Crotty Brothers, N.Y., Inc.

CROTTY BROTHERS, N.Y., INC. You do not need a union at Carlton Forge Works . Vote NO! vote NO although you have signed a card. Be sure and vote! Sincerely, November 27, 1963. To All Carlton Forge Works Employees: Since talking to each one of you, I am sure the majority will VOTE NO in today's election. Your vote will be one of confidence in Carlton Forge Works and its future. We can avoid the economic problems which forced Allegheny Ludlum out of the forging business on the West Coast. Yes, we know their management graciously offered liberal severance pay, but, regardless of Allegheny's fair treatment of their employees, the fact remains-the employees are out of work! As we discussed personally, you must exercise your right to vote today. You can VOTE NO whether you have signed a card or not. It is important that each employee indicate his decision by voting. Remember, this is a SECRET BALLOT. Neither the company nor union offi- cials will be allowed within the vicinity of the polling place (Shop Office). Sincerely, 755 Remember, you can CARLTON FORGE WORKS, Allan J. Carlton, Jr., ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr., President. ATTACHMENT C CARLTON FORGE WORKS Quality Forging, Metcalf 3-1131 Nevada 6-9384 7743 Adams St. P.O. Box No. 816 Paramount, Calif. CARLTON FORGE WORKS, ALLAN J. CARLTON, Jr., President. Crotty Brothers, N.Y., Inc. and Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, Cafeteria and Restaurant Union, Local 483, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-12928. April 10, 1964 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On July 17, 1963, the Regional Director for the Fifth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in this case. Thereafter, in ac- cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Employer (herein referred to as Crotty) and the Intervenor, Trinity College (herein referred to as Trinity), filed with the Board a joint request for review of the Regional Director's determination that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Crotty herein. By telegraphic order dated September 4, 1963, the Board granted the request for review, stayed the election pending decision on review, and invited the parties to brief the questions whether Crotty and Trinity are joint employers of the employees involved and if so whether the Board should assert jurisdiction. Crotty and Trinity, jointly, and the Petitioner filed briefs. 146 NLRB No. 95. 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Fanning and Brown]. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with re- spect to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the following findings : The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all food service em- ployees employed by Crotty at eating facilities located on Trinity's campus in Washington, D.C. Crotty and Trinity assert that Crotty manages the food services as an agent for Trinity. They contend further that the activities herein involved are noncommercial in nature and are intimately connected with Trinity's nonprofit edu- cational purposes, and that the Board should refuse to assert juris- diction under the Columbia University doctrine.' The Petitioner ,contends that the food services involved are commercial in nature ,and that Columbia University is inapplicable. Trinity is a nonprofit educational institution with approximately 750 students, 70 percent of whom are resident students paying an inclusive fee for room, board, and tuition. The food service operation is paid for out of Trinity's budget for college operations and includes a dining hall serving three meals a day to resident students, faculty, and resident Sisters who teach and administer the affairs of the col- lege, a cafeteria for nonresident students and faculty, and snack bars. There is no restaurant or drugstore where food can be obtained within a mile of Trinity. For many years, Trinity managed its own food `service operations. In 1951, it entered into a food service management contract with Crotty. Crotty is a New York corporation engaged in the business of fur- nishing food service management to educational, hospital, and busi- ness establishments in several States and the District of Columbia. The 1951 contract between Crotty and Trinity stated that Crotty was "deemed to be an independent contractor." Trinity is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the food service facilities, and is required to purchase any new equipment that may be needed. All nonexpendable items for food service are purchased by Trinity, and the expendable items, such as food, are purchased by Crotty with invoices in the name of "Crotty Brothers-Trinity College." Pursuant ,to modifications in the original agreement, Crotty performs its serv- ices on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, within the limits of a food service 'budget approved by Trinity. Among the costs for which Crotty is reimbursed are liability insurance and workmen's compensation, which it is required, by contract, to carry in its own name, as well as The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York , 97 NLRB 424. GREENFIELD COMPONENTS CORPORATION 757 all expenses of operation, including wages. Crotty invests no capital and has no control over any matter which would permit it to profit from the operation. The budget is jointly prepared by Sister Cath- erine Marie, Trinity's director of food services, and Mr. Muise, Crot- ty's manager of food services. Within budget limits, Muise hires and fires employees and sets wage rates. He regards Sister Catherine Marie as his boss and testified that "as a matter of policy" he discusses all problems he has with either Sister Catherine Marie or Sister Alice Clement, Trinity's treasurer, and would never act without their prior approval on matters affecting labor relations. Sister Catherine Marie spends most of her time in food service work. Upon the entire record, we find that the food service operations here involved are noncommercial in nature and intimately connected with Trinity's nonprofit educational purposes, and that, whatever the legal relationship existing between Trinity and Crotty, it would not effectuate .the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction herein 2 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 See Young Men's Christian Association of Portland, Oregon, 146 NLRB 20; The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, supra, and cases cited therein at footnote 3. Cf. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 143 NLRB 568. Greenfield Components Corporation and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Case No. 1-CA-3418. April 10, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On January 24, 1962, the Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and issued an appropriate remedial order. The unfair labor practices found included the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union with regard to a stipulated produc- tion and maintenance unit found appropriate by the Trial Examiner.2 On May 10, 1963, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit granted the Board's application for a decree enforcing the Board's Order.' 1135 NLRB 479. 2 The stipulated unit is described as follows: All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent employed at its Greenfield, Massachusetts, plant, excluding office clerical employees, guards, pro- fessional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 3N.L.R.B. v. Greenfield Components Corporation, 317 F. 2d 85 (C.A. 1). 146 NLRB No. 87.