Ramada Inn West

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 1279 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

RAMADA INN WEST 1279
Lane Avenue Property , Ltd., d /b/a Ramada Inn West
and Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees & Bar-
tenders Union, Local 737, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 12-RC-5003
September 13, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On March 4, 1976, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 12 issued his Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he broad-
ened the Petitioner's requested unit of housekeeping
and maintenance department employees employed at
the Employer's 510 Lane Avenue, South Jackson-
ville, Florida, motel, to include all the employees
there employed.' Thereafter, in accordance with Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's decision on the ground, inter alia, that in
making the above unit finding he departed from offi-
cially reported Board precedent.
By telegraphic order dated May 20, 1976, the
Board granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a brief on review.
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 considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issue under review,
including the Employer's brief on review, and makes
the following findings:
The Employer's motel facility is comprised of 4
connected buildings which contain 220 guestrooms, a
number of banquet and meeting rooms, a restaurant,
and a lounge. The Employer employs approximately
80 employees in its 6 departments; i.e., 7 front desk,
24 housekeeping, 3 maintenance, 42 food and bever-
age, 2 sales, and 2 bookkeeping employees. All the
employees are under the overall supervision of Rich-
ard L. Jones, the general manager; reporting to him
are, among others, the heads of the various depart-
ments.
The executive housekeeper, Ruth Riddell, super-
vises the 16 maids, 3 housemen, and 5 laundry em-
ployees who comprise the housekeeping department.
The overall unit found appropriate by the Regional Director includes
restaurant, lounge, and kitchen employees, front desk clerks, sales depart-
ment employees, and bookkeeping clerks
These employees are responsible for cleaning the
guestrooms, lobby, and function areas of the motel,
as well as laundering the motel linen. It is clear from
the record that the housekeeping department em-
ployees do not normally perform services for other
departments of the motel; their duties are for the
most part limited to performing the manual func-
tions suggested by their job classifications. Thus,
there is virtually no evidence that housekeeping de-
partment employees have ever performed services for
the sales and bookkeeping departments, or acted as
clerks at the front desk.2 However, on occasion, some
of the housekeeping department employees are uti-
lized to help set up certain rooms which are available
for functions and, at times, they convert some of the
motel rooms into function rooms. They also supply
whatever items are needed for functions, such as ta-
bles, chairs, water, and pitchers, and clean the tables
during breaks. Although it appears that certain
maids have been utilized to remove dishes and pour
coffee in the dining room if that facility is short of
help, the record does not reveal the frequency of such
occurrences. Nonetheless it is clear that, except for
those instances, housekeeping department employees
do not serve food to customers.' The record also in-
dicates that other motel employees perform the man-
ual duties of the housekeeping department on an in-
frequent basis. While sales, bookkeeping, and
kitchen employees have in the past prepared rooms
for guests, it appears that they perform such work
only on an emergency basis.
The three maintenance department employees per-
form mechanical repairs in all areas of the motel.
Like the housekeeping employees, they do not nor-
mally perform services in departments other than
their own.4 However, maintenance department em-
ployees may be called upon to deliver cots or cribs to
a room if a front desk clerk is unable to do so. There
is no evidence that other motel employees perform
maintenance work.
The seven front desk clerks are under the supervi-
sion of the front desk manager. Their duties include
welcoming and checking in guests, handling reserva-
tions, placing the guests in appropriate rooms and
2 Nevertheless, the record shows that the assistant housekeeper, a stipulat-
ed supervisor, answers the telephone behind the front desk when the front
desk clerks are busy In addition, the front desk clerk on duty during the
weekend testified that she has called upon a houseman, among others, to
relieve her for short periods Finally, while the record is sparse on this point,
it appears that a former employee worked in the laundry and at the front
desk
3 The record reveals that a housekeeping department employee was grant-
ed permission to work in the cocktail lounge However, it appears that she
requested the latter duty as she did not have a sufficient number of hours in
the housekeeping department
Although a maintenance department employee has relieved the sole
desk clerk for short periods during the weekend, it appears that he wanted
the additional hours to increase his earnings
225 NLRB No. 188
1280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operating the telephone facilities for the entire motel.
As noted, the record shows that the functions of the
front desk clerks are rarely performed by housekeep-
ing or maintenance department employees. Nor do
the front desk clerks often perform the manual func-
tions of the employees sought to be represented here-
in. Although the desk clerks may be called on to
clean and prepare a guestroom, the record discloses
that these occurrences are normally limited to those
occasions when the motel is almost full and the
maids have left for the day.' In addition, while the
front desk clerks may be called on to deliver a cot or
a crib to a guestroom, this normally occurs after 4
p.m.6
The 42 food and beverage employees are super-
vised by Richard R. Jones, the food and beverage
director. These employees provide food and service
to the dining room, cocktail lounge, and the various
function areas of the motel. As noted, they rarely
perform the manual functions of the motel employ-
ees requested by the Petitioner.
The front desk clerks are hourly paid and receive
from $2.20 to $2.70 per hour. The highest hourly rate
of pay for the housekeeping department employees is
10 to 15 cents per hour less than the highest rate for
the front desk clerks. All motel employees receive the
same fringe benefits.
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a
whole, we find that there is not such a high degree of
integration of functions and mutuality of interest be-
tween the requested housekeeping and maintenance
department employees and the other motel employ-
ees as to require their combination in a single unit.
As indicated above, the employees in the requested
5 The housekeeping department is a day-shift operation, which ends at
approximately 4 p in , the front desk is operated on three 8-hour shifts
There is also a special supply of housekeeping items kept behind the
front desk to answer the needs of the customers
unit are separately supervised, do not interchange
with other employees on a regular basis, and they are
engaged in the performance of distinctive manual
functions in furtherance of the objectives of their re-
spective departments. In these circumstances, we
find that the housekeeping and maintenance depart-
ment employees enjoy a sufficiently distinct commu-
nity of interest, apart from any broader interests they
may share with other motel employees, to warrant
their separate representation.'
Therefore, we conclude that the following unit is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time maids, house-
men, laundry employees and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its motel
facilities located at 510 Lane Avenue, South
Jacksonville, Florida; but excluding restaurant
employees, lounge employees, kitchen employ-
ees, front desk clerks, sales department employ-
ees, bookkeeping clerks, guards and supervi-
sors 8 as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the eligibili-
ty payroll period therefor shall be that immediately
preceding the date of issuance of this Decision on
Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publica-
tion.]
' See Ramada Inns, Inc, 221 NLRB 689 (1975)
8 The parties stipulated that the following individuals are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act Richard L Jones ( general manager ), Rich-
ard R Jones (assistant manager /food and beverage director), Ruth Riddell
(executive housekeeper ), Jacquelyn Cobb (assistant housekeeper), James
Pyle (chief engineer ), Robert Parrish (assistant chief engineer ), Carol Wyn-
ne (lounge manager ), Laura Wheeler (restaurant day manager), Mary Ellen
Gomez (restaurant night manager), Patrick Papa (front desk manager), Ver-
ree Crawford ( sales director), and Edmund Rapoza (chef)