Holiday Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 14, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 106 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Crumley Hotel , Inc., d/b/a Holiday Hotel ,' and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Restau- rant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner Riverside Casino Corp ., d/b/a Riverside Hotel and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24 affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Mapes Hotel Corp. , d/b/a Mapes Hotel and Hotel & Motel Serv- ice Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner New Golden Hotel Co. , General Partner , and 24 Limited Part- ners, d/b/a Golden Bank Operating Co., Golden Hotel and Golden Casino and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- tenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. PO-RC-44420, 20-IBC-4123, 20-IBC-/1/33, and 20-PC-41434. April 14, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly fined under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before M. C. Dempster, 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 these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization named above claims to represent certain employees of the Employers. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the reason herein- after indicated. The four Employers, named above, operate hotels in Reno, Nevada. The Petitioner seeks separate residual units of all unrepresented em- ployees of each of the Employers 2 The Employers contend that the 1 The names of the Employers and the Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing 2 The Petitioner seeks housekeeping employees, maintenance employees, porters, bell- men, doormen, elevator operators; parlor maids, telephone operators, setup men, room clerks, and, with certain exclusions, all other unrepresented hotel employees. 131 NLRB No. 20. HOLIDAY HOTEL 107 petitions should be dismissed on the ground that (1) the units sought are inappropriate, and (2) the petitions insofar as they seek house- keeping employees are barred by a contract between the Reno Em- ployers Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council, and the Reno Local Joint Executive Board of Bartenders, Culinary and Hotel Serv- ice Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Joint Board. For the rea- sons stated below, we find that the units sought are inappropriate.' There has been no bargaining history with respect to the employees of the Employers sought by the Petitioner. However, the Employers have bargained on a multiemployer basis with respect to other of their employees. Specifically, the Council has bargained with the Joint Board on behalf of the Employers herein and on behalf of two other hotels and a considerable number of restaurants and bars located in Reno. The Council has negotiated, on behalf of these employers, a number of contracts with the Joint Board, covering culinary em- ployees, "front help," 4 fountain employees, and bartenders. The first of these contracts was entered into on July 9, 1949; the most recent of these contracts by its terms will expire on August 15, 1961. The agree- ments negotiated by the Council with the Joint Board are binding on all employers represented by the Council, including the Employers herein. The Employers contend that our decision in The Los Angeles Stat- ler Hilton Hotels is controlling here and that the units sought are therefore inappropriate. We agree. In Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the petitioner sought separate residual units of all unrepresented em- ployees at two Los Angeles hotels. The employers and intervenors contended that the units sought were inappropriate on the ground that the employers had bargained together with other employers in the area on a multiemployer basis as to other of their employees. The Board dismissed the petition, finding that only a multiemployer unit was appropriate as to the employees sought. The Board noted that the employees sought were "a miscellaneous group of unrepresented employees lacking in internal homogeneity or cohesiveness," whose only claim to separate identity was that they comprised all the un- represented employees of each of the employers involved in the pro- ceeding. As the bargaining as to the represented employees of the employers had been multiemployer in scope, the Board concluded that the remaining miscellaneous group of employees, in order to be residual, must be coextensive in scope with the multiemployer unit, and not merely coextensive with a single employer's operations. I In view of this finding , we find it unnecessary to consider the contract -bar contention advanced by the Employers 4 This category of employees includes waiters , waitresses , bus boys , cashiers, and checkers. 129 NLRB 1349. 108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARL The Petitioner here seeks a miscellaneous group of employees, lack- ing in internal homogeneity or cohesiveness. Their only claim to sepa- rate identity is that they comprise all the unrepresented employees of the Employers involved in the instant proceeding. However, as to other employees of the Employers, there is a well-established multi- employer bargaining history. The units of employees sought are co- extensive with the particular employer's operations but are not coex- tensive with the multiemployer unit. They are thus only a segment of the residual group. Accordingly, as the units sought do not con- stitute appropriate units, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.' [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 6In a supplemental brief to the Board, the Petitioner seeks to distinguish Los Angeles Statler Hilton on the ground that in that case there was multiemployer bargaining as to a large majority of the employers ' employees while here multiemployer bargaining has taken place only with respect to a minority of employees , and thus the units sought are "principal" bargaining units and not, as in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, "residual" units. As the record here does not disclose the percentage of employees with respect to whom there had been multiemployer bargaining, or that the units sought are composed of a majority of the employees of each Employer , we do not pass on the validity of the alleged distinction. Hoechst Chemical Corporation and Bakery, Food, Dairy, Bev- erage and Miscellaneous Drivers, Advance Salesmen, Ware- housemen and Helpers Local Union No. 64, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,. Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-6229. April 14, 1961 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 Alvin M. Glazerman, 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, Leedom, 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. 'The Intervenor, Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, was allowed to inter- vene on the basis of a contract interest. The Employer and the Intervenor moved that the petition be dismissed because it con- tained a false statement that there was no currently recognized bargaining agent, whereas the Intervenor was so recognized . The Petitioner maintained that the error was inadvertent , and that it took steps to make correction before the hearing . We find that none of the parties was prejudiced by the error , and this joint motion to dismiss is therefore hereby denied. 131 NLRB No. 21.