Justru Realty Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1965

156 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

Justru Realty Corporation and Palmer Motor Inn, Inc., and Hotel,
Motel , Bar, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local
741, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 22-RC-2884. December 10,
1965
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On July 16, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a De-
cision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding;
and on July 20, 1965, he issued an erratum correcting the same. There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision,
on the ground, inter alia, that substantial questions of fact and law
were raised by his jurisdictional determination. The Board, by tele-
graphic order dated August 6, 1965, granted the request for review and
stayed the election. The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to
the Employer's request for review. Thereafter, Palmer Motor Inn,
Inc., filed a brief.
The Board 1 has considered the entire record in this case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review, and finds,
contrary to the Regional Director and for the reasons set forth below,
that the petition should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
The employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are employed
by Palmer Motor Inn, Inc., herein called Palmer, at its motel at West
Windsor, New Jersey. So far as the record shows, Palmer, a New
Jersey corporation, has no employees other than those employed at
the motel here in issue.
Palmer leases out a portion of its premises to a separate corporation,
herein called Ivanhoe, for the operation of a restaurant facility for
which it receives 6 percent of Ivanhoe's gross revenue as rent. Ivanhoe
serves the same customers as Palmer, and is operated as a supplement
to Palmer's motel business. Indeed, from all outward indicia, both
the motel and the restaurant appear, to the general public, to be a
single enterprise. In these circumstances, the Regional Director found
that their revenues could be combined for jurisdictional purposes.
Palmer's gross revenue from all sources, including the rental re-
ceived from Ivanhoe, for the fiscal year ended in February 1965, was
about $277,400. Ivanhoe's gross revenue for the same period was
approximately $150,000. Assuming, in accord with the Regional
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Jenkins].
156 NLRB No. 3. 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director's finding, that Ivanhoe's gross receipts may properly be com-
bined with that of Palmer for purposes of deciding the jurisdictional
issue,' it is clear that the combined figure falls short of the $500,000
minimum standard established by the Board for the assertion of juris-
diction in the hotel-motel industry, of which Palmer clearly is a part.'
There was evidence, however, that Justin Piscopo, president and
owner of 45 percent of Palmer's stock, and Anna Metz, owner of 5 per-
cent of Palmer's stock, also had financial interest in other motel or
hotel ventures as described below. In the opinion of the Regional
Director, this evidence, together with a further showing that Piscopo
participated in some management decisions in each case, provides
sufficient warrant for finding that all these operations could be con-
sidered as a single business enterprise for purposes of asserting juris-
diction. We do not agree.
Piscopo's other financial interests involve three enterprises, viz,
Justru Realty Corporation, herein called Justru, Della Corporation,
herein called Della, and Sky-Top Motel. Anna Metz' interests involve
only Sky-Top. More specifically : Piscopo and his wife own all of the
stock of Justru. This appears to be a real estate investment business
with offices in New York City, which owns but a single piece of prop-
erty, the Washington and Jefferson Hotel in the same city. It leases
this hotel to a corporate operator, the W and J Corporation, for
$50,000 per annum. So far as the record shows, there is no relation-
ship other than that of lessor-lessee between Justru and the hotel
operator. Piscopo is also president and owns 50 percent of the stock
of Della. This company operates a motel in Wilmington, Delaware,
and has a gross annual revenue of approximately $185,000. Finally,
Piscopo has a 27.624-percent share of a partnership which operates the
Sky-Top Motel in Kingston, New York, and Anna Metz owns slightly
over a 1-percent share. This motel has a gross annual revenue of ap-
proximately $230,000. As is the case with Palmer, both of these latter
two motels keep Piscopo regularly advised of their financial transac-
tions and their business operations at Piscopo's Justru office,' and
there appears to be some warrant for inferring that Piscopo partici-
pates in management decisions affecting them, as well as the motel
operated by Palmer. However, except perhaps as to Palmer, there is
2 See Trade Winds Motor Hotel & Restaurant, 140 NLRB 567.
3 Floridian Hotel of Tampa , Inc., 124 NLRB 261. Palmer ' s revenues also include re-
ceipts in excess of $50,000 a year from Western Electric Company, Incorporated, under a
lease for the rental of certain conference rooms , and motel rooms with meals. The
Regional Director felt this money payment could properly be viewed as "indirect inflow"
to Palmer under the concepts enunciated in Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, and
thus provide warrant for assertion of the Board ' s jurisdiction on the basis of the standards
in that case. We do not agree. In our view, the arrangement between Western Electric
and Palmer is plainly to be regarded as a normal incident of the operations of a modern
motel or hotel, and does not fall within the purview of the nonretail business operations
of the kind for which the Siemons standards were established.
d Piscopo there maintains an office staff which includes his personal accountant and two
secretaries.
ORTRONIX, INC. 3
no showing that Piscopo either possesses or exercises any control over
the hiring or firing or any other conditions of employment of em-
ployees.' And it is undisputed that each motel operation has its own
manager, accountant, and attorney; that each manager purchases
supplies and solicits business for the motel he manages; and that there
is no reciprocity between the motels or any other indicia of interrela-
tionship in the conduct of their day-to-day operations. Indeed,
Palmer's manager testified he does not know any of the other motel
managers.
As noted by the Regional Director, the Board often treats separate
companies as one employer for jurisdictional purposes where it can
be found that the firms, despite their separate legal structure, are
highly integrated with respect to ownership and operations. Though
no one factor is controlling, those factors which the Board deems
relevant to such determination include not only common ownership
or financial control, but also such other indicia of identity as inter-
relationship of operations, common management, and centralized con-
trol of labor relations.6 In the instant case, it does not appear that
Piscopo's financial interest in the motel or hotel operations described
above is of such a character as to permit his control of all such opera-
tions. And it is clear that each of them is, in fact, managed independ-
ently of the other. In these circumstances, we are unable to conclude
that the relationship of Justru, Della, and Sky-Top to Palmer is such
as to justify treating all of them together as a single employer for juris-
dictional purposes. As jurisdiction over Palmer cannot be asserted on
any other basis consistent with our established standards, we shall dis-
miss the petition?
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
5 Piscopo hired Palmer's present manager and instructed him as to his responsibilities.
He also provided a replacement when that manager went on vacation.
9 See Chicago Theatrical Protective Union Local No. 2, I.A .T.S.E. (dlidwest News Reel
Theaters, Inc.), 151 NLRB 857; Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 NLRB 1220,
1222 , enfd. 332 F . 2d 902 (C.A. 9). Twenty -first Annual Report of the National Labor
Relations Board, pp. 14-15.
7 In view of our findings herein, we deem it unnecessary to resolve other issues raised
by the Employer 's request for review.
Ortronix , Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers ' International Associ.
ation, AFL-CIO. Case No. 12,CA-39249. December 13, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued
his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
156 NLRB No. 1.
217-919-66---vol. 156-2