Chock Full O'Nuts

156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Those of the employers whose businesses are described in section I of this report and who are therein referred to as Forest City, Cleveland, Central, Ohio, Kraft, Pierre, Beverages, Vernor, Birely, Canada, and Coca-Cola, are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Commission House Drivers, Helpers, and Employees Local No. 400, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called the Teamsters), Retail Food Clerks Local No. 880, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (herein called the Clerks), and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO (herein called the Meat Cutters) are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging employees of Forest City to engage in a con- certed refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, an object of such concerted refusal being to force and require their employer to cease doing business with Euclid Foods, Incorporated, Respondents Teamsters and Michael Rini and William Sauerheimer (as its agents ) and also Respondents Clerks and Meat Cutters and Norman Rogers and Frank Cimino (as their agents ), engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging employees of Ohio, Kraft , and Pierre to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, an object of such concerted refusal being to force and require their respective em- ployers to cease doing business with Euclid Foods, Incorporated , Respondents Clerks and Meat Cutters engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 5. By inducing and encouraging employees of Cleveland, Central, Vernor, Bev- erages, Coca-Cola, Birely, and Canada to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, an object of such concerted refusal being to force and require their respective employers to cease doing business with Euclid Foods, Incorporated, Respondents Clerks and Meat Cutters and Frank Cimino (as their agent ) engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Chock Full O'Nuts and United Bakery, Confectionery, Cannery, Packing and Food Service Workers Union of New Jersey, Local 262, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8684. June 13,1957 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 Aaron Weissman, 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 Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer owns and operates a coffee plant in Brooklyn, New York, a commissary and bakery in Harrison, New Jersey, and 26 118 NLRB No. 21. CHOCK FULL O'NUTS 157 restaurants in New York and New Jersey . During the year ended July 31, 1956, the commissary , which processes food exclusively for the restaurants, received shipments totaling $1,370,365. Of this amount, $1,275 ,460 represented shipments from out of State. During the same fiscal year, gross sales of the restaurants amounted to $7,816,- 633 and the sales of coffee processed at the Brooklyn plant totaled $11,275,393 , 60 percent of which was shipped out of State. The Employer contends that its principal business is the operation of its multistate restaurant chain and that, as the revenue from this part of its operations does not meet the $10,000 ,000 gross revenue re- quirement for such enterprises as laid down in Bickford's Inc.,' the Board should not assert jurisdiction. We find no merit in this con- tention and note that the Board has reconsidered and revised its stand- ard so tha the $10,000,000 gross revenue test is no longer applicable' Although the Employer's restaurant chain is a retail operation, the Employer's coffee operation, which is sizable , is nonretail . In dealing with such combination enterprises, the Board applies its nonretail standard and, under the recently revised standard, the Board will assert jurisdiction over such enterprises having 1 or more establish- ments where, apart from the indirect inflow and outflow standards, the total direct inflow is $500,000 or more, the total direct outflow is $50,000 or more.' Accordingly, we shall assert jurisdiction over the Employer herein. 2. The Employer refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization. We are satisfied that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. This labor organization claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer , within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Harrison, New Jersey, plant. The Employer contends that the single-plant unit sought by the Peti- tioner is inappropriate and should include the restaurant employees. It is clear from the record that the plant in issue is functionally dis- tinct from the Employer 's other operations . Although there are some transfers between the plant and the restaurants, such transfers are permanent, occur infrequently, and involve only a few employees. No union is presently seeking to represent a unit larger than the plant unit which is presumptively appropriate.' We find, therefore, that the single-plant unit requested is appropriate . The following employees 1 110 NLRB 1904. 2 The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 11.7 NLRB 1732. • 3 Ibid. * Beaumont Forging Company, 110 NLRB 2200. 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance .employees at the Employer's Har- rison, New Jersey, plant, including loaders 6 and regular part-time employees, but excluding office clerical and professional employees, truckdrivers, watchmen, guards, and supervisors ° as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 The loaders spend 50 percent of their time doing production or maintenance work and no union is seeking to represent them in a unit with the truckdrivers . Therefore , we shall include them in the production and maintenance unit. fi We find that Mel Keifer and Marshall Green are not supervisors as defined in the Act. They have no authority to recommend any change in an employee's status or re- sponsibly to direct employees. Garerest Division of United Mills Corporation and International Ladies Garment Workers Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 11-CA- 977. June 14,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On December 11, 1956, Trial Examiner A. Bruce Hunt issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, alleged in the complaint to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint to be in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that Garcrest Division of United Mills Corpora- ' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers , Bean, and Jenkins]. 118 NLRB No. 20.