Loeb's Laundry, 143 (1969)

LOEB'S LAUNDRY Loeb's Laundry' and Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-3216

June 27, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER

BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

BROWN AND ZAGORIA

On March 26, 1969, Trial Examiner Thomas A.

Ricci issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.

Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and a brief in support thereof.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel.

The Board 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 Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following modifications.

We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by the conduct of Loeb and other agents of the Respondent in coercively interrogating employees and threatening them with plant closure if the Union came in.

Insofar as Loeb's speech of October 15, 1968, to assembled employees is concerned, we agree with the Trial Examiner that, apart from the question of credibility of employee witnesses as to the content of the speech, the speech violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 'At the hearing, the Respondent moved to amend the caption of the case to indicate that the Respondent is 'Loeb's Laundry' rather than 'William Loeb and Louis G. Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry' as initially stated in the notice of hearing and complaint . The General Counsel agreed to the proposed change and the Trial Examiner granted the Respondent 's motion but inadvertently failed to make the change . Accordingly, the name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing.

'Unlike the Trial Examiner, however, we find it unnecessary to pass on the credibility of the employee witnesses' testimony , and do not rely thereon in finding that the speech violated Sec. 8(aXl), since the clear implication of the speech , even as documented by the Respondent, is that Respondent would discontinue business if the employees voted for the Union. In that connection, Member Zagoria would find the speech unlawful only on the basis of element (3) noted by the Trial Examiner: I.e.,

Loeb's flat statement , at several points, that other family laundry and dry cleaning businesses in Memphis, Tennessee, had closed, with a loss of employee jobs after a union got in. Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown agree with Member Zagoria as they would find a threat implicit in Loch's statements, but would also find for the reasons stated by the Trial 143

However, we do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the notice posted by Respondent on the plant bulletin boards on November 7 amounted to a threat that Respondent would discharge employees because of the Union. The notice in question commented, as an incidental matter, on the fact that an employee, Myrtle Gardner, had been discharged from a previous job without the union there being able to help her. In our opinion, the comments amounted to no more than permissible election propaganda.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein, and orders that Respondent, Loeb's Laundry, Memphis, Tennessee, its agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified.

Make the following changes in the Notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision:

1. Delete the first paragraph and substitute the following:

   'After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the Act and has ordered us to post this notice and to keep our word about what we say in this notice.' 2. Delete the second and fourth indented paragraphs.

   Examiner that the speech as a whole was coercive and interfered with employee's statutory rights to organize.

   TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE

   THOMAS A. RIccI, Trial Examiner: A hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was held before me at Memphis,

   Tennessee, on January 30, 1969, on complaint of the General Counsel against William Loeb and Louis G.

   Lemle, d/b/a Loeb's Laundry, herein together called the Respondents, or the Company. The charge was filed on November 15, 1968, by Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and the complaint issued on December 27, 1968. The issue presented is whether the Respondents restrained and coerced their employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Briefs were filed after the close of the hearing by the General Counsel and the Respondents.

   Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following:

   177 NLRB No. 8 FINDINGS OF FACT

   I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY

   The Company is a partnership doing business in the State of Tennessee with its principal office and place of business located in Memphis, where it is engaged in the laundry and drycleaning business. During the past 12 months the Company received gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and during the same period it purchased and received supplies valued in excess of $50,000 from suppliers in the State of Tennessee, who, in turn, purchased such supplies directly from out-of-state sources.

   I find that the Respondents are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.

   2. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Laundry and Dry Cleaning International Union, Local 550, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

   3. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES This case arose out of a self-organizational campaign among the Respondents' employees in the fall of 1968. On their behalf the Union filed a representation petition for a Government-conducted secret election, Case 26-RC-3285, on September 19. On October 9 the parties concerned signed a stipulation for a consent election and on the 14th an arrangement to hold the election on November 22 was approved by the Board's Regional Director. The next day William Loeb, one of the two individual owners of the business, talked to his assembled employees on the subject of union or no union . There were then about 230 employees in the plant and he gathered them in three groups, at 2, 2:30, and 3 p.m. in the cafeteria, to hear him; he spoke to each group for about 20 minutes.

      Six employees testified concerning what Loeb said to them that day and the essential burden of their story is that he threatened to close the plant, and go out of business if the employees should choose to bargain with him through the Union. There is also testimony that after Loeb's speeches, several supervisors, directly or obliquely referring back to what the owner had said, conveyed further to the employees the thought there was danger of plant closing or loss of jobs if they should vote in favor of collective bargaining in the imminent election. The election was not held because the Union filed this charge and asserted that the coercive effect of management's statements made impossible an untrammeled expression of choice by the employees.

      Owner William Loeb did not testify. Robert Moore, superintendent of the drycleaning department , said he sat up close when Loeb was talking and when 60 or 70 employees were present, and that Loeb did no more than read from a document in front of him. Clarence Campbell, an assistant superintendent , said he too heard one of the speeches and that Loeb was reading while talking. Theresa Kelly, Loeb's secretary and assistant, said she was present at all three of the talks. She testified Loeb had prepared a written speech, that there were several exact copies made, that Loeb spoke only what was written on it, and that she was sure of this because each time Loeb gave the speech she followed him word for word while reading the copy in her hands. She added that in every instance where Loeb departed from the written script, however slight the change, she wrote down on her copy the exact changes made by the owner as he went along. She said she did this three times, and made a note on her copy of even the minutest adlibbing Loeb may have uttered. The Respondent offered into evidence the copy Kelly said Loeb read from, and the copy she said she annotated during the three talks. It is not true she followed her employer as faithfully as she testified; before starting the meetings Loeb made changes on his copy, changes which are not reflected in the one Kelly was then reading.

      Loeb's Speech; Violation of Section 8(a)(1) The defense to the charge that Loeb committed an unfair labor practice when talking to the assembled employees on October 15 rests upon assertion that not one word came out of his mouth except what is written on the exhibit document which Mrs. Kelly said he had before him when speaking. For reasons that will appear, I do not discredit the employee witnesses. Notwithstanding, if the record showed nothing more than the delivery of the speech according to the exhibit, I would find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in Loeb's words to the employees that day.

      The exhibit reads as follows:

      SPEECH BY MR. LOEB TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1968

      I want to be sure that every one of you can hear me.

      Is there...