Ramada Inns, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 283 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

RAMADA INNS, INC.
Ramada Inns, Inc. and Local 235, Hotel and Restau-
rant Employees and Bartenders Union AFL-CIO.
Case 7-CA-9627
November 14, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
Upon a charge filed on June 22, 1972, by Local
235, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Barten-
ders Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and
duly served on Ramada Inns, Inc., herein called the
Respondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for
Region 7, issued a complaint on July 12, 1972,
against Respondent, alleging that Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce 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 an Administrative Law Judge1 were duly
served on the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on May 30, 1972,
following a Board election in Case 7-RC-11067, the
Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondent's employees
in the unit found appropriate; 2 and that, commenc-
ing on or about June 1, 1972, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to
date to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative, although
the Union has requested and is requesting it to do so.
On July 24, 1972, Respondent filed its answer to the
complaint admitting in part, and denying in part, the
allegations in the complaint.
On July 31, 1972, counsel for the General Counsel
filed directly with the Board a Motion for Summary
Judgment. Subsequently, on August 3, 1972, 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. Respondent thereafter filed a
response to Notice To Show Cause, called Brief in
Opposition.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law
Judge" effective August 19, 1972.
2 Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding,
Case 7-RC-11067, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and
102.69(f) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See
LTV Electrosystenis, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4, 1968);
Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151; Intertype Co v Penello, 269
283
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and response to the
Notice To Show Cause, the Respondent contends
that the unit found appropriate by the Regional
Director in Case 7-RC-10053 is not appropriate and
violates Section 9(c)(5) of the Act and that, therefore,
the Union cannot be designated and certified as the
exclusive representative of the unit employees within
the meaning of the Act. Basically, the General
Counsel argues that the Respondent is attempting to
relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in the representation case . We agree with the
General Counsel.
The record in Case 7-RC-10053 shows that the
Union sought a unit limited to the "housekeeping
department" at the Respondent's Lansing, Michigan,
establishment, while the Respondent contended that
only an overall unit of the employees working at the
motel, restaurant, and bar was appropriate. On the
basis of the hearing record, the Regional Director, on
April 20, 1972, issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in which he found appropriate the unit
sought by the Union. Thereafter, the Respondent
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's Decision and Direction of Election in
which it reiterated to the Board its position taken
before the Regional Director. On May 12, 1972, the
Board denied the request as raising no substantial
issues warranting review. In the election conducted
on May 19, 1972, the Union received a majority of
the votes cast and accordingly, on May 30, 1972, was
certified by the Regional Director as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the unit found
appropriate.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly
discovered or previously unavailable evidence or
special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding
alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.3
All issues raised by the Respondent in this
proceeding were or could have been litigated in the
prior representation proceeding, and the Respondent
does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly
F.Supp 573 (D.C Va., 1967); Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378, enfd. 397 F.2d
91 (C.A. 7, 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA. The Respondent's motion to have
the record and transcript in the above representation case as part of the
record in this case is thus granted.
3 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.LR.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).
200 NLRB No. 19
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor
does it allege that any special circumstances exist
herein which would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding.
We therefore find that the Respondent has not raised
any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair
labor practice proceeding. We shall, accordingly,
grant the Motion for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Ramada Inns, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has its
principal office and place of business at 3838 East
Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Arizona, and maintains
other installations in several States of the United
States, including Michigan. The Respondent is
engaged in the business of providing motel and
restaurant services and its motel located at 1000
Ramada Drive, Lansing, Michigan, is the only
facility involved in this proceeding.
During 1971, a representative period, Respondent
in the exercise and conduct of its Lansing, Michigan,
motel operation had a gross revenue in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and caused to be transport-
ed and delivered to its Lansing, Michigan, facility
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
which were transported and delivered to its Lansing,
Michigan, facility directly from points located
outside the State of Michigan. More than 50 percent
of the Respondent's guests remain at the Lansing
Motel less than a month.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing, 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, and that
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 235, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders Union , AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
IIL THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of the Respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain-
ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time housekeep-
ing employees of the Employer at its 1000
Ramada Drive, Lansing, Michigan, establish-
ment, including maids, janitors, housemen, paint-
ers and maintenance men, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees.
2. The certification
On May 19, 1972, a majority of the employees of
Respondent in said unit, in a secret ballot election
conducted under the supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 7, designated the Union as their
representative for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing with the Respondent. The Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in said unit on May 30, 1972, and the Union
continues to be such exclusive representative within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent's
Refusal
Commencing on or about June 1, 1972, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about June 1, 1972, and continuing at
all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has
refused, and continues to refuse, to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa-
tive for collective bargaining of all employees in said
unit.
Accordingly, we find that the Respondent has,
since June 1, 1972, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the
appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respon-
dent 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 activities of Respondent set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with its opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relationship 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 com-
merce.
RAMADA INNS, INC. 285
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging 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 period of certifica-
tion as beginning on the date Respondent commenc-
es to bargain in good faith with the Union as the
recognized bargaining representative in the appropri-
ate 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).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ramada Inns, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Local 235, Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time housekeep-
ing employees of the Employer at its 1000 Ramada
Drive, Lansing, Michigan, establishment, including
maids, janitors, housemen, painters and maintenance
men, but excluding office clerical employees guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. Since May 30, 1972, the above-named labor
organization has been and now is the certified and
exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of
the Act.
5. By refusing on or about June 1, 1972, and at all
times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the
above-named labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all the employees of
Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has
4 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respon-
dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and
is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in
Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has 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 mean-
ing 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., its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning
rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment with Local 235, Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time housekeep-
ing employees of the Employer at its 1000
Ramada Drive, Lansing, Michigan, establish-
ment, including maids, janitors, housemen, paint-
ers and maintenance men, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act and all other employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in 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
labor organization 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 under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at the Lansing, Michigan, Ramada Inn
establishment, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."4 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being duly signed by Respondent's representa-
tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily 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 the Regional Director for Region 7, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment with Local
235, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders Union, AFL-CIO, as the 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 Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit
described below, 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 agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time house-
keeping employees of the Employer at its
1000 Ramada Drive, Lansing, Michigan,
establishment, including maids, janitors,
housemen, painters and maintenance men,
but excluding office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
and all other employees.
RAMADA INNS, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington
Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.