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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0639%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Supplemental Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1984
- **Citation:** 465 U.S. 1023

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_0639%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.