Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS 1415
All our employees are free to become , remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members of any labor organization.
DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831
Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street , Winston-Salem , North Carolina, Tele-
phone No. 724-8356 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions.
Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and Hartford Build-
ing Maintenance Company, Inc. and Building Service Em-
ployees International Union , AFL-CIO, Local 43-T. Case No.
AO-69. January 31, 1964
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on December 16, 1963, by the Connecticut
State Board of Labor Relations, herein called State Board, for an
Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of
the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended. Thereafter, pursuant to its "Response To Petition
and Request for Permission To File Brief," Hartford Building Main-
tenance Company, Inc., herein called Hartford, filed its brief on
December 31,1963.
In pertinent part, the petition including the findings of the State
Board, the response, and brief allege as follows :
1. There is presently pending before the State Board a petition for
an election and certification of bargaining representative (Docket No.
E 1288). The parties to this proceeding are Hartford and Building
Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 43-T,
herein called the Union.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 31-101(9), Connecticut General Statutes.
3. Since 1956, when it was first incorporated, Hartford has been
engaged in the business of providing janitorial, cleaning, and waxing
services at Hartford, Connecticut. In 1960, Hartford's officers, who
constitute all its stockholders, acquired by stock purchase Ace Win-
dow and Cleaning Contractors, Inc., herein called Ace, a New Britain,
Connecticut, business performing the identical type of services as
Hartford. Ace's officers who also constitute its sole stockholders are
the identical individuals holding Hartford's offices.
4. The overall operating policies of both Hartford and Ace are the
joint responsibilities of their common officers and stockholders and
145 NLRB No. 140.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their personnel policies are administered by a single general manager.
Both companies utilize the services of the same accounting firm, legal
counsel, and clerical staff. Payroll books and records are kept at the
same location. There is some interchange of employees performing
janitorial work and Hartford renders warehouse services for Ace
without intercorporate accounting.
5. During the fiscal year July 1, 1962, to July 1, 1963, the combined
purchases of Hartford and Ace directly from outside the State of
Connecticut amounted to approximately $22,900, while an unknown
amount of purchases of goods and materials originating outside the
State were made locally. Admittedly, these direct and indirect out-
of-State purchases totaled less than $50,000. During the same fiscal
period, Ace furnished under contract approximately $59,000 direct
out-of-State services to the U.S. Air Force at Westover Field,
Massachusetts.'
6. Hartford contends that, for jurisdictional purposes, it and Ace
constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act and, there-
fore, the State board does not have jurisdiction over Hartford in the
representation proceeding pending before that board. Although it
does not dispute the factual allegations submitted herein, the Union
disagrees with Hartford's contention.
7. The Union has not filed a representation petition with this
Board.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. Hartford and Ace are in the nonretail business of providing jani-
torial, cleaning, and waxing services at Hartford and New Britain,
Connecticut. On the undisputed allegations hereinabove set forth
which establish the common and centralized control, management, and
operations of both companies, we assume, for the purposes of this
Advisory Opinion, that Hartford and Ace constitute a single em-
ployer for jurisdictional purposes under the Act?
2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over non-
retail enterprises within the statutory jurisdiction requires an annual
minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect.
Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. As the approximately
$59,000 in out-of-State services during the last fiscal year to the United
States Air Force constitute direct outflow under the Board's Siemons
standard,' the combined operations of Hartford and Ace would come
'Although Ace's contract with the U.S. Air Force expired July 1, 1963 , and it is no
longer performing services there, It is Ace's intention to continue to bid on this and
other out-of-State contracts.
2 Although the Union contends to the contrary, our assumption Is justified by numerous
Board decisions in analogous situations See, e.g., Cockatoo, Inc, 145 NLRB 611;
Thunderbird Hotel Company, 144 NLRB 84; Overton Markets, 142 NLRB 615
3 See Truman Schlup, Consulting Engineer, 145 NLRB 768; Browne and Buford, En-
gineers and Surveyors, 145 NLRB 765.
LOCAL 1566, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 1417
within the Board's statutory jurisdiction 4 and would satisfy the
Siemons standard for assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail
enterprises.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon
the allegations submitted herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction
over the operations of Hartford and Ace as a single employer with
respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
4 The $22,900 out-of-State purchases, constituting direct inflow under Sientons, also
would subject the operations of Hartford and Ace to the Board's statutory jurisdiction.
Local 1566, International Longshoremen 's Association [Philadel-
phia Marine Trade Association ] and Marvin Gould
Local 1566, International Longshoremen 's Association and Zack
Page. Cases Nos. 4-CB-361 and 4-CB-362. January 31, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On January 19, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding 1 finding, inter alia, that Respondent had
caused an employer, Maritime Ship Cleaning and Maintenance Co.,
to discriminate in employment against Marvin Gould and Zack Page,
in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) of the Act and directing that
Respondent make Gould and Page whole for loss of pay resulting from
the discrimination. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit entered its decree enforcing the aforesaid Board
Order.2
On November 30, 1962, the Board's Regional Director for the Fourth
Region issued a backpay specification, and on January 9, 1963, Re-
spondent filed an answer thereto. Upon appropriate notice issued by
the Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner
George Downing for the purpose of determining the amount of back-
pay due the two claimants. On August 15, 1963, the Trial Examiner
issued his Supplemental Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in
which he found that Marvin Gould and Zack Page were respectively
entitled to payments of $1,200 and $1,839. Thereafter, the General
Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Inter-
mediate Report and briefs in support thereof.
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-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
1 122 NLRB 967.
2 278 F. 2d 883 ( C.A. 3), cert. denied 364 U.S. 890.
145 NLRB No. 134.