The Brass Rail, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1656 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For example, Safgard now uses the maintenance, personnel, and tool-
room departments and other facilities of Stamping. Safgard and
Vidrio now have a common superintendent; employees of Safgard
and Vidrio punch in together; and Safgard and Vidrio have a small
amount of interchange of work and employees at this time, and their
products are somewhat comparable. Qualifications of Safgard and
Vidrio employees and their rates of pay are now roughly comparable
also, and appear to be increasingly more uniform.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that the em-
ployees of Safgard may properly be added either to the existing unit
of production and maintenance employees at Stamping, or to the
existing production unit at Vidrio.
In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination
at this time, but shall direct that the question concerning representa-
tion be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees
in the following voting group : All production employees in the Saf-
gard Division of the Employer's Melrose Park, Illinois, plant, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
If, in the election herein directed, a majority of the employees vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be combined with the unit of Stamping Division employees cur-
rently represented by the Petitioner and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of results of election to this effect. If,
on the other hand, a majority vote for the Intervenor, the employees
will be taken to have indicated their desire to be combined with the
unit of Vidrio Division employees currently represented by the In-
tervenor and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate
of results of election to that effect. If a majority vote for no union;
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of results of
election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
THE BRASS RAIL INC . and BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
ff-RC-6768 . December 16,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weissman, hearing
110 NLRB No. 255.
THE BRASS RAIL INC. 1657
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Petitioner seeks a unit of.bakers and bakers' helpers em-
ployed by the Employer in its baking department.
The Employer, a New York corporation, owns and operates a public
restaurant in the New York City area . In addition, the Employer
wholly owns 4 subsidiaries, all located within the State of New York,
which are also principally engaged in the public restaurant business.
The Employer formulates all policy for its subsidiaries and, from a
central office, controls all labor relations matters, including the hiring
and discharge of employees. In these circumstances, we find that the
Employer and its subsidiaries constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act operating as an intrastate chain of public
restaurants.
During the last year, the Employer and its subsidiaries made pur-
chases of at least $2,000,000, which were "either directly or indirectly
from out of the State." On the premise that the Employer's pur-
chases last year were the equivalent of an indirect inflow of at least
$2,000,000, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer?
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a separate unit of bakers and
takers' helpers employed in the Employer's bakery department. The
' See Bickford's, Inc, 110 NLRB 1904, where the Board announced that, for the pur-
pose of determining jurisdictional issues, it would consider public restaurants to be retail
stores. Although Members Murdock and Peterson dissented in that case , they deem
themselves bound by the decision of the majority therein See also, J. R. Knott and Hugh
H. Hogue d/b/a Hogue and Knott Supermarkets , 110 NLRB 543 , pp. 544-545 , in which
the Board stated that it would assert jurisdiction over an intrastate chain of retail stores
if, among other announced standards , the total indirect inflow of the chain amounted to
at least $2 ,000,000 annually.
Cf. Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481 , in which the Board announced
that it would not accumulate standards in order to assert jurisdiction. We do not deem
the addition of direct and indirect inflow figures in order to , predicate jurisdiction upon
the indirect standard as an accumulation within the meaning of our announcement in
the Jonesboro case.
2 Chefs, Cooks, Pastry Cooks and Assistants' Union, Local No. 89, AFL, and Local Joint
Executive Board of the City of New York , affiliated with the Hotel , Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union, AFL , herein together called the Intervenor , were permitted to in-
tervene, jointly , on the basis of their existing joint contract with the Employer covering,
among others , the employees sought herein The above Local Joint Board is not in compli-
ance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act.
Although permitted to intervene herein, the above -noted Intervenor will not be per-
mitted a place on the ballot in the election directed herein, unless the Local Joint Board
achieves full compliance status with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act
within 2 weeks after the issuance of this decision.
1658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bakery departmer t, which is located on the third floor of the Em-
ployer's Seventh Avenue restaurant, provides baked goods for all of
the Employer's re:,taurants. The Intervenor has represented these
employees in the past as part of an overall unit, and currently, along
with several other labor organizations, is a signatory to a contract
covering all employees of the Employer in the Manhattan area. The
Intervenor opposes the petition, contending that the integrated nature
of the Employer's operation makes a separate unit of bakers inappro-
priate; The Employer agrees with this contention.
All of the Employer's bakers work in a separate area of the build-
ing, under separate supervision, and do not interchange jobs with
other employees. Any employees transferring into the bakery from
other departments do so at the lowest bakery classification, and then
commence training to become a qualified baker. There is no formal
apprenticeship training program for bakers, but employees must train
on the job for 2 or 3 years, depending upon their aptitude, before they
are considered to bE qualified bakers.
All parties agreed, and we find, that the Petitioner has traditionally
represented bakers A the type sought here.
In these circumstances, we find the bakers petitioned for herein to
be a traditional departmental group which is functionally distinct
and separate from the other employees of the Employer, and that the
Petitioner has traditionally devoted itself to serving the special
interests of such em ployees.3
Accordingly, we will direct that an election be held among the
following group of employees of the Employer :
All bakers and takers' helpers employed in the Employer's baking
department at 745 3eventh Ave., New York, New York, but excluding
all watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire t3 constitute a separate unit, which the Board finds,
under the circumstances, to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue
it certification of representative to the Petitioner for such unit. If
the majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional
Director is instruc 5ed to issue a certification of results of election to
that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MuRDOC K, concurring :
My colleagues hold, in this case, that the value of goods and mate-
rials received directly from out-of-State sources (direct inflow) may
8 See American Pota8h and Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
SCHOOL-TIMER FROCKS, INC. 1659
be combined with the value of those received indirectly (indirect in-
flow) in determining whether or not an enterprise meets the indirect
inflow standards. I heartily concur in this finding. Simple logic
tells us that transactions directly across State lines have as much
impact as those of an indirect nature. Having come this far, however,
in recognizing that the Board cannot look at only one aspect of an
employer's operations, I wonder if it is not time for the majority to
further reexamine the question of a combination approach to com-
merce and take the next logical step? If direct and indirect inflow can
be combined, why not direct and indirect outflow? While the present
Board, over my dissent, rejected the Rutledge doctrine 4 allowing such
a measurement of total impact in the recent decisions in Jonesboro
Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481 and Rogers Bros. Whole-
salers, 110 NLRB 604, the decision herein indicates a more perceptive
view of the situation.
4 The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
SOHOOL-TIMER FROCKS, INO. and INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT
WORKERS' UNION , AFL. Case No. 11-CA-668. December 16,1954
Decision and Order
On June 7, 1954, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommended that these allegations of the com-
plaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Respondent
also requested oral argument. This request is denied as the record,
including the exceptions and brief, in our opinion adequately presents
the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
z The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's rejection of certain evidence , includ-
ing talks given to plant employees by its plant manager and attorney. We do not pass
upon the propriety of these rulings because the evidence , even if admissible , would not
alter our determination herein.
110 NLRB No. 239.