New Orleans Laundry, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 29, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 966 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

966 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
What we do consider decisive is the fact that the Employer preempted
the last opportunity for equal discussion and argumentation on the
union question by waiting as he did until a time when no such equality
would be physically possible . This use by the Employer of working
hours for campaigning , timed so as to deny a substantially equal
opportunity for presentation of the Union's views , was discriminatory
and prejudiced that atmosphere we believe is essential to a fair exer-
cise of their franchise by the voters . As the Board has held : "In
election proceedings , it is the Board's function to provide a laboratory
in which an experiment may be conducted , under conditions as nearly
ideal as possible , to determine the uninhibited desires of the
employees." 3
With this salutary principle in mind, we are satisfied that this
election must be set aside. We shall also direct that a new election be
conducted.
Order
IT IS I3EREBY ORDERED that the election be held on March 20, 1912,
among the employees of The Hills Brothers Company, Bartow, Flor-
ida, be, and it hereby is, set aside.
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in
this volume.]
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took not part in. the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
3 General Shoe Corporation , 77 NLRB 124.
NEW ORLEANS LAUNDRY, INC.' and LAUNDRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION7 LOCAL 320, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 15-RC-702.
August 29,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Victor H.
Hess, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its. powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
1 The petition was amended at the hearing to name the Employer ( d/b/a Chalmette
Laundries & Cleaners , Chalmette Rug Service , and Zelon Cleaners & Launderers ) correctly,
as stated in the caption.
100 NLRB No. 146.
NEW ORLEANS LAUNDRY, INC. _ 967
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.-'
3. The Employer and the Amalgamated executed a 2-year con-
tract, dated February 25, 1952. As this contract was executed before
the filing of the petition on March 5, some 15 calendar days after the
Laundry Worker's request for recognition was received by the Em-
ployer, it constitutes, a bar to a present determination of representa-
tives unless, as claimed by the Petitioner, section 22 of the contract
provides for illegal union security .4 The contract is silent with respect
to union security and contains provision for the checkoff of dues and
initiation fees from each employee from whom the Employer has re-
ceived a written authorization which shall not be irrevocable for a
period of more than 1 year.
The section in question reads as follows :
Previous Working Conditions
22. Any custom, working condition or practice existing in the
plant more favorable to the employees or the Union than in the
terms of this agreement shall be continued as heretofore. (Em-
phasis added.)
The Petitioner contends that this section is ambiguous and designed
to perpetaute illegal union benefits, including a closed-shop condition
and the mandatory checkoff of assessments , which were removed from
the 1948 contract but allegedly continued to exist as practices. Al-
though they assert that the contract contains no illegal provisions,
the Employer and the Amalgamated further contend that nothing
in the language of section 22 warranted inquiry into the existence of
alleged unfair labor practices.
' The Employer annually supplies services valued in excess of $50,000 to various steam-
ship, railroad , and airline companies which are instrumentalities of interstate and foreign
commerce . Accordingly , we find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding . Hollow Tree Lumber Company , 91 NLRB 635.
s Herein, the Petitioner is sometimes called Laundry Workers and the Intervenor, the
New Orleans Joint Board ( composed of Locals 389, 386, and 288) of the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, CIO , the Amalgamated.
+ If, as the Employer contends and uncontradieted testimony supports , the 1952 contract
was executed on February 13, during the statutory and contract reopening period and
before the claim to representation , the contract would be a bar. De Soto Creamery and
Produce Company , 94 NLRB 1627 . If, as the Petitioner argues and the contract shows
on its face, the contract was not executed until February 25, the contract would neverthe-
less be a bar because it was executed before the filing of the petition 15, rather than 10,
calendar days after the bare claim to representation . Kirby Lumber Corporation, 71
NLRB 688. The delay in the filing of the petition cannot be attributed to the Board or
its agents ; accordingly , we find no extenuating circumstance to make the application
of our usual rule inequitable . Cf. Kirby Lumber Corporation, supra; Indiana Desk Com-
pany, Inc., 82 NLRB 103.
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Both parties to the contract state that section 22 was not intended
to, and did not, cover union security. This position is supported by
the history both of contract provisions between the parties and of
grievances proceedings to prevent changes in working conditions of
some employees which have been based on this provision. The rec-
ord is barren of evidence that this section has ever been interpreted
as relating to union security. Furthermore, the Petitioner's argu-
ments assume illegality,5 whereas the proper assumption is one of
legality.6
The contract contains no union-security provision and considera-
tions as to the legality of the checkoff provision under section 302
are irrelevant to the question of contract bar? It follows that the
current contract between the Employer and the Amalgamated must
be regarded as a bar to a present determination of representatives.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
5 E g., the Petitioner assumes that the deletion of a union-shop condition from the 194&
contract was a nugatory act because such practices were to be continued under the "pre-
vious Working Conditions" section. Such a view ignores the elementary principle of
interpretation which assumes that all omissions are intended to be omissions. See Roscoe
Pound, Spurious Interpretation, VII Col. I. Rev. (1907) 379.
6 Restatement of Contracts, § 236 (c) ; see Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc., 97 NLRB
1488
7 Crown Products Company, 99 NLRB 602. Clearly, the legality of practices apart from
the contract is not litigable in representation proceedings. Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Incor-
porated, 97 NLRB 597.
THE STORE KRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, MILLMEN'S LOCAL
UNION No. 832, AFL,1 PETITIONER
THE STORE KRAFT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and BROTHERHOOD OF
PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, FIXTURE &
GLASS WORKERS LOCAL No. 621, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
17-RC-1351 and 17-RC-1368. August 29,1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William M.
Guerin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
100 NLRB No. 142.