Meadow Stud, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 3, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1202 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD earned had he not been discriminatorily transferred from employment as a dough- maker for the period involved , and also reinstate him to his seniority and such other rights and privileges , if any, as he would have had as a doughmaker but for the dis- criminatory transter. Earnings shall be computed in the same manner as provided for above . It will also be recommended that the Respondent preserve and make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to facilitate the com- putation of the backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recom- mended that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, Local 492, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Richard Kauffman and Robert Alexander and in regard to the terms and conditions of em- ployment of Rhea Whitesal, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 3. By engaging in the conduct set forth in the section entitled "The Conclusions," the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair practices within the mean- ing of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent has not discriminated with regard to the employment of Frances Zeiders and Frederick Jefferson as alleged. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Meadow Stud, Inc. and Local 917, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind. Case No. A0-17. March 3, 1961 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition, filed by Local 917, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Ind., for an advisory opinion under Section 102.98(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8. In relevant part, the petition discloses the following : Meadow Stud, Inc., herein called the Employer, a Delaware corpo- ration engaged in the business of breeding, raising, racing, and selling thoroughbred racehorses, operates a farm and stables at Doswell, Virginia, where it keeps stallions for breeding purposes. Mares owned by other persons are sent to such stables to be bred, and the mare and their foals are boarded there. About 40 horses are raised each year. For the fiscal year ending in August 1959, the Employer received $91,639 in stud fees and $117,500 from the sale of horses in 1960. Included in the latter figure is the sum of $24,000 for a horse sold in California and $44,000 for horses shipped out of New York. It also receives an annual income of $17,719 for boarding mares and 130 NLRB No. 121. MEADOW STUD, INC. 1203 foals. The employer transports its horses to, and races them in, other States, including New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Massachusetts. From January 1 to November 1, 1960, the Employer won racing purses totaling $389,995 in these States. It also has a part interest in a stallion standing at Clayburn Farm in Kentucky. Petitioner has filed a petition with the New York State Labor Relations Board for certification as the representative of the Em- ployer's grooms which has been docketed by, and is pending before, said New York board as Case No. SE-33853. At the hearing on said petition, the foregoing "commerce data" was not denied or contro- verted. At said hearing the additional following facts were neither contradicted nor denied : The racing season in New York lasts from about March 21 to November 30 annually. New York law requires all owners, trainers, "assistant trainees," and stable employees to be licensed. Pursuant to New York law, the Employer is licensed to do business in that State. The Employer keeps 15 to 18 horses in New York at the "height of the season," although it also sends horses from New York to tracks in other States and to its stables in Virginia. Its regular grooms accom- pany the horses on such trips. Grooms are paid their wages from local bank accounts maintained in the State where they are working. A response submitted pursuant to Section 102.101 by the Employer alleges the following : In 1960, the employer raced in seven stake races, as well as other races, in New Jersey during July, August, and September. Grooms traveling with these horses remained in New Jersey from 10 to 12 days on each of the seven occasions. Of the four "permanent grooms," two maintain homes outside of New York and three of the "present grooms" were hired in Doswell. The Employer neither owns nor leases property in the State of New York. It also requests the Board to take judicial notice that racing seasons of other States may run con- currently in whole or in part with the New York season. A brief has been received from the Employer, permission to file it having been granted pursuant to Section 102.103 of the Board Rules. In it the Employer has contended that 'its operations have a substan- tial effect on commerce, that the Board therefore should assert juris- diction over it, and that Hialeah Race Course, 125 NLRB 338, does not control disposition of the instant case because Hialeah involved an industry local in nature. The question of whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over the operations of racehorse owners has not heretofore been decided by the Board. Nevertheless, while not determinative, cases like Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 125 NLRB 338; Jefferson Downs, Inc., 125 NLRB 386; Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., 114.NLRB 1363; Los 1204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Angeles Turf Club, Inc., 90 NLRB 20, at 21-22, and Olympia Stadium Corporation, 85 NLRB 389, point to the conclusion, which we reach, that the Employer's operations, while not unrelated to commerce, are essentially local in character. As, in our opinion, the effect of labor disputes involving such operations is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction, and as we have declined to assert jurisdiction over racetracks which are indispensable to such operations, we have determined to decline jurisdiction over the Em- ployer and similar operations, thereby leaving the States free to assert their jurisdiction. See Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc., supra. Cases like Radovich v. National Football League, 352 U.S. 445; U.S. v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236; and United States v. Shubert, 348 U.S. 222, do not compel a different result. They hold the activities there discussed constituted commerce; but, as pointed out above, we recognize that the operations of the Employer in the instant case are not wholly unrelated to commerce. Similarly, we do not regard Toolson v. New York Yankees, 346 U.S. 356, and Federal Base- ball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, as dispositive. In view of the foregoing disposition we do not reach the question of which part of the Employer's operations, if any, have been excluded from our jurisdiction as a matter of law, under Section 2(3) of our Act, because they employ "agricultural labor." Accordingly, the parties are advised that the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the operations of Meadow Stud, Inc., with respect to labor disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, or 10 of the Act. William H. Dixon and Local 917, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent . Case No. AO-18. March 3, 1961 ADVISORY OPINION In this case we are requested to render an advisory opinion as to whether we would assert jurisdiction over the operations of an em- ployer engaged as a public trainer of thoroughbred racehores. The case is before us on a petition filed by William H. Dixon, the Em- ployer, pursuant to Section 102.98 (a) of our Rules and Regulations, Series 8. Preliminarily, we believe it relevant to observe that the petition does not conform to long-recognized practices that pleadings, al- though setting forth all *relevant facts, should not plead the support- ing evidence, and should be clearly legible. In the instant case the petition incorporates and sets forth ad verbum the testimony of one 130 NLRB No. 122.