Muskegon Country Club

Muskegon Country Club and Teamsters Local No. 527, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America. Case No. AO-61. August 16, 1963 ADVISORY OPINION This is a petition filed by Muskegon Country Club, herein called the Employer, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. In pertinent part, the petition alleges as follows : 1. There is presently pending before the Michigan Labor Mediation Board, herein called the State Board, a proceeding (docketed as Case No. G63G337) initiated by Teamsters Local No. 527, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Union, to determine a labor dispute in regard to the recognition of the Union as bargaining representative of employees of the Employer. 2. The Employer, incorporated under Michigan law, is a nonprofit membership-owned organization operating a country club at Lake Shore Drive, Muskegon, Michigan. During its most recent fiscal year of 1962, the Employer's total dollar volume of income was $163,955.26, derived from membership dues and fees, dining room sales, bar sales, locker rentals, green fees, golf events, dances, and miscellaneous in- come. All sales and services were performed for members and guests locally in the State of Michigan. During 1962, the Employer's total purchases of goods, supplies, commodities, or services amounted to $56,828, of which approximately 92.7 percent or $52,679.56 were made locally within the State of Michigan, while approximately 7.3 percent or $4,148.44 were made directly from outside the State of Michigan. Except for the direct out-of-State purchases, the Employer does not know to what extent its purchases were direct or indirect purchases in interstate commerce. Upon information and belief, the Employer be- lieves that less than $50,000 of its total purchases were derived from sources outside the State of Michigan. 3. The Employer does not participate in any association or group which engages in collective bargaining nor does it perform any na- tional defense work. 4. No formal findings with respect to the aforementioned commerce data have been made by the State Board, but its mediator has taken the position that the National Labor Relations Board will not take 144 NLRB No. 4. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD jurisdiction over nonprofit membership-owned country clubs in view of its Advisory Opinion in Chartiers Country Club, 139 NLRB 741, and its Decision and Order in El Paso Country Club, Inc., 132 NLRB 942. 5. To the knowledge of the Employer, there is no pending repre- sentation or unfair labor practice proceeding involving the same labor dispute pending before the Board. 6. Although served with a copy of the petition for Advisory Opinion herein, no response as provided by the Board's Rules and Regulations has been filed by the Union. On the basis of the above, the Board is of the opinion that : 1. The Employer, a nonprofit membership-owned Michigan cor- poration, is engaged in the operation of a country club at Muskegon, Michigan. 2. In the absence of any specific jurisdictional standard for the Employer's type of operation, the Board will apply to this particular case its current retail and nonretail standards, specifically leaving open the question whether to apply these standards in future cases involving similar employers.' The current Board standard for the assertion of jurisdiction over retail enterprises within its statutory jurisdiction is an annual gross volume of business of at least $500,000, Carolina Sup- plies and Cement Co., 122 NLRB 88, 89; while the current nonretail standard requires an annual minimum of $50,000 out-of-State inflow or outflow, direct or indirect, Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85. 3. During the calendar year 1962, the Employer's gross annual in- come from membership dues and fees, dining room sales, bar sales, locker rentals, green fees, golf events, dances, and miscellaneous in- come was $163,955.26, while its gross annual purchases of goods, sup- plies, commodities, or services amounted to $56,929. The Employer has no direct or indirect outflow, and except for the $4,148.44 of out- of-State purchases which constitutes direct inflow, the remaining amount of its direct or indirect inflow cognizable under our standards, if any at all, is unknown. Indeed, upon the Employer's information and belief, less than $50,000 of its purchases were derived from sources outside the State of Michigan. Under these circumstances, it does not appear that the Employer satisfies the Board's retail jurisdictional standard of $500,000 annual gross volume of business or the non- retail standard of $50,000 annual inflow or outflow. Accordingly, the parties are advised, under Section 102.103 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the facts submitted, it does not appear that the commerce operations of the Employer satisfy the Board's standards for asserting jurisdic- 1 El Paso Country Club, Inc, supra, and Chartiers Country Club, supra. SHERIDAN PETER PAN STUDIOS, INC. 3 tion over retail or nonretail enterprises and that, therefore, the Board would not assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations with respect to disputes cognizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.' 1V1i.MBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Advisory Opinion. 2 The Board, as in El Paso and Chartiers, is not here deciding whether or not it would assert jurisdiction over country clubs which do meet the retail or nonretail standards. Sheridan Peter Pan Studios, Inc. and Office Employees Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-9170. August 19,1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P. Gethner, 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 Rodgers and Leedom]. 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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer operates a home photographic portrait business in the Metropolitan Chicago area. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the photographers, of whom there are about 23, on the ground that they are a craft or departmental group entitled to sepa- rate representation. The Employer disagrees and urges that an ap- propriate unit should comprise, in addition to the photographers, the darkroom technicians including retouchers, colorists, and finishers, all of whom constitute its technical department. The Employer also suggests as an alternate appropriate unit one consisting of all em- ployees in the three departments in which its operations are con- 144 NLRB No. 5. 727-083-64-val. 144-2