Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

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 Chisca 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 RODGERs took no part in the consideration of the above
Advisory Opinion.
' Floridan 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.
CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS 1093
.ary 25, 1962, Westport New Englander Motor Hotel, Inc., hereinafter
called the Employer, filed a response to the petition. Thereafter, on
March 19, 1962, Ivan C. McLeod, Regional Director for the Second
Region of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Regional Director, filed a motion for intervention and a request that
the Board consider the information contained in the statement of
jurisdictional facts attached to the motion. The Regional Director's
,motion to intervene and his request is hereby granted. Thereafter,
the Regional Director submitted a supplemental statement of juris-
dictional facts.
In pertinent part, the petition, the response, and the intervention,
including the supplemental statement of jurisdictional facts, show
as follows :
1. There are presently pending before the State Board a represen-
tation proceeding (Docket No. E-1185) and an unfair labor practice
proceeding (Docket No. U-1186). The parties to these proceedings
are the Employer and Amalgamated Union, Local 5, Food, Packers
Service Employees, hereinafter called the Union.
2. The Employer, a Connecticut corporation, operates a motor ho-
tel or motel in Westport, Connecticut, consisting of 76 rooms, a res-
taurant, and bar. During the past fiscal year ending February 28,
1962, more than 25 percent of its rental units were occupied by guests
who stayed less than a month and more than 25 percent of its revenues
were derived from rentals of its units to such transient guests. Prior
to June 1, 1961, the restaurant and bar had been operated by a man-
aging agent under a leasing agreement whereby the Employer re-
-ceived 10 percent of the gross revenue of the restaurant and bar.
However, since June 1, 1961, this arrangement was discontinued and
the Employer itself undertook direct operation of the restaurant and
bar.
3. On August 30 and September 15, 1961, the Union filed with this
Board unfair labor practice charges against the Employer (Cases
Nos. 2-CA-8130 and 2-CA-8130-2) and a petition for certification
of some of the Employer's employees (Case No. 2-RC-11558). In
connection with the Regional Director's investigation of these cases,
the Employer submitted an affidavit dated September 22, stating that
since June 1, 1961, it had been operating the restaurant and bar di-
rectly on an interim basis and that there had been no significant
'change in its mode of operation since the end of the last fiscal year
'on March 31, 1961. The Employer also submitted a commerce ques-
tionnaire in which it refused to concede this Board's jurisdiction on
the basis of its operations during the fiscal year ending March 31,
1961.
4. During the fiscal year ending March 31,1961, when the restaurant
and bar was being run under a leasing arrangement, the Employer's
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
gross revenue was $263,538.62 and this included the sum of $22,351.78,
representing 10 percent of the gross annual revenue of the restaurant
and bar, received as a leasing fee from the managing agent. During
that same period, the Employer purchased products directly from out-
side the State of Connecticut products valued at approximately $5,000.
On the commerce facts, the Regional Director declined on Septem-
ber 27, 1961, to issue an unfair labor practice complaint because, in his
opinion, it would not effectuate the purpose of the Act to exercise
jurisdiction over the operations of the Employer. The Union not
only did not seek review of this action but also withdrew its repre-
sentation petition on October 10, 1961.
5. Thereafter, the Union instituted the unfair labor practice and
representation proceedings now pending before the State Board. At.
the hearing in these proceedings, the Employer stated that on Novem-
ber 26, 1961, it had decided to operate the restaurant and bar directly
on a permanent, rather than an interim basis. Under these circum-
stances, the Employer contested the State Board's jurisdiction on the
ground that its current operations of the motel, including direct
operation of the restaurant and bar, would now meet this Board's
standard for assertion of jurisdiction over motels. The Employer
takes this same position in the instant proceedings.
6. On February 12,1962, the Union filed with this Board new unfair
labor practice charges (Case No. 2-CA-8460) repeating verbatim the
allegations contained in the charges of Case No. 2-CA-8130. The,
investigation by the Regional Director of these new charges shows that
during the 9-month period, June 1, 1961, through February 28, 1962,.
in which the Employer directly operated the restaurant and bar, the-
Employer's gross revenue was $376,465. During the fiscal year ending
February 28, 1962, the Employer's purchases from outside the State
of Connecticut exceeded $5,000.
7. No response as provided by this Board's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by 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 motor hotel or
motel with a restaurant and bar at Westport, 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, or 25 percent or-
more of its rental income is derived from such transient guests; and
(c) the existence of legal jurisdiction must be established on the record
before the Board. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261;
Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Grady Manning Hotel), 126 NLRB 1151,,
HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON, INC. 1095
1153; Spink Arms Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Continental Hotel, 133
NLRB 1694.
3. During the 9-month period from June 1, 1961, through Febru-
ary 28, 1962, the Employer's gross volume of business was $376,465,
which if projected for a period of 12 months from June 1, 1961, would
amount to $501,952.80. See Chickasaw Hotel Company d/b/a Chisca
Plaza Motor Hotel, 132 NLRB 1540. Further, the Employer's motel
is considered nonpermanent in character, for purposes of this Board's
jurisdictional standard, as more than 25 percent of the guests were
transient and as more than 25 percent of the Employer's rental income
-was derived from such transient guests. Finally, during the fiscal
year ending February 28, 1962, the Employer had a direct inflow of
products from outside the State valued at more than $5,000. Such
movement of goods across State lines is itself sufficient to establish
this Board's legal jurisdiction over the Employer. Southwest Hotels,
,,Inc., supra, at pp. 1153-1154. 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 juris-
-diction over motels, exclusive of permanent or residential motels.
Accordingly, the parties are therefore advised under Section 102.103
,of this Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on
the facts here present, this Board would assert jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cognizable under
-Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act.
Harrington & Richardson , Inc. and International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL -CIO. Case No.
1-CA-3562. April 17, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 31, 1962, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of the complaint
as to them. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed
a brief in support of the Trial Examiner's dismissals.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
136 NLRB No.113.