Ramada Inns, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 3, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 965 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

RAMADA INNS, INC. 965
Ramada Inns , Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Local 631; and
Construction , Production and Maintenance
Laborers Union Local No. 383, AFL-CIO. Case
28-CA- 1765
March 3, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
Upon a charge filed by Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Local 631 and
Construction , Production and Maintenance Laborers
Union Local No . 383, AFL- CIO, herein called the
Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Acting Regional Director
for Region 28, issued a complaint dated September
20, 1968, against Ramada Inns, Inc., herein called
Respondent , alleging that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and Section
2(6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended. Copies of the charge , complaint, and
notice of hearing before a Trial Examiner were duly
served upon Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges , in substance , that on July 26,
1968, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
bargaining representative of Respondent ' s employees
in an appropriate unit, and that , since on or about
July 29, 1968 , and thereafter , Respondent has
refused and is refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union as such exclusive bargaining
representative , although the Union has requested
and is requesting it to do so On October 3, 1968,
Respondent filed its answer , which denied the
commission of the unfair labor practices alleged.
On November 13, 1968, the General Counsel filed
with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment,
asserting , in view of admissions contained in
Respondent ' s answer and its letters to the Union
dated August 5 and September 3, 1968, that there
are no issues of fact or law requiring a hearing, and
praying the issuance of a Decision and Order finding
the violations as alleged in the complaint. On
November 14, 1968, the Board issued an Order,
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a
notice to show cause why the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted Thereafter , Respondent filed a Response
opposing the General Counsel's Motion for
Summary Judgment , and the General Counsel filed
a Counter- Statement
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.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
makes the following.
RULING ON THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
The record before us establishes that on
December 18, 1967, the two locals comprising the
Union filed a joint petition in Case 28-RC-1741,
seeking to represent certain employees of
Respondent at the Ramada East motor hotel in
Phoenix, Arizona After a hearing, the Acting
Regional Director for Region 28 issued a Decision
and Direction of Election on February 8, 1968, in
which he found appropriate for collective bargaining
the following unit of employees
Waitresses, waiters, bus boys, cashiers, cooks,
cook's helpers, bakers, butchers, kitchen helpers,
kitchen porters, dishwashers, maids, linen boys,
room service waiters, bellmen, desk clerks,
bartenders, bar boys, cocktail waitresses, laborers
and groundkeepers employed by Respondent at
Ramada East, Phoenix, Arizona, excluding all
watch engineers and maintenance engineers,
administrative employees, technical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
On or about February 19, 1968, Respondent filed
with the Board a Request for Review of the
above-mentioned unit determination. On February
29, 1968, the Board issued its denial of said Request
for Review
On March 14, 1968, pursuant to the Decision and
Direction of Election, an election was held in which
68 valid votes were cast for the Union, 19 valid
votes were cast against the Union, and 15 votes
were challenged. Thereafter, Respondent timely filed
Objections to Election.
On May 1, 1968, after an administrative
investigation, the Acting Regional Director issued a
Supplemental Decision on Objections and Order
Directing Hearing. He found therein that
Respondent's Objections 1 and 2 raised material and
substantial questions of fact and credibility which
could best be resolved at a hearing, and that
Respondent's Objection 3 was without merit
Respondent filed with the Board a Request for
Review of the Acting Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision on Objections on May 2,
1968 The Request was denied on May 8, 1968
On May 27, 1968, the Hearing Officer issued his
report, finding that Objections l and 2 were without
merit and recommending that they be overruled.
Respondent filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's
Report on June 10. Thereafter, on July 26, 1968, the
Acting Regional Director issued a Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representative
adopting the Hearing Officer's Report.
On August 6, Respondent filed with the Board a
Request for Review of the Regional Director's
Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representative The request was denied on August
26, 1968
On July 29, and again on August 28, 1968, the
Union requested that Respondent bargain
174 NLRB No. 139
966 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collectively These requests were refused on August
5 and September 3, 1968, respectively On
September 5, 1968, the Union filed the charge upon
which the complaint was predicated.
In its Response to the Notice to Show Cause,
Respondent contends in substance that. (1) the
Board's unit determination, election procedure, and
certification of representative were unlawful and
invalid, (2) neither the Act nor the Board's Rules
and Regulations provide for a summary judgment in
unfair labor practice cases such as this one; (3) even
if a summary judgment is otherwise lawful, a
hearing is first required to determine (a) that
Respondent had reason to believe that John T.
Blake, the signator of the letters demanding that
Respondent bargain, was an authorized
representative of the joint locals comprising the
Union and, therefore, (b) that a valid bargaining
demand was made.'
Respondent's first contention seeks to relitigate
contentions made and rejected in the representation
case Respondent does not allege nor do we find any
new evidence unavailable at the time of the hearing
or special circumstances which warrant
re-examination of the denials of the requests for
review in the representation case Inasmuch as
Respondent has already litigated such contentions, it
has not raised any issue which is properly triable in
this proceeding.'
Respondent secondly contends that summary
judgment in this case is not authorized by the Act or
the Board's Rules and Regulations We find no
merit in this contention.'
As for Respondent's third contention, our
examination of the record in this case and in Case
28-RC-1741, the underlying representation case,
discloses that Blake had been acting on behalf of the
Union in its August 6, 1968, Request for Review
and that Blake filed and signed the Charge against
Respondent in this case. Further, the Union in
letters to Respondent on November 4 and 5, 1968,
confirmed that Blake was acting on its behalf
Moreover, copies of Respondent's replies to Blake's
bargaining demands on behalf' of the Union were
part of the General Counsel's Motion, and
Respondent does not contest their authenticity.
These replies do not challenge Blake's authority to
act on behalf of the Union. Indeed, the replies
implicitly concede Blake's authority, for they
proceed to set out other alleged reasons for not
granting the bargaining demands. Having thus
treated Blake as the authorized representative of the
Union, and in the totality of the circumstances of
this case, we find no merit in Respondent's present
contention regarding Blake's lack of authority at the
time of the demands. On the basis of the record
before us, including the record in Case 28-RC-1741,
we find that Respondent had no reasonable basis for
questioning Blake's authority to bargain for and act
on behalf of both locals comprising the Union. We
regard as frivolous Respondent's denial in its answer
that a valid bargaining demand was made
As all material issues have been previously
decided by the Board, are admitted by Respondent's
answer to this complaint, or are not proper
questions of fact to be determined at a hearing,
there are no matters requiring a hearing before a
Trial Examiner. Accordingly, the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted On the
basis of the record before it, the Board' makes the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, a Delaware corporation engaged in operating
motor hotels and restaurants and related services in
the Phoenix, Arizona, area During the past year,
which period is representative of all material times
herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its
business operations, purchased and had delivered
directly from outside the State of Arizona, goods,
supplies, and materials valued in excess of $50,000;
and during the same 12-month period, Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its operations, sold
goods and services, the gross value of which
exceeded $500,000. During the same period of time,
in excess of 25 percent of the guests at Respondent's
Ramada East motor hotel remained less than 1
month
Respondent admits, and we find, that Respondent
is, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of' the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
Local 631 and Construction , Production and
Maintenance Laborers Union Local No. 383,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Representation Proceeding
I The unit
' In its Answer to the complaint, Respondent denied, among other things,
that a valid bargaining demand was made
'E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 161 NLRB 1389
'Union Brothers Inc , 162 NLRB 1505, 403 F 2d 883 (C A 4),
Brush-Moore Newspapers, Inc, 161 NLRB 1620, E-Z Davies Chevrolet,
161 NLRB 1389, Collins & Aikman Corp, 160 NLRB 1750
The following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
Waitresses, waiters, bus boys, cashiers, cooks,
cook's helpers, bakers, butchers, kitchen helpers,
RAMADA INNS, INC.
kitchen porters, dishwashers, maids, linen boys,
room service waiters, bellmen, desk clerks,
bartenders, bar boys, cocktail waitresses, laborers,
and groundkeepers employed by Respondent at
Ramada East, Phoenix, Arizona; excluding all
watch engineers, and maintenance engineers,
administrative employees, technical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On March 14, 1968, a majority of the employees
of Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the
Acting Regional Director for Region 28, designated
the Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining with Respondent, and on July
26, 1968, the Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in said unit and continue to be such representative.
B The Request to Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about July 29, 1968, and
continuing to date, the Union has requested and is
requesting Respondent to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all the employees in the
above-described unit. Since August 5, 1968, and
continuing to date, Respondent has refused and
continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Union was duly
certified by the Board as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees of Respondent in
the appropriate unit described above and that the
Union at all time since July 26, 1968 has been and
now is the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid unit, within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. We further find
that Respondent has since August 5, 1968 refused to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
appropriate unit and that by such refusal
Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in,
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The acts of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations as
described in section 1, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce
V. THE REMEDY
967
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it
cease and desist therefrom, and upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the appropriate
unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement
In order to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the services of
their selected bargaining agent for the period
provided by law, we shall construe the initial year of
certification as beginning on the date the
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith
with the- Union as the recognized bargaining
representative in the appropriate unit See. Mar-Jac
Poultry Company, Inc , 136 NLRB 785, Commerce
Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229,
enfd. 328 F 2d 600 (C.A.5), cert denied 379 U S
817, Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB
1419, 1421, enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A.10)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I Ramada Inns, Inc , is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders Local 631 and Construction, Production
and Maintenance Laborers Union Local No. 383,
AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 All employees of Respondent normally working
at the Ramada East, Phoenix, Arizona, as defined
in section III, A, 1, supra, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since July 26, 1968, the Union has been the
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(a) of the Act
5. By refusing on or about August 5, 1968, and at
all times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees in the appropriate unit,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of' Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act
6. By the aforementioned refusal to bargain,
Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that Respondent,
Ramada Inns, Inc , Phoenix, Arizona, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
employment, with Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Local 631 and Construction,
Production and Maintenance Laborers Union Local
No. 383, AFL-CIO, as the jointly certified exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees in the
following appropriate unit
Waitresses, waiters, bus boys, cashiers, cooks,
cook's helpers, bakers, butchers, kitchen helpers,
kitchen porters, dishwashers, maids, linen boys,
room service waiters, bellmen, desk clerks,
bartenders, bar boys, cocktail waitresses, laborers,
and groundkeepers employed by Respondent at
Ramada East, Phoenix, Arizona; excluding all
watch engineers, and maintenance engineers,
administrative employees, technical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the
Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named
jointly certified Unions as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding, in a signed agreement.
(b) Post at Ramada East, Phoenix, Arizona,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 28, shall, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, be
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, a.id be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
'In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order"
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said Notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
(c) Notify said Regional Director for Region 28,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Decision and Order, what steps Respondent has
taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order of the National
Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the
policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
we hereby notify our employees that
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Local
631, and Construction, Production and Maintenance
Laborers Union Local No 383, AFL-CIO, as the
jointly certified exclusive representative of the
employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the
above-named jointly certified Unions, as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, with respect to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement The bargaining unit is
Waitresses, waiters, bus boys, cashiers, cooks, cook's
helpers, bakers, butchers, kitchen helpers, kitchen
porters, dishwashers, maids, linen boys, room service
waiters, bellmen, desk clerks, bartenders, bar boys,
cocktail waitresses, laborers, and groundkeepers
employed by Respondent at Ramada East, Phoenix,
Arizona, excluding all watch engineers, and
maintenance engineers, administrative employees,
technical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
RAMADA INNS, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Resident Office, Room 207
Camelback Building, 100 West Camelback Road,
Phoenix, Arizona 85013, Telephone 602-261-3717.