Slater Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 30, 1972197 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1972) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation