Pentagon Barber Shop

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1981

255 N.L.R.B. 1248 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pentagon Barber Shop, Inc. and United Food and
Commercial Workers Local 400, Barbers &
Cosmetologists Division, Petitioner. Case 5-
RC-11354
April 29, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
hearings were held before Steven L. Shuster, Hear-
ing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearings and pursuant to Section
102.67(h) of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Re-
gional Director for Region 5, this case was trans-
ferred to the Board for decision. Briefs have been
filed by the Petitioner and the Employer.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds that, for the reasons stated below, it will not
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion over the Employer.
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a
barbershop in the concourse of the Pentagon Build-
ing in Arlington, Virginia. The concourse also con-
tains a variety of other commercial businesses, in-
cluding a bookstore, a department store, a greeting
card store, a drycleaners, and a florist. All of the
stores in the concourse are open to the general
public, but are closed on Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays. The Employer's business is not within a
designated security area and is located 20 feet from
a major subway entrance. The Employer employs
17 barbers and 5 beauticians, whom the Petitioner
seeks to represent, and operates its business pursu-
ant to a concession agreement with the Defense
Department Concessions Committee, to whom it
pays an annual fee. The agreement provides that
the rates charged by the Employer must be ap-
proved by the Concessions Committee, and the
record discloses that those rates are somewhat
lower than the standard rates charged in the local
vicinity.
At the hearing the parties stipulated that during
the past 12 months, a representative period, the
Employer received gross revenues in excess of
$443,161.85, and purchased and received materials
and supplies valued in excess of $6,000 directly
from points located outside the Commonwealth of
Virginia. The direct inflow of $6,000 establishes the
Board's statutory jurisdiction,' but the Employer's
operations do not satisfy the Board's retail stand-
' See Marty Levitt, 171 NLRB 739 (1968) Sonerset Manor. Inc.. 170
NLRB 1647 (1968).
255 NLRB No. 165
ard, which requires a gross volume of business of
at least $500,000 per year.
Nonetheless, the Petitioner contends that the
Board should assert jurisdiction in this case based
on its national defense standard. In Ready Mixed
Concrete & Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318, 320
(1958), the Board determined that it would best ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act "to assert jurisdic-
tion over all enterprises, as to which the Board has
statutory jurisdiction, whose operations exert a sub-
stantial impact on the national defense, irrespective
of whether the enterprise's operations satisfy any of
the Board's other jurisdictional standards." In
adopting this standard the Board noted its "special
responsibility as a Federal agency to reduce the
number of labor disputes which might have an ad-
verse effect on the Nation's defense effort." For
the reasons below, we find that the Employer's op-
erations do not exert a substantial impact on the na-
tional defense.
We note initially that the barbershop is located
outside of designated security areas and within a
shopping center which is open to the general
public as well as to employees of the Pentagon.
The shop is also easily accessible to the public in
view of its proximity to a major subway entrance.
In this respect the instant case is distinguishable
from other situations in which the Board has as-
serted jurisdiction under the national defense stand-
ard. In Spruce Up Corporation, 194 NLRB 841
(1972), the employer operated 19 barbershops on
the military installation at Fort Bragg, North Caro-
lina, and its services were supplied exclusively to
military personnel.2 Similarly, in Colonial Catering
Company, 137 NLRB 1607 (1962), the employer
was engaged in providing food services on the
premises of a defense contractor, and its services
were utilized solely by the contractor's employ-
ees. 3 Therefore, in view of the markedly different
circumstances in the instant case, we find that the
link between the Employer's operations and the na-
tional defense effort is not as strong as that exhibit-
ed in Spruce Up Corporation and Colonial Catering
Company.
The record also discloses that, although the Em-
ployer operates the only barbershop in the Penta-
gon Building, numerous other barbershop facilities
are available to Pentagon employees in the local vi-
2 The employer in that case also satisfied the Board's retail standard.
See also Gito Morenu d/b/a Gino iMorena Eterprie5, 181 NLRB 808
(1970). where the employer operated a number of barbershops on mili-
tary installatiolns in California. The Board asserted jurisdiction under both
the retail standard and the national d..felse standard.
:' See also Otha 1 Coburn. Individual. d/b/u Coburn Catering Compau-
nyr I) NLRD 1133 (1952). where the Board noted that the employer's
food services were used only by employees of the company engaged ill
defense prjeclts.
PENTAGON BARBER SHOP 1249
cinity. In this regard the instant case is further dis-
tinguishable from Colonial Catering Company,
where the Board emphasized the lack of sufficient
nearby restaurant facilities in finding that the em-
ployer's food services constituted an integral and
essential part of the defense contractor's oper-
ations.4 It was in this context of insufficient alter-
native facilities that the Board further observed
that a strike or picketing involving the employer's
employees could disrupt the contractor's operations
and have an adverse impact on the national de-
fense. In contrast, a similar labor dispute at the
4 Similarly, in Coburn Catering Company, supra, the floard observed
that the employer's facility constituted "the only practical source of
mealtime food" for the employees of the company engaged in defense
projects.
Employer's facility could not conceivably cause a
significant disruption to the work at the Pentagon.
In the event of a strike or picketing, Pentagon em-
ployees would have easy access to other barber-
shop facilities in the vicinity, and at most would
suffer an inconvenience.
In view of the above circumstances, we find that
the Employer's operations do not exert a substan-
tial impact on the national defense, and that the
policies of the Act would not be effectuated by the
assertion of jurisdiction in this case. We shall there-
fore dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1249