Pier Six, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 996 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pier Six, Inc. and Hotel, Restaurant Employees &
Bartenders Union , Local 5, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 37-RC-1922
September 30, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on May 2, 1974, before Hearing
Officer Edward J. Parnell. Following the hearing and
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements
of Procedure , Series 8, as amended , this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a motion
to remand and reopen on January 14, 1975. On Feb-
ruary 21, 1975, the Board issued an order reopening
the record and remanding for further hearing for the
purpose of adducing additional evidence as to the
scope of an appropriate unit. Pursuant thereto, a
hearing was held on March 18 and April 2 and 11,
before Hearing Officer Edward J. Parnell. Thereaf-
ter, the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The unit:
The Employer operates the Pier Six restaurant lo-
cated on a floating barge known as the Oceania,
docked in Honolulu. As more fully described below,
the Oceania barge also houses another restaurant, a
night club, and several banquet rooms. The Oceania
barge is owned and operated by Wen Hwa Ltd.,
d/b/a Oceania Floating Restaurant. On January 1,
1975, all of the stock of the Pier Six restaurant was
purchased by, and the Employer became a wholly
owned subsidiary of, Wen Hwa Ltd.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed
of certain employees of the Pier Six restaurant. The
Employer maintains that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate and that the appropriate unit
consists of certain employees of the Pier Six restau-
rant and certain employees of Wen Hwa Ltd., em-
ployed on the Oceania barge . These employees in-
clude hostesses , food and cocktail waiters and
waitresses , busboys , and kitchen employees.
The record shows that the Oceania barge houses
the Oceania Floating Restaurant which serves Chi-
nese food; the Pier Six restaurant which serves
American food ; the Empire Room , a nightclub
serves a buffet dinner consisting of Chinese food pre-
pared in the kitchen of the Oceania Floating Restau-
rant and American food prepared in the kitchen of
the Pier Six restaurant ; and several banquet rooms
which also serve food prepared in both kitchens. A
receptionist greets customers in a common area and
directs them to the restaurant of their choice. The
several dining rooms above operate during the same
hours , except that the Pier Six restaurant is not open
for Saturday lunch.
The record further shows that the management
and operations of the several restaurants on the
Oceania barge are highly integrated . The Employer
and Wen Hwa Ltd. have a common board of direc-
tors and the same president and other corporate offi-
cers. A general manager is responsible for the overall
operations of all the restaurants . One beverage man-
ager is responsible for the operation of the bars locat-
ed in the different restaurants . Employees of Pier
Six., Inc ., and Wen Hwa Ltd. work together in servic-
ing the Empire Room . There is common control over
purchasing, advertising , janitorial services , account-
ing, and personnel and a centralized catering depart-
ment handles banquet menus and tour groups for all
the dining rooms . One maintenance crew handles all
the restaurants on board the Oceania.
The employees of the several restaurants on the
Oceania barge are screened by, and hired through,
the same personnel office . The same personnel poli-
cies apply to all these employees . They share a com-
mon wage structure and the same fringe benefits.
They perform similar jobs, with common titles, re-
sponsibilities, and functions . Shipwide seniority is
applied to transfers from one restaurant to another
restaurant . There is employee interchange between
the restaurants and in some instances employees are
scheduled to work in two restaurants on the same
day. Transfers and shift changes are made on the
basis of customer volume in the respective dining
rooms. Catered banquets use employees employed
by both the Employer and Wen Hwa Ltd.
220 NLRB No. 155
PIER SIX, INC.
In view of the corporate relationship between the
Employer and Wen Hwa Ltd., the geographical prox-
imity of the restaurants each operates on the Oceania
barge, the similarity and functional integration of
their operations, the community of interest among
the employees who perform similar jobs under com-
mon terms and conditions of employment, and the
fact that there is considerable employee interchange
between the Employer and Wen Hwa Ltd. on the
Oceania barge , we find that a separate bargaining
unit consisting solely of the employees of Pier Six as
petitioned for in Case 37-RC-1922 is inappropriate.
For the same reasons, we find appropriate a unit
consisting of the full-time and regular part-time em-
ployees of Pier Six, Inc., and Wen Hwa Ltd. em-
ployed on the Oceania barge , excluding managerial
and confidential employees , guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
Finally, the parties stipulated and we find that the
following positions are supervisory within the mean-
1 In so finding, we are aware that elections have been previously held in a
unit consisting solely of the employees of the Oceania Floating Restaurant
However , we note that the unit in those instances was stipulated to by the
parties and occurred prior to the purchase of the Pier Six restaurant by Wen
Hwa Ltd.
Although no contention has been made that the instant petition should
not have been processed because a valid election had been held within the
year in part of the unit found appropriate herein , we note that the Board has
consistently found that Sec. 9(c)(3) of the Act does not preclude the holding
of an election in a larger unit , as here, than that in which the earlier election
had been conducted . Vickers, Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051, 1052 (1959)
997
ing of Section 2(11) of the Act: president, general
manager, beverage manager, room manager, assis-
tant -room manager, executive chef, assistant execu-
tive chef, head of maintenance department, and head
of purchasing department. The parties further stipu-
lated and we find that the position of personnel di-
rector and catering department manager are manage-
rial employees and therefore excluded from the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees of
Pier Six, Inc., and Wen Hwa Ltd., employed on
the Oceania barge, excluding managerial and
confidential employees, guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election 2 and Excelsior footnote om-
itted from publication.]
2 Inasmuch as the election being directed Case 37-RC- 1922 is in a broad-
er unit than the unit petitioned for by the Petitioner, and because it is not
clear from the record whether the Petitioner is willing to proceed to an
election in such unit , Petitioner may now wish to reconsider whether it
wishes to proceed to an election in the unit directed . If it does wish to so
proceed, it will be necessary for the Petitioner to submit to the Regional
Office an adequate showing of interest in such unit . Accordingly, we direct
that the Petitioner advise the Regional Director whether or not it wishes to
proceed to an election , and, if it does desire to do so and does not already
have a sufficient showing of interest , submit its additional interest showing.
Failure to submit a sufficient additional interest showing or, alternatively, a
request to withdraw petitions within 10 days from the date of this Decision
will result in dismissal of the petition in Case 37-RC-1922.