Atlas Hotels, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Atlas Hotels, Inc. and Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union of America, Local
No. 315 . Case 21-CA-11635
May 22, 1974
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On August 8, 1973, the National Labor Relations
Board issued its decision in the above-entitled case
finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
by refusing to bargain with Local 315 of the Bakery
and Confectionery Workers of America, the duly
certified and exclusive representative of its bakery
and bakery sanitation workers, Atlas Hotels, Inc., 205
NLRB No. 47. The Board, upon reexamination of
the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of
Election in the underlying representation case,
21-RC-12890 (review denied December 7, 1972), has
concluded that that decision might be interpreted as
relying on the Board's decision in Hotel Westward
Ho, 178 NLRB 9, enforcement denied 437 F.2d 1110
(C.A. 9, 1971), and John Hammonds and Roy
Winegardner, d/b/a 77 Operating Company, d/b/a
Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927, enfd. 387
F.2d 646 (C.A. 4, 1967). Inasmuch as the Board
believes the unit sought herein to be of a wholly
different type from that sought in either Westward
Ho, supra, or Holiday Inn, supra, it has decided, sua
sponte, to further explicate its decision in Atlas
Hotels, supra. i
The Respondent operates five transient hotels and
a convention center in San Diego, California. Each
of the hotels is headed by a manager and is divided
into departments, each with its own department
head. The employees at all the hotels are subject to
common labor policies and receive the same general
wage and fringe benefits commensurate with their
job classifications. The Union sought to represent
Respondent's bakery employees. The bakery is
located in a separate room adjoining the butcher
shop and kitchens in Respondent's Town and
Country Hotel. Unlike the typical hotel bakery, this
bakery provides all the baked goods, with the
exception of hamburger buns and sliced bread, for
all five of the hotels, as well as for the convention
center. Although the bakery is located in the Town
and Country Hotel, the record contains no evidence
that the services provided by the bakery to that hotel
differ from those provided by it to Respondent's
other four hotels. The record does disclose that the
ovens in the bakery have been used by nonbakery
kitchen personnel to prepare nonbakery items for
large banquets. It should be noted, however, that the
ovens have been used at times when the bakery
employees are not normally in the bakery, and the
nonbakery items that have been prepared have been
for the convention center and not for use in any of
the hotels.
The bakers currently employed in the bakery were
hired as journeymen bakers or began as drivers or
pot-washer assistants and gradually developed the
skills necessary to follow recipes, mix basic ingredi-
ents, and bake and decorate a variety of cakes,
pastries, breads, and rolls. The bakers use different
tools than the kitchen employees, work different
hours, receive higher wages, are paid by the day
rather than the hour, and are not required to punch a
timeclock. With the exception of the deliveryman,
they spend all of their time in the bakery and are not
subject to call for banquets or other assignments.2
The bakery employees are separately supervised,
have little contact with employees outside the
bakery, and, with the exception of a limited number
of employees taking part in Respondent's manage-
ment training program,3 there is no evidence of
interchange between the bakery and other parts of
Respondent's operation.
The Board has, in prior cases, found separate units
of bakery employees to be appropriate. For example,
in The Brass Rail, Inc., 110 NLRB 1656, the
petitioner sought to represent the bakery employees
working in one of the employer's five restaurants.
The bakery, like the one in the instant case, provided
all the baked goods for the five restaurants. In
finding the unit of bakery employees to be appropri-
ate, the Board stated that the bakers were a
traditional departmental group who were functional-
ly distinct and separate from the other employees of
the employer, and that the petitioner had traditional-
ly represented the interests of the employees sought.
In Rich's, Inc., 147 NLRB 163, the employer
operated a chain of retail department stores in
Atlanta, Georgia. Each of the stores had a retail
bakery outlet which was supplied by a bakery
located on the sixth floor of Respondent's main
store. The petitioner sought to represent the prod-
uction employees working in the bakery. The facts in
that case indicated that, as in the present case, the
' For the reasons stated herein , we are also of the view that the unit the bakery The Regional Director's finding that there were several
found appropriate in Ramada Inns , Inc, 200 NLRB No 19, enforcement deliverymen is unsupported by the record.
denied 487 F 2d 1334 (C A 9, 1973), is of a different type than that found 3 Employees taking part in the management training program are rotated
appropriate in Atlas Hotels, supra through all facets of Respondent's operation , spending only short amounts
2 The deliveryman spends the remainder of his time doing odd jobs in of time in any one area
210 NLRB No. 86
ATLAS HOTELS, INC.
bakery employees performed traditional baking
duties, were separately supervised, had only limited
contact with employees in other parts of the
employer's operation, and worked hours differing
from those of the rest of the employees. In finding
the unit sought appropriate, the Board noted that the
bakery was a traditional unit that operated like a
wholesale commercial bakery.
In light of the above, we find that the unit sought is
a traditional departmental unit which is functionally
distinct and separate from other parts of the
Respondent's operation, and that Petitioner has
traditionally represented the interests of the employ-
ees sought. The Brass Rail, Inc., supra.4 Thus, we
conclude, particularly in light of the fact that the
bakery supplies five hotels and a convention center,
that Respondent's bakery, rather than being an
integral part of a hotel, is essentially a commercial
bakery that happens to be located in a hotel. Rich's,
Inc., supra. Therefore, we conclude, as did the
Regional Director, that Respondent's bakery and
bakery sanitation employees constitute a unit appro-
priate for bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act, and we reaffirm our prior 8(a)(5)
finding.
MEMBER KENNEDY, concurring:
I agree with my colleagues that Respondent's
bakery and bakery sanitation employees constitute
4 Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 178 NLRB 412. Cf. Jordan Marsh
Company, 174 NLRB 1265; F W Woolworth Company, 119 NLRB 480; and
797
an appropriate unit for bargaining. The bakery,
which produces substantially all of the baked goods
used at the Employer's five motels in San Diego, is
not an integral part of the Town and Country Motel.
The bakery employees have little contact with other
employees or guests. I believe the peculiar facts here
fall within one of the two exceptions recognized by
the Ninth Circuit in the Hotel Westward Ho case.5
The court there recognized that "where the enterprise
was not highly integrated" a unit less than hotelwide
may be appropriate. The facts here are not compara-
ble to those in Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a
Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB No. 85, in which I
would have found an overall unit appropriate. Nor
are the facts here comparable to those in West, Inc.
d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781, in
which I joined two of my colleagues in dismissing a
petition limited to housekeepers who cleaned 125
rooms.
I disassociate myself from the rationale of my
colleagues in their reliance upon The Brass Rail Inc.,
110 NLRB 1656; Rich's, Inc., 147 NLRB 163, and
cases cited in footnote 4 of the majority opinion. In
my view the retail industry, like the hotel industry,
involves unique operational problems. I believe my
colleagues' reliance upon the cited retail cases is
misplaced and unnecessary.
Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 137 NLRB 1741
5 437 F.2d 1110 (1971), denying enforcement of 178 NLRB 9