Civilian Cafeteria Board

208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in behalf of the 2 companies and the CIO.' As Des Moines has participated in joint bargaining together with the Bookey company for 15 years, we find that a multiemployer unit including employees of both companies has been established., The record does not show that the Des Moines company has taken the steps required for severance of its employees from the multiemployer unit, nor that it has indicated an intent to abandon its practice of bargaining jointly with its parent corporation. The only reason why it terminated its last interim agreement with the CIO was the doubt as to the CIO's representative status raised by the claim of the Inde- pendent. At the hearing, Des Moines also evidenced no intent to pursue a course of individual action with regard to its labor relations. On the contrary, it declared itself neutral in the conflict between the two unions concerning the appro- priateness of a single or multiemployer unit. Under the circumstances, we believe that the above bargaining history is controlling in determining the appropriate unit in this proceeding, and we therefore find that a unit limited to the Des Moines plant's employees is now inappropriate. Accord- ingly, as the unit described in the instant petition is too limited in scope and therefore inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, incorporated, 58 NLRB 579. ,Atlas Storage Division, supra. CIVILIAN CAFETERIA BOARD and COOKS AND PASTRY COOKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 186, HOTEL AND RESTAU- RANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-3212. July 17, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: The Petitioner seeks to represent employees of Civilian Cafeteria Board, herein called CCB, in an appropriate col- lective -bargaining unit. CCB contends that the petition should be dismissed, on the ground that CCB is not an employer as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act, as amended, and that the Board is therefore without jurisdiction in this case. 106 NLRB No 39. CIVILIAN CAFETERIA BOARD . 209 CCB, a nonprofit organization , operates a cafeteria for civilian employees at the Boston Naval Shipyard , herein called the Shipyard , under general authorization by the United States Department of the Navy .' CCB makes and amends its own bylaws , subject to the approval of the commanding officer . The commanding officer of the Shipyard created CCB by his own order, is in general control of its organization and operations , and may dissolve it upon his own authority. CCB consists of 4 board members , 3 of whom are annually appointed by the commanding officer from 5 nominations submitted , by the civilian personnel policy advisory committee of the Shipyard Employees Welfare Association , which formerly handled cafeteria operations at the Shipyard. The fourth board member is the industrial relations assistant at the Shipyard . These individuals are shipyard employees under Federal Civil Service . They receive no extra compensation for their services as members of the Board. The Department of the Navy provides space for the cafe- teria.2 CCB pays for the light , heat, and power consumed by the cafeteria , provides insurance for the premises, bonds its members and the cafeteria employees , and pays the latter workmen's compensation . CCB owns the cafeteria chinaware, silverware , and kitchen utensils . The cafeteria fixtures are the property of the Department of the Navy. For the operation of the cafeteria , CCB hires a cafeteria manager; compensates her and the cafeteria employees hired by her ; determines the rates of pay and vacations for cafeteria employees ; deducts from their pay Federal social- security payments, Federal income - tax withholdings , and State unemployment compensation fund payments , forwarding checks for these amounts to the appropriate agencies ; and submits to the commanding officer for his approval monthly reports of cafeteria operations. The cafeteria manager, as supervisor , hires and discharges the approximately 70 cafeteria employees , all of whom are recruited from outside the Shipyard . She is responsible for the routine management of the cafeteria . She buys meat and groceries from local outside firms . All food is consumed in the cafeteria. Under the above circumstances, we conclude that the facts relative to the status of CCB as an employer within the mean- ing of the Act approximate those relative to Pentagon Post Restaurant Council in an earlier case, which the Board held to be an agency of the United States Government, rather than an independent contractor , and therefore not an employer within i Navy Civilian Personnel Instruction No. 65, Section 4, provides, in part: "It is the policy of the Department of the Navy to make available to employees such assistance and facilities as are necessary so that they may provide for themselves in-plant food service where necessary and practicable " 2 Whether or not the Department of the Navy assumes losses arising from the operation of the cafeteria is not clear. Naval Civilian Personnel Instruction 65, Section 4, provides that where CCB operates under contract with a concessionaire, the contract "shall not obligate funds of the United States or otherwise bind the Government " 2 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the meaning of the Act.3 We therefore find that Civilian Cafeteria Board is not an employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 2,.(2) of the Act, and we shall therefore dismiss the instant petition. [The Board dismissed the petition] 3 National Food Corporation, 88 NLRB 1500. CLAY & BAILEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY and MORGAN FOUNDRY COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 71, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-1590. July 17, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Cyrus A. Slater, 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, Murdock, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The main issue in this case goes to the scope of the unit. The Petitioner requests a multiemployer unit of the production and maintenance employees of the Clay & Bailey Manufacturing Company, herein called Clay & Bailey, and of the Morgan Foundry Company, herein called Morgan Foundry. International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, herein called the Molders, seeks to represent only the Morgan Foundry employees. The two Employers, in agreement with the Molders, contend that only separate units for each company are appropriate. Clay & Bailey is a machine shop engaged in the manufacture and sale of plumbing specialties, oil equipment, and special equipment for the storage, transportation, and marketing of petroleum products. Morgan Foundry is a foundry engaged in the manufacture and sale of gray iron castings made from customers' patterns. Each company is a separate Missouri corporation. Clay & Bailey purchases approximately 10 to 15 106 NLRB No. 40.