Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 8, 1976

225 N.L.R.B. 1196 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

1196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cincinnati S.I. Company , a Limited Partnership d/b/a
Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn and Hotel , Motel, Restau-
rant Employees and Bartenders ' Local 12 of the Ho-
tel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders' In-
ternational Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 9-
RC-11305
September 8, 1976
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Felix C.
Wade. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision.
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 rul-
ings 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 National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated and we find that Cincin-
nati S.I. Company, a limited partnership d/b/a
Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn, hereafter CSI, is a limited
partnership, existing under the laws of the State of
Ohio, engaged in the operations of a hotel facility in
Cincinnati, Ohio. During the past 12 months, a rep-
resentative period, the Employer had gross sales in
excess of $500,000, and purchased goods valued in
excess of $50,000, from firms located outside the
State of Ohio and caused such goods to be shipped
directly from locations outside the State of Ohio to
its facilities in Cincinnati, Ohio. In view of the fore-
going, we find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to rep-
resent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing certain employees of the Employer.'
' The Employer moved to dismiss the petition as untimely because of the
allegedly expanding nature of the unit At the time the hearing closed on
March 25, 1976, there were 96 employees in various classifications The
Employer is building a 33-story structure, attached to the present facilities,
which will add 438 more rooms, but no new job classifications The antici-
pated date of completion is August 1, 1977 Those presently employed con-
stitute 45 percent of the anticipated expanded 210 employee complement,
and they are performing in 100 percent of the projected job classifications
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit includ-
ing all setup employees, doormen, bellmen, garage
employees, parking attendants, maids, housemen,
laundry employees, linen room employees, elevator
operators, seamstresses, maintenance employees, and
painters, but excluding office clerical employees,
bookkeepers, desk clerks, PBX operator, reservation-
ists, night auditor, property auditor, accounts receiv-
able clerks, health club employees, lifeguards, confi-
dential employees, sales employees, security
personnel, professional employees, and supervisors 2
as defined in the Act. The Petitioner seeks a less than
hotelwide unit in that it would exclude the employees
of Stouffer Corporation,' hereafter called Stouffer,
who work in the restaurant, cocktail lounges, and
banquet rooms .4 The Employer contends that CSI
and Stouffer are point employers, and that only an
overall unit including all these employees sought by
Petitioner plus the employees of Stouffer is appropri-
ate.
There are two separate entities operating at
Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn. One is CSI which operates
the accomodations portion of the motel, and the
other is the Stouffer Corporation which operates the
restaurant, cocktail lounges, and banquet facilities.
CSI owns the building in which these functions are
performed and at which it operates a 462-room motel
in Cincinnati, Ohio, known as Stouffer's Cincinnati
Inn. CSI operates the motel under a license agree-
ment with Stouffer Foods Corporation of Cleveland,
Ohio, and the latter holds a lease agreement under
which it conducts the food and beverage operations
of the motel. Neither of these concerns has an inter-
est in the other, nor do persons in one hold an office
in the other.' The license agreement grants CSI the
In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the present employee comple-
ment constitutes a substantial and representative segment of the ultimate
projected complement of employees Accordingly, we conclude that the pe-
tition herein was not prematurely filed, and the motion to dismiss the peti-
tion is hereby denied
2
The parties stipulated, the record shows, and we find that the following
persons are supervisors Barry Cholak, general manager, Ed Nicholas, assis-
tant manager, Earl Hatt, resident manager, Walter Moore, garage manager,
Herbert Brockschmidt, set-up manager, Paul Craig, bell captain, Thelma
Rupp, executive housekeeper, James Smart, director of sales, George Na-
gengast, district maintenance supervisor, and Ruben Grant, maintenance
supervisor
5 The parties stipulated, the record shows, and we find that Stouffer Cor-
poration is an Ohio Corporation engaged in the hotel and food business in
several States At its Cincinnati, Ohio, facility during the past 12 months it
had gross sales in excess of $500,000 and purchased goods valued in excess
of $50,000 from firms located outside the State of Ohio and caused them to
be shipped directly to its facility within the State of Ohio
These employees are classified as wai ters/waitresses, cooks and pantry
employees, bus help, food and beverage cashiers, hostesses, bartenders, utili-
ty employees, receiving employees, and banquet employees
5 AIRCOA, a management company, is retained by CSI to assist it in
managing the accomodations portion of the motel for which services CSI
pays a fee Stouffer does not retain AIRCOA in any capacity, nor do any
principals of either serve as officers of the other and neither has an interest
in the other AIRCOA is owned by the partners of CSI and performs man-
225 NLRB No. 170
STOUFFER'S CINCINNATI INN 1197
right to use the trade name "Stouffer's" for its motel.
CSI in turn pays Stouffer a license fee equal to 5
percent of its gross room rental and agrees to adhere
to "standards of quality for motel hotel operation"
described in the licenses. The standards are predomi-
nantly physical standards dealing primarily with the
physical appearance of the property and the manner
in which it must be equipped and maintained. The
license contains a list of services which CSI must pro-
vide for its guests. Insofar as is relevant herein, the
license agreement provides that CSI will not compete
with Stouffer, will not advertise except in an accept-
able manner, and will not sell or lease the Stouffer
name. The penalty for a breach of the license is revo-
cation. There is nothing in the license agreement
which pertains to wages or fringe benefits for CSI's
employees. While Stouffer provides CSI information
on area wage rates, Stouffer does not participate in
the determination as to what the wage rate shall be
nor does it overrule CSI's wage determinations. It is
significant that Stouffer's quarterly inspection is
aimed primarily at the physical aspects of the facili-
ties and is only incidentally concerned with CSI's
employees. In fact, Cholak, CSI's general manager,
testified this was "basically a physical inspection. As
you can see, there is very little in it that dealt with
personnel." Cholak further commented on the items
inspected saying: "the inspector is more concerned
about the physical compliance than anything else,
yes. He would not get into personnel training or
other items, you know, wage scales or anything else."
Of further relevance herein are two aspects of the
license agreement , one of which provides that CSI
"will not employ nor seek to employ any person who
is at the time employed by . . . [Stouffer] and will
not directly or indirectly induce any such person to
leave his or her employment." This precludes trans-
fer or interchange of employees. Secondly, the agree-
ment specifically negates any intention by the follow-
ing language: "The Company [Stouffer] and Licensee
[CSI] are not and shall not be considered as joint
venturers, partners or agents of each other, and nei-
ther shall have the power to bind or obligate the
other except as set forth in this agreement."
Stouffer leases from CSI certain areas of the motel
for the sale of food and beverages. Thus, on the first
floor Stouffer has the restaurant, cocktail lounge,
kitchen storage, restaurant manager's office, and
three small offices for bookkeeping, personnel, and
assistant managers ; in the basement near the elevator
Stouffer has a receiving area; and on the second
floor, Stouffer has a banquet kitchen, storage areas,
and cocktail lounge. The rental for these facilities is
based on a percentage of the food and beverage sales
made by Stouffer . While Stouffer and CSI employees
may, in isolated situations , be near one another, they
do not work with each other in the performance of
their duties . Stouffer maintains the restaurant and
cocktail lounge at its own expense. This includes
plumbing, commercial refrigeration systems, kitchen
exhaust systems , and other equipment situated in the
areas leased by Stouffer . Stouffer pays all expenses
connected with the conduct of its operations , such as
taxes and insurance . CSI agrees not to lease or use
any other space in the building for restaurant purpos-
es and grants to Stouffer the sole right to provide
food and beverages in the building.
The record shows, and we find , that Cholak, CSI's
general manager , is the overall supervisor of CSI's
employees and sets the wage and fringe benefits of
all CSI's employees . He is responsible only to the
partners of CSI. Although as testified by Sparling,
the labor relations director for Stouffer , Stouffer
makes a report to Cholak concerning wages and
fringe benefits , based on area surveys Stouffer has
conducted , Sparling further stated it is within
Cholak 's sole discretion to determine its appl icabili-
ty.
While the license provisions set forth standards
dealing with management and employee personnel,
such standards are couched in general language and
are at best broad guidelines which impose no signifi-
cant personnel requirements on CSI . Thus, the li-
cense significantly does not reserve in Stouffer the
right to determine wages , hours , or other conditions
of employment , nor is there any evidence that Stouf-
fer has the right to hire, fire , or discipline CSI em-
ployees. Insofar as Stouffer employees are con-
cerned , Sherwood , the restaurant manager,
determines their labor relations matters, including
the setting of wages and handling of grievances. Both
CSI and Stouffer prepare their own payroll , do their
own bookkeeping , and have separate immediate and
overall supervision . Each firm also has separate wage
scales , and health , hospitalization , and life insurance.
While Stouffer has a pension plan for its employees,
CSI has none. Moreover , contact between employees
of CSI and Stouffer is minimal . The greatest amount
of contact are instances where CSI banquet setup
employees work in preparing for Stouffer banquet
functions. In this regard they set up tables, chairs,
and other necessary equipment for banquet functions
and remove them at the end of each function. How-
ever , these CSI employees perform their function
separately and do not work "with" Stouffer employ-
ees.6 For this service , CSI receives from Stouffer 50
agement services for other motel/hotel operations , located in various cores , 6 The CSI banquet setup employees and bellman will also on occasion
which are owned by the partners Continued
1198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cents per meal for those dining in the banquet room.
There is also some contact between the maintenance
employees who are employed by CSI and the Stouf-
fer employees inasmuch as minor maintenance is
performed in the food and beverage areas by the
maintenance staff. Similarly, the elevator operator
not only services the housekeeping department em-
ployees but also provides elevator service for the
room service waiters. The Stouffer and CSI employ-
ees have separate lunchrooms, locker rooms, and
restrooms , and only CSI employees punch the time-
clock on the third floor. No Stouffer personnel at-
tend CSI department meetings . CSI and Stouffer
both have their own employee pamphlets setting
forth benefits, general rules and regulations, and lo-
cation of services. In addition, the working hours of
CSI employees differ substantially from those of the
Stouffer employees.
Stouffer and CSI each pays one-half of the salaries
of the employees in the sales and catering depart-
ments, and of the personnel coordinator.' The firms
also share in the expense of these operations. Stouffer
carries a share of the salaries of CSI's district mainte-
nance supervisor and of CSI's service elevator opera-
tor. CSI and Stouffer also have point marketing and
advertising activities. They share in the use of such
services as window washing, pest control, and inter-
nal security, with each paying its fair share of the
cost.
There is little contact between employees working
in the food and beverage operations and the remain-
der of the hotel employees, particularly those in the
unit sought by Petitioner. It is true that all employees
involved herein are hourly paid and have some of the
same benefits, but it is also true that each of these
benefits is controlled by the respective Employers of
the employees.
The food-beverage and the motel operations are
under separate management with, as stated before,
separate immediate and daily supervision. There is
no evidence of interchange of employees and no
overlapping of duties beyond that mentioned above.
There have only been two transfers between CSI and
Stouffer employees. It is our opinion that the func-
tions of the hotel employees herein are definable and
are clearly separate from those of the food-beverage
work for Stouffer as waiters and in other capacities in the banquet room and
will be paid by Stouffer for such service These appear to be the only in-
stances of interchange of employees
r The sales department employees are concerned with attracting business
to the motel The catering department is concerned with coordinating room
reservations and functions for groups once they are booked into the motel
The personnel coordinator conducts the initial employment interview with
nonmanagement applicants for both CSI and Stouffer and maintains cer-
tain employment records for both However, the final determination on
hiring is done by Stouffer or CSI personnel for their respective employees
employees. The operations of CSI and Stouffer are
not such that either controls the labor relations poli-
cy of the other.
We have long held that the critical factor in de-
termining whether a point employer relationship ex-
ists is the control which one party exercised over the
labor relations policy of the other. It is immaterial
whether this control is actually exercised so long as it
may potentially be exercised by virtue of the agree-
ment under which the parties operate. Here Stouffer
neither exercises actual, nor possesses potential, con-
trol over CSI's labor relations under the license
agreement. It is undisputed that Cholak alone, with
his supervisors, hires, fires, and in every other respect
sets the terms and conditions of employment of the
hotel's employees.
The Employer in its brief advances the conten-
tion S that, because of the interrelations of Stouffer
and CSI and their license and lease provisions, there
is control of labor relations. But, as noted above, the
agreements merely provide broad guidelines and
whatever relations Stouffer and CSI have with each
other they do not involve labor relations.
For the foregoing reasons, and on the record as a
whole, we find Stouffer and CSI are not point em-
ployers of all the employees employed at Cincinnati
S.I. Company, a limited partnership d/b/a Stouffer's
Cincinnati Inn, within the meaning of the Act.
The unit Petitioner seeks is noted above. The par-
ties disagreed as to the unit placement of certain in-
dividuals working for CSI. Accordingly, we shall de-
termine their status. Tom Adamson is in training to
become an assistant manager, but does not possess
the authority to hire or fire. His training was to end 4
months from the end of January 1976, and Cholak
testified that at that time, he would have acquired the
authority to hire and fire, and responsibly direct em-
ployees. As of the hearing, he had only been em-
ployed about 2-1/2 weeks, but had attended one de-
partment head meeting. In view of the foregoing, we
shall exclude Adamson, as a supervisor. As Rebecca
Niemann, the front office manager is salaried, pos-
sesses the authority to hire and fire, and directs the
work of about 20 persons, we shall also exclude her
as a supervisor. The following individuals: Marge
Nolting, sales manager; William Gryner, sales direc-
tor-state organizations; Lynette Kayden, corporate
sales manager; Peggy McAlpin, secretary to director
of sales; and Stephanie Graule, sales receptionist, are
all employed in the sales office, performing basically
sales or clerical functions, work in a different loca-
tion than the employees requested, have separate su-
b The joint employer issue was fully litigated herein , whereas in a prior
proceeding , involving the same hotel, it was not raised Accordingly, we
base our finding herein on the evidence before us and are not bound by the
prior proceeding
STOUFFER'S CINCINNATI INN 1199
pervision , and do not interchange with or perform
any of the duties performed by the employees sought.
Accordingly , we shall exclude them as office clerical
employees having no community of interest with the
unit employees . Terry Rehage, assistant director of
catering , is salaried and has an office in the general
office area. Her primary function is selling group
food and beverage business to convention and pri-
vate groups. As she does not interchange with or per-
form any functions of employees of the unit , we find
she has no community of interest with the unit em-
ployees. The desk clerks, PBX operators , reservation-
ists, and night auditor are office clericals, and, in
conformity with Board policy to follow area practice
where clear , we shall exclude these classifications. As
the property auditor and accounts receivable clerk
do not interchange with or perform any functions of
unit employees , have no contact with unit employees,
are separately supervised , and are in the general of-
fice area separated from unit employees , we find they
have a separate community of interest and shall also
exclude them as office clerical employees.
The parties agreed , and we find , that the executive
housekeeper , Rupp , is a supervisor and is thus ex-
cluded from the unit. Under the executive house-
keeper are two assistant housekeepers and three em-
ployees classified as "supervisors " by the Employer.'
The three "supervisors" are hourly paid, earning 30
cents more an hour than the maids; they are not paid
overtime ; and they wear badges with their names
and the word "supervisor" and uniforms colored dif-
ferently from those the maids wear. Their responsi-
bility is to see to it that the maids do the work they
are supposed to do. They inspect the rooms to see
that they are properly cleaned . They train new em-
ployees. When a new maid is hired, she is told she is
under the wing of a "supervisor ." If the maid wants
to leave and has not finished her work , the "supervi-
sor" sends her to the executive housekeeper; if the
maid has finished her work , the "supervisor" has the
authority to allow the maid to leave for legitimate
reasons. Each "supervisor" has from II to 14 maids
working for her and when there are 3 of them they
each have 6 floors and 150 rooms to cover . If they
are not satisfied with a maid 's work they direct the
maid to redo any item . The night supervisor has au-
thority to allow maids to leave early if the executive
housekeeper is not in the house. "Supervisors" also
report rule infractions to the executive housekeeper.
They do not have the power to hire or discharge
maids. We are unable on this record to determine
whether the "supervisors" are supervisors within the
'There are four employees with the title "supervisor" However, one is
the linen room supervisor who, in fact , supervises no one
meaning of the Act, and, accordingly, we shall have
them vote subject to challenge.
The two assistant housekeepers are in charge of
the housekeeping department when the executive
housekeeper is on vacation or has a day off. Rupp
takes a 3-week vacation or has at least 1 day off per
week. These assistants are salaried. They are not paid
for overtime. They report to the executive house-
keeper what the maids are doing, the nature of their
work, and their attitude. They directly supervise
those not "supervised" by one of the three "supervi-
sors" discussed above. They also have the authority
to call to a "supervisor's" attention anything wrong
that they observe on the "supervisor's" floor. New
employees are told the assistants are supervisors.
When Rupp is off, the assistants can bring in maids
for overtime if needed. The assistants make recom-
mendations or evaluations as to the maids' job per-
formance every 6 months. The assistants only make
formal reports on the job performance of housekeep-
ing employees. They do not perform any maid serv-
ices. On Rupp's day off, the assistants have authority
to order laundry supplies and to permit maids to go
home early on personal business or for illness. They
also have authority to redistribute the rooms among
the maids. Cholak testified that the two assistant
housekeepers were informed by Rupp that they have
authority to hire and fire, and that, at the time the
job was created, he and Rupp determined that the
assistants would have authority to hire and fire. The
two assistant housekeepers attend meetings of de-
partment heads when Rupp is absent. They have
badges on their uniforms with the title "`Assistant
Housekeeper." In view of the foregoing, we shall ex-
clude the assistant housekeepers from the unit on the
ground that they are supervisors.
The Employer now, in agreement with the Peti-
tioner, would exclude the health club employees, who
are separately located; have different duties, hours,
and conditions of employment; are salaried and paid
commissions on massages given, which represent
one-third of their income; and are licensed. They
have separate locker facilities in the health club and
there is no interchange between health club employ-
ees and other unit employees. We find they have no
community of interest with the unit employees and
shall exclude them.
The three lifeguards are students who are em-
ployed from May I to October 1. They are contacted
by the resident manager during their spring break
and given an opportunity to return, but there is no
certainty that they will return. The three schedule
their own hours. They are hourly paid, receive a stu-
dent minimum wage rate, and do not receive any
fringe benefits. They do not interchange or have con-
1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tact with employees in the unit found appropriate
herein. As they are students hired only for the sum-
mer months, whose employment terminates with the
beginning of the school year; there is no evidence
these individuals have recurring jobs or are hired
each season; and they have no community of interest
with the unit employees. We shall exlude them from
the unit found appropriate herein.
General Manager Cholak's secretary, Patricia
Heidmann, is salaried, makes out the payroll from
the timecards, handles Cholak's correspondence and
telephone calls, assists the property bookeeper and
accounts receivable clerk, has access to personnel
files, and sits in staff meetings. Accordingly we find
that she is a confidential employee and shall exclude
her from the unit.
The setup men are engaged in setting up for meet-
ings, both food and nonfood functions. They provide
tables, tablecloths, ashtrays, and glasses for meetings.
They subsequently breakdown the set-up, and clean
the room. For a meal function, they set up all tables
and chairs in a prearranged table setting arrange-
ment. After the meal is finished, they break the tables
and chairs down, remove them, and clean the room.
It is their responsibility to clean and maintain the
room itself as well as provide the audiovisual equip-
ment, public address system, lectern, and easel, all of
which belong to CSI. Setup men are under the super-
vision of CSI personnel who direct their work and
supervise them in every detail. However, in certain
respects they are directed by Stouffer employees.
This direction is limited to setup employees following
the prearranged table setting arrangement that the
Stouffer personnel has communicated to the supervi-
sor of the CSI employees. They work in the same
area as Stouffer employees when the latter are parti-
cipating in serving the banquet, and later when
Stouffer employees remove food, china, crystal,
glass, and silver. Setup employees, however, have
completed their work and departed the area when
Stouffer employees begin their tasks, and do not
reappear until the Stouffer employees have complet-
ed their assignments and have left the area. Although
they are in an area where Stouffer employees work
and are engaged in certain activities where they have
certain related responsibilities with Stouffer employ-
ees, as they are employees of CSI, share CSI employ-
ee benefits and conditions of employment, and are
the only nonoffice clericals who would be unrepre-
sented, we shall include them in the unit.
The bellmen and doormen have the same immedi-
ate supervision and interchange their duties. Bellmen
and doormen are hourly paid, come in daily contact
with unit employees, punch the same timeclock,
place their cards in the same rack, and perform ser-
vice functions for guests, not clerical in nature, as do
other unit employees. The garage employees and
parking attendents are under one supervisor. They
receive free parking in the garage, punch the same
timeclock as unit employees, use the same rack for
their timecards, and, like bellmen, perform a service
function for guests and come in immediate contact
with guests. The one elevator operator's hours coin-
cide with those of other housekeeping employees.
Her main function is to facilitate delivery by house-
keeping of fresh linens and supplies to the guest
floors. Her subordinate purpose is to aid the food
and beverage delivery for room service and to bring
restaurant supplies to the banquet level on occasion.
Her primary purpose is to keep the elevator in service
and thus prevent the food-beverage service employ-
ees from parking the elevator on the floor where they
are providing room service. When she is not on duty,
the elevator operates itself. She, like others in the
housekeeping department, with whom she is grouped
in CSI's organizational chart, is under the executive
housekeeper, has the same hours as other housekeep-
ing employees, punches the same timeclock, puts her
timecard in the same rack, and is used to insure
housekeeping employess easy and ready access to the
elevator.
Under Executive Housekeeper Rupp are 10 laun-
dry workers, 4 housemen, 37 maids, a seamstress, a
linen room "supervisor," and the above service eleva-
tor operator. The laundry employees launder all the
motel's linen on the premises. The housemen clean
the public areas of the Inn; substitute to operate the
washer in the laundry room; maintain the public
restrooms during the day; clean the stairways, vari-
ous floors, elevators, stairways, and lobby floors;
move furniture; and take new linens coming in from
the street and take them to the linen room. Their
responsibility is largely janitorial. There are 37
maids, of whom 36 are referred to as production
maids and the other as a parlor maid. The produc-
tion maids perform the functions of changing the lin-
en in the rooms, cleaning the rooms, and supplying
them with necessary items for guest use. In so doing,
they pick up linen and supplies, take them to the
rooms, place them in the appropriate places, and
clean the rooms. The parlor maid cleans the offices
of the general manager, bookkeepers, reservation
and front desk clerks, and the health club. The seam-
stress works in the linen room on the third floor. She
works the same hours as unit employees. She substi-
tutes for maids when needed. There is no evidence
that the linen room "supervisor" possesses any super-
visory authority and we so find. She oversees the lin-
en room, keeps supplies moving, and takes care of
glasses for guests. She gives out linen and supplies to
STOUFFER'S CINCINNATI INN 1201
the maids, keeps the room tidy, takes care of lost and
found items, and answers the phone. All employees
under the housekeeper wear uniforms of different
types for each of the separate job classifications.
The maintenance department is on the third floor
next to the housekeeper's office. There are three
maintenance employees and one painter. They are
under the immediate supervision of Grant, the main-
tenance supervisor. The maintenance employees are
engaged primarily in painting, refurbishing, and mi-
nor maintenance and mechanical duties in connec-
tion with the entire building. They do not work in the
area where Stouffer has its facilities except to per-
form emergency work of a minor nature, as all Stouf-
fer fixtures and kitchen equipment is maintained by
an outside contractor. CSI's major maintenance is
also contracted out.
The housekeeping, laundry, engineering, and
maintenance departments are on the third floor, as
are the locker rooms of the employees working in
these jobs. They eat on the third floor and punch the
same timeclock, and put their timecards in the same
rack. They are all hourly paid and receive the same
fringe benefits. We shall include these employees in
the unit.
Finally, the Employer contends that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate on the
ground that it is contrary to area practice, which, it
asserts, supports a unit hotelwide in scope. However,
the record shows that the area practice is not clearly
defined and that there are a variety of arrangements
in the area. Accordingly, in view of our finding that
CSI and Stouffer are not point employers, that the
employees sought by Petitioner share a community
of interest, and that there is no existing and well-
defined area practice to the contrary, we find that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All setup employees, bellmen, doormen, garage
employees, parking attendants, maids, house-
men, laundry employees, linen room employees,
elevator operators, painter, and maintenance
employees at Employer's Stouffer's Cincinnati
Inn, 150 West Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, but
exluding office clerical employees, bookkeepers,
desk clerks, PBX operator, reservationists, night
auditor, property auditor, accounts receivable
clerks, health club employees, lifeguards, confi-
dential employees, sales employees, security per-
sonnel, professional employees, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication ]