Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1053 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

I 'COLUMBUS. PLAZA MOTOR 'HOTEL - ST'pf,-r 1053
Management Directors, Inc. d/b/a Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel
and Building Service & Maintenance Union , Local 47, Build-
ing Service Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner and Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union , Local 505, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
- Nos. 9-RC-5745 and 9-RC-5787. September 15, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated, hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Thomas M. Sheeran. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning, of
the Act.'
2. Building Service & Maintenance Union, Local 47, Building Serv-
ice Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Build-
ing Service Employees) ; Local 505,'Hotel & Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Hotel
& Restaurant Employees) ; and Operating Engineers, are labor or-'
ganizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Building Service Employees and Hotel & Restaurant Employees
each seeks to represent a, unit of employees engaged in, the prepara-
tion, handling, and serving of food and beverages, and in the perform-
ance of public housekeeping duties at the Employer's Columbus Plaza
1 At the hearing International Union 'of Operating Engineers , Local No. 89, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Operating Engineers ), Truck Drivers Local No. 413, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America (herein
called the Teamsters), and Local No 333, Office Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO (herein called the Office Employees ), moved to intervene for the purpose of establish-
ing the appropriateness of separate units 'of maintenance employees ; garage employees,
and office employees . The•Hearing Officer granted the'motions subject to each intervenor
submitting a satisfactory showing of interest . Operating Engineers produced cards signed
by at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit of maintenance employees It 'asserts
is appropriate . Teamsters and Office Employees did not produce 30 percent showing in
the separate units of garage and office employees : the Teamsters submitted no showing
at all. All three unions sought to intervene only to obtain elections in the smaller-units
each seeks to represent . They are therefore in the position of petitioners seeking elec-
tions in claimed appropriate units. Only the Operating Engineers submitted the requisite
showing of interest to support a petition . At the close of the hearing , the Hearing Officer
denied the Teamsters' motion to intervene , and reserved for the Board that of the Office
Employees . The Hearing Officer's rulings on the motions of the Operating Engineers and
the Teamsters to intervene are hereby affirmed ; the similar motion of the Office Employees
is hereby denied. ,
"Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261: , , ,
148 NLRB No . 109'.' ' ' '
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Motor Hotel, excluding maintenance department employees, office cleri-
cal employees, desk clerks, PBX operators, garage employees, guards,
and supervisors. Operating Engineers seeks to represent a unit of
maintenance department employees.' The Employer contends that
only a hotelwide unit is appropriate.
The Columbus Plaza, Motor Hotel is located in downtown'. Colum-
bus, Ohio. It has 21 floors above ground and offers the usual hotel-
motel facilities to the public : sleeping rooms, ballrooms, convention
rooms, banquet rooms, cocktail lounges, restaurants, and swimming
pool. It also has a three-floor garage below ground.
In the Arlington Hotel case,4 the Board said that in the hotel in-
dustry "all operating personnel have such a high degree of functiolnial
integration and mutuality of interest that they should be grouped to-
gether for collective bargaining purposes." . Subsequently, the Board
,decided that it would find a unit appropriate, though less than hotel-
wide in scope, where it conformed "to an existing and well-defined
area practice." 5
To establish its contention that a unit less than hotelwide was ap-
propriate here, Hotel & Restaurant Employees placed in-evidence six
collective-bargaining contracts which it had with as many individual
hotels or motels in the Columbus, Ohio, area. These contracts cover
the following units :
One contract covers all employees, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, desk clerks, and maintenance employees.
One contract covers all employees, including maintenance employ-
ees, but excluding office clerical employees and desk clerks.
One contract covers all employees, including telephone operators
and maintenance employees, but excluding office clerical employees and
desk clerks.
One contract covers all employees, including PBX operators, but
excluding office clerical employees and maintenance employees. The
latter are represented by the Operating Engineers.
One contract covers all employees, including maintenance employ-
ees, but excluding office clerical employees and telephone operators. .
One contract covers maids and porters. There are no maintenance
employees as such; the porters do the maintenance work.
There is no other evidence of bargaining practice in the Columbus
area. There is no history of bargaining for the Columbus Plaza
employees.
3 There are six or seven Employer ' s employees in the maintenance department who do
general repair work such as plumbing , painting, carpentry , and some electrical work.
They are not licensed engineers since the boilers in use are low pressure, and do not re-
quire licensed engineers,for their operation or maintenance.
4 Arlington Hotel Company , Inc., 126 NLRB 400.
B LaRonde Bar & Restaurant, Inc., et 'al., 145 NLRB 270; •Spinnenweber ' Buildera; Inc.,
d/b/a Mariemont Inn, 145 NLRB 79; Water Tower Inn, a Partnerahsp , 139;NLRB 842.
COLUMBUS PLAZA MOTOR HOTEL 1055
The above contracts show that in the Columbus, Ohio, area, office
clerical employees and desk clerks are always excluded from hotelwide
bargaining units, but that maintenance employees and telephone op-
erators may be included or excluded. Except in one hotel, there is no
bargaining for maintenance employees in a separate unit.
In view. of, the, area bargaining practice, we find that a. hotelwide
unit,' including maintenance employees, but excluding office clerical
and desk employees, is appropriate. , Although there is no uniform
practice with respect to the treatment of telephone operators, we shall
exclude them because they have a greater community of interest with
excluded clerical;ernployees and desk clerks than with other hotel em-
ployees included in the unit. We also find that a separate unit of
maintenance employees is not appropriate.
The parties disagree as to whether the following job classifications
are supervisory. Hotel & Restaurant Employees contends that they
are supervisors, the Employer that they are not, and Building Service
Employees is neutral.
Banquet captains: Banquet captains have the responsibility for
insuring that the banquet room is properly equipped, tables are prop-
erly set, the check is totaled correctly, and arrangements for payment
made. They report directly to the banquet manager. The captains
waitron tables and assist waiters, waitresses, and busboys when neces-
sary. They receive the same hourly rate as waiters, plus an additional
bonus of $15 per week. They share equally with the waiters in the
gratuity which is set by the Employer as an itemized charge on the
bill. The -captains do not hire or discharge employees. Any per-
sonnel recommendations which they make are subject to independent
investigation by the banquet manager or the assistant manager.
Compass points captains: Each of these captains is assigned, -on a
daily basis by the manager, to one of the four dining rooms where they
receive guests, seat them, and take their initial cocktail order. There-
after they supervise service by four to six waiters in the area to which
the captains have been assigned, and assist in the service of certain
dishes prepared at the tables. Unlike waiters, the captains are sal-
aried. In addition, they share in the gratuities received by waiters
under their direction. The captains cannot hire or discharge waiters
and any recommendation for personnel action they make is subject to
independent investigation by the maitre d'hotel, who is an admitted
supervisor.
Bell captains: There is one head bell captain, an admitted super-
visor, and three bell captains, each of whom is responsible for the bell-
men, who work on his 8-hour shift. The captains are hourly rated,
receive 10 cents per hour more than the bellmen, punch the same time-
clock as the latter, wear the same uniforms ' as bellmen; and take a
"turn" with them in carrying luggage of guests. The captains are
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
authorized to send home any bellman on his shift who reports. for
work in an intoxicated condition., The head bell captain then makes
an independent investigation to determine what disciplinary action
shall be taken against the bellman. The head bell captain supervises
the first and second shifts; after he leaves the bell captain,reports any:
trouble to an assistant manager. The bell captains cannot hire or fire.
We find that the banquet captains, compass points captains,'and.bell-
captains are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act., Accord-
ingly, we shall include them in the units' , , • - . '
The parties also disagree as to the inclusion of extra banquet depart-
ment employees and extra maids. Building Service Employees and
the Employer contend they are casual employees and should not be
included in the unit; Hotel & Restaurant Employees contends they are
regular part-time employees and, should be included.
Extra banquet department employees:' There are no regular ban-
quet department employees, except for the manager and assistant
manager. The manager hires waiters, waitresses, and busboys on a
day-to-day basis as needed, from a list of names which he maintains.
Extra banquet 'personnel, like the 'regular restaurant serving per-
sonnel, are hourly rated, punch a timecard, wear uniforms furnished
by the Employer, and receive a free meal. They also use the same
locker rooms as regular personnel. Banquet waiters receive 90 cents
per hour plus an equal share in the service charge established by the
Employer for each banquet in lieu of individual gratuities. Regu-
lar waiters receive 75 cents per hour plus tips. Unlike the regular
employees, the extra banquet employees do not receive vacation time
or formal training. There is, no interchange between regular and
extra staffs.
Extra maids : When the hotel is operating at, capacity, the house-
keeper must hire approximately 15 extra maids to clean and prepare
rooms for guests. Like extra employees in the banquet department,
the extra maids are hired' from a list maintained by the head house-
keeper., They are furnished a• timecard' which they use on being re-
called to work. They are paid on the basis of hours worked. Regular
maids are recruited from the'extra staff..'
The Employer placed in evidence exhibits which showed the em-
ployment history of all individuals hired as extra banquet personnel
or as extra maids from November 1963. to March 1964. These exhibits'
show that, although some of the extras worked too little to be con-
sidered other than as, casuals, others have a substantial work history
and are properly characterized as regular part-time employees? The
6 Canal Street Hotel Corporation, 127 NLRB 880, 884; Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Supra,
at 267, 268.
9 Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation , 1 ,35 NLRB 968 ; National, Hotel Company, d/b/a
Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202 .
MOONEY AIRCRAFT, INC. 1057
latter, of course, belong in the unit, the former do not. However, we
shall leave to the parties, in the first instance, the problem of devising
a formula which will separate the regular part-time from the casual
employees. If the parties are unable to agree on such a formula, extra
banquet department personnel and extra maids will be permitted to
vote subject to challenge."
We find that the following employees of the Employer at the
Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, Columbus, Ohio, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees engaged in the preparation, handling, or serving of
food and beverages, or engaged in the performance of public house-
keeping services, including maintenance department employees, gar-
age employees, banquet captains, compass points captains, bell cap-
tains, regular part-time extra banquet department employees, and
regular part-time extra maids, but excluding office clerical employees,.,
desk clerks, PBX operators, casual employees, guards, professional,
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
8Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation, supra.
Mooney Aircraft, Inc. and Lodge 725, International Association,
of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1015, 23-CA-1055,.
and 23-CA-1056. September 16, 1964
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 24, 1961, the Board issued its Decision and Order im,
these cases,' finding, inter alia, that the Respondent had defaulted in,
its statutory obligation to reinstate the unfair labor practice strikers.
by reinstating them to employment other than on the 5-day, 40-hour
week basis that had been in effect before the strike and ordering the
Respondent to make these strikers whole for any loss of earnings at
tributable to their belated and incomplete reinstatement.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
1132 NLRB 1194.
148 NLRB No. 108.
760-577-65-vol. 148-68