Mission Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 611 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

J. S. R. INCORPORATED 611
J. S. R. Incorporated d/b/a Mission Hotel I and
Freight Checkers , Clerical Employees and Help-
ers, Local 856, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America , Petitioner . Case 20-RC-7784
March 21, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
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 Hearing Officer Dawn B.
Girard of the National Labor Relations Board. Fol-
lowing the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 20, this case was transferred to the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs
were timely filed by the Petitioner, the Employer,'
and the Intervenors.'
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this
case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
The Employer, Mission Hotel, started operations
in May of 1962. The stipulated jurisdictional facts
show that Mission Hotel received approximately
$120,000 in gross revenues during the calendar
year 1966, which is far short of the $500,000 gross
revenue required for the assertion of jurisdiction
under the Board's standards applicable to hotels.'
However, the members of the Association, of which
Mission Hotel is a member , received in excess of
$500,000 in gross revenues during the same year.
Also, members of the Association made purchases
from outside the State in excess of $50,000 during
the same period. Thus, as the operations of the As-
sociation 's members meet the Board 's standards,
the Board would assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ployer on the basis of such operations, if the Em-
ployer is part of a multiemployer unit of Associa-
tion members.'
On that issue, the record shows that after or-
ganizational efforts by the Intervenors, the Em-
ployer signed a collective-bargaining agreement on
March 1, 1965. Although the agreement binds the
Employer to observe the rules, classifications, and
wage provisions of the bargaining agreement
between the Association and the Intervenors, it is,
unlike the Association's agreement with the Inter-
venors which was for a fixed term ending
December 31, 1970, terminable by either party
upon 30 days' written notice.
On March 1, 1967, the Employer joined the As-
sociation. The agreement which it signed with the
Association authorized the Association to act for it
in dealings with labor organizations, and to enter
into such collective-bargaining agreements as the
Association deemed in the best interests of its
members. There is nothing in this agreement
requiring the Employer either to adopt or to sign
the agreement then in existence between the As-
sociation and the Intervenors. In fact, the evidence
in the record fails to establish that the Employer ac-
tually signed this Associationwide contract, and
seems to indicate that the Employer neither
adopted nor in any other manner became bound by
said agreement. Thus, the agreement between the
Employer and the Association was at will, and the
Employer could leave the Association by giving the
Association 30 days' written notice, a provision
more consistent with a finding that the Employer
was to continue to operate under its terminable-
after-30-days' contract than with a finding that the
Employer automatically became bound by the As-
sociation's long-term contract. In addition, the
master agreement between the Association and the
Intervenors specifically provided that a new
member to the Association would have the right to
become a party to the agreement, language appear-
ing to give the Employer the option to do other-
wise.6
In the circumstances of this case, where the Em-
' The name of the Employer was amended at the hearing Employer
hereinafter is referred to as Mission Hotel.
2 The San Francisco Hotel Association, Inc , referred to hereinafter as
the Association , was allowed to intervene on the basis of the Employer's
membership in the Association . The brief of the Employer is also that of
the Association
' San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders ' International Union, AFL-CIO, its local,
Apartment, Motel, Hotel and Elevator Operators' Union, Local 14, and
Hotel, Motel, and Club Service Workers' Union, Local 283, herein
referred to as the Intervenors , were allowed to intervene on the basis of a
collective-bargaining agreement between them and the Employer
4 Floridan Hotel of Tampa , Inc., 124 NLRB 261
5 Carbondale Retail Druggists' Association , 131 NLRB 1021, Kenosha
Liquor Company, et al, 104 NLRB 189, fn. 7.
5 See Bab-Rand Company , 147 NLRB 247, 250, 251, where a contractual
agreement between business entities required one entity to sign the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement of the other . The Board held that even such a
mandatory contractual provision did not constitute a consummated agree-
ment for the purpose of the Board's contract-bar policy
170 NLRB No. 90
612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer has not become a party to the Association- meet the Board's jurisdictional standards, we shall
wide contract, and has not yet participated in mul- dismiss the petition.'
tiemployer negotiations, we find that the Employer
has not yet become a part of the multiemployer ORDER
unit. Therefore, jurisdiction cannot be asserted on
the basis of the business done by all the Associa- It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
tion's members. As Mission Hotel does not by itself be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
7In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the
various other contentions of the parties