Holiday Inn Alton

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1405 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

HOLIDAY INN ALTON
Albanese Development Corporation d/b/a Holiday
Inn Alton and Hotel Employees Restaurant
Employees, Southern Illinois Local 15, AFL-
CIO, affiliated with International Union of
Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees. Case
14-RC-9775
26 June 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS
By telegraphic order dated 29 September 1983,
the National Labor Relations Board granted the
Employer's request for review. The board has dele-
gated its authority in this case to a three-member
panel, which has consider the entire record with
respect to the issues under review, and makes fol-
lowing findings.
The Employer operates a hotel and restaurant fa-
cility which contains 139 guestrooms, banquet fa-
cilities, a lounge/bar, a game room, a restaurant,
and a large recreation area called the Holidome.
Approximately 79 employees work in the facility
under the overall supervision on the general man-
ager. All employees are eligible for the same em-
ployment benefits and are subject to the same cen-
tralized policies concerning grievance procedures,
transfers, probations, and rules of conduct.
On 2 September 1983 the Regional Director for
Region 14 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining the petitioned-for unit composed of all
full-time and regular part-time housekeeping em-
ployees, including maids, laundry employees, and
housekeeping housemen at the Employer's Alton,
Illinois facility, excluding office clerical and profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act, and all
other employees. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a
request for review, contending that the Regional
Director had departed from officially reported
Board precedent and made clearly erroneous factu-
al findings in directing an election in an allegedly
inappropriate unit.
By telegraphic order dated 29 September 1983,
the National Labor Relations Board granted the
Employer's request for review. The Board has del-
egated its authority in this case to a three-member
panel, which has considered the entire record with
respect to the issues under review, and makes the
following findings.
270 NLRB No. 199
The Employer operates a hotel and restaurant fa-
cility which contains 139 guestrooms, banquet fa-
cilities, a lounge/bar, a game room, a restaurant,
and a large recreation area called the Holidome.
Approximately 79 employees work in the facility
under the overall supervision of the general manag-
er. All employees are eligible for the same employ-
ment benefits and are subject to the same central-
ized policies concerning grievance procedures,
transfers, probations, and rules of conduct. All em-
ployees punch in and out of work at one of two
timeclocks.
The question presented here is whether a bar-
gaining unit limited to those employees in the peti-
tioned-for unit is appropriate. The Employer con-
tends that it is not and that an appropriate unit
should include all full-time and regular part-time
employees or at least the front desk clerks, banquet
housemen, and bellmen in addition to those em-
ployees in the petitioned-for unit. The Petitioner
has disclaimed interest in proceeding to an election
for any unit other than the one found appropriate
by the Regional Director.
There are 24 housekeeping and laundry employ-
ees in the petitioned-for unit: 17 maids, 4 laundry
employees, and 3 housekeeping housemen. The
maids clean the guestrooms and furnish them with
linens and other staples. The housekeeping house-
men pick up soiled linen and trash from the maids'
carts, keep the carts stocked, deliver cribs and
rollaways to the guestrooms, set up and clean the
two conference rooms located in the guestroom
area, and vacuum and mop the lounge, game room,
and public restrooms. The laundry employees
wash, fold, and shelve the soiled laundry, all of
which is deposited by other employees at the hotel
laundry room.
The housekeeping department employees work
only on 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift. They are sepa-
rately supervised by the executive housekeeper and
the assistant executive housekeeper. They receive
the same hourly wage. There have been no em-
ployee transfers in or out of the department.
The front desk is maintained by seven desk
clerks and four bellmen who are supervised by the
front desk manager. The front desk clerks are in
charge of reservations, registration, and the billing
of hotel, lounge, and restaurant guests. The desk
clerks direct guests' requests to bellmen and house-
keeping employees and keep a supply of towels at
the desk for the guests' convenience. If there are
no clean guestrooms available for arrivals after the
housekeeping employees have left for the day, the
desk clerks will clean and make ready the guest-
rooms that are needed. The bellmen carry luggage,
make room service deliveries, help answer the
1405
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
front desk telephone, set up conference rooms, help
in the restaurant, and make runs to and from the
airport in the hotel automobile. In addition, when
housemen are not at work, the bellmen clean the
main lounge and public areas, and deliver cribs and
rollaways to the guestrooms. Approximately 50
percent of the bellmen's time is spent in the guest-
room area.
The three banquet housemen are supervised by
the food and beverage manager and the lounge
manager and the lounge manager/assistant food
and beverage manager. They set up meeting and
banquet functions in designated rooms in the hotel
and are responsible for vacuuming and keeping
these rooms clean. They regularly arrange func-
tions in the conference rooms located in the guest-
room area, where they are assisted by the bellmen
and housekeeping housemen.
The Regional Director found that the petitioned-
for unit of housekeeping employees constituted a
distinct department: that they are separately super-
vised; that they perform work different from the
other employees; and that their only contact with
the other employees occurs while these employees
are performing their separate functions. Based on
these findings the Regional Director determined
that the unit housekeeping employees sought by
the Petitioner is appropriate. We do not agree.
In Ramada Inns, 221 NLRB 689 (1975), the Peti-
tioner sought a unit of housekeeping and laundry
employees, excluding, inter alia, the bellmen. The
Board broadened the unit to include bellmen, based
on its findings that during the evening and early
mornings the bellmen performed duties normally
performed by maids during the day. During the
maids' and housekeeping housemen's off hours, the
bellmen cleaned and made ready guestrooms for
late or unexpected arrivals, they delivered rollaway
beds and cribs to the guestrooms, answered calls
from guests for towels, soap, and clean linens, and
cleaned the main lounge and lounge restrooms.
Like the bellmen in Ramada Inns, the desk
clerks, bellmen, and banquet housemen in this case
have similar responsibilities and perform many of
the same duties as the housekeeping employees.
When the maids are not present the desk clerks
clean and prepare guestrooms. Similarly, the bell-
men clean the main lounge and the lounge rest-
rooms when the housekeeping housemen are not
present. They also deliver rollaways, cribs, and
linens to the guestrooms during the housekeeping
housemen's off hours. The banquet housemen have
the same responsibilities with respect to maintain-
ing and servicing the banquet and meetings rooms
as do the maids and housekeeping housemen in the
guestroom area. In short, our review of the record
demonstrates that despite separate immediate super-
vision, the desk clerks, bellmen, and banquet house-
men regularly and frequently interchange duties
with the housekeeping employees. In light of this
functional integration and other common terms and
conditions of employment, we find that the peti-
tioned-for unit of housekeeping employees is inap-
propriate and must be broadened to include at least
the additional employee classifications described
above. We do not, however, find it necessary to
determine which unit or units would be appropri-
ate because the Petitioner is unwilling to proceed
to an election in an expanded unit.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
1406