Slater Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1972

197 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Slater Corporation ' and Humboldt County Public
Employees , Local 1684 , American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees , Petition-
er. Case 20-RC-10500
June 30, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Michael K.
Schmier on March 10, 1972, at San Francisco,
California. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional
Director for Region 20 transferred this case to the
Board for decision. A brief has been timely filed by
the Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free of prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
The Petitioner seeks to represent certain employees
working in the food service facilities operated by the
Employer at Humboldt State College in Arcata,
California. The Employer urges the Board to dismiss
the petition on jurisdictional grounds.
Humboldt State College is a nonprofit educational
institution, operated by the State of California, with
approximately 6,200 students. The Employer, a
nationwide food service management concern, pro-
vides and maintains food service operations at the
college for the use of students, faculty, staff, alumni,
and guests of the college.2 The public is neither,
invited nor solicited. No comparable eating facilities
are available to the students within a reasonable
distance of the campus.
Approximately 1,100 students reside in housing
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 The food services now provided by the Employer were formerly
provided by the college on its own
3 Cf Herbert Harvey, Inc, 171 NLRB 238
4 On May 15, 1972 , the Petitioner requested the withdrawal of its petition
in this case The Employer opposed this request Ordinarily we would
permit withdrawal with 6 months ' prejudice to refiling a petition However,
having decided it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
provided by the State on campus. They are required
to participate in a meal-plan whereby they purchase
a meal ticket from the college, good for a set number
of meals per week in the dining room. Cash food
services and vending machines are also available on
campus. The meal-plan service accounts for 74-75
percent of the Employer's sales at the college.
All fixed equipment and nonperishable goods used
in the dining facilities are supplied and owned by the
college. With the exception of vending machines, the
Employer owns none of the capital equipment
located at the college.
The Employer, by its contract with the college, is
required to maintain an adequate staff of employees
acceptable to the college and these employees are
expected to comply with the rules and regulations
established by the college. The college reserves the
right to make rules and regulations governing the
employees and the operation of the food services
with regard to the quantity and quality of food
served, methods of service, prices, hours, safety,
sanitation, and maintenance.
The contract with the college requires that the
Employer comply with the fair employment practices
established by the college. In addition, the Employer
must give a preference to students in filling tempo-
rary positions and must pay them the minimum wage
for students established by the State.
A similar fact situation was presented to the Board
in The Prophet Co., 150 NLRB 1559, where, as here, a
union sought to represent employees of a service
contractor who provided services intimately related
to the operations of a state university over which we
would not assert jurisdiction. In accord with that
case and as the facts set out above also indicate that
the college retains a substantial degree of control
over the labor relations of the Employer, we find it
would not effectuate the purposes of the Act for the
Board to assert jurisdiction here.3 Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.4
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
jurisdiction, sound adminis trative practice dictates the issuance and
publication of our determination at this time Assuming no change in the
operations herein involved, this would preclude the unnecessary expendi-
ture of time and funds by all parties , including the Government, which
would occur as a result of a remsutuhon of the proceeding after 6 months
by the filing of another petition which would only be dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds
197 NLRB No. 183