Muskegon Country Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

Muskegon Country Club and Teamsters Local No. 527, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America . Case No. AO-61. August 16,
1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Muskegon Country Club, herein called the
Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections
102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended.
In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows :
1. There is presently pending before the Michigan Labor Mediation
Board, herein called the State Board, a proceeding (docketed as Case
No. G63G337) initiated by Teamsters Local No. 527, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, herein called the Union, to determine a labor dispute in
regard to the recognition of the Union as bargaining representative of
employees of the Employer.
2. The Employer, incorporated under Michigan law, is a nonprofit
membership-owned organization operating a country club at Lake
Shore Drive, Muskegon, Michigan. During its most recent fiscal year
of 1962, the Employer's total dollar volume of income was $163,955.26,
derived from membership dues and fees, dining room sales, bar sales,
locker rentals, green fees, golf events, dances, and miscellaneous in-
come. All sales and services were performed for members and guests
locally in the State of Michigan. During 1962, the Employer's total
purchases of goods, supplies, commodities, or services amounted to
$56,828, of which approximately 92.7 percent or $52,679.56 were made
locally within the State of Michigan, while approximately 7.3 percent
or $4,148.44 were made directly from outside the State of Michigan.
Except for the direct out-of-State purchases, the Employer does not
know to what extent its purchases were direct or indirect purchases in
interstate commerce. Upon information and belief, the Employer be-
lieves that less than $50,000 of its total purchases were derived from
sources outside the State of Michigan.
3. The Employer does not participate in any association or group
which engages in collective bargaining nor does it perform any na-
tional defense work.
4. No formal findings with respect to the aforementioned commerce
data have been made by the State Board, but its mediator has taken
the position that the National Labor Relations Board will not take
144 NLRB No. 4. 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
jurisdiction over nonprofit membership-owned country clubs in view
of its Advisory Opinion in Chartiers Country Club, 139 NLRB 741,
and its Decision and Order in El Paso Country Club, Inc., 132 NLRB
942.
5. To the knowledge of the Employer, there is no pending repre-
sentation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor
dispute pending before the Board.
6. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion
herein, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations
has been filed by the Union.
On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that :
1. The Employer, a nonprofit membership-owned Michigan cor-
poration, is engaged in the operation of a country club at Muskegon,
Michigan.
2. In the absence of any specific jurisdictional standard for the
Employer's type of operation, the Board will apply to this particular
case its current retail and nonretail standards, specifically leaving open
the question whether to apply these standards in future cases involving
similar employers.' The current Board standard for the assertion of
jurisdiction over retail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is
an annual gross volume of business of at least $500,000, Carolina Sup-
plies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89; while the current nonretail
standard requires an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or
outflow, direct or indirect, Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer's gross annual in-
come from membership dues and fees, dining room sales, bar sales,
locker rentals, green fees, golf events, dances, and miscellaneous in-
come was $163,955.26, while its gross annual purchases of goods, sup-
plies, commodities, or services amounted to $56,929. The Employer
has no direct or indirect outflow, and except for the $4,148.44 of out-
of-State purchases which constitutes direct inflow, the remaining
amount of its direct or indirect inflow cognizable under our standards,
if any at all, is unknown. Indeed, upon the Employer's information
and belief, less than $50,000 of its purchases were derived from sources
outside the State of Michigan. Under these circumstances, it does
not appear that the Employer satisfies the Board's retail jurisdictional
standard of $500,000 annual gross volume of business or the non-
retail standard of $50,000 annual inflow or outflow.
Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the
facts submitted, it does not appear that the commerce operations of
the Employer satisfy the Board's standards for asserting jurisdic-
1 El Paso Country Club, Inc, supra, and Chartiers Country Club , supra.
SHERIDAN PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. 3
tion over retail or nonretail enterprises and that, therefore, the Board
would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with
respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.'
1V1i.MBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Advisory Opinion.
2 The Board, as in El Paso and Chartiers, is not here deciding whether or not it would
assert jurisdiction over country clubs which do meet the retail or nonretail standards.
Sheridan Peter Pan Studios, Inc. and Office Employees Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 13-RC-9170.
August 19,1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P. Gethner, 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 Rodgers and Leedom].
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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer operates a home photographic portrait business in
the Metropolitan Chicago area. The Petitioner seeks to represent a
unit limited to the photographers, of whom there are about 23, on the
ground that they are a craft or departmental group entitled to sepa-
rate representation. The Employer disagrees and urges that an ap-
propriate unit should comprise, in addition to the photographers, the
darkroom technicians including retouchers, colorists, and finishers,
all of whom constitute its technical department. The Employer also
suggests as an alternate appropriate unit one consisting of all em-
ployees in the three departments in which its operations are con-
144 NLRB No. 5.
727-083-64-val. 144-2