Westbrook Enterprises, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 1032 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of WESTBROOK ENTERPRISES , INC., EMPLOYER and LOCAL
JOINT EYEcUTIvE BOARD OF THE HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 5RC-89. Deeided.September 28,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all dining room and kitchen em-
ployees, including waitresses, waiters, cashiers, bus employees, cooks,
dishwashers, kitchen helpers and other kitchen employees working
at the Employer's restaurant located at 2015 14th Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. The Employer contends that the appropriate
unit should be system-wide embracing all its restaurants located in
the Greater Washington area , including the restaurant located in
Alexandria, Virginia. There is no collective bargaining history.
The Employer is engaged in the general restaurant business' and
had in operation at the time of the hearing five restaurants, four in
:Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds.
1 The general business of the Employer is conducted from a central office which is also
the headquarters for four supervisors who, together with officers of the Employer, circulate
among and supervise the operations of various restaurants operated by the Employer.
79 N. L. R. B., No. 128.
1032
WESTBROOK ENTERPRISES, INC. 1033
the District of Columbia and one in Alexandria, Virginia.2 Each
restaurant has a working manager who is bound by Employer policy
as laid down by the central office. While each restaurant must be
individually licensed, such license is in the name of the corporation
rather tFian in the name of the manager of each establishment. The
Employer has an arrangement with a local employment agency to
furnish all needed employees, and only in emergencies can a manager
hire other than through this agency, and then such action is subject
to review and approval by the central office. Likewise, any discharge
of an employee by a manager is subject to final determination and
action by the central office. The job classifications and wage scales in
all restaurants are generally the same and the pay roll for all restau-
rants is made up at the central office. The Employer has one work-
man's compensation policy and one public liability insurance policy
covering all its operations.
The foregoing indicates that the Employer's operations are con-
ducted on a closely integrated, highly centralized basis, with sub-
stantially all authority emanating from its main office. There appears
to be uniformity in personnel policy, wages, hours, working conditions,
with frequent interchange of employees and common ultimate super-
vision. All these factors have generally been considered as criteria
favoring a multi-plant unit .3
The only factor appearing in this case in support of a single-opera-
tion unit is the extent of the Petitioner's organization among the
employees involved herein. As the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, specifically forbids the use of the extent-of-organization
factor as controlling in the determination of an appropriate unit," we
find that the Petitioner's proposed unit is inappropriate.5
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case , we find that no question affecting commerce exists con-
2 The Employer is in the process of closing one of the four restaurants in the District of
Columbia and opening two new restaurants at other locations within the District. The
policy of the company has been to man a new restaurant with experienced personnel taken
from its other restaurants.
' Matter of Welfare Association of U. S. Department of Agriculture , 45 N. L . R. B. 285;
Matter of Eisner Grocery Company, 72 N. L . R. B. 721; Matter of Geneva Forge, Inc.,
76 N. L. R. B. 497 ; Matter of Charles Eneu Johnson & Company, 77 N. L . R. B. 41.
4 Section 9 (c) (5) provides : "In determining whether a unit is appropriate for the
purposes specified in subsection (b) the extent to which the employees have organized
shall not be controlling."
5 Matter of Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, 77 N. L . R. B. 1363. The Board has
found that chain stores located in the District of Columbia and within a 25-mile radius
thereof constitute a single appropriate unit. See Matter of Giant Food Shopping Center,
Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 791 ; Matter of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 69 N. L. R. B.
463.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer in a unit;
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, therefore,
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of employees of Westbrook Enterprises, Inc.,.
14th Street restaurant, Washington, D. C., filed by Local Joint Execu-
tive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders.
International Union, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.