Northwest Smorgasbord, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 15, 1967163 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1967) Copy Citation NORTHWEST SMORGASBORD , INC. 425 mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL make whole C. D. Chandler, Gene Bruce, Louie Mills, Ralph Cox, and Bobby Dukes for the discrimination practiced against them. A. C. ROCHAT COMPANY (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 528 Peachtree-Seventh Building, 50 Seventh Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, Telephone 526-5741. Northwest Smorgasbord , Inc.' Employer and Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-4060. March 15, 1967 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Sam T. Kabanuck, Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and the Petitioner have filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing. s This figure does not include the State sales tax of 4.2 percent. Carolina Supplies and Cement Co ., 122 NLRB 88. Intergraphic Corporation of America, 160 NLRB 100; City Line Open Hearth , Inc., 141 NLRB 799; Wallace Shops, Inc., 133 NLRB 36; Sequim Lumber and Supply Company , 123 NLRB 1097; Miller Container Corporation , 115 NLRB 509. Attached to the brief filed by the Employer is a request that the Board consider additional data based on the Employer's operations since the hearing or, alternatively , that the Board reopen the record for the presentation of such data . To consider post hearing business fluctuations , however , is contrary to the 163 NLRB No. 57 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, which contests the Board's assertion of jurisdiction, has been engaged since November 1, 1966, in the operation of a restaurant in Seattle, Washington. The Employer's receipts for the first month of operation totaled over $46,496.22 Projecting this figure on an annual basis indicates that the Employer's volume of business will total over $500,000 a year, and, therefore, that the Employer's operation meets the Board's jurisdictional standard for retail enterprises.3 The Employer contended at the hearing (1) that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the restaurant has been in operation for so short a time, and (2) that the restaurant business generally declines after the initial period of operation. We find no merit in these contentions . As to (1) the Board, in administering its jurisdictional standards, customarily projects available revenue figures with respect to a business in operation for less than a year.4 As to (2) this contention is conjectural. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at 85th and 1st Avenue N. W., Seattle, Washington, excluding all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] basic considerations underlying the Board 's projection policy. As we are satisfied that the Employer's operations on a projected basis meet the Board 's jurisdictional standards , we see no reason for deferring the right of the Employer 's employees to avail themselves of the processes of the Act. The proffer of additional data is therefore rejected, and the motion to reopen the record is hereby denied. ' In view of this determination , we find it unnecessary to consider the Petitioner 's alternative contention that the Employer and the corporation under whose franchise it operates constitute a single employer. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation