- 63 -
employer. In so concluding, we decline petitioners' invitation
to treat all of these employees as "food service employees"
simply because they are covered by the culinary workers'
agreement.
Section 119 also does not reach any meal that is eaten by
petitioners' employees on a nonworking day or by persons who do
not work for petitioners. Although petitioners' policy is to
preclude employees from eating meals in the Cafeterias on days
off and to preclude nonemployees from eating in the Cafeterias at
all, petitioners do not actively police or monitor this policy.
We are unpersuaded that petitioners' policy on this subject is
adhered to by the employees. We find in the record that
petitioners' employees have access to the Cafeterias on their
days off and that petitioners do not document the receipt of
employee meals in the Cafeterias or the receipt of meals in the
public restaurants by the employees who are allowed to eat there
without charge.10 We also find that nonemployees may easily
enter the Cafeterias with employees, and that petitioners' lack
of documentation on the meals similarly precludes us from finding
that these nonemployees do not eat meals in the Cafeterias.
Petitioners elicited testimony from Mr. Thompson to the
effect that employees never ate two meals. Mr. Thompson stated
that he had "general knowledge" that these employees generally
10 Contrary to the testimony of petitioners' management,
we find it hard to believe that an employee would question the
number of times that a manager ate in the Cafeterias or public
restaurants on a given day.
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011