Greyhound Post Houses, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1638 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
GREYHOUND POST HOUSES , INC. and BARTENDERS , HOTEL, RESTAURANT
AND CAFETERIA EMPLOYEES UNION1 LOCAL No. 103, AFL, PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 13-RC-3714. December 16, 1954
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 Jewel G. Maher,
hearing 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 Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the Employer's
South Bend, Indiana, restaurant. The Employer, a subsidiary of
Greyhound Corporation, is a Delaware corporation, engaged in op-
erating public restaurants and newsstands in a number of States of
the United States. Its annual gross sales exceed $13,000,000.
As the Employer operates a multistate chain of public restaurants
having annual gross sales in excess of $10,000,000, we find that the
Employer is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the South Bend, Indiana, restaurant.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All cooks, waitresses, bus girls, cashiers, dish-washers and porters
employed at the Employer's Post House Restaurant at 117 West West-
ern Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, excluding professional and clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 See Bickford's Inc , 110 NLRB 1904 . Although Members Murdock and Peterson
dissented from the adoption of this restrictive standard , they deem themselves bound by
the decision of the majority therein.
In view of the disposition of this case, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Em-
ployer 's motion to reopen the record for the purpose of introducing further jurisdictional
facts.
2 The unit description appears substantially as stipulated by the parties at the hearing.
110 NLRB No. 253.