Hotel Admiral Semmes

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 3, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 988 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hotel Admiral Semmes and Hotel & Restaurant Employees &
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, and International
Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners.
Case No. 15-RC-4108. June 3, 1960
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 David L. McComb, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. At the hearing, the Employer 1 moved to dismiss the petition on
the basis, inter alia, that the Board is without jurisdiction in this
matter since the record fails to reflect that the Employer's operations
affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a 250-room hotel in
Mobile, Alabama. It is a member of Affiliated National Hotels, which
has member hotels in seven States, in addition to Alabama, and in the
District of Columbia.
During the 12-month period from October 1, 1958, to September 30,
1959, the Employer purchased from the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board liquors and wines in the net amount of $10,477.50. All
such liquors and wines sold by the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Con-
trol Board were produced outside the State of Alabama or purchased
by the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board from vendors
located outside the State of Alabama.2 On the basis of the foregoing,
1 The Employer contends that there is no showing that it is the employer of the em-
ployees involved In the petition We reject this contention . The petition named Admiral
Semmes Hotel as the Employer and notice of hearing was served upon Admiral Semmes
Hotel . At the opening of the hearing counsel entered an appearance for "the Employer "
Several witnesses credibly testified , without contradiction , that they worked in various job
classifications as maids , dishwashers , elevator operators , janitors , and porters , for the
Admiral Semmes Hotel, and that they were compensated for such services by checks
issued by the Admiral Semmes Hotel . At the hearing the petition was amended without
objection to show the name of the Employer as Hotel Admiral Semmes Accordingly, we
find that the Employer , under the amended name , is the employer of the employees
Involved in the petition
2 The evidence with respect to the Employer 's purchases of liquors and wines was In
the form of a letter written by Edward J. Azar , Administrator , Alabama Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board , in reply to a letter inquiry by the hearing officer. The Employer
objected to the admission of the letter inquiry on the ground that it was only an un-
signed copy. The Employer objected to the reply thereto on the grounds that " it purports
to be signed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board by Edward Azar, Administrator
and the document is not. It is not a self -proving document . It is not legal evidence as
such " As the objections were made solely on evidentiary grounds, without any attempt
on the part of the Employer to contradict or dispute the information contained in the
letters, and as we regard the documents offered as reliable and probative evidence, we
find that the bearing officer properly overruled the Employer 's objections . Hearings in
representation cases are essentially investigatory and nonadversary proceedings in which
technical rules of evidence are not controlling. Edwin H. Goodwin and George G. Goodwin
d/b/a Pacific Tent & Awning Co., 97 NLRB 640, 641 , footnote 1 ; Pepper Printing Com-
pany, Inc, 121 NLRB 1297, footnote 3.
127 NLRB No. 120.
HOTEL ADMIRAL SEMMES 989
we find that the Employers operations affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act.'
Although served, the Employer's general manager failed to respond
to a subpoena daces tecumt, issued by the Regional Director, calling
upon him to appear at the hearing and produce records of the Em-
ployer covering the preceding 12-month period and relating to rent
receipts, materials and supplies purchased and delivered, the number
of guests, the length of their stay, and their residency in States other
than the State of Alabama. The Employer produced no evidence at
the hearing bearing on any of these matters.
While it is true, as contended by the Employer, that the record, as
it stands, does not show that the Employer's hotel operations satisfy
the applicable jurisdictional standard,4 this failure is the result of the
Employer's lack of cooperation with the Regional Director's attempts
to obtain all the relevant information. In the Tropicana case,5 the
Board established the policy of asserting its statutory jurisdiction in
any case where an employer, upon reasonable request, refused to
supply the Board with information relevant to its jurisdictional
standards. The same policy governs the instant case. The informa-
tion requested by the Regional Director was reasonably required to
enable the Board to determine whether the gross revenue of the Em-
ployer's hotel operation was sufficient to warrant assertion of juris-
diction. The Employer refused to comply and ignored a subpena
calling for the production of such evidence. Moreover, it failed to
produce any such evidence at the hearing, a primary purpose of which
was to develop jurisdictional data. Accordingly, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Em-
ploy er. We deny the Employer's motion to dismiss for want of
jurisdiction.
2. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the further
ground that it is inappropriate for the Board to entertain a petition
jointly filed by two unions for the reason that they do not together
constitute a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. It
also contends that there is no showing that the Petitioners intend to
bargain jointly. We find these contentions to be without merit and
hereby deny the Employer's motion to dismiss. It is well settled that
two or more labor unions may act jointly as bargaining representative
for a single group of employees.5 We find that the Joint Petitioners
3 Milner Hotels , Inc, 124 NLRB 599; National Hotel Company d/b/a Thomas Jefferson
Hotel, 127 NLRB 202.
4 The applicable standard for a hotel operation is set forth in the Board 's decision in
Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 261.
5 Tropicana Products , Inc, 122 NLRB 121, 123.
6 The Bailey Department Stores Co., 120 NLRB 1239, 1240.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constitute a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. As
for the second contention, the record does not show that, if selected,
the Joint Petitioners will not bargain on a joint basis for the unit
herein found appropriate. Indeed, the petition was filed by the Peti-
tioners jointly and, so far as appears, they intend to bargain on a joint
basis. In any event, if successful in the election herein directed, they
will be certified jointly, and the Employer may insist that they do in
fact bargain jointly for all employees in the unit.7
We further find that the labor organizations involved herein claim
to represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Joint Petitioners seek to represent all employees of the Em-
ployer, exclusive of office clerical employees, technical employees,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act. ^ The Employer took no position as to the appropriateness
.of the unit requested.
In Arlington Hotel Co., Inc., 126 NLRB 400, the Board found that,
in the hotel industry, all operating personnel have such a high degree
of functional integration and mutuality of interests that they should
be grouped together for collective bargaining purposes. There is no
evidence in this case militating against such a finding here. Accord-
ingly, we find that the hotelwide unit requested by the Petitioners is
appropriate.
However, contrary to the Joint Petitioners' unit request, we shall
include the office clerical employees in the unit. We construe our
decision in the Arlington Hotel case to hold that, though we would
honor agreements or stipulations of parties excluding office clerical
employees from hotelwide units, we would not exclude such employees
,in the absence of such agreement or stipulation.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed at the Employer's Hotel Admiral Semmes,
Mobile, Alabama, including office clerical employees, but excluding
technical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
7 Vanadium Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1390, 1391.