437 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1971), 24535, N. L. R. B. v. Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc.

Docket Nº:24535.
Citation:437 F.2d 290
Party Name:NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, INC., and Gulf Linen Service, Inc., Respondents.
Case Date:January 22, 1971
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Page 290

437 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1971)



CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, INC., and Gulf Linen Service, Inc., Respondents.

No. 24535.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 22, 1971

Page 291

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Paul Elkind, Atty., NLRB, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Richard C. Keenan, New Orleans, La., for respondents.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM and MORGAN, Circuit judges.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge:

This case comes to us on a petition filed by the National Labor Relations Board to adjudge the respondents, Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. and Gulf Linen Service, Inc., 1 in civil contempt of this Court for having failed and refused to comply with an order of this Court entered on November 10, 1967.

On July 14, 1965, the Board conducted an election to determine whether the Laundry, Dry Cleaning & Die House Workers' International Union, Local 218, would act as the bargaining representative for the employees of the Company. After losing the election, the Union filed objections with the Board. On August 26, 1966, the Board entered an order requiring the Company to cease and desist depriving its employees of the right to vote, free of any employer interference or coercion, in a Board election. The Board's order also set aside the first election and directed that a second election be held at an appropriate time. See 160 NLRB 746 (1966). On November 10, 1967, this Court entered its decision enforcing the Board's order. On May 29, 1968, the Board conducted the re-run election. The instant petition to adjudge the Company in civil contempt grew out of its conduct during the Union's organizational campaign just before the second election. In its petition the Board charged that the Company

Page 292

had once again 'subverted the employees' freedom of choice by threatening, coercively interrogating, and promising benefits to employees and otherwise interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of their statutory rights to self-organization.' A panel of this Court then entered an order appointing a Special Master to conduct hearings and file a report with the Court.

On January 26, 1970, the Special Master issued his report. He concluded that most of the specific acts complained of had indeed occurred and that they constituted violations of the Court's decree of November 10, 1967. In one important particular, however, the Special Master concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Company had discharged an employee, Hazel Bingham, because of her Union attitudes or activity. Based on these findings and conclusions, the Special Master recommended that the Court enter an order requiring the Company to purge itself of contempt by

(1) Fully complying with and obeying the Board's order as enforced by the Court, by ceasing and desisting from threatening, interrogating, making promises of benefits to employees or in any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization.

(2) Mailing to each of its employees a notice to be furnished by the Board's Regional Office, and signed by an official of the Respondents, stating that the Respondents have been adjudged in civil contempt of this Court for disobeying its order and that they will not henceforth threaten, interrogate, make promises of benefits to employees or otherwise interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their protected activities; and further, posting copies of such notices together with the purgation order, in conspicuous places where notices to employees customarily are posted, for a period of 10 days before such new election as the Board may order, and maintaining such, in clearly legible condition throughout such posting periods and assuring that they are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

(3) Instructing their supervisors to comply with the provisions of the...

To continue reading