Supplemental Appendix — Hyatt Hotels Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

Office-Supreme Court, U.S.

Pt 2 oa

DEC 27 1983

ALEXANDER L. STEV

NO. 83-849 on oe

THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983

HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, d/b/a

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS,

Petitioner,

versus

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

. United States Court Of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

ARCH STOKES

C. DAVID JOHNSTON

STOKES, LAZARUS & WATSON

3711 Roswell Road

Atlanta, GA 30042

Attorneys for Petitioner

Tower Printing Company © 2 Peachiree Street, NSW © Suite 1414 © Atlante, George WO) © (404) 659. 4080

NO. 83-849

THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983

HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, d/b/a

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS,

Petitioner,

versus

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court Of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX

ARCH STOKES

C. DAVID JOHNSTON

STOKES, LAZARUS & WATSON

3711 Roswell Road

Atlanta, GA 30042

Attorneys for Petitioner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX: PAGE

Hyatt Regency New Orleans

ST OU DOO, EUDEED cc ccccesccccccececesoceve A-4

Hyatt Regency New Orleans, NLRB Case No.

EE + sVardhbbecesesbsedeveccdishse A-5

Hyatt Corporation, d/b/a Hyatt Regency

New Orleans, NLRB Case No.

nT CWE. écAi ob holes ddd ced cay snrevesese A-6

Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt

BETES SUED BOGE CADOED nc cvcccccccccccevine A-7

Hyatt Corporation, d/b/a Orlando Hyatt House,

NLRB Case No. 12-RC-5344 (1977) .......0ceeeees A-8

260 NLRB No. 66

UNITED STATES or AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Case No. 15-CA-8351-2

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS

and

UNITED LABOR UNIONS, LOCAL 100

DECISION AND ORDER

Upon a charge filed on October 13, 1981, by United Labor

Unions, Local 100, herein called the Union, and duly served

on Hyatt Regency New Orleans, herein called Respondent, the

General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by

the Regional Director for Region 15, issued a complaint on

November 16, 1981, against Respondent, alleging that Re-

spondent, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor

practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section

8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor

Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charge and complaint

and notice of hearing before an administrative law judge were

duly served on the parties to this proceeding.

260 NLRB No. 66

With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint

alleges in substance that on September 21, 1981, following a

Board election in Case 15-RC-6771,' the Union was duly certi-

fied as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of

Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; and

that, commencing on or about October 8, 1981, and at all times

A-4a

thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to date to

refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive

bargaining representative, although the Union has requested

and is requesting it to do so. Further, since on or about October

8, 1981, Respondent has failed and refused to supply informa-

tion to the Union regarding, inter alia, the names, addresses,

telephone numbers, dates of hire, job classifications and rates

of pay of all bargaining unit employees; a breakdown of the

bargaining unit by departments and job classifications; de-

scriptions of all fringe benefits including but not limited to va-

cations, holidays, leaves of absence, sick leave, bereavement

pay, jury duty pay, sickness and accident insurance, and pen-

sions; description of overtime policies including daily overtime

pay, conditions for refusal of overtime, and division of over-

time; description of layoff and recall policies; description of

seniority policies, including their application to benefits; de-

scription of disciplinary policies; and all work rules. On No-

vember 27, 1981, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint

denying all of the allegations in the complaint.

On December 14, 1981, counsel for the General Counsel filed

directly with the Board a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Subsequently, on December 17, 1981, the Board issued an order

transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show

Cause why the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judg-

ment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed sep-

arate responses to the Motion for Summary Judgment and the

Notice To Show Cause. The General Counsel also filed a sup-

plement to his summary judgment motion.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-

tions Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a

three-member panel.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes

the following:

A-4b

Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment

In its answer to the complaint and its responses, Respondent

contests, inter alia, the appropriateness of the unit and the va-

lidity of the Union’s certification. In his Motion for Summary

Judgment, counsel for the General Counsel alleges that Re-

spondent seeks to relitigate issues considered in the underlying

representation case. We agree.

Our review of the record in this case, including the record in

Case 15-RC-6771, reveals that, after a hearing, the Regional

Director issued a Decision and Direction of Election on May

26, 1981.2 At the hearing, Respondent’s attorney stated that the

jurisdictional stipulation entered into in 1977 at the representa-

tion hearing concerning the New Orleans, Louisiana, facility

was still true and accurate. Based on this stipulation, the Re-

gional Director found that Respondent met the jurisdictional

standards of the Board. The Regional Director further found

that the appropriate unit consisted of all full-time and regular

part-time employees in the Employer's housekeeping, laun-

dry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff departments; excluding all

front office, pbx, reservations, food and beverage, convention

services, engineering, accounting, sales, personnel, public re-

lations and security personnel, professional employees, guards,

and supervisors as defined in the Act.

On June 8, Respondent filed a petition for review of the Re-

gional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election arguing

that the Board had violated its own administrative procedures

and rules, and had tailed to set forth an hourly formula to de-

termine whether certain employees shared a sufficient com-

munity of interest to warrant their inclusion in the unit.

On June 19, the Board stayed the representation election and

remanded the case to the Regiona! Director with instructions to

issue a supplemental decision setting forth an eligibility for-

mula for regular part-time employees, casual employees, and

on-call employees. On June 30, a second hearing was held to

A-4c

adduce further evidence and, on July 13, the Regional Director

issued a Supplemental! Decision and Direction of Election in

which it was determined that Respondent does not employ any

part-time, casual, or on-call employees in the appropriate unit.

In the Supplemental Decision, the Regional Director found the

appropriate unit consisted of all regular employees in the Em-

ployer’s housekeeping, laundry / valet, concierge, and bell staff

departments; excluding all front office, pbx, reservations,

food and beverage, convention services, engineering, account-

ing sales, personnel, public relations and security personnel,

professional employees, confidential employees, guards, and

supervisors as defined in the Act.

On July 28, Respondent filed a timely request for review of

the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Direction

of Election. The request for review was denied on August 4. In

accordance with the Supplemental Decision and Direction of

Election, an election was conducted on August !1, and the tally

of ballots furnished the parties after the election showed 134

votes cast for, and 57 against, the Union. There were 17 chal-

lenged ballots, an insufficient number to affect the results. Re-

spondent filed timely objections to the election arguing that

certain employees who had been included in the unit in a 1977

representation case involving the same parties should have

been allowed to cast challenged ballots and that employees who

had been terminated by it prior to the election were wrongfully

permitted to vote. After an investigation, the Regional Direc-

tor on September 21 issued his Supplemental Decision and

Certification of Representative in which he overruled the ob-

jections in their entirety and certified the Union as the exclusive

collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the

appropriate unit. Respondent fiied a timely request for review

of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision and Certi-

fication of Representative. [he request for review was denied

on December 18 by telegraphic order of the Board.

On September 28, the Union, by letter, requested, and is

continuing to request, Respondent to provide certain informa-

A-4d

noi 7 a jujelials

tion regarding the unit employees for purposes of bargaining

including the names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of

hire, job classifications, and rates of pay of all bargaining unit

employees; a breakdown of the bargaining unit by departments

and job classifications; descriptions of all fringe benefits in-

cluding but not limited to vacations, holidays, leaves of ab-

sence, sick leave, bereavement pay, jury duty pay, sickness

and accident insurance, and pensions; description of overtime

policies including daily overtime pay, conditions for refusal of

overtime, and division of overtime; description of layoff and

recall policies; description of seniority policies, including their

application to benefits; description of disciplinary policies;

and all work rules. The Union further requested Respondent

to bargain collectively with it as the collective-bargaining rep-

resentative of the unit employees.

In its answer to the complaint in this case, Respondent de-

nies, inter alia, its jurisdictional standing, the Union’s status as

a labor organization, and its unlawful refusal to bargain with

the Union. However, Respondent admitted that it met the

Board’s jurisdictional requirements in the underlying repre-

sentation proceeding. Further, the Union's status was con-

tested in said representation proceeding and the Regional Di-

rector found that the Union is a labor organization within the

meaning of the Act. Respondent offers nothing to controvert

this finding. With respect to its denying that it has refused to

bargain with the Union, attached to the General Counsel’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is a copy of Respondent's

letter to the Union, dated October 8, 1981, stating that the

Union’s request for bargaining and for information relevant

to bargaining was inappropriate because the issue of the

Union’s certification was still before the Board. Respondent

has submitted nothing to controvert this document. Further,

it is apparent from Respondent’s response to the Motion for

Summary Judgment and the Notice To Show Cause that it

desires to test the appropriateness of the unit and the resulting

representation case. Accordingly, we deem the allegations of

the complaint concerning Respondent's refusal to bargain to

A-4e

be true. See Georgia, Florida, Alabama Transportation Com-

pany , 228 NLRB 1321 (1977). Thus, it appears that Respondent

is attempting to raise issues in the present case which were, or

could have been, raised in the underlying representation case.

It is well settled that in the absence of newly discovered or

previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances a re-

spondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5)

is not entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been

litigated in a prior representation proceeding.’

All issues raised by Respondent in this proceeding were or

could have been litigated in the prior representation proceed-

ing, and Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any

newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does

it allege that any special circumstances exist herein which would

require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the repre-

sentation proceeding.* We therefore find that Respondent has

not raised any issue which is properly litigable in this unfair

labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the Motion

for Summary Judgment.°

On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the fol-

lowing:

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Business of Respondent

Respondent is and has been at all times material herein a

California corporation which operates a hotel located in New

Orleans, Louisiana, where it provides food, lodging, and re-

lated hotel services to transient guests. During the 12 months

preceding November 16, 1981, a representative period, Re-

spondent derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and

purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess

of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of

Louisiana. —

A-4f

We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is,

and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged

in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the

Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert

jurisdiction herein.

Il. The Labor Organization Involved

United Labor Unions, Local 100, is a labor organization

within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

Ill. The Unfair Labor Practices

A. The Representation Proceeding

i. The unit

The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit

appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the

meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All regular employees in the Employer’s house-

keeping, laundry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff

departments; excluding all front office, pbx, reser-

vations, food and beverage, convention services,

engineering, accounting, sales, personnel, public

relations and security personnel, professional em-

ployees, confidential employees, guards, and super-

visors as defined in the Act.

2. The certification

On August 11, 1981, a majority of the employees of the Re-

spondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted

under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 15,

designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of

collective bargaining with Respondent.

The Union was certified as the collective-bargaining repre-

A-4g

4

“s

sentative of the employees in said unit on September 2!, 1981,

and the Union continues to be such exclusive representative

within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.

B. The Request To Bargain and Respondent’s Refusal

Commencing on or about September 28, 1981, and at all

times thereafter, the Union has requested Respondent to pro-

vide certain requested information for purposes of bargaining

including the names, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of

hire, job classifications, and rates of pay of all bargaining unit

employees; a breakdown of the bargaining unit by departments

and job classifications; descriptions of all fringe benefits in-

cluding but not limited to vacations, holidays, leaves of ab-

sence, sick leave, bereavement pay, jury duty pay, sickness and

accident insurance, and pensions; description of overtime pol-

icies including daily overtime pay, conditions for refusal to

overtime, and division of overtime; description of layoff and

recall policies; description of seniority policies, including their

application to benefits; description of disciplinary policies;

and all work rules; and to bargain collectively with it as the ex-

clusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employ-

ees in the above-described unit. The requested information is

necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its

function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative

of the unit employees. Commencing on or about October 8,

1981, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, Respondent

has refused, and continues to refuse, to provide the requested

information and to recognize and bargain with the Union as

the exclusive representative for collective bargaining of all

employees in said unit.

Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since October 8,

1981, and at ali times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively

with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees

in the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Respondent

has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within

the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.

A-4h

IV. The Effect of the Unfair Labor Practices Upon Commerce

The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above,

occurring in connection with its operations described in section

1, above, have a close, intimate. and substantial relationship to

trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend

to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce

and the free flow of commerce.

V. The Remedy

Having found that Respondent has engaged in, and is en-

gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section

8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist

therefrom, and, upon request, bargain collectively with the

Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the

appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, embody

such understanding in a signed agreement.

In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit

will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent

for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial

period of certification as beginning on the date Respondent

commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the rec-

ognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See

Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc. , 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Com-

merce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229

(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (Sth Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379

U.S. 817; Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419,

1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).

The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the en-

tire record, makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Hyatt Regency New Orleans is an employer engaged in

A-4i

-

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

2. United Labor Unions, Local 100, is a labor organization

within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

3. All regular employees in the Employer's housekeeping,

laundry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff departments; ex-

cluding all front office, pbx, reservations, food and beverage,

convention services, engineering, accounting, sales, personnel,

public relations and security personnel, professional employ-

ees, confidential employees, guards, and supervisors as defined

in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-

lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.

4. Since September 21, 1981, the above-named labor organi-

zation has been and now is the certified and exclusive represen-

tative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the

purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section

9(a) of the Act.

5. By refusing on or about October 8, 1981, and at all times

thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor

organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all

the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Re-

spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-

tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.

6. By failing and refusing on or about October 8, 1981, and

at all times thereafter, to supply information for the purposes

of collective bargaining to the above-named labor organiza-

tion regarding, inter alia, the names, addresses, telephone num-

bers, dates of hire, job classifications, and rates of pay of all

bargaining unit employees; a breakdown of the bargaining unit

by departments and job classifications; descriptions of all

fringe benefits including but not limited to vacations, holidays,

leaves of absence, sick leave, bereavement pay, jury duty pay,

sickness and accident insurance, and pensions; description of

overtime policies including daily overtime pay, conditions for

/

A-4j

refusal of overtime, and division of overtime; description of

layoff and recall policies; description of seniority policies, in-

cluding their application to benefits; description of disciplinary

policies; and all work rules, Respondent has engaged in and is

engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-

tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.

7. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respondent has in-

terfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with,

restraining, and coercing, employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-

gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the

meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-

tices effecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)

and (7) of the Act.

ORDER

Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations

Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby

orders that the Respondent, Hyatt Regency New Orleans, New

Orleans, Louisiana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,

shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of

pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-

ment with United Labor Unions, Local 100, as the exclusive

bargaining representative of its employees in the following ap-

propriate unit:

All regular employees in the Employer's housekeep-

ing, laundry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff depart-

ments; excluding all front office, pbx, reservations,

A-4k

food and beverage convention services, engineering,

accounting, sales, personnel public relations and

security personnel, professional employees, confi-

dential employees, guards, and supervisors as de-

fined in the Act.

(b) Failing and refusing to supply requested information

for the purposes of collective bargaining to United Labor Un-

ions, Local 100, regarding, inter alia, the names, addresses, tele-

phone numbers, dates of hire, job classifications, and rates of

pay of all bargaining unit employees; a breakdown of the bar-

gaining unit by departments and job classifications; descrip-

tions of all fringe benefits including but not limited to vacations,

holidays, leaves of absence, sick leave, bereavement pay jury

duty pay, sickness and accident insurance, and pensions; de-

scription of overtime policies including daily overtime pay,

conditions for refusal of overtime, and division of overtime;

description of layoff and recall policies; description of seniority

policies, including their application to benefits; description of

disciplinary policies; and all work rules.

(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-

ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-

teed them in Section 7 of the Act.

2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board

finds will effectuate the policies of the Act:

(a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named labor

organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in

the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay,

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment

and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-

ing in a signed agreement.

(b) Upon request, supply information to the above-

named labor organization for the purposes of collective bar-

gaining as the exclusive representative of all employees in the

A-4l

aforesaid appropriate unit.

(c) Post at the Hyatt Regency New Orleans copies of the

attached notice marked “Appendix.”* Copies of said notice, on

forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 15, after

being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be

posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and

be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-

spicuous places, including all places where notices to employ-

ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by

Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,

or covered by any other material.

(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in writing,

within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been

taken to comply herewith.

Dated, Washington, D.C. February 26, 1982

John H. Fanning, Member

Howard Jenkins, Jr., Member

Don A. Zimmerman, Member

(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

A-4m

APPENDIX

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

Posted by Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

An Agency of the United States Government

WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively concerning

rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of

employment with United Labor Unions, Local 100, as the

exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining

unit described below.

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to supply requested informa-

tion fo the purposes of collective bargaining to United labor

Unions, Local 100, as the exclusive representative of the em-

ployees in the bargaining unit described below.

WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,

restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights

guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.

WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the above-named

Union, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the

bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay,

wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment

and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understand-

ing in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:

All regular employees in the Employer's housekeep-

ing, laundry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff depart-

ments; excluding all front office, pbx, reservations,

food and beverage, convention services, engineering,

accounting, sales, personnel, public relations and

security personnel, professional employees, confi-

dential employees, guards and supervisors as defined

in the Act.

A-4n

WE WILL, upon request, supply information for the pur-

poses of collective bargaining to the above-named Union, as

the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining

unit described above.

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS

(Employer)

Dated

By

(Representative) (Title)

This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone.

This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from

the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered

by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or

compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's

Office, Plaza Tower, Room 2700, 1001 Howard Avenue, New

Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone 504-589-6389.

FOOTNOTES

‘Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Case

15-RC-6771, as the term “record” is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g) of

the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. See LTV Electro-

systems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (4th Cir. 1968);

Golden Age Beverage Co. , 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (Sth Cir.

1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va. 1967); Follett

A-40

|

A

|

.

Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967), enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of

the NLRA, as amended.

2All dates are in 1981, unless otherwise indicated.

ISee Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules

and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c).

“Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied as

the record, the pleadings, and the briefs adequately present the issues and the

positions of the parties.

In its response to the order transferring the proceeding to the Board and

Notice To Show Cause, Respondent contends that the order transferring the

proceeding to the Board and Notice To Show Cause is void ab initio because

it issued on December 17, 1981, and the Board's denial of the Respondent's

request for review of the Regiona! Director's Supplemental Decision and

Certification of Election in the underlying representation case did not issue

until December 18. We find this contention to be without merit. The order

and notice to which Respondent refers merely transferred and continued the

proceeding before the Board. The Board did not consider this case until after

Respondent's request for review was denied. We further note that Re-

spondent presents no argument that it has ben prejudiced by the fact that the

Board denied its request for review | day after the order and notice issued in

this case.

Respondent has also requested that the full Board reconsider the denial of

respondent's request for review of the Regional Director's Supplemental

Decision and Certification of Representative. This request is denied. It is the

policy of the Board for the same panel which decided a case to pass upon it

for reconsideration and for the full Board to consider such a motion only if

the panel refers it to the full Board. Florida Steel Corporation, 224 NLRB

1033 (1976); Enterprise Industrial Piping Company, 118 NLRB | (1957).

*In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States

Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER

OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD” shall read

“POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”

UNITED STATES or AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS 1/

Employer

UNITED LABOR UNIONS, LOCAL 100

Petitioner

Case No. 15-RC-6771

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a

hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the

Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to the un-

dersigned.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned

finds:

1. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free

from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning

of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert

jurisdiction herein. 2/

3. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-

tain employees of the Employer. 3/

A-5Sa

4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-

resentation of certain employees of the Employer within the

meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit

appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the

meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 4/

All full-time and regular part-time employees in the

Employer's housekeeping, laundry/ valet, concierge,

and bell staff departments 5/; excluding all front of-

fice, pbx, reservations, food and beverage, conven-

tion services, engineering, accounting, sales, person-

nel, public relations and security personnel 6/, pro-

fessional employees, confidential employees 7/,

guards 8/, and supervisors 9/ as defined in the Act.

DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10/

An election by secret ballot shall be conducted by the under-

signed among the employees in the unit found appropriate at

the time and place set forth in the notice of election to be issued

subsequently, subject to the Board’s Rules and Regulations.

Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were employed during

the payroll period ending immediately before the date below,

including employees who did not work during that period be-

cause they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily laid off. Also

eligible are employees engaged in an economic strike which

commenced less than 12 months before the election date and

who retained their status as such during the eligibility period

and their replacements. Those in the military services of the

United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. In-

eligible to vote are employees who have quit or been discharged

for cause since the designated payroll period, employees en-

gaged in a strike who have been discharged for cause since the

commencement thereof and who have not been rehired or re-

instated before the election date and employees engaged in an

economic strike which commenced more than 12 months before

A-Sb

the election date and who have been permanently replaced.

Those eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be rep-

resented for collective-bargaining purposes by UNITED

LABOR UNIONS, LOCAL 100.

LIST OF VOTERS

In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the oppor-

tunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of the statutory

right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a

list of voters and their addresses which may be used to commu-

nicate with them. Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236

(1965); N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759

(1969). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that within 7 days of

the date of this Decision, 2 copies of an election eligibility list,

containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,

shall be ‘.ied by the Employer with the undersigned / Officer-

in-Charge, Subregion, who shail make the list available to all

parties to the election. In order to be timely filed, such list must

be received in the Regional Office, Suite 2700, Plaza Tower

Building, 1001 Howard Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana

70113, on or before June 2, 1981. No extension of time to file

this list may be granted, nor shall the filing of a request for re-

view operate to stay the filing of such list except in extraordi-

nary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement

shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper

objections are filed.

RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW

Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules

and Regulations, a request for review of this Decision may be

filed with the National Labor Relations Board, addressed to the

Executive Secretary, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20570. This request must be received by the Board

in Washington by June 8, 1981.

A-Sc

Dated May 26, 1981]

/s/ Fred A. Lewis

at New Orleans, Louisiana Regional Director, Region 15

1/

2/

3/

4/

FOOTNOTES

The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.

The parties stipulated, and I find, that the Employer, a California corpo-

ration with corporate offices located at 1338 Bay Shore Highway, Bur-

lingame, California, operates a hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana (the only

facility involved herein), where it provides food, lodging, and related

hotel services to transient guests. During the past 12 months, a repre-

sentative period, the Employer had gross revenues in excess of $500,000

and purchased and received goods and materials valued in excess of

$50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Louisiana.

At the hearing, the Employer refused to stipulate to Petitioner's status as

a labor organization. The record establishes that Petitioner is an organi-

zation in which employees participate and which exists, in part, for the

purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and

working conditions of employees. Based upon the foregoing, and the

record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is a labor organization within the

meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Cebot Carbon Co., 360

U.S. 203 (1959).

The Employer operates a chain of 58 hotels throughout the United

States. The Employer's 27 story New Orleans facility is its 4th largest

hotel facility and contains 1200 guest rooms, 3 restaurants, 2 lounges and

various meeting rooms, exhibit halls and shops. Located on the first floor

is a registration lobby consisting of front office, bell staff, and concierge

departments. Adjacent to the front office are reservations and pbx de-

partments. Situated behind the registration lobby in a non-public area

of the hotel are the housekeeping, laundry/valet, engineering, pur-

chasing, and employee cafeteria departments. The second floor serves

as leased space for retail outlets in a shopping mall while the third floor

is divided into restaurant, lounge, kitchen, storage, ballroom and exhibit

A-5d

areas. The fourth floor houses the executive offices (accounting, sales,

catering, public relations, and computer department) with additional

rooms for group functions. The remaining floors are comprised of guest

rooms and there is a restaurant and lounge located on the top level of the

hotel. The hotel maintains full occupancy 8 to 9 months a year and caters

primarily to convention clientele.

Administratively the hotel is divided into 9 divisions: food and bever-

age, rooms, convention services, engineering, accounting, sales, person-

nel, public relations, and security. Individual directors supervise the op-

erations of each division and report to a general manager who in turn re-

ports to a regional vice president. Food and beverage is the largest divi-

sion employing over 500 employees in 9 departments: banquets, cater-

ing, room service, chef, Jonah's, Top of the Dome, Mint Julip, Court-

yard and LeClub. Each of these departments is separately supervised.

Food and beverage is responsible for the preparation and service of

meals and beverages in the Employer's restaurants, lounges, guest-

rooms and employee cafeteria. Rooms is the next largest division oper-

ating under the overall direction of an executive secretary and executive

assistant manager. The Rooms Division employs about 378 employees

in 7 departments: housekeeping, concierge, bell staff, laundry/ valet,

front office, reservations, and pbx. About 228 of these employees work

in the housekeeping department which is responsible for cleaning the

hotel lobby, front office, pbx, reservations, guest rooms and public cor-

ridor areas of the hotel. Convention services employs an unspecified

number of employees and is responsible for setting up and arranging

rooms for conventic meetings. Engineering employs 33 employees and

provides all maintenance services throughout the hotel including paint-

ing, carpentry, electrical, mechanical, and air conditioning repairs. Ac-

counting is divided into data processing and purchasing departments and

employs about 46 employees. This division purchases goods and materi-

als for the hotel and provides routine accounting services. The remaining

divisions (sales, public relations, personnel, and security) perform duties

traditionally associated with their title descriptions and employ about 61

employees. There are approximately 1100 employees employed in Em-

ployer's overall operations.

The Employer and Petitioner disagree over the composition of the

unit. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one con-

sisting of all full-time and regular part-time employees at its New

Orleans facility excluding all professional employees, confidential em-

ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer

contends that an all employee unit is the only appropriate unit because

of the integration of operations, interchange between departments, and

similarity of benefits enjoyed by all hotel employees. Petitioner argues

that a smaller unit limited to housekeeping, and laundry / valet employees

A-Se

“A

b |

|

constitutes an appropriate unit based upon the nature of their work and

the lack of functional integration or transfer between these and other de-

partmental employees. At the hearing, Petitioner, stated its willingness

to proceed to an election in a larger unit if the record established the ap-

propriateness of such a unit. In John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner,

Partners, d/b/a77 Operating Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant,

160 NLRB 927, the Board overruled its policy (promulgated in Arlington

Hotel Company, Inc., 126 NLRB 400), of finding only overall units to be

appropriate in the hotel industry. In 77 Operating Company, supra at

930, the Board indicated that operations in every hotel were not so highly

integrated nor employees so similar as to preclude the existence of a sep-

arate community of interest among smaller groupings of employees and

held that it would thereafter “consider each case on the facts peculiar to

it in order to decide wherein lies the true community of interest among

particular employees.” In Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt

House, 171 NLRB 1347, the Board reaffirmed its holding in 77 Operating

Company, supra, by stating (at 1348) that:

The Board's intention is to apply to the hotel industry the gen-

eral criteria used for determining units in other industries and

to make unit determinations after weighing all the factors

present in each case, such as the distinctions in the skills and

functions of particular employee groupings, their separate

supervision, the employer's organizational structure, and dif-

ferences in wages and hours.

In the instant case, I have considered all of the above factors and find,

as stated herein and in more detail in unit placement footnotes 5 and 6,

infra, that an appropriate unit is all full-time and regular part-time em-

ployees in the Employer's housekeeping, laundry/ valet, concierge, and

bell staff departments of the Rooms division excluding all front office,

pbx, reservations, {ood and beverage, convention services, engineering,

accounting, sales, personnel, public relations, and security personnel,

professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors

as defined in the Act. In reaching this determination, | have taken into

consideration the previous unit determination of September 9, 1977, in

Case No. 15-RC-6147 wherein a larger unit consisting of all full-time

and regular part-time banquet, beverage, concierge, convention services,

engineering, housekeeping, kitchen, laundry/valet, pbx, restaurant,

room service, service department, stadium club and steward employees

were found to be appropriate. The record in the instant case includes

voluminous Employer exhibits and a more extensive and complete de-

scription of the Employer's operations. Further, the record in the instant

case, contrary to the record in Case No. 15-RC-6147 does not show fre-

quent interchange or transfer between housekeeping, laundry/valet,

concierge and bell staff and other departments. On the other hand, the

A-5f

|

5/

record herein does show a close functional integration between house-

keeping, laundry/ valet, concierge, and bell staff departments. As dis-

cussed in greater detail in footnote 5, infra, concierge and bell staff de-

partments perform many of the same duties as housekeeping department

employees warranting their inclusion in the unit. The parties also dis-

agree concerning the placement of housekeeping floor supervisors (in-

spectresses). This issue is discussed in footnote 9, infra.

The parties stipulated, and the record establishes, that there is a close

functional integration between the housekeeping and the laundry/ valet

departments. Housekeeping comes under the immediate supervision of

an executive housekeeper, assistant housekeeper, and several assistant

housekeepers who report directly to an executive secretary and an as-

sistant manager of the Rooms division. Reporting directly to the execu-

tive and assistant executive housekeepers are 15 hourly paid floor super-

visors and an office coordinator. Besides the floor supervisors and office

coordinator, housekeeping employs over 200 hourly paid employees in

7 classifications: night housekeeper, turn down people, floor mainte-

nance personnel, caddy attendant, administrative assistant, house-

keeper, and houseman. Housekeeping employs basically unskilled work-

ers having limited work experience. While the Employer provides house-

keeping and other departmental employees with a general orientation

program at the time of hire and permits certain employees to attend

training courses pertaining to other divisions (Hyattrain courses) house-

keeping employees, like other departmental employees, are trained al-

most exclusively within their respective departments by means of on-the-

job training and mandatory monthly meetings. Housekeeping employees

wear distinctive departmental uniforms and work 2 shifts: from 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Housekeeping personnel are among

the lowest paid hourly workers and receive only minimal compensation

through guest tips.

The laundry/ valet department is supervised by a manager and assis-

tant manager and employs 42 hourly paid employees in | 2 classifications:

tailor seamstress; uniform issuer; dry cleaner; valet dispatcher, valet

runner; valet checker/marker; washperson hand/shirt presser; linen

attendant; linen issue attendant; washperson linen attendant supervisor;

and head/lead washman. Laundry/ valet personnel clean hotel linen/ and

employee uniforms and provide routine valet service. They deliver linen

to rooms on a daily basis which linen is used by housekeeping personnel

in cleaning and preparing guests’ rooms for occupancy. Laundry/ valet

employees have daily contact with housekeeping personnel. Like house-

keeping personnel, they are basically unskilled employees and perform

only simple manual tasks requiring limited training. Further, laundry /

valet and housekeeping employees receive identical fringe benefits.

A-5g

6/

The concierge department operates under the supervision of a con-

cierge manager and a Regency Club manager and employs |! hourly

paid employees. Concierge employees work in the hotel lobby and on the

27th floor where they have daily contact with housekeeping employees.

Concierge personnel provide guests with information and arrange tours.

They assist housekeeping employees by cleaning guest rooms on the 27th

floor. Their cleaning duties include the emptying of trash cans, vacuum-

ing rooms and removing food and beverage items delivered by room

service.

The bell staff department is supervised by a bell staff director and em-

ploys 35 employees in 4 classifications: bell captain, door captain, bell

service person, and bell service doorman. They work throughout the

public areas of the hotel where they have daily contact with housekeeping

and laundry/ valet workers. In addition to performing routine bellman

duties, bell staff personnel assist housekeeping personnel by cleaning

their work areas and the hotel lobby. On occasion, they assist house-

keeping personnel by relocating guest room furniture. When house-

keeping personne! finish the evening shift, bell staff personnel perform

housekeeping services by providing guests with towels, pillows and roll-

away beds. Concierge and bell staff personnel work in many of the same

areas of the hotel where houseketping personnel perform their job func-

tions and enjoy the same fringe benefits as housekeeping and laundry/

valet employees. Based upon the similar nature of their duties, their clone

contact and functional integration with housekeeping personnel and the

enjoyment of similar fringe benefits, I find that the concierge and bell

staff personnel share a close community of interest with housekeeping

personnel and accordingly include them in the unit.

The Employer, contrary to Petitioner, contends that the appropriate unit

should include front office, pbx, reservations, food and beverage, con-

vention services, engineering, accounting, sales, personnel, public rela-

tions, and security personnel. The Employer argues, as it did in Case No.

15-RC-6147, that there exists substantial integration, interchange and

transfer between all departments mandating only one overall appropri-

ate unit. However, the record in the instant case does not support the

Employer's contention for it shows no substantial integration, inter-

change or transfer between front office, pbx, reservations, food and bev-

erage, convention services, engineering, accounting, sales, personnel,

public relations, security and unit personnel. The front office, pbx, and

reservations departments are separately supervised and perform work

substantially different in nature from unit personnel. The front office

operates under the supervision of a front office manager, assistant mana-

ger, and several front office supervisors. The front office employs about

33 employees in 4 classifications: front office credit manager, front of-

A-Sh

fice control agent, graveyard contol clerk, and front office registration-

ists. Front office personnel greet, register, and check out guests. They

clean their own work areas and clean guest rooms when housekeeping is

too busy or understaffed. However, the record shows that the cleaning of

rooms by front office personnel occurs on an infrequent basis (four oc-

casions over a recent two month period). The Employer's Executive

Housekeeper could noi iestify as to the time spent cleaning rooms nor

the number of rooms cleaned on these occasions. Pbx is supervised by a

communications manager and several pbx supervisors. It employs 20

operators who are responsible for operating the hotel’s sophisticated

telephone communications system. On occasion they clean their own

work area and relay maintenance requests from guests to housekeeping

supervisory personnel. Reservations is supervised by a reservations man-

ager, assistant reservations manager, and a reservations supervisor and

employs 9 reservation clerks. Their duties involve the receiving and re-

cording of hotel guest reservations. On occasion they clean their office

area and prepare room forecasts which are used by housekeeping super-

visors in assigning personnel to clean rooms. While the record shows that

housekeeping employees check the status of rooms upon specific re-

quests by the front office, maintain telephone directories in guest rooms,

alert guests during emergencies, check color schemes and rearrange fur-

niture in guest rooms upon request, | find that such work is incidental to

and limited in nature and not closely allied with front office, pbx or

reservation work to warrant the inclusion of the latter departments in

the unit. The front office, pbx, and reservations departments, perform

essentially office clerical functions as opposed to the manual duties pro-

vided by unit personnel.

The food and beverage division operates the hotel's restauranis,

lounges, kitchens, banquet, catering, and room services departments.

The food and beverage division is separately supervised by a director,

assistant food and beverage director and an executive assistant manager

with the assistance of the following supervisory personnel: (kitchen) ex-

ecutive chef, Courtyard chef, Courtyard floor chef, garde manager ¢' cf,

sous chef, relief sous chef, Jonah's chef, pastry chef, assistant pastry

chef, banquet chef, relief chef, executive steward, assistant steward, as-

sistant executive steward; (restaurant and lounges) courtyard manager,

assistant courtyard manager, Mint Julip Manager, Jonah’s Manager,

Jonah's assistant manager, Top of Dome Manager, assistant Top of

Dome manager, Stadium Club manager, assistant Stadium Club man-

ager, beverage manager, assistant beverage manager, beverage store-

room manager, executive secretary, food and beverage controller, food

and beverage cashier supervisor; (banquet) banquet manager, banquet

supervisors; (catering) director of catering, assistant director of catering;

(room service) manager and assistant manager.

A-Si

The Employer employs about 500 employees in the food and beverage

division in the following classifications: (kitchen) courtyard cook,

kitchen secretary, kitchen cook, pantry/ kitchen, vegetable cook, butch-

er, kitchen supervisor, night steward, general kitchen; (restaurant and

lounges) bartender, barback, host/hostess, cocktail waiter/ waitress,

head busperson, busperson, pantry, cocktail server, line server, dish-

washer, Stadium Club supervisor, storeroom attendant; (banquet) ban-

quet captain, banquet cooks, banquet food server, busperson, cashiers,

assistant banquet chefs; (catering) catering secretary, administrative as-

sistant, secretary/catering manager; (room service) busperson, food

servers, order takers. Like front office personnel, food and beverage em-

ployees have limited functional integration with unit personnel, they

perform essentially different work, under separate supervision at greater

rates of pay through compensation and tips than unit employees.

Convention services functions unde. the immediate supervision of a

director of convention services, convention services coordinator, con-

vention services supervisor and various floor supervisors. Convention

services employs about 38 hourly paid employees in 7 classifications:

assistant convention services supervisor, assistant head houseman, con-

vention services secretary, diary control clerk, head houseperson, house-

person and secretary to director of convention services. Convention

services personnel work 2 shifts from 7 a.m.-3 p.m. and 3 p.m.-11 p.m.

during which time they book functions, set up meeting rooms, and pick

up guest packages. On occasion convention services personnel move

furniture within guest rooms and clean ballrooms and meeting rooms for

convention functions. The record reveals only a limited degree of inte-

gration with unit employees.

Engineering is supervised by the director of engineering and an assis-

tant director of engineering, building maintenance supervisor, and ad-

ministrative assistant. Engineering employs approximately 33 hourly

paid employees in 16 classifications: chief electrician; electrician; gen-

eral maintenance; general maintenance utility; laundry mechanic; kitch-

en mechanic; refrigeration mechanic; key cutter, locksmith; operating

engineer; lead painter; painter; lead carpenter; carpentet; administrative

clerk; and evening engineer supervisor. Unlike unit employees, 27 out of

the 33 maintenance personnel are skilled and semi-skilled employees

making substantially higher hourly wages. While housekeeping person-

nel do perform minor preventive maintenance functions such as

changing light bulbs, cleaning swimming pools, replacing vacuum clean-

er drive belts, repairing laundry carts, and occasionally painting guest

rooms during summer months when occupancy levels are low, it is clear

from the record that engineering personnel perform essentially skilled

work at substantially higher wage rates and under separate supervision

from unit personnel. Moreover, unlike unit employees, engineering per-

A-5j

sonnel are required to possess skills associated with their trades when

hired.

Accounting works under the supervision of a director of accounting

and || supervisory personnel: controller; assistant controller; data pro-

cessing manager; director of purchasing; accounts receivable supervisor;

credit manager; storeroom manager; accounts payable supervisor; re-

ceiving manager; payroll-supervisor; and assistant food and beverage

cashier supervisor. Accounting employs about 20 employees in various

clerk, bookkeeping, cashier, computer operator positions. Accounting

has no close functional integration with unit employees.

Sales employs about 12 employees under the supervision of a director

of sales, sales manager, sales representative, tour and travel manager,

and assistant tour and travel manager. Personnel is supervised by the

director of personnel, and a personnel manager. Public relations em-

ploys a public relations director and a public relations secretary. Security

is supervised by the director of security who directs the work of a secre-

tary, security supervisor, and house officer. Security employs about 35

security guards. The work performed by sales, personnel public relations

and security is separately supervised and clearly vastly different in nature

from unit work. The record reveals no close integration between these

divisions and unit personnel.

In support of its argument for an overall unit, the Employer contends

that substantial departmental transfers and daily contact between, and

similarity of fringe benefits enjoyed by, all hourly paid divisional per-

sonnel mandates an overall unit finding. In regard to the Employer's

claim of daily contact and similarity of job benefits, the record in this

case shows that hourly paid employees are governed by the same person-

nel policy, rules of conduct, wage and salary review and grievance pro-

cedures. They receive the same hospitalization, vacation, holiday, leave,

meal, education, and recreational fringe benefits. They are paid on the

same day, receive report in and jury duty pay, and are required to use

the same time clock, employee entrance and cafeteria. They also attend

the same orientation programs and are permitted to take the same em-

ployer sponsored training courses related to hotel operations. As noted

previously, however, these employees are separately trained and super-

vised and receive a wide range of compensation depending upon the

nature of their job skills, duties, and contact with the public. While the

record shows some contact between hourly paid divisional employees, it

does not indicate the frequency or extent of this contact between all

divisions. Where the record shows some functional integration between

divisions as noted above, such jntegration is incidental and limited in

nature due to size and specialization of services offered to guests by the

Employer and does not warrant a finding that the only appropriate unit

is an overall unit.

A-Sk

‘ t ¢

‘ “ waits

- ei < . , = RN

vid aes ee 5 a fae a7 ls PP cee. he HES EY y va -~.

In regard to the claim of substantial transfers between departments

the record does not support the Employer's contention. The Employer

introduced Exhibits 16, 17 and 18 to substantiate this claim. Exhibit 16

show: permanent job changes of former employees from the opening of

the hotel on August 2, 1976, through March 18, 1981. However, an ex-

amination of the 12 month period preceding the hearing reflects few, if

any, permanent transfers into or out of the unit. During this period there

were 55 permanent transfers overall. Only 8 of these transfers affected

unit employees. Housekeeping had 7 transfers of which 3 were to posi-

tions outside the unit. concierge had | transfer to a position outside the

unit and laundry/ valet and bell staff experienced no transfers. Exhibit

17 shows permanent job changes of current employees during the period

from August 2, 1976 through March 18, 1981. During the last twelve

months, 57 affected unit employees and only |! involved transfers out of

the unit and | was a transfer into the unit from the food and beverage

division. The rest of the transfers were within the unit. Exhibit 18 shows

temporary job changes of employees from August 4, 1977 through

March 18, 1981. During the 12 month period preceding the hearing there

were 1068 documented temporary transfers of which only 15 involved

transfers out of the unit. There were no transfers into the unit. From the

foregoing, I conclude that Exhibits 16, 17 and 18 do not reflect any sub-

stantial degree of temporary or permanent transfers during the past

twelve months. Rather on close examination the exhibits reveal that

most of the transfers occurred within divisions and departments per-

forming related services. In its brief the Employer emphasized the testi-

mony of personnel director Andrew McCarney who estimated as many

as 10,000 temporary but undocumented transfers of personne! outside

their respective departments from the opening of the hotel until the

present. This estimate was based upon an almost 100 percent yearly

turnover of hourly personnel with 2 transfers per employee. McCarney

estimated that 2000 of these transfers affected housekeeping since house-

keeping employs abut 20 percent of the Employer's work force.

McCarney failed to indicate however which departments were involved

or if any of these transfers required housekeeping personne! to work out-

side the unit. I conclude from the record that there is insufficient inter-

change between unit and non-unit employees to compel an overall unit

finding. Accordingly, based upon the entire record, I find that the Em-

ployer’s operations are not so highly integrated, nor are the job skills,

supervision, and wage rates so similar as to establish a close community

of interest between all hourly paid divisional employees warranting their

inclusion in an overall unit. Rather, | find based upon the nature and

functions of their jobs, separate supervision, different rates of pay, and

methods of compensation (tips vs. straight hourly), lack of transfer and

A-SI

7/

8/

9/

integration that the front office, pbx, reservation, food and beverage,

convention services, engineering, accounting, sales, personnel, public

relations, and security personne! do not possess a close community of

interest with unit employees and accord i gly exclude them from the unit.

Dunfrey Family Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB

790 (1974); Lane Avenue Property, Lid., d/b/a Ramada Inn West, 225

NLRB 1279 (1976); Anaheim Operating, Inc., d/b/a Sheraton- Anaheim

Horel, 252 NLRB No. 134 (1980).

The parties stipulated, and | find, that the individuals in the following

positions assist and/or act in a confidential capacity to persons who

formulate, determine, and effectuate management policy in the field of

labor relations: employment representative, supervisor of training,

benefit specialist, employee relations specialists, record specialist, ex-

ecutive secretary (food and beverage), executive secretary (rooms), ex-

ecutive secretary to the general manager, and secretary (director of se-

curity). Accordingly, | exclude the individuals in the foregoing jobs

from the unit as confidential employees.

The parties stipulated, and | find, that the security supervisor, house of-

ficer (security) and security guards are guards within the meaning of Sec-

tion 9(b)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, they are excluded from the unit

as guards.

Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would exclude from the unit 15

day and night floor supervisors (inspectresses) on the basis that said em-

ployees are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.

The record establishes that the Employer employs 13 day and 2 night

floor supervisors. These floor supervisors are hourly paid and punch a

time clock, but are paid 20 percent more than other housekeeping per-

sonnel. They are responsible for checking guests’ rooms to insure that

housekeeping employees have properly cleaned and prepared the rooms

for occupancy. When deficiencies are discovered, the floor supervisors

have and exercise, the authority to require housekeeping personnel to

correct said deficiencies. On occasion, the floor supervisors clean rooms

when there is a shortage of housekeeping employees. They possess the

authority to make work assignments and to send employees home when

there is not sufficient work available. While floor supervisors have no

authority to hire or fire employees, they clearly do have the authority to

resolve minor disciplinary problems and to effectively recommend the

issuance of warnings. On occasion they issue warnings and are generally

regarded by housekeeping personnel as supervisors. Based upon the

entire record and in ‘particular the possession by floor supervisors of

authority to assign work, send employees home, and effectively recom-

mend employee discipline, | find that they are supervisors within the

A-5m

|

|

i,

meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. Accordingly, I exclude them from

the unit.

During the hearing, the Employer contended that the house depart-

ment office coordinator, the linen attendant supervisor, and the lead

washman should be included in the unit as non-supervisory employees

performing unit work. Petitioner took no position on their inclusion or

exclusion from the unit. The record reveals no evidence showing the pos-

session of supervisory responsibilities by these individuals but rather

shows that they perform unit work under similar working conditions as

other unit personnel. The office coordinator is responsible for preparing

and giving to various housekeeping personnel a list of rooms to be

cleaned. The office coordinator relays messages from other depart-

ments concerning the arrangement and cleaning of guests’ rooms. On

occasion when personnel shortages occur, the office coordinator assists

housekeeping employees in cleaning rooms. The linen attendant super-

visor functions as a lead person and is responsible for handing out or

issuing linen. The head washman is responsible for cleaning hotel linen.

Based upon the foregoing, | find that the foregoing individuals are not

supervisors. Further, based upon the nature of their duties, as well as the

similarity in supervision and fringe benefits, I find that the office co-

ordinator, linen attendant supervisor and lead washman possess a close

community of interest with unit employees. Accordingly, | include them

in the unit.

The parties stipulated, and | find, that the following individuals pos-

sess the authority to responsibly direct employees and are supervisors

within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act: Pastry Chef; Assistant

Food & Beverage Director; Public Relations Director; Data Processing

Manager; Mint Julip Manager; Assistant Stadium Club Manager;

Audio Visual Manager; Assistant Top of the Dome Manager; Beverage

Manager; Assistant Controller; Personnel Manager; Payroll Super-

visor/ Accounting; Accounts Receivable Supervisor; Food & Beverage

Cashier Supervisor; Food & Beverage Controller/ Assistant Laundry/

Valet Manager; Room Service Manager; Assistant Director of Engi-

neering; Banquet Chef/ Kitchen; Assistant Housekeeper; Front Office

Supervisor/A.M.; Sales Manager; Assistant Reservations Manager;

Sales Representative; Assistant Director of Catering; Courtyard Chef/

Kitchen; Courtyard Floor Chef/P.M./ Kitchen; Building Maintenance

Supervisor/Engineering; Garde Manager Chef/Kitchen; Assistant

Courtyard Manager; Assistant Manager/ Rooms; Sous Chef/ Kitchen;

PBX Supervisor/P.M.; Convention Service Coordinator; Jonah's

Chef/P.M.; PBX Supervisor/A.M.; Assistant Steward; Executive

Steward; Assistant Executive Steward; Executive Housekeeper; Sta-

dium Club Manager; Relief Chef/ Kitchen; Top of the Dome Manager;

Credit Manager/ Accounting; Jonah's es Director of Security;

A-5n

Communications Manager/PBX; Assistant Tour & Travel Manager/

Sales; Tour & Travel Manager/Sales; Courtyard Manager; Assistant

Pastry Chef/ Kitchen; Assistant Room Service Manager, Banquet Man-

ager; Assistant Front Office Manager; Director of Convention Serv-

ices; Concierge Manager; Assistant Food & Beverage Cashier Super-

visor/ Accounting; Convention Services Supervisor; Front Office Man-

ager; Floor Supervisor/ Convention Services; Laundry/Valet Manager;

Director of Purchasing; Relief Sous Chef/ Kitchen; Storeroom Man-

ager/ Purchasing; Reservations Manager; Assistant Beverage Manager;

Director of Guest Services; Reservations Supervisor; Receiving Man-

ager/ Purchasing; Jonah’s Assistant Manager; Regency Club Manager/

Concierge; Executive Chef; Director of Catering; General Manager;

Director of Sales; Director of Personnel; Controller; Director of Engi-

neering; Executive Assistant Manager/Rooms; Executive Assistant

Manager/ Food & Beverage; Front Office Supervisor/P.M., Beverage

Storeroom Manager; Audio Visual Assistant Manager; Secretary/Con-

troller; Management Trainee; and Administrative Assistant/Engi-

neering. Accordingly, | exclude the individuals in the foregoing job clas-

sifications from the unit as supervisors.

10/ Although the unit found to be appropriate herein is larger than the unit

petitioned for, the Petitioner has expressed a willingness to proceed to an

election in a larger unit, and as | am administratively satisfied that Peti-

tioner has an adequate showing of interest in the unit found appropriate,

I direct the election.

A-5o

|

|

|

;

oe

i

2)

2

nal

:

UNITED STATES or AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

HYATT CORPORATION, d/b/a

HYATT REGENCY NEW ORLEANS 1/

Employer

and

HOTEL, MOTEL AND RESTAURANT

EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 166, AFL-CIO

THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 226, AFL-CIO

Petitioners

Case No. 15-RC-6147

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a

hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the

Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to the un-

dersigned.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned

finds:

1. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free

from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning

of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert

A-6a

jurisdiction herein. 2/

3. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-

tain employees of the Employer. 3/

4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-

resentation of certain employees of the Employer within the

meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit

appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the

meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 4/

All full-time and regular part-time employees, in-

cluding banquet, beverage, concierge, convention

services, engineering, housekeeping, kitchen, laun-

dry/valet, PBX, restaurant, room service, service

department, stadium club, and steward employees;

excluding all accounting 5/, front office, reservation,

computer 6/, purchasing 7/, sales 8/, secretarial em-

ployees 9/, professional employees, guards, and su-

pervisors 10/ as defined in the Act.

DIRECTION OF ELECTION

An election by secret ballot shall be conducted by the under-

signed among the employees in the units found appropriate

at the time and place set forth in the notice of election to be is-

sued subsequently, subject to the Board's Rules and Regula-

tions 11/. Eligible to vote are those in the units who were em-

ployed during the payroll period ending immediately before the

date below, including employees who did not work during that

period because they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily laid

off. Also eligible are employees engaged in an economic strike

which commenced less than 12 months before the election date

and who retained their status as such during the eligibility peri-

od and their replacements. Those in the military services of the

United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. In-

eligible to vote are employees who have quit or been discharged

A-6b

for cause since the designated payroll period, employees en-

gaged in a strike who have been discharged for cause since the

commencement thereof and who have not been rehired or rein-

stated before the election date and employees engaged in an

economic strike which commenced more than 12 months before

the election date and who have been permanently replaced.

Those eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be repre-

sented for collective- bargaining purposes by HOTEL, MOTEL

AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 166,

AFL-CIO AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OP-

ERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 226, AFL-CIO.

LIST OF VOTERS

In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the oppor-

tunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of the statutory

right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a

list of voters and their addresses which may be used to commu-

nicate with them. Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236

(1965); N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759

(1969). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that within 7 days of

the date of this Decision, 3 copies of an election eligibility list,

containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,

shall be filed by the Employer with the undersigned / Officer-

in-Charge, Subregion, who shall make the list available to all

parties to the election. In order to be timely filed, such list must

be received in the Regional Office, Suite 2700, Plaza Tower

Building, 1001 Howard Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana

70113, on or before September 16, 1977. No extension of time

to file this list may be granted, nor shall the filing of a request for

review operate to stay the filing of such list except in extraordi-

nary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement

shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper

objections are filed.

A-6c

‘ RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW

Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules

and Regulations, a request for review of this Decision may be

filed with the National Labor Relations Board, addressed to the

Executive Secretary, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20570. This request must be received by the Board

in Washington by September 22, 1977.

Dated September 9, 1977

/s/ Charles M. Paschal, Jr.

at New Orleans, Louisiana Regional Director, Region 15

FOOTNOTES

1/ The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.

2/ The Employer, a California corporation with corporate offices located

at 1338 Bay Shore Highway, Burlingame, California, operates a hotel in

New Orleans, Louisiana (the only facility involved herein), where it pro-

vides food, lodging, and related hotel services to transient guests. During

the past 12 months, a representative period, the Employer had gross

revenues in © «cess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods and

materials vaiued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located out-

side the State of Louisiana.

3/ The parties stipulated, and I find, that Petitioners are labor organiza-

tions within the meaning of the Act.

4/ The record reveals that the facility involved herein is the largest hotel

in Employer's chain of 53 domestic and 24 international! hotels and caters

almost exclusively to convention and group functions. The hotel is open

>

-

4

4

A-6d |

on a 24-hour, 365-day basis and employs a total of about 950 employees.

The 27-floor hotel houses 1,250 guest rooms, 5 food and beverage out-

lets, a grand ballroom, and numerous meeting rooms. Located at the

entrance to the hotel on the first floor is a registration lobby, consisting

of a front office, bell staff, concierge department and parking garage.

Situated behind the registration lobby in the back of the hotel are the

housekeeping, laundry/ valet, engineering, and purchasing departments,

together with an employee cafeteria. The second floor serves as leased

space for various retail outlets while the third floor is used for restaurant,

kitchen, and storage areas. The fourth floor houses the executive offices

(accounting, sales, catering, convention, public relations, and computer

departments) and rooms for group functions. The remaining floors serve

as guest rooms with a restaurant and lounge located on the top level of

the hotel.

Overall supervision of the hotel is vested in a general manager (Thomas

R. Gaskill) and two executive assistant managers in charge of food and

beverage and room services. Reporting to the general manager are the

seven directors who supervise the seven separate.divisions within the

hotel: Accounting (Thomas DeLatte); Food and Beverage (Sal Casola);

Engineering (Art Delaut); Personnel (Rebecca Shropshire); Rooms

(John Orr); Sales (Jim Evans); and Security (Joe Murry). Within these

seven divisions are a total of 23 departments. The two largest divisions

(Food and Beverage and Rooms) include the following departments:

Food and Beverage (banquet, beverage, catering, courtyard, Jonah’s

Restaurant, kitchen, Le Club, Mint Julip, purchasing, Stadium Club,

and Vendome); Rooms (bell staffy concierge, front office, housekeeping,

laundry/ valet, NCR host, PBX, reservations).

The parties agree that the unit should include all full-time and regular

part-time employees working 20 hours or more per week within the fol-

lowing hotel departments:

Banquet (banquet waiters); Beverage (bartenders, barbacks);

Concierge (concierge persons); Convention Services (set-up

houseman); Engineering (operating engineers, carpenter,

electrician, painter, locksmith, shift engineer, general main-

tenance, night cleaners, kitchen mechanic, laundry mechanic,

audio visual, horticulturist, gardener, plumber, refrigeration/

air-conditioning mechanic); Housekeeping (day houseman,

night houseman, housekeepers); Kitchen (head butcher, pan-

try person, pastry cook, assistant pastry cook, cooks, assistant

cooks, oyster shucker); Laundry/Valet (washperson, linen

attendant, presser, seamstress, marker/ checker, runner, dry

cleaner); PBX (operator, mail and information clerk); Res-

taurant (waitress, waiter, busperson, cocktail waitress / waiter,

A-6¢e

hostess, host, sommelier, expeditor); Room Service (order

taker, waiters); Service Department (bellperson, doorman);

and Stadium Club (attendants, carver).

In addition to the agreement of the parties, the record shows frequent

interchange and transfer within the above classifications with employees

within these classifications being paid on an hourly basis, receiving the

same fringe benefits, and performing related guest services (i.c., the prep-

aration and service of food and beverages and the maintenance of guest

rooms). Accordingly, I shall include employees within the afore-

mentioned classifications in the unit.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude from the unit

all accounting, front office, reservation, computer, purchasing, sales,

and secretarial employees on the ground that these employees lack a suf-

ficient community of interest with manual employees referred to above

to be included within the same unit. The Employer contends that an all-

employee unit is the only appropriate unit because of the integration of

its operations and the interchange within job classifications. In John

Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating Com-

pany, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927, the Board over-

ruled its policy (promulgated in Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., 126

NLRB 400), of finding only overall units to be appropriate in the hotel

industry. In 77 Operating Company, supra at 930, the Board indicated

that operations in every hotel were not so highly integrated nor employ-

ees so similar as to preclude the existence of a separate community of

interest among smaller grouping of employees and held that it would

thereafter “consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide

ye lies the true community of interest among particular employ-

.” In Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, 171 NLRB

1347, the Board reaffirmed its holding in 77 Operating Company, supra,

by stating (at 1348) that:

The Board's intention is to apply to the hotel industry the

general criteria used for determining units in other industries

and to make unit determinations after weighing all the factors

present in each case, such as the distinctions in the skills and

functions of particular employee groupings, their separate

supervision, the employer's organizational structure, and dif-

ferences in wages and hours.

In the present case, | have weighed and balanced all the above factors

and find as stated herein (and in more detail in the unit placement foot-

notes to follow) that the unit of manual employees sought by Petitioners

(and upon which the parties agree as to composition) is an appropriate

unit, notwithstanding the presence of some limited functional integra-

tion (in terms of promotions from within and cross-training of employ-

A-6f

=. ta

$/

6/

ees) between the predominantly salaried hotel clerical employees ex-

cluded herein and the unit of hourly manual employees found to consti-

tute an appropriate unit.

As noted hereinabove, unit placement issues upon which the parties

differ are resolved in the footnotes to follow.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude accounting divi-

sion employees from the unit. The accounting division is supervised by a

comptroller with the assistance of an assistant comptroller, credit man-

ager and cashier supervisor, who the parties agree and the record reflects

should be, and are, excluded from the unit. The remaining staff consists

of accounts payable and accounts receivable clerks, an income auditor,

general cashier, food and beverage cashiers, and secretaries. The clerks

perform routine accounting work and the income auditor is responsible

for the auditing of all hotel revenues. The general cashiers handle monies

received and make bank deposits. The food and beverage cashiers collect

cash receipts from the various food and beverage outlets and are super-

vised by the Accounting and Food and Beverage Directors, with the

Food and Beverage Director supervising the physical scheduling and

handling of food and beverge checks. The remaining duties of the cash-

iers are regulated by the Accounting Director and his assistants. The

secretaries perform routine office clerical work, including typing, filing,

answering telephones, and making appointments. The Employer con-

tends that accounting employees should be included within the unit be-

cause of their interchange with other unit employees. The record, in-

cluding the exhibits introduced by the Employer, do not support this

contention. Employer's exhibits (1, 2, and 3), indicating transfers and

interchange of employees between departments for the period from

August 2, 1976, until July 25, 1977, show only one employee transfer

outside the accounting division, no interchange of accounting employ-

ees with unit employees, and only four instances within the accounting

division where employees interchanged or transferred jobs. The record

reflects that the secretaries rarely perform unit work except to assist in

emergency situations or to supplement income by assisting at banquets

at the end of their workday. Accordingly, because of the lack of inter-

change and/or transfer of accounting employees with unit employees,

the difference in supervision and work performed, I find that the ac-

counting employees lack a sufficient community of interest to warrant

their inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, | shall exclude them from the

unit.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude from the unit em-

ployees in the following departments within the rooms division (front

office, reservations, and computer operation—NCR hosts). The front

A-6g

7

office staff is comprised of room clerks and cashiers under the immediate

supervision of a manager and four assistant managers. The room clerks

greet, register, and check out guests, handle incoming mail, and adjust

guest compiaints. Once a week the room clerks make a physical inspec-

tion of about 20 guest rooms and, on occasion, assist in the concierge

department bell stand or in the operation of the hotel's automatic eleva-

tors. The room clerks are cross-trained as cashiers and work primarily

behind a counter in the hotel lobby. The reservations staff consists of

reservation clerks who are supervised by a manager and assistant man-

ager. Their primary duties involve the receiving and recording of reserva-

tions. Reservation clerks are cross-trained to perform desk clerk duties.

The computer or NCR host department consists of a .rogrammer and

two computer operators who are supervised by a department manager.

The work of the programmer and computer operators appears to be of a

technical nature and far different from the manual work performed by

unit employees. Employer's exhibits (1, 2, and 3) indicate no interchange

or transfer of personnel into or out of the reservations or computer de-

partments and show only 8 instances of transfers by front office employ-

ees into departments within the unit with 5 of these transfers appearing

as promotions to supervisory positions in unit departments. While the

testimony of the Employer's witnesses shows that front office employees

have assisted at the bell stand, operated elevators, and aided in the con-

cierge department, these instances appear to be ir frequent and for short

periods of time. Based upon the difference in supervision and nature of

work performed together with the lack of significant interchange or

transfers between front office, reservations, computer and unit person-

nel, I find that front office, reservations and computer department em-

ployees do not share a sufficient community of interest with unit employ-

ees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, I shall exclude

them from the unit.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude purchasing de-

partment employees from the unit. The purchasing department is com-

prised of a director or purchasing agent, storeroom manager, assistant

purchasing agent, secretary, and storeroom and receiving clerks. The

purchasing agent is responsible for the buying, pricing, and requisition-

ing of hotel supplies and for the overall supervision of the department.

The purchasing agent and storeroom manager are, by agreement of the

parties and the record herein, excluded from the unit. The secretary types

requisitions and performs routine office-clerical functions. The clerks

are responsible for the proper requisitioning and storage of supplies;

they work on the ground floor in the back of the hotel between the load-

ing dock and the hotel's housekeeping, laundry, and engineering depart-

‘ments. The record reveals no instances of interchange or transfer of

purchasing department employees with unit personnel. Accordingly,

A-6h

8/

9/

based upon the lack of interchange and transfer between purchasing de-

partment employees and unit employees and the difference in supervi-

sion and job duties, I find that the purchasing department employees

lack a sufficient community of interest with unit employees to warrant

their inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, | shall exclude them from the

unit.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude sales department

employees from the unit. The sales department consists of a director, five

sales managers, an executive secretary, five secretaries, a receptionist,

and several file clerks. The director is in charge of the entire department

and, in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the record here-

in, is, together with the sales managers and executive secretary excluded

from the unit. The secretaries work directly for the sales managers and

perform typing, filing and other routine office clerical duties. The recep-

tionist meets and greets those who do business with or have occasion to

visit the sales office. The file clerk types and files correspondence and

answers the telephone. The record reveals no instances of transfer be-

tween sales department employees and unit personnel; interchange be-

tween sales and unit personnel is limited to assistance during emergency

situations and at after-hours banquets. Based upon the lack of signifi-

cant interchange, the absence of any transfers with unit personnel, and

the difference in supervision and job functions, | find that the sales de-

partment employees do not share a sufficient community of interest with

unit employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Accordingly, I shall

exclude them from the unit.

Petitioners, contrary to the Employer, seek to exclude from the unit sec-

retarial employees within the beverage, catering, convention services,

and housekeening departments. The record reflects that these secretarial

employees ore salaried and perform traditional office clerical functions

(i.e., filing, typing, answering telephones and making reservations and

appointments). In addition, the housekeeping secretary spends the ma-

jority of her day preparing the housekeeping payroll The convention

secretary is responsible for taking instruction and promotion data (in-

dicating daily and weekly group functions) to the various departments.

The record reveals no instances of transfer between these secretarial em-

ployees and unit personnel; interchange between these secretarial em-

ployees and unit personne! is limited to assistance of an infrequent nature

in emergency situations and at after-hour banquets. In view of the lack of

transfer or significant interchange with unit employees and the distinct

nature of their clerical functions, | find that these secretarial employees

are essentially office clerical employees who lack a sufficient community

of interest with unit employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit.

Accofdingly, I shall exclude the secretaries in the beverage, catering,

A-6i

convention services, and housekeeping departments from the unit.

10/ Based upon the agreement of the parties and the record herein, | shall

exclude the following individuals from the unit:

Accounting (Comptroller, Assistant Comptroller, Executive

Secretary, Credit Managery Payroll Supervisor, Cashier

Supervisor);

Beverage (Beverage Manager, Storeroom Manager, Assistant

Beverage Managers);

Casual (Manager, Captain);

Catering (Director, Manager, Assistant Director);

Convention Services (Manager, Assistant Manager, Coordi-

nator, Assistant Head Set-up);

Executive Office (General Manager, Executive Secretary);

Front Office (Executive Assistant Manager, Assistant Man-

ager, Front Office Manager, Assistant Front Office

Manager, Front Office Supervisor, Executive Secretary,

Reservations Manager, Reservations Assistant Man-

ager);

Food and Beverage (Food and Beverage Director, Assistant

Food and Beverage Director, Executive Secretary);

Housekeeping (Executive Housekeeper, Assistant House-

keepers, Floor Supervisors);

Kitchen (Floor Chef, Night Floor Chef, Garden Manager,

Swing Chef, Executive Chef, Pastry Chef, Banquet Chef,

Sous Chef);

Laundry/Valet (Manager — laundry, Manager— valet);

PBX (Manager);

Personnel (Director, Assistant, Secretary, Applicant Con-

troller, Benefits Supervisor);

Public Relations (Director, Secretary);

Purchasing (Purchasing Agent, Storeroom Manager);

Restaurant (Manager, Assistant Manager);

Room Service (Manager, Assistant Manager);

Rooms (Management Trainees, Concierge Manager, Regen-

cy Club Manager);

Soa 5. 2 ar EO es - o> oie

Sales (Director, Sales Managers, Executive Secretary);

Security (Director, Assistant, House Officer, Guard, Secre-

tary);

Service Department (Bell Captain, Manager of Guest Serv-

ice); and

Stadium Club (Manager, Supervisor).

11/ At the initial hearing in this matter (conducted August 2, 1977), Peti-

tioners requested that the undersigned direct an election within 60 days

of the filing of the instant petition (on July 12, 1977) regardless of the

unit determinations made herein or any request for review filed in con-

nection therewith. By agreement of the parties, the hearing, which com-

menced on August 2, 1977, did not resume until August 15, 1977. Fol-

lowing the close of the hearing on August 16, 1977, Petitioners and Em-

ployer each received extensions of time within which to file briefs in this

matter, said briefs being received on September 6, 1977. In Petitioner's

posthearing brief, Petitioners modified their position to merely arequest

that “an election be scheduled at the earliest possible date regardless of

any request for review addressed to the Board.” The election herein will

be conducted at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Election to

be issued subsequently, subject to the Board's Rules and Regulations,

including, but not limited to, the right of any party to request review of

this Decision. The Board’s August 15, 1977, revision of Section 102.67

of the Rules and Regulations (cited by Petitioners) provides only that

elections will be conducted as scheduled without regard to any chal-

lenges to the Regional Director’s rulings and that, except in specific re-

view cases where the Board decides that conducting the election on the

scheduled date would not be appropriate or practical because of the

issues involved, the ballots of the employee voters will be impounded.

Accordingly, the election will be directed as outlined herein and in ac-

cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations to insure that the ques-

tion concerning representation is properly resolved as expeditiously as

possible and with due regard to the rights of all parties.

A-6k

Hotel Equities, D/b/a The Regency Hyatt House and Hotel

and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 151,

affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders

International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 10-RC-7169

June 13, 1968

DECISION ON REVIEW

By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS

FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA

On November 15, 1967, the Acting Regional Director for Re-

gion 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the

above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate a

hotelwide unit of employees. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in ac-

cordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations

Board’s Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, filed with

the National Labor Relations Board a timely request for review

of such Decision and Direction of Election contending that the

Acting Regional Director erred in including clerical employees.

The Employer also filed a timely request for review with respect

to other findings made by the Acting Regional Director. Peti-

tioner filed a statement in opposition to the Employer’s request

for review.

The Board by telegraphic order dated December 11, 1967,

granted the Petitioner’s request for review but denied the Em-

ployer’s. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on review.

The Board has considered the entire record in this case with

respect to the issues under review, including the briefs of the

parties, and makes the following findings:

The Petitioner seeks a unit of all hotel employees, excluding

office clerical, front office, sales department, auditing depart-

mental personnel, and certain other clerical employees. The

Acting Regional Director, in accord with the position of the

A-7a

Employer, found that a hotelwide unit including these group-

ings is appropriate. Petitioner argues on review that the Em-

ployees in these groupings, whose duties are clerical in nature,

should be exciuded from the unit because their interests are dif-

ferent from those of the other employees whom Petitioner seeks

to represent. For reasons set forth below, we find in essential

agreement with the Petitioner that the employees in these cleri-

cal groupings may be excluded.!

The Regency Hyatt House is a luxury hotel in Atlanta, Geor-

gia.- The hotel began operations on May 1, 1967, and there is

no history of collective bargaining. As noted, the hotel employs

several classifications of clerical employees in the front office,

sales department, accounting department, and catering office

and certain miscellaneous clerical employees, principally sec-

retaries to hotel executives.

The front office has its own manager and is located in the

hotel lobby behind a long counter which runs half the length of

the building. The staff of the front office includes room clerks,

reservation clerks, mail and information clerks, front office

cashiers, status clerks, and the shipping and receiving clerk.

The room clerks assign rooms to guests and take care of re-

quests for numerous hotel services. The reservation clerks, as

their title indicates, make room reservations and assist the room

clerks when the latter are busy. The mail and information clerks

insure delivery of the mail and messages to guests at the hotel;

they also assist the room and reservations clerks when the hotel

is short handed. The front office cashiers handle collections of

money for guests for all charges incurred at the hotel. The status

clerks maintain the status board which contains certain infor-

mation about each guest such as his room number, the day he

checked in, etc. There is also a shipping and receiving clerk who

accepts and sends out packages for the guests.

The accounting department: The comptroller of the hotel

is in charge of the accounting department which includes both

a data processing group and an audit group. The data proc-

A-7b

essing personnel keep track of all guest billing at the hotel on

the basis of IBM cards completed by and forwarded from each

of the hotel departments where expenses would be incurred as

well as the room rent. The audit group includes accounting

clerks, payroll clerks, and a general cashier. The accounting

clerks audit cash register readings and tapes, assist in the taking

of inventories, receive bills for hotel supplies, fill in as cashiers

at hotel banquets and similar functions, and, with the assistance

of the payroll clerks, prepare the payrolls for all departments.

The general cashier is the hotel’s “banker,” and all hotel cash-

iers submit their receipts to her.

The sales department is located in an open area called the

lobby promenade, and the function of this department is to sell

the facilities of the hotel for conventions and meetings. Its cleri-

cal staff includes three secretaries and a file clerk who perform

stenographic and recordkeeping services for the salesmen who

frequently work away from the hotel bidding on conventions.

The catering department is on the same level as the sales de-

partment and is right next to it. The staff of this department in-

cludes a secretary, a receptionist, a convention coordinator,

three banquet representatives, a Frieden machine operator, and

a payroll clerk. The convention coordinator verifies arrange-

ments for room and food service for conventions. The banquet

representatives arrange for the room and the menu for banquets

held at the hotel. The other employees of the sales department

staff perform the duties indicated by their titles.

There also appear to be a number of miscellaneous clerical

employees at the hotel, most of whom are secretaries to various

hotel! executives.

The unit which Petitioner seeks and which would exclude the

foregoing groupings of clerical employees consists of all the

hotel’s manual operating personnel such as doormen, bellmen,

waiters, waitresses, bartenders, cooks, cleaning personnel, and

maintenance men.

A-7Tc

#

In finding an overall unit, the Acting Regional Director con-

cluded that the only appropriate unit of hotel operating per-

sonnel must include all such personne] —both clerical and

manual. We disagree.

Until its recent decision in John Hammonds and Rey Wine-

gardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating Company, d/b/a Holi-

day Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927, the Board’s policy for the

hotel industry, as promulgated in Arlington Hotel Company,

Inc., 126 NLRB 400, was to find, as the Regional Director did

here, only overall units to be apprupriate. However, in Holiday

Inn the Board overruled Arlington, noting that its experience

had indicated that the operations of every hotel were not so

highly integrated nor all employees so similar as to negate the

existence of a separate community of interest among smaller

groupings. The Board therefore held that it would “[t]hereafter

consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide

wherein lies the true community of interest among particular

employees” of a hotel. Stated otherwise, the Board’s intention

is to apply to the hotel industry the general criteria used for

determining units in other industries and to make unit deter-

minations after weighing all the factors present in each case,

such as the distinctions in the skills and functions of particular

employee groupings, their separate supervision, the employer’s

organizational structure, and differences in wages and hours.

In reaching his determination to include the clerical employ-

ees, the Acting Regional Director was not unmindful that the

Board in Holiday Inn had overruled its Arlington policy of

normally finding overall hotel units to be appropriate, but he

observed that there was no indication in Holiday Inn that the

Boaré had reversed a subsidiary policy which had also been an-

nounced in Arlington, not to exclude hotel clerical classifica-

tions as office clerical employees. The Acting Regional Director

noted that the Board in Arlington had specifically held that

hotel clerks may not be characterized “office clerical” employ-

ees in the same fashion as the Board utilizes such terminology in

an industrial context but are rather—like the doormen, bell-

A-7d

é Gg

any

men, waiters, etc.—a hotel’s operating employees. The Acting

Regional Director therefore reasoned that since the clerical

force and the doormen, bellmen, waiters, etc., i.e., the manual

force, may all generically be described as “operating employ-

ees,” the only appropriate unit of such employees must include

both groups together.

While the Board in Holiday Inn did not reverse its policy of

treating hotel clerical personnel as operating employees, the

Acting Regional Director’s reasoning is nevertheless contrary

to the basic principle of Holiday Inn. For, as previously men-

tioned, under Holiday Inn the Board will apply to hotel opera-

tions its general unit criteria; that is, weigh and balance all

factors in arriving at a unit determination. While this new de-

cisional approach to hotel unit questions does not do away with

the Board’s policy to treat clerical employees as “operating per-

sonnel,” it nevertheless relegates that generic classification to

the status of just one factor among many others—which the

Board will consider in making hotel unit findings. And a generic

classification may not be the controlling factor any more than it

would be controlling in the determination of an industrial unit.

That is, drawing the analogy to a manufacturing plant, the mere

fact that certain craftsmen might generally be denominated as

production and maintenance employees would not by itself

defeat a petition to represent them in a craft unit excluding

other production and maintenance personnel.‘

Although they share the same generic classification and not-

withstanding the fact that there is a functional relationship be-

tween the hotel clerical employees and the manual employees

sufficient to find an overall unit to be appropriate, if such had

been requested, there are other factors here present which sup-

port the view that the manual employees possess a separate

community of interest warranting their establishment as a sep-

arate bargaining unit. The record readily shows many differ-

ences between the two groups of employees. Thus, the manual

employees are hourly paid, whereas the clerical employees are

salaried. Manual operating employees have their own imme-

A-7e

diate supervisors who are different from the supervisors of the

various clerical sections. The manual employees, such as maids,

waiters, waitresses, bellmen, and doormen, wear uniforms or

work apparel which is different from the street or business dress

of the clerical force.‘ The duties and functions of the manual

employees consist of various physical services such as preparing

or serving food or beverages, carrying luggage, opening doors,

cleaning rooms, and other maintenance duties, whereas the

duties of the various clerks, accounting employees, and secre-

taries are primarily clericakag nature. Further, it appears that,

in a number of instances, front office clerks are required to give

routine directions to manual employees which the latter are ex-

pected to follow. The typical case is that of the room clerk sum-

moning a bellman to carry luggage. Front office clerks also re-

ceive from the hotel guests various requests for hotel services

which these clerks relay to the appropriate department. Finally,

there appears to be little, if any, interchange between the clerks

and the manual employees.

These differences in the nature of their respective duties and

in their respective conditions of employment graphically illus-

trate that the manual operating employees sought are the Em-

ployer’s “blue collar” force and that the clerical personnel con-

stitute its “white collar force.”* Upon consideration of the entire

record and consistent with our policy in the analogous area of

apartment house units— where we have granted separate units

of “blue collar” employees’ — we are satisfied that the requested

unit of the Employer’s manual operating personnel excluding

clerical employees is appropriate.* Specifically, the unit we find

appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining is as

follows:

All full-time and regular part-time employees of the Employ-

er at the Regency Hyatt House in Atlanta, Georgia, including

telephone department employees, elevator hostesses, the life-

guard, Hyatt hostesses, Polaris hostesses, banquet waiters, ban-

quet housemen, assistant garage manager and other garage em-

ployees, and the lady in charge of the linen room, but excluding

A-7f

front office employees, office clerical employees, secretaries to

executives, sales department employees, the convention coordi-

nator, and other catering department clerical employees, ac-

counting department employees, personnel department em-

ployees, professional employees, security department tmploy-

ees and all other guards, general manager, resident manager,

executive manager, personnel director, floor assistant manag-

ers (or assistant managers), front office manager, reservations

manager, director of guest relations, controller, general auditor,

interior auditor, head of the data processing section, chief tele-

phone operator, chief security officer, building superintendent

(maintenance department chief engineer), director of sales,

sales manager, corporate sales manager, superintendent of

service, garage manager, valet manager, executive housekeeper,

assistant executive housekeeper, head housekeeper, Clarence

Robinzine, catering manager, executive chef, soup chefs, head

pastry chef, head butchers, the individual in charge of the em-

ployees’ cafeteria, executive steward, assistant chief steward,

assistant chef in the Kobenhavn Kafe, beverage manager, as-

sistant beverage manager, manager of Kobenhavn Kafe, man-

agers or maitre d’s of the Hugo Room, the Polaris Restaurant

and the Club Atlantis, Kobenhavn shift supervisors, head host-

ess in Polaris restaurant, banquet manager, assistant banquet

manager, banquet steward, head banquet houseman, banquet

captains, room service manager, and all other supervisors as

defined in the Act.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional Director

for Region 10 for the purpose of conducting an election pursu-

ant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified here-

in, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility

shall be that immediately preceding the date below.’

A-7g

FOOTNOTES

'Over the objection of the Petitioner the Acting Regional Director also in-

cluded in the unit PBX (telephone) operators, and certain guest relations

department employees (principally hostesses and the lifeguard). As Petition-

er has not sought review of their unit placement, that issue is not before us

for consideration.

2The Employer’s hotel contains some 800 rooms and has a completely open

lobby area rising some 22 stories from the lobby level. There are a “sidewa)k”

cafe, the “Kobenhavn,” and two cocktail lounges, the “Kobenhavn Lounge”

and the “Parasol Lounge,” in the main lobby, with aii these facilities open

and exposed to the public areas of the lobby. At the next lower level are a

supper club (the “Club Atlantis”) and a specialty or gourmet restaurant called

“Hugo's.” Also at this level is the swimming pool and a number of banquet

rooms. “Polaris,” another food and beverage facility, is located at the top

of the building.

3John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating

Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, supra, 930.

4See, e.g., E./. Dupont de Nemours and Company, 162 NLRB 413.

5The front desk clerks wear jackets supplied by the Employer, but these are

apparently blazer style and are not uniform coats.

*Moreover, notwithstanding the inflexible rule sought to be established in

Arlington, the Board impliedly recognized, in that decision itself as well as

in subsequent decisions, that differences exist between clerical employees and

manual operating personnel and that the latter group has a separate com-

munity of interest. Thus, the Board has permitted the exclusion of the hotel

clerical employees from an otherwise overall unit, where the parties agreed

to exclude clerical personnel or where there had been a history of bargaining

excluding clerical employees from the unit at the hotel in question or where

collective bargaining in the local area established a pattern of excluding cleri-

cal employees from hotel units. Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., supra, 404;

Water Tower Inn, 139 NLRB 842; LaRonde Bar & Restaurant, Inc., 145

NLRB 270; Spinnenweber Builders, Inc., d/b/a Mariemont Inn, 145 NLRB

79; Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, 148 NLRB 1053. There is no evidence of

any local pattern of bargaining in the present case except that in The Pick

Atlanta Corporation d/b/a Albert Pick Motor Inn, Case 10-RC-7126, de-

cided July 19, 1967, in which the Acting REgional Director found appropri-

ate an overall hotel unit based on the agreement of this same Petitioner and

the employer therein.

A-7h

’Shannon & Luchs, 162 NLRB 1381; Shannon & Luchs and D.P.A. Asoci-

ates, 166 NLRB 1011. Also see Denver Athletic Club, 164 NLRB 677, where

the Board found appropriate a unit of the manual employees of the hotel and

restaurant facilities of a combined hotel-athletic club enterprise.

* The feasibility of such a unit is not only demonstrated by these cases in which

the Board —albeit for different reasons from those present here — has found

appropriate a hotel unit excluding clerical employees, but also by the testi-

mony of Petitioner's International director of organization, Paulson, with

respect to his union's experience in the organization of hotel units. Paulson

stated that clerical employees are excluded from the great majority of the

units of hotel operating employees represented by various sister locals of

Petitioner across the United States. Paulson further testified that in a num-

ber of instances where clerks are included in units of operating employees

represented by these sister locals, the clerks were added to preexisting units

which excluded them. Cf. Allied Stores of New York d/b/a Stern’s Paramus,

150 NLRB 799, 803, 804; Saks and Company, 160 NLRB 682, enfd. 385 F.2d

301 (C.A.D.C.).

%An amended election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of

all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Direc-

torfor Region 10 within 7 days after the date of this Decision on Review and

Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to

all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted

by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to

‘comply with this requirement shali be grounds for setting aside the election

whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB

1236.

A-Ti

UNITED STATES or AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a

ORLANDO HYATT HOUSE 1/

Employer

and

HOTEL, MOTEL AND RESTAURANT

EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS UNION,

LOCAL 737, AFL-CIO

Petitioner

Case No. 12-RC-5344

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION

Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National

Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a

hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the

Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to the un-

dersigned.

Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned

finds:

1. The hearing officer’s rulings made at the hearing are free

from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.

2. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning

of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert

jurisdiction herein. 2/

3. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer-

tain employees of the Employer.

A-8a

4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-

resentation of certain employees of the Employer within the

meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3/

5. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit

appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the

meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:

All full-time and regular part-time employees em-

ployed by the Employer at the Orlando Hyatt House;

but excluding office clerical employees, casual em-

ployees, managerial and management intern employ-

ees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4/

DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5/

An election by secret ballot shall be conducted by the under-

signed among the employees in the unit found appropriate

at the time and place set forth in the notice of election to be is-

sued subsequently, subject to the Board’s Rules and Regula-

tions. Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were em-

ployed during the payroll period ending immediately before the

date below, including employees who did not work during that

period because they were ill, on vacation, or temporarily laid

off. Also eligible are employees engaged in an economic strike

which commenced less than 12 months before the election date

and who retained their status as such during the eligibility peri-

od and their replacements. Those in the military services of the

United States may vote if they appear in person at the polls. In-

eligible to vote are employees who have quit or been discharged

for cause since the designated payroll period, employees en-

gaged in a strike who have been discharged for cause since the

commencement thereof and who have not been rehired or rein-

stated before the election date and employees engaged in an

economic strike which commenced more than 12 months before

the election date and who have been permanently replaced.

Those eligible shall vote whether or not they desire to be repre-

sented for collective- bargaining purposes by HOTEL, MOTEL

A-8b

AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS

UNION, LOCAL 737, AFL-CIO.

LIST OF VOTERS

In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the oppor-

tunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of the statutory

right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a

list of voters and their addresses which may be used to commu-

nicate with them. Excelsior Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236

(1966); N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759

(1969). Accordingly, it is hereby directed that within 7 days of

the date of this Decision, 2 copies of an election eligibility list,

containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,

shall be filed by the Employer with the undersigned / Officer-

in-Charge, Subregion, who shall make the list available to all

parties to the election. In order to be timely filed, such list must

be received in Room 706, 500 Zack St., Federal Bidg., P.O. Box

3322, Tampa, Florida 33601, on or before September 29, 1977.

No extension of time to file this list may be granted, nor shall the

filing of a request for review operate to stay the filing of such list

except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with

this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election

whenever proper objections are filed.

A-8c

~ or :

RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW

Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules

and Regulations, a request for review of this Decision may be

filed with the National Labor Relations Board, addressed to the

Executive Secretary, 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Wash-

ington, D.C. 20570. This request must be received by the Board

in Washington by October 5, 1977.

Dated September 22, 1977

__/s/ Harold A. Boire

at Tampa, Florida Regional Director, Region 12

FOOTNOTES

1/ The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.

2/

3/

The Employer is a Delaware corporation and operates the Orlando Hyatt

House near Orlando, Florida. During the past 12 months, the Orlando

Hyatt House had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and during the same

period, purchased supplies valued in excess of $50,000 directly from out-

side the State of Florida. In accord with the stipulation of the parties, |

find that the Employer meets the Board's jurisdictional standards.

The Employer has filed a motion to dismiss this petition for lack of juris-

diction. While an election was conducted by this office among employees

in the bargaining unit on July 29, 1976, and the petition in this case was

filed on July 18, 1977, the Act prohibits the holding of an election within

a 12-month period after a former election but does not preclude the Board

from processing petitions filed shortly before the end of the 12-month

period. The Stickless Corporation, 115 NLRB 979.

A-8d

4/

Whether or not the petition was filed in accord with the Petitioner's

successful organization, the unit found appropriate herein is that con-

tended to be appropriate by the Employer, and not on the basis of Peti-

tioner's organization.

With regard to Petitioner's showing of interest, issues of taint are a

matter of administrative investigation, and the Employer has already

been notified by the undersigned that investigation does not reveal that

Petitioner's showing of interest was tainted. | therefore, deny Employer's

Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Orlando Hyatt House consists of 946 guest rooms, a large mall with

shops and other guest services, a number of restaurants and a pub, and an

area for conventions and/or banquets.

Petitioner seeks a bargaining unit of employees in the Housekeeping

Department (about 122) while the Employer contends that the appropri-

ate bargaining unit must include employees throughout its operations

(about 560). There is not bargaining history for any of these employees.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the undersigned held an election

among the unit found appropriate herein on July 29, 1976 (12-RC-~-5112).

The Employer has a number of departments in its operations, including

housekeeping, food and beverage, front desk, maintenance, and many

others. Each department has a staff of supervisors, and employees are

generally assigned to work regularly in a single department,

However, the Employer at this location has a regular practice of trans-

ferring employees between the various departments on a temporary basis

when needed, and on a permanent basis when there are job openings. It

is clear from the record that temporary and permanent transfers between

departments is a regular occurrence and a number of these transfers in-

volve housekeeping employees. During the slow seasons of tourism, the

Employer performs much of its catch-up maintenance work and employ-

ees from all departments, including housekeeping, are assigned to the

maintenance department during these periods. During the times when

there is a large convention and/or banquets being held at the hotel facili-

ties, employees from other departments will be temporarily assigned to

help the small banquet department in setting up facilities for these events.

It is clear from both the records submitted by the Employer and the testi-

mony of employees presented by the Petitioner, that transfers of house-

keeping employees is not an unusual situation,

Housekeeping department employees work together with employees in

other departments. For example, there are maintenance employees as-

signed to each cluster who work in close contact with housekeeping em-~-

ployees, and there are housekeeping employees assigned to the Mall area

A-8e

who work in close contact with other employees working in the Mall. The

housekeeping department has only a few employees on the late shifts and

during these shifts, employees from other departments regularly perform

housekeeping work.

All employees receive the same fringe benefits and use the same cafe-

teria for their meals. The Employer has several committees made up of

employees from all departments for safety reasons, and employees on

these committees are trained together and meet regularly.

Upon consideration of the above facts and entire record, especially the

regular transfers and working contact between departments, | find that

the Housekeeping Department employees do not have a community of

interest different from those of other department employees, and do not

constitute an appropriate unit. | find that the only appropriate unit in-

cludes employees throughout Employer's operations at the Orlando Hyatt

House, with the exclusions noted above. Holiday Inn Southwest, 202

NLRB 781; Days Inn of America, 210 NLRB 1035.

The Employer employs a number of part-time employees, with many

of these employees on a call-in basis, while some may work on a regular

schedule. The large majority of call-in employees are employees that serve

banquets, and a number of housekeeping employees. | find that any part-

time employee who works each week on a regular schedule for eight hours

or more is a regular part-time employee and included in the bargaining

unit. With regard to the employees who are on call, their employment de-

pends on Employer's fluctuating business. | find that those who have

worked an average of six hours per week over the 13-week period im-

mediately preceding the eligibility date established herein, have estab-

lished themselves as having a continuing interest of employment with the

Employer and are eligible to vote in the election directed herein, while

those who do not meet this standard are not eligible to vote. First Mort-

gage Investors, a Trust d/b/a Cranston Hilton Inn, 230 NLRB No. 20.

The Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude Em-

ployer’s managemer' ‘sterns (about 7). These employees are generally

hired from outside th ganization and have a program through which

they work in all depa nents throughout Employer's operations. They

have a training coordinator and the program is part of Hyatt Corpora-

tion's national policy. After the conclusion of the training, the trainee may

apply for a permanent job at any Hyatt House and several have secured

a job at another Hyatt House. While in each department, they work closely

with department managers and at times will serve as supervisors. There

are classes for these interns and employees from various departments may

attend these classes on a volunteer basis to gain advancenett in their var-

ious jobs. However, these employees are not on a regula: schedule for

training and do not work under the supervision of the training coordina-

A-8f

tor. Upon consideration of the above facts and entire record, | find that the

management interns are given broad experience with the object of making

them supervisors or management, and are excluded from the bargaining

unit found appropriate herein. May Department Stores, 175 NLRB 514,

517,

The parties have stipulated that employees holding the following jobs

are supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, as they have the

authority to hire or fire employees, effectively recommend such action

and/or direct the work of other employees using independent judgement:

Controller

Assistant Controller

Food & Beverage Controller

Regional V.P. & General Manager

Administrative Assistant (Administrative & General)

Data Processing Manager EECO

Data Processing Manager IBM

Convention Service Manager

Assistant Convention Service Manager

Beverage Manager

Director of Catering

Catering Manager

Banquet Manager

Set Up Manager

Director of Engineering

Chief Engineer

Landscaping Manager

Executive Assistant Manager — Food & Beverage

Purchasing Director

Front Office Manager

Assistant Front Office Manager

Guest Services Manager

Executive Housekeeper

Assistant Executive Housekeeper

Executive Chef

Sous Chef

Banquet Sous Chef

Pastry Chef

PBX Supervisor

Director of Audiovisual Productions

Personnel Manager

Empioyment Manager

Training Coordinator

Restaurants Operation Manager

A.M. Gatsby's & Bus Stop Supervisor

A-Se

P.M. Gatsby's & Bus Stop Supervisor

Big Bicycle Supervisor

Executive Assistant Manager — Rooms

Assistant Manager/M.O.D.

Chief of Security

Transportation Supervisor

Director of Sales

Sales Manager/Group & Convention

Sales Manager/Tour & Agency

Executive Steward

Assistant Executive Steward

F & B Cashier Supervisor

Banquet Beverage Supervisor

Director of Personnel

Employer's credit manager and public relations manager are no longer

supervisors as they no longer have employees under their direction. Both

of these managers are salaried and are involved in making policy decisions.

I find that the credit manager and public relations manager are part of

management, their community of interest is with other management em-

ployees, and they are excluded from the unit found appropriate herein.

In the housekeeping department there are 13 cluster supervisors and 4

senior cluster supervisors, with one senior cluster supervisor assigned to

each cluster of rooms. The parties agree that the cluster supervisors are

lead employees. The Employer contends that the senior cluster supervisors

are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, while Petitioner contends

that they are also lead employees. Both cluster and senior cluster super-

visors basically perform the work of an inspectress, checking the rooms

after they have been made. The senior cluster supervisor is in charge of

the supplies in her area and will pass out work assignments. The senior

cluster supervisor’s minimum pay is 25¢ an hour more than the other

cluster supervisors but the highest pay is the same for both job classifica-

tions. While the senior cluster supervisor is looked upon as the highest

ranking employee working in the cluster area, and may give instructions

to other employees, it appears from the record that their instructions are

of a routine nature. They do not have the authority to hire or fire employ-

ees, effectively recommend such action, or change the status of other em-

ployees. Upon consideration of the above facts and entire record, | find

that the senior cluster supervisors are lead employees and included in the

bargaining unit.

Michael Timothy Costello is the night supervisor a‘ the front desk. Peti-

tioner would exclude him as a supervisor while Employer contends that

he is a lead employee and should be included in the bargaining unit. Mr.

Costello testified that he has 4 desk employees working with him on his

A-8h

5/

shift and that he has the authority to have these people work overtime,

excuse them for tardiness, and let them off early for individual needs.

Upon consideration of the above testimony, I find that he is a supervisor

within the meaning of the Act and excluded from the bargaining unit

found appropriate herein.

Although the unit I find appropriate herein is broader than that sought

by the Petitioner, I shall not dismiss the petition as Petitioner has not dis-

claimed interest in such a unit. An election is, therefore, directed, subject

to the undersigned ascertaining that Petitioner has made an adequate

showing of interest among employees n the broader unit found herein.

If Petitioner does not now wish to participate in an election in the unit

found appropriate herein, | shall permit it to withdraw its petition without

prejudice upon written notice to the Regional Director of Region 12 with-

in 10 days from the date of this decision.

A-8i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Arch Stokes, do hereby certify that i have this date served

three (3) copies of the foregoing Supplemental Appendix to Pe-

tition upon the following persons by depositing said copies in

the United States Mail, properly posted and addressed to:

This

The Honorable John C. Truesdale

Executive Secretary

National Labor Relations Board

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Room 701

Washington, D.C. 20570

ATTN: JOLANE A. FINDLEY, ESQUIRE

The Honorable Rex E. Lee

Solicitor General

U.S. Department of Justice

9th and Pennsylvania

Washington, D.C. 20570

day of December, 1983.

ARCH STOKES

Counsel for Hyatt Hotels Corporation