Manger-Savannah Corp., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1136 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees' of the Employer at its Columbus plant, excluding
salesmen, bookkeepers, office clerical, technical, and professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Petitioner contends that three employees, not currently
Working, should be allowed to vote; the Employer contends that they
should not be allowed to vote. The Employer's branch manager testi-
fied without contradiction that one of these employees, Donald Miller,
was discharged for cause and would not be rehired. The other two
employees, Francis K. Spires and Ernest Osbourne, were laid off be-
cause of lack of work. The branch manager credibly testified that
these layoffs were seasonal and that the two employees would be re-
hired when business picked up in the spring. There have been similar
layoffs and recalls during the past 3 years at this plant. As Donald
Miller was discharged for cause he is not eligible to vote.5 The re-
maining two employees, although not presently on the payroll, have
reasonable expectation of reemployment in the foreseeable future;
accordingly, they are eligible to vote as temporarily laid-off
employees.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 The parties stipulated that the following employees be included in the unit • Dewey
C Dillon, serviceman, Leonard B. Cline, serviceman ; Samuel Morrison , glazier ; Ira D.
Purget, truckdriver ; Thomas W. Mason, truckdriver ; and Earlin Colstilow, glazier and
storm panel fabricator. Accordingly, they are included in the unit It was also stipu-
lated by the parties that the following persons be excluded from the unit : P. D Walker,
branch manager ; Mrs. Margaret L Spears, bookkeeper ; Vernon Alyea , salesman ; Thomas
R Knowles, salesman ; and Bernard Noland, salesman . Accordingly, we shall exclude
them from the unit
Continental Baking Company, 122 NLRB 1074.
e Musgrave Manufacturing Company and Mast -Foos Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
124 NLRB 258.
Manger-Savannah Corporation , Inc.' and Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4512. March 15, 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 O. Frank Woolf, hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers , Bean, and Fanning].
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing
126 NLRB No. 135.
MANGER-SAVANNAH CORPORATION, INC. 1137
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a subsidiary of Manger-Hotel Corporation
which owns and operates hotels in several States. The Employer op-
erates a hotel in Savannah, Georgia, and its receipts from room rentals
totaled $417,000 in 1958. It also had gross receipts in excess of
$400,000 which were derived from the following hotel-connected serv-
ices and operations : Telephone, laundry, package store sales, beverage
sales, and concession rentals. An additional $415,000 was obtained by
the Employer from its restaurant operations. Seventy-five percent
of the hotel's guests reside there for less than a month. Its annual
direct out-of-State purchases exceed $30,000.
The Employer contends that the Board may not assert jurisdiction
because the Board's standard for the hotel industry, based on volume
of business, is a mechanical rule which does not measure the effect on
interstate commerce, and is therefore arbitrary, capricious, and dis-
criminatory. For the reasons set forth in Floridan Hotel of Tampa,
Inc.,' we find no merit in this contention. The Employer also asserts
that if the Board should adhere to a jurisdictional standard based on
gross volume of business, it should rely only on that revenue which is
derived from room rentals, since that is essentially a hotel's business,
while revenue from other sources is incidental, and entirely local in
nature. It also points out that in 1958 its net profits from some of
these "incidental transactions" were very small.
We reject the Employer's contention that the Board may assert
jurisdiction over hotels only on the basis of a standard which excludes
all income except that derived from the rental of rooms. If a hotel
makes provisions for supplying food, entertainment, and other serv-
ices to its guests and to the general public, it is presumably because it
finds them a necessary part of its business. In any event, it is an em-
ployer's total operations 3 and, in the case of hotels, its regular recur-
rent revenues which are taken into account in determining whether the
Board will exercise its jurisdiction. A fortiori, whether its profits
from any particular branch of its operations are large, small, or non-
existent cannot be relevant in ascertaining its gross revenues. As the
Employer's annual gross volume of business is well in excess of
$500,000 we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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.
2124 NLRB 261
3Stemons Maading Service, 122 NLRB 81
5 5 44 61-- 6 0-v o 1 12 6-7 3
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all employees, and
the parties agree generally on the employee classifications to be in-
cluded. They also agreed to exclude room clerks, mail and informa-
tion clerks , cashiers , and telephone operators . The Employer would
also exclude engineering department employees and other individual
employee classifications discussed below. There are approximately
135 employees in the unit proposed by the Petitioner . There is no
history of collective bargaining.
The parties agreed to exclude the room clerks and other employees
in the front office because their duties are assertedly office clerical in
nature, and they have only a slight community of interest with other
employees in the unit. The Board , however, has recently held that
the interests and duties of front-office employees require that they be
part of a unit of hotel operating and maintenance personnel .' We find,
therefore , despite the agreement of the parties, that the front-office
employees are not office clericals, but are operating employees who
must be included in a hotelwide unit.
The Employer contends that engineering department personnel are
technical employees who should be excluded for that reason.
Reporting to the chief engineer , who the parties agree is a super-
visor, are employees classified as engineers and maintenance men
who are responsible for the care , maintenance , and repair of air-
conditioners , boilers, burners , and laundry equipment . Although the
manager testified at the hearing that their work requires more educa-
tion than that of other employees , he does not require applicants for
this position to have attended trade school or to possess any certificate
of skill . There is no testimony as to the experience or skill that is
actually required or necessary for these employees to perform their
job. In Litton Industries of Maryland , Incorporated ,' the Board
announced that when status of asserted technical employees was in
issue, it would require that the record clearly support such claim.
The record here does not indicate that the employees in the engineering
department perform the duties or possess the training which would
justify a finding that they are technical employees . In view of these
circumstances , we find that engineering and maintenance men are not
technical employees , but are, as their title indicates , maintenance men.
We shall, therefore , include them in the unit.'
The supervisory status of the inspectresses , bell captains, stewardess,
head pantry girl, food checkers , and hostesses is in dispute. The
Petitioner would include , and the Employer would exclude them.
There are two inspectresses who assist the executive housekeeper in
the management of the housekeeping department . They direct and
4 Artvngton Hotel Company, Ine., 126 NLRB 400
a 128 NLRB 722
6Florida Enterprises, Inc of Georgia dlb/a Cadillac Hotel , 125 NLRB 258
MANGER-SAVANNAH CORPORATION, INC. 1139
assign work to 10 maids and to the houseboys in their section, in caring
for the hotel's 254 rooms. The inspectresses are paid about 25 percent
more than the maids they direct. They can recommend hiring and
their recommendations on discipline, including discharge, are fol-
lowed by their superior in most instances.
The two bell captains in the uniform service department see that
bellmen provide prompt, courteous, and efficient service to the guests.
They possess full authority to discharge bellmen.
In view of the authority of the inspectresses to effectively recom-
mend discipline and the authority of the bell captains to discharge
employees, we find that they are supervisors, and shall exclude them
from the unit.'
The remaining employee classifications which the Employer would
exclude are assigned to the food department. The department con-
sists of three sections: restaurant, food preparation (kitchen), and
beverage and cocktail lounge. The stewardess heads food prepara-
tion service. She receives deliveries of food and other goods for the
kitchen which she inspects, and may reject if unsatisfactory. She
prepares invoices, keeps an inventory, and records the issuance of
food to the cooks. Under her direction are 12 to 15 employees in the
kitchen, including pantry girls, washers, and cooks. Although there
were no specific instances cited in the record when she has recom-
mended a discharge, the manager nevertheless testified that her rec-
ommendations on this matter would be followed. Furthermore, as
stated below, such recommendations are made to her by the head
pantry girl. In these circumstances, we find the stewardess has the
authority to make effective recommendations, and is a supervisor
whom we shall exclude.
The head pantry girl trains and works with six pantry girls in the
preparation of cereals, salads, and some desserts. Her recommenda-
tions on discipline are made to the department supervisor, or to the
stewardess, who would then determine the measures to be taken.
The food checkers price and check food items to be served. They
also inspect food for appearance and may reject it if it is unsatis-
factory. They do not direct the work of any employees and disci-
plinary recommendations are made to the department supervisor who
makes an independent investigation to determine if corrective
measures are necessary.
As it does not appear from the record that the head pantry girl
or food checkers have the authority to hire, discharge, or discipline,
or to effectively recommend such action, we find that they are not
supervisors and shall include them in the unit.'
7 Cf Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., supra.
81 L M. Corporation d/b/a Beau Ravage Motel, 124 NLRB 809 (checker-cashiers).
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is a hostess and assistant hostess in the restaurant section, and
a hostess in the beverage and cocktail lounge. The restaurant hostess
and her assistant direct operations there, alternating their hours of
duty so that one is present for breakfast and lunch while the other is
on duty in the afternoon and evening. The hostess has full authority
to hire and fire, and the assistant hostess acquires the same authority
after a,6-week training and probationary period. The hostess in the
beverage and cocktail lounge is responsible for service to the guests
and directs the work of the waiters. Although she is authorized to
hire and fire, she has delegated this function to the head waiter (cap-
tain), who the parties agree is a supervisor. However, when both
the hostess and head waiter are on duty, it is the hostess who directs
service in the beverage and cocktail lounge. We find that the hostess
and assistant hostess in the restaurant, and the hostess in the beverage
and cocktail lounge are supervisors, and we exclude them from the
unit.'
The parties agreed at the hearing to exclude the cashier in the
restaurant on the ground that she is an office clerical under the super-
vision of the auditing section. However, unlike the auditing personnel
who work in the hotel's office, the cashier works in the restaurant
receiving payments from guests. She maintains a record of the checks
and credit card payments and these, together with the cash she
receives, are placed in a safety deposit box to be picked up by the
auditing section. In these circumstances, we find, contrary to the
parties' agreement, that the restaurant cashier is not an office clerical,
but that her interests and duties ally her with employees included in
the unit." We shall include the cashier.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
hotel in Savannah, Georgia, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act :
All employees, including room clerks, mail and information clerks,
front office cashier, restaurant cashier, engineering and maintenance
employees, head pantry girl, and food checkers, but excluding office
clerical," managerial, and professional employees, timekeepers,12
watchmen, guards, inspectresses, bell captains, stewardess, hostesses,
and all other supervisors as defined by the Act."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
O Mission Valley Inn, Inc., 124 NLRB 963 (cashier-hostesses).
10Ind'iana Hotel Company ( Claypool Hotel ), 125 NLRB 629.
n These are clerk-typists, payroll clerks, auditors, and collection clerks.
'a We find, in accord with the parties, that timekeepers protect the property of the
Employer and are excluded as guards .
13 The parties agree , and we find , that the executive housekeeper, night housekeeper,
linen room supervisor , manager of the laundry department , superintendent of the service
department, the supervisor and the controller in the food and beverage service, head
bartender , head waiter ( captain ), and chief engineer are supervisors.