Pacific Laundry Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 1011 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

PACIFIC LAUNDRY COMPANY, LIMITED
ARTICLE 16, .Saving clause.
1011
Should any part of hereof, or any provision herein contained, be rendered or
declared invalid by reason of any existing or subsequently enacted legislation
or by any decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such
part or portion of this Agreement shall not invalidate the remaining portions
hereof; provided, however, upon such invalidation the parties agree immedi-
ately to meet and negotiate such parts or provisions affected. The remaining
parts or provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
PACIFIC LAUNDRY COMPANY, LIItITED and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER
-HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN &HELPERS,
LOCAL UNION 946, AFL, PETITIONER. Cate No. 37-RC-90. Jwn
26, 19'5
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wallace E. Royster, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
`1: The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a cleaning establishment at Honolulu,
Hawaii. Its plant consists of 2 buildings, separated by a private
alley, which house, respectively, the Employer's laundry and dry
cleaning departments, each with approximately 60 employees.
The Petitioner seeks a bargaining unit limited to employees in the
Employer's dry cleaning department. The Employer contends that
a unit so limited is inappropriate and that the only unit appropriate
for its employees is one which includes both the dry cleaning and the
laundry departments.
'The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to reflect the
Employer 's correct name.
99 NLRB No. 147.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer's driver salesmen solicit, pick up, and deliver articles
for cleaning at its plant. They deposit the bundles containing both
laundry and dry cleaning items at the laundry department building.
Here sorters, attached to the laundry department, separate the items
and consign them for processing to one department or the other, de-
pending on customers' instructions or on their own judgment. Fre-
quently, items are consigned to one department to reduce an excessive
workload at the other department. Although the laundry and dry
cleaning departments are primarily organized for laundry and dry
cleaning, respectively, each department is adequately equipped with
facilities for performing both types of work, and each department
regularly handles a substantial amount of both types of work. For
example, 50 percent or more of the Employer's laundry work is per-
formed in the dry cleaning department by dry cleaning department
employees.
Employees in the laundry and dry cleaning departments do not in-
terchange between the departments. They are under separate immedi-
ate supervision. They perform the laundry and dry cleaning work
consigned to their respective departments. Both laundry ,and dry
cleaning work is of a highly repetitive nature, requiring, at the most,
a few weeks' experience and no special skills. Employees in both de-
partments receive the same starting wages and the same automatic
wage increase after 90 days of employment. They have the same
working hours, vacations, and other conditions of employment. Of
the 11 job classifications listed in the laundry and dry cleaning de-
partments, 7 job classifications are common to both departments, and
workers in the same classifications are paid according to similar wage
rates.
It appears that the high degree of integration in the work of the
laundry and dry cleaning departments, the common interests of their
processing work, and the absence of distinguishing skills in the.two
departments preclude a separate unit finding " for' dry cleaning 'de-
partment employees.2 It further appears that the Petitioner is seek-
ing a departmental unit solely within the scope of its present organ-
izational development. The Act precludes a unit finding based solely
upon extent of organization.3 We, therefore, find the unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate and shall dismiss the instant petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition be, and the same
hereby is, dismissed.
' See Horton's Laundry, Inc., 72 NLRB 1129.
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Section 9 ( e) (5).