Service Systems Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 757 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

SERVICE SYSTEMS CORP. 757
Service Systems Corporation and Hotel , Motel, Res-
taurant Employees , Cooks and Bartenders Union,
Local 24 , Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 7-RC-12416, 7-RC-12439, 7-RC-12475,
and 7-RC-12482
December 16, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Kenneth C. Hortop.
Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8 , as amended, the
Regional Director for Region 7 transferred this pro-
ceeding to the National Labor Relations Board for
decision.' The Employer and Communications Work-
ers of America, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, have filed
briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
finds:'
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
I The petitions in Cases 7-RC-12416 and 7-RC-12439 were filed on
April 19 and May 1, 1974, respectively, and a hearing on the issues raised
thereby was held on May 16, 1974 Subsequently, on May 20 and 30, 1974,
respectively, the petitions in Cases 7-RC-12475 and 7-RC-12482 were
filed The parties then stipulated that the record developed at the hearing
on Cases 7-RC-12416 and 7-RC-12439 was applicable to all issues raised
in Cases 7-RC-12475 and 7-RC-12482, and the Regional Director for
Region 7, with the consent of the parties and pursuant to Sec 102 72 of the
Rules and Regulations , ordered the latter cases to be consolidated with the
former cases and transferred to the Board
2 The Petitioner also filed a brief, which the Executive Secretary rejected
as untimely
3 The Employer requests oral argument We hereby deny this request as
the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the
parties
4. The Employer is a New York corporation en-
gaged, inter alia, in providing various types of food
services to office buildings and institutions throughout
the United States.4 The instant proceeding involves
the employee complements of the cafeterias which the
Employer currently operates at 18 facilities of the
Michigan Bell Telephone Company located through-
out the State of Michigan.' None of these employees
is currently represented by any labor organization.'
The Petitioner seeks to represent, as seven separate
single-facility units, the employees respectively em-
ployed at the cafeterias operated by the Employer at
two Michigan Bell facilities located in Detroit, Michi-
gan, at 882 Oakman Street and 105 East Bethune
Street, and at five other facilities located in Plymouth,
Allen Park, Southfield, Pontiac, and Port Huron,
Michigan. The Intervenor seeks a single unit composed
of the employees employed at all 18 of the cafeterias
currently operated by the Employer at Michigan Bell
facilities.' Both Unions, however, are willing to par-
ticipate in any election or elections which the Board
might here direct. The Employer supports the estab-
lishment of separate single-facility units as requested by
the Petitioner and, in opposition to the statewide unit
sought by the Intervenor, asserts that such a unit could
not be deemed "an" appropriate alternate unit under
any applicable Board precedents.
For the reasons stated below, we find, in agreement
with the position of the Petitioner and the Employer,
that only separate single-facility units of the employees
here in question may properly be established.
The Employer has a central headquarters in Buffalo,
New York, with overall responsibility for all Service
Systems operations. There, the Employer formulates
the personnel and labor relations policies generally ap-
plicable throughout its operations nationwide. Under
° The record indicates that the Employer provides various types of food
services in a total of 22 States These services include management consulta-
tion, servicing vending machines, and cafeteria operations of the kind here
involved The record indicates that Michigan, Illinois, and New York are
the only States in which such cafeteria operations are conducted
5 Michigan Bell Telephone itself currently operates two cafeterias, but
both are scheduled to switch over to operation by Service Systems by the
end of 1974 A new cafeteria, scheduled to open in the near future, will also
be operated by Service Systems The Employer is also currently involved in
the operation of cafeterias at an insurance company and two colleges in
Michigan The record does not indicate whether its involvement in those
cafeterias resembles its involvement in the cafeterias here in question
6 The cafeterias here in question were operated by Michigan Bell Tele-
phone itself until the spring of 1973 During that time, Michigan Bell's
cafeteria employees were represented by the intervenor as part of a system-
wide traffic department unit When the Employer took over the cafetena
operations, it staffed them with entirely new complements of its own em-
ployees All parties concede that Service Systems has no "successor-
employer" obligations vis-a-vis Michigan Bell's former employees and that
Michigan Bell has no control over any labor relations matter affecting Serv-
ice Systems' employees
7 All parties agree that the appropriate unit or units-whatever facilities
they may be adjudged to include-should contain all regular full-time and
part-time cafeteria employees , excluding supervisors , clerical employees,
and guards within the meaning of the Act
215 NLRB No. 137
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices currently in effect, Buffalo headquarters esta-
blishes, for unrepresented employees, a maximum and
minimum wage schedule applicable to particular geo-
graphic areas and usually containing three stages for
employee promotions; defines the vacation rights of
employees; and maintains and administers group hospi-
talization, life insurance, and pension plans. In the case
of represented employees, all such benefits-as well as
other terms and conditions of employment-are open
to and set by negotiations with the collective-bargain-
ing representative in each established bargaining
unit.'
Each of the Employer's cafeterias is headed by a
manager appointed by officials of the Buffalo head-
quarters. Each manager has complete authority to hire,
train, discipline, and discharge the employees at his
cafeteria; to determine their job duties, work hours,
leaves of absence, holidays and vacation schedules; and
to resolve any grievances they may raise. Each manager
also has authority to set9 wage rates within the con-
text of a three-stage schedule issued by the Employer's
national headquarters that are applicable to all the caf-
eterias in specified geographic areas-here the State of
Michigan. This schedule sets forth a minimum for how
much an employee in any given stage can receive, and
a length-of-service requirement for how long an em-
ployee must work before being eligible to pass from one
stage to the next. However, if a manager believes that
a deviation from the applicable geographic schedule is
necessary to reward an exceptionally meritorious em-
ployee performance or to attract competent personnel
in a tight labor market, he may grant a wage exceeding
the schedule's maximum without seeking prior ap-
proval from any other Service Systems officer.10
The job duties assigned employees in a given job
classification may vary substantially from cafeteria to
cafeteria. Similarly, the mechanical equipment used by
employees may vary, producing significant differences
in work functions, training, and skills. Each manager
8 As of the date of the hearing, employees in a number of the Service
Systems cafeterias at New York Telephone facilities were represented by a
labor organization . All such employees were represented in single-facility
units.
9 While the manager may seek expert advise on discipline and grievance
matters from the Employer 's personnel and labor relations staff at national
headquarters in Buffalo, he does so only in unusually difficult
cases-and even in unusually difficult cases , he has no duty either to seek
headquarters ' advice in the first place or to follow it in making a final
disposition of the matter by himself.
10 Once a manager has granted such an exceptional wage, he merely
records his reasons therefor on the next payroll report he submits to the
Employer's national headquarters . If headquarters finds the manager's
stated reasons satisfactory , the exceptional wage is automatically registered
on the computer payroll records in Buffalo . If the manager's stated reasons
are not found satisfactory , according to the Employer 's personnel and labor
relations director, headquarters at most will simply "question why he did
not live within his policy and if there is a satisfactory explanation [the
exceptional wage] is going to go [through]. It is only to find out what the
problem is out there and perhaps we have got the wrong policy for a particu-
lar area."
is solely responsible for the maintenance and repair of
all mechanical equipment in his cafeteria. Each
manager is also responsible for preparing an annual
budget-which sets spending both for labor costs and
for all other operating costs-based on his own esti-
mate of the coming year's expenditures and income.
While the manager's budget may be discussed at head-
quarters, few changes are ever made. Expert guidance
in budgetary matters may be provided by headquarters
to each manager, but-as with discipline and grievance
matters-he apparently has no duty either to seek
headquarters' advice in the first place or to follow it in
preparing the budget by himself.
The cafeterias in question are scattered fairly widely
throughout Michigan." Employee transfers from one
cafeteria to another are rare.i2 There have been only
two temporary transfers and one permanent transfer
since Service Systems took over operation of the
cafeterias. Additionally, there are neither any job
assignments nor work-related social events which
might bring the employees at one cafeteria into
touch with those of another.
The above-described factors-all of them established
by uncontradicted testimony at the hearing-plainly
support a finding that the employees at each of the
single-facility units the Petitioner seeks to represent
separately compose a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act. Thus, to summarize, the manager of
each cafeteria exercises almost complete, unfettered
control over his facility regarding personnel decisions,
setting the wages and working conditions that the em-
ployees will work under, and establishing the facility's
operating budget. Furthermore, interchange of em-
ployees between cafeterias is infrequent and then is
subject to approval by the manager of the facility to
which the transfer is sought. Lastly, we note the sub-
stantial distances geographically that exist between cer-
tain of the cafeterias.
Nevertheless, the request of the Intervenor for the
establishment of a broader, 18-facility unit raises a
question as to whether we might additionally find a
broader unit, as proposed by that party, to be "an"
appropriate unit. On the record before us, we are
unable so to find.
It is true, as the Intervenor points out, that the Em-
ployer maintains, at an office located at the Michigan
Bell headquarters in Detroit, a staff composed of a
11 Some of the cafeterias, for example, are in the Greater Metropolitan
Detroit area; others are in Port Huron, Saginaw, Kalamazoo, and Wyoming,
which lie approximately 50, 85, 125, and 135 miles from downtown Detroit,
respectively.
12 All transfer decisions occur at the local level. If an employee requests
transfer from one cafeteria to another, it is entirely up to the latter' s manager
to grant the request; and there is no general policy of giving transfer appli-
cants preference over other job applicants.
SERVICE SYSTEMS CORP 759
regional director and two directors of operations with
responsibilities limited to the 18 cafeteria facilities here
involved . But, as appears from the undisputed record
evidence , the responsibilities of these regional officials
are limited to the financial aspects of the contractual
relations between the Employer and Michigan Bell,
and the functions connected with the maintenance of
public relations and liaison between the Employer, on
the one hand , and its customers and other members of
the public , on the other . There is nothing in the record
to suggest that these regional officials have or exercise
any supervisory authority with respect to the selection
of the individual cafeteria managers or the manner in
which the managers perform their assigned functions.
Nor is there any evidence that said regional officials
either have any voice in the establishment of any poli-
cies affecting the employees ' job conditions or any au-
thority to resolve employee grievances . Indeed , the af-
firmative evidence shows that individual managers
exercise full authority over the cafeterias each manages
and that they are accountable solely to the central
headquarters office.
In these circumstances , and in light of the facts es-
tablishing not only the separate identity of each facili-
ty's employees but the lack of any contact between
them , we perceive no basis for holding that the 18-
facility unit requested by the Intervenor could be "an
appropriate" unit.
Accordingly , we find that the following employees of
the Employer , employed at each of its cafeterias
located , respectively , at 882 Oakman Street in Detroit;
105 East Bethune Street in Detroit ; 1360 Ann Arbor
Road in Plymouth ; 4000 Allen Road in Allen Park;
23500 Northwestern Highway in Southfield ; 54 North
Mill Street in Pontiac ; and 112 Grand River Street in
Port Huron, constitute separate appropriate units for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act . The appropriate unit is:
All regular full -time and part -time cafeteria em-
ployees, excluding supervisors, clerical employees,
and guards within the meaning of the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]