Southwest Hotels, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1151 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

SOUTHWEST HOTELS, INC. (GRADY MANNING HOTEL) 1151
on Monday, December 14, 1959. We are administratively advised
that the Intervenor's exceptions were in fact mailed on December 11,
1959, to the Regional Director for the Eighth Region and were re-
ceived in the office on December 14,1959, the date such exceptions were
due in Washington. The Regional Director was not requested to, did
not, and was not under any duty to, forward these exceptions to
Washington. Section 102.69 (c) of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provide that exceptions to Regional Director's reports be filed
timely with the Board in Washington. No exceptions were filed by
the Intervenor with the Board in Washington within the period for
timely filing which was extended at the Intervenor's request to
December 14, 1959. It is clear, therefore, that the Intervenor's
exceptions are untimely a
Accordingly, the Intervenor's request is hereby denied and its
exceptions rejected as untimely.
2 See Rold Gold of California, incorporated, 123 NLRB 255 , footnote 2
Southwest Hotels, Inc.' (Grady Manning Hotel ) and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner
Southwest Hotels, Inc.' (Marion Hotel) and Chauffeurs, Team-
sters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Petitioner
Lafayette Hotel Company 2 (Lafayette Hotel ) and Chauffeurs,
Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union No. 878, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 32-RC-1279,
32-RC-131d6, and 32-RC-1325. March 18, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Vivan E. Burks, hearing
i The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 Lafayette Hotel Company is an Arkansas corporation , whose stock is wholly owned
by Southwest Hotels, Inc. The petition in this case named Southwest Hotels as the
Employer, and the petition and notice of hearing were served on Southwest Hotels. The
president and vice president of Southwest Hotels are also president and vice president of
Lafayette Hotel Company. Although there was no formal service on Lafayette Hotel
Company, the general manager of Lafayette Hotel appeared and testified at the hearing.
Southwest Hotels has filed a separate brief for this proceeding in which it sets forth
contentions on jurisdiction and unit placement which are based on the testimony presented
at the hearing, including that of the general manager of the Lafayette Hotel The peti-
tion clearly designated the employees who were sought to be represented as those em-
ployed at the Lafayette Hotel In these circumstances, we find that Latayette Hotel
Company, through its general manager, president, and vice president had actual notice of
126 NLRB No. 141.
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
officer .3 The hearing officer 's rulings _ made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. Southwest Hotels, Inc., referred to herein as Southwest or the
Employer, is a Delaware corporation which has an ownership or
management interest in at least seven hotels in Arkansas and Ten-
nessee . Four of these are located within a few blocks of one another
in Little Rock, Arkansas. They are the Grady Manning, the Marion,
and the Albert Pike, which are owned and operated directly by
Southwest, and the Lafayette which is owned and operated by Lafa-
yette Hotel Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Southwest. Each
is under the immediate supervision of its own manager. Southwest
also owns the controlling interest in the Wm. Len Hotel Company,
which leases and operates the Wm. Len Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee,
and in the Majestic Hotel Company, Hot Springs, Arkansas. South-
west also owns some stock of the Arlington Hotel Company, Hot
Springs, Arkansas.
The gross revenues from the operations of the three hotels which
Southwest owns and operates directly exceeded $1,300,000 during
its last fiscal year, derived as follows : the revenues of the Marion
exceeded $500,000, and the revenues from the Grady Manning and
the Albert Pike were each slightly in excess of $400,000. The revenues
of the Lafayette Hotel were also in excess of $500,000. It is admitted
that 75 percent of the guests at each of the hotels stay less than 1
month.
As the Lafayette Hotel Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Southwest, we find that the Lafayette Hotel is a part of the South-
west's hotel chain, and that the two corporations are a single employer
for jurisdictional purposes.'
Southwest contends that the revenues derived from the Grady Man-
ning are insufficient for the assertion of jurisdiction under our hotel
the proceeding , that its interests have been fully represented , and that it was not
prejudiced by the Petitioner' s failure to determine its proper corporate name. Moreover,
in view of the relationship existing between Southwest Hotels and Lafayette Hotel
Company, we believe that, in any event , service of the formal papers upon the former
constituted service on the latter . We therefore deny the motion of Southwest Hotels to
dismiss the petition on the ground that it is not the employer of the Lafayette Hotel
employees Frost Lumber Industries , et al., 101 NLRB 659. We shall, however, on our
own motion amend the formal papers in this case to show Lafayette Hotel Company as
the Employer.
3 Separate hearings were held in these three cases. After the hearing in Case No.
32-RC-1279, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO ( herein called Intervenor ), made a formal request upon the Regional Director
to intervene in that proceeding for the purpose of having its name appear on the ballot
We are satisfied that the Intervenor 's showing of interest was obtained prior to the
hearing, and we shall permit it to participate in the election hereinafter directed
California Spray-Chemical Corporation , 123 NLRB 1224 , footnote 1. The Intervenor
fully participated in Cases Nos. 32-RC-1325 and 32-RC-1326 on the basis of its showings
of interest As the three cases all involve the same parties and present similar issues, we
hereby grant Intervenor ' s motion to consolidate these cases for decisional purposes
4 The Bellingham Hotel Company , 125 NLRB 5G2
SOUTHWEST HOTELS, INC. (GRADY MANNING HOTEL) 1153
standard, on the ground that the $500,000 figure may only be applied
to individual hotels and not to hotel chains. We do not agree. It is
the Employer's total operations, and not that derived from any par-
ticular segment of its business which determines whether the Board
will assert jurisdiction. The Board did not intend, in setting its juris-
dictional standard for hotels, to treat employers who operate more
than one hotel in any different manner than it treats employers who
operate separate, and even competing outlets, in other enterprises. As
Southwest's receipts in 1958 exceeded $500,000 we find that its opera-
tions meet our current jurisdictional standards for the hotel industry .5
Although Southwest concedes that our jurisdictional standard is
met in the case of the Marion and Lafayette hotels, it nevertheless
contends that the Board is precluded from asserting jurisdiction be-
cause of a lack of proof on these records that the necessary legal juris-
diction, that which is predicated on a finding that the Employer's
activities "affect commerce," can be established.
The distinction and difference between the Board's self-imposed,
discretionary jurisdictional standards and the jurisdictional require-
ments imposed by the Act and the Constitution is fully recognized by
the Board.6 Many of our jurisdictional standards already embody
the conclusion that the Board's legal jurisdiction has been proved,
since they are based on a substantial movement of goods and services
across State lines. However, those standards which are stated exclu-
sively in terms of gross volume of business (among which is the hotel
standard) serve only to establish the level below which the Board
believes that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction. It is therefore always to be understood that before we
apply our gross volume jurisdictional standards to assert jurisdiction,,
the record must conclusively demonstrate the existence of legal juris-
diction. Thus, in this case, as in all hotel cases, we must be satisfied
on the basis of the record before us that the operations of the Em-
ployer "affect commerce."
It is unlikely that an enterprise meeting our volume of business
standard would not affect commerce, since that phrase indicates the
congressional intent to exercise the fullest possible Federal jurisdic-
tion,' but the possibility nevertheless must be reckoned with. We
must therefore base our assertion of jurisdiction in hotel cases on
probative evidence rather than on any common understanding that
the manufacture and distribution of the hundreds of items consumed
e Milner Hotels, Inc, 124 NLRB 599; Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 261,
The T. H Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732
6 Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines, 124 NLRB 813
4 N.L R B. v. Fainblatt, et at. , 306 U S. 601, Amalgamated Association of Street,
Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America, et at. v. Wisconsin Employment
Relations Board, 340 U.S 383; Cuss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U S 1
554461-GO-vol 126 74
1154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and utilized in the operation of a commercial hotel necessarily affects
interstate commerce.
The Employer refused to produce voluntarily any figures as to its
purchases, directly or indirectly, from outside the State of Arkansas.'
Because these figures are not available to us in this proceeding, the
Employer contends that the Board cannot determine whether a labor
dispute at its hotels would affect interstate commerce, and that the
Board therefore does not have legal jurisdiction. Legal jurisdiction,
however, is not limited to the interstate movement of specific items,
but also encompasses, as defined in Section 2(6) of the Act, "trade,
traffic, commerce, transportation or communication among the several
States." Thus, the Board has held that employers engaged in bank-
ing, insurance, research, or the operation of motion picture theatres
may be subject to the Act even though the movement of goods across
State lines is minimal in such cases.
We note, first of all, in deciding whether we have legal jurisdiction
in these cases, that Southwest does business in more than one State
through the operation of its subsidiary, the Wm. Len Hotel Company.
Secondly, the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses established that the
Employer leases space in its lobby at the Grady Manning Hotel to an
:airline where tickets for interstate travel may be obtained; that the
Employer sells liquor which is not manufactured in Arkansas; that
it provides accommodations both in meeting rooms and in lodgings
for persons attending trade conventions; and that it extends credit
to holders of American Express and Carte Blanche credit cards. Each
of these items has more than a minimal effect on interstate commerce
while, taken together, they underscore the common-sense view that
hotels which serve a transient trade play an important role in further-
ing travel and in fostering commercial relationships between the in-
habitants of the several States. Finally, we take official notice of the
Employer's stipulation in Case No. 32-CA-783, now pending, that the
Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Marion Hotel), received goods in 1958, valued
at $7,000, directly from sources outside the State of Arkansas.
We are satisfied that the combined operations of Southwest and
Lafayette Hotel Company affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2 (7) of the Act' and that their gross volume of business
'For this reason, the Petitioner asserts that the rule of the Tropicana Products, Inc,
case , 122 NLRB 121 , is applicable here and that the Board should assert its jurisdiction
because of the Employer's failure to cooperate in our investigation. We held in that case
that we would waive our jurisdictional standards if an employer refused to reveal any
information pertaining thereto , if (a) such action would effectuate the policies of the
Act, and (b) if the record demonstrated that legal jurisdiction was present. The
Tropicana rule is not available to us in this case since we are being asked to waive the
statutory mandate that legal jurisdiction must exist.
9 Board Member Rodgers concurs in the finding that the Board has legal jurisdiction
in this case . In so finding , Mr. Rodgers relies, however , only upon the fact that in 1958,
Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Marion Hotel ), received goods, valued at $7,000, directly from
suppliers located outside the State of Arkansas.
SOUTHWEST HOTELS, INC. (GRADY MANNING HOTEL) 1155
meets our jurisdictional standards . We therefore find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in these cases,
and we deny the Employer 's motions to dismiss the separate petitions
which have been filed herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claimed to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the 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 and the Employer agree that separate units of
all regular full -time employees at the Grady Manning, Marion, and
Lafayette Hotels are appropriate . The Intervenor contends that the
petitions should be dismissed on the ground that the only appropriate
unit is one comprising all employees of Southwest and Lafayette
Hotel Company at the four hotels which they operate in Little Rock.
It is not, however , seeking to represent such a unit at the present time,
nor would it be eligible to petition for such an election because its
showing of interest is insufficient . Each hotel is supervised by its
own manager who establishes its labor relations policies , and there is
practically no interchange of employees between the various hotels.
Based on the foregoing , on the absence of bargaining history at any
of the hotels , and the fact that no party seeks to represent a multi-
hotel unit , we are satisfied that separate units of the employees at
the Grady Manning, Marion, and Lafayette Hotels are appropriate.
The Petitioner , Employer, and Intervenor agree on the specific
employee classifications which are to be included in a unit of regular
full-time employees at each of the hotels , and also agree on the specific
classifications to be excluded as supervisory . The Petitioner and
Intervenor would, however , exclude from each of the units the front-
office or lobby employees , including PBX operators , room cashiers,
desk , reference , and room clerks . Each of the hotels describes its
front-office employees under slightly different classifications , but their
duties are all similar . The PBX. operators operate the telephone
switchboard and handle all calls for guests. The cashiers post charges
to the guests' accounts and accept payment when the guests leave.
The reference and room clerks are stationed behind the main lobby
desk to assist guests in registering or in handing out mail and keys.
The Petitioner and Intervenor assert that these employees should be
excluded because they are office clerical , or managerial , employees
with little or no community of interest with other employees in the
unit. The Board has recently held that front-office or lobby em-
ployees are operating personnel whose work brings them in frequent
contact with other employees in the unit and with the hotel guests.
Despite the differences in duties, education , and manner of dress from
those of other hotel employees , we find that the front -office personnel
1156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are not office clerical or managerial employees and should properly be
included in a unit of operating and maintenance hotel employees.la
The parties stipulated to exclude certain secretaries and clerical
employees in the hotels' general offices as office clericals. We agree
that the secretaries to the managers, the secretaries in the catering
departments and all employees in the executive, auditing, credit, and
personnel offices are office clerical employees who may be excluded
upon the agreement of the parties."
The Grady Manning, Marion, and Lafayette Hotels operate retail
establishments off their lobbies where sales clerks are employed. They
sell such items as drugs, sundries, and alcoholic beverages and operate
a soda fountain. As these stores are owned and operated directly by
the hotels, their employees share the interests of other hotel em-
ployees. We find that they are properly included in a unit of all
hotel employees. For the same reasons, we shall also include the
barbers who are employed at all three hotels.
There are a few employee classifications in dispute which are
limited to one of the three hotels involved here. Thus, at the Marion
Hotel, the Petitioner would exclude, while the Employer and Inter-
venor would include, the secretary to the engineer. She works in
the engineer's office located in the hotel basement. She accepts tele-
phone calls from operating and maintenance personnel in the hotel
with regard to jobs to be performed. She then writes out a work
order and places it in one of several boxes for the craft or department
which is to do the work. She does no typing, and she is supervised
by the chief engineer, as are the other employees in the engineering
department. We find that her work is directly related to the physical
maintenance of the hotel rather than to the administrative tasks which
are performed by clericals in the Employer' s general offices. We find
that the engineer's secretary is not an office clerical employee and we
include her in the Marion Hotel unit. At the Lafayette Hotel, the
parties agreed and we find that the extra waiters hired for occasional
banquets are not regular employees and should be excluded. The
Petitioner and the Intervenor would exclude, while the Employer
would include, the coffee shop and the cigar stand cashiers at the
Lafayette Hotel. Both cashiers work at the cigar stand which is
located between the lobby and the coffee shop. The coffee shop
cashier accepts payments from either the waitresses or the customers
who have been served in the coffee shop. Each cashier has her own
register, but they frequently assist each other during meal hours and
other busy periods. We agree with the Employer that the cashiers
have a sufficient community of interest with the other employees in
the unit to warrant their inclusion.12
10 Arlington Hotel Company, Inc, 126 NLRB 400.
11 Arlington Hotel Company, Inc, supra
12 Indiana Hotel Company ( Claypool Hotel ), 125 NLRB 629 , and Beau Rivage Hotel,
124 NLRB 809.
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY 1157
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute units
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
1. All regular full-time employees at the Grady Manning Hotel,
Little Rock, Arkansas, including the PBX operators, front-office
cashiers, desk clerks, the retail store clerks, and the barbers, but
excluding office clerical employees, detectives, watchmen, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All regular full-time employees at the Marion Hotel, Little
Rock, Arkansas, including the room cashiers, room clerks, reference
clerks, sundries and beverage store clerks, barbers,.and the secretary
to the engineer, but excluding office clerical employees, confidential
employees, house officers, fire marshals and other watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
3. All regular full-time employees at the Lafayette Hotel, Little
Rock, Arkansas, including room cashiers, room clerks, reference
clerks, beverage store clerks, barbers, and coffee shop and cigar
stand cashiers, but excluding the secretaries to the general and
assistant general manager and to the catering manager, other office
clerical employees, banquet waiters, house officers and other watchmen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
St. Regis Paper Company and International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Pineland
Local 447, International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite &
Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO; Escambia Local 737, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite & Paper Mill Work-
ers, AFL-CIO; Pineland Local 617, International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO; United
Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Gulf Local 561,
United Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Local 444,
United Papermakers & Paperworkers , AFL-CIO; Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; Canton-
ment Local 1937, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Joint Petitioners. Case No. 15-RC-2104.
March 21, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before David L. McComb , hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial . error and are hereby affirmed.
126 NLRB No. 145.