Beau Rivage Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

BEAU RIVAGE HOTEL 809
I.L.M. Corporation d/b/a Beau Rivage Hotel and Hotel Em-
ployees Union Local 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 12-PC-485. August 31, 1959
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 Herbert B. Mintz, hearing
officer. The hearing officer'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 connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a resort hotel in
Bal Harbour, Florida. Approximately 18,000 guests are accommo-
dated yearly of whom 95 percent are from States other than Florida.
Its annual gross receipts exceed $1,000,000 and are .derived from serv-
ice to guests for lodging, meals, and beverages. Purchases directly and
indirectly from out-of-State amount to $40,000 yearly. As the Em-
ployer's gross volume of business exceeds $500,000, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Floridan
Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261 (Member Jenkins concurring in
part and dissenting in part; Member Fanning concurring specially).
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer.
The parties are in agreement on the composition of the unit but dis-
agree on the status of the checker-cashiers, herein called cashiers,
whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude.
The cashiers, six in number, work in the bar, coffee shop, and
kitchen. In the kitchen and bar, the cashiers price items of food or
drink for inclusion on the check to be charged to, or paid by, the
guests. The cash or signed check is then collected from the bartender,
waiter, or waitress who has served the guest. In most instances there
is no cash transaction as the expenses are included on the guest's over-
all bill. The cashiers work the same hours and have common super-
vision with other employees in the department in which they work but
are responsible to the chief of the accounting department for their
daily receipts. The cashiers' only contact with clerical employees is
when they pick up, or turn in to the front office, their "banks" in
124 NLRB No. 102.
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which each cashier keeps his daily receipts. We find that the checker-
cashiers have similar interests and working conditions with those em-
ployees whom the parties have agreed to include, and we shall, accord-
ingly, include them in the unit. Cf. Waigreen Co., of New York, Inc.,
97 NLRB 1101, 1104; John W. Thomas cC Co., 104 NLRB 868, 872.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All employees at the
Employer's Miami Beach, Bal Harbour, Florida, hotel, including food
checkers and cashiers, but excluding all office and clerical employees,
lifeguards, timekeepers, social counselors, guards, and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted front pub] ication.]
The Houston Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-BC-
515. September 1, 1959
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 H. C. Thompson, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer'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 connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner, Machinists, and
Chemical Workers deny, that the only appropriate unit is a statewide
unit encompassing all the Employer's Florida facilities. The Peti-
tioner seeks a unit of the Employer's employees at Miami, Lakeland,
and Daytona Beach, but it is willing to represent a unit which also
i International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Lodge No. 1754 , hereafter called
Machinists , and International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Local No. 359, here-
after called Chemical workers, intervened on the basis of current contracts. They re-
quested to be placed on the ballot only if a systemwide unit was found appropriate.
124 NLRB No. 106.