Simons never
reported any of these purported incidents and there is no evidence that they
were ever observed . Here as well , the conduct described by Rogers , even if
engaged in and reported, was indeed of a slight nature. Significant , too, is
the testimony of Partner Goosens, who spends considerable time in the plant,
that he had seen the group of six talking but that others may have been present.
He also testified that reports on talking came to him from Partner Shinn who
placed some of the talking as taking place during lunch and rest periods.
Pointedly , Rogers received no warnings of any type subsequent to January 10
when she was questioned concerning her AFL activities.
Accordingly , the undersigned credits the testimony of Rogers that she engaged
in no talking out of the ordinary subsequent to January 10. Moreover , as indi-
cated, such conduct as was attributed to her was of a most trivial nature and
was, at least in part , never reported ; the undersigned is at a loss to ascertain
how the conduct attributed to Rogers created confusion in the plant as alleged.
Therefore it is not believed that the causes assigned for the discharge of Rogers,
an employee of long tenure, are the true reasons for her discharge.
Alberta Casey entered the employ of the Company in 1944 and worked as a
presser until her discharge on April 13, 1951. Her work was never criticized
and there is no evidence that, prior to the advent of the AFL , she was considered
anything but a satisfactory employee . In fact, Partner Goosens admitted that
he considered Casey to be a good operator and that he was surprised when she
was selected for discharge . He went so far as to express this surprise to Partner
Shinn who merely replied that Casey had been talking too much.
Employee Wolverton testified that on January 10, immediately after the speech
by Partner Shinn , she saw Casey talking to complainants Rogers and Stull, and
that Casey then attempted to engage her, Wolverton , in a conversation. Wolver-
ton reminded Casey of Shinn 's instructions not to engage in talking and Casey
immediately returned to work. The incident was never taken up with Casey
by management.
The Company contended , as evidence of Casey's talking, that she had made
inquiries concerning the identity of its customers . It presented no affirmative
evidence of such inquiries by Casey and there is no evidence that the matter
was ever taken up with her . Actually , the only evidence was that of Casey who
testified that on one occasion during the 3-week period prior to her discharge
she noticed that the number of garments being cleaned for Los Angeles Transit
Lines, a customer , appeared to be larger than usual ; she then asked employee
Pauline Edwards what the number of garments was. This was the entire con-
versation ; Edwards was not called as a witness by the Company. As is ap-
parent, the earlier incident was on its face an attempt by Casey to talk with an
employee which was promptly abandoned . This attempt was relatively ancient,
occurring 2 months prior to her discharge . There is no evidence that it was
repeated , and Casey was not criticized or warned as a result of it . The latter
incident , if it may be termed that, was an inquiry concerning the increased
amount of work that Casey, a presser , found herself doing for a customer of the
Company. In the view of the undersigned, the foregoing are of a most trivial
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1233
nature. In view of the foregoing and Casey 's long and excellent record with the
Company, it is believed that they were not the true causes for her discharge.
Quency Ferguson entered the employ of the Company in February 1946 and
worked steadily , save for a 4-month absence due to illness, until his discharge
on April 13, 1951. There is no evidence that his work was anything but satis-
factory during his tenure of approximately 5 years. As in the previous cases,
the several matters assigned as causes for his discharge are of a porous nature.
Thus, according to Partner Goosens, he observed Ferguson talking to employees
on various occasions for several months prior to his discharge . On one occasion,
the date of which Goosens did not fix , he observed Ferguson speaking to office
clerical Cunningham and reprimanded him. Ferguson admitted that he and
Cunningham held a brief conversation on or about December 7, 1950, when
Cunningham spoke to him concerning union organizers and that Goosens then
warned him not to talk on company time. Cunningham was not called as a
witness, was not reprimanded on the occasion , and the undersigned credits
Ferguson as to the date of the incident.
Aloysius Simons also testified that Ferguson spoke to complainant Rogers at
various times . He did not fix the dates and he admittedly never reported the
incidents to management . There is also evidence that approximately 1 month
prior to his discharge Ferguson and a plant janitor quarrelled ; the quarrel was
broken up before they resorted to fisticuffs and neither was reprimanded for
the incident . Heffern also testified that on a visit to the plant he observed
Ferguson engaged in conversation with another employee and that Ferguson,
on observing Heffern in Heinz' company , immediately terminated the talk; he
also testified that on leaving the plant 10 or 15 minutes later , he observed
Ferguson again engaged in talk with the same employee . Heffern was uncertain,
however , as to the date of the incident . At one point he testified that this was
between the December 18 and January 10 meetings and elsewhere he stated that
this "might have been" after the January 10 meeting . In view thereof the
undersigned finds that it is uncertain and unlikely that this talk followed the
January 10 speech by Kirsch in which he warned against talking in the plant
and that in any event it was a relatively ancient incident on April 13.
Considering the nature of these incidents , the fact that Ferguson was engaged
in nothing outstanding at work other than his AFL activities from the period
of January 10 to his discharge , and the fact that Shinn testified that he did not
decide to carry out the discharges until a matter of days prior to April 13, the
undersigned concludes that the reasons assigned for the Ferguson discharge
are not the true reason therefor.
Mary Ellen Stein entered the employ of the Company in December 1949. She
was transferred several times from one job to another, each time at a raise in
pay, and was a presser at the time of her discharge on April 13 , 1951 . Respondent
Company presented no direct testimony involving Stein in any misconduct or
malfeasance of duty other than Shinn 's testimony unsupported by any details
or specific evidence of any nature, that the six employees engaged in more talking
than the other employees.
Stein on the other hand was never criticized for talking on the job and her
work was in no way found unsatisfactory . In fact , Foreman Turner on one
occasion informed her, that her work was quite satisfactory . According to Stein,
it was customary for all the employees to do some talking as they worked and
this practice was not curtailed by anyone between January 10 and April 13. She
testified that she engaged in some talking during this period , but no more than
anyone else . The testimony of Stein , a clear and forthright witness, is cred-
ited here as elsewhere . In sum , the undersigned finds that Respondent Company
has not presented evidence of any substance that Stein engaged in any type of
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
misconduct or excessive talking . This is all the more significant in view of
the fact that such evidence , slight though it may have been, was presented in the
cases of the other complainants herein. Hence, the undersigned finds that the
cause assigned for the discharge of Stein is not the true cause.
Evelyn Stull entered the employ of the Company in , October 1944 and
worked steadily until her discharge on April 13 , 1951 . Her work was never criti-
cized and she was at no time warned or instructed not to talk on the job. Partner
Goosens, when asked if Stull did any unnecessary talking, replied conclusively
that "She probably did," conceding at the same time that "She was a good
operator."
As in the other cases, the evidence presented by the Company in the case of
Stull is weak . Employee Ilde Brown testified that Stull conversed frequently
with employee Rogers while they worked . She admitted, however , that Stull and
Rogers worked side by side as a team , one pressing the garments and the other
folding them . It is apparent that some talking under these circumstances was
inevitable , but the undersigned is unable to see how this constituted creating a
disturbance in the plant . Moreover , Brown never registered a complaint with
management concerning this talking . Employee Wolverton testified that on Jan-
uary 10, after Partner Shinn 's speech , she saw Alberta Casey speak with Stull
and Rogers ; if anything, this would not appear to make Stull the offender and
at any rate the conversation was brief . Employee Simons testified that on one
occasion subsequent to January 10 he saw Stull speak with Rogers ; but, as ap-
pears above , they worked beside each other and inevitably did speak with a
certain amount of frequency.
Finally, Wolverton gave some dubious testimony to the effect that Stull refused
to press as many shirts as she was able to. According to Wolverton, Stull
refused to exceed her daily quota of 300, whereas she, Wolverton , did as many
as she could , with the net result that at the end of the week Wolverton had al-
legedly turned out 25 to 30 more shirts than Stull . This last contention may be
disposed of briefly . Firstly, Wolverton never complained concerning Stull's out-
put ; secondly , the Company never complained to Stull concerning her output ; and,
thirdly, Shinn at the hearing did not contend that Stull was discharged for unsat-
isfactory work. He predicated the discharge solely upon her purported talking
and in any event the testimony of Goosens quoted above establishes that she was a
satisfactory employee. In conclusion , when consideration is given to Stull's
long tenure with the Company , the absence of a single instance of her work
being criticized , and the admission that she was a "good " operator , the under-
signed finds that there is no substance to the reasons assigned by the Company
for the discharge of Stull and concludes that they are not the true cause for
her discharge.
Annie Wilson worked for the Company for a 6-month period during 1946 and
1947 and then quit of her own volition . She applied for further employment and
was rehired in June of 1949. She was discharged on January 6, 1951 , but was
promptly reinstated at the behest of CIO Representative Weisgal . Thereafter
she received no criticism of her work and was never warned that she might be
discharged . She testified that she engaged in no talking at work and , in fact,
Respondent Company presented no testimony of this nature save for that of
Goosens to the effect that during the period from January to March 1951 he
observed Wilson speak to another employee , who worked nearby, on two or three
occasions . She was never reprimanded and the matter is clearly ancient and
trivial at best when considered in relation to the timing of her discharge on
April 13.
Other evidence was presented, apparently in an effort to demonstrate that
Wilson was not a competent employee. Thus , Florence Mustard testified that
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1235
it was her duty to distribute garments to be mended and that on one occasion
when it was Wilson's turn to do the mending, Wilson stated that she was un-
able to do it on her sewing machine. Shinn presented testimony to the effect
that Wilson would complain that her machine was not operating properly but
that when he proceeded to inspect it he discovered nothing amiss. Wilson dis-
puted much of this testimony, contending that her machine was in fact a poor one
and would not sew woolens properly. She testified that on the occasion adverted
to by Mustard, the mending was done by a Mrs. Harper on a nearby machine and
that she, Wilson, proceeded to perform cotton mending in lieu thereof on her
own machine. Wilson also disputed Shinn's testimony and claimed that Shinn
actually found it necessary to repair her machine each time he was asked to
attend to it.
It is unnecessary to devote more space to an evaluation of these respective
versions. Other testimony by Mustard, a witness for the Company, discloses
that shortly after this mending incident, Mrs Harper voluntarily quit the
Company's employ. This left her machine vacant and Wilson was assigned to
it on or about March 1. According to Mustard, Wilson's work was satisfactory
thereafter and there is no evidence of any further difficulty. It is thus clear that
Wilson's work was satisfactory for at least the 6 weeks' period preceding her
discharge on April 13 and that there was no likelihood of any further difficulty.
The undersigned finds therefore that there is no substantial evidence in support
of the Company's contentions herein and that the cause assigned for Wilson's
discharge is not the true cause therefor.
d. Conclusions
It has hereinabove been found that the General Counsel has presented strong
and substantial evidence demonstrating that the six complainants were discharged
on April 13, 1951, under the provisions of an unlawful union-security agreement
because of their advocacy of the AFL. Furthermore, the reason for the discharges
is immaterial inasmuch as an unlawful union-security agreement renders unlaw-
ful any discharge carried out pursuant to its provisions. The reasons assigned
by Respondent Company for the discharges have been considered and have been
found to be trivial, flimsy, of little substance, and, in the view of the undersigned,
not the true reasons therefor. In the final analysis, any lingering doubt as to
the true causation of the discharges is dispelled when consideration is given to a
letter sent to a field examiner of the Board investigating this case on April 30,
1951, approximately 2 weeks after the discharges, by counsel for Respondent
Company. According to Partner Goosens, the substance of the letter was com-
municated to him over the telephone by company counsel prior to sending the
letter and he, Goosens, was in agreement with and approved its content. The
letter identifies this case by number and states, in part, as follows :
* * * * * *
Boss Overalls (sic) Cleaners has a contract with Cleaners and*Dyers Union,
Local 268, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, (C. I. 0.) under
which it works on a year to year basis . . .
* * * * * *
None of these discharged employees were discharged because they belonged
to the A. F. of L. Union Mozell Raburn was discharged because of inability
to get along with other office help and for failure to do her work properly.
The other employees failed to join the C. I. O.. Union after two weeks notice.
Stich joining is provided by the contract in question. In addition I might '
add that considerable bitterness has arisen in the plant between these
employees and others which has caused disturbances.
227260-53-vol 100-79
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Our clients are in the middle between two unions, with one of which it
has a contract. . . . All other employees belong to the C. I. O. Union,
except the office force which is not covered.
I shall go into this efitire matter in more detail if necessary, including
the calling of an abortive strike by. Buckalew involving these same people
earlier. At that time it was explained to Mr. Buckalew that the company
coudn't not (sic) disregard its contract with the C. I. O. [Emphasis added.]
From the foregoing it is clear that approximately 2 weeks after the discharges
Respondent Company admitted that it had discharged these six employees because
of their failure to comply with the illegal union-security provisions of its contract
with Respondent Union. It is immaterial whether or not these discharges were
carried out because of their AFL activity, although the undersigned is of the
belief and concludes that their AFL adherence was the motivating factor behind
the discharges. Interstate Transportation Co., 96 NLRB No. 202. Accordingly,
it is found that by discharging these six employees under the provisions of an
illegal union-security agreement, Respondent Company has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
Utah Construction Co., 95 NLRB 196; Consolidated Western Steel Co., 94 NLRB
1590; and Childs Co., 93 NLRB 281. It is further found that by renewal, recog-
nition, and enforcement of this illegal contract subsequent to the 1947 amend-
ments to the Act and later, in point of time, than 6 months prior to the filing of
the instant charges on April 26, 1951, Respondent Company has engaged in con-
duct violative of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (3) of the Act. Mundet Cork Cor-
poration , et al., 96 NLRB 1142, and New York State Employers Association, 93
NLRB 127.18
Turning to the case against Respondent Union, it is contended and the un-
dersigned finds that there is no evidence that Respondent Union requested these
discharges. However, the evidence is undisputed that during the period from
December 1950 until the discharges in April 1951 Respondent Union contended
and Respondent Company agreed that they had a contract in effect. This con-
tract contained illegal union-security provisions. More particularly, the em-
ployees were informed on March 28 by a notice posted on the bulletin board by
the Company that this illegal union-security language was operative, and in
fact, it was made operative and enforced in the full sense of the word by the
discharges on April 13. Respondent Union thus became jointly responsible for
the establishment and enforcement of this discriminatory hiring policy and its
illegal union-security provisions. Utah Construction Co., supra. These six dis-
charges were the proximate result of Respondent Union's claim that the con-
tract was in effect, the Company's agreement with such position, and the effectu-
ation of the union-security provisions of the agreement. Consolidated Western
Steel Corp., supra. The undersigned therefore finds that Respondent Union, by
becoming party to and enforcing this contract within a period of 6 months prior
to the filing of the charges herein, as well as thereafter, has engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8 (b), (1) (A) and (2) of the Act. See
M. H. Gammino Construction Co., 97 NLRB 386.
D. The 8 (a) (2) allegations; interference with the administration of and
support to Respondent Union
The complaint alleges that Respondent Company, by giving effect to the 1943
contract and by carrying out discharges thereunder, has engaged in conduct
18 The undersigned will hereinafter treat with other aspects of the 8 (a) (2) allegation.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1237
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. The undersigned has
previously found that by engaging in such conduct not earlier than the 6-month
period prior to the filing of the charges herein, as well as thereafter, Respondent
Company has contributed substantial support to the Union and has thereby con-
travened Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act. This leaves for treatment certain
other allegations that Respondent Company has interfered with the administra=
tion of and contributed financial and other support to Respondent Union. It may'
be noted that these allegations do not change domination of Respondent Union by
the Company.19
The complaint alleges that the Company paid the dues for its employees to
Respondent Union. The evidence has previously been set forth and there is no
dispute that until April 1951, and despite the current AFL campaign, dues were
paid for at least some employees as part of the Company's assistance to Re-
spondent Union. The undersigned accordingly finds that under the circum-
stances here present the Company has contributed financial support to Re-
spondent Union within the 6-month period prior to the filing of the charges and
that it has thereby engaged in conduct violative of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2)
of the Act.
It has also been shown that on January 10, as alleged, Partner Kirsch urged
the employees to sign CIO cards and specifically informed one that he wished
her to sign. And on or about February 15 or 16, 1951, as part of the formalities
of entering its employ, employee Florence Mustard was presented with a CIO
card by Partner Shinn, who informed her that all employees were asked to sign,
and that all did so. The undersigned finds that by the foregoing, Respondent
Company has interfered with the free choice of a bargaining representative by
its employees and that it has thereby contributed support to Respondent Union
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the Act.
The General Counsel attacks the conduct of Labor Relations Consultant Dick
Heffern at certain meetings. His appearance at meetings held on December 5
and 18, 1950, was at the request of management and the undersigned finds that
he was its representative and agent at such times. At the December 5 meeting,
Heffern stated to the employees that they did not need a labor organization to
represent them. The undersigned bases no adverse finding upon this statement
of Heffern. Turning to the December 18 meeting, this meeting was opened with
an explanation that its purpose was to decide whether to maintain the existing
situation of an inactive union with the Company paying the dues in behalf of the
employees, or whether to have an active union. On this occasion Heffern again
intervened and urged that the employees not have a labor organization, pointing
to the burden of attending union meetings. Although in this context this ref-
erence by Heffern urged retention of the existing illegal relationship, this is
viewed by the undersigned as an expression of his opinion which is protected.
The evidence in support of the remainder of the 8 (a) (1) allegations falls
within the realm of free speech and contains no threats of reprisal or promises
of benefit ; in the view of the undersigned, it requires no further discussion.
- 19 Therefore the contention of the General Counsel that as part of the remedy, Respond-
ent Union should be disestablished, is not accepted. Cf. Jack Smith Beverages, 94 NLRB
1401.. True, the facts with respect to the earlier existence of Respondent Union at the
Company might render appropriate a disestablishment remedy. Thus, the Company has
unilaterally, without any participation of or notice to the Union, departed from the terms
of the contract and has changed working conditions. However, the record denotes that
Respondent Union, since the advent of a new business representative , has demonstrated -
signs of independence.
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. The discriminatory discharge of Mozelle Raburn
1. Employment history ; union activities
The complaint alleges that Respondent Company discriminatorily discharged
Mozelle Raburn on January 11, 1951, because of her membership in and activities
on behalf of the AFL; there is no allegation in this connection against Respondent
Union. Raburn entered the employ of the Company on April 4, 1950. She was
hired by then Office Manager Leo Harpen as an office clerical at $38 per week.
Raburn was one of three clericals and was assigned to work on the payrolls and
accounts receivable ; she also handled the typing and mailing of invoices and
customers' statements. On or about June 1, 1950, Raburn became dissatisfied
with her employment and on an afternoon off procured other employment ; she
returned to the plant and informed Harpen that she intended to quit. Harpen
queried her as to the reason for her departure and she replied that her pay was
too low. He conferred with Partner Heinz and offered Raburn a raise in pay if
she would stay. She accepted the offer and her pay was increased to $45 per
week with a promise of another raise in 6 months. It appears that the other
office clericals also received a pay raise, although the record does not disclose the
precise amounts.
About 2 months later Raburn again became dissatisfied with the rate of turn-
over in the plant, which apparently increased her duties and, as before, obtained
another job. Partner Shinn then informed her that the Company desired 2
weeks' notice if she intended to depart ; Partner Goosens urged her to stay, claim-
ing that conditions would straighten themselves out. Raburn agreed to stay
and returned to work.
During November, Raburn again became dissatisfied with working conditions,
particularly with her inability to get answers to questions she asked the partners.
She apparently again procured other employment and so informed Mrs. Coates
who had replaced Harpen as office manager. Coates asked Raburn not to leave,
stating that she liked her work and that things would improve. Raburn agreed
to stay on. Later that month Raburn spoke to Partner Heinz and reminded him
that at the time of her previous raise she had been promised another raise in 6
months. Heinz recalled the promise and agreed to give her the raise. Raburn
received a raise in pay to $47 per week during the latter part of December and it
also appears that the other office clericals received wage increases at the same
time 20 The last day Raburn worked was January 9. She was absent due to
illness on January 10 and returned to work on January 11. Shortly after report-
ing to work on that date she was called to the office where all the partners save
Kirsch were gathered. Heinz then stated that ". . . we don't want you here any
more." Raburn replied that she had not done anything wrong, and Heinz replied,
"We feel you have and will you leave the building immediately" ; Raburn was
given her check and forthwith left the premises. She has not been recalled to
work.
Raburn became interested in the AFL campaign either late in December or
early in January and signed an AFL card on January 3. She attended the
meeting of AFL supporters held on January 7 under the direction of AFL
Representative Buckalew as a result of the two discharges on January 6. She
also actively solicited employees to join the AFL. Thus, on January 4, she
' 20 The foregoing findings' are based upon the testimony of Raburn. The testimony of
Heinz did not conflict with the above ; although in one place he testified that Raburn did
not'receive a raise in pay after her last attempt to quit; he later changed his testimony
and agreed that the raise had followed her last attempt to quit . Coates was not called
as a witness.
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1239
solicited the membership of employee Glenna Martin. On January 9, the last
day she worked, she solicited the membership of office clerical Nona Cunning-
ham as well as that of employee Aloysius Simons ; of the three, only the latter
testified herein. As stated, she was absent on January 10, and, when she returned
to work on the morning of January 11, was forthwith discharged. Although
she protested that she had done nothing wrong, no reason was given for the
discharge. Significantly, this was almost identical with the pattern which
was later followed on April 13 in carrying out the six discharges previously
found to be discriminatory, -
2. Contentions and conclusions
Respondent Company developed some testimony concerning Raburn's earlier
attempts to quit its employ and concerning certain absences on her part. How-
ever, after each attempt to quit, she stayed on at the specific request of man-
agement and in fact received two raises in pay, the last following her final
attempt to leave. And with respect to her absences, which took place 1 day
a month, the record shows that these were with the knowledge and approval
of management. Moreover, the Company, in effect, concedes that the true
motivating cause of the discharge was her alleged divulgement of certain con-
fidential information. The truth of this Raburn denied.
The evidence in support of the Company's basic contention herein is as follows.
According to Partner Heinz, he was informed by Partner Shinn around the
time of the January 8 strike that the names and addresses of company employees
were getting into the possession of people on the outside. The record does not
provide any explanation as to who the people on the outside were, but the
undersigned infers, in the absence of any other reasonable explanation, that
the Company was disturbed by the fact that an AFL organizational campaign
was being carried on among its employees. Shinn did not provide or suggest
the name of any culprit in this conversation. Heinz testified that he forthwith
telephoned Labor Relations Consultant Heffern and informed him that one of
the office employees who had access to the payroll sheets which bore the names
and addresses of employees, was conveying this information to outsiders. Hef-
fern ascertained from Heinz that the office employee had access to confidential
information and then advised Heinz, in response to his query, that the Company
could discharge the offender without notice." According to Heinz, he then pro-
ceeded to confer with Partners Goosens and Shinn and they decided that an
office employee who had access to the payrolls "was possibly the logical one"
and that this was Raburn. He made no other investigation and there is no
evidence that any of the other partners did. Although Heffern testified that
the offender was discharged on the same day that the partner telephoned him,
it is not clear whether the discussions among the partners and the telephone
call to Heffern took place on January 10 or early on the morning of January 11.
Heinz claimed that the names and addresses of employees appear only on the
company payroll records; that these records were kept nights in the safe and
during the day either on Raburn's desk or in the safe which stands open all
day ; and that no other personnel worked on the payrolls in Raburn's absence.
As is apparent, the Company acted with extreme dispatch in Raburn's case.
It not only concluded that so-called confidential information was being passed on
to outsiders, but further concluded that the offender was an office clerical and
21 The testimony of Heffern substantially corroborated that of Heinz ; however, accord-
ing to Heffern , the office employee was passing out information not with respect to the
names and addresses of employees , but rather relative to customers and the volume of
business.
'1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Raburn was the clerical. The testimony of Shinn is silent as to just how
or when this matter came to his attention. Apparently he made no investigation
and he, it is clear, had initially arrived at no decision as to the identity of the
purported offender ; nor did Heinz make any investigation. According to his
testimony, he merely cleared with Heffern the propriety of a hasty discharge.
It was only then that three of the partners decided that the offender was an
office clerical and was Raburn. And not even then, although their testimony
indicates that they viewed the matter as one of the utmost stringency, was the
matter mentioned to Raburn. Although this was viewed as a major breach of
confidence on her part, Raburn was not even given the reason for her discharge
or questioned concerning the alleged incident.
In view of the foregoing, as well as the reasons which follow, the undersigned
does not credit the Company's contentions in the case of Raburn. It is not be-
lieved that the reason assigned for her discharge is the true reason. As stated,
the haste, failure to investigate, and failure to provide the accused with a ground
for discharge, render the discharge suspicious The Company, insofar as the
record indicates, had no affirmative evidence linking Raburn with the alleged
misconduct. Yet, even assuming the truth of the Company's claim that names
and addresses were being passed out, it is readily apparent that in so small a
plant in a small community, the names and addresses of most employees, par-
ticularly in view of their relatively long tenure, would be common knowledge.
N. L. R. B. v. Abbott Worsted Mills, 127 F. 2d 438 (C. A. 1), and F. W. Wool-
,worth Co. v. N. L. R. B, 121 F. 2d 658 (C. A. 2).
When consideration is given to other conduct which the Company engaged in
at this time, the discharge stands in a clearer light. As heretofore detailed,
the Company had since December been resisting the efforts to drum up support
,for an active union in the plant. The AFL then came into the picture with a
demand for recognition on January 8. How the Company viewed the possibility
,of AFL representation is demonstrated by the conduct of Kirsch who insisted
to AFL Representative Buckalew on January 8 that the Company was under
;contract with the CIO. Although the strike was settled and the employees re-
turned to work on January 9, the Company proceeded to convene them on the
following day, January 10, at which time Kirsch informed the assembled em-
ployees that the Company was under contract with the CIO and that they had 2
-weeks to 30 days to sign up with the CIO. He also displayed CIO cards and
urged the employees to sign them ; in fact, later that day he personally pro-
cured the signature of one employee to a CIO card. Moreover, shortly after
,Kirsch's speech that morning, Oddis Rogers was questioned concerning her AFL
activities.
Also to be considered are the unusual circumstances of the discharge. Heinz
.admitted that Partner Goosens customarily handled discharges of office employees
inasmuch as he spent more time than Heinz in the office ; he also admitted that
this was the first person he had discharged during his years as a partner since
April 1947. This departure from the norm only adds to the suspicious circum-
stances of the discharge. N. L. R. B. v. Rock Hill Printing and Finishing Co.,
131 F. 2d 171 (C. A. 4). Against this background there stands the cogent factor
of Raburn's activities at that very moment in behalf of the AFL. She had
signed an AFL card on January 3, had promptly solicited the membership of an
employee on January 4, and on January 9 again solicited two employees to join
the AFL.
In sum, the" reasons of Respondent Company do not stand up under scrutiny.
Although it is apparent that Raburn demonstrated on several occasions that she
was a dissatisfied employee , it is also true that none of her ' earlier conduct
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1241
would have resulted in her discharge, absent the last purported incident. The
suspicious circumstances, the lack-of proof, and the inherent weakness of its
contention when considered against the Company's strong campaign against the
AFL and Raburn's prominent AFL activities immediately prior to her discharge,
persuade the undersigned that the true reason for her discharge was her AFL
activities ; that Respondent Company, on learning of the AFL adherence and
activities of one of its office staff, decided to eliminate her from its employ ; and
that it assigned this breach of confidence as the reason. N. L. R. B. v. Smith Vic-
tory Corp., 190 F. 2d 56 (C. A. 2), and N. L. R. B. v. Condenser Corp., 128 F. 2d
67 (C. A. 3). It is accordingly found that the Company has discriminated with
respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Raburn, thereby encouraging
membership in Respondent Union and discouraging membership in the AFL, in
contravention of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. It is further found that by such
conduct Respondent Company has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth in section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of Respondent Company, set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents and each of them have engaged in and are
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that Respondent Company and Respondent Union have
recognized, enforced, and still recognize a contract containing unlawful union-
security provisions. Accordingly, it will be recommended that Respondent
Company be ordered to withdraw recognition from Respondent Union and cease
giving effect to the contract of January 5, 1943, with that organization, or to any
modification, extension, supplement, or renewal thereof, unless and until Respond-
ent Union has been certified by the Board. Nothing in this recommended order,
however, shall be deemed to require Respondent Company to vary or abandon
those wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive features of its relation with
its employees established in conformance with said agreement or to prejudice
the assertion by said employees of any rights they may have under such
agreement.
It has been found that Respondent Company, through enforcing unlawful
union-security provisions in its contract with Respondent Union, has discrim-
.inated and that Respondent Union has thereby caused it to discriminate with
respect to the hire and tenure of employment of Oddis Rogers, Annie Wilson,
Quency Ferguson , Alberta Casey, Evelyn Stull, and Mary Ellen Stein. It will
therefore be recommended that Respondent Company offer them full and im-
mediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. See The Chase
National Bank of the City of New York, San Juan, Puerto- Rico, Branch, 65
NLRB 827. Having found that Respondent. Union caused Respondent Company
to discharge the afore-named six employees, it will be recommended that Respond-
ent Union notify the Comnanv. in writine. that it has no objections to the em-
-1242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployment of these six employees and that it request the Company to offer them
full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
Having further found that Respondent Company has discriminated with respect
to the hire and tenure of Mozelle Raburn, it will be recommended that it offer
her full and immediate reinstantement to her former or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges.
Inasmuch as it has been found that both Respondents are responsible for the
discrimination suffered by Oddis Rogers, Annie Wilson, Quency Ferguson, Alberta
Casey, Evelyn Stull, and Mary Ellen Stein, it will be recommended that they
jointly and severally make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suf-
fered by reason of the discrimination against them. Squirt Distributing Com-
panny, 92 NLRB 1667. The liability of the Union for back pay shall terminate
5 days after it notifies the Company that it has no objections to the employ-
ment of the six afore-named employees. Pinkerton's National Detective Agency,
Inc., 90 NLRB 205. , It will further be recommended that Respondent Company
make whole Mozelle Raburn for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason
of the discrimination against her. Said losses of pay based upon earnings which
would normally have been earned less net earnings shall be computed on a
quarterly calendar basis in accordance with the formula adopted by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289. See Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440.
In the view of the undersigned, the unfair labor practices found above disclose
on the part of the Respondent Company a fundamental antipathy to the objec-
tives of the Act and justify an inference that the commission of other unfair
labor practices may be anticipated in the future. The undersigned will there-
fore recommend that Respondent Company be ordered to cease and desist from
in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act.
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. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Local 268, CIO, and Laundry
Workers International Union, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. By contributing support to Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America,
Local 268, CIO, Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to the hire and tenure of employment of
Mozelle Raburn, Oddis Rogers, Annie Wilson, Quency Ferguson, Alberta Casey,
Evelyn Stull, and Mary Ellen Stein, thereby encouraging membership in Respond-
ent Union and discouraging membership in -Laundry Workers International
Union, AFL, Respondent Company has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. By causing Respondent Company to discriminate against Rogers, Wilson,
Ferguson, Casey, Stull, and Stein, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
BOSS OVERALL CLEANERS 1243
Act, Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. -
6. By restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of the - rights guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
(Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
Appendix A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 WITHDRAW and withhold all recognition from AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LocAL 268, CIO, or any successor thereto,
as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing
with us concerning 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 agreement of January
15, 1943, with AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 268, CIO,
or to any modification, extension, supplement, or renewal thereto, or to
any other contract, agreement, or understanding with said labor organiza-
tion 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.
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL 268, CIO, or in any other labor organization of our
employees, and we will not discourage membership in LAUNDRY WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, or in any other labor organization of our
employees , by discriminating against our employees in any manner in regard
to their hire or tenure of employment, except to the extent permitted by
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LocAL 268, CIO.
WE WILL OFFER to the employees named below, immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as the result of the dis-
crimination against them.
Mozelle Raburn Alberta Casey
Oddis Rogers Evelyn Stull
Annie Wilson Mary Ellen Stein
Quency Ferguson
1244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce our
employees in the right to engage in or to refrain from engaging in any
or all of the activities guaranteed them by Section ' 7 of the Act, except to
the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring mem-
bership in a labor organization as a-condition of employment , as authorized
by-Section- 8 (a). (3) of the Act.--_
All our employees- are free to become, -remain , or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members in good standing of LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, AFL , 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.
Boss OVERALL CLEANERS,
Employer.
Dated-------------------- By ---------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof , and must
not be altered , defaced , or.covere-d by any - other material. -
Appendix B ' -
NOTICE -
To ALL MEMBERS OF AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 268,
CIO, AND -TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF Boss OVERALL CLEANERS
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 you that :
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause . Boss OVERALL CLEANERS, its
partners , agents, successors , or assigns, by giving recognition to the agree-
ment of January 15, 1943, or any extension, renewal, or supplement thereto,
to discharge or otherwise discriminate against its employees because they
are not members in good standing of Local 268, except in accordance with
the provisions of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner cause or attempt to cause Boss
OVERALL CLEANERS , its partners , agents, successors , or assigns , to discrimi-
nate against its employees , except in accordance with the provisions of
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Boss OVERALL CLEANERS
in the exercise of the right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any
or all of the concerted activities guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole the employees named below for any loss of pay
they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them.
Oddis Rogers Alberta Casey
Annie Wilson Evelyn Stull
Quency Ferguson lIary Ellen Stein
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 268, CIO,
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.