Jefferson Downs, Inc.

386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer's warehouse superintendent at Playa de Ponce, and takes charge in the absence of the latter However, there is no evidence in the record that he has authority to hire, discharge, or promote other em- ployees, or to make effective recommendations as to any change in the employment status of other employees, or to exercise any other super- visory function We find that Diaz is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act Accordingly, we include him The only objection to inclusion of the cleaning employee in the unit is that this employee works most of his time as a stevedore, a clas- sification which was included in the unit by agreement of all the par- ties As this particular employee works as both a stevedore and a cleaner, categories which we are including in the unit, we shall include him in the unit Accordingly, we find that all cleaning (or maintenance) employees, stevedores, bag sewers, waterboysi and tally clerk at the Employer's warehouse and piers in Playa de Ponce, Puerto Rico, excluding all executive, administrative, professional, and office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ] Jefferson Downs, Inc' and Independent Mutuel Clerks Guild of Louisiana, Petitioner. Case No 15-RC-2039 November 25,1959 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edward A Champagne, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds- I The employer, a Louisiana corporation, operates a racetrack in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and has no other base of operation out- side that locality At the time of the hearing in this matter, Jefferson Downs, Inc , had been in business for approximately 1 year and had conducted only one operation, a 45-day spring meeting lastmg from March 9 to May 2, 1959 Formerly known as Magnolia Park, which conducted only night harness racing and is now bankrupt, Jefferson Downs is presently operating under the direction and supervision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana During the Employer's sole meeting to date, the total amount of $6,692,800 was wagered of which the track was entitled to a sliding 1 Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing s The hearing officer granted the motion of Local 328, Parl-Mutuel Clerks Guild of Louisiana, to intervene in this matter 125 NLRB No 58 JEFFERSON DOWNS, INC. 387 scale of 8 to 10 percent, or approximately $600,000. Income from ad- missions, concessions, and stable rentals amounted to an additional $60,100. The track rented parimutuel machines from American Totalisator Company of Towson, Maryland, at a cost of $40,400; it rented equipment from Telautograph Corporation of Chicago-New York at a cost of $3,600; it purchased pictures of photofinishes of its races from Jones Precision Photo Company of Baltimore, Maryland, in the amount of $7,400; and it purchased motion pictures of entire races from Thoroughbred Photo Service of California in the amount of $13,100. Thirty percent of the track's $37,600 advertising expense was incurred out-of-State. Horses running at Jefferson Downs came from all sections of the United States and possibly from some foreign countries, arriving by truck, rail, and air. During the spring meeting, the track employed a high of 164 and a low of 122 individuals in its parimutuel depart- ment, consisting mostly of sellers and cashiers. A majority of these employees were then represented by the Intervenor here, Local 328, Pari-Mutuel Clerks Guild of Louisiana, whose contract with the Em- ployer expired on May 2, 1959. Jefferson Downs has already been given permission by the Louisiana Racing Commission to conduct a fall meeting in 1959 (51 days) and a spring meeting in 1960 (39 days) for a total of 90 racing days. The Employer takes no position as to the jurisdiction of the Board. The Petitioner contends that the Employer's racetrack operations af- fect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hotel Employees case,' that the Board can no longer decline to assert jurisdiction over all racetrack operations, as a class. The Intervenor contends that such operations affect commerce, minimally, if at all, and that the Board should not, and in view of the recent amendments to the Act,4 need not assert jurisdiction over racetrack operations. . Although we find that the Employer's operations are not wholly unrelated to commerce, and indeed that they come within the scope of the Board's jurisdiction, we do not believe it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. In the Hialeah case,5 we set forth the basic reasons why we have decided to adhere to a policy of nonassertion of jurisdiction as to racetrack operations. Consistent with that decision, we decline to assert jurisdiction herein, and we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 3 Hotel Employees Local No. 255, at at. v. Boyd S. Leedom , et at., 358 U.S. 99. 4 The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Public Law 86-257, 86th Congress, amended Section 14 of the Act, by the addition thereto of language declaratory of the Board 's discretionary authority to decline to assert jurisdiction over labor disputes under appropriate conditions. 5 Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 125 NLRB 388.