Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1090 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
existence of the rule by Diviny, the official spokesman, not only of
Local 85, but, in his capacity as president of Joint Council 7, also of
Local 70 and other Teamsters locals affiliated in the general area. Like
Whitacre and Maillard, other individual drivers may not have been
aware of the overall practice generally.
On the entire record, we are satisfied that these local unions are in
agreement that the work in dispute here ought properly to be per-
formed by drivers operating out of Alameda County home terminals.
We view the arrangement as an effort by the two unions to adjust their
traditional jurisdictional work claims. Essentially, the dispute is be-
tween the Employer and Local 70 which is seeking to adhere to the
"past practice" rule. Local 85 makes no contrary claim, the Employer
therefore is not confronted with a dilemma between two competing
groups claiming the work. As the Board noted in Safeway Stores,
supra, implicit in the thrust of the Supreme Court's directive to the
Board in the CBS decision "is the proposition that Sections
8(b) (4) (D) and 10(k) were designed to resolve competing claims
between rival groups of employees, and not to arbitrate a dispute be-
tween a union and an employer when no such competing claims are
involved." 2 Accordingly, we find, on the entire record, that the facts
in the case do not present a jurisdictional dispute within the purview
of Sections 8 (b) (4) (D) and 10 (k) of the Act. We shall therefore
quash the notice of hearing.
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order Quashing Notice of Hearing.
2 N.L.R B v. Radio & Television B2 oadcast Engineers Union Local 1212, et al ( Columbia
Broadcasting System ), 364 U S. 573.
Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and Norwalk Motor
Inn, Inc. and Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders
International Union, Local 288, AFL-CIO. Case No. AO-34.
April 16, 196'2
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by the Connecticut State Board of Labor
Relations, herein called State Board, for an advisory opinion in con-
formity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations , Series 8, as amended.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges :
1. There is pending before the State Board a proceeding for an
election and certification of bargaining representative (Docket No.
136 NLRB No. 109.
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS 1091
E-1201). The parties to this proceeding are Norwalk Motor Inn, Inc.,,
herein called the Employer, and Hotel & Restaurant Employees &
Bartenders International Union, Local 288, AFL-CIO, herein called
the Union.
2. The Employer has operated a motel, restaurant, and bar business
in Norwalk, Connecticut, since May 1, 1961, when it first acquired
and took possession of the facilities. Thereafter, the Employer en-
tered into a program of renovations and alterations lasting for 21/2
to 3 months, during which guest accommodations were expanded from
65 to 70 units, a swimming pool was built, and the parking lot and
cocktail lounge were enlarged. In addition, the Employer engaged
in extensive advertising and established many contacts with local and
national firms.
3. Although business was curtailed during the progress of this
work, business has increased since the completion of the remodeling
program; and during the 7-month period from May 1 through No-
vember 30, 1961, the Employer had a gross volume of business of
$279,420. November is the low point of the year for motels in the
area, but thereafter the revenue increases fairly steadily "right up,
through the summer months."
4. The Employer's predecessor had done a gross volume of business.
in excess of $400,000 a year with the unexpended and unaltered facili-
ties. The Employer's president and its auditor expressed the opinion
that the gross volume of business for the Employer's first year would-
in all probability exceed $500,000 and the State Board concurred in
the reasonableness of this opinion.
5. At least 90 percent of the guests who stay at the Employer's
motel come from outside the State and the United States. The pro-
portion of the guests who stay 1 month or more is minimal and far-
less than 75 percent. Many local and national firms use the Employ-
er's facilities for conventions, sales meetings, and selling projects.
6. No response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by either the Employer or the Union.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a motel, with a,
restaurant and bar, in Norwalk, Connecticut.
2. The current Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over
motels, exclusive of permanent or residential motels, requires that
(a) the gross annual revenue must be in excess of $500,000; (b) 25
percent or more of the motel's guests must be transient rather than
permanent, i.e., they remain for less than a month; and (c) the exist-
ence of legal jurisdiction must be established on the record before the
Board. Floridan Hotel of Tamnpa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261; Southwest
Hotels, Inc. (Grady Manning Hotel), 126 NLRB 1151, 1153.
641795-63-vol . 136--70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. During the 7-month period from May 1 through November 30,
1961, the Employer's gross volume of business was nearly $280,000
despite the adverse impact upon business of the extensive alterations
during the first few months. If projected for a period of 12 months,
this amount would be close to $500,000. However, in view of the en-
larged and improved facilities, the extensive advertising, the many
new contacts, and the prospect of increased revenue after November,
it would be reasonable to expect that the Employer's first year's busi-
ness will in all probability exceed $500,000. See Chickasaw Hotel
Company d/b/a C/iisca Plaza Motor Hotel, 132 NLRB 1540; Atlantic
Mills Servicing Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., 117 NLRB 65, 66.
Further, the Employer's motel would be considered nonpermanent or
nonresidential in character as the overwhelming number of guests
have been transient, with only a minimal number remaining for a
month or more. And finally, the fact that 90 percent of the guests
who stay in the motel are from outside the State and the United
States and that national firms utilize the Employer's facilities, is
sufficient to support the conclusion that the Employer's business affects
commerce and is subject to the Board's legal jurisdiction.' Under
these circumstances, we find that the Employer's operations come
within the Board's legal jurisdiction and that they meet the gross
volume of business test as well as the transient character test of this
Board's standard for assertion of jurisdiction over motels, exclusive
of permanent or residential motels.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised, under Section
102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, that, on the
facts here present, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
MEMBER Ro1GERs took no part in the consideration of the above
Advisory Opinion.
1 Floridam. Hotel of Tampa, Inc., supra.
Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and Westport New
Englander Motor Hotel , Inc. and Amalgamated Union , Local 5,
Food , Packers Service Employees . Case No. A0-31. April 16,
1962
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on January 16, 1962, by the Connecticut
State Board of Labor Relations, herein called State Board, for an
advisory opinion in conformity with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. On Janu-
136 NLRB No. 110.