Hot Shoppes, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1962

139 N.L.R.B. 1253 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

HOT SHOPPES , INC. 1253
Hot Shoppes , Inc. and Brewery, Yeast, Soft Drink Workers &
Driver Saesmen , Amusement & Vending Servicemen and
Allied Workers, Teamsters Local Union No. 333, International
Brotherhoefl of Teamsters , C iauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-3851. Novem-
ber 23, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Secdon 0, (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was Held before August A. Denhard, Jr.,
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-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the Employer's employees
employed at its Friendship Airport operations, in Baltimore, Mary-
land. While the Employer agrees to the composition of the requested
unit it contends that the unit is too limited in scope. The Employer
would also include in this unit employees at its National Airport opera-
tions, located in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. There
is no history of bargaining for any of these employees 2
There are three major operating divisions in the Employer's cor-
porate structure, under an executive vice president: (1) motor hotel,
(2) restaurants, and (3) airline catering outside of National and
Friendship Airports. Each of these divisions is headed by a vice
president. Under the restaurant division are three subdivisions : (1)
service restaurants, (2) cafeteria division, and (3) institutional divi-
sion. The cafeteria division, headed by a district manager, is in
charge of the airline catering services at Friendship and National
1 At the hearing , the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct
name of the Employer , as it appears in the caption.
2 In February 1961 the Board found appropriate , and directed an election in, a unit
limited to the Employer 's employees at Washington National Airport, but no bargaining
representative was selected . Hot Shoppes, Inc, 130 NLRB 138.
139 NLRB No. 91.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Airports. In addition to servicing the airline operations at Friend-
ship and National Airports, the cafeteria division has charge of most
of the Employer's cafeterias throughout the United States?
The Employer's operations consist of two units at National Air-
port, units 24 and 25, and one at Friendship Airport, unit 60, each
of which is headed by a manager who reports to the district man-
ager.' The two airports are approximately 35 miles apart. All the
Employer's operations in the area, including the two airports, are
serviced by the same warehouses and commissaries.
The Employer has approximately 115 employees working at its
Friendship Airport operation, and approximately 250 at its two units
at National Airport. Employees are hired locally by the managers
of each unit, who are responsible for the direction and management of
only that unit. Each manager recommends wage increases and trans-
fers for employees in such unit. As in other operations throughout
the United States, such recommendations must be approved by the
district manager. Seniority is companywide, and all personnel rec-
ords for the Employer's operations throughout the United States
are maintained at the Employer's Bethesda, Maryland, headquarters.
All the Employer's employees have the same working conditions and
employee benefits, such as vacations, holidays, and sick leave. Wages
are determined by the prevailing local wage scales, and are the same
at Friendship and National Airports. Except for a cashier position
at National Airport, job classifications are the same at both airports.
Since the Employer started its operations at Friendship Airport in
May 1959, there have been 20 employees transferred from National
to Friendship Airport. Of these, eight transfers were made during
the first 3 months of operation at Friendship. The record shows,
however, that since September 1960, there have been 10 transfers of
rank-and-file employees between Friendship Airport and various op-
erations of the Employer, other than National Airport. Aside from
eight management supervisory persons, who divide their time among
the three units at Friendship and National Airports, the record does
not show that there is any temporary interchange of employees.
The Employer relies chiefly upon Hot Shoppes, Inc., 130 NLRB
144, involving the Employer's operations at Midway and O'Hare
Airports in Chicago, Illinois, to support its assertion that the re-
quested unit is inappropriate.' In the Chicago case, the Board found
8 There are two cafeterias at National Airport which serve airline employees and the
Employer 's employees . At Friendship Airport, the Employer maintains dining facilities
for its own employees but not for the airline employees.
4 The Employer has been awarded a contract for servicing the airlines at Dulles Airport
at Chantilly, Virginia, after it becomes operational in November 1962. The operations
at Dulles Airport will also come within the jurisdiction of the district manager.
5 The Employer 's reliance on Interstate Co , Glass House Restaurants , Indiana Toll
Road, 125 NLRB 101, is misplaced . In this case , the parties agreed that a divisionwide
unit was appropriate.
IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1255
that the Petitioner's unit request was based upon its extent of or-
ganization because it had, on two previous occasions, sought single
units of both the O'Hare and Midway employees. Here, the appro-
priateness of the unit sought is supported by factors unrelated to the
Petitioner's extent of organization and there is no evidence to show
that its present unit request is based upon its extent of organization.
The Board has frequently held in cases involving centralized per-
sonnel policies and labor relations,6 as here, that, absent a history of
collective bargaining on a broader basis, separate units of an em-
ployer's operations may be appropriate by reason of the existence of
day-to-day operating autonomy in each unit, geographical separation
of the operations, and the lack of substantial employee interchange.
The record establishes that the Employer's Friendship and National
Airport operations are entirely separate; as already found, they are
about 35 miles apart and are each in charge of managers who oversee
the day-to-day operations. The identity in working conditions at the
two airports is shared by other units of the Employer's operations
throughout the country. The ratio of transfers between the two air-
ports does not appear to be higher than that of transfers to other
airports outside of the Washington metropolitan area. Under these
circumstances, and as a plant unit is presumptively appropriate, we
find that the requested unit, limited to the Employer's employees at
Friendship Airport, is appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All food equipment handlers,
dish room attendants, station attendants, cooks, utility people, me-
chanics, and dispatchers employed at the Employer's airlines cater-
ing operation at Friendship Airport, Baltimore, Maryland, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
B National Caterers of New York , Inc., 129 NLRB 699.
Imperial Eastman Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, District #32, Charging Party. Case No. 13-CA-4510.
November 26. 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 21, 1962, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his
Intermediate Report, finding that the Respondent had not engaged
in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommend-
139 NLRB No. 115.