Hyatt House Motel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1009 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

HYATT HOUSE MOTEL 1009
San Jose Motel d/ b/a Hyatt House Motel; Hyatt
Corporation d/b/a Ricky 's Hyatt House; Holiday
Inn; Way West Corporation d/b/a Holiday Inn of
Sunnyvale ' and Freight Checkers, Clerical
Employees & Helpers Union, Local 856,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America,' Petitioner . Cases 20-RC-8119,
20-RC-8117, 20-RC-8124, and 20-RC-8155.
March 5, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
consolidated hearing was held in these cases before
Hearing Officer, Dean H. Francis. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to participate therein. On July 23, 1968,
the Regional Director for Region 20 issued an order
transferring the cases to the National Labor
Relations Board. The Petitioner, Intervenor, and
Employer Holiday Inn of Sunnyvale thereafter filed
briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel
Upon the entire record in these cases, including
the briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds.
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2. The labor organizations involved3 claim to
represent certain employees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees
of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
The Petitioner seeks separate units at the
establishments of each of the Employers, consisting
of all front desk, clerical, PBX, and office
employees. The Employers and Intervenor seek
dismissal of the petitions contending, inter alia, that
the Intervenor's contracts with the Employers cover
these employees and bar these proceedings.
Each of the Employers involved herein is doing
business as a hotel, restaurant, and bar in Santa
Clara County, California. The Employers have, for
The Employers are referred to herein also as Hyatt House , Ricky's,
Holiday Inn, and Way West, respectively
'Referred to herein also as Local 856
'Local Joint Executive Board, comprised of Hotel, Restaurant and Hotel
Service Employees, Local 180, and Bartenders Local 577, AFL-CIO,
intervened at the hearing on the basis of a collective-bargaining agreement
a number of years, carried on simultaneous
bargaining with the Intervenor and have had a series
of collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which being for the term June 1, 1967, to June 1,
1971. This is an industry contract, copies of which
are signed individually by each Employer, whether
they are represented by an association or are
independent. Three of the Employers involved here,
Hyatt House, Ricky's, and Holiday Inn, were
represented by the Peninsula Employer's Association'
along with two other motel operators not parties to
this proceeding, Caravan Inn and Palo Alto Inn.'
Way West has not engaged in the multiemployer
negotiations, but signed the same contract after
bargaining as a single employer.
The contracts between each Employer and the
Intervenor contain wage scales and classifications
for various positions. With specific reference to the
issues in the present case, they point out that the
wage schedule lists the hotel-motel categories of
combination clerk-motel (night), combination
clerk-elevator operator (night), combination
clerk-telephone operator (night), and telephone
operator. The recognition clause states that it covers
all of the Employer's employees coming under the
jurisdiction of the Intervenor. There is a
union-security clause in the agreement but no
checkoff provision. However, none of the employees
sought herein was required to be a member of the
Intervenor until late 1967 or early 1968, and in fact
the employees were unaware of such requirement.
There were discussions between each of the
Employers and the Intervenor in late 1967,' at which
time it was determined that the union-security
provision would be enforced as to the disputed
employees the first part of January 1968 Those
employees were informed of this the latter part of
November or early December 1967.
The contracts contain provisions covering wearing
apparel, free meals, overtime provisions, double
time holiday provisions, rest periods, leave of
absence, workweek, vacations, and holidays. Like
conditions have been accorded to the employees
sought by the Petitioner However, the Employers
made contributions to the Intervenor's health and
welfare trust fund for all employees except those
now in issue. The latter were covered under a
separate group medical and welfare program which
each of the Employers introduced independently,
i.e., without negotiation with the Intervenor. But
when the disputed employees joined the Intervenor,
they were taken into the Intervenor's health and
welfare trust fund group and the Employers were
required to make contributions under the provisions
'There is no dispute as to the existence of an association unit of all other
employees of employers represented by Peninsula
'Palo Alto Inn was represented by the same association, and in another
proceeding (20-RC-7938), the Petitioner herein seeks to represent a
separate unit of clerical employees In that case, the Regional Director's
decision directed an election among the employees sought, and the
Intervenor filed a request for review thereof which is pending before the
Board
174 NLRB No. 148
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their collective-bargaining agreements.
On the entire record, it seems clear that prior to
the end of 1967 the collective-bargaining agreements
between the Employers and the Intervenor had not
been applied to the employees sought in the
petitions herein. At the end of 1967 the Intervenor
and the Employers attempted to blanket the
disputed employees into the existing unit, and on
this basis contend that there is a contract bar
However, it is well settled that a group of employees
like those involved here, in existence when the unit
was established and historically excluded' from
contract coverage, and particularly where, as here,
they possess a sufficient separate community of
interest to constitute a separate appropriate
bargaining unit may not be included in the unit as
an accretion unless the employees have consented,
normally through the procedures of a Board
election, to be represented by a single bargaining
agent in common with the employees of the
employer.6 Under all the circumstances, we are
persuaded that the clericals sought herein had not
been covered by the contract prior to the end of
1967 and that they were not then permitted to
indicate their wishes, either expressly or by
implication. Accordingly, we find that there was no
accretion of these employees into the contract unit
in December 1967 and that the Intervenor's
contracts with the Employers do not bar the
elections sought herein.'
4. As we have found that the disputed clerical
employees are not within the existing units, it is
apparent that in Case 20-RC-8155 the front desk,
clerical, PBX, and office employees of Way West,
which was not part of a multiemployer group, are
entitled to be separately represented as an
appropriate unit." However, in Cases 20-RC-8119,
8117, and 8124 the Employers and the Intervenor
contend, alternatively, that, if the disputed
employees are not covered as part of the existing
multiemployer unit, only a residual unit of all
unrepresented employees coextensive with that
multiemployer unit may be appropriate. We do not
agree.
Under the Board 's policy, an established
multiemployer bargaining pattern as to certain
categories of employees is controlling with respect to
other unrepresented categories if the latter
employees are in excluded fringe classifications
which otherwise lack homogeneity, cohesiveness, or
separate identity and are merely residual to the
main body of employees in the established unit.' But
if the unrepresented employees constitute a
homogeneous, separately identifiable group, the
'Cf Gould-National Batteries , Inc. 157 NLRB 679, 681, RCA
Communications , Inc, 154 NLRB 34, 36-37, Dancker & Sellew, Inc, 140
NLRB 824, Mohawk Business Machines Corporation. 116 NLRB 248 See
also D V Displays Corp, 134 NLRB 568, 571
'Cf Pullman Industries , Inc, 159 NLRB 580
'Cf Hotel Equities , d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, 171 NLRB No
172
multiemployer bargaining history is not controlling
with regard to the scope of' the unit for the
employees sought." With respect to office clerical
employees in hotels, the Board has recognized that
because of the differences in their respective duties
and conditions arising from the nature of their
work, such clerical employees have interests separate
and apart from those of manual employees." Since
the disputed employees here have been historically
excluded from the multiemployer unit, their primary
function is clerical, they do not transfer or
interchange with nonclerical employees, and there is
no history of bargaining as to them, it is clear that
they constitute an indentifiable group which may be
represented as a separate appropriate unit. We
therefore find no merit in the argument of the
Employers and the Intervenor that the petitions
must be dismissed and conclude that the
single-Employer units sought are appropriate for
collective bargaining.
It is clear from the above that the clerical
employees of each Employer may constitute a
separate appropriate unit, as contended by the
Petitioner. On the other hand, the Intervenor
apparently seeks to represent these employees in
Case 20-RC-8155 as part of an employerwide unit
of Way West employees and in the other cases as
part of a multiemployer unit of all employees at the
other motels. These also would be appropriate
bargaining units. Accordingly, we shall direct
elections in four separate units as found below, but
in the event a majority of the employees in any such
unit shall vote for the Intervenor they may be
represented as part of the existing unit of that
Employer's other employees
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute separate units appropriate for collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
(1) San Jose Motel, d/b/a Hyatt House Motel,
Case 20-RC-8119
All unrepresented clerical employees at the
Employer's location at San Jose, California,
including PBX operators, front desk employees,
office employees, reservation, sales and guest
service employees, but excluding all other
employees, confidential employees,' Z guards and
supervisors" as defined in the Act.
(2) Hyatt House Corporation, d/b/a Ricky's
Hyatt House, Case 20-RC-8117
'Pacific Drive-In Theatres Corp, 167 NLRB No 88, Piggly Wiggly
California Company, 144 NLRB 708
"Hotel Equities, supra
"Hotel Equities , supra , and fns 6 and 8 thereof
"As the Employer , Petitioner , and Intervenor agreed that employee Lyse
is a confidential employee, we exclude her from the unit
"The Employer, Petitioner , and Intervenor agreed that Quinn, Cook,
Engels , and Munkers exercise supervisory authority, and we therefore
exclude them from the unit
HYATT HOUSE MOTEL 1011
All unrepresented clerical employees'" at the
Employer's location at Palo Alto, California,
including PBX operators, front desk employees,
office employees, reservation, sales and guest
service employees but excluding all other
employees including confidential employees,"
guards and supervisors16 as defined in the Act.
(3) Holiday Inn, Case 20-RC-8124
All front desk employees, clerical, PBX
operators and office employees employed by the
Employer at its Mountain View, California,
location but excluding all other employees
including confidential employees, " guards and
supervisors'8 as defined in the Act.
(4) Way West Corporation, d/b/a Holiday Inn of
Sunnyvale, Case 20-RC-8155
All unrepresented clerical employees employed
by the Employer at its Sunnyvale, California,
operation, including PBX operators, front desk
employees, audit department clerks, reservation,
sales and guest service clerks but excluding all
other employees including confidential secretaries, i 9
guards and supervisors20 as defined in the Act
[Direction of Elections21 omitted trom
publication
"It is not clear from the record whether the Employer was contending
that Blankenship should be excluded as a supervisor or managerial
employee However, as it appears that his duties and interests are like
those of the clerical employees in the unit , we include him
"The Employer asserted that employees Castleberry and Buckley should
be excluded from the unit on the ground they are confidential employees
As it is not clear from the record whether these employees "assist and act
in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate , determine, and
effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations" (B F
Goodrich Company , 115 NLRB 722, 724- 725, Westinghouse Electric
Corporation , Small Motor Division, 138 NLRB 778), we shall permit
Castleberry and Buckley to vote subject to challenge
"The Employer would exclude Schaeffer , Truchan , Holmes , and Watts
as supervisors As the record reveals that these persons exercise supervisory
authority , we exclude them from the unit
"The Employer contended that Quong was a confidential employee The
record reveals only that she maintains personnel files and handles the
application of such contractual matters to employees as the health and
welfare provisions As we are unable to determine from this record whether
Quong ' s duties fall within the definition set forth in fn 14 , supra , we shall
permit her to vote subject to challenge
"The Employer would exclude Waggoner as a supervisor It appears
from the record that Waggoner exercises supervisory authority, and we
exclude him from the unit
"The Employer contends that employee Henry should be excluded as a
confidential employee As we are unable to determine from the record
whether the duties of this employee are within the definition set forth in fn
14, supra , we shall permit Henry to vote subject to challenge
"As it appears that Delaney exercises supervisory authority , we exclude
her from the unit
"Election eligibility lists , containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters , must be filed by the Employers with the Regional Director
for Region 20 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction
of Elections The Regional Director shall make the lists available to all
parties to the election No extension of time to file these lists shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear
inc , 156 NLRB 1236