factors are present to rebut the presumption of the
appropriateness of the single-store unit. The cen-
tralized administrative functions are related entirely
to the Employer's own records and have little or no
direct relation to the employees' day-to-day work.
While employee benefits have been centrally
established, and the uniformity thereof is of some
significance, no greater control or uniformity has
been shown here than is characteristic of retail
chain store operations generally. We see no reason
to permit this centralization to overshadow such im-
portant factors as infrequent interchange and com-
munication among the employees of the various
restaurants and the separate immediate supervision
by the local manager who hires and fires the restau-
rant employees, rates employee performance, and
.35"»F:d408.4i:-IIJ(C.A
3l.enf»
147
„n-D.„r S:.,r„
. Inc. Ml F ;
:d 750.
753
en. denied i»
: us
830:
B V Vlrrn^r Liimhr
n-77: iC A. 71. enrg. 145 NLRS 10:4. cen. denied )»: U.S. »4
LRB V l>rimnii,SuprrM-irkrn>fSulrm.lMc..fSLHRSlZS6}{C.t
enrg. wiihoui opinion 148 NLRB 610. cen. denied 38: U.S. 830. m
>n for reconsidcniion denied 353 F 2d 675 iC.A II.
134
880
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is involved in their day-to-day grievances and
problems. Further, the functions of the employees
at one restaurant are entirely separate from the
other restaurants in view of the geographic separa-
tion and the minimal amount of interchange. Thus,
we conclude that a single-restaurant unit here is an
appropriate unit for bargaining.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 25 for the purpose of
holding an election pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Election except that the period for
determining eligibility shall be the payroll period
immediately preceding the date below.'
tion eligibilily list, combining the names and ad-
dresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer wuh the
Regional Director for Region 25 within 7 days after the date of this tJeci-
sion on Review 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 extraor-
dinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed. £.t<:Wjio<-t'/it/en.far//tc..l56Nl.RB i:36
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act. a hearing was
held before a Hearing Officer of the National Labor
Relations Board. The Hearing Officier'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 connec-
tion with this case to this Regional Director.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Regional
Director finds;
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
pose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent cenain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of cenain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c)( 1 ) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a chain of 35 full-line
and 6 discount drugstores in Indiana and Ohio, as
well as 11 restaurants.' Six of the eleven restau-
rants are located in Indianapolis and the remaining
five in Kokomo. Bloomington. Fon Wayne, and
Marion, Indiana, and Lima, Ohio. Judicial notice is
taken that restaurant 206, the establishment con-
taining the unit sought by Petitioner, is located ap-
proximately 3 or 4, 5 or 6,9 or 10, 1 1, and 14 or 15
miles, or an average of about 8 or 9 miles from the
other five Indianapolis restaurants. The Employer
also franchises or licenses a number of indepen-
dently owned enterprises, herein called licensees,
to operate restaurants which, like all but one= of the
Employer's own, use the trade name, "Huddle."
and are in many respects difficult to distinguish
from the Employer's own restaurants. Concededly,
the licensee's restaurants are not part of the ap-
propriate unit.
In the past, pursuant to petitions under the Act,
representation elections have been held among (a)
the Employer's warehouse^ employees in 1956, as
well as (b) its drugstore employees (exclusive of
restaurant employees) in four Indiana counties (in-
cluding Marion County) in 1963 and 1966.^ No cer-
tification of representatives, contract, or history of
collective bargaining resulted from any of the elec-
tions.
Headquarters of the restaurant operations, along
with the drug operation, is located in the company
office in Indianapolis. Among other functions it
houses the corporate officers and offices. All Em-
ployer-owned Huddle operations are administered
by Theodore J. Shaver, vice president of Huddle
Restaurant operations, who stands on the same
level of supervision as the vice president in charge
of drug operations and immediately subordinate to
Vice President in Charge of Sales Latter and Secre-
tary-Treasurer Steele, who in turn are immediately
subordinate to President Moxley. Personnel
Director Martin, whose responsibilities are em-
ployerwide, reports to President Moxley and Secre-
tary-Treasurer Steele. Liaison between Shaver and
the store managers is maintained by a single super-
visor, who, together with Shaver, visits the various
restaurants checking on operations. Headquarters
maintains substantial control over the operations of
the various units. The Employer's president "in the
final analysis" establishes labor policy and the
comptroller prepares the various restaurants'
budgets. Headquarters negotiates contracts with
the vendors with whom the restaurants deal, and
fixed asset expenditures require headquarters ap-
proval. Other elements of liaison or control are
found in the fact that the restaurants remit or report
cash intake to headquarters, and report purchases,
sales, labor and other costs, warehouse requisitions,
and hours worked by employees for payroll pur-
poses. A plethora of standardized intracorporate
forms are used for reponing purposes; i.e.. each
restaurant is not permitted to make its own forms.
Based on the material submitted by the individual
resturants, headquarters prepares a monthly proflt-
and-loss statement for each restaurant. The Em-
ployer does not maintain a clerical force at the
respective restaurants and substantial clerical and
administrative work relating to the restaurants is
I additional or twelfth restaurant ^
' The warehouse
the Employers dnig and restaurant
riiiioners in ihc l*ibt> proccedir
135
HAAG DRUG COMPANY. INCORPORATED
881
performed at the headquarters. Thus, the headquar-
ters office recruits personnel, prepares paychecks,
keeps and maintains financial, personnel, and other
records, pays bills mcurred by the restaurants, and
administers workmen's compensation, and group
insurance plans.' Advertising is generally prepared
or handled by the headquarters-located advertising
department' and the personnel depanment tem-
porarily transfers employees between restaurants
and drugstores to meet the daily needs of the or-
ganization. A maintenance department performs
minor maintenance on Indianapolis operations.
Costs of operation of the headquarters are prorated
among the restaurants and the drugstores. Addi-
tionally, the Employer maintains a warehouse used
by both the drugstores and restaurants, as well as
some of the licensees as a source of supply.
An effort is made to maintain uniformity of ap-
pearance among the various restaurants. All save
one' use the trade name. Huddle,' use "out front"
or exhibition cooking, generally seat 105 to 120
persons,' serve a standarized semipermanent
menu.'" and have the same or similar kitchen equip-
ment, parking facilities, decor, and general layout. ' '
In many other respects, conditions are uniform at
least in the restaurant division of the Employer's
operation. Thus, there is a uniform pay scale sub-
ject to local variation within the established range,
a uniform fidelity bond requirement, a standard
operations manual,'- which governs many person-
nel matters, and a standard or substantially stan-
dard policy governs the supply and laundering of
uniforms, vacations, group insurance, holidays,
discounts, paid leave of absence, meals, Christmas
and Thanksgiving bonus, and timeclocks.
Local administration is vested in the restaurant
manager. Each manager orders his own self-deter-
mined needs from suppliers selected by headquar-
ters or the Employer's warehouse.'' Similarly, ex-
cept for Indianapolis restaurants which use the Em-
ployer's maintenance crew for minor repairs, the
manager, after determining the need therefor con-
tracts with Employer designated mechanics for
major and minor repairs. Although some hiring is
done through headquarters, 60 percent of the hiring
is done by the manager,'* who at the time of hiring,
as well as throughout his employment, fixes the em-
ployee's pay rate within a rate range for each- clas-
sification prescribed by headquaners. '* The
manager trains and rales employees, makes recom-
mendations as to employees with questionable
ratings, and discharges employees. Although, as
previously noted, in many respects there is
uniformity in standard wages, hours, and working
conditions throughout the Employer's operation, in
other respects differences exist. Thus, many of the
restaurants have different hours with concomitant
different shift hours for employees. Employee clas-
sifications differ in various restaurants, some using
a cashier-hostess, others simply a cashier and
others, neither. Although, as noted above, the
restaurants are generally of substantially the same
size, the manning schedules vary from 2 part- and
1 3 full-time employees to 23 full- and 7 part-time
employees.
Interchange and transfer between the various
restaurants in the chain is insignificant and averages
not more than I.I .permanent and 2.5 temporary
transfers per week"' in a group of approximately
200 employees."
10 week summary specially
1 separately owned
Innchi^cd resiauninls.
" Which IS prepared by ihe Employer's central headquarters.
'â– Asdosomeoflhefranchisedresiauiants.
'* Subject to a check of whether the applicant is disqualified on the
basis of pnor unsatisfactory service.
** Althouah both hinng and changes in range are subject to the approval
or require the initials of the personnel director and the vice president in
charge of Huddle operations, in view of their eitremely slight contact with
the employees, to say nothing of job applicants, it is found the elTective
power lies with the manager Indeed, newly hired employees can be on the
payroll and working before either of the two officials who allegedly must
'• In connection with Petitioner s cross-examination of the witness who
identified the exhibit that purponeJ to reflect the decree of transfer and in-
terchange of employees between the Employer's vanous
without objecting to Peutiuner's queslioiu. which went to the i
original jtHi more complete records in the Employer's po^se
lows: "I'll instruct the witness to tell i
'Because we didn't v
goddammit. That's on the record . . I'll instruct this witness whenever i
feel like it. Counsel is arguing with the witness" In response to Peti-
tioner's explanation it was seeking to Hnd out whether "this thing is
representative or not." Employer's counsel asserted. "I instruct the wit-
ness to tell counsel for the union that you have nothing to say on the sub-
ject. We are not going to argue about this All this is argumentative. Ifyou
want to attack this exhibit by innuendo, do that in your bnef." In the ar-
Petttioner's attempt to explore the representative
itjstics was seriously obstructed the exhibit
must be carefully scrutinized. At the outset, it is noted that the Employer's
business is afTected and normally will be increased by holidays. Atldi-
tionally. both Chnstmas and New Year's Day are paid holidays for em-
ployees In such circumstances it is a reasonable inference ihat the Chnsl-
mas-New Year's week would provide more than the normal number of
temporary transfers. In point of fact, it appears thai twice Ihe average
number of temporary transfers (xcurred in the 2 -week pa v roll pentxlend-
'ing December 3 I . which furnishes internal evidence within the exhibit it-
self that the Chnstmas-New Year's payroll penod is not representative.
That payroll penod ending December 31. accordingly, has been disre-
garded in computing temporary interchange of employees
" Employees retain seniority and any and all ben«rits incident thereto
in the case of temporary or p
136
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kapok Tree Inn. Inc. and Hotel. Motel, Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders Lnion. AFL-CIO. Local
No. 104. Petitioner. Case i:-RC-5:5:
September 30. 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By Members Jenkins. Penello. and .vIlrphy
On March 30. 1977. the Regional Director for
Region 12 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entiiled proceeding. The
Petitioner had sought a unit limned to the Kapok
Tree Inn Restaurant located in Clearwater. Florida
(hereinafter referred to as Clearwater), while the
Employer contended that the appropnate unit ought
to include its other facilities in Flonda: the Kapok
Tree Inn Restaurant in .Madeira Beach (hereinafter
referred to as Madeira Beach), the Kapok Tree Inn
Restaurant in Fort Lauderdale (hereinafter referred
to as Fort Lauderdale), and Baumgardner"s Restau-
rant in Clearwater. The Regional Director found the
appropnate unit to encompass Clearwater. .Madena
Beach, and Baumgardner's.
Both the Employer and the Petitioner filed, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations. Senes
8. as amended, timely requests for review of the
Regional Director's decision. The Petitioner con-
tends that the Regional Director departed from
Board precedent in his determination of the scope of
the unit and erred in his refusal to enlarge the time
within which the Petitioner could submit a showing
of interest within the unit e.xpanded by the Regional
Director's decision. The Employer argues on review
that the Regional Director should have included the
Fort Lauderdale restaurant in the bargaining unit.
By telegraphic order dated .May 17, 1977. the
Board granted the Petitioner's request for review and
denied the Employer's request. Both parties filed
bnefs on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act. as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority m this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
Kapok Tree Inn Corporation, the parent corpora-
tion, located in Clearwater. Florida, owns and
operates five separately incorporated restaurants.
.Aside from the Peter Pan restaurant in .'Vlarvland.
which IS not involved in this proceeding ,(,
remaining facilities are all situated in FlornJa. Th'
Clearwater restaurant is located in the same builjm
as the parent corporation. 100 yards from Baumoard
ner's restaurant. The Madeira Beach restaurant
approximately 19 miles and the Fort Lauderdal
restaurant ' is 250 miles from the Clearwater com-
plex. There is no collective-bargaining history for th*
employees and no union seeks to represent them on a
broader basis.
The parent corporation centrally administers m
facilities, prescnbing in detail guidelines jor iheir
operation. Corporate supervisors oversee the impie.
mentation of these policies by visiting the restaurants
to confirm the quality of service and to evaluate the
total operation. The corporate otTice performs all the
major purchasing.- advertising, accounting, book-
keeping, and capital improvements. Logistical deci-
sions involving the projected needs for food, employ-
ees, and facilities are determined on a umt basis by
the corporate supervisors.
E.Tiployment conditions are also set by corporate
policy. Employee benefits, workmen's compensation,
hospitalization, insurance, pension, and stock-shar-
ing plans are administered by the parent corporation.
The general guidelines for wages, hours, job classifi-
cations, and general working conditions are deter-
mined centrallv and may not be modified on a unit
level.
Nevertheless, under this administrative setup, each
restaurant or unit has its own identity, balance sheet,
supervisors, and employees. The local unit manager
is responsible for the day-to-day operation of his
restaurant. In addition to the normal ministenal
tasks, such as opening and closing the restaurant, the
unit manager translates the general corporate labor
relations guidelines into the everyday specifics of the
unit operation. Each restaurant advertises for,
interviews, and hires its own rank-and-file employ-
ees. The unit manager supervises the training of his
employees. He has the authonty to fire employees on
the spot if egregious behavior is involved.^ Otherwise
the local managenal staff periodically monitors the
pen'ormance of us employees and makes recommen-
dations relevant to discharge and promotion. W'hen
department head positions become vacant, the unit
manager will interview and recommend employees.
The unit manager has on occasion increased wages
without the specific approval of the corporate office.
The unit manager also schedules the vacations,
working hours, and days off of the individual
employees. Allocation of waitress stations and other
dailv activities are wuhin the discretion of the unit
137
KAPOK TREE INN
managerial stafT. Absences must be cleared at the
unit level and employees clock in where they work.
When circumstances warrant it, the unit manager
may initiate overtime. If a facility is overstaffed on a
particular night, the unit manager has the authonty
10 send employees home.
Most labor relations problems appear to be
resolved at the unit level. As a matter of general
practices, which is reflected in the employees'
manual (Empl. Exh. 3). employee gnevances and
requests are directed to the local supervisory staff.
Management directives have been posted over the
unit manager's signature and are sometimes con-
cerned with only a smgle facility.
Aside from this substantial authonty of the
separate managenal staff at Clearwater, the record
contains other evidence of Qearwater's indepen-
dence from Madeira Beach and Baumgardner's.
Reflecting its geographic disunce, Madena Beach is
operationally the least integrated of the three
restaurants. It issues its own payroll checks and has
Its own checking account.
Employee interchange and communication be-
tween the employees at Madeira Beach and Clearwa-
ter is insignificant. Excluding the mitial staffing when
Madeira Beach opened in December 1972, only 17
rank-and-file employees have been involved in
permanent transfers between the two facilities. There
are approximately 316 employees at Clearwater, and
approximately 225 employees at Madeira Beach.
Other rank-and-file interminglmg is also limited
since Madeira Beach has a full complement of
employee departments. A few gift shop employees
are temporanly shifted to aid in annual inventory
and restocking dunng the busy season. Two or three
times a year between three and five waitresses
temporanly transfer to Madeira Beach from Clear-
water. Maintenance employees and equipment are
borrowed from Clearwater only when major work is
required.
Even the working conditions vary between Ma-
deira Beach and Clearwater, although officially those
restaurants are identical in operation and format.
According to the testimony of a waitress who works
at Clearwater, there are differences in work station
allocation, the number of tables worked by a team,
cleanup procedures, workweeks, and rules for re-
questing davs off.
Baumgardner's. however, due to its physical
closeness to Clearwater, is not as self-contained as
Madeira Beach. Baumgardner's obtains from Clear-
water a number of services such as: maintenance,
cleaning, gardening. laundry, food ordenng. supplies,
some stock and equipment storage, dinner reserva-
* Occaiionjllv temporarv [ransfers o( employees occur when an
tions. and secuniy patrols. Employee mterchange is
slightly more significant between Baumgardner's and
Clearwater than is the interchange between Madeira
Beach and Clearwater.-' Employees at both restau-
rants are paid with paychecks issued by Clearwater
and they share the same parking lot.
Nevertheless, working conditions at Baumgard-
ner's are substantially different from those at
Clearwater. Unlike Clearwater, which is basically
similar to the other Kapok Tree Inn restaurants.
Baumgardner's is unique among the Employer's
facilities in Flonda. The menus, service procedure,
uniforms, and operating hours are different only at
Baumgardner's. Baumgardner's is a more formal
restaurant catenng to a different chentele. The
waitresses and waiters there wear fancier uniforms.
The service procedure is traditional; orders are taken
from the guests after they are seated at their ubles.
At Clearwater, however, the cusiomen order before
they are seated and their food is brought to them
later at a table. Bar service is also different at the two
restaurants.
Clearwater is open continuously from 11:30 a.m.
until 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and until 9
p.m. on Sunday. Baumgardner's, however, opens
twice a day durmg the week; for lunch from 11:30
a.m. until 3 p.m., and then from 4:30 p.m. until 9:30
p.m. for dinner. On weekends the lunch hour is
eliminated. These variations in operating hours are
reflected in the working shifts of the employees.
Based upon the above findings and the entire
record, we conclude, in disagreement with the
Regional Director, that the Employer's restaurants
are not so integrated as to overcome the presumptive
appropnateness of a single-facility unit limited to the
Clearwater resuurant.
When dealing with a multifacility operation, the
well-established Board policy is to find a single-
facility unit presumptively appropriate. This pre-
sumption can be overcome, however, by a showing of
functional integration so substantial as to negate the
separate identity of the single-facility umt. In making
determinations on this issue, the Board looks to such
factors as prior bargaining history, the geographical
proximity to other facilities of the same employer, the
degree of day-to-day managenal responsibility exer-
cised by the branch facility management, the
frequency of employee interchange, and whether the
requested single-facility umt constitutes a homoge-
neous, identifiable, and distinct employee grouping.
Haag Drug Company, Incorporated. 169 NLRB 877
(1968).
Although the Employer's operations evidence the
centralized administration that is often characteristic
138
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of multifacility enterprises, such centralized adminis-
trative control does not by itself militate against
finding the smgle-restaurant facility to constitute an
appropnate unit. Alleghenv Pepsi-Cola Boitling Com-
pany, 223 NLRB 45 (1976); Michigan Bell Telephone
Company. 216 NLRB 806(1975).
Clearwater is a distinct operation with iu own work
force, managerial staff, and balance sheet. Although
restncted somewhat by corporate guidelines, the unit
manager exercises substantial day-to-day authonty
in areas most directly affecting the employees. See
Levit: Furniture Corporation, 223 NLRB 522. 524. fn.
23 (1976). The unit management represents the
fronthne authonty to which emplovees are directed
for their employment, their work conditions and
assignments, and the resolution of their complaints.
Aside from the autonomy of its unit managerial
staff, Clearwater's independence from Madeira
Beach is also demonstrated by their geographical
distance, the functional independence of operation,
and the lack of significant employee interchange
between the employees at Madeira Beach and
Clearwater.
With respect to Baumgardner's. however, the
geographic pro.xiraity and concomitant sharing of
certain services and employees makes the inclusion