Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 31, 1964

145 N.L.R.B. 1415 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS 1415 All our employees are free to become , remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members of any labor organization. DANIEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 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. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1831 Nissen Building , 310 West Fourth Street , Winston-Salem , North Carolina, Tele- phone No. 724-8356 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations and Hartford Build- ing Maintenance Company, Inc. and Building Service Em- ployees International Union , AFL-CIO, Local 43-T. Case No. AO-69. January 31, 1964 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed on December 16, 1963, by the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations, herein called State Board, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, pursuant to its "Response To Petition and Request for Permission To File Brief," Hartford Building Main- tenance Company, Inc., herein called Hartford, filed its brief on December 31,1963. In pertinent part, the petition including the findings of the State Board, the response, and brief allege as follows : 1. There is presently pending before the State Board a petition for an election and certification of bargaining representative (Docket No. E 1288). The parties to this proceeding are Hartford and Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 43-T, herein called the Union. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 31-101(9), Connecticut General Statutes. 3. Since 1956, when it was first incorporated, Hartford has been engaged in the business of providing janitorial, cleaning, and waxing services at Hartford, Connecticut. In 1960, Hartford's officers, who constitute all its stockholders, acquired by stock purchase Ace Win- dow and Cleaning Contractors, Inc., herein called Ace, a New Britain, Connecticut, business performing the identical type of services as Hartford. Ace's officers who also constitute its sole stockholders are the identical individuals holding Hartford's offices. 4. The overall operating policies of both Hartford and Ace are the joint responsibilities of their common officers and stockholders and 145 NLRB No. 140. 1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their personnel policies are administered by a single general manager. Both companies utilize the services of the same accounting firm, legal counsel, and clerical staff. Payroll books and records are kept at the same location. There is some interchange of employees performing janitorial work and Hartford renders warehouse services for Ace without intercorporate accounting. 5. During the fiscal year July 1, 1962, to July 1, 1963, the combined purchases of Hartford and Ace directly from outside the State of Connecticut amounted to approximately $22,900, while an unknown amount of purchases of goods and materials originating outside the State were made locally. Admittedly, these direct and indirect out- of-State purchases totaled less than $50,000. During the same fiscal period, Ace furnished under contract approximately $59,000 direct out-of-State services to the U.S. Air Force at Westover Field, Massachusetts.' 6. Hartford contends that, for jurisdictional purposes, it and Ace constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act and, there- fore, the State board does not have jurisdiction over Hartford in the representation proceeding pending before that board. Although it does not dispute the factual allegations submitted herein, the Union disagrees with Hartford's contention. 7. The Union has not filed a representation petition with this Board. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. Hartford and Ace are in the nonretail business of providing jani- torial, cleaning, and waxing services at Hartford and New Britain, Connecticut. On the undisputed allegations hereinabove set forth which establish the common and centralized control, management, and operations of both companies, we assume, for the purposes of this Advisory Opinion, that Hartford and Ace constitute a single em- ployer for jurisdictional purposes under the Act? 2. The current standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over non- retail enterprises within the statutory jurisdiction requires an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. As the approximately $59,000 in out-of-State services during the last fiscal year to the United States Air Force constitute direct outflow under the Board's Siemons standard,' the combined operations of Hartford and Ace would come 'Although Ace's contract with the U.S. Air Force expired July 1, 1963 , and it is no longer performing services there, It is Ace's intention to continue to bid on this and other out-of-State contracts. 2 Although the Union contends to the contrary, our assumption Is justified by numerous Board decisions in analogous situations See, e.g., Cockatoo, Inc, 145 NLRB 611; Thunderbird Hotel Company, 144 NLRB 84; Overton Markets, 142 NLRB 615 3 See Truman Schlup, Consulting Engineer, 145 NLRB 768; Browne and Buford, En- gineers and Surveyors, 145 NLRB 765. LOCAL 1566, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 1417 within the Board's statutory jurisdiction 4 and would satisfy the Siemons standard for assertion of jurisdiction over nonretail enterprises. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that upon the allegations submitted herein, the Board would assert jurisdiction over the operations of Hartford and Ace as a single employer with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act. 4 The $22,900 out-of-State purchases, constituting direct inflow under Sientons, also would subject the operations of Hartford and Ace to the Board's statutory jurisdiction. Local 1566, International Longshoremen 's Association [Philadel- phia Marine Trade Association ] and Marvin Gould Local 1566, International Longshoremen 's Association and Zack Page. Cases Nos. 4-CB-361 and 4-CB-362. January 31, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 19, 1959, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding 1 finding, inter alia, that Respondent had caused an employer, Maritime Ship Cleaning and Maintenance Co., to discriminate in employment against Marvin Gould and Zack Page, in violation of Section 8(b) (2) and (1) of the Act and directing that Respondent make Gould and Page whole for loss of pay resulting from the discrimination. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered its decree enforcing the aforesaid Board Order.2 On November 30, 1962, the Board's Regional Director for the Fourth Region issued a backpay specification, and on January 9, 1963, Re- spondent filed an answer thereto. Upon appropriate notice issued by the Regional Director, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner George Downing for the purpose of determining the amount of back- pay due the two claimants. On August 15, 1963, the Trial Examiner issued his Supplemental Intermediate Report, attached hereto, in which he found that Marvin Gould and Zack Page were respectively entitled to payments of $1,200 and $1,839. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Supplemental Inter- mediate Report and briefs in support thereof. 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 panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. 1 122 NLRB 967. 2 278 F. 2d 883 ( C.A. 3), cert. denied 364 U.S. 890. 145 NLRB No. 134.