Sheraton Park Hotel & Motor Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 728 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Washington Sheraton Corporation t/a Sheraton Park
Hotel & Motor Inn and Office & Professional Em-
ployees International Union, Local 2, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 5-RC-7873
October 13, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer John L.
Kluttz . Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended , by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 5, the case was transferred to the Board for
decision . The Employer filed a brief with the Board.
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
ruling 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 Board
finds:
1. The Employer operates a hotel within the Dis-
trict of Columbia . Accordingly , we find that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and , as the Board has plenary jurisdiction
over enterprises engaged in trade , traffic , or com-
merce within the District of Columbia, we find that it
will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer. At the
hearing, the Employer stipulated that the Petitioner is
a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,
but refused to enter into such a stipulation with re-
spect to the Intervenor , Joint Executive Board of the
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO.' The Employer con-
tends, citing Independent Metal Workers Union, Local
No. 1 (Hughes Tool Company),2 that the Intervenor
should be denied the opportunity to seek certification
because , the Employer alleges, it engages in unlawful
sex discrimination and separately classifies and segre-
gates male and female members and employees. In
support of this contention, the Employer introduced
into evidence the bylaws and Labor Organization An-
nual Report of Waiters Local 781, and the bylaws and
Labor Organization Annual Report of Waitresses Lo-
cal 507, two locals of the Intervenor; a letter to the
Employer from the Director of the Washington Dis-
trict Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission stating that the EEOC has issued a "No-
tice of Right to Sue," entitling Lorraine Evens, a
member of Waitresses Local 507, to institute a civil
action in the appropriate Federal District Court; and
copies of the formal documents in a class action filed
by said Lorraine Evans in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia against, among others, said
locals and the Intervenor.
In our opinion, the evidence adduced at the hear-
ing fails to support the Employer's claim that the In-
tervenor engages in unlawful sex discrimination.
While the record focused on certain alleged practices
of two locals, it does not disclose any evidence what-
soever that the Intervenor, itself, has engaged in dis-
crimination or is likely to engage in discrimination
with respect to the employees in the unit sought. In
these circumstances, we find no basis for denying the
Intervenor the opportunity to seek certification and
conclude that the Intervenor is not disqualified from
seeking the representation of the employees in the unit
described below.
However, it is well established that certification
of a union does not give it a license to engage in
discriminatory practices. Accordingly, any certifica-
tion which may eventuate as a result of this Decision
is subject to revocation upon a showing that the certi-
fied representative has not complied with its statutory
duties relative to equal representation of all employ-
ees in the unit?
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all front of-
fice clerical employees of the Employer, excluding all
other employees including guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act 4 The Intervenor agrees as to the
appropriateness of the unit. However, the Employer
contends that the unit is inappropriate because it in-
cludes "circuit board operators," a classification cov-
ered by the current contract. The facts show that the
Intervenor's contract does cover "telephone opera-
tors" and "night operators" and, since the record sug-
3 American Mailing Corporation , 197 NLRB No. 33.
The Intervenor currently has a contract with the Employer covering "all ° The unit sought consists of the following classifications : room clerks,
of its employees , with the exception of managerial and supervisory employ- night manager, customer service representatives , key clerks , circuit board
ees, office employees , musicians , engineers, firemen , carpenters , barbers, and operators , mail and information clerks, night auditors , cashiers , reservation
upholsterers ." clerks, and reservation statisticians , all on the clerical payroll; and mail
s 147 NLRB 1573 . clerks, and assistant front office supervisor on the administrative payroll.
199 NLRB No. 104
SHERATON PARK HOTEL 729
gests that these terms refer to the same jobs as per-
formed by circuit board operators , we shall exclude
the "circuit board operators" from the unit sought.
We therefore find that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All front office clerical employees at the
Employer's Sheraton Park Hotel & Motor Inn,
including room clerks , night manager , customer
service representatives , key clerks , mail and in-
formation clerks , night auditors, cashiers, reser-
vation clerks , and reservation statisticians (all on
the clerical payroll), and mail clerks, and assist-
ant front office supervisor (on the administrative
payroll), excluding all other employees , guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]