International Telephone and Telegraph Co.

ITT CANTEEN CORP. 1 ITT Canteen Corporation, a subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph Company 1 and Local Union 327, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees affiliated with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 38-RC-845 December 5, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Glenn A. Zipp. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statement of Procedures, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director, this case was transferred to the Board for decision. The Employer filed a brief. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing have been reviewed by the Board and we find they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The ITT Canteen Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph Company, is engaged in the operation of cafeterias and the sale of food and beverages by vending machines in the various States of the United States. Pursuant to a contract with Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, the Employer provides all the manual food services maintained at the University on a flat fee basis of 7 percent of the gross sales. These services consist of operating five dining rooms in dormitories of the University where the meals served to the students are part of the boarding fees paid directly to the University by the students. In addition, the Employer operates and services a dining room and cafeteria in the Student Center where the patrons, including members of the public, pay cash. A snack bar is also operated by the Employer in the Student Center. The Employer's gross revenues from sales, as disclosed by the record, are in excess of $500,000 per annum, and the Employer annually purchases and has shipped to its facilities in the State of Illinois goods and materials in excess of $10,000 from points directly outside the State of Illinois. The Employer admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. However, it contends that the facility involved herein is a noncommercial operation intimately connected with Bradley Univer- sity's nonprofit educational process and, therefore, that the Board should decline to assert jurisdiction. The Employer relies primarily on our decision in Crotty Brothers, N. Y., Inc., 146 NLRB 755. The threshold question is whether the Board should assert jurisdiction over the Employer's opera- tions in view of the decision in the Crotty Brothers case. There the Board decided that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over an employer engaged in the business of furnish- ing food service management to Trinity College because "the food service operations here involved are noncommercial in nature and intimately connect- ed with Trinity's nonprofit educational purposes." 2 The facts disclose that the Employer is engaged in activities that are of a commercial nature and for profit in many States of the Union. The fact that the operations involved herein are carried on pursuant to a contract with a nonprofit educational institution does not divest those operations of their commercial nature. In any event, the Board has determined since issuing Crotty Brothers that it no longer effectuates the policies of the Act to decline to assert jurisdiction over nonprofit educational institutions because such oper- ations affect commerce notwithstanding their non- profit character.3 Accordingly, the Crotty Brothers decision is no longer justification for refusing to consider the impact on commerce of the Employer's operations in accordance with our normal junsdic- tional policies and is therefore overruled. Looking, therefore, to those operations, it is apparent that, whether they be considered a retail restaurant enterprise because meals are furnished directly to students at one location, or a nonretail enterprise furnishing restaurant services to Bradley University,4 or a mixed retail-nonretail enterprise, its operations meet our applicable standards.5 Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's Bradley University i Name appears as amended at hearing 2 Crotty Brothers, supra, p 757 3 Cornell University, 183 NLRB No. 41 4 See Bay Ran Maintenance Corporation of New York, 161 NLRB 820, see also S S Latta & Son, 114 NLRB 1248; Bussey-Williams Tire Co, Inc, 127, NLRB 1146 5 The Board asserts jurisdiction over retail restaurant operations that gross annual revenues of $500,000 or more See Restaurant & Tavern Owners Association of Salem, 126 NLRB 671 Inasmuch as the Employer receives more than $50,000 from Bradley University, and Bradley's annual revenues exceed $1 million , assertion of jurisdiction is required under Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 80 (The Board has determined to assert jurisdiction over educational institutions with $I million gross annual revenues from all sources The record shows that Bradley University has over 6,000 students We can reasonably infer that in tuition fees alone the University takes in more than $I million) For mixed operations see Man Products, Inc., 128 NLRB 546 187 NLRB No. 7 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations which are part and parcel of the Employ- er's large multistate enterprise .6 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties herein did not stipulate as to an appropriate unit. It was agreed, however, that if we asserted jurisdiction herein the unit should consist of all food services employees employed by the Employ- er at the Bradley University Campus, with the usual statutory exclusion.? It appears that among the employees there are college student employees who work for meals and high school students who are employed, for the most part as dishwashers, on a part- time basis . The Employer urges the exclusion of both types of student employees, and the Petitioner took no firm positions as to their inclusion or exclusion and requests that their eligibility be determined by Board precedent. As to the college student employees who work only for their meals, we have found, in similar circum- stances, that such employees' employment is more directly related to their living conditions and that their major economic interest is in their studies which prepare them for a different occupation or activity. 6 It is the totality of an employer's operations which is measured to determine whether jurisdiction attaches, Siemons Mailing Service, supra r The parties stipulated that the following named employees should be excluded from the appropnate unit as supervisory employees senior cafeteria manager, chef managers, and unit managers 8 Scope Associates d/b/a Westbridge, 172 NLRB No. 208, General Electric Co, 109 NLRB 747, 748; Sonoco Products Co, 107 NLRB 82 Cf Colecraft Mfg Co, Inc., 162 NLRB 680, 688. 9 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their Therefore, they do not have the same community of interest in their employment as do those who work fulltime and are dependent on their employment for a livelihood." Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit. In regard to the high school students who work part time, for the most part as dishwashers, the record is devoid of any facts that would indicate that these employees' pattern of work for the Employer estab- lishes a pattern of employment continuity or evidenc- es a work history that warrants characterizing them as regular part-time employees rather than as casual employees. In the absence of such evidence, or a specific request for their inclusion in the unit, we shall exclude them. Accordingly, on the basis of the record herein, and the brief filed by the Employer, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All food service employees employed by ITT Canteen Corporation at the Bradley University Campus, Peoria, Illinois, excluding college and high school students part-time employees, unit manager, chef managers, senior cafeteria manager, guards, professional and supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act. [Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.] addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc,' 156 NLRB 1236 , N LR B v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 13 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed