Dinkler-St. Charles Hotel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 1302 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Companies. In view of the foregoing, and as the employees of the two
Companies work in the same building, we find, despite the separate
corporate structures, that a single overall unit of the employees of
General and Industrial is appropriate as we have found where one
corporation performs all these functions.' Moreover, we find no
merit in the Employer's contention that the seamstresses and a plant
maintenance man cannot properly be included in any unit with other
employees as they constitute skilled craft groups whose interests differ
from those of the production employees. In the circumstances, as the
seamstresses repair garments and the maintenance man works in the
plant repairing machinery, they are, we find, clearly production and
maintenance employees who belong in the unit herein found ap-
propriate.8 We shall therefore include them .9
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer at Jacksonville, Florida, including
seamstresses and the plant maintenance man, but excluding office cler-
ical employees, professional employees, administrative employees,
timekeepers and time clerks, truckdrivers,10 guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
?Independent Linen Service Company of Mississippi, 122 NLRB 1002 ; Keystone Coat,
Apron d Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880; Stainless Welded Products , Inc., 116
NLRB 791, 792
8 San Joaquin Compress and Warehouse Company , 95 NLRB 279, 281 ; see also Filtra-
tion Engineers , Incorporated, 98 NLRB 1210, 1212.
9In view of our findings above, the Employer' s motions to dismiss on various grounds
that the requested units are not appropriate are denied.
10 The parties agreed at the hearing to the exclusion of truckdrivers and truckdriver
supervisors.
Dinkier-St . Charles Hotel , Inc.) and New Orleans Hotel Em-
ployees Trades & Craft Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 15-RC-1997. October 30, 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 Loren P. Jones,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
*On November 0, 1959, the Board issued an order approving stipulation in which the
parties stipulated and agreed that the above Decision and Direction of Election be
amended by excluding office clerical employees from the appropriate unit.
124 NLRB No. 180.
DINKLER-ST. CHARLES HOTEL, INC. 1303
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 moved on jurisdictional grounds that the petition
be dismissed. The Employer is part of a hotel chain, makes purchases
indirectly from points outside the State of Louisiana where it is lo-
cated,' had gross revenues during 1958 in excess of $500,000, and less
than 75 percent of the guests stay for a month or longer. In view of
the foregoing, we find that the Employer is engaged in interstate com-
merce and that its operations meet the Board's jurisdictional standards
for the hotel industry of which it is a part. Accordingly, we further
find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this proceeding. The Employer's motion to dismiss on jurisdic-
tional grounds is, therefore, denied .3
2. The Employer contends that the Petitioner, a council of nine
local unions, is not a labor organization, alleging it has no proper
constitution or bylaws and that it is not an organization "in which
employees participate." The Council has a set of bylaws which, inter
alia, establish its organization, providing that it shall be composed of
representatives of its member unions and setting forth as its purposes
a "uniform system of negotiations between the unions involved and
employers in the Hotel Industry" and the establishing of an "equitable
system of arbitration in order to obtain and maintain harmonious
labor management relationship." The bylaws also indirectly recog-
nize that the Council shall have the right to file representation peti-
tions. At the hearing the Petitioner's witness testified that the Council
intended to bargain with employers for such employees as choose it
as their representative and that any resulting contract would be signed
by the Council's bargaining representatives on its behalf and by
representatives of each local union involved. He further testified that
the Council and locals would be responsible for carrying out union
commitments set forth in any agreement. Though the bylaws alone
are not without their ambiguities, the record shows, in our opinion,
that the Council was established to organize and represent employees
in collective bargaining. Furthermore, it is clear that employees in
each of the member unions participate in the affairs of the Council
through their representatives on the executive board of the Council.
Consequently, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.4
2 The Employer purchases yearly from local distributors approximately $83,000 worth
of liquor, which, the record indicates, originates at points outside the State of Louisiana.
3Floridan. hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261. In view of our findings here, we also
deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen the record for the purposes of submitting further
evidence on the question of commerce.
6 See Courtaulda (Alabama), Inc., 109 NLRB 571, 572, footnote 3. As for the Em-
ployer 's contention that despite the organization of the Council the constituent unions
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated that a unit of all the Employer's employees
is appropriate. They also stipulated that certain employees or classi-
fications of employees should be excluded as confidential employees,
temporary or casual employees, guards, and supervisors .5 We shall
adopt these stipulations except that relating to confidential employees.
The parties seek to exclude as confidential, accounting clerks, pay-
roll clerk, a statistical typist, accounts receivable clerk, multilith
operator, and secretary to the sales manager. The accounting clerks
consolidate departmental charges and keep records. The payroll
clerk makes up the payroll for all the office, keeps payroll records, and
handles all payroll. The statistical typist is the auditor's secretary
and types statistical reports and performs other jobs as requested by
the auditor. The accounts-receivable clerk takes care of the accounts
receivable and the city ledger account and makes up monthly state-
ments. The multilith operator prints all the documents dealing with
accounts, sales, and catering department. As for the secretary to the
sales manager, she does all of his typing and all his correspondence
and maintains the sales office files. The parties apparently base their
agreement that these employees are confidential on the ground that
they handle material dealing with the Employer's financial matters.
However, the Board has defined as confidential "only those employees
who assist and act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate,
determine, and effectuate management policy in the field of labor
relations." 6 Clearly, the employees in the classifications listed above
do not fall within the category of confidential as so defined. Rather,
we find, in view of their duties as described above, that they are office
clerical employees,' and properly belong in the stipulated unit which
includes all of the Employer's other office clericals.' We shall, there-
fore, include them.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collec-
intend to bargain separately for particular groups of employees in the unit , it is sufficient
to note that only the Petitioner's name will be placed on the ballot and, if it is certified,
the Employer may then insist that it bargain as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the unit.
8 As to the latter three categories the parties agree that three temporary carpenters and
all irregular and casual banquet employees should be excluded as temporary or casual
employees ; that the house officers and watchmen should be excluded as guards ; and that
the auditor, assistant auditor , general cashier , sales manager , general manager , assistant
manager, head house officer , superintendent of service , transportation manager, executive
housekeeper , assistant housekeeper , catering manager, assistant catering manager, chef,
head cook, laundry manager, chief engineer , assistant chief engineer , and the head barber
should be included as supervisors.
6 B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722.
7 See The Kroger Company , 116 NLRB 1842 ; Sears Roebuck & Company, 112 NLRB
559, 560-561.
8 See Raybestos Manhattan, Inc., 115 NLRB 1036.
HALL-SCOTT, INCORPORATED 1305
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All
employees including the accounting clerks, payroll clerk, statistical
typist, accounts receivable clerk, multilith operator, secretary to the
sales manager, and all regular and part-time employees employed at
the Employer's hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana, but excluding tem-
porary or casual employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act?
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 The parties agreed that two bootblacks should be included in the unit if employees of
the Employer , but excluded if concessionaires . There is insufficient evidence in the
record to determine the relationship existing between the bootblacks and the Employer.
we shall, therefore, permit them to vote subject to challenge.
Hall-Scott , Incorporated, and its successor , Sequoia Wire and
Cable Company 1 and August E . Sommerfeld
Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Union
No. 170 and August E. Sommerfeld . Cases Nos. 21-CA-0805
and 21-CB-950. October 21, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 26, 1959, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondents named above had not engaged in the unfair
labor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint herein and recom-
mending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a
supporting brief 2
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case.
We find merit in the exceptions and accordingly adopt the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner only insofar
as they are consistent with our findings, conclusions, and order herein
set forth.
1 At the close of the hearing, the Trial Examiner dismissed the complaint as to
Sequoia Wire and Cable Company because the record failed to show that it was a suc-
cessor to Hall-Scott , Incorporated. As no exceptions to the ruling have been filed, it is
adopted pro forma.
2 The Respondent Union also filed exceptions to a single subsidiary finding of the Trial
Examiner. we agree with the Respondent Union that there is no basis in the record for
the Trial Examiner ' s finding that when Sommerfeld was demoted from leadman to welder
in July 1957 his rate of pay was set below that of the other welder.
124 NLRB No. 168.