Pet Inn's Grooming Shoppe

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 828 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

828 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jere Fowler, Richard Gallina , Charles Gallina and
Theodore Wilson d/b/a Pet Inn 's Grooming Shop-
pe and Germantown Pet Inn 's Grooming Shoppe
and Local 19, Distributive Workers of America,
DWA, Petitioner . Case 26-RC-4991
September 26, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On May 8, 1975, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 26 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion finding the Employer's operations constituted a
single integrated enterprise and directed an election
among the employees of the two grooming shops
involved herein.' Thereafter, pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the Act-
ing Regional Director's decision, contending that its
pet grooming shops did not have an effect on inter-
state commerce and the Acting Regional Director er-
roneously asserted jurisdiction herein.
By telegraphic order dated June 19, 1975, the
Board granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review
and makes the following findings.
The Acting Regional Director found that the
Employer's two grooming shops involved herein, the
Memphis Animal Hospital, Inc., and two separate
real estate partnerships constituted a single integrat-
ed enterprise, in view of their common ownership
and centralized control with respect to labor rela-
tions policy. In finding that the Board's retail juris-
dictional standards were met, the Acting Regional
Director combined the projected gross income of the
two pet grooming shops and the Memphis Animal
Hospital, Inc., for the year 1975, and added to that
'Petitioner sought a unit of all employees including office clericals,
groomers, bathers, roughers, cleaners, and brushers employed at the Pet
Inn's Grooming Shoppe located at 1779 Winchester Road, Memphis, Ten-
nessee . The Acting Regional Director concluded, however, based on the
record evidence, that the employees of both the Winchester Road Shop and
those of the Germantown Pet Inn's Shoppe, located at 2128 Germantown
Road South, Germantown, Tennessee, constituted an appropriate unit Peti-
tioner has expressed its willingness to participate in an election encompass-
ing the broader unit.
figure the gross income from the real estate partner-
ships, less rentals paid by the employer itself, for the
year 1974. For the reasons stated herein, we find that
the two pet grooming shops and the clinics operated
by Memphis Animal Hospital, Inc., constitute a sin-
gle integrated enterprise for jurisdictional purposes.
Contrary to the Acting Regional Director, however,
we find that these entities by themselves satisfy the
Board's retail standard for assertion of jurisdiction
herein.'
There are two separate partnership entities, each
comprised of the same four veterinarians, which own
and operate, respectively, the pet grooming shop at
1779 Winchester Road in Memphis, Tennessee, and
the shop located at 2128 Germantown Road South,
Germantown, Tennessee, the latter having opened in
December 1974. Both of these shops are involved in
the grooming and bathing of dogs and the sale of pet
supplies. The Memphis shop also boards small ani-
mals. Although each of the shops is separately man-
aged by individuals who are not partners, hiring of
groom shop employees requires the approval of one
of the veterinarians. In addition, all checks for the
groom shops are signed by the veterinarians. Each of
the groom shops is located in a separate building
owned by the real estate partnerships.
The four veterinarians are also the only sharehold-
ers, officers, and directors of Memphis Animal Hos-
pital, Inc., a corporation which is comprised of three
separate animal clinics. One clinic is located at 1781
Winchester Road, in the same building as, and adja-
cent to, one of the pet grooming shops; another clinic
is located in the building housing the Germantown
pet grooming shop; and the third clinic, which
opened in December 1974, is located at 2780 South
Perkins Road in Memphis, Tennessee. The veterinar-
ians spend their time at the different locations of the
clinics. Thus, Jere Fowler spends most of his time at
the Winchester location, Richard Gallina at the Ger-
mantown location, Charles Gallina at the Perkins
Road location, and Theodore Wilson goes wherever
he may be needed. The doctors present at the various
locations supervise the day-to-day activities of the
clinic employees.
The clinics provide such services as the dispensing
of medication for small animals, surgery, and some
boarding of animals. The record indicates that the
veterinarians in the clinics adjacent to the groom
shops are available in the event of groom shop prob-
lems. As found by the Acting Regional Director,
there are occasions when employees at a clinic will
assist the employees of the groom shop with a large
2 In so finding , we do not pass on the issue as to whether income received
by the real estate partnerships is properly includable in the gross income
calculations One of these partnerships is comprised of three of the veteri-
narians and the other is comprised of all four.
220 NLRB No. 137
PET INN'S GROOMING SHOPPE
or unruly dog and may give the animal sedation,
which would be charged to the groom shop customer.
One of the employees of the Winchester Road groom
shop works at the Germantown groom shop at least 1
day a week, and there has been an occasion when
groom shop employees have worked in the clinic.
The bookkeeper for the groom shops contacts the
Animal Hospital corporation bookkeeper if she has a
problem and visits the clinic daily on business mat-
ters. The corporation bookkeeper also closes the
books for the groom shops at the end of each month.
Both of the groom shop partnerships and the corpo-
ration employ the same certified public accountant.
It is clear that the four veterinarians actively par-
ticipate in the operation and management of the clin-
ics, have utimate responsibility with regard to the op-
eration of the pet grooming shops, and are readily
available to those facilities. Moreover, a functional
relationship exists in some measure in the operation
of the clinics and pet grooming shops located in the
same buildings, and there is a sharing of certain per-
sonnel . In view of the foregoing and the record as a
whole, which demonstrates that there is common
ownership of the pet grooming shops and the clinics
and that labor relations authority for these busi-
nesses is vested in the same individuals, we find that
the pet grooming shops and the corporation operat-
ing the three clinics constitute a single integrated en-
terprise for jurisdictional purposes.'
Having found that a single integrated enterprise
exists, we shall, as is customary, consider for jurisdic-
tional purposes the total combined commerce data of
the Employer's operations constituting the single
integrated enterprise. In determining whether an
employer's operations meet the jurisdictional stan-
dard the Board may consider, inter alia, income from
the past calendar year, projections of income for the
3 Mary K. Gordon, t/a Sun Cleaners, 180 NLRB 465 (1969). Contrary to
the Employer's contention , we do not find the court decisions in N L R.B. v.
Shawnee Milling Co., 184 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1950), and N L R B. v Santa
Cruz Fruit Packing Co, 91 F.2d 790 (C.A. 9, 1937), affd. 303 U S. 453
(1938), to be controlling herein . Unlike the factual situation in Shawnee
where the Pauls Valley plant involved was geographically separated from
the employer's other facilities, purchases and sales for that plant were han-
dled by the office at Paula Valley and there was a lack of a functional
relationship with the other facilities , in the instant case the pet grooming
shops are located in common buildings with the clinics , the veterinarians
who own and operate the businesses are physically located at those loca-
tions, and, as indicated, there is evidence of a functional relationship, in-
cludmg common use of personnel herein . In Santa Cruz, the court of ap-
peals enforced the Board 's order (reported at I NLRB 454, 468 (1936))
regarding certain unfair labor practices at the employer 's Oakland , Califor-
nia, plant, finding that the employer 's activities fell within the ambit of the
commerce clause regulated by Congress. In passing on the commerce issue,
the Court limited the Board 's order to the Oakland plant and did not extend
it to the employer 's Seabright plant which did not ship products in interstate
commerce and which was not the situs of the unfair labor practices. We do
not deem that early decision of the court, which did not involve the issue
presented here , which is whether the Employer 's operations are a single
integrated enterprise for jurisdictional purposes , to be controlling herein
829
future period in situations involving newly estab-
lished businesses, or combinations of both where es-
tablished businesses and new businesses are in-
volved 4
As the Employer's businesses here involve some
that have been in existence throughout calendar year
1974, and some that were not established until the
month of December 1974, we shall utilize the 1974
income figures for the longer established businesses
and project the income for those established near the
end of 1974. Thus, the record shows that gross in-
come for Memphis Animal Hospital, Inc., in 1974
totaled $366,461.76, which included an amount of
approximately $1,300 in 1974 income for the newly
established small animal clinic located at 2780 South
Perkins, Memphis, Tennessee. The gross income for
the two pet grooming shops in 1974 was $79,970.81
but that figure included an approximate $900 income
for 1974 from the Germantown shop which opened
in December of that year. Subtracting the 1974 in-
come of those two recently opened facilities leaves a
total gross income of $444,232.57 derived in calendar
year 1974 for the longer established facilities. The
record discloses, however, that during the first quar-
ter of 1975, their first full quarter of operations, the
recently established small animal clinic had a gross
income of $10,082.45 and the Germantown pet shop
had a gross income of $4,579.60. Projecting the gross
income of these two facilities for a full calendar year
results in a total projected annual income for these
facilities of $58,684.20. Adding this amount to the
last full year's actual income for the longer estab-
lished facilities results in a total of $502,880.77 in
income for all the facilities, a figure which exceeds
the $500,000 jurisdictional standard for retail enter-
prises. Further, inasmuch as the pet groom shops
alone purchased and received goods in the amount of
$1,500 in 1974 from points outside the State of Ten-
nessee , we find such purchases are not de minimis but
are sufficient to affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(7) of the Act.' Accordingly, we find that
it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
Therefore, we affirm the Acting Regional
Director's decision, as modified herein, and shall re-
mand the case to the Regional Director for the pur-
pose of conducting an election pursuant to the Deci-
sion and Direction of Election except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that imme-
diately preceding the date of issuance of this Deci-
sion on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from
publication.]
° Front Porch Holding Corp and Front Porch 82, Inc, 214 NLRB No. 117
(1974).
5 Marty Levitt, Ill NLRB 739 (1968).