Pentagon Plaza, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 1280 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Cunningham, Paul J------------------------------------ $119.52
2. Meyer, Emil A---------------------------------------- 108.48
3. Lutarewytsch, Paolo------------------------------------ 140.00
4. Miller, Raymond W------------------------------------ 221.76
5. Klus, Thomas R--------------------------------------- 146.00
6. Chamberlain, Harold D--------------------------------- 748.88
7. Mason, Billy W---------------------------------------- 660.00
8. Harmon, Clyde 0-------------------------------------- 465.40
9. Reimer, Robert H-------------------------------------- 612 00
10. Schwalbach, Howard John, II---------------------------- 644.80
11. Stumpf, Edward L-------------------------------------- No claim
12. Heitfeld, Paul J---------------------------------------- 882.00
13. Green, Robert J---------------------------------------- 289.97
14. Hyden, Andrew J_______________________________________ 1,688.96
15. Smith, Kenneth W------------------------------------- 868.44
16. Harrison , Herman-------------------------------------- 1,597.47
17. Barnes, Donald F-------------------------------------- 1,002.99
18. Deubell, Robert E., Jr----------------------------------- 805.12
19. Craig, Richard R-------------------------------------- 2,245.76
20. Cordes, Joseph E--------------------------------------- 638 29
21. Hetman, William B------------------------------------- 1,320.25
22. Ellis, Raywood---------------------------------------- 1,585.50
23. Dunigan, Robert E------------------------------------- 1,131.23
24. Hughes, Wade M----------------------------------- 698.99
25. Kelly, James E--- ------------------------------------- 2,233.53
26. Mobley, Robert P-------------------------------------- 2,073 60
27. Meyer, Leroy H---------------------------------------- 2,084.49
Total----------------------------------------------- 25,013.43
It is therefore recommended that the Board adopt the foregoing findings and con-
clusions, and that the Respondent make whole the 27 discriminatees named above
by the payment of the specific sums of money set forth opposite their respective
names.
Pentagon Plaza, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries River-
house West, Inc., and Riverhouse South , Inc., operating as
Riverhouse , Riverhouse West , and Riverhouse South and
Cafritz Management Company i and International Union of
Operating Engineers , Local 99-99A, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 5-RC-4055. August 7, 1963
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before M. Louise
Felton, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. On
March 7, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued a
Decision and Direction of Election in this proceeding.2 Thereafter,
the Joint Employers, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with the Board a
1 In conformity with the record and our decision herein the caption is amended to include
Cafritz Management Company as a Joint Employer
2 The Regional Director found a joint employer relationship to exist between Cafritz
Management Company and Pentagon Plaza and its subsidiaries as named in the caption
Cafritz Management Company is frequently referred to in the record as Cafritz Company.
We shall hereinafter use the latter designation
143 NLRB No. 119.
PENTAGON PLAZA, INC., ETC. 1281
timely request for review of such Decision, in which request it con-
tended that Cafritz Company had not been afforded notice of the
proceeding and opportunity to be heard and that the operations of the
apartment building corporations involved had insufficient impact on
commerce to warrant the Board's assertion of jurisdiction -under its
standards. Before the Board acted on the request for review, the
Regional Director, on April 16,1963, decided to treat it as a motion for
reconsideration and ordered the hearing reopened to permit Cafritz
Company and the other parties to adduce further evidence and present
their positions with respect to the jurisdictional issues.
Pursuant to the Regional Director's order, a supplemental hearing
was held before the aforementioned hearing officer. After the close
of the hearing, the Regional Director, in conformity with the Rules
and Regulations, elected to transfer the case to the Board for decision.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the original and reopened hear-
ings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record,' the Board finds:
Pentagon Plaza, Inc.. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Riverhouse
West, Inc., and Riverhouse South, Inc., own apartment buildings
named Riverhouse, Riverhouse West and Riverhouse South, respec-
tively, located in Arlington, Virginia, close to the District of Colum-
bia. The corporate officers are identical for each of llne three entities :
Morris Cafritz is president; Charles H. Tompkins, Jr., vice president
and treasurer; Martin Atlas, secretary and assistant treasurer; and
Allen D. Henry, assistant secretary. The ownership interest in Pen-
tagon Plaza is divided equally between two corporations: Ambassador,
Inc., and H Street Building Corporation. Morris Cafritz is the
president and treasurer and sole owner of Ambassador, Inc., Edward
Cafritz is vice president, and Martin Atlas is secretary. Morris
Cafritz has no ownership interest in H Street Building Corporation,
51 percent of its shares are owned by the estates of Charles H. and
Lydia R. Tompkins, of which Alan D. Henry is cotrustee with
Riggs National Bank. Alan D. Henry and Charles H. Tompkins,
Jr., are also officers of II Street Building Corporation. The three
apartment building corporations involved each has a contract with
Cafritz Company under which the latter "agrees on behalf of [the
building owner] to supervise the work of and to hire, discharge and
3 The Joint Employers contend that the Regional Director lacked authority to act as he
did in treating the request for review as a motion for reconsideration and in reopening the
record for further hearing on the jurisdictional question we find no merit in this con-
tention. Under the delegation of decision-making authority in representation cases. Re-
gional Directors have the same authority as the Board, in cases which it decides, to re-
consider their decisions. In the instant case, as lie chose to reconsider his decision, to
reopen the record for further hearing, and to transfer the case to the Board for decision,
his decision was in effect vacated and our decision herein is based on the record made at
both the original and reopened hearings.
1282 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pay salaries of all managers, engineers, janitors, and other building
employees . . ." in return for a fee of 5 percent of the gross receipts
of the apartment building. Cafritz Company is engaged in the man-
agement of buildings in the District of Columbia and surrounding
areas in Maryland and Virginia. The president and admitted sole
owner of Cafritz Company is Morris Cafritz.
The record shows that Cafritz Company hires most employees for
the three apartment building corporations pursuant to its management
contract. Wages are set by Cafritz Company on the basis of its de-
termination of the prevailing rates in the area. On behalf of the three
apartment building corporations, Cafritz Company prepares the pay-
rolls for these employees and pays them with its own checks for
which it is reimbursed by the three corporations. All other aspects
of the employment relation are controlled by Cafritz Company. The
employees here involved are covered by group hospitalization and life
insurance policies in force for employees of all companies controlled
by Morris Cafritz, and there is a single workmen's compensation policy
covering all such employees. In view of the foregoing, especially the
substantial (50 percent) ownership interest of Morris Cafritz in the
three named apartment building corporations, his sole ownership of
Cafritz Company, and the fact that under the management contract
and in practice he controls labor relations policy for the employees
involved, we conclude that the three corporations involved and Cafritz
Company are joint employers of the employees in the requested unit 4
Each of the apartment corporations has a gross annual income
from rents of more than $100,000. Pentagon Plaza also received
$12,940 in rent from four commercial tenants in 1962. Fuel oil for
the three apartment buildings purchased out of State was valued at
approximately $28,000 annually; electricity, at $80,000; and purchases
of other supplies necessary to operate the apartment buildings from
sellers engaged in commerce exceeded $50,000 in value.
Cafritz Company as part of its operations manages an office build-
ing at 1701 K Street NW., in the District of Columbia. The gross
receipts from the tenants of such office building exceed $300,000, more
than $25,000 of which is derived from tenants whose operations meet
our jurisdictional standards, exclusive of the standards for indirect
inflow and indirect outflow. Moreover, we note that Cafritz is en-
gaged in business in the District of Columbia where the Board exerts
plenary jurisdiction.,'
4 A nderson-Rooney Operation Company, at al, 134 NLRB 1480. Contrary to the Joint
Employers, we do not deem the facts of the cited case to be materially disItinguishable
from those of the instant case with respect to our finding of a joint-employer relationship
s Member Leedom deems it unnecessary to consider the impact of the Board's plenary
jurisdiction over the operations of Cafrits Company in the District of Columbia on the
question of jurisdiction over the operations of the joint employers in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
SOFT WATER LAUNDRY, INC. 1283
1. Upon the foregoing, we find that the Joint Employers are en-
gaged in operations affecting commerce and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.6
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employers.
4. The following employees of the Employers constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9(b) of the Act:'
All employees of the Employers at Riverhouse, Riverhouse West,
and Riverhouse South, all located in Arlington, Virginia, engaged in
the operation, maintenance and repair of all boilers, air-conditioning
machinery and their appurtenances and all other mechanical equip-
ment coming under the supervision of the chief engineer, excluding all
other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
9 See Mistletoe Operating Company, 122 NLRB 1534 . In view of the fact that, under
the cited case, the operations of one of the Joint Employers meet our office building stand-
ard, we need not, and do not, reach the question of what standard would be applied if the
operations of the three apartment corporations alone were involved. See also, Carol
Management Corporation, et at., 133 NLRB 1126, 1127.
7 The parties are in agreement on the composition and scope of the unit.
Soft Water Laundry, Inc. and AFL-CIO Laundry and Dry
Cleaning International Union . Case No. 12-CA-2417. August
8, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 18, 1963, Trial Examiner Harold X. Summers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermedi-
ate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the General Counsel filed
a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
143 NLRB No. 118.
717-672-64-vol , 143-82