Justru Realty Corp.

Justru Realty Corporation and Palmer Motor Inn, Inc., and Hotel, Motel, Bar, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 741, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 22-RC-2884. December 10, 1965 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On July 16, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 22 issued a De- cision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding; and on July 20, 1965, he issued an erratum correcting the same. There- after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, on the ground, inter alia, that substantial questions of fact and law were raised by his jurisdictional determination. The Board, by tele- graphic order dated August 6, 1965, granted the request for review and stayed the election. The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to the Employer's request for review. Thereafter, Palmer Motor Inn, Inc., filed a brief. The Board 1 has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the Regional Director's determination under review, and finds, contrary to the Regional Director and for the reasons set forth below, that the petition should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are employed by Palmer Motor Inn, Inc., herein called Palmer, at its motel at West Windsor, New Jersey. So far as the record shows, Palmer, a New Jersey corporation, has no employees other than those employed at the motel here in issue. Palmer leases out a portion of its premises to a separate corporation, herein called Ivanhoe, for the operation of a restaurant facility for which it receives 6 percent of Ivanhoe's gross revenue as rent. Ivanhoe serves the same customers as Palmer, and is operated as a supplement to Palmer's motel business. Indeed, from all outward indicia, both the motel and the restaurant appear, to the general public, to be a single enterprise. In these circumstances, the Regional Director found that their revenues could be combined for jurisdictional purposes. Palmer's gross revenue from all sources, including the rental re- ceived from Ivanhoe, for the fiscal year ended in February 1965, was about $277,400. Ivanhoe's gross revenue for the same period was approximately $150,000. Assuming, in accord with the Regional 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Jenkins]. 156 NLRB No. 3. 1 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Director's finding, that Ivanhoe's gross receipts may properly be com- bined with that of Palmer for purposes of deciding the jurisdictional issue,' it is clear that the combined figure falls short of the $500,000 minimum standard established by the Board for the assertion of juris- diction in the hotel-motel industry, of which Palmer clearly is a part.' There was evidence, however, that Justin Piscopo, president and owner of 45 percent of Palmer's stock, and Anna Metz, owner of 5 per- cent of Palmer's stock, also had financial interest in other motel or hotel ventures as described below. In the opinion of the Regional Director, this evidence, together with a further showing that Piscopo participated in some management decisions in each case, provides sufficient warrant for finding that all these operations could be con- sidered as a single business enterprise for purposes of asserting juris- diction. We do not agree. Piscopo's other financial interests involve three enterprises, viz, Justru Realty Corporation, herein called Justru, Della Corporation, herein called Della, and Sky-Top Motel. Anna Metz' interests involve only Sky-Top. More specifically : Piscopo and his wife own all of the stock of Justru. This appears to be a real estate investment business with offices in New York City, which owns but a single piece of prop- erty, the Washington and Jefferson Hotel in the same city. It leases this hotel to a corporate operator, the W and J Corporation, for $50,000 per annum. So far as the record shows, there is no relation- ship other than that of lessor-lessee between Justru and the hotel operator. Piscopo is also president and owns 50 percent of the stock of Della. This company operates a motel in Wilmington, Delaware, and has a gross annual revenue of approximately $185,000. Finally, Piscopo has a 27.624-percent share of a partnership which operates the Sky-Top Motel in Kingston, New York, and Anna Metz owns slightly over a 1-percent share. This motel has a gross annual revenue of ap- proximately $230,000. As is the case with Palmer, both of these latter two motels keep Piscopo regularly advised of their financial transac- tions and their business operations at Piscopo's Justru office,' and there appears to be some warrant for inferring that Piscopo partici- pates in management decisions affecting them, as well as the motel operated by Palmer. However, except perhaps as to Palmer, there is 2 See Trade Winds Motor Hotel & Restaurant, 140 NLRB 567. 3 Floridian Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261. Palmer's revenues also include re- ceipts in excess of $50,000 a year from Western Electric Company, Incorporated, under a lease for the rental of certain conference rooms , and motel rooms with meals. The Regional Director felt this money payment could properly be viewed as "indirect inflow" to Palmer under the concepts enunciated in Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, and thus provide warrant for assertion of the Board's jurisdiction on the basis of the standards in that case. We do not agree. In our view, the arrangement between Western Electric and Palmer is plainly to be regarded as a normal incident of the operations of a modern motel or hotel, and does not fall within the purview of the nonretail business operations of the kind for which the Siemons standards were established. d Piscopo there maintains an office staff which includes his personal accountant and two secretaries. ORTRONIX, INC. 3 no showing that Piscopo either possesses or exercises any control over the hiring or firing or any other conditions of employment of em- ployees.' And it is undisputed that each motel operation has its own manager, accountant, and attorney; that each manager purchases supplies and solicits business for the motel he manages; and that there is no reciprocity between the motels or any other indicia of interrela- tionship in the conduct of their day-to-day operations. Indeed, Palmer's manager testified he does not know any of the other motel managers. As noted by the Regional Director, the Board often treats separate companies as one employer for jurisdictional purposes where it can be found that the firms, despite their separate legal structure, are highly integrated with respect to ownership and operations. Though no one factor is controlling, those factors which the Board deems relevant to such determination include not only common ownership or financial control, but also such other indicia of identity as inter- relationship of operations, common management, and centralized con- trol of labor relations.6 In the instant case, it does not appear that Piscopo's financial interest in the motel or hotel operations described above is of such a character as to permit his control of all such opera- tions. And it is clear that each of them is, in fact, managed independ- ently of the other. In these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the relationship of Justru, Della, and Sky-Top to Palmer is such as to justify treating all of them together as a single employer for juris- dictional purposes. As jurisdiction over Palmer cannot be asserted on any other basis consistent with our established standards, we shall dis- miss the petition? [The Board dismissed the petition.] 5 Piscopo hired Palmer's present manager and instructed him as to his responsibilities. He also provided a replacement when that manager went on vacation. 9 See Chicago Theatrical Protective Union Local No. 2, I.A .T.S.E. (dlidwest News Reel Theaters, Inc.), 151 NLRB 857; Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 NLRB 1220, 1222, enfd. 332 F. 2d 902 (C.A. 9). Twenty-first Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board, pp. 14-15. 7 In view of our findings herein, we deem it unnecessary to resolve other issues raised by the Employer's request for review. Ortronix, Inc. and Sheet Metal Workers' International Associ. ation, AFL-CIO. Case No. 12,CA-39249. December 13, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On September 14, 1965, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- 156 NLRB No. 1. 217-919-66---vol. 156-2