Hot Shoppes, Inc.

HOT SHOPPES , INC. 1253 Hot Shoppes, Inc. and Brewery, Yeast, Soft Drink Workers & Driver Saesmen, Amusement & Vending Servicemen and Allied Workers, Teamsters Local Union No. 333, International Brotherhoefl of Teamsters, C iauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-3851. Novem- ber 23, 1962 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Secdon 0, (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was Held before August A. Denhard, Jr., 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 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. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the Employer's employees employed at its Friendship Airport operations, in Baltimore, Mary- land. While the Employer agrees to the composition of the requested unit it contends that the unit is too limited in scope. The Employer would also include in this unit employees at its National Airport opera- tions, located in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. There is no history of bargaining for any of these employees 2 There are three major operating divisions in the Employer's cor- porate structure, under an executive vice president: (1) motor hotel, (2) restaurants, and (3) airline catering outside of National and Friendship Airports. Each of these divisions is headed by a vice president. Under the restaurant division are three subdivisions : (1) service restaurants, (2) cafeteria division, and (3) institutional divi- sion. The cafeteria division, headed by a district manager, is in charge of the airline catering services at Friendship and National 1 At the hearing , the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct name of the Employer , as it appears in the caption. 2 In February 1961 the Board found appropriate , and directed an election in, a unit limited to the Employer's employees at Washington National Airport, but no bargaining representative was selected . Hot Shoppes, Inc, 130 NLRB 138. 139 NLRB No. 91. 1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Airports. In addition to servicing the airline operations at Friend- ship and National Airports, the cafeteria division has charge of most of the Employer's cafeterias throughout the United States? The Employer's operations consist of two units at National Air- port, units 24 and 25, and one at Friendship Airport, unit 60, each of which is headed by a manager who reports to the district man- ager.' The two airports are approximately 35 miles apart. All the Employer's operations in the area, including the two airports, are serviced by the same warehouses and commissaries. The Employer has approximately 115 employees working at its Friendship Airport operation, and approximately 250 at its two units at National Airport. Employees are hired locally by the managers of each unit, who are responsible for the direction and management of only that unit. Each manager recommends wage increases and trans- fers for employees in such unit. As in other operations throughout the United States, such recommendations must be approved by the district manager. Seniority is companywide, and all personnel rec- ords for the Employer's operations throughout the United States are maintained at the Employer's Bethesda, Maryland, headquarters. All the Employer's employees have the same working conditions and employee benefits, such as vacations, holidays, and sick leave. Wages are determined by the prevailing local wage scales, and are the same at Friendship and National Airports. Except for a cashier position at National Airport, job classifications are the same at both airports. Since the Employer started its operations at Friendship Airport in May 1959, there have been 20 employees transferred from National to Friendship Airport. Of these, eight transfers were made during the first 3 months of operation at Friendship. The record shows, however, that since September 1960, there have been 10 transfers of rank-and-file employees between Friendship Airport and various op- erations of the Employer, other than National Airport. Aside from eight management supervisory persons, who divide their time among the three units at Friendship and National Airports, the record does not show that there is any temporary interchange of employees. The Employer relies chiefly upon Hot Shoppes, Inc., 130 NLRB 144, involving the Employer's operations at Midway and O'Hare Airports in Chicago, Illinois, to support its assertion that the re- quested unit is inappropriate.' In the Chicago case, the Board found 8 There are two cafeterias at National Airport which serve airline employees and the Employer's employees. At Friendship Airport, the Employer maintains dining facilities for its own employees but not for the airline employees. 4 The Employer has been awarded a contract for servicing the airlines at Dulles Airport at Chantilly, Virginia, after it becomes operational in November 1962. The operations at Dulles Airport will also come within the jurisdiction of the district manager. 5 The Employer's reliance on Interstate Co , Glass House Restaurants , Indiana Toll Road, 125 NLRB 101, is misplaced . In this case, the parties agreed that a divisionwide unit was appropriate. IMPERIAL EASTMAN CORPORATION 1255 that the Petitioner's unit request was based upon its extent of or- ganization because it had, on two previous occasions, sought single units of both the O'Hare and Midway employees. Here, the appro- priateness of the unit sought is supported by factors unrelated to the Petitioner's extent of organization and there is no evidence to show that its present unit request is based upon its extent of organization. The Board has frequently held in cases involving centralized per- sonnel policies and labor relations,6 as here, that, absent a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, separate units of an em- ployer's operations may be appropriate by reason of the existence of day-to-day operating autonomy in each unit, geographical separation of the operations, and the lack of substantial employee interchange. The record establishes that the Employer's Friendship and National Airport operations are entirely separate; as already found, they are about 35 miles apart and are each in charge of managers who oversee the day-to-day operations. The identity in working conditions at the two airports is shared by other units of the Employer's operations throughout the country. The ratio of transfers between the two air- ports does not appear to be higher than that of transfers to other airports outside of the Washington metropolitan area. Under these circumstances, and as a plant unit is presumptively appropriate, we find that the requested unit, limited to the Employer's employees at Friendship Airport, is appropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All food equipment handlers, dish room attendants, station attendants, cooks, utility people, me- chanics, and dispatchers employed at the Employer's airlines cater- ing operation at Friendship Airport, Baltimore, Maryland, exclud- ing office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] B National Caterers of New York , Inc., 129 NLRB 699. Imperial Eastman Corporation and United Steelworkers of America, District #32, Charging Party. Case No. 13-CA-4510. November 26. 1962 DECISION AND ORDER On August 21, 1962, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his Intermediate Report, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommend- 139 NLRB No. 115.