Charles of the Ritz Operating Corp.

CHARLES' OF THE RITZ OPERATING CORPORATION 309 CHARLES OF THE RITZ OPERATING CORPORATION 1 AND I. MAGNIN & CO. and THE JOURNEY MEN BARBERS, HAIRDRESSERS , COSMETOLOGISTS AND PROPRIETORS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 148, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1389. September 91, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert V. Magor, 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : Charles of the Ritz Operating Corporation, a New York corpora- tion, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Charles of the Ritz, is engaged in the operation of beauty salons in several States and in the sale of cosmetic products. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charles of the Ritz Distributing Corporation. The principal business office of this Company is located in New York City where it operates 11 beauty salons. Two of its salons are located in California. Of these, the one located at I. Magnin & Co. department store in San Fran- cisco, is the sole one involved in this proceeding. During the 1950 fiscal year, Charles of the Ritz made purchases in New York in excess of $100,000, and approximately $1,000,000 worth of shipments were made from New York City to salons and stores in the several States, including the San Francisco salon. During this same period the San Francisco salons' purchases outside the State of California were in excess of $10,000. Its income, which exceeded $100,000, was derived primarily from personal beauty services per- formed for customers. Charles of the Ritz neither admits nor denies the Board's jurisdic- tion: We find that this Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.2 The petition also names I. Magnin & Co., hereinafter referred to as Magnin, as an Employer of the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner. Magnin moved to dismiss the petition insofar as it per- tains to them, and the Petitioner indicated that it had no objection to the Board's granting such motion. 1 The name of this Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The Borden Company, Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628. 9$ NLRB No. 44. 974176-52-vol 96-21 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - Charles of the Ritz is a lessee of Magnin, which owns and operates, the department store in which the salon involved herein is located. The record reveals that Magnin has no control over the employees of Charles of the Ritz. The latter company hires and discharges its own employees. They are subject solely to the supervision of the supervisor of the beauty salon, who is in the employ of Charles of the Ritz. They share none of the benefits that Magnin provides for its employees, work different hours, and use different facilities. They receive their weekly salary checks from Magnin's billing office, but the payroll taxes and insurance are paid directly by the New York business office of Charles of the Ritz. There is no interchange of employees between the beauty salon and the rest of the store. More- over, Magnin has no authority, pursuant to the lease agreement, to- participate in the formulation of labor relations policy affecting employees of the salon. In these circumstances we find that Charles of the Ritz is the sole Employer of the employees sought herein,' and we hereby grant the motion of Magnin to dismiss. this petition insofar as it names I. Mag- nin & Co. as an Employer. 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 .4 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees of the beauty salon at Magnin's San Francisco store who are licensed by the State Board of Cosmetology of the State Board of Barber Examiners, ex- cluding cashiers, clerks, maids, receptionist, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. The Employer would include the one receptionist and two maids who are the only nonlicensed personnel employed in the salon. There is no history of collective bargaining in this salon. All employees of the salon are subject to the same supervision and enjoy the same employee benefits. The receptionist assists the oper- ators by making appointments for customers, designating the opera- tor to be used, and completing the sale of any cosmetic items requested by a customer and attending to any of the customers' other needs. The two maids also look after customers' comforts and keep the salon 8 See Pariseau's, Incorporated et al., 90 NLRB 1458 ; Cf. Franklin Simon Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 576. 4 We find no merit to the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition because of an absence of evidence of the Petitioner's showing of interest . Petitioner's showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing is adequate. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PEET CO. 311 clean. In addition they directly assist the operators by preparing materials used by the operator, and subject to the direction of the lat- ter, keeping all equipment sterilized. It is true that the licensed personnel, unlike the receptionist and maids, are required to complete a certain period of training pursuant to State law. But we do not believe that this fact creates a sufficient disparity between their employment interests and those of the recep- tionist and maids with whom they work so closely to warrant exclud- ing the latter from the unit. Nor is there merit to the Petitioner's contention that the receptionist and maids should be excluded because the Petitioner's bylaws restrict union membership to licensed per- sonnel. This Board has often held that a union's jurisdictional limi- tation on membership is not a valid reason for excluding employees from a unit, who would otherwise be included.' We find therefore that all employees employed in the San Francisco 1. Magnin & Co. beauty salon of Charles of the Ritz Operating Corpo- ration, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Denton's Inc . t/a The Robinson-Sehwcenn Store, 83 NLRB 35. COLGATE PALMOLIVE PEET Co. and GREMIO DE PRENSA, RADIO Y TEATRO DE PUERTO RICO, PETITIONER. Case No. 24-RC-153. September 21, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Licari, 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 96 NLRB No. 41.