Progressive Cafeterias

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 763 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

PROGRESSIVE CAFETERIAS 763
frame of reference.' Finally, when informed of Allen's act, the Union expressly
repudiated it30 The Union's business agent, Hammond, when summoned to the
job site by Allen, and when confronted by wells, the Grauman employee who had
suffered the assault at Allen's hands, and other Grauman representatives, stated
unequivocally that the Union (lid not condone Allen's act and was "very sorry
that a thing like that would happen." It is true. as the General Counsel con-
tends, that the Union (lid not punish Allen by removing him from his steward-
ship-if it had that power-or by officially reprimanding him, but were a reme-
dial order issued under this complaint it would not require the Union to take
either of these drastic steps unless the Board went further in ordering the inter-
nal affairs of a labor organization than it has heretofore. It is sufficient to say
that there is nothing in the context in which Hammond apologized for Allen's
act which leads me to believe that this was mere lip service. I think it was a
sincere and effective disavowal by the Union of Allen's intemperate act.
I shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the Employer, The Grauman Company, Denver, Colorado,
constitute and affect trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union
No. 55, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
3 The Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
9 See Western, Inc., 93 NLRB 336, in which the picketing union was absolved of liability
for coercive acts committed by picketing employees : "Their activity was not expressly
authorized by the Unions, nor did the Unions establish any pattern of unlawfully coercive
picketing-which could constitute implied authorization of the particular restraint and
coercion far from the picket line "
11 See Teamsters Local 641 and Air Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 1381 , footnote 8, supra.
JosEPII CHRIS'ITNSEN AND BLANCHE CHRISTENSEN, PARTNERS, D/B/A
PROGRESSIVE CAFETERIAS I and LOCAL 181, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT
EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 35-RC-763. August 25, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing
officer. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
iOO NLRB No. 132.
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, with principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, oper-
ates cafeterias in the plants of several industrial enterprises located
in Texas , Illinois, Indiana, and New Jersey.2 The employees here
sought to be represented work in the cafeteria operated by the Em-
ployer at the Indiana. Ordnance Works, Charleston, Indiana, under
contract with E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company which manu-
factures smokeless powder for the Defense Department at this loca-
tion.' The Employer contends that this cafeteria, like its others, is
operated as a separate venture which is essentially local in character,4
and that the Board therefore should not assert jurisdiction in this
case. We disagree.
A salaried manager is in charge of the-cafeteria, assertedly under
instructions from the Employer to run the operation as if it were her
own business. She has authority to hire and discharge employees,
may grant them wage increases, and signs their salary checks. The
cafeteria's receipts are deposited locally in its own bank account from
which funds are drawn to pay salaries. However, despite their indicia
of autonomy and separateness, there is evidence of control by and
integration with the Employer's central offices sufficient to overcome
the Employer's contention that the cafeteria should be viewed as a
completely separate enterprise. Thus, inspectors from the Chicago
offices visit the cafeteria to make sure that it is functioning in accord-
ance with the Employer's requirements as to quality of food and sani-
tary conditions. During the manager's absence for illness or vacations
an inspector substitutes for her. Although the manager recommended
the wage scales for the cafeteria employees based on a survey of local
conditions, the Employer first approved these scales before their
2 The Employer operates cafeterias under contracts with Du Pont at its plants in
several States , and also operates cafeterias at the plants of the following companies in
vari - us States : Union Carbide and Carbon, Eastman Company, A & P, Stewart -Warner,
Shell Oil Shell Chemical , and ALCOA
7 The Employer concedes that Du Pont's operations are part of the national defense
There are 6,905 employees at this plant . Due to the shortness of their lunch period and
the remoteness of their work locations from the cafeteria , only 751 of these employees are
able to patronize the cafeteria . While there are a few eating places in Charleston about
3 or 4 blocks from the plant, it appears that this latter group of 751 employees could
not c,nveniently patronize these establishments in the 30 minutes allotted them for lunch
and must of necessity obtain their lunches at the Employer 's cafeteria, unless they pur-
chase box lunches sold at the plant gates. The record shows that on July 14, 1952, the
cafeteria made 1;178 sales , indicating that a substantial number of Du Pont's employees
use its facilities . We are satisfied from these circumstances that uninterrupted service by
the Employer 's cafeteria is essential to Du Pont 's own operations which clearly affect
commerce . See Fairchild Cafeteria , 87 NLRB 667.
4 The only business data respecting the cafeteria 's operations available in the record
shows that gross revenue for June 1952 was $ 6,732, and the cost of food for this period
was $3,739 . While the record indicates that dairy products constituting 16 to 20 percent
of all food purchases are procured within the State, it appears that other items are pur-
chased from salesmen who come from Louisville , Kentucky . The record indicates specifi-
cally that meat products , constituting 16 to 18 percent of all purchases , are obtained
from Louisville . The' Employer's revenues from all its operations exceed $500,000
annually.
THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY 765
adoption. Blank checks with the Employer's name imprinted thereon
are furnished by the Chicago offices for salary payments. Insurance
carried by the cafeteria is contracted for at Chicago where workmen's
compensation insurance is also carried to cover the cafeteria's em-
ployees. Social security payments and income taxes withheld from
earnings of cafeteria employees are handled at Chicago. And, finally,
profits derived from the cafeteria's operation are transferred to the
Employer at Chicago. We conclude from these circumstances that the
cafeteria herein involved is an integral part of the Employer's multi-
state business. For this reason,' and because of its relation to the
Du Pont interstate and national defense operations as hereinbefore
described ,s we find that the Employer is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accord with the agreement of the parties we find that all
employees of Joseph Christensen and Blanche Christensen d/b/a
Progressive Cafeterias employed at their cafeteria designated as Unit
Number 31 at the Indiana Ordnance Works, Charleston, Indiana,
operated by E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, excluding
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section .9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e Nationwide Food Service; Inc., 98 NLRB No. 141 ; The Borden Company, Southern
Division, 91 NLRB 628.
Fairchild Cafeteria, supra.
THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY 1 and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONERS
THE CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE COMPANY and MECHANICS
EDUQATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 9-RC-
1547 and 9-1RC-1548. August l5, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
NatioHal Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 129.