Los Angeles Airport Hilton And Towers

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1987

287 N.L.R.B. 359 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

HILTON HOTEL CORP.
Hilton Hotel Corporation ; Sun Cal Investments No.
1, Ltd., d/b/a Los Angeles Airport Hilton and
Towers and International Union of Operating
Engineers , Local 501, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 31-RC-5720
16 December 1987
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
REMANDING
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
STEPHENS AND CRACRAFT
On 10 December 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued the attached Decision and Direc-
tion of Election in this proceeding, in which he
found appropriate for collective bargaining the Pe-
titioner's requested unit of engineering department
employees , locksmiths , and locksmith helpers. In
accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's deci-
sion, contending that the only appropriate unit was
'an overall unit of all hotel employees . By mailgram
dated 24 December 1984, the Board granted the
Employer's request for review. The Employer's re-
quest for a stay of the election was denied. Ac-
cordingly, the election was conducted and the bal-
lots were impounded pending the Board 's decision
on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case and concludes, substantially for the rea-
sons set forth by the Regional Director in his deci-
sion, that the petitioned-for unit comprised of all
engineering department employees , locksmiths, and
locksmith helpers is an appropriate unit for bar-
gaining .I In agreement with the Regional Director,
we find that the approximately 25 engineering de-
partment employees , locksmiths, and locksmith
helpers share a community of interest among them-
selves that is sufficient to constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit and that, contrary to the Employer,
one overall unit comprised of approximately 1000
employees , while perhaps also appropriate, is not
the only appropriate unit.
We have recently decided two cases raising the
issue of the appropriateness of a petitioned-for
engineering/maintenance unit . In Omni Internation-
al Hotel, 283 NLRB 475 (1987), the Board found
such a unit appropriate whereas in Westin Hotel,
277 NLRB 1506 (1986), the Board found the peti-
i The Petitioner's motion to permit oral argument is denied as the
record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the
parties
359
tioned-for unit appropriate . As we emphasized in
Omni, the Board makes unit determinations in the
hotel industry on a case-by-case basis utilizing tra-
ditional community -of-interest criteria , in contrast
to the long-rejected rule of Arlington Hotel Co., 126
NLRB 400 (1960), which formerly applied a rigid
rule mandating that an overall unit of hotel em-
ployees was presumptively appropriate. See 77 Op-
erating Co., 160 NLRB 927 (1966), enfd. 387 F.2d
646 (4th Cir. 1967). Accordingly, because each case
turns on the facts revealed in the record, it is likely
that a petitioned-for unit may be found appropriate
in some instances but not in others.
Based on the record developed in this case, we
find that the facts and circumstances pertinent to
the petitioned-for unit of engineering department
employees are closer to those in Omni and Shera-
ton-Anaheim Hotel, 252 NLRB 959 (1980), relied on
by the Regional Director, than to those in Westin
Hotel, and that the unit otherwise is appropriate.2
At the outset, we note that in Westin Hotel the
Board found Sheraton-Anaheim Hotel to be distin-
guishable because in the latter case the area bar-
gaining pattern regarding maintenance units was
mixed and no other labor organization was seeking
to represent the hotel employees in a broader unit.
In contrast, the local bargaining pattern in Westin
Hotel favored overall hotelwide units and an inter-
venor union specifically sought to represent an
overall unit of hotel employees including mainte-
nance employees . In the instant case, as in Shera-
ton-Anaheim Hotel, there exists a mixed pattern of
bargaining concerning maintenance units in the
local area and no other labor organization seeks to
represent the hotel employees in an overall unit.
Accordingly, the instant case is factually identical
to Sheraton-Anaheim Hotel in two of the critical re-
spects distinguished in Westin Hotel.
Further, we find that other factors relied on by
the Regional Director amply justify his conclusion
that the petitioned -for unit is appropriate . First, as
in Omni, the engineering department employees
earn the highest hourly wage among the hotel's
nonsupervisory employees. Indeed, the degree of
wage disparity is considerably greater here. In
Omni, the engineering department employees
earned at least $1 per hour more than the next
highest rate ; in the instant case, several engineering
department employees earn a wage rate approxi-
mately double the wage rate paid by the hotel to
the next highest nonmaintenance level.3 Second, al-
2 For the reasons set forth by the Regional Director, inclusion of the
locksmiths and locksmith helpers in the unit is appropriate.
9 In Westin Hotel, the average pay for engineering employees fell
within the median level for all hotel service employees and thus, unlike
the instant case, they shared comparable wages with other employees.
287 NLRB No. 36
360 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
though the engineering department employees may
not all be highly skilled, employees, the record re-
veals that a number of engineering department em-
ployees, particularly those at the upper end of the
wage scale, perform work requiring considerable
technical expertise unique to their classification,
and they are required to have several years of rele-
vant experience in their trade. Finally, the engi-
neering department employees have separate imme-
diate supervision, possess special skills and training,
and have a separate work area and budget. Because
of these factors, and because local area practice is
not inconsistent with the petitioned-for unit4 and
no other labor organization seeks a broader unit,
we agree with the Regional Director that the peti-
tioned-for unit is appropriate.
We have carefully considered the Employer's
contentions that the petitioned-for unit is inappro-
priate because of instances of employee interchange
and an overlapping of work performance. We find
that these factors do not, on balance, outweigh
those factors permitting a separate unit.5 We rec-
ognize that the engineering, department includes six
employees who permanently transferred into that
department from other departments. This degree of
transfer.incidence, however, is no greater than that
in Sheraton-Anaheim Hotel, in which the permanent
transfer of two outside employees into the engi-
neering department, comprised of approximately
six employees, did not require a finding that only
an overall unit was appropriate. The record, how-
ever, does not show any transfers out of the engi-
neering department. This is not surprising, given
the large wage disparity between the highly paid
engineering department employees and the other
hotel employees. Employees would have an incen-
tive to seek permanent transfers into the engineer-
ing department simply as a matter of upward mo-
bility. Such transfers, however, are not the type of
periodic temporary transfers or lateral, two-way
transfers between departments that may suggest
blurred departmental lines and a truly fluid work
force with roughly comparable skills.
4 The record reveals that the Petitioner has numerous collective-bar-
gaining agreements in the local area covering bargaining units limited to
engineering/maintenance units The parties stipulated that there is a local
bargaining pattern that includes separate unit representation of
engineering/maintenance employees at hotels similar to that operated by
the Employer They further stipulated that this local bargaining pattern,
which consists of both overall units and smaller units of employees em-
ployed at full service hotels, such as that operated by the Employer, re-
flect the "industrial reality" of Southern California and Southern Nevada
Because of these area bargaining practices , this case is factually distin-
guishable from Ramada Inns Y NLRB, 487 F 2d 1334 (9th Cir 1973),
Westward Ho Hotel Co v NLRB, 437 F 2d 1110 (9th Cir 1971), in which
separate units of housekeeping and kitchen employees, respectively, were
found inappropriate by the court of appeals
5 Further, we conclude that a different result is not required because
here , unlike Omni and Sheraton-Anaheim, final hiring decisions are made
centrally by the Employer's personnel department
We also recognize that the record sets forth a
number of instances in which engineering depart-
ment employees have worked alongside nonengin-
eering department employees and that it reveals
that some nonengineering department employees
on occasion have performed maintenance type
work. Again, these factors are not substantially dif-
ferent from those present in Sheraton-Anaheim
Hotel, in which engineering department employees
"often work[ed] alongside" other employees. We
agree with the Regional Director that certain
common endeavors which occur between engineer-
ing department employees and employees in the
kitchen, housekeeping, security, and other depart-
ments do not obliterate the clear functional distinc-
tion between the essentially maintenance and repair
duties of the engineering department employees
and the duties required of, and performed by, non-
engineering department employees.6
Based on the foregoing factors, we conclude, in
agreement with the Regional Director, that 'the pe-
titioned-for unit of engineering department employ-
ees, locksmiths, and locksmith helpers is an appro-
priate unit for bargaining.7 Accordingly, the Re-
gional Director's Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the
Regional Director for further appropriate action,
including the opening and counting of the im-
pounded ballots.
ORDER
This proceeding is remanded to the Regional Di-
rector for further appropriate action.
6 Thus, for example, the Employer places great emphasis on contacts
between engineering department employees and employees in depart-
ments such as housekeeping It details record evidence that employees in
these two departments interact in the cleaning of major water leaks and
other cleanup and maintenance operations Although it is cleai that such
incidents of cooperation occur, we are not persuaded that they establish a
blurring'of the functional distinction between the duties of, engineering
and the duties of housekeeping Indeed, this difference in job duties to a
large extent explains why the Employer pays housekeeping employees in
the range of $4 25 to $4 75 per hour and pays engineering/maintenance
employees up to $15 50 per hour Apart from other factors, this wage dis-
parity tends to undermine any claim that there is a substantial overlap of
job functions
7 Our dissenting colleague concludes that anything less than a single
unit (numbering approximately 1000 employees ) cannot be appropriate in
this case , and he asserts that our analysis would necessarily lead to the
"ludicrous" result of countenancing 30 separate units in this hotel We see
no evidence that the many different factors distinguishing the engineering
department employees from other employees would necessarily be a basis
for distinguishing all the other departments from each other , and thus we
see no reason for such an all-or-nothing approach We would also note
that in characterizing the Employer's operations as "typical of the indus-
try," and further concluding that such operations require a finding that
nothing less than a single unit is appropriate, the dissent comes perilously
close to the rigid one-unit rule of Arlington Hotel Co, supra For the rea-
sons stated in Omni , supra, and precedent cited therein , we have rejected
that rigid approach in favor of case-by-case determinations In our view
we have given appropriate consideration to all the factors relevant to the
unit determination in this particular case
HILTON HOTEL CORP. 361
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues , I would find that the
petitioned-for unit of engineering department em-
ployees, locksmiths, and locksmith helpers does not
constitute an appropriate unit for bargaining, and
that only an overall unit is appropriate in this
case.I
The hotel, as is typical of the industry, is a
highly integrated operation with the various de-
partments working in close concert and employees
being cross-trained to perform jobs in other depart-
ments . Each department is closely coordinated
with the others in order to serve the hotel's con-
vention business. The employees in all job classifi-
cations share common terms and conditions of em-
ployment. They receive the same benefits, enjoy
the same health and welfare coverage , are subject
to the same wage policy, and have the same per-
sonnel policies and seniority system. All employees
eat and take breaks in the same cafeteria and re-
ceive free meals and park in the same parking lot.
Uniforms are provided to all 80 or 90 percent of
the employees who wear them. All employees also
punch a timeclock. Although engineering depart-
ment employees have separate immediate supervi-
sion , every department head is supervised by the
resident manager . Management for the entire hotel
is centralized in the general manager . Further, the
personnel department is responsible for final per-
sonnel actions involving all employees, including
hiring and firing , interviewing of job applicants,
counseling , disciplinary actions, grievance han-
dling , training , and employee relations.
In addition, there is frequent day-to-day contact
between engineering department employees and
employees in other departments. The engineering
department employees act as delivery persons for
supplies and materials throughout the hotel. Also,
as the Regional Director stated:
In this regard , on occasion, engineers work in
the presence of housekeeping employees while
performing work in guest rooms; for example,
repairing plumbing during water spills and
floods while housekeeping employees may be
clearing the water away. Further , an engineer
may ask a housekeeping employee, or an em-
ployee in any other department, for clarifica-
tion or the location of a work request once the
engineer gets to the general area where the
work is to be performed . Engineers also have
contact with security guards who often stand
nearby the area [sic] where engineers are
working when safety or other security con-
cerns exist . Engineers often need to obtain
keys from a front desk employee in order to
get into an area where work needs to be per-
formed. On finishing a work request relayed
by a PBX operator, an engineer customarily
reports to the operator that the job has been
completed. Both engineers and security guards
respond to hotel emergency alarms . Engineers
also occasionally train or explain to employees
in the various departments the proper proce-
dures for operating the equipment in the vari-
ous departments which the engineers are re-
sponsible for maintaining . When engineers
hang flags, they must obtain them from the
bellmen. A doorman may direct traffic around
the working engineer.
Furthermore, with respect to the interchange-
ability of employees, as my colleagues note, six em-
ployees have been permanently transferred from
other departments to the engineering department.
Therefore , inasmuch as there are 23 engineering
department employees, in 1 year of operation over
25 percent of the engineering department jobs have
been filled by permanent transfers. Moreover, even
though the record is unclear whether there have
been temporary transfers into the engineering de-
partment, nonengineering employees occasionally
perform engineering department work.
In reaching the conclusion that the petitioned-for
unit is appropriate, the majority relies on the fact
that the engineering department employees possess
special skills, have separate immediate supervision,
and separate work areas . However, as the Regional
Director found, none of the engineering employees
are highly skilled. Nor is an engineering or a craft
license required of them by the Employer. As men-
tioned above, though the engineering department
employees have separate immediate supervision,
they share higher supervision with the other de-
partments, and authority for personnel matters af-
fecting all employees rests with the personnel de-
partment. Further, the factors relied on by the ma-
jority are common to most if not all the hotel's 30
departments. Each department has a specific func-
tion, specific responsibilities , and separate immedi-
ate supervision. Also, employees in many of the de-
partments are as highly skilled as the engineering
employees. For example, kitchen employees work
under separate immediate supervision , have special
skills, and work in a confined area. Therefore, al-
though I assume not even my colleagues would
agree with a finding that all the Employer's depart-
ments constitute appropriate units, that is the ludi-
crous result that analysis leads to.
Accordingly, I conclude that because of the
1 See my dissent in Omni International Hotel, 283 NLRB 475 (1987) highly integrated and mutual interests of the Em-
362 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer's employees, the common wage policies and
fringe benefits shared by all employees, the central-
ized formulation of personnel policies, the daily
contact and interchange among employees in dif-
ferent departments, and the transfers among em-
ployees in the various departments, including engi-
neering, the only appropriate unit in this case in an
overall unit of hotel employees.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION[']
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor
Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act,
the Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding
to the undersigned. -
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the under-
signed finds:
1. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
i Although at the outset of hearing the parties stipulated that the Em-
ployer's name is Los Angeles Airport Hilton And Towers, later in the
hearing confusion surfaced regarding the Employer's true name During
hearing , the Employer promised to produce evidence to resolve the issue,
however, no such evidence was submitted prior to close of hearing The
Employer has not addressed this issue in its post-hearing brief. Petitioner
did not submit a post-hearing brief However at hearing, the parties stipu-
lated that the owner of the facility involved in this proceeding, where all
of the employees in the petitioned-for unit are employed, is Sun Cal In-
vestments No 1 Ltd d/b/a Los Angeles Airport Hilton And Towers,
herein called the Owner The Owner, acting through its counsel at hear-
ing, took the position that it is also the Employer in these proceedings
The Petitioner refused to concede that the Owner is the Employer, not-
withstanding that Petitioner designated the Los Angeles Hilton [And]
Towers as the Employer in its petition Further, Petitioner failed to
amend its petition to designate a different employer Nor did the Petition-
er contend that the Owner was not the Employer in this proceeding, or
offer any evidence which would support the finding of a different em-
ployer
The record establishes that all of the,employees permanently employed
at the facility, except for the general manager and the comptroller, are on
the payroll of the Owner The general manager and the comptroller are
on the payroll of the Hilton Hotel Corporation The Hilton Hotel Corpo-
ration is the managing agent for the Owner In its capacity as managing
agent for the Owner, the Hilton Hotel Corporation has total responsibil-
ity for the labor relations policy in effect at the Owner's hotel facility
which is the subject of this proceeding
Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, I find that the
Owner and the Hilton Hotel Corporation are joint employers in the oper-
ation of the Los Angeles Airport Hilton And Towers Cf, Moderate
Income Management Company, Inc, and Marineview Housing Company,
No 1, 256 NLRB 1193 (1981) Having found that the Owner and the
Hilton Hotel Corporation are joint employers, I will refer to them collec-
tively hereinafter as the Employer
2 Prior to close of hearing, the Employer moved that this proceeding
be transferred to the Board in Washington, D C for decision, requesting
that the Regional Director take administrative notice of the Board's grant
of review of Regional Director decisions in similar cases In support of its
position , the Employer cites The President and Fellows of Harvard Col-
lege, 269 NLRB No 151 (1984), Albanese Development Corp d/b/a Holi-
day Inn Alton, 270 NLRB No 199 (1984), Ramada Inns, Inc d/b/a
Ramada Beverly Hills, Cases 31-RC-5631 and 31-RC-5650, Knott Hotel
Corp., d/b/a Viscount Hotel, Case 31-RC-6493, and ACL Corp d/b/a At-
lanta Hilton and Towers, Case 10-RC-12727, and NL R.B v Westin
Hotel, 116 LRRM 3288 (July 24, 1984) The hearing officer referred the
2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.3
3. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the employer.
4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
5. The following employees of the Employer consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.4
Included: All engineering department employees,
locksmiths, and locksmith helpers employed by
the Employer.
Excluded- Office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, all other employees , and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.1
Right to Request Review .
Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , a request for review of this Deci-
sion may be filed with the National Labor Relations
Board, addressed to the Executive Secretary, 1717 Penn-
sylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20570. This
request must be received by the Board in Washington by
December 10, 1984.
motion to the Regional Director for ruling . Inasmuch as the above-refer-
enced cases cited by the Employer involve employers different from the
Employer in this proceeding, and the Issues involved are similar to those
issues which are routinely resolved at the Regional level of the Board,
the Employer's motion is hereby denied
a The Employer, Sun Cal Investments No 1, Ltd., d/b/a Los Angeles
Airport Hilton And Towers (herein called Sun Cal), a limited partner-
ship , and the Hilton Hotel Corporation , a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged in the operation of a full-service hotel located in Los Angeles Cah-
forma known as the Los Angeles Airport Hilton And Towers, herein
called the hotel Based on a projection of the operations of the hotel
since on or about August 28, 1984 , the date on which Sun Cal became
the owner of the hotel and its ongoing business operation , the Employer,
in the course and conduct of the operations of the hotel, will annually
derive gross revenues in excess of $500,000 In addition, during this same
projected period, Sun Cal will purchase and receive goods valued in
excess of $50,000 from sources located outside the State of California for
use in operating the hotel Thus, the Employer satisfies the statutory ju-
risdictional requirements as well as the Board 's discretionary standard for
asserting jurisdiction over hotels Penn-Keystone Realty Corp, 191 NLRB
800 (1971)
4 The Petitioner seeks to represent all employees in the Employer's
maintenance and engineering shop as a separate unit . The Employer con-
tends that the petitioned-for unit is not appropriate , and that the only ap-
propriate unit consists of an overall wall-to-wall unit which includes all
of the Employer's non-supervisory, non-clerical , operational employees.
The Petitioner stated that it is unwilling to go to an election if the
smallest appropriate unit is determined to be a wall-to-wall unit The Pe-
titioner is willing to go to an election if the unit found appropriate con-
sists of the petitioned-for unit, plus the locksmiths and "some other
modest increase ." There has been no history of collective bargaining con-
cerning any of the employees employed by the Employer
The Employer operates a 1,284 room convention hotel, which includes
three restaurants and numerous banquet rooms , ballrooms, and meeting
rooms, all in a single multi -level building. The main entrance to the hotel,
the registration lobby, the restaurants, and two ballrooms are located on
the street or lobby level of the hotel Located on the level above the
lobby level are numerous meeting rooms (suites ), a ballroom , a theater,
HILTON HOTEL CORP.
and an information center. Located just below the lobby level is the plaza
level, where the administration , sales and catering offices, and a family
fitness center are located . Two basement levels lie below the plaza level.
The guest rooms start at the second level above the lobby level.
The Employer 's operations are functionally divided into five divisions
and approximately 30 departments . The divisions are personnel , sales and
marketing , food and beverage, rooms division , and accounting . The per-
sonnel division does not have any departments under it . The department
under the sales and marketing division are marketing , group services,
convention services , leisure sales , tour and travel sales, and executive
business sales . The departments under the food and beverage division are
banquets , beverage, employee cafeteria, Cafe L.A., Alexander's Restau-
rant, Coconut Willie's Restaurant/Snack Bar, banquet houseperson,
stewarding, and culinary (kitchen). The departments in the rooms divi-
sion are the front office, guest services , housekeeping and laundry, engi-
neering, assistant manager, reservations , tower, PBX, and security. The
departments in the accounting division are purchasing, restaurant cash-
iers, front office cashiers, night audit , payroll, accounts payable/-
receivable and administrative accounting, and receiving. Approximately
1000 employees are employed in the Employer 's hotel. The Hotel opened
for business on or about August 1, 1983.
The record establishes that each division has a specific function and
overall responsibility . Each department within a division further has a
specific function and specific responsibilities which are part of the overall
function of the division it is under.
With regard to the managerial hierachy , the general manager is chief in
command at the hotel . Next in line is the resident manager. Third in
command is the assistant manager on duty (MOD). Further, each depart-
ment has a head person who also reports directly to the resident manag-
er. The authority of the department head is equal to that of the MOD,
except the authority of the MOD applies to the general operation of the
entire hotel, whereas the authority of a department head applies to a par-
ticular department . There are further supervisory levels within the vari-
ous departments under the department heads.
The Engineering (Maintenance) Department
The engineering department (interchangeably referred to as the mainte-
nance department) is charged with responsibility for the general mainte-
nance and repair of the entire hotel . No other department has this respon-
sibility . Consistent with its responsibility , the engineering department has
instituted a broad program of preventive maintenance for the machinery
and electro -mechanical equipment in the hotel Since the Employer's
hotel is still quite new, much of the maintenance on the hotel 's machinery
and equipment , and structure is still performed by the original subcon-
tractors or other outside contractors . Further , the record discloses that
the engineering department has a separate budget from other hotel de-
partments to achieve its designated function . The engineering department
makes quarterly reports to the Hilton Hotel Corporation concerning the
operations of the engineering department.
Department meetings are held once a month for engineering depart-
ment employees to discuss matters of concern to the department . No non-
engineering department employees , except for the resident manager on
occasion , have attended these meetings . The engineering department is
staffed with approximately 27 individuals . By classification , at the time of
hearing , the engineering staff consisted of the chief engineer , the assistant
chief engineer , the general maintenance supervisor, an office secretary, a
purchasing person , a tool room attendant, two utility persons , eight gen-
eral maintenance persons , a maintenance helper, an exhibit hall set-up
person , an electrician, a painter, a carpenter, two air conditioning me-
chanics, a laundry mechanic, a kitchen mechanic and a boiler mechanic.
The engineering department is physically located in the basement of the
hotel on the parking-2 (P-2) level . The department is physically divided
into a general maintenance shop , a tool room , the chief engineers office,
an office shared by the office secretary, assistant chief engineer and the
maintenance supervisor , a locker room and separate shops for the various
mechanics.
The separate shops within the engineering department are the kitchen
shop, the air-conditioning shop , the paint shop , the carpenter 's shop, the
electrical shop , and the laundry shop . In addition , a separate locksmith
shop is located in the engineering department for use by the hotel lock-
smiths who are assigned to the Employer 's security department. All of
the shops have doors with locks The doors of all shops , except for the
general maintenance shop , are kept closed and locked unless the assigned
mechanic is performing work in his assigned shop. Only the engineering
The engineering department works three shifts per day, seven days per
week, seven and one-half hours per shift . The day shift is from 7 a in. to
3 p.m. Swing shift is from 3 p.m. to I I p in . Midnight shift is from I I
p.m. to 7 a.m. Only two employees, who are general maintenance per-
sons, work for the engineering department during the swing shift Only
363
one employee , also a general maintenance person , works for the engineer-
ing department during the midnight shift . The work weeks and work
shifts for engineering department employees are staggered and alternated
to cover the entire seven -day work week. The number and length of
work shifts vary by department within the Employer 's hotel. Further, all
non-managerial engineering department employees wear uniforms consist-
ing of light brown shirts and dark brown pants. They also wear blue
badges No other employees in the hotel wear this kind of uniform.
The chief engineer is the department head in the engineering depart-
ment . As such, he is ultimately responsible for directing all employees as-
signed to the engineering department , and for directing the work done by
the department. The assistant chief engineer reports directly to the chief
engineer. As such, he is second in command and is responsible for overall
supervision of all personnel in the engineering department other than the
chief engineer The parties stipulated that the chief engineer and the as-
sistant chief engineer, based on their responsibly directing employees
under them, are supervisors within the meaning of the Act . Based on the
parties ' stipulation and the record as a whole , I find that the chief engi-
neer and the assistant chief engineer are supervisors , within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act . Accordingly , I shall exclude them from the
unit.
The supervisory status of the maintenance supervisor has been ques-
tioned . The record establishes that the maintenance supervisor is the
overall supervisor of all maintenance engineers . As such , he exercises au-
thority over the maintenance engineers by assigning their work to them,
instructing them regarding the performance of their work , authorizing
overtime, authorizing them to arrive for work late or to leave work
early, writing performance evaluations concerning their work perform-
ance , and issuing verbal reprimands Further , written recommendations
which the maintenance supervisor is authorized to make concerning rep-
rimands and discipline of the maintenance engineers are followed by the
assistant chief engineer . Additionally, the maintenance supervisor spends
approximately 90 percent of his time supervising department employees,
as opposed to 10 percent of his time performing engineering duties. His
duties also include attending meetings with other department heads to
schedule work to be done by the engineering department. The mainte-
nance supervisor, like the chief and the assistant chief engineer , is not re-
quired to wear the full uniform worn by the other engineers in the de-
partment . Moreover, the maintenance supervisor , like the chief and assist-
ant chief engineer, is entrusted with one of the three master engineering
keys in the department . The maintenance engineer also receives a higher
rate of pay than the other engineers in the department, excluding the
chief and the assistant chief engineer Based on the foregoing , and the
record as a whole, I find that the maintenance supervisor exercised some
of the indicia of supervisory authority described by the Act. In this
regard , I note in particular that he responsibly directs the work of other
maintenance engineers and makes effective recommendations concerning
discipline I therefore find that the maintenance supervisor is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly , the mainte-
nance supervisor shall be excluded from the unit.
There is some evidence that engineering department employees occa-
sionally receive instruction concerning their work from management em-
ployees or department heads other than the engineering department su-
pervisors . Such occasions occur when engineers respond to requests from
various departments to effect maintenance and/or repairs in the various
departments or areas of the hotel In these situations , the occasional su-
pervision amounts to little more than a department head (or hotel guest
or lower level employee in some instances) pointing out the specific
problem and/or the desired remedy or result . Such supervision or in-
struction for the most part is merely incidental to the nature of the engi-
neers work. In such instances , the supervisor or individual giving these
instructions to the engineer has no authority , in connection with the job
in question , to compel the particular engineer to perform the requested
work or to evaluate or discipline the engineer for poor work perform-
ance. Further there is no record evidence that the supervisor or depart-
ment heads exercise any other supervisory authority over the engineers in
these situations. In this regard, the record establishes that if a department
head other than the chief engineer tells an engineer to perform a job
within the scope of the engineering department 's function, the engineer
may elect to perform the job or request that the department head submit
a work order directly to the engineering department . When the engineer
does perform the work , he does so only because he has already been in-
structed by his engineering department supervisor that he may perform
the task . Further, the record establishes that for the most part the depart-
ment heads or other employees or guests in question who give instruction
to the engineers concerning their work give no instructions or supervi-
sion concerning the mechanical , technical or procedural aspect of the
work to be performed.
364 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record establishes that neither the chief or assistant chief engineer
nor the maintenance supervisor are on duty at the hotel during the swing
or midnight shifts Thus, the three general maintenance persons on duty
during said shifts technically report directly to the MOD at such times
As a practical matter however, these engineers function with little super-
vision, if any, from the MOD
The duties and responsibilities, skill levels and abilities, education and
backgrounds vary somewhat between the various employee classifications
in the engineering department In this regard , the utility person, who
earns $4 50 to $7 per hour, is primarily responsible for cleaning the
hotel's swimmmg pools, Jacuzzis, and air filters and cares for the hotel
garden areas The record contains no evidence of concerning skills, edu-
cational or background experience requirements for the utility person
However, utility persons receive on-the-job training (OJT) and may be
promoted to the general maintenance person position
The general maintenance person, who earns $9 50 to $10 per hour, is
primarily responsible for general maintenance repairs to the hotel, and
preventive maintenance on engineering associated equipment The gener-
al maintenance person is also responsible for'responding to general trou-
ble calls initiated by guests and other hotel employees With regard to
skills and abilities, the general maintenance person must be able to read
and understand building electrical and plumbing blueprints, be able to use
all basic hand power tools, repair various piping and valves and trouble
shoot and correct electrical, air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, boiler
and associated equipment The general maintenance person is required to
have a high school or trade school education or equivalent work experi-
ence, and two to three years of general maintenance background experi-
ence Specific duties that the general maintenance persons have per-
formed at the hotel include clearing clogged drains and toilets, repairing
leaking plumbing, constructing rooms, trouble shooting and adjusting air
conditioners, welding (both arc and gas), replacing burned-out lightbulbs,
replacing and/or repairing broken electrical wall outlets and light sock-
ets, rewiring thermostats, repairing and trouble shooting coffee urns,
dishwashers, airhandlers, boilers, oil heaters and laundry equipment, and
performing preventive maintenance on emergency. generators
The maintenance helper earns $4 40 to $5 per hour The record does
not establish the precise duties and skill, educational or experience re-
quirements for this position
The exhibit hall set up person (also called the exhibit electrician), who
earns $12 25 to $15 50 per hour, is responsible for providing to exhibit
customers of the hotel sufficient electrical outlets which will supply the
necessary electrical power to run their exhibits In the absence of exhibit
customers, the exhibit electrician performs preventive maintenance and
necessary repair on electrical motors, and assists the electrician with elec-
trical projects The exhibit electrician was originally hired as a general
maintenance person In addition to his engineering department duties, the
exhibit electrician is one of two employees who has a class-II drivers li-
cense In cases where the hotel expects a large number of guests to need
rides to the hotel from a large carrier such as the airport, the exhibit elec-
trician can be used to assist the quest services department by driving a
shuttle bus The record is not clear whether such duty will be performed
in lieu of or in addition to his regular duties To date, neither of the two
engineering department employees has performed bus driving duties
The electrician, who earns $12 25 to $15 50 per hour, is responsible for
keeping electrical equipment , motors, switches, switchboards, and other
electrical mechanisms, in good repair, and to replace defective ballasts,
burned-out fuses, switches and motors Further, the electrician is respon-
sible for replacing defective wiring, making corrections to new electrical
installations, performing preventive maintenance on all electrical and as-
sorted equipment, installing fixtures, motors and other electrical equip-
ment, assisting in training and orientation of engineering department per-
sonnel, and performing other duties as required by engineering depart-
ment supervision In performing these duties and responsibilities, the elec-
trician must be able to read and understand electrical and building blue-
prints, trouble shoot and correct electrical problems, run conduit for elec-
trical wire, and make installation or repair of motors, fixtures and other
electrical equipment Further, the electrician must be able to use electn-
cal meters and devices and all basic hand and power tools The electri-
cian is required to have a high school or trade school education or equiv-
alent work experience and three to four years of general or master elec-
trical background
The painter, who earns $12 25 to $12 75 per hour, is responsible for
painting, installing drywall and hanging vinyl The record does not estab-
lish any educational requirements for the painter, however, the painter at-
tended a trade school Thereafter, the painter worked in an apprentice-
ship program with a painting contractor The painter works alone and
uses his own tools The painter is one of the engineering department em-
ployees who has been asked to drive the shuttle bus on an emergency
standby basis
The carpenter, who earns $12 25 to $15 50 per hour, is responsible for
carpentry work at the hotel, including hanging doors and building and
installing cabinets and shelves In performing his work, he is never assist-
ed by nonengineering department employees He performs 90 percent of
his work in the carpenter's shop, and uses his own tools valued at about
$2,000 The record does not establish educational or skill requirements
for the carpenter However, the record does establish that the carpenter
spent two years in an apprenticeship program Thereafter, he worked for
10 years as a finish carpenter
The carpenter only works with engineering department employees,
except for work he performs with the locksmith in connection with hang-
ing doors
The air conditioning mechanics, who earn $12 25 to $12 75 per hour,
are responsible for keeping air conditioning, refrigeration, and heating
equipment, pumps, piping, valves, motors, compressors, and electrical
mechanisms in good repair and operating condition Further, they are re-
sponsible for installing or replacing compressors, switches, pumps, piping,
valves, electrical components and motors, performing preventive mainte-
nance on all air conditioning, heating, refrigeration and associated equip-
ment, and for assisting in training and orientation of engineering depart-
ment personnel In performing these duties and responsibilities, the air
conditioning mechanics must be able to read and understand building,
electrical and piping blueprints, trouble shoot and correct air condition-
ing, refrigeration and heating problems, install or repair pumps, piping,
valves, motors, switches, compressors and other air conditioning, refrig-
eration, and heating components, charge refrigeration systems to proper
operating pressures, clean air cooled and water cooled condensers, and
use all basic hand and power tools The air conditioning mechanics are
required to have a high school/trade school education or equivalent
work experience and have four to five years of hermetic, centrifugal, and
reciprocating compressor operator background
The laundry mechanic, who earns $12 25 to $12 75 per hour, is respon-
sible for performing preventive maintenance and repair on laundry equip-
ment Examples of the laundry mechanic's duties include replacing
burned-out motors and repair of hydraulic systems The record does not
establish educational requirements for the laundry mechanic, however,
the position requires prior experience in working on washing machines
The kitchen and refrigeration mechanic, who earns $12 25 to $12 75
per hour, is responsible for maintaining and repairing the kitchen equip-
ment, including stoves, ovens, dishwashers, disposals, exhaust fans, walkin
freezers and an ice machine, all ice machines on the various floors of the
hotel, boilers, and laundry equipment In so doing, the kitchen mechanic
spends about four hours per day in the hotel kitchens and one to two
hours per day in the engineering department kitchen shop He is never
assisted in the technical performance of his duties by non-engineering de-
partment employees Although the record does not establish requirements
for the kitchen mechanic in terms of precise abilities, skills, education and
experience, the record disclosed that the kitchen mechanic uses a varity
of electrical meters, gauges and hand tools He attended a trade school
where he received a certificate in air conditioning, refrigeration and heat-
ing Further, the kitchen mechanic has past work experience in other
hotels on air conditioning, refrigeration, heating and kitchen equipment
The boiler mechanic, who earns $12 25 to $1400 per hour, is responsi-
' ble for keeping boiler equipment, pumps, motors, piping, valves, and elec-
trical mechanisms in good repair and operating condition, installing or re-
placing pumps, piping, valves, motors, switches, external and internal
boiler components, performing preventive maintenance on all boilers and
associated equipment, and assisting in training and orientation of engi-
neering department personnel In performing these duties and responsibil-
ities, the boiler mechanic must be able to read and understand building,
electrical and piping blueprints, trouble shoot and correct boiler prob-
lems, make installation or repair of pumps, valves, piping, internal, and
external boiler components, clean and repair watersides and firesides,
pressure test boilers, and use all basic hand and power tools The boiler
mechanic is required to have a high shcool or trade school education or
equivalent work experience, and three to four years of marine or station-
ary boiler operation background The boiler machinic spends about 50
percent of his time in the boiler room and visits the laundry room about
eight times per day to make checks on the boiler located there
With regard to the tool room person and the purchasing person, the
record did not disclose any requirements for education, skills or abilities.
The record does establish that the tool room person works in the engi-
neering department tool room and is responsible for handing or checking
out tools The purchasing person is responsible for'purchasing all materi-
als, equipment and parts needed by the engineering department to fulfill
its departmental responsibility The parties stipulated that the tool room
person and the purchasing person share sufficient community of interest
with the other nonsupervisory engineering department employees to be
HILTON HOTEL CORP. 365
included with them in the unit . Accordingly , I find that the tool room
person and purchasing person share a sufficient community of interest
with the engineering department employees for the purpose ^r '^ilective
bargaining . I shall include them in the unit.
The record establishes that the office secretary assists the chief engi-
neer with various activities which are necessary to maintain department
records, communications and compliance with hotel and corporate poli-
cies. Further , the office secretary maintains engineering department files,
prepares personnel authorization forms , department personnel records,
answers the engineering office telephone , screens calls and takes mes-
sages , types memoranda, letters , and reports, and performs duplication
and distribution tasks . The parties made no contentions regarding the unit
placement of the office secretary . However , based on the record as a
whole, I find that the office secretary is an office clerical employee.
Thus , I will exclude the office secretary from the unit . See, Hygeia Coca-
Cola Bottling Company , 192 NLRB 1127 , 1129 (1971 ); Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corporation , 118 NLRB 1043 (1957).
Engineers generally receive their work assignments in the form of
work tickets. No other department in the hotel uses the work ticket
system . Any person in the hotel may write out a work ticket , submit it to
the proper supervisor or department head and then have it transferred to
the engineering department to have the work done . The engineering su-
pervisors will then assign the work to engineers in the department. Some
work requests, usually trouble calls, are made to the engineering depart-
ment employees through PBX operatiors . The operators receive the calls
directly from the person who has the problem. The call is logged by the
operator and then relayed directly with the use of radios to the engineer
who has been assigned to receive such calls . Other work requests are
made directly to engineers by employees in the various department when
the engineers are in those areas of the hotel . The engineer may at his diq-
cretion perform the work or request the person to submit a work ticket
to the engineering department
Engineering department employees work in contact with many nonen-
gineering employees when performing their day -to-day work. In this
regard , on occasion , engineers work in the presence of housekeeping em-
ployees while performing work in guest rooms , for example, repairing
plumbing during water spills and floods while housekeeping employees
may be clearing the water away . Further , an engineer may ask a house-
keeping employee , or an employer in any other department , for clarifica-
tion or the location of a work request once the engineer gets to the gen-
eral area where the work is to be performed . Engineers also have contact
with security guards who often stand nearby the areas where engineers
are working when safety or other security concerns exist. Engineers
i,nen need to obtain keys from a front desk employee in order to get into
an -ties where work needs to be performed On finishing a work request
relayed by a PBX operator , an engineer customarily reports to the opera-
tor that the job has been completed. Both engineers and security guards
respond to hotel emergency alarms. Engineers also occasionally train or
explain to employees in the various departments the proper procedures
for operating the equipment in the various departments which the engi-
neers are responsible for maintaining . When engineers hang flags, they
must obtain them from the bellmen . A doorman may direct traffic around
the working engineer.
With regard to interchangeability between employees of the engineer-
ing department and other departments of the hotel , the record establishes
that about six employees have been permanently transferred into the en-
gineering department from other hotel departments, pursuant to the
hotel 's transfer policy . There is no evidence of transfers from the engi-
neering department to other departments . There is also no evidence of
temporary transfers into the engineering department within the past year.
Further, there is some evidence that an engineer worked as a cook
during the "Olympics" in Los Angeles, but the record is not clear that a
temporary transfer was involved
The record reflects that although the engineering department is primar-
ily rsponsible for general maintenance and repair of the entire hotel, some
nonengineenng employees will on occasion perform maintenance and
repair work . In this regard , housekeeping employees will replace a
burned-out light bulb in a guest room or change a vacuum cleaner belt
rather than have an engineer take the time to perform that job . Similarly,
fou,3 and beverage employees will replace light bulbs in the restaurant
areas . The pastry chef will lubricate and perform minor repairs on some
of his cooking equipment rather than call an engineer in to do it. Addi-
tionally , some department heads or supervisors keep hand tools , such as
hammers , screwdrivers, and glue , to effect minor repairs within their de-
partments rather than to wait for engineers to perform the work.
Engineering department employees receive the same employee benefits,
such as paid sick leave , jury duty , funeral leave and holiday pay, as other
employees in the hotel . Health and welfare coverage is the same for all
employees . All employees are subject to the same wage policy which re-
quires an evaluation after the first 90 days on the job and a possible
salary increase at that time , and yearly salary increases thereafter. All
employees have the same pay day , overtime policy , personnel policies
and seniority system . All employees eat and take breaks in the same em-
ployee cafeteria and receive free meals , and park in the same parking lot.
Uniforms are provided to all of the 80 to 90 percent of the hotel employ-
ees who wear them All employees punch in on a time clock , however,
the engineering department employees must also sign in at the engineer-
ing department
Funuiuns of Specific Non -Engineering Divisions/Departments
The personnel department is responsible for final personnel actions, in-
cluding hiring and firing , interviewing of job applicants , counseling , disci-
plinary actions , grievance handling , benefits administration, training and
employee relations.
The sales and marketing division is responsible for selling the hotel
bookings, marketing the restaurants , and other services for sale by the
hotel . Its employees are a combination of hourly and salaried employees.
The food and beverage division departments have a variety of func-
tions . In this regard , the banquet department is responsible for serving the
food and beverages at the banquets . Its employees earn $3 . 55 to $5.10 per
hour, plus tips. The beverage department is responsible for all beverages
served in the bars and restaurants . Its employees earn $3.45 to $6 50 per
hour. The restaurants and employee cafeteria are responsible for food
preparation and service to restaurant customers and employees.
Their employees earn $3 .45 to $6. 50 per hour , plus tips . The banquet
housepersons department is responsible for setting up furniture and other
equipment for banquet functions . Its employees earn $5.25 per hour. The
stewarding department is responsible for cleaning the kitchen and wash-
ing dishes . Its employees earn $4 .25 to $4.75 per hour. The culinary de-
partment is responsible for cooking food for the restaurants and banquets.
Its employer earn $4.50 to $6 .75 per hour.
Within the rooms division , the front office department is responsible
for checking in guests and answering their questions . Its employees earn
$6.25 to $6 75 per hour . The guest services department is responsible for
transporting guests in the hotel 's courtesy vans, and helping guests with
their luggage on arrival and departures. Its employees earn $3.75 to $4.50
per hour, plus tips The housekeeping department is responsible for main-
taining guest rooms, including cleaning, bed making, vacuuming and re-
porting room problems. Its employees , who wear yellow identification
badges , earn $4 .25 to $4.75 per hour . The security department is responsi-
ble for hotel safety. Its employees , who are security guards and lock-
smiths, earn $6 00 to $6.50 per hour and $6 .00 to $ 10.80 per hour respec-
tively . Security department employees wear red identification badges.
Within the accounting department, the purchasing department is re-
sponsible for hotel purchasing which is not done through the engineering
department . Its employees earn $5 . 50 to $6.00 per hour . The restaurant
cashier department is responsible for providing cashiers to operate all of
the cash registers in the hotel restaurants . The cashier department is re-
sponsible for billing and checking guests out of the hotel and providing
guests with requested information . The front office cashier earns $6.25 to
$6.75 per hour . The night audit department is responsible for auditing all
room revenue, posting of guest charges and balancing accounts . Its em-
ployees earn $6.50 to $7.00 per hour Hourly employees in the payroll
department and general accounting departments earn $7.10 per hour.
Area Bargaining History
The parties stipulated that there is a local bargaining pattern and sepa-
rate unit representation of engineering /maintenance employees at hotels
similar to that operated by the Employer in the instant case . Further, the
parties stipulated that the local bargaining pattern which consists of both
overall units and smaller units of employees employed at full-service
hotels such as that operated by the Employer , are a matter of industrial
reality in Southern California and Southern Nevada . The record estab-
lishes that the Petitioner represents employees in approximately 80 hotels
in Southern California and Southern Nevada. In the approximately 70 of
these hotels where the Petitioner has contracts , all contracts cover bar-
gaining units consisting of engineering or maintenance (where engineer-
ing and maintenance are interchangeable terms ) units alone. None of the
'contracts covers wall -to-wall bargaining units.
The Appropriate Unit
The Board's policy for unit determination in the hotel industry is that
it will consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide
where the true community of interest lies among particular employees of
a hotel . John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operat-
366 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mg Company d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927 (1966) The
Board further clarified its policy in Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a
Sheraton Motor inn, 210 NLRB 790 (1974), wherein it stated that "the
Board's intention is to apply to the hotel industry the general criteria
used for determining units in other industries and to make unit determina-
tion after weighing all the factors present in each case, such as the dis-
tinctions in skills and function of particular employee groupings, their
separate supervision, the employer's organizational structure, and differ-
ences in wages and hours " The Board also finds a petitioner' s unit de-
sires to be relevant consideration to a determination of a unit's appropri-
ateness Marks Oxygen Co of Alabama, 147 NLRB 228, 230 (1964) Addi-
tionally, the Act does not require the unit for bargaining to be the only
appropriate unit, or the most appropriate unit The Act simply requires
that the unit be "appropriate" to insure the employees in each case the
fullest freedom in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the Act
Western and'Southern Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB 138 (1967),
Morand Brothers Beverage Co, 91 NLRB 409 (1950)
In the instant case, notwithstanding that none of the engineering de-
partment employees are highly skilled, I find that there is a clear differ-
ence in function between the engineering department employees and the
employees employed in the various other departments Although there is
some evidence that nonengineering department employees perform work
which is also done by engineers, I find there is substantial record evi-
dence that there is a clear functional distinction between the essentially
maintenance and repair duties performed by the engineering department
employees in connection with the hotel's operating equipment, and the
duties performed by the nonengineering department employees Further,
I find that such overlapping work performance is minimal I also find
that the transfer of non-engineering department employees into the engi-
neering department does not constitute a significant degree of inter-
change
Further, I find that the engineering department employees have sepa-
rate supervision, special skills and training, a separate work area, and a
separate budget which is sufficient to give the engineers a separate func-
tional identity.
In view of the foregoing, and considering the record as a whole,
noting in particular the separate identity and functions of the engineering
department employees, separate immediate supervision, minimal inter-
change with employees of other departments, the absence of a bargaining
history among the Employer's employees, the fact that the Petitioner is
seeking to represent the engineering department employees only, the fact
that no other labor organization seeks a broader unit at this time, and the
fact that a less than overall unit of the Employer's employees is clearly
feasible in view of the mixed pattern of bargaining in the local area, I
find that a unit limited to the employees employed in the maintenance
department is appropriate See Anaheim Operating, Inc., d/b/a Sheraton-
Anaheim Hotel, 252 NLRB 959 (1980)
In reaching this decision concerning the appropriate unit, I have fully
considered the Employer's post-hearing brief and supporting case author-
ity However, although I do not reject the Employer's conclusion that a
wall-to-wall unit of the hotel's operational employees would constitute an
appropriate unit, the Employer's conclusion that such a unit is the only
appropriate unit is not supported by the record or the Employer's sup-
porting arguments
Locksmiths
During the hearing, an issue was raised concerning the unit placement
of ,a locksmith and a locksmith helper The Petitioner contends that these
locksmiths have a sufficient community of interest with the engineering
department employees to be included in a separate bargaining unit with
them The Employer failed to express any clear contentions regarding the
placement of its locksmiths
The record establishes that the locksmiths are officially assigned to the
security department, however, they work out of the locksmiths shop
which is physically located in the engineering department The lock-
smiths' shop is manned 70 percent of the workday by one or both of the
locksmiths
Although the head supervisor for the locksmiths is the director of se-
curity, the chief engineer assigns work to the locksmiths through engi-
neering department work tickets, just as assignments are made to engi-
neers When locksmiths complete their assignments , they must turn in
completed work tickets either to the assistant chief engineer or to the
maintenance supervisor who will officially date and mark the forms as
completed, before they are returned to the issuing departments Further,
the chief engineer has the authority to inspect work done by the lock-
smiths The record establishes that the director of security will direct that
the locksmiths perform re-keying work on various floors of the hotel
However, the record is not clear whether these directives are issued di-
rectly to the locksmiths or whether they are in the form of work tickets
and are assigned to the locksmiths by an engineering supervisor The as-
sistant chief engineer also has authority to discipline and issue verbal
warnings to the locksmiths; however, he would also give notice of such
warnings and discipline to the director of security
The locksmith and the helper are responsible for repairing locks,
making keys, installing dead bolts and new locks, rekeying old locks and
installing doors, including all door hardware However, 90 percent of the
locksmith helpers time is spent in making new keys In performing this
work, the locksmith uses hand tools, special locksmith tools, and a key-
making machine The locksmith spent a year in a trade school and
worked for two years in the locksmith trade before becoming employed
at the hotel as a locksmith Further, the locksmith has a permit which
was issued and required by the City of Los Angeles to work as a lock-
smith The locksmith currently wears the same uniform which is worn by
the security guards in the security department However, for an unspeci-
fied period, he wore the engineering department uniform which differs
from the security department uniform
The record establishes that the budget for the locksmith work is within
the engineering department budget The chief engineer has authority to
approve or disapprove all purchasing requests made by the locksmith
The locksmith and the helper work one shift which is from 7 30 a in to
3 30 p in During the swing and midnight shifts, the engineering depart-
ment employees are responsible for handling locksmiths duties For this
reason, the locksmith gives weekly training to engineering department
employees concerning locks and how to work with them The locksmith
has worked with the carpenter in hanging doors He does not work with
or receive work assistance from any nonengmeermg employees
Although the locksmith and the helper are in the security department,
they perform no security guard duties In this regard, the record estab-
lishes that the duties of the security guards include standing guard out-
side of guests rooms to prevent theft and to secure guests' property when
work by hotel employees is in progress in their rooms Further, security
guards respond to emergency alarms, patrol, observe and report anything
of value or interest regarding safety or security problems to the director
of security Security guards report rules infractions committeed by other
hotel employees, and restrain individuals from going into unauthorized
areas of the hotel Further, they are authorized to use minimum force to
remove individuals from the hotel to preserve their lives or the lives of
others, and they may arrest individuals on hotel property
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, noting in particular
that the locksmith and the helper share with the engineers common su-
pervision, a common workplace, similar skills and common work func-
tions, I find that the locksmith and locksmith helper share a sufficient
community of interest with the engineering department employees to
warrant their inclusion in the same unit Accordingly , I shall include
them in the unit In so deciding, I also note that the locksmiths could not
be included in a unit with the security guards whose duties are as de-
scribed above In this regard, it is clear that the locksmiths are not
guards, whereas the security guards appear to be guards within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b)(3) of the Act since their duties clearly encompass en-
forcing against employees and other persons rules to protect property of
the Employer or to protect the safety of persons on the Employer's
premises Petroleum Chemicals, Inc, 121 NLRB 630 (1958) Further, I
note the Petitoner's desire to represent the locksmiths along with the en-
gineering department employees
Based upon the above, and the record as a whole, I find that the unit
described at paragraph 5 of this Decision is appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act
There are approximately 25 employees in the appropriate unit