Marriott Hotels, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1970

187 N.L.R.B. 399 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MARRIOTT HOTELS 399
Marriott Hotels , Incorporated and International Union
of Operating Engineers , Local No. 399, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case 13-RC-12163
December 21, 1970
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
On July 17, 1970, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 13 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate the Petitioner's alternatively requested
unit of "all employees in the maintenance department
engaged in the operation and maintenance of steam
boilers and air-conditioning absorbers" employed at
the Employer's Chicago Marriott Hotel in Chicago,
Illinois , rejecting the Employer's contention that the
smallest appropriate unit for the requested employees
must encompass all employees in the maintenance
department. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations , Series 8 , as amended, the Employer
filed a request for review of such Decision contend-
ing, inter alia, that the Regional Director, in making
his unit determination, departed from officially
reported precedent. The Petitioner filed opposition
thereto.
The Board by telegraphic order dated August 20,
1970, granted the Employer's request for review and
stayed the election pending decision on review.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a brief on review, and
the Employer requested that its request for review and
brief in support thereof be treated as its brief on
review.
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 this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and makes
the following findings:
The Chicago Marriott Hotel is a 500-room hotel on
23 acres of land, with two main restaurants, two
cocktail lounges, about 25,000 square feet of banquet
and meeting room space, a conference center leased
to the American Management Association, two
swimming pools, kitchens, and other related facilities.
In addition, at the time of the hearing, the Employer
was building a 220-room addition, with health club,
ice rink, separate swimming pool, and related facili-
ties.
There are 850 employees at the hotel. Of this
number 20 are employed in the maintenance depart-
ment, performing maintenance work on refrigeration
equipment, sound equipment, electrical and mechani-
cal equipment of other kinds, and performing
painting, carpentry, locksmithing, etc. Also, approxi-
mately 8 of the 20 spend part of their time operating
and maintaining steam boilers and air-conditioning
absorbers located in the enginerooms.
The engineroom in the hotel contains one high-
pressure steam boiler used solely to supply steam and
power to the laundry which operates during the day
shift only. The engineroom also has low-pressure
boilers used for heating the hotel and its water supply
(the conference center also has a low-pressure boiler
used to heat its water supply), low-pressure air-
conditioning absorbers, water softening equipment
and various pumps and filters associated with the
swimming pools, key-making apparatus, workbench-
es, and a central electrical room. The engineroom
functions as the central maintenance area, as well as
the office for maintenance supervision and a clerical
employee.
The chief engineer , a licensed operating engineer, is
over the entire maintenance department. He has two
assistant chiefs who assist in the supervision of
maintenance employees. One, commonly referred to
as the "engineroom chief," is also a licensed operating
engineer and provides immediate supervision to the
boilertenders who operate and perform preventive
maintenance on the steam boilers and air-condition-
ing absorbers in the engineroom and the conference
center. The two licensed supervisors are often present
during the day shift when the high-pressure boiler is
operated and when low-pressure boilers may be
operated at over 10 psi (pounds per square inch).' The
other assistant chief supervises all maintenance
assignments other than boilerroom work.
All maintenance department employers are multi-
skilled and are classified as maintenance or senior
maintenance. All the boilertenders are classified as
senior maintenance. The Acting Regional Director
found that while the boilertenders, licensed or
unlicensed, spend only about 25 percent of their time
operating and maintaining the boilers and absorbers,
it is not uncommon for those on the first and second
shifts to spend 3 and 4 hours of an 8-hour shift on
boilerroom work. They spend the rest of their time,
like the other maintenance employees, in performing
a variety of other types of maintenance assignments
throughout the hotel premises.
The Acting Regional Director concluded that
because the boilertenders are given exclusive respon-
sibility for the operation and maintenance of the
I In both of these events , a licensed operating engineer is required to be
present
187 NLRB No. 52
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
boilers and absorbers and this remains their primary
function, they constitute a functionally distinct group
appropriate for bargaining. We disagree.
It is clear, on the basis of the Acting Regional
Director's findings of fact, as well as our review of the
entire record, that the boilertenders here involved are
not predominantly engaged in boilerroom functions.
They do not, therefore, constitute an appropriate unit
of boilerroom operators on a craft or departmental
basis.2 Furthermore, in view of the fact that the
boilertenders spend the majority of their time on a
variety of maintenance assignments throughout the
hotel of the type handled by other maintenance
department employees and at such times share the
same supervision, we find that the only appropriate
unit herein must encompass all employees in the
maintenance department. Accordingly, as the Peti-
tioner indicated at the hearing that it would not
participate in an election in such broader unit, we
shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 See Kimball Systems, Inc, 164 NLRB 290, and cases cited therein