Old Angus Restaurant

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1967

165 N.L.R.B. 675 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

OLD ANGUS RESTAURANT 675
Raymond F . Schweitzer , Inc. t/a Old Angus
Restaurant , Employer-Petitioner and Joint
Executive Board of the Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union , AFL-CIO. Case
5-RM-559.
June 20,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon a petition ' duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held
before Hearing Officer Charles B. Slaughter. The
Hearing Officer' s rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Thereafter , the Employer -Petitioner and the Union
filed briefs.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisidiction here.
2. Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The Employer seeks an election among a unit
of its restaurant employees . The Union contends it
has not in the past and does not now seek to
represent the Employer 's employees , and thus
requests that the petition be dismissed . The Union
has picketed the Employer 's customer entrances at
its Old Angus Restaurant and distributed leaflets
there since November 4,1965.3 The picket signs and
leaflets are addressed to the public and urge the
public not to patronize the Employer because it has
no contract with the Union , pays substandard wages,
and has substandard working conditions. The
evidence is uncontradicted that the Union has not
contacted the Employer since the picket line was
established and does not represent any of
Employer's employees. Additionally, it stated it
would not accept a contract or recognition from the
Employer if such were offered. Rather, the Union
maintains that its purpose in picketing is solely to
inform the public that the Employer has no contract
with it, and has what it alleges are substandard
terms and conditions of employment.
The Employer contends, however, that the
picketing has from the outset had an organizational
and recognitional objective. In support of its position
it contends that its terms and conditions of
employment are not substandard and argues that the
Union's recognitional object is also shown by the
facts that the number of pickets varied with the
number of employees, not customers, and that the
picket signs stated the Employer had no contract
with the Union. It also notes several conversations,
in which it was not involved, where recognition or
the organization of its employees was mentioned,
and the fact the Union acknowledged that it has
come to represent employees of other employers
whom it has in the past picketed for informational
purposes.
Assuming that the factors relied upon by the
Employer suggest that the Union has some interest
in organizing its employees and in ultimately
representing them, there is nevertheless no basis in
the circumstances for concluding that either
separately or together the Union's activities were
tantamount to a present demand for recognition.
Consequently, and also in view of the Union's
disclaimer and the fact the Employer has failed to
show it has engaged in conduct inconsistent with
that disclaimer, we find that no question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1)(B) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.4 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in
this case be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
' The Regional Director initially dismissed the petition The
Employer appealed the matter to the Board, which reversed the
Regional Director's dismissal and remanded the case to him for a
hearing. After the hearing and pursuant to the Board Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director issued
an order transferring the case to the Board for decision
P The Union's request that Appendix A of the Employer's brief
be stricken is hereby denied as lacking in merit
9 It has not picketed the Employer 's supply entrance
I See Martino's Complete Home Furnishings, 145 NLRB 604
165 NLRB No. 84