Holiday Inn City Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 2000

332 N.L.R.B. 1246 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1246
Lodgian, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn City Center and Ho-
tel Employees Restaurant Employees Interna-
tional Union, Petitioner. Case 9–RC–17459
November 14, 2000
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS FOX
AND HURTGEN
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel,
which has considered the Employer’s request for review
of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election (pertinent portions are attached as an appen-
dix).1 The request for review is denied as it raises no
substantial issues warranting review. 2

APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
5. The Employer, a corporation, operates a hotel in Colum-
bus, Ohio where it employs approximately 63 employees, re-
ferred to by the Employer as associates, in the unit found ap-
propriate. There is no history of collective bargaining affecting
any of the employees involved in this proceeding.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit comprising of all
housekeeping, laundry and food and beverage employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Columbus, Ohio facility, exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, front office employees, main-
tenance employees, all employees furnished by supplier em-
ployers and all professional employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act. The Employer maintains that any unit
must include, in addition to the employees sought by the Peti-
tioner, the front office employees, maintenance employees and
employees furnished by its two supplier employers, ARRA
Corporation (ARRA) and Food Team, Inc. (Food Team). The
Employer contends that it is a joint employer with ARRA and
Food Team of the employees furnished by these two supplier
employers at its Columbus, Ohio facility. Although provided
with notice of the hearing, neither ARRA or Food Team made
an appearance at the hearing nor did they request that the hear-
ing be postponed. Indeed, ARRA administratively advised the
Region that it did not intend to appear at the hearing or partici-
pate in this proceeding. Food Team merely administratively
advised the Region, prior to the hearing, that it had not decided
whether it intended to participate but did not enter any appear-
ance at the hearing.

om the
un
1 The only issues raised in the request for review were whether the
Regional Director erred in finding: (1) a unit of hotel housekeeping,
food and beverage, and maintenance employees, excluding front office
employees, to be appropriate; and (2) that the inclusion in the unit of
jointly employed employees supplied by two supplier employers was
not required.
2 In denying review of the Regional Director’s finding that inclusion
of the jointly employed employees is not required, we emphasize that
we are not passing on the issue of whether a unit that encompasses both
the solely employed employees and jointly employed employees also
would be appropriate under a community-of-interest analysis. We also
do not pass on the Regional Director’s conclusion that the jointly em-
ployed employees may constitute a separate appropriate unit. In agree-
ing with the Regional Director’s finding that the unit is appropriate
even if it excludes the jointly employed employees, we stress the fact
that the Petitioner is seeking to represent employees solely employed
by the Employer, and thus is seeking to bargain only with the Em-
ployer, and not the supplier employers.
In view of my ultimate finding and the prior notice of hear-
ing served on ARRA and Food Team, it could not be argued
that any party was denied due process by proceeding with the
hearing. M. B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB No. 173 at fn. 23
(2000). The Petitioner declined to take a position with respect
to whether the Employer is a joint employer with ARRA and/or
Food Team for the employees furnished by the supplier em-
ployers for the Employer’s Columbus, Ohio operation, but has
taken the position that such supplied employees, in any event,
should be excluded from the unit. However, the Petitioner
expressed a willingness to proceed to an election in any unit
found appropriate.

The parties stipulated, and the record shows, that the general
manager, Hammand Shah; the assistant general man-
ager/director of operations, Jeff Smith; the front office man-
ager/assistant director of operations, David Brooks; the revenue
manager/assistant front office manager, Paul Faisant; the
executive housekeeper, Stephanie Gilmore; the assistant
executive housekeeper, Greg Williams; chef, a currently vacant
position; and the chief engineer, a currently vacant position,
have the authority to hire and discipline employees or to
effectively recommend such action or to effectively direct em-
ployees’ work in a manner requiring the use of independent
judgment and are supervisors within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall exclude them fr
it. The parties are also in agreement that the general manager’s
secretary, the controller, the assistant controller, the sales coor-
dinator, sales managers, the director of sales and the human
resources manager could not properly be included in any unit
found appropriate. Although the reason(s) for excluding these
individuals from the unit are not clear from the testimony, it
appears from the record that they are office clerical, managerial
or professional employees or otherwise do not share a commu-
nity of interest with the unit employees. Accordingly, in
agreement with the parties, I shall exclude them from the unit.
However, the parties are in disagreement over the unit place-
ment of the acting chief engineer, John Terry. Contrary to the
Employer, the Petitioner would apparently exclude Terry from
the unit as a maintenance employee as well as on the additional
ground that he is a statutory supervisor.
I. THE EMPLOYER’S OPERATION
The Employer’s hotel consists of a single facility located in
Columbus, Ohio. The facility has 11 floors above ground and a
basement, an outside pool, and a parking area operated by a
private firm. The lobby, several administrative offices, a public
restaurant (Green Street Restaurant) and bar/lounge (Green
Street Bar), several banquet and conference rooms, restrooms, a
timeclock, a laundry and a kitchen are located on the first floor.
In addition, Avis Rent-A-Car maintains an office on the first
floor of the facility. The main entrance opens into the lobby
and is used by both guests and employees to enter and exit the
332 NLRB No. 128
HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER 1247
hotel. The remaining floors of the hotel consist of 240 guest
rooms, several banquet and meeting areas and numerous stor-
age closets. The 11th (top) floor is referred to as the “priority
club” and its rooms are leased to priority guests. In addition, to
the special services, such as a continental breakfast in the morn-
ing and hors d’oeuvres and drinks in the evening, provided the
priority guests by a concierge or other hotel personnel, there is
a club room which serves as a “lite restaurant” and other ameni-
ties located on the priority floor. The basement houses the
maintenance shop, employee lockers and a cafeteria, which is
supplied by the hotel kitchen, available only to hotel personnel.
The hotel is open around-the-clock, 365 days per year.
However, the restaurant and bar, which serve the general public
as well as guests, are opened only during specific scheduled
hours of operation. The general manager, Hammad Shah, who
has held this position for approximately 6 months, is responsi-
ble for the overall operation of the hotel. Shah is assisted by
Smith, who is generally present during the day, and Brooks,
who primarily works at night. The other members of supervi-
sion and apparently in some cases various groups of employees
report directly to Smith or Brooks. Hiring decisions are initi-
ated by department heads in conjunction with the human re-
sources manager, but Shah’s approval is required before anyone
can be hired. Although the department heads can apparently
initiate discipline, Shah must approve any discharge.
The Employer’s managers and supervisors, as well as the
controller, assistant controller, sales staff, human resources
manager, and other secretarial and office personnel, whom the
parties agree are properly excluded from the unit, primarily
work out of first floor locations. In addition to these individu-
als who are located on the first floor, the Employer’s operation
primarily consists of a housekeeping department, a food and
beverage department, a front office department and a mainte-
nance department. All the employees whom the parties agree
are included in the unit, as well as those in dispute, work in one
of these four departments. All hourly-paid employees punch a
timeclock located on the first floor. Moreover, all employees
employed exclusively by the Employer are eligible for health
insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, vacation days, paid
sick leave and a 401(k) plan. However, the employees fur-
nished by ARRA and Food Team, discussed in more detail in
the joint employer and unit scope portions of the Decision, are
hired and paid by the supplier employers and are not entitled to
any of the benefits available to employees employed solely by
the Employer. Each department conducts separate daily “hud-
dles” at which the day’s agenda is discussed. At these “de-
partment huddles” the lobby ambassador for the day, which
rotates among the supervisory personnel, discusses any special
problems reported by the guests. In addition, the Employer
conducts periodic “guest tracking” meetings among all employ-
ees at which problems are discussed. The Employer also has a
safety committee which includes participants from all depart-
ments. Finally, the Employer has a planning committee made
up of various personnel from all departments which meets peri-
odically to discuss problems and establish procedure.
The housekeeping department employs 17 room attendants,
3 house persons, 4 housekeeping inspectors, 6 laundry atten-
dants, and a commercial attendant. In addition to the room
attendants it directly employs, the Employer utilizes the ser-
vices of seven room attendants, discussed in more detail under
the unit scope portion of the Decision, supplied by ARRA. The
executive housekeeper, Stephanie Gilmore, who reports to
Smith, is in charge of the housekeeping department. Gilmore is
assisted by the assistant executive housekeeper, Greg Williams.
Gilmore or Williams schedules the housekeeping department
employees and gives them their work assignments.
The room attendants, regardless of whether they are em-
ployed exclusively by the Employer or supplied by ARRA, are
responsible for the cleanliness of the rooms. They are assigned
“a board” which lists the rooms they are to clean during the
shift. A board generally consists of 16 rooms. The rooms must
be cleaned to standards established by the hotel. In addition,
room attendants may occasionally be called on to clean other
areas of the hotel by supervision.
The house persons help support the room attendants by pro-
viding them with linen and other supplies. In addition, the
house persons are responsible for vacuuming, sweeping and
mopping the hallways and stairwells, cleaning the elevators and
polishing brass. They also make sure that there is a sufficient
inventory of linen, soap and supplies available.
The housekeeping inspectors are responsible for checking
guest rooms to make sure they have been cleaned according to
the Employer’s standards. Each inspector is responsible for an
assigned number of rooms. In the event a room is not cleaned
according to established standards, the housekeeping inspector
will correct the problem if it is something minor or may have
the room attendant return and reclean the room so it meets the
Employer’s criteria. In addition, housekeeping inspectors may
help attendants clean rooms in emergency situations. Finally,
housekeeping inspectors are responsible for entering the rooms
into the computer as they are cleaned, indicating whether they
are vacant or occupied, so the front desk employees will know
whether a room can be assigned to a guest.
The laundry attendants are responsible for washing and dry-
ing all linen from guest rooms and the food and beverage area.
After the material is washed and dried, the laundry attendants
fold the linen, discarding any unusable items, and have the
supplies ready for the room attendants and food and beverage
employees the next day.
The commercial attendant is responsible for cleaning the
lobby, restaurant and front office areas. He also cleans the
restrooms in the lobby and makes sure the area around the pub-
lic telephones is clean. The commercial attendant is also re-
sponsible for emptying garbage from the offices and front desk
areas of the hotel.
The house attendants and house persons report at various
times in order to cover the facility from 7 a.m. to approximately
11 p.m. The housekeeping inspectors generally work an 8-hour
day shift, but one, Vicky Porter, works in the evening. The
laundry attendants work either from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. or from 3
p.m. to approximately 10 or 10:30 p.m. Finally, the commer-
cial attendant works an 8-hour shift, Monday through Friday.
The room attendants, except for the seven supplied by ARRA,
earn between $6.75 and $8.15 per hour. The house attendants,
apparently including the ones supplied by ARRA, are also enti-
tled to tips and participate in the “eagle card” program which
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1248
entitles them to lottery tickets based on compliments from
guests who complete guest cards concerning room service. The
house persons are paid between $6.75 and $8.03 per hour and
the housekeeping inspectors receive between $7.75 and $8.50
per hour. Finally, the laundry attendants earn between $6.75
and $8.25 per hour and the range of pay for the commercial
attendant is between $6.75 and $7.25 per hour. The housekeep-
ing employees, except the house attendants supplied by ARRA,
are eligible for health, dental and life insurance, sick pay, vaca-
tions, paid holidays and a 401(k) plan. All housekeeping de-
partment employees wear the same type uniform, a green polo
shirt and black pants.
The food and beverage department is under the direct super-
vision of Smith. However, the record discloses that Brooks has
supervisory responsibility over the food and beverage employ-
ees at night when Smith is not at the facility and the chef, an
open position at the time of the hearing, has supervisory re-
sponsibility over the kitchen employees. The food and bever-
age department employs two banquet servers, two banquet
setup employees, two cashiers/hostesses, seven restaurant serv-
ers, seven room server attendants, four cooks, two kitchen util-
ity employees and three bartenders. In addition, the Employer
utilizes two servers furnished by ARRA and three servers sup-
plied by Food Team, discussed in detail below, in its food and
beverage operation.
The restaurant servers wait tables and serve meals and drinks
to customers. The room server attendants provide room ser-
vices to the guests. The cashiers/hostesses seat customers in
the restaurant and receive payments from patrons for meals and
drinks. The banquet setup employees prepare and setup con-
ference and meeting rooms for banquets and group meetings
and the banquet servers are responsible for serving attendees at
such banquets and group meetings. The cooks prepare meals
served at the restaurant and for banquets as well as for employ-
ees who utilize the employee cafeteria located in the basement
of the hotel. The kitchen utility employees wash kitchen uten-
sils and clean the kitchen area. Finally, the bartenders are re-
sponsible for preparing drinks and for controlling the bar area
of the hotel.
The restaurant servers and room server attendants employed
solely by the Employer are paid from $3.25 to $3.60 per hour
but most of their wages appear to come from tips. The other
employees in the food and beverage department receive be-
tween $6.50 (entry level for cashiers/hostesses) and $10 per
hour for the highest paid cook. Like the restaurant servers and
room server attendants, banquet setup, banquet servers and
bartenders are entitled to tips. All employees in the food and
beverage department employed exclusively by the Employer
are eligible for the same benefits received by its other solely
employed employees. The employees who work in the food
and beverage department wear uniforms which may differ in
style and color depending on their position. The schedule for
employees in the food and beverage department are posted by
management and their work hours vary to cover the time when
the Employer’s restaurant and bar are open and to cover ban-
quets and special events. It appears that some of these employ-
ees may be regular part-time employees but the parties are in
agreement, except for the supplied employees, that they are
properly included in the unit.
The Employer employs 21 employees in what it classifies as
front office positions. It employs six front desk/guest service
agents (GSA), four night auditors, eight bellmen/van drivers,
one reservationist, and two concierges. The front end operation
is under the direct supervision of Brooks and Faisant. The unit
placement of the front office employees is in dispute and they
are discussed in detail under the unit composition portion of the
decision.
Finally, the Employer employs four maintenance engineers,
including the acting chief engineer, John Terry. The chief en-
gineer position, which the parties stipulated was supervisory, is
currently vacant. Terry was offered, but declined the chief
engineer position for health reasons. The Employer anticipates
filling the position in the future. Like the front office employ-
ees, the unit placement of the maintenance engineers, including
the supervisory status of Terry, is in dispute and will be dis-
cussed in detail under the unit composition portion of the Deci-
sion.
II. THE JOINT EMPLOYER ISSUE
The Employer maintains that it is a joint employer with
ARRA and Food Team of the employees who work at its facil-
ity supplied by the two supplier employers. The Petitioner
declined to take a position on the joint employer issue, but
maintains that, in any event, the contract employees should be
excluded from the unit. The Employer has a written contractual
arrangement with ARRA under which ARRA supplies the Em-
ployer with seven room attendants and two food and beverage
employees. The contract is effective June 6, 2000 and is for a
1-year period. The contract provides that the Employer will
reimburse ARRA at the straight rate of $9.25 per hour for each
employee supplied for the first 30 days of employment and
after the first 30 days at the rate of $9.75 per hour. The con-
tract prohibits the Employer from directly employing any em-
ployee furnished by ARRA for a period of 1 year after such
employee ceases performing services for ARRA. The Em-
ployer also utilizes three food and beverage employees fur-
nished by Food Team. The Employer does not have a written
contract with Food Team. However, the record discloses that
the Employer reimburses Food Team at the rate of $8.75 per
hour for straight time and at the rate of $13.24 per hour for all
overtime worked by each employee supplied by Food Team.
The record discloses that ARRA and Food Team directly
employ the employees they supply the Employer. The Em-
ployer does not have any involvement in the hiring process or
control over the initial assignment of employees by the supplier
employers. ARRA and Food Team establish the rate of pay for
their employees and are responsible for all taxes and workers’
compensation for such employees. The supplier employers
provide the contract employees with any benefits they may
receive since they are not eligible for the fringe benefits fur-
nished by the Employer to the employees who it directly em-
ploys.
The record discloses that ARRA began supplying employees
to the Employer approximately 6 months ago and Food Team
has been furnishing the Employer with employees for approxi-
HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER 1249
mately 1 month. The Employer can discontinue the services of
any of the supplied employees, but it is up to ARRA and Food
Team to discipline and discharge such employees. However,
the record discloses that none of the employees supplied to the
Employer have been removed from service. If a disciplinary
problem occurred with a supplier employee, the evidence dis-
closes that the Employer would contact the supplier employer
and if the circumstances warranted, the Employer could have
the employee removed from its service.
Neither ARRA nor Food Team has any supervision or man-
agement officials at the Employer’s facility and apparently does
not have any contact with these employees on a daily basis.
The supplied employees in question apparently work exclu-
sively for the Employer who schedules their hours and makes
their work assignments. The Employer is also responsible for
directing the work of the supplied employees while they are on
the job. The Employer collects the time records for these em-
ployees which it forwards to the supplier employers to compute
their pay. It appears that some of the supplied employees are
foreign workers who are in the country on work permits. The
supplier employers are responsible for obtaining I-9 forms from
such employees, but copies are provided to the Employer.
The contract employees have the same duties and responsi-
bilities as the Employer’s exclusively employed employees
with whom they work. The contract employees wear the same
uniforms, share the same employee facilities and generally
work the same hours. However, there was some testimony that
ARRA supplied employees may receive more extra work be-
cause the Employer does not reimburse ARRA at a higher rate
when such employees work overtime. The contract employees
have the same lunch and break periods as other employees and
use the same employee cafeteria.
Under Board precedent, to establish that two or more em-
ployers are joint employers, the entities must share or codeter-
mine matters governing essential terms and conditions of em-
ployment of “jointly employed” employees. Riverdale Nursing
Home, 317 NLRB 881, 882 (1995). See also NLRB v. Brown-
ing-Ferris Industries, 691 F.2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982).
Such employers must jointly and meaningfully affect matters
relating to the employment relationship of the joint employees,
such as hiring, firing, disciplining, supervising and directing.
Riverdale Nursing Home, 317 NLRB at 882; TLI, Inc., 271
NLRB 798 (1984). Here, the Employer assigns, directs, and
oversees the daily work of the employees supplied by ARRA
and Food Team. Moreover, the supplied employees perform
the same duties, wear the same uniforms and share the same
employee facilities as the employees exclusively employed by
the Employer. The Employer monitors the time worked by the
supplied employees and can have the employees removed from
its service. On the other hand, the supplier employers are re-
sponsible for hiring such employees, paying their wages, de-
ducting taxes and paying for their workers’ compensation.
Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the Employer and
the supplier employers affect and codetermine essential terms
and conditions of employment of the supplied employees.
Accordingly, in agreement with the Employer, I find that the
Employer is a joint employer with ARRA and Food Team for
the employees furnished the Employer by these two supplier
employers. Riverdale Nursing Home, 317 NLRB at 882; TLI,
Inc., supra.
III. SCOPE OF UNIT
Having found that the Employer is a joint employer with
ARRA and Food Team, I must consider whether the jointly
employed employees supplied by ARRA and Food Team must
be included in the unit with the employees exclusively em-
ployed by the Employer. The Employer maintains that the
supplied employees must be included in the unit with its solely
employed employees. On the other hand, the Petitioner con-
tends that the jointly employed employees are properly ex-
cluded from the unit of the Employer’s own employees whom
the Petitioner seeks to represent.
In M.B. Sturgis, Inc., et al., supra, the Board recently ad-
dressed the question of “whether and under what circumstances
employees who are jointly employed by a ‘user’ employer and
a ‘supplier’ employer can be included for representational pur-
poses in a bargaining unit with employees who are solely em-
ployed by the user employer.” For many years, prior to Sturgis,
the Board considered units comprised of jointly employed em-
ployees and exclusively employed employees of one of the
joint employers to constitute multi-employer bargaining and
consequently declined to combine such employees in the same
unit absent the consent of all the employers. Greenhoot, Inc.,
205 NLRB 250 (1973); Lee Hospital, 300 NLRB 947 (1990).
See also, Hexacomb Corp., 313 NLRB 983 (1994). In Sturgis,
the Board noted that Greenhoot stands only for the proposition
that where two or more user employers obtain employees from
a supplier employer, a bargaining unit comprised of all the
employees of the user and supplier employers is multi-
employer and requires the consent of the respective employers.
In Lee Hospital, the Board extended the Greenhoot multi-
employer concept to include situations where a single user em-
ployer obtained employees from one or more supplier em-
ployer.
In Sturgis, the Board recognized the importance of supplied
and contract labor in today’s “contingent work force.” Thus,
the Board, in Sturgis, reaffirmed Greenhoot insofar as it re-
quires employer consent for the creation of true multi-employer
units involving separate user employers. However, the Board
held that Lee Hospital was erroneously decided and as a conse-
quence, numerous employees, as part of the contingent work
force, had been denied representational rights under the Act.
M.B. Sturgis, Inc., et al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 1.
Thus, the Board overruled Lee Hospital. M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et
al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 8. In overruling Lee Hospi-
tal, the Board, in Sturgis, found the fact that a single user em-
ployer obtains employees from one or more supplier employer
does not establish a true multi-employer relationship and that
such supplied employees may be properly included in a unit
with the user employer’s solely employed employees without
the consent of any of the employers. M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et al.,
331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 8–9. See also Professional
Facilities Management, 332 NLRB No. 40 (2000), as well as
pre-Greenhoot decisions in Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co., 71
NLRB 579 (1946); Taylor’s Oak Ridge Corp., 74 NLRB 930
(1947); Stack & Co., 97 NLRB 1492 (1952); cited with ap-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1250
proval by the Board in Sturgis. Moreover, in reaffirming the
general principles of Greenhoot, the Board clarified that deci-
sion to make clear that an overall unit of the employees of a
supplier employer could be appropriate regardless of the num-
ber of user employers to whom such employees may be as-
signed. M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op.
at 11.
Although the Board, in Sturgis, found that jointly employed
and solely employed employees of a single user employer, like
here, could be included in the same unit, it specifically noted
that it did not intend to suggest that every unit combining both
groups of employees would be found appropriate. M. B. Stur-
gis, Inc., et al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 9. The Board
held that its traditional community-of-interest factors must be
applied in determining the appropriateness of units in which a
party seeks to include both jointly supplied employees and the
solely employed employees of a user employer. M.B. Sturgis,
Inc., et al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 12.
As the Board instructed in Sturgis, I have applied the stan-
dard community of interest criteria in determining whether the
jointly employed employees here, as contended by the Em-
ployer, must be combined in the same unit with its regular em-
ployees whom the Petitioner seeks to separately represent. The
traditional community of interest test examines a variety of
factors to determine whether a mutuality of interest in wages
and working conditions exist among the employees in question.
Kalamazoo Paper Box, 136 NLRB 137 (1962); Swift & Co.,
129 NLRB 1391 (1961). In analyzing community of interest
among employee groups, the Board considers bargaining his-
tory, functional integration, employee interchange, employee
skills, work performed, common supervision and similarity in
wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment. J. C. Penney Co., 328 NLRB 766 (1999); Armco,
Inc., 271 NLRB 350 (1984).
In Kalamazoo, the Board stated:

Because the scope or unit is basic to and permeates the whole
collective bargaining relationship, each determination, in or-
der to further effective expression of the statutory provisions,
must have a direct relevancy to the circumstances within
which collective bargaining is to take place. For, if the unit
determination fails to relate to the factual situation with which
the parties must deal, efficient and stable collective bargaining
is undermined rather than fostered. Id. at 137. Accord: Gus-
tave, Inc., 257 NLRB 1069 (1981).

Thus, when the interests of one group of employees are dissimilar
from those of another group, the employees need not be combined
in a single unit. Swift & Co., supra. However, the fact that two or
more groups of employees may have some different interests does
not render a combined unit inappropriate if there is a sufficient
community of interest among all of the employees. Berea Publish-
ing Co., 140 NLRB 516, 518 (1963). See also Brand Precision
Services, 313 NLRB 657 (1994).
In applying the community of interest test to determine the
scope and composition of bargaining units, the Board has con-
sistently held that Section 9(a) of the Act only requires that a
unit sought by a petitioning labor organization be an appropri-
ate unit for purposes of collective bargaining and that there is
nothing in the statute which requires that the unit for bargaining
be the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit or even the
most appropriate unit. Morand Bros. Beverage Co., 91 NLRB
409, 418 (1950). The Act requires only that the unit sought be
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. National
Cash Register Co., 166 NLRB 173 (1967). Moreover, the unit
sought by the petitioning labor organization is always a relevant
consideration and a union is not required to seek representation
in the most comprehensive grouping of employees unless an
appropriate unit compatible to that requested does not exist.
Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB 723 (1996); Dezcon,
Inc., 295 NLRB 109 (1989). Although the broader unit scope
urged by the Employer may be appropriate, it does not, ipso
facto, render a unit compatible to the one sought by the Peti-
tioner inappropriate. Overnite Transportation Co., supra. For
example, in determining whether a unit of drivers and dock
workers, excluding mechanics was appropriate, the Board, in
Overnite, found that the mechanics could constitute a separate
appropriate unit. Upon finding the mechanics could constitute
a separate unit, the Board concluded that the mechanics did not
share such a close community of interest with the drivers and
dock workers to mandate their inclusion in the same unit.
Overnite Transportation Co., 322 NLRB at 724–725.
I must now review the relationship between the Employer’s
solely employed employees and its supplied employees to de-
termine whether they must be combined in the same unit. The
record clearly discloses that the jointly employed employees
share some interests with the solely employed employees of the
Employer whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. For exam-
ple, the seven room attendants supplied by ARRA work side-
by-side with the Employer’s attendants. The supplied room
attendants perform the identical work under the same supervi-
sion and working conditions as the Employer’s regular employ-
ees. All room attendants, regardless of whether they are jointly
or solely employed by the Employer, work essentially the same
hours and are scheduled in the same manner by common super-
vision. The supplied attendants are apparently assigned exclu-
sively to the Employer and wear the same uniforms as the Em-
ployer’s regular employees which contain the name of the ho-
tel. Moreover, the Employer monitors the supplied attendants’
time which it forwards to ARRA for payroll purposes.
Likewise, the two servers furnished by ARRA and the three
servers supplied by Food Team have many interests in common
with the food and beverage employees solely employed by the
Employer. Like the ARRA supplied room attendants, the
jointly employed food and beverage employees work side-by-
side with the Employer’s regular employees and perform the
same duties. The supplied food and beverage employees are
assigned to work exclusively for the Employer and the Em-
ployer’s supervisors schedule their hours and make their work
assignments. Both the jointly and exclusively employed food
and beverage employees work under the same supervision and
wear similar uniforms. The Employer also monitors the time
worked by the joint employees and forwards the time records to
the supplier employers for payroll purposes.
Although the above factors establish that the jointly em-
ployed and solely employed employees of the Employer have
HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER 1251
many common interests, it is undisputed that there are some
major differences in their terms and conditions of employment.
For example, the jointly employed employees are hired by the
supplier employers without any input by the Employer. The
supplier employers establish and control the wages received by
the supplied employees and such employees continue to be
carried on the payroll of the supplier employers. The supplier
employers are also responsible for all taxes and workers’ com-
pensation for the supplied employees. The jointly employed
employees are not entitled to the benefits furnished by the Em-
ployer for its solely employed employees and fringe benefits, if
any, enjoyed by the jointly employed employees are provided
by the supplier employers. Although the Employer can have a
jointly employed employee removed from service, it is solely
the responsibility of the supplier employers to discharge or
discipline the supplied employees. Finally, the supplied em-
ployees do not automatically become a regular employee of the
Employer. Indeed, it does not appear from the record that the
supplied employees are even considered for regular employ-
ment by the Employer and with respect to the ARRA furnished
contract employees, the Employer is specifically prohibited by
the labor contract from directly hiring any of them for at least a
year after they cease performing work for ARRA.
Having carefully considered the entire record and the tradi-
tional community of interest factors relied on by the Board, I
conclude that the employees solely employed by the Employer,
whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, excluding the employ-
ees supplied by the two joint employers, constitute an appropri-
ate unit for collective bargaining. The combined unit of the
supplied employees and the Employer’s regular employees, as
urged by the Employer, may also be appropriate. Indeed, there
are a number of factors, discussed in detail above, which estab-
lishes common interest between the supplied employees and
those employed exclusively by the Employer. For example,
both groups of employees perform the same type work, wear
the same type uniforms, work essentially the same hours, share
the same employee facilities and are subject to the same super-
vision. On the other hand, there are certain differences, as
noted above, between the working conditions of the two groups
of employees. Thus, the supplied employees are hired and
carried on the payrolls of the supplier employers. The supplier
employers are responsible for all taxes and the workers’ com-
pensation for the supplied employees. Moreover, the supplied
employees are not entitled to any of the benefits available to the
Employer’s solely employed employees. Although the Em-
ployer may have supplied employees removed from service, the
supplier employers are responsible for disciplining and dis-
charging the supplied employees.
Weighing all the existing factors, I am of the opinion that
there are sufficient dissimilarities between the two groups of
employees to warrant a finding that the employees employed
solely by the Employer constitute an appropriate unit. Overnite
Transportation Co., supra.; United Stores of America, 138
NLRB 383 (1962). Thus, the Petitioner may represent the Em-
ployer’s solely employed employees in a separate unit. Over-
nite Transportation Company, supra; M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et al.,
supra. In reaching this decision, I also find significant that the
jointly employed employees, like the mechanics in Overnite,
may constitute a separate, or part of a separate, appropriate unit
comprising the supplier employers’ employees. M.B. Sturgis,
Inc., et al., 331 NLRB No. 173, slip op. at 11; Overnite Trans-
portation Co., supra.
The assertion by the Employer in its brief that the Board in
M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et al., supra held that employees furnished
by a supplier employer to a user employer may be combined
with the solely employed employees of the user employer is
correct. In addition, I agree with the Employer that the sup-
plied employees here have many interests in common with the
Employer’s regular employees. Indeed, a unit of the combined
employees may well be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. However, I do not agree, as suggested by the Em-
ployer in its brief, that Sturgis requires the inclusion of an em-
ployer’s jointly supplied employees in the same unit with its
solely employed employees merely because all employees work
together and have some common interests. To the contrary,
Sturgis provides that the Board’s traditional community of
interest factors should be applied in making such unit determi-
nations. Applying such factors, I have determined that the
Employer’s solely employed employees, excluding the supplied
employees, constitutes an appropriate unit for purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
Based on the foregoing, the entire record and careful consid-
eration of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in
their briefs, I find that a unit limited in scope to the Employer’s
solely employed employees is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. Overnite Transportation Co., supra;
United Stores of America, supra; M. B. Sturgis, Inc., et al., su-
pra. Accordingly, I shall exclude the employees supplied to the
Employer by ARRA and Food Team from the unit.
IV. THE COMPOSITION OF THE UNIT
I must now consider the composition of the unit. The Peti-
tioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the Employer’s
housekeeping and food and beverage employees, described in
detail above, while the Employer maintains that, in addition to
the employees sought by the Petitioner, any unit must also in-
clude the front office department and maintenance department
employees. The parties are also in disagreement over the unit
placement of the acting chief engineer, John Terry. Assuming
the maintenance employees are properly included in the unit,
the Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would apparently ex-
clude Terry from the unit on the additional ground that he is a
supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
a. Front office department employees
The front office is considered the “hub” of the hotel. This is
the area where guests check in and out of the hotel. The front
office is also where guests make requests for any of their needs
while staying at the facility. The front office department em-
ploys six front desk/guest service agents (GSA), four night
auditors, eight bellmen/van drivers, one reservationist, and two
concierges. The front office employees report to front office
manager/assistant director of operations, David Brooks, or the
revenue manager/assistant front office manager, Paul Faisant.
Brooks occasionally serves as manager on duty (MOD) and has
overall responsibility for the hotel, particularly at night when
General Manager Shah and Assistant General Manager Smith
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1252
are not on duty. However, there is no record evidence that
Faisant has supervisory authority over any of the employees
whom the Petitioner seeks to represent.
The front desk/GSA employees apparently work during the
day. They are responsible for checking guests in and out of the
hotel. The front desk/GSA employees assign rooms to guests
and register them into the computer system. The front
desk/GSA employees also answer telephones and handle any
requests that guests may have related to their stay in the hotel.
If a guest makes a request, the front desk/GSA employee re-
cords and attempts to get the matter corrected by informing the
appropriate employee who may be employed in another de-
partment. In addition, the front desk/GSA employee distributes
keys to rooms, vans and the club room to other unit employees.
The night auditors have essentially the same duties at night
as those performed by the front desk/GSA employees during
the day. In addition, the night auditors make sure that the ac-
tivities performed by other hotel employees match with the
proper front office computer entry. For example, the occu-
pancy rate at the front desk computer should match with the
occupancy level entered in the housekeeping system. The night
auditors are also responsible for making sure that cash received
from guests at the front desk, as well as the cash received by
the cashiers/hostesses in the restaurant, match the receipts in
the computer system.
The bellmen/van drivers are responsible for transporting
guests to and from the airport and hotel. They also assist the
guests with their luggage as they check in or out of the facility.
In addition, the bellmen/van drivers occasionally assist guests
in moving their luggage from the lobby to their rooms. Finally,
the bellmen/van drivers transport guests to other destinations
within approximately 2 miles of the hotel.
The reservationist makes reservations for groups, conven-
tions or any special rate (negotiable local rate) individual or
group. In addition, any telephone calls made to Holiday Inn’s
800 number requesting special information about the Em-
ployer’s facility are transferred to the reservationist to respond.
All front office employees, except the concierges who I do
not consider to be true front office employees and who are dis-
cussed separately in the Decision, are primarily involved in
guest relations, such as checking guests in and out of the hotel
and transporting them to and from the facility. A number of the
front office department employees are also responsible for tak-
ing telephone messages, maintaining correct billings and mak-
ing sure that room occupancy computer records in the front
office match those of the housekeeping department. In addi-
tion, the night auditors are responsible for the compilation of
cash received at the front desk and restaurant. The bellmen/van
drivers, in addition to their transportation duties, assist guests
with their luggage and the reservationist is responsible for han-
dling specific types of reservations.
The front desk/GSA employees and night auditors are as-
signed to cover the front desk 24 hours per day. The work
hours for the bellmen/van drivers are scheduled so at least one
of them is at the hotel from 4 a.m. to approximately 1:30 a.m.
The reservationist works an 8-hour day from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. The front office department employ-
ees wear uniforms which vary in style and color depending on
their position. The front desk/GSA employees and night audi-
tors wear business attire and the bellmen/van drivers wear t-
shirts or jackets with the Employer’s logo. The reservationist
apparently is not required to wear any type of uniform. The
front desk/GSA employees receive between $7.25 and $8.25
per hour; the night auditors earn between $8.50 and $10 per
hour; the bellmen/van drivers are paid between $5.25 and $5.75
per hour but are entitled to tips; and the reservationist’s pay
range is between $9 and $10 per hour. All employees solely
employed by the Employer, including front office department
employees, are entitled to the same fringe benefits.
The record, including numerous exhibits introduced by the
Employer, discloses that there is some contact between the
front office staff and other groups of employees. However, it
appears that most of the contact is routine. For example, guests
may report a problem or make a request for services to a front
office employee who will, in turn, ask an employee in mainte-
nance or housekeeping to repair or respond to the request. In
making sure the problem is corrected or the services are pro-
vided, the front office employees may enter the request on a log
or prepare order forms which are returned to them by house-
keeping or maintenance after the problem is corrected or the
services are rendered. There is also coordination between the
front office employees and housekeeping concerning the avail-
ability of rooms and in making sure room occupancy is cor-
rectly listed on both the housekeeping and the front desk com-
puters. The front desk/GSA employees and night auditors dis-
tribute keys to other unit employees. In addition, housekeeping
employees may turn in room service cards completed by guests
relating to room services. These cards are used to reward
housekeeping employees with lottery tickets when guests com-
pliment them for services. Moreover, all departments partici-
pate in the Employer’s planning committee, safety committee
and guest tracking program. Finally, there is some routine
contact between the cashiers/hostesses in the food and beverage
department and front office personnel, particularly the night
auditors, in reconciling cash received in the restaurant with
computer receipts.
The record does not reflect any temporary transfers of em-
ployees between the front office employees and other groups of
employees. On at least one occasion, however, some front
office employees apparently served as waitresses in the restau-
rant in an emergency situation when the scheduled servers did
not report for work. Moreover, there have been some perma-
nent transfers of employees, but only two record incidents in-
volved employees transferring into or out of front office posi-
tions. Finally, there appears to be very few instances of front
office employees performing tasks generally assigned to other
groups of employees.
The Board uses essentially the same criteria in considering
the appropriateness of the composition of requested bargaining
units as it does in determining whether the scope of such units
is appropriate. Thus, the Board only requires that the unit be an
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. Morand
Brothers Beverage Co., supra; Overnite Transportation Com-
pany, supra. The Board also applies the same factors in deter-
mining appropriate units in the hotel industry. Omni Interna-
tional Hotel of Detroit, 287 NLRB 475 (1987); Dinah’s Hotel
HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER 1253
& Apartments, 295 NLRB 1100 (1989). In Dinah’s Hotel &
Apartments, the Board, in finding that the front desk employees
constituted an appropriate unit, specifically held that in the
hotel industry a union need seek only “an appropriate unit, and
is not required to seek the most appropriate unit.” Dinah’s
Hotel & Apartments, 295 NLRB at 1101.
I am persuaded that the unit sought by the Petitioner, exclud-
ing the front office department employees, except for the con-
cierges discussed below, is appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. Omni International Hotel of Detroit, supra.
See also Ramada Inns, Inc., 221 NLRB 689 (1975), where the
Board excluded front desk employees from a housekeeping,
laundry and maintenance unit. Thus, I am satisfied, based on
the record here, that there is not such a high degree of integra-
tion of functions and mutuality of interest between the front
office employees, except for the concierges discussed below,
and the other hotel employees the Petitioner seeks to represent
to require their inclusion in the same unit. Ramada Inns, Inc.,
221 NLRB at 690; Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments, supra. More-
over, I note that the front office department employees may
constitute a separate appropriate unit and under the Board’s
rationale in Overnite may be excluded from the unit the Peti-
tioner seeks to represent. Overnite Transportation Co., supra;
Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments, supra. In reaching my decision
to exclude the front office department employees, I also find
highly significant, the area practice in the hotel industry in Co-
lumbus, Ohio, which the Board has long recognized, of exclud-
ing front office employees, like those here, from other groups
of hotel employees. Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, 148 NLRB
1053 (1964).
The arguments and case authority cited by the Employer in
its brief do not support its position that the front office employ-
ees here must be included in the same unit with all other em-
ployees. Initially, I agree that the Employer’s facility is inte-
grated and there is substantial contact among the employees but
this is true of most operations in the hotel industry. However,
such integration of operations and employee contact are not
sufficient reasons for requiring that all hotel employees be com-
bined, as the Employer appears to argue in its brief, in a single
unit. This was the rule applied in Arlington Hotel Co., 126
NLRB 400 (1960) which the Board long ago abandoned
because of its rigidity. Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927
(1966). The Board has consistently refused to return to such a
rigid rule, as the Employer essentially advocates, to require that
all hotel employees be combined in a single unit based on the
mere integration of operations and employee contact. See, e.g.,
Omni International Hotel, supra; Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments,
supra. Although in several decisions involving Holiday Inn
facilities, relied on by the Employer and distinguished below,
the Board included front office employees in the same unit with
other hotel employees, it has not recognized any established
practice in the Holiday Inn chain of hotels including front of-
fice employees with other groups of employees and applies the
same community of interest test in determining the unit place-
ment of such employees as it does in cases involving other
hotel employers. Holiday Inn Restaurant, supra. Indeed, the
Board has excluded front office employees from units of other
hotel employees in a number of decisions involving Holiday
Inn facilities. See, e.g., Holiday Inn–Troy, 238 NLRB 1369
(1978); Holiday Inn South, 241 NLRB 235 (1979).
The specific cases relied on by the Employer in its brief do
not require a finding that the front office employees must be
included in the same unit with its other employees. Atlanta
Hilton and Towers, 273 NLRB 87 (1984), cited by the Em-
ployer, is distinguishable from the subject case. In Atlanta
Hilton, there was greater contact and interchange among the
employees than there is here and the general manager was in-
volved in even minor decisions throughout the hotel. In addi-
tion, the Board in Atlanta Hilton noted substantial overlapping
job duties and employee transfers. The record here shows very
few transfers and little overlapping duties between the front
office employees and the other hotel employees. Moreover, in
Atlanta Hilton, unlike here, the petitioning labor organization
sought two separate units of employees, found appropriate by
the Regional Director, notwithstanding that some employees in
each unit shared a stronger community of interest with employ-
ees in the other unit. Such is not the case here. Finally, there
was no recognized industry practice in the Atlanta area, like
there is in Columbus, excluding front office employees from
other groups of hotel employees.
Golden Eagle Motor Inn, 246 NLRB 323 (1979), cited by
the Employer, does not support its position that the front office
employees here must be included in the unit. In Golden Eagle,
unlike here, the front office employees performed routine main-
tenance as a daily part of their job duties and when working on
the afternoon or night shifts regularly cleaned and made up
rooms. Ramada Beverly Hills, 278 NLRB 691 (1986), cited by
the Employer in its brief, is also distinguishable from the case
sub judice. In Ramada Beverly Hills, the Board, in finding an
overall unit to be appropriate, noted the substantial overlap of
employee job functions which does not exist to any great extent
in the subject case. More importantly there was no Board rec-
ognized industry practice in Golden Eagle and Ramada Beverly
Hills, supra, like here, excluding front office employees from
other groups of employees in hotel units.
Likewise, Holiday Inn Atlanta Northwest, 214 NLRB 930
(1974), does not advance the Employer’s position that the front
office employees must be included in the unit in the instant
case. In Holiday Inn Atlanta, the Board noted that front desk
employees spent at least 1 hour per day assisting waitresses and
that each desk clerk was regularly scheduled to inspect four or
five rooms per day to make sure they were properly cleaned. In
addition, the front desk employees once or twice a week ob-
tained sheets and towels and occasionally made adjustments on
television sets and temperature controls. The front office em-
ployees here rarely, if ever, perform such functions. Similarly,
the front desk clerks in Holiday Inn, Pittsburgh Parkway West,
Carnegie, 214 NLRB 651 (1974), another case relied on by the
Employer, delivered room service and cleaned rooms. There is
no record evidence that the front office employees here regu-
larly perform such duties. Holiday Inn Alton, 270 NLRB 1405
(1984), cited by the Employer in its brief, is also distinguish-
able from the case sub judice. In Holiday Inn Alton, the peti-
tioning labor organization sought to represent only the house-
keeping employees. In finding such a limited unit to be inap-
propriate, the Board noted that the front desk clerks cleaned
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1254
guest rooms and supplied guests with towels, that the bellmen,
who were part of the front office, made room service deliveries,
set up the conference rooms and cleaned the lounge and public
areas of the hotel. The front office employees here do not have
such widespread overlapping duties. Moreover, there was no
bargaining practice excluding front office employees from
other groups of hotel employees, like here, on which the Board
could rely in Holiday Inn, Atlanta Northwest, supra; Holiday
Inn, Pittsburgh Parkway, supra and Holiday Inn Alton.
In Westin Hotel, 277 NLRB 1506 (1986), cited by the Em-
ployer in support of its position that an overall unit here is ap-
propriate, the Board merely found that the hotel’s maintenance
employees did not constitute a separate appropriate unit. I
agree that Westin rebuts the Petitioner’s contention that the
maintenance engineers here should be excluded from the unit.
Thus, I have included the maintenance engineers in the unit.
However, Westin does not support the Employer’s position that
the front office employees should be included in the unit. In-
deed, the Board did not even make a unit finding in Westin.
I also note that none of the cases relied on by the Employer
addresses the decisional approach adopted by the Board in con-
sidering whether certain groupings of employees may properly
be excluded from a requested unit on the ground that such em-
ployee groups may constitute a separate appropriate unit. The
Board applied this principle in finding that mechanics could be
excluded from a unit of dock workers and drivers in Overnite
Transportation Co., supra. Specifically, in Overnite, the Board
considered whether the mechanics could constitute a separate
appropriate unit. Upon finding that the mechanics could consti-
tute a separate unit, the Board concluded that mechanics did not
share such a close community of interest with the dock workers
and drivers to require their inclusion in the same unit. See also,
Overnite Transportation Co., 325 NLRB 347 (1996); Overnite
Transportation Co., 325 NLRB 612 (1998). As previously
noted, I have concluded, based on Board precedent, that the
front office employees here could constitute a separate appro-
priate unit. Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments, supra. Thus, apply-
ing the rationale of Overnite, the front office employees may
properly be excluded from the unit sought by the Petitioner.
The Employer did not address this issue in its brief or distin-
guish the front office employees here from those in Dinah’s
Hotel & Apartments, supra, or from the mechanics vis-à-vis the
dock workers and drivers in Overnite. See, Dinah’s Hotel &
Apartments, supra; Overnite Transportation Co., supra.
Finally, the Employer’s argument that the industry practice
relied on by the Board in excluding the front office employees
in Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, supra, should not be given any
weight here is without merit. Although the record identifies
only one hotel in Columbus with whom the Petitioner has a
collective-bargaining relationship, the applicable contract cov-
ering housekeeping employees does not include the front office
employees. Moreover, there is no evidence of any change in
the industry practice of excluding front office employees from
other groups of hotel employees in the Columbus, Ohio area.
Contrary to the unsupported assertion in the Employer’s brief,
there is absolutely no evidence that the industry practice of
excluding front office employees from hotel units failed to
establish stable bargaining relations in the Columbus, Ohio
area. Indeed, I am unaware of any Board decision since Co-
lumbus Plaza Motor Hotel, supra, in which the Board has indi-
cated that it does not consider area practice an important factor
in determining the composition of units in the hotel industry.
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the long recognized in-
dustry practice of excluding front office employees from other
units of hotel employees in the Columbus, Ohio area is entitled
to significant weight. See, LaRonde Bar & Restaurant, Inc.,
145 NLRB 270 (1967). Moreover, I note that the Board has
excluded front office employees, similar to those here, from
units of other hotel employees absent any local industry prac-
tice or bargaining history. Regency Hyatt House, 171 NLRB
1347 (1968).
Based on the foregoing, the entire record, and careful con-
sideration of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in
their briefs, I find that the front office department employees,
except for the concierges, whom I do not consider to be front
office employees, do not share such a substantial community of
interest with the other employees the Petitioner seeks to repre-
sent to require their inclusion in the same unit. Ramada Inns,
Inc., supra; Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments, supra. This is par-
ticularly true in Columbus, Ohio, where the Employer’s facility
is located, in view of the area practice, which the Board has
long recognized, of excluding front office employees from
other groups of hotel employees. Columbus Plaza Motor Ho-
tel, supra. Accordingly, I shall exclude the front office depart-
ment employees, except the concierges discussed below, from
the unit.
b. Concierges
The two concierges are considered by the Employer as front
office department employees and are under the immediate su-
pervision of the front office supervisors. The concierges work
Monday through Friday. One of the concierges works from 6
a.m. to 11 a.m. and the other from 5 p.m. to approximately 10
p.m. Except for occasionally transporting guests using the
hotel’s vans or running errands to fill requests made by guests
at the front office, the concierges have little work-related con-
tact with the front office employees. Indeed, the record dis-
closes that the concierges’ work location is not even on the first
floor. Instead, the concierges primarily work in the priority
club on the eleventh floor of the hotel.
The concierges report directly to the priority floor where
their primary duties are to serve the priority club guests on the
eleventh floor. Except for being more detailed and personal,
the services they provide are essentially the same as those per-
formed by the room server attendants and other unit employees
for hotel patrons located on other floors of the facility.
The concierge who works mornings serves a continental
breakfast to the priority floor patrons and the evening concierge
serves them cocktails and hors d’oeuvres. In addition, the
morning concierge, after he finishes serving the priority guests
a continental breakfast, reports to the employee cafeteria in the
basement where he serves lunch to the hotel employees. The
concierges are also responsible, like other unit employees on
other floors, for resolving any complaints or concerns of the
guests.
HOLIDAY INN CITY CENTER 1255
The concierges wear business attire and are paid between
$7.50 and $9 per hour. Like the room attendants and room
server attendants, the concierges are entitled to tips. The conci-
erges are entitled to the same fringe benefits as the other em-
ployees solely employed by the Employer. The concierges
have an established schedule and except for occasionally trans-
porting guests or running special errands, there is no record
evidence that they interchange with other employees.
Although the concierges could arguably be included in a de-
partmental unit of front office department employees, the re-
cord here discloses that their interests are much more closely
aligned with those of the room server attendants and other em-
ployees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent than with the
front office employees. Except for being listed by the Em-
ployer as part of the front office department, reporting to front
office supervision and occasionally transporting guests or run-
ning special errands that may be requested by the desk clerks,
the concierges have little work-related contact or interest with
front office employees. Initially, the concierges’ work station
is not in the front office but is on the eleventh floor of the facil-
ity. Moreover, the concierges’ primary duties are responding to
the concerns of the priority guests on the eleventh floor and
serving them food and beverages. These are the same duties
that the room server attendants and other employees sought by
the Petitioner perform on other floors of the hotel. Under such
circumstances, it is apparent that the concierges are artificially
placed in the front office department and their primary commu-
nity of interest is with the room server attendants and other
employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. Thus, I do
not consider the concierges to be true front office employees
and they are not included among the front office employees
when I refer to that group of employees in the decision.
Applying the criteria utilized by the Board in determining
appropriate units in the hotel industry, it is apparent from the
record that the concierges share an overwhelming community
of interest with the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to
represent. See, e.g., Omni International Hotel, supra; Regency
Hyatt House, supra. Based on the foregoing, the entire record
and careful consideration of the arguments of the parties at the
hearing and in their briefs, I find that the concierges must be
included in the unit sought by the Petitioner. Regency Hyatt
House, supra. Accordingly, I shall include the concierges in the
unit.
c. The maintenance engineers
Contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner would exclude the
four maintenance engineers from the unit. The maintenance
engineers generally work under the immediate supervision of a
chief engineer. However, the chief engineer position was va-
cant at the time of the hearing. At that time, John Terry was
acting chief engineer, but he had declined the chief engineer
position on a permanent basis for health reasons. The Em-
ployer anticipates filling the position in the near future.
The maintenance engineers work throughout the facility cor-
recting problems and performing preventive maintenance.
However, there is a maintenance shop, which is apparently used
by the maintenance engineers, located in the basement of the
facility. The maintenance engineers are responsible for main-
taining the fixtures of the building as well as performing pre-
ventive maintenance on the structure. They are also responsi-
ble for repairing furniture and rotating the mattresses on the
beds in the guest rooms. In addition, the maintenance engi-
neers make sure that the televisions are performing properly,
that the fire detectors work, that the heating and air condition-
ing and water systems are functioning properly and that win-
dows will not open beyond the established safety limitation.
However, there is no evidence that the maintenance employees
rebuild or make major repairs on the heating, air conditioning
and water systems. The maintenance employees are notified of
problems such as a television not performing properly, a toilet
overflowing or a room or the restaurant being too hot or too
cold. The maintenance engineers may be advised of such prob-
lems by front office personnel, housekeeping or food and bev-
erage employees. After being notified of a problem, the main-
tenance engineers will correct the problem. The maintenance
engineers also assist in cleaning rooms when it is necessary to
shampoo, sanitize or remove stains from the carpet. Finally,
the maintenance engineers log temperatures to make sure that
refrigeration units are chilled according to health codes and that
the water used in dishwashers is properly heated.
The maintenance engineers earn between $9.75 and $15.15
per hour and are not entitled to tips. The maintenance engi-
neers work either from 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. or from 3 p.m. to 11
p.m. They are entitled to the same benefits as all other employ-
ees solely employed by the Employer. The record does not
establish that the maintenance engineers possess any unique or
specialized skills and their job functions appear to consist pri-
marily of routine maintenance work. In addition, the mainte-
nance engineers are responsible for certain cleaning functions
which are similar to the duties of the housekeeping employees
whom the Petitioner seeks to represent. Although the mainte-
nance engineers generally receive a higher hourly rate than
most other employees, the record discloses some overlap of
wages between the maintenance engineers and other employees
the Petitioner seeks to represent.
A careful review of the record does not support a basis for
finding that the maintenance engineers constitute a separate
appropriate unit or for excluding them from the unit of manual
operating employees sought by the Petitioner. Although the
Board will find a separate unit of maintenance engineers to be
appropriate in the hotel industry, it must be established that
such employees have specialized training, perform skilled
maintenance work and have separate supervision and working
conditions. See, Omni International Hotel of Detroit, supra;
Hilton Hotel, 287 NLRB 359 (1987). There is no record evi-
dence that the maintenance engineers here have any specialized
training, perform highly skilled maintenance work or have sub-
stantial different working conditions than the other unit em-
ployees. Moreover, at this time, with the chief engineer posi-
tion being vacant, the maintenance engineers apparently share
common supervision with other employees, particularly when
the acting chief engineer is not at the facility. Indeed, the main-
tenance engineers here are very similar to the maintenance
employees in Westin Hotel, supra, where the Board found that
the maintenance employees, based somewhat on an industry
practice similar to the practice in Columbus, did not constitute
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1256
an appropriate unit separate from the other manual operating
employees.
Omni International Hotel of Detroit, supra, relied on by the
Petitioner for excluding the maintenance engineers, is clearly
distinguishable from the subject case. In Omni, the Board
found a separate unit of maintenance department employees to
be appropriate emphasizing that the maintenance employees
were separately supervised by the chief engineer who inter-
viewed and made all hiring decisions. Here, there is no evi-
dence that the chief engineer, when the position was filled, ever
interviewed employees and the record discloses that all final
hiring decisions are made by the general manager. Moreover,
even when the chief engineer position was filled, it appears that
maintenance employees on duty, when the chief engineer was
not at the facility, shared common supervision with other unit
employees.
Moreover, the Board, in Omni, noted that the maintenance
employees used skills unique to their classification and were
required to have at least 1 year experience in their trade before
being employed. Here, there is no evidence that the mainte-
nance engineers are required to have any prior experience or
training. More importantly, and contrary to the assertion in the
Petitioner’s brief, the maintenance engineers here do not per-
form highly skilled maintenance work. Indeed, their primary
duties appear to consist of routine maintenance tasks such as
correcting overflowing toilets, making sure television cable is
properly attached, repairing furniture and checking the
temperature of the heating, air conditioning and water systems,
making sure they are functioning correctly rather than making
major repairs on the systems. I also find noteworthy the fact
that the maintenance engineers here, unlike in Omni, are re-
sponsible for cleaning, shampooing, sanitizing and removing
stains from carpets in guest rooms which is similar work to that
performed by various housekeeping employees.
Finally, in Omni, the Board emphasized the extensive area
practice of separate representation of maintenance employees in
the hotel industry in Metropolitan Detroit. Unlike front office
employees, there is no evidence of an industry practice of ex-
cluding maintenance employees from other units of hotel em-
ployees in Columbus. To the contrary, the collective-
bargaining contracts relied on by the Board in Columbus Plaza
Motor Hotel, supra, in finding that the industry practice in Co-
lumbus warranted excluding front office employees, do not
establish a practice of excluding maintenance employees. In-
deed, three of the five applicable contracts, cited by the Board
in Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, supra, included maintenance
employees in the same unit with other hotel employees. Thus,
the Board, in Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, supra, over the
objection of the petitioning labor organization, included the
maintenance employees in the unit with the housekeeping and
food and beverage employees. There is no record evidence that
there has been any change in the practice in the hotel industry
in the Columbus area regarding the unit placement of mainte-
nance employees.
Under these circumstances and having carefully considered
the entire record and arguments of the parties at the hearing and
in their briefs, I find that the maintenance engineers share such
a substantial community of interest with the other employees
sought by the Petitioner to require their inclusion in the same
unit. Westin Hotel, supra; Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, supra.
Accordingly, I shall include the maintenance engineers in the
unit.
d. John Terry
In addition to its position, which I have found to be without
merit, that Terry should be excluded from the unit as a mainte-
nance engineer, the Petitioner apparently would also exclude
him on the additional ground that he is a supervisor within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Terry is currently acting
chief engineer, but has declined the position of chief engineer, a
stipulated supervisory position, for health reasons. The Em-
ployer originally took the position that Terry’s unit placement
would depend on whether he was still acting chief engineer at
the time of the election or whether the Employer had filled the
chief engineer position by that time. However, the Employer
apparently altered its position and at the conclusion of the hear-
ing maintained that Terry should be included in the unit. In
view of the conflicting positions of the parties, the uncertainty
as to Terry’s future job status and the lack of detailed record
evidence as to his current authority and responsibilities, I shall
permit Terry to vote subject to challenge. Accordingly, I
hereby instruct my agent conducting the election to challenge
the ballot of John Terry if he appears at the polls to vote.
V. APPROPRIATE UNIT
Based on the foregoing, the entire record and careful consid-
eration of the arguments of the parties at the hearing and in
their briefs, I find that the following employees of the Em-
ployer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining:
All full-time and regular part-time housekeeping department,
food and beverage department and maintenance department
employees, including room attendants, house persons, house-
keeping inspectors, laundry attendants, the commercial atten-
dant, banquet servers, banquet setup employees, cash-
iers/hostesses, restaurant servers, room server attendants,
cooks, kitchen utility employees, bartenders, maintenance en-
gineers, and concierges employed solely by the Employer at
its Columbus, Ohio facility, excluding all employees supplied
by supplier employers, including ARRA Corporation and
Food Team, Inc., the general manager’s secretary, the control-
ler, the assistant controller, the sales coordinator, sales man-
agers, the director of sales, the human resources manager, of-
fice clerical employees, front office department employees,
including the front desk/GSA employees, night auditors,
bellmen/van drivers, the reservationist, and all professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Accordingly, I shall direct an election among the employees in
such unit.