New Hotel Monteleone

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1092 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cumstances, and as their relationship to their respective crews appears
to be no more than that of highly skilled workers to less skilled em-
ployees, we find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that they are
not supervisory employees. We shall therefore include them in the
unit. See Southern Steel d Stove Company, Inc., et al., 124 NLRB
577.
Foremen: While the Petitioner contends that foremen are super-
visors and adduced some evidence in support of this position, the
state of the record is not sufficiently clear to permit a definitive deter-
mination of their status at this time. We shall therefore permit
foremen to vote subject to challenge.
Salesmen: The Employer employs two groups of salesmen-city
salesmen and country salesmen. The Petitioner would exclude both
groups from the unit. The Employer agrees that country salesmen
should be excluded, but would include the city salesmen. The record
shows that both groups of salesmen perform similar functions and
have substantially similar working conditions. City salesmen work
in the Houston area contacting and calling on the Employer's cus-
tomers and promoting sales, while country salesmen travel outside
the city doing similar work. While city salesmen have more contact
with employees in the mill than do the country salesmen, we do not
regard this to be sufficient reason in and of itself for differentiating
between the two groups of employees in determining their unit
placement. We find, consistent with the Petitioner's contention, that
outside salesmen considered as a group lack a sufficient community
of interest with production and maintenance employees to be included
in the unit. We shall therefore exclude all outside salesmen from
the unit.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 See Allen U . Bevier, Inc , 118 NLRB 1335.
New Hotel Monteleone 1 and New Orleans Hotel Employees.
Trades & Crafts Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
15-RC-2016. June 10, 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 William W. Fox, hearing
officer. The hearing officerls rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
As showing of interest is an administrative matter, not litigable by the parties,
Member Jenkins is of the opinion that the hearing officer erred in admitting evidence
relating to the labor organizations designated on the showing -ot-interest cards.
127 NLRB No. 135.
NEW HOTEL MONTELEONE 1093
Upon the record in this case the Board finds :
1. We deny the Employer's motion to dismiss on the ground that
the record does not establish that the business of the Employer
"affects" or is "in" interstate commerce within the meaning of the
Act. At the original hearing the parties stipulated that the Employer
during the preceding year did $500,000 worth of business, and that
75 percent of its guests were transients in that they did not remain
in the hotel 30 consecutive days during any one period of time.
Pursuant to a remand by the Board for further hearing to determine
whether the Board had legal jurisdiction over the Employer, the
parties stipulated that during the 12 months immediately preceding
the date of the hearing, the Employer had purchased supplies, equip-
ment, and stores coming from outside the State of Louisiana, either
directly or indirectly, in the amount of at least $10,000. In these cir-
cumstances, we find that the Board's legal jurisdiction is established
and that the Employer meets the Board's jurisdictional standards for
hotels. Accordingly, we shall assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.4
3. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
Petitioner's showing of interest was insufficient to support the peti-
tion. At the hearing, the executive secretary of the Petitioner testi-
fied that, with the exception of possibly a card designating a single,
constituent craft union, all the cards submitted to the Board author-
ized the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, to file the petition; and that, to his knowl-
tedge, no cards were filed authorizing the Petitioner to be on the ballot 5
The Board is administratively advised that 128 of the cards submitted
designated the "Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, Local No. . . . , affiliated with AFL-CIO";
that 35 of such cards designated "Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO and all Affiliated
Organizations"; that 3 of such cards designated "Hotel and Restau-
rant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 166"; and
1 such card designated the "Painters, Paper Hangers and Decorators
Local Union No. 1244, affiliated with the AFL-CIO." The latter
local as well as locals of other internationals comprised the Council,
the Petitioner herein. Also, the bylaws of the Petitioner list as its
3 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 261; Southwest Hotels, Inc ., 126 NLRB 297.
* The Employer's motion to dismiss on the ground that the Petitioner is not a labor
organization is denied. The Board has already found that the Petitioner is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act . Dinkler-St . Charles Hotel,
Inc, 124 NLRB 1302
5 In accordance with his position as stated in footnote 2, above, Member Jenkins would
not rely on evidence relating to showing of interest admitted during the course of the
hearing. However , he is in agreement with the opinion of the majority that the showing
of interest herein is adequate.
1094 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
constituent members various internationals including the Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union.
Contrary to the contention of the Employer and our dissenting
colleague, we find that the Petitioner's showing of interest herein is
adequate. The Board has always accepted showing-of-interest cards
designating a labor organization affiliated with, as here, the labor
organization appearing on the ballots In the circumstances herein,
the Board is satisfied that the designation of a constituent member of
the Petitioner is, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the
Petitioner's showing of interest, a valid designation of the Petitioner.'
Accordingly, we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition.
4. The parties are in agreement with respect to an overall unit of
all the hotel employees. However, they differ as to watchmen, whom
the Employer would include, and the Petitioner and General Truck
Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 270, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers, Independent, the Intervenor, would exclude.
The watchmen make regular rounds and punch a clock in connection
with watching for fires, their primary duty. Their obligation to re-
port strangers on the property is the same as that of other nonguard
employees. On the other hand, house officers, admittedly guards, are
specifically charged with performing protection duties with respect
to the Employer's premises. We therefore find that the watchmen
are not guards within the meaning of the Act and we include them
in the unit."
We find, accordingly, that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer,
at its New Orleans, Louisiana, hotel, including employees in the front
office, housekeeping, service, food, room service, front office book-
keeping, and upholstering departments; laundry, beauty parlor, and
garage employees; bartenders; waiters; checkers, cashiers, and porters
(Carousel and service bars) ; telephone operators, engineers, firemen,
'United States Gypsum Company , 118 NLRB 20 ; Cab Service & Parts Corporation,
114 NLRB 1294, footnote 2; Louis Pazstz Dry Goods Company, 71 NLRB 579. For
analogous rulings of the Board, see, for example, The Bailey Department Stores Co , 120
NLRB 1239, 1240 ; The Stsckless Corporation, 115 NLRB 979 , 980; Mid-South Packers,
m c , 120 NLRB 495; Louisiana Creamery, Inc., 120 NLRB 170; Atlantic Mills Servicing
Corporation of Cleveland , Inc., et al , 118 NLRB 1023 , 1025 Mohawk Business Machines
Corporation, 118 NLRB 168, 169, relied on in the dissent , is distinguishable on the ground
that there was a confusion in the identity of the petitioner as a result of a schism ; and
we have accepted showings designating affiliated organizations under provisions of our
Rules and Regulations identical , in relevant part, to those now relied on by our dissenting
colleague.
7 Because of the relationship between the Petitioner and the labor organizations desig-
nated by the employees , we find unwarranted the dissent ' s characterization of the Peti-
tioner as "unwanted" by these employees
8 The Woodman Company, Inc ., 119 NLRB 1784, 1789.
NEW HOTEL MONTELEONE 1095,
painters, electricians, plumbers, and watchmen, but excluding extra
banquet waiters; employees of the manager's office, accounting office,,
and advertising department; house officers, the director of entertain-
ment; 8 assistant manager, credit manager, and night manager in the,
rooms department; the general manager, resident manager, assistant
to resident manager, building superintendent, and assistant building
superintendent in the manager's office, credit manager-auditor, sales
manager, service superintendent, housekeeper, head bartender, head-
waiter in charge of waiters (Carousel Bar), catering manager, assist-
ant catering manager, chef, chief telephone operators, chief engineer,,
head painter, head electrician, manager and assistant manager of
laundry, beauty parlor manager, garage manager, and supervisors as,
defined in the Act."o
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS , dissenting :
I would find that the showing of interest submitted in this case is.
insufficient to support the petition.
The petition was filed by the New Orleans Hotel Employees Trades
& Crafts Council." A total of 167 showing-of-interest cards were
filed in support of the petition. Of these, 128, or almost 77 percent,,
designated "Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter-
national Union, Local Union . . . , affiliated with AFL-CIO"; 35 of
such cards, or almost 21 percent, designated "Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO and all
Affiliated Organizations"; 3 of such cards designated "Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local'
166"; and 1 such card designated "Painters, Paper Hangers and,
Decorators Local Union No. 1244, affiliated with AFL-CIO."
Thus, not a single card filed with the Board named the petitioning,
Council as the labor organization authorized to file a petition in
behalf of the Employer's employees.
This showing, in my opinion, is inadequate to support the petition
for the following reasons : In the first place, the purpose of the
showing-of-interest requirement is to enable the Board to determiner
e As the director of entertainment has no employees under his direction , we find, con-
trary to the Employer , that he is not a supervisor . However, because he is both in charge
of booking entertainment and may pledge the Employer 's credit in amounts such as $500,
we find that be is a managerial employee In accordance with the agreement of the
parties, we exclude him from the unit . Norman Weaver, et al„ d/b/a Weaver Motors,
et al ., 123 NLRB 209.
io Arlington Hotel Company , Inc., 126 NLRB 400
11 The precise makeup of the Council is not clear from the record The Council's bylaws
list 10 international unions as constituent members . The record , however, shows that at
the time of the hearing the Council was comprised of eight local unions , each affiliated
with its respective international, and of the Building and Construction Trades Council.
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whether or not further proceedings are warranted, and to avoid
needless dissipation of the Government's time, effort, and funds.12
The showing of interest in the instant case does not serve this purpose.
On the contrary, as the Council has received no preliminary support
whatever, the showing indicates that further proceedings are not
warranted.
In the second place, acceptance by the Board of the instant showing
is at variance with the Board's established procedures as set forth
in Section 101.17 of the Board's Statements of Procedure (Series 8),
which provides :
If a petition is filed by a labor organization or in the case
of a petition to decertify a certified or recognized bargaining
agent, the petitioner must supply, within 48 hours after filing but
in no event later than the last day on which the petition might
timely be filed, evidence of representation. Such evidence is
usually in the form of cards authorizing the labor organization to
represent the employees or authorizing the petitioner to file a
decertification proceeding. [Emphasis supplied.]
This section clearly contemplates that the labor organization filing a
petition be the one "authorized" by the "cards." 13 This certainly is
not the case here.
Thirdly, the decision of the majority herein is likely to work to the
disadvantage of the employees themselves. Because of the majority's
willingness to accept the showing presented in the instant case, the
employees are being forced to vote either for or against the Council-a
labor organization entirely different from the one they have desig-
nated. The employees are thus faced with a dilemma. They must
either vote for the Council, and thereby have this apparently un-
wanted organization thrust upon them; or they can vote against the
Council and, at the same time, pay a costly penalty for their choice.
For, if they reject the Council, the employees must, under Section
9(c) (3) of the Act, wait at least a full year until they may be allowed
to cast a vote for a labor organization of their choosing. By the
election that is being directed, the Board is thus granting the em-
ployees no mere Hobson's choice; indeed, it seems to me, the Board
actually may be imposing an inequity upon them.
Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition.
MI O. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516, 517-518; see also Plains Cooperative Oil
Mill, 123 NLRB 1709; H. G. Hill Stores, Inc. Warehouse, 39 NLRB 874 , 876, footnote 2.
13 The Board has expressly endorsed this policy . See Mohawk Business Machines
Corporation, 118 NLRB 168, 169, where the Board stated : ". . . the authorization cards
submitted at the time of the filing of the petition, which were signed by employees when
the Petitioner was affiliated with 17E, are not indicative of those employees ' wishes as to
representation by the Petitioner as an affiliate of IUE."