Beau Rivage Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 31, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

BEAU RIVAGE HOTEL 809 I.L.M. Corporation d/b/a Beau Rivage Hotel and Hotel Em- ployees Union Local 255, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-PC-485. August 31, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a resort hotel in Bal Harbour, Florida. Approximately 18,000 guests are accommo- dated yearly of whom 95 percent are from States other than Florida. Its annual gross receipts exceed $1,000,000 and are .derived from serv- ice to guests for lodging, meals, and beverages. Purchases directly and indirectly from out-of-State amount to $40,000 yearly. As the Em- ployer's gross volume of business exceeds $500,000, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261 (Member Jenkins concurring in part and dissenting in part; Member Fanning concurring specially). 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer. The parties are in agreement on the composition of the unit but dis- agree on the status of the checker-cashiers, herein called cashiers, whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude. The cashiers, six in number, work in the bar, coffee shop, and kitchen. In the kitchen and bar, the cashiers price items of food or drink for inclusion on the check to be charged to, or paid by, the guests. The cash or signed check is then collected from the bartender, waiter, or waitress who has served the guest. In most instances there is no cash transaction as the expenses are included on the guest's over- all bill. The cashiers work the same hours and have common super- vision with other employees in the department in which they work but are responsible to the chief of the accounting department for their daily receipts. The cashiers' only contact with clerical employees is when they pick up, or turn in to the front office, their "banks" in 124 NLRB No. 102. 810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which each cashier keeps his daily receipts. We find that the checker- cashiers have similar interests and working conditions with those em- ployees whom the parties have agreed to include, and we shall, accord- ingly, include them in the unit. Cf. Waigreen Co., of New York, Inc., 97 NLRB 1101, 1104; John W. Thomas cC Co., 104 NLRB 868, 872. Accordingly, we find that 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 employees at the Employer's Miami Beach, Bal Harbour, Florida, hotel, including food checkers and cashiers, but excluding all office and clerical employees, lifeguards, timekeepers, social counselors, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted front pub] ication.] The Houston Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-BC- 515. September 1, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. C. Thompson, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner, Machinists, and Chemical Workers deny, that the only appropriate unit is a statewide unit encompassing all the Employer's Florida facilities. The Peti- tioner seeks a unit of the Employer's employees at Miami, Lakeland, and Daytona Beach, but it is willing to represent a unit which also i International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Lodge No. 1754 , hereafter called Machinists , and International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Local No. 359, here- after called Chemical workers, intervened on the basis of current contracts. They re- quested to be placed on the ballot only if a systemwide unit was found appropriate. 124 NLRB No. 106.