The Raleigh Hotel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 11, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 771 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE RALEIGH HOTEL COMPANY and LOCAL JOINT
EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTER-
NATIONAL ALLIANCE AND BARTENDERS' INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE OF
AMERICA, A. F.' OF L.
Case No. R-5118.-Decided May 11, 1943.
Mr. Joseph C. McGarraghy, of Washington, D. C., for the Company.
Mr. Robert A. Wilson, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
'Mr. Wallace E. Royster, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Local Joint Executive Board of
the Hotel & Restaurant,Employees' International Alliance and Bar-
tenders' International League of America, A. F. of L., herein called
the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of The Raleigh Hotel
Company, Washington, D. C., herein called the Company, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Earle K. Shawe, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Washington, D. C., on April_ 5, 1943. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to'examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial% Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. The Union has filed a brief which the Buard
has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I: THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Raleigh Hotel Company is a District of Columbia corporation
with its office and principal place of business in Washington, D. C.
49 N. L. R B., No. 110 771
587 647-43-N of 49--50
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
The Company is engaged in the operation of a hotel and has approxi-
mately 325 employees. During the year 1942, the Company had in
excess of 60,000 paying guests at its hotel and during the same period,
purchased supplies, food, and equipment valued in excess 'of $500,000,
of,which nearly all originated outside the District of Columbia.
The Company concedes for the purpose of this proceeding that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act. %
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Joint Executive Board of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees'
International Alliance and Bartenders' International League of
America, ; A. F. of L., consists of representatives elected by each of
three Washington, D. C., locals of Hotel & Restaurant Employees'
International, Alliance and Bartenders' International League of
America. These locals are labor organizations affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor and each admits to membership
employees of the Company. The Union is empowered to represent
the membership of the participating locals in grievances, labor dis-
putes, wages, rates of pay,k hours of employment, or conditions of
work. The parties stipulated at the hearing that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.'
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the bargaining
representative of the employees involved herein unless and until the
Union is certified as such representative by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director introduced into evidence
at the hearing indicates that the Union represents all the employees
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In a prior representation case, to which the Company and one of
the local unions represented by the Union herein were parties, the
parties stipulated, and the Board found in accordance therewith, that
a unit of service employees, excluding timekeepers among others, was
3 See Matter of Hamilton Realty Corporation and Local Joint Executive Board of Hotel
d Restaurant Employees ' International Alliance and Bartenders ' International League of
America, 10 N. L R. B. 858.
2 The Regional Director stated that the Union submitted " three authorization cards, all
bearing apparently genuine original signatures . The cards bore the names of persons whose
names appear on the Company's pay roll of November 19, 1942. Said pay roll contains
the names of three persons within the appropriate unit.
THE 'RALEIGH HOTEL COMPANY 773
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.3 Subsequently
the Company and the Union entered'into a consent election agreement
covering all employees excepting managerial and 'supervisory
employees, office employees, musicians, engineers, firemen, carpenters,
painters, and 'upholsterers. By this agreement timekeepers were not
expressly excluded from those eligible to vote, but the Company did
not include them in the eligibility list, contending then as now that
they are representatives of management. Since the consent election
all employees of the Company, excepting those excluded above and
the timekeepers, have been represented by the Union. The Union now
contends for a unit composed exclusively of the three timekeepers
employed by the, Company. Only one timekeeper is on duty each
shift and no one is in a supervisory status as to the others. - Their
working place is at the employees' entrance to the hotel where the
time cards of the service employees are kept. When an employee
arrives or departs, the timekeeper presents him with his time card.
After the employee inserts the time card in the clock and records
thereon the time of arrival or departure, the timekeeper returns the
timecard to the rack. The auditing department of the Company
makes the wage calculations from the time cards. Since the time-
keepers are stationed at an entrance, they are required to ascertain
that no one departs carrying with him property of the Company, and
to prevent the entrance of unauthorized persons. Timekeepers do not
report the tardiness or absence of employees and have no supervisory
authority. It is clear that in addition to performing a most perfunc-
tory clerical duty, their work is similar to that of a gatekeeper or
watchman. While they are carried on the pay roll of the auditing
department, they have no association with office or managerial
employees and are under the supervision of the service department.
The Company opposes the unit requested. Its first contention is
that timekeepers are representatives of management and as such
should not be represented by the union which represents the-service
employees. We find no merit in this contention. Section 7 of the
Act provides that employees shall have the right to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing and we have
uniformly upheld their rights in this respect.4 if the timekeepers
desire to be represented by the Union, the Act expressly permits them
to make such a choice. The Company's second contention is that
timekeepers are administrative employees and should be represented,
if at-all, as a part of this larger group. The administrative employees
=Matter of The Raleigh Hotel Company and Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Alliance,
Local No. 80, 7 N. L. R. B. 353.
' See Matter , of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 114, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
C. I. 0., 44 N. L. R. B. 881. _
774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
referred to are auditors, bookkeepers, cashiers, and , others in the
auditing department. While it is true that the timekeepers are for
administrative reasons 'classified , by the Company as auditing
employees, they are under the supervision of the service department
and their associations are almost exclusively with service employees.
Their working place is apart from the auditing department; they
are the only auditing department employees who receive meals'as a
perquisite of employment; and their vacations are awarded on a basis
different from that used for the auditing department employees. It
appears that timekeepers are excluded from the presently existing unit
and we believe properly so.' Since, for the reasons outlined above,
they are clearly segregable from the employees in the auditing depart-
ment, we are of the opinion that they may appropriately constitute a
separate unit.'
Therefore, we find, in the language of the petition, that those
employees of the Company classified as timekeepers or those who
perform the duties of timekeepers as the, position is generally under-
stood in the hotel industry, excluding supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union and the Company agreed at the hearing that the Union
represents a majority of the employees in the unit claimed by the
Union and that if the Board should find the claimed unit to be appro-
priate, the Union might be certified as the exclusive representative of
the employees within that unit without the necessity of an election.
Therefore, in consideration of the said agreement, and the finding in
Section IV, above, we find that the Union is the exclusive representa-'
tive of the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining and we shall so certify.
CERTIFICATION. OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
- IT 1S'1-1EREBY `CERTIFIED that Local Joint Executive Board of the
Hotel & Restaurant Employees' International Alliance and Bar-
tenders' International League of America, A. F. of L., has been desig-
nated'and selected by a majority of all timekeepers employed by The
1
Cf, Matter of, Cramp Shipbuilding Company and Industrial Union of Marine & Ship-
building Workers of America, Local No. 4r2, 46 N L R B 115.
THE RALEIGH HOTEL COMPANY 775
Raleigh Hotel Company at its hotel in Washington, D. C., as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, Local Joint
Executive Board of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees' International
Alliance and Bartenders' International-League of America, A. F. of L.,
is the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purposes
of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.