Canal Marais Improvement Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1332 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute , and have at all times material to this proceed-
ing constituted , a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Plastic, Moulders & Novelty Workers' Union , Local 132, International Ladies
Garment Workers Union, AFL-CIO, was, on February 4, 1960 , and at all times since
has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate
bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the foregoing conduct the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced employees in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby 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 labors practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Canal Marais Improvement Corporation 1 and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Locals 226 , 226-A, and 226-C,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-2233. January 13, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frederick F. Holroyd, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contends that the Board is without jurisdiction in
this matter.
The Employer's only business is the ownership and operation of the
Wirth Building in New Orleans, Louisiana. It was stipulated at the
hearing that the Employer in the last 12 months made purchases of
supplies and equipment of approximately $6,300, of which approxi-
mately $350 came from outside the State of Louisiana, that a local
laundry leases a small portion of the Wirth Building at a rental of less
than $5,000 per annum, and that the remainder of the building is
rented to the Commodity Stabilization Service, herein called CSS, a
branch of United States Department of Agriculture, at an annual
rental in excess of $100,000.
The Board's standard for assertion of jurisdiction over an employer
who operates an office building is set forth in Mistletoe Operating
Company, 122 NLRB 1534, 1536. That standard requires that such an
3 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
129 NLRB No. 161.
CANAL MARAIS IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION 1333
employer have a gross annual revenue of at least $100,000, which is
the case here, of which $25,000 or more must be derived from organi-
zations whose operations meet any of the Board's jurisdictional stand-
ards, exclusive of the indirect outflow and indirect inflow standards
established in the Siemons Mailing case, 122 NLRB 81. Although
CSS is not an employer within the meaning of the Act, CSS is an
organization within the meaning of Mistletoe. Indeed, to hold other-
wise would be to allow activities engaged in by the United States
Government to be disrupted by labor disputes involving employees
servicing buildings in which the United States rents office space and
to disregard the danger inherent in such disputes to national defense 2
or to the national health, safety, and welfare. Accordingly, as the
Employer receives in excess of $100,000 gross revenue, of which more
that $25,000 is derived from an agency of the U.S. Government whose
operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense and on
the national health, safety, and welfare, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all operating engineers,
porters, and maids employed by the Employer. The engineers main-
tain the heating and cooling equipment; the maids do general cleaning
work; the porters perform moving and delivery functions. At the
hearing, the Employer asserted that the unit sought did not constitute
a proper unit for collective bargaining, but it advanced no reason for
its contention. The Board has found that all-inclusive units of office
building employees constitute an appropriate unit .4 Accordingly, we
find that all operating engineers, maids, and porters employed by the
Employer, but excluding office employees, clerical employees, watch-
men and guards, executives, and all supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
3 Cf Ready Mired Concrete, 122 NLRB 318, 320
'As the record otherwise shows the necessary jurisdictional facts , we do not reach and
hence do not pass on the admissibility of a letter setting forth the nature and scope of
CSS's operations
4 Mistletoe Operating Company, supra at p. 1537.