International Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ITT CANTEEN CORP. 1
ITT Canteen Corporation , a subsidiary of International
Telephone and Telegraph Company 1 and Local
Union 327, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees affiliated with the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 38-RC-845
December 5, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Glenn A. Zipp.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statement of Procedures, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director,
this case was transferred to the Board for decision.
The Employer filed a brief.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
have been reviewed by the Board and we find they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The ITT Canteen Corporation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph
Company, is engaged in the operation of cafeterias
and the sale of food and beverages by vending
machines in the various States of the United States.
Pursuant to a contract with Bradley University,
Peoria, Illinois, the Employer provides all the manual
food services maintained at the University on a flat
fee basis of 7 percent of the gross sales. These services
consist of operating five dining rooms in dormitories
of the University where the meals served to the
students are part of the boarding fees paid directly to
the University by the students. In addition, the
Employer operates and services a dining room and
cafeteria in the Student Center where the patrons,
including members of the public, pay cash. A snack
bar is also operated by the Employer in the Student
Center. The Employer's gross revenues from sales, as
disclosed by the record, are in excess of $500,000 per
annum, and the Employer annually purchases and
has shipped to its facilities in the State of Illinois
goods and materials in excess of $10,000 from points
directly outside the State of Illinois.
The Employer admits it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act. However, it contends
that the facility involved herein is a noncommercial
operation intimately connected with Bradley Univer-
sity's nonprofit educational process and, therefore,
that the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction.
The Employer relies primarily on our decision in
Crotty Brothers, N. Y., Inc., 146 NLRB 755.
The threshold question is whether the Board
should assert jurisdiction over the Employer's opera-
tions in view of the decision in the Crotty Brothers
case. There the Board decided that it would not
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
over an employer engaged in the business of furnish-
ing food service management to Trinity College
because "the food service operations here involved
are noncommercial in nature and intimately connect-
ed with Trinity's nonprofit educational purposes." 2
The facts disclose that the Employer is engaged in
activities that are of a commercial nature and for
profit in many States of the Union. The fact that the
operations involved herein are carried on pursuant to
a contract with a nonprofit educational institution
does not divest those operations of their commercial
nature. In any event, the Board has determined since
issuing Crotty Brothers that it no longer effectuates the
policies of the Act to decline to assert jurisdiction over
nonprofit educational institutions because such oper-
ations affect commerce notwithstanding their non-
profit character.3 Accordingly, the Crotty Brothers
decision is no longer justification for refusing to
consider the impact on commerce of the Employer's
operations in accordance with our normal junsdic-
tional policies and is therefore overruled. Looking,
therefore, to those operations, it is apparent that,
whether they be considered a retail restaurant
enterprise because meals are furnished directly to
students at one location, or a nonretail enterprise
furnishing restaurant services to Bradley University,4
or a mixed retail-nonretail enterprise, its operations
meet our applicable standards.5 Accordingly, we find
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over the Employer's Bradley University
i Name appears as amended at hearing
2 Crotty Brothers, supra, p 757
3 Cornell University, 183 NLRB No. 41
4 See Bay Ran Maintenance Corporation of New York, 161 NLRB 820,
see also S S Latta & Son, 114 NLRB 1248; Bussey-Williams Tire Co, Inc,
127, NLRB 1146
5 The Board asserts jurisdiction over retail restaurant operations that
gross annual revenues of $500,000 or more See Restaurant & Tavern
Owners Association of Salem, 126 NLRB 671 Inasmuch as the Employer
receives more than $50,000 from Bradley University, and Bradley 's annual
revenues exceed $1 million , assertion of jurisdiction is required under
Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 80 (The Board has determined to
assert jurisdiction over educational institutions with $I million gross annual
revenues from all sources The record shows that Bradley University has
over 6,000 students We can reasonably infer that in tuition fees alone the
University takes in more than $I million) For mixed operations see Man
Products, Inc., 128 NLRB 546
187 NLRB No. 7
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations which are part and parcel of the Employ-
er's large multistate enterprise .6
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties herein did not stipulate as to an
appropriate unit. It was agreed, however, that if we
asserted jurisdiction herein the unit should consist of
all food services employees employed by the Employ-
er at the Bradley University Campus, with the usual
statutory exclusion.? It appears that among the
employees there are college student employees who
work for meals and high school students who are
employed, for the most part as dishwashers, on a part-
time basis . The Employer urges the exclusion of both
types of student employees, and the Petitioner took no
firm positions as to their inclusion or exclusion and
requests that their eligibility be determined by Board
precedent.
As to the college student employees who work only
for their meals , we have found, in similar circum-
stances , that such employees' employment is more
directly related to their living conditions and that
their major economic interest is in their studies which
prepare them for a different occupation or activity.
6 It is the totality of an employer's operations which is measured to
determine whether jurisdiction attaches , Siemons Mailing Service, supra
r The parties stipulated that the following named employees should be
excluded from the appropnate unit as supervisory employees senior
cafeteria manager, chef managers , and unit managers
8 Scope Associates d/b/a Westbridge, 172 NLRB No. 208, General
Electric Co, 109 NLRB 747, 748; Sonoco Products Co, 107 NLRB 82 Cf
Colecraft Mfg Co, Inc., 162 NLRB 680, 688.
9 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
Therefore, they do not have the same community of
interest in their employment as do those who work
fulltime and are dependent on their employment for a
livelihood." Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit.
In regard to the high school students who work part
time, for the most part as dishwashers, the record is
devoid of any facts that would indicate that these
employees' pattern of work for the Employer estab-
lishes a pattern of employment continuity or evidenc-
es a work history that warrants characterizing them as
regular part-time employees rather than as casual
employees. In the absence of such evidence, or a
specific request for their inclusion in the unit, we shall
exclude them.
Accordingly, on the basis of the record herein, and
the brief filed by the Employer, we find that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All food service employees employed by ITT
Canteen Corporation at the Bradley University
Campus, Peoria, Illinois, excluding college and
high school students part-time employees, unit
manager , chef managers , senior cafeteria manager,
guards, professional and supervisory employees
within the meaning of the Act.
[Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.]
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc,' 156 NLRB 1236 , N LR B v. Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 13 within 7
days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed