The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

THE LOS ANGELES STATLER HILTON HOTEL 1349
the Employer intends to submit bids for future work at the same
project, it contends that success in obtaining such work is conjectural,
and that, in any event, as the timelag between the termination of the
present contract and the beginning of another project is approxi-
mately 3 months, it would not retain present employees in anticipation
of future employment.4
As the decrease in the Employer's operations and work force out-
lined above is not speculative in nature but rather is based on the
actual diminishing requirements of the construction job involved and
as there is a likelihood of a termination by the Employer of its present
operations at this project in January 1961 and as the resumption of
further work at this project is conjectural and would, in any event, in-
volve months of no activity by this Employer, we find that it would be
inconsistent with the provisions and policies of the Act to direct an
election herein. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 Subsequent to the hearing , the Petitioner filed with the Board certain affidavits in
which it is alleged the current work of the Employer will continue until about January 15
or February 1961, and that completion of the Employer's work, should It be awarded an
additional contract , will take until April or May 1961. The Employer thereafter notified
the Board by letter that it objected to the Board 's consideration of the affidavits as not
being properly before the Board and also took issue with the alleged facts and informa-
tion set forth in the affidavits . It is unnecessary to consider the specific Issues raised by
the Employer in its letter, for , assuming that these affidavits are properly before us-a
matter we do not pass upon-they would not on their face warrant any modification of
the record evidence as set forth above . Insofar as they deal with current work they sup-
port substantially the evidence showing that such work will end in January 1961, and
insofar as they relate to work thereafter they are wholly speculative in nature.
5 See Douglas Motors Corp., 128 NLRB 307.
The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel and Office Employees
International Union Local No. 30 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
The Beverly Hilton Hotel and Office Employees International
Union Local No. 30, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 01-RC-
6318 and 931-RC-6319. January 17, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Fred W. Davis, hearing officer. 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. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
129 NLRB No. 166.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization named above claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the reason herein-
after indicated.
The Petitioner seeks separate residual units of all unrepresented
employees at The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel, herein referred
to as the Statler Hilton, and The Beverly Hilton Hotel, herein re-
ferred to as the Beverly Hilton, respectively.' The Employers and
the Intervenors contend that the petitions should be dismissed on the
ground (1) that the units sought are inappropriate, and (2) that
the petitions are barred by a contract between the Joint Board and
the Restaurant-Hotel Council, of which both Employers are mem-
bers. For the reasons stated below, we find that the units sought
are inappropriate.3
There has been no bargaining history with respect to the employees
of the Employers sought by the Petitioner. However, both Employ-
ers, since they commenced operations,4 have bargained on a multi-
employer basis with respect to other of their employees. Specifically,
the Statler Hilton and the Beverly Hilton have been and are now
members of the Restaurant-Hotel Council and the Hotel Employers'
Council. The Restaurant-Hotel Council was organized in 1946 by
various hotels and restaurants in the Los Angeles area for the pur-
pose of dealing with the Joint Board in negotiating collective-
bargaining agreements covering culinary employees and bartenders.
At the present time, the Restaurant-Hotel Council is authorized to
act on behalf of 22 hotels, "almost all of the hotels that have been
organized by unions" in the Los Angeles area and on behalf of
approximately 180 restaurants in the Los Angeles area. There is
presently in effect a contract between the Restaurant-Hotel Council
and the Joint Board covering culinary employees and bartenders on
a multiemployer basis. This contract will expire on March 15, 1962.
The Hotel Employers' Council, which was also organized in 1946,
acts on behalf of the same 22 hotels in dealing with all unions other
i The Los Angeles Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders Union , AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the Joint Board , intervened at the hearing
on the basis of a contractual interest International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 501, AFL-CIO , intervened for the limited purpose of contending that certain em-
ployees of the Employers in the engineering department were covered by its contract with
the Hotel Employers ' Council of Los Angeles, Inc. The Restaurant-Hotel Employers'
Council of Southern California , Inc., herein referred to as Restaurant -Hotel Council, and
the Hotel Employers' Council of Los Angeles, Inc, herein referred to as Hotel Employers'
Council , also intervened at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest
2 The Petitioner seeks front office employees , audit department employees , office clerical
employees , and miscellaneous other employees at each hotel.
3In view of this finding , we find it unnecessary to consider -the contract -bar contention
advanced by the Employers and the Intervenors.
4 The Statler Hilton opened in 1952 ; the Beverly Hilton opened In 1955.
THE LOS ANGELES STATLER HILTON HOTEL 1351
than the Joint Board. There are presently in effect a number of
collective-bargaining agreements on a multiemployer basis between
Hotel Employers' Council and various labor organizations.' Be-
tween 75 and 80 percent of the Statler Hilton employees are covered
by contracts negotiated on its behalf by the Councils on the multi-
employer basis, and 85 percent of the Beverly Hilton employees are
so covered.
Relying on the above-described bargaining history, the Employers
and Intervenors contend that the only appropriate unit with respect
to the employees sought herein is.the multiemployer unit and that
the separate units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate. Relying
on the Seagram case,' the Petitioner contends that the multiemployer
bargaining history respecting other categories of the Employer is not
controlling as to the employees sought.
We agree with the Employers and Intervenors that the units sought
are inappropriate. In Seagram and in the cases which followed, the
Board held that a multiplant or a multiemployer bargaining history
as to certain categories of employees was not controlling as to other
categories of employees as to whom there was no bargaining history,
and found units to be appropriate which were single employer or
single plant in scope. The single plant and single-employer units in
those cases were composed of categories of employees such as guards,'
office clerical employees,' and salesmen,' categories which have an
internal homogeneity and cohesiveness and could therefore stand alone
as an appropriate unit. However, unlike those cases," the employees
sought here comprise a miscellaneous grouping of unrepresented em-
ployees lacking any internal homogeneity of cohesiveness. Their sole
claim to separate identity is that they comprise all the unrepresented
employees of the particular employer involved and, for this reason,
are allegedly a residual unit. But, as already noted, the bargaining
as to the represented employees of the employer involved in each case
5 These labor organizations are Building Service Employees Union, Local 399, AFL--CIO ;
Window Cleaners Local 349, AFL-CIO ; International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 501, AFL-CIO ; District Council of Painters No. 30 , Laundry and Dry Cleaning
Workers International Union Local 52, Teamsters Local No 62 The Council's agree-
ment with the Teamsters covers parking lot employees of the Beverly Hilton The Statler
Hilton has no parking lot employees
13 Joseph E Seagram & Sons, Inc, 101 NLRB 101. This case has been followed by the
Board in a number of other decisions See Continental Baking Company, Wonder Bakery,
109 NLRB 33, 11facy's San Francisco, etc., 120 NLRB 69.
7Joseph E Seagram & Sons, Inc., supra
8Sovereign Productions, Inc, 107 NLRB 359
8 Lownsbvey Chevrolet Company, 101 NLRB 1752.
10 We do not wish to imply , however, that in every instance involving such categories
of employees, the smaller unit would be appropriate The Board has found, for example,
,that a bargaining history on a multiemployer basis as to other categories of employees
was controlling as to salesmen with respect to whom there was no bargaining history
where petitioner ' sought the multiemployer unit and had made a sufficient showing of
interest in such unit ( Peninsula Auto Dealers Association , 107 NLRB 56 ). Nothing
stated herein should be deemed to overrule our decision in Peninsula. Cf., also, Arden
Farms, 118 NLRB 117.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
has been multiemployer in scope. In order to be residual, the remain-
ing miscellaneous grouping of employees should therefore be coexten-
sive in scope with the multiemployer unit and not merely coextensive
with the particular employer's operations and thus only a segment of
the residual group.11 Accordingly, as the units sought do not con-
stitute appropriate residual units, we shall dismiss the petitions
herein.12
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CIIArRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
'i The Board has refused to find that a unit sought is an appropriate residual unit
where such unit constitutes only a segment of the represented employees . See, for ex-
ample , The Daily Press, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573, 578
12 The Joint Board indicated that it would be willing to represent the unrepresented
employees of the Employers in a multiemployer unit However , as the Joint Board has
not made a showing of interest in such unit , we are not directing an election in the
multiemployer unit.
Charlton Press, Inc. and Local 285, International Typographical
Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-CA-3105. January 17, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 4, 1960, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in
its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chair-
man Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges of unfair labor practices duly filed against the Respondent, Charlton
Press, Inc., herein called the Company , the General Counsel of the National Labor
129 NLRB No. 170.