Cadillac Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 20, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 258 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and maintenance employees to warrant their inclusion in the same unit6 As the Association in its third alternative agrees with the Union to the exclusion of driver-salesmen and the Union does not seek to represent them separately, we shall not direct a separate election for them We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act All production and maintenance employees of Green Mill Cleaners & Laundry, Inc , New Peerless Laundry Company, Inc , Fort Lauder- dale Cleaners & Laundry, Inc , Seven Hours Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc , Mercury Liven Service, Inc , Warren Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc , John G Myers, d/b/a Florida Cleaners & Laundry, and Bond Cleaners & Laundry, Inc , at their plants an Fort Lauderdale, Florida, excluding driver-salesmen, office clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ] 6 The Family Laundry Inc etc ,121 NLRB 1619, 1621 Florida Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia d/b/a Cadillac Hotel' and International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 491, 491A and 491B, AFL-CIO 2 and Hotel Employees Union Local 255, AFL-CIO,3 Petitioners . Cases Nos 12-RC-4461 and 12-RC- 524 November 20, 1959 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Claude B Calkin, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 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 organizations involved claim 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 t 4 The Hotel Employees , in Case No 12-RC-524 , seek a unit of all employees at the Employer's Miami Beach, Florida, hotel, including a The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing 6Herein called the Operating Eng=neers s Herein called Hotel Employees 125 NLRB No 40 I I CADILLAC HOTEL 259 the housekeeping department, laundry, dining room, kitchen depart- ment, bar department (including food checkers and cashiers), repair and maintenance department, telephone department, and front service department, but excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Operating Engineers, in Case No. 12-RC-461, seeks a unit of all employees in the repair and main- tenance department. The Employer takes no position regarding the appropriate unit. There is no history of collective bargaining at the hotel. The repair and maintenance department, located near the boiler- room, is under the supervision of the chief engineer. There are ap- proximately five employees in this department classified as engineers. There are no specific qualifications required of the men when hired for work in this department, the only requirement being that they be able to maintain and do repairs on the building and equipment. This work consists of painting, carpentry work, electrical work, minor repair work on the air-conditioning, handling the heating system, and re- pairing the laundry machinery, motors, pumps, compressors, and any auxiliary equipment. These employees work throughout all parts of the public and private areas of the hotel, and are in constant contact with housemen, maids, waiters, bartenders, kitchen employees, cabana boys, and other nonmaintenance department employees. There is evi- dence that the maintenance department employees are interchangeable with the housemen in some instances and that they also perform some of the same functions performed by the housemen. There is no show- ing that any craft skills are required to repair the machinery in the hotel. In the absence of a history of bargaining on a broader basis, the Board generally permits the establishment of maintenance employee units in other industries. Such determinations, however, are bottomed on the fact that, normally, such employees constitute a functionally distinct and homogeneous group of employees having employment in- terests which are distinguishable from those of other employees of their employer.4 However, it appears that the community of interests which hotel maintenance employees have by reason of being engaged in maintaining and repairing hotel facilities and equipment, as well as the hotel building itself, is only incidental to the broader and more prevailing community of interests which they share with other hotel employees, and which derives from the fact that all are engaged, one way or another, in serving the needs and desires of hotel guests. Thus, these employees are not craftsmen and are without the distinctive spe- cial interests of such employees. Rather they are handymen perform- ing a variety of repair and maintenance tasks. They work throughout the hotel and come into frequent contact with other hotel employees, 4 See, for example, Magma Copper Company, 115 NLRB 1. 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD many of whom, like themselves, have no direct contact with guests. Their function in the operation of the hotel is not markedly different from that of housekeeping and custodial employees. Both groups are engaged in maintaining the hotel premises and facilities in clean and serviceable condition, to the end that the Employer may successfully cater to the needs and desires of its guests, and both groups work throughout the hotel. In some instances the work performed by maintenance employees and housemen is identical, and there is some interchange between them. On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the employment interests of hotel maintenance employees are not, normally, sufficiently distinct from those of other employees as to com- pel their establishment in a separate bargaining unit. Accordingly, as the Employer's repair and maintenance employees do not meet the Board's test for grouping as a separate craft, and as there is neither a history of bargaining in support of the requested unit, or an agree- ment between the Employer and the unions involved as to its appro- priateness, factors which we would consider as indicative of the prac- ticality and feasibility of such a unit and as warranting an exception to this general rule as to maintenance units in the hotel industry, we find that the unit requested by the Operating Engineers is inappropri- ate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition in Case No. 12-RC-461. 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, Florida, hotel, in- cluding the housekeeping department, laundry, dining room, kitchen department, bar department (including food checkers and cashiers), telephone department, front service department, and repair and main- tenance department, but excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 12-RC-461.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Fullerton Publishing Company d/b/a Daily News Tribune and Los Angeles Newspaper Guild, Local No. 69, American News- paper Guild , AFL-CIO. Case No. 21-CA-3296. November 23, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On June 9, 1959, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 125 NLRB No. 30.