Geronimo Service Co.

366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD terminated, and that after taking a vacation he awaited the opening of the new store. The Lincoln Road store opened on December 18, 1959. Some fix- tures used in the Fontainebleu shop were installed in the new shop. Approximately 2 weeks prior to the opening, Bookman and Barron were transferred from the Americana store to Lincoln Road. Green- berg and Barbara were hired before the opening date, and Wilkens and Eisen were assigned to the new store on the same part-time basis they formerly worked at the Fontainebleu store. At the time of the hearing, there was only one employee in the Lincoln Road store who had not formerly worked at the Fontainebleu shop. Further, the new store is 11/2 miles distant from the Fontainebleu store, carries essen- tially the same merchandise, and is under the supervision of the same manager. Employees Greenberg and Wolf work 1 day a week at the Americana Hotel store, and alteration work has and is being trans- ferred between the two stores as well as a limited amount of mer- chandise. It is clear that the factors of common supervision, inter- change of employees and merchandise, and proximity of the stores presently exist between the Americana Hotel store and the Lincoln Road store just as they existed when the Fontainebleu store was in operation. With the exception of one employee, the new store is staffed with the same employees as the former store. In these cir- cumstances, we find that the new shop is properly included within the purview of the original certification. We shall, accordingly, amend our certification of representatives by describing the unit as including the Lincoln Road store and deleting therefrom the Fon- tainebleu Hotel store. [The Board amended the certification of representatives issued herein to Local 1010, Retail Employees Union of South Florida, Retail Wholesale and Department store Union, AFL-CIO, specifically to include in the certified unit the Employer's retail store at Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida, and to exclude the Employer's former store at the Fontainebleu Hotel, Miami Beach, Florida.] 8 This is not to be construed as a new certification. Geronimo Service Company and Bartenders and Culinary Work- ers Union, Local 628, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-778. October 10, 1960 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 Byron E. Guse, hearing offi- 129 NLRB No. 43. GERONIMO SERVICE COMPANY 367 cer. 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 Rodgers and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that its operations are not related to national defense, have no substantial impact on national defense and do not affect commerce. Geronimo Service Company, an Oklahoma corporation, holds a contract from the United States Army Purchasing and Contracting Office, Fort Bliss, Texas, in the amount of $863,340.30 to supply kitchen police and other housekeeping services for the mess halls at Fort Bliss, Texas, and at the McGregor Range Camp in New Mexico for the period from July 1, 1960 to June 30, 1961. On July 16, 1960, Geronimo Service Company assigned that contract to Geronimo Service Company of Texas, Inc., which was issued a charter by the Secretary of the State of Texas after its Articles of Incorporation were filed on July 20, 1960. The three stockholders of Geronimo Service Company and Geronimo Service Company of Texas, Inc., are identical. The contract of assignment was signed once by each of the three stockholders, apparently for both contracting corporations. There is no indication in the record that the United States Army Contracting Office approved of the assignment. On these facts we find that Geronimo Service Company of Texas, Inc., is but the alter ego of Geronimo Service Company 1 and that the Em- ployer named in the petition is in fact still the holder of the Army contract. We further find that the Employer's operation has a sub- stantial impact on national defense. The record shows that the con- tract is for over 700,000 hours of kitchen police duty. This will re- lieve military personnel for training, instruction, and military duty. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. The Employer's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is hereby denied 2 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that at the time of the hearing it had no employees as the contract was assigned to Geronimo of Texas, and that the em- ployees are those of the latter corporation. As we have found Ge- ronimo of Texas to be the alter ego of the Employer, we find no merit 1 Cf. Atlanta Paper Company, et al, 121 NLRB 125; J W. Dickey, et at., d/b/a Ohio Hoist and Manufacturing Company, a Partnership, et al., 108 NLRB 561, 562, footnote 1, enfd. 217 F 2d 652, 653 (C.A. 6) ; J. E. Cote, 101 NLRB 1486. 2 Ready Mired Concrete & Materials, Inc., 122 NLRB 318. Also the Board asserted jurisdiction in Floors Inc., Cases Nos. 33-RC-615 and 33-RC-725 (not published in NLRB volumes). Floors Inc. was one of the Employer's predecessors holding a similar contract for kitchen police services at Fort Bliss, and at the McGregor Range Camp. 368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in this contention. The Employer also moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground that it lacks full control over the employees here involved, and that it is in effect an agent of the Army Contracting Officer who has final control over the employees under the following contract provision : The Contractor will be guided by, and will act in accordance with, the direction and request of the Contracting Officer, whenever the dismissal of individual personnel from the performance of said services shall be deemed by the Contracting Officer to be necessary, or advisable in the best interests of the Government, to maintain the standards of personal hygiene and workmanship. The record shows that the Employer hires and discharges personnel for its own reasons and convenience and sets the wages and terms and conditions of employment. The authority of the Contracting Officer is limited to a specific area of dismissal which to some extent affects the full authority of the Employer. This however does not remove the Employer from the definition of an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. «7e find that the Employer is the em- ployer of the employees here involved.3 Accordingly, we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss. 3. Geronimo asserts that the Petitioner's demand for recognition was made upon it on June 25, 1960, prior to the time when it started operations and hired employees. As the Employer declined to recog- nize the Petitioner at the hearing we find that a question affecting com- merce exists concerning representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed by the Employer under its food services "K.P." contract with Fort Bliss at the Fort Bliss Government in- stallation, Fort Bliss, Texas, including the employees at Mc- Gregor Range Camp, New Mexico, excluding all other employees, the employees under the Employer's custodial contract with Fort Bliss, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election 5 omitted from publication.] a Toledo Board of Trade, 117 NLRB 1504 ; Thiokol Chemical Corporation (Longhorn Division ), 113 NLRB 547. 4 The Employer requested that an administrative investigation of Petitioner 's showing of interest be made. We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has a sufficient showing of interest 5 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the hearing should have been postponed and no immediate election should be held because of pending charges of unfair labor practices against the Employer , as the Petitioner herein, the Charging Party, has filed a waiver of those charges.