Holiday Inn-Atlanta Norhtwest

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 12, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 930 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lammons Hotel Courts, Inc. d /b/a Holiday Inn-At- lanta Northwest and Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees Union Local 151, affiliated with the Ho- tel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter- national Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 10- RC-9918 November 12, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On April 12, 1974, the Regional Director for Re- gion 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate, in agreement with the Petitioner's re- quest, a broad unit of employees at the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, motel facility, excluding inter a/la, front desk clerks. Thereafter, in accordance with Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as amended, the Employer filed a request for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the grounds that, in deciding to exclude front desk clerks from the unit, he made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from precedent. By telegraphic order dated May 8, 1974, the re- quest for review was granted and the election stayed pending decision on review. Thereafter, the Peti- tioner filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, includ- ing the Petitioner's brief on review, and makes the following findings: The Employer contends that the front desk clerks here involved have such a community of interest with other employees at its motel facility that they must be included in the requested unit. We agree. The Employer's facility is comprised of a 209- room motel in 6 separate buildings, and a restaurant and cocktail lounge in the same building as the front desk lobby. It employs 75 to 85 employees, including 9 to 11 front desk clerks whose unit placement is in dispute. The front desk clerks work on three shifts: 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.; 3 p.m. to 11 p.m; and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Generally, there are two front desk clerks regularly assigned to each shift. However, a third is frequently assigned to the evening shift. Others are regularly scheduled on a relief basis.' Front desk clerks, por- ter-bellmen (one part-time and one full-time), and maintenance men are under the immediate supervi- sion of the innkeeper? The front desk clerks, when on duty at the front desk, answer inquiries, handle reservations, receive and register motel guests, assign them rooms, receive payment in cash or by credit card, and provide bell service, if desired. If a porter-bellman is not available to perform the latter service, the front desk clerk may do it.3 They also operate the telephone switchboard and the PBX teletype. The porter-bellman on duty has as one of his responsibilities the cleaning of the front desk lobby. However, from time to time he per- forms some of the duties normally handled by front desk clerks and on occasion acts in relief for them.4 Front desk clerks also participate in maintaining the cleanliness of the front desk area. On that afternoon shift, each of the two or three front desk clerks on duty regularly spends about an hour, sometime be- tween 3 and 6 p.m., assisting the one waitress and the cashier-hostess then working in the restaurant. Each front desk clerk is also regularly scheduled to inspect four or five rooms to insure that they have been properly cleaned and made up, a function also per- formed by four maid-inspectresses. The front desk clerks also inspect rooms from which guests have checked out late and, once or twice a week, on aver- age, obtain sheets and towels and perform other tasks necessary to make up the rooms for new guests. During busy summer months, two or three times a day, they handle requests for cribs or roll-away beds. On occasion, when a porter-bellman or a mainte- nance man is unavailable, they also make adjust- ments on TV sets and on temperature controls and replace light bulbs. The innkeeper, in his testimony, estimated that the front desk clerks spend at least 10 to 15 percent of their time in duties away from the front desk. The front desk employees are hourly paid, like other employees.' They share with the other employ- 1 On the morning and afternoon shifts a backup front desk clerk and an employee regularly assigned to work in the restaurant relieve front desk clerks during their I-hour meal breaks 2 Maids, maid-mspectresses, housemen, utility employees, laundry em- ployees, and yardmen are directly supervised by the housekeeper Cooks kitchen utility employees, cashier-hostesses, waiters, waitresses, and bus em- ployees are directly supervised by the assistant innkeeper-food and beverage director 3 On Sundays, front desk clerks do all the bell work At other times, a front desk clerk may do it 4 or 5 times a day on the morning shift, 8 to 10 times on the afternoon shift 4 For example he works the first 2 hours of the Saturday morning shift for a regularly scheduled front desk clerk ' Some of the employees, such as waiters and waitresses and porter-bell- men, though paid an hourly rate, also receive gratuities The innkeeper testi- fied that waiters and waitresses are paid on average about the same as the front desk clerks 214 NLRB No. 145 HOLIDAY INN-ATLANTA NORTHWEST ees all the fringe benefits provided by the Employer such as vacations, holidays, insurance plan, salary continuation plan in case of sickness or injury, sav- ings association, and meal discounts. In view of the foregoing, we find that the front desk clerks have a substantial community of interest with other employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner, and that, absent a showing that a pattern of bargaining exists in the area for their representa- tion on another basis, they must be included in the requested unit.' Thus, the appropriate unit, as modi- fied herein, is described as follows: All full-time and regular part-time maids, house- men, utility-bell employees, laundry employees, yardmen, cooks, kitchen utility employees, res- taurant cashier-hostesses, waiters, waitresses, bus employees, maintenance employees, barten- der-cocktail waitresses , porter-bellmen, maid-in- spectresses, and front desk clerks at the Employer's 1810 Howell Mill Road, N.W., At- lanta, Georgia, motel excluding office clerical employees,' guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, as the Petitioner indicated, in the al- ternative , a willingness to proceed to an election in a unit broadened to including the front desk clerks, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election , as modified herein , except that the eligibility payroll period there- for shall be that immediately preceding the date of issuance of this Decision on Review . [Excelsior foot- note omitted from publication.] MEMBER FANNING , dissenting: I do not agree that the Regency Hyatt House deci- sion ,8 in which I participated , is distinguishable with respect to the exclusion of front desk room clerks in this case. That case did involve an 800-room hotel where the front office had its own manager, and the actual classifications were room clerks, reservation clerks, mail and information clerks, front office cash- iers, status clerks to record room occupancy , as well as a shipping and receiving clerk to handle the pack- ages of guests. The Board there gave a unit of manu- al operating employees , excluding all clerical em- ployees, part of whom manned the front desk in the 6 See Days Inn of America, Inc, 210 NLRB 1035 (1974) and West. Inc d/b/a Holday Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781 (1973) The case of Hotel Equi- ties, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, 171 NLRB 1347 (1968), relied on by the Regional Director , is, in our opinion , factually distinguishable r The parties agreed to the exclusion of back office clerical employees 8 Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, 171 NLRB 1347 (1968) 931 classifications enumerated. The Board distinguished between the manual employees and the "white col- lar" force, noting that the duties of the various clerks, accounting employees, and secretaries were "primar- ily" clerical in nature and that there was "little if any, interchange" between the clerks and the manual em- ployees. Here the motel facility is one of 209 rooms, em- ploying 75 to 85 employees, and the Petitioner seeks the same sort of unit as granted in the Regency Hyatt House case. It would exclude front desk room clerks and cashiers, PBX operators (a "classification" the Employer does not have as such), and office clerical employees. The Regional Director granted the Unit requested, excluding the front desk room clerks who number 9 to 11. The Employer disagrees only on the exclusion of these front desk employees.9 In agree- ment with that position my colleagues construe this record as showing that at least 10 to 15 percent of the time of front desk employees is spent away from the front desk. Without agreeing that so small a portion as 10 to 15 percent of duties performed in areas away from the front desk would be sufficient to require the in- clusion of front desk employees, this record in my view does not support the asserted time so spent. Rather it shows that front desk clerks normally per- form typical front desk duties and from time to time-when manual employees are not available- help out in "manual" capacities. The "scheduled" assistance in the dining room, which the Regional Director found, occurs between 3 and 5:30 to 6 in the afternoon when only one wait- ress is on duty. If an "intermittent guest" requires the attention of that waitress, one of the desk clerks on the second shift will assist in the waitress' normal function at that time of day: that is, setting tables, bringing in salads, and possibly cleaning the rug if the luncheon buffet has been heavily patronized. This assistance does not affect the higher wages paid front desk people. The sole witness at the hearing, who was the innkeeper, or motel manager, admitted that guests are really not expected during these hours, but insisted that the 3-to-1l desk clerks, of whom there are three on duty, are scheduled-each "about an hour"-to work in the restaurant and that Both parties emphasize this issue Early in the hearing the Employer moved to transfer the hearing itself to the Board ( later saying "and deci- sion") on the ground that this Regional Director is misapplying current Board law The Union, asked at the end of the hearing if it would go to election "in any alternate unit" said "Yes , after exhausting the necessary appeals" The Employer's attorney then commented that this Union does not attempt to organize front desk clerks, hence the unit sought constitutes the extent of organization, to which the Union replied "We don't organize general managers either " 1 would construe this remark as an argument that the duties of front desk clerks tend to set them apart, to orient them toward management , perhaps 932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD this is not "relief" work but a "physical function." Yet he referred-both on direct and on cross-exami- nation-to the need for this participation "in the event of customers." In addition to the one waitress, he admitted that a hostess-cashier is also on duty in the dining room, some of her time being required in the kitchen. The Hearing Officer's question whether one of the three desk clerks "stays in there at all times during this period" was not directly answered. Thus, what the record really reflects is a relief com- mitment "in the event of" dining room customers in the late afternoon. To say, as my colleagues do, that each of the two or three front desk clerks on duty at that time "regularly spends about an hour" assisting in the restaurant is not established by this record. "Participation in cleanliness of the front desk area" so far as front desk people are concerned con- sists of dusting a table near the door (said to gather "a lot of dust"), some sweeping, picking up newspa- pers, disposing of ashes, and other tidying gestures that are certainly helpful to the appearance of the front desk lobby area but far removed from the basic cleaning done by porters. Verifying room occupancy is a typical front desk function. This may be done by actually examining the room and possibly supplying a missing glass or bar of soap. To say, as the witness did, that the verifi- cation is both "visual and manual" seems to attempt too much. The "spot check" inspection of four to five rooms daily, which the four maid-inspectresses may not have the time to do, appears to be an indepen- dent check directed by management, for the witness testified: "If we have a full house, at least we know 4 or 5 rooms are in order." Carrying luggage is a normal function of the bell- men, while taking supplies to guests is normally done by maids or bellmen when on duty. It appears that only two bellmen are employed, one on the 7-3 shift and one on the 3-11, with no one scheduled to work on Sunday in this capacity.'° The record, however, suggests that one laundry employee may actually function as a porter-bellman on Sundays, but the witness who did not identify his own hours stated: "Not to my knowledge." Gratuities being a common feature of the bellman job, though seldom of a laun- dry employee, it is not unreasonable to infer the pos- sibility of some porter-bellman assistance on Sun- days. In any event, the witness testified that a front desk employee may carry luggage two to three times a week, which seems minimal in a business with a 7-day week. Many guests undoubtedly carry their own luggage in a six-building complex such as this 10 On direct, the witness referred obliquely to "almost one and a half" bellmen on a "full shift" and said "yeah" when asked if he meant a "part- timer " inn, having no more than 20 of its 209 rooms located in the building with the lobby. Getting supplies for guests, like an extra towel or soap, is said to average 4 to 5 times a week on the morning shift and "proba- bly" 8 to 10 times during the evening shift when no maids are on duty and the bellman may be otherwise occupied. A front desk employee makes up a room only when there is a late checkout, after the maids have left, and in the event no bellman is available. Admit- tedly this would not include a complete cleaning. This occurs "perhaps" once or twice a week. On cross-examination this was changed to "per day," but the context is confusing and makes no reference to the testimony on direct. Once or twice a day seems exaggerated in view of the known tendency in the industry to discourage checkouts beyond 2 or 3 p.m., when the full-time maids who start at 8:30 a.m. would presumably still be working. The occasional changing of a light bulb by a front desk employee, or adjusting a TV set or a room ther- mostat, seems too trifling to mention as an indication of work interchange with manual employees. The witness conceded this type of service was a "courtesy type of thing" and that front desk people never do these things when a maintenance man is on the prop- erty; they call him instead. My colleagues emphasize common supervision, the same fringe benefits, and, to some extent, unit em- ployees' regularly performing desk clerk duties. There are, of course, only three supervisors: the hou- sekeeper for maids, the assistant innkeeper who is the food and beverage director, and the innkeeper who directly supervises the front desk, the two bellmen, and "maintenance." Whether there is more than one maintenance employee does not appear. I can see no significance in the common supervision of the front desk employees with bellmen and maintenance in view of this supervision being by the manager him- self, or in the latter's common overall supervision of all employees as a material factor in determining unit placement. Though all employees here are hourly paid and have the same fringe benefits, it is impor- tant to note that desk clerks are paid "perhaps 50 percent" more than waitresses and, unlike waitresses and maids, wear no uniforms. Bellmen are not fur- nished uniforms. What they wear does not appear. The first-shift bellman sits at the PBX early on Satur- day mornings before the second desk clerk arrives. "Primarily" this bellman thoroughly cleans the cock- tail lounge every day, which takes about an hour and half, mops and vacuums in the lobby, cleans the out- side area, cleans the lobby doors, handles room ser- vice, and will help to bus if there is a need. There being no separate bell stand, the evening bellman HOLIDAY INN-ATLANTA NORTHWEST also sits at the PBX "in between calls for service." This is in line with the Employer's contention that it has no PBX operators as such. There is a cashier- hostess who does some relief work on the desk from 7 to 3 so that desk clerks can have a meal break. Maids concededly never Cerform front desk duties. According to the witness, the converse may occur when there are too few maids, and the two may work side by side in cleaning a room. The testimony as to how often this happens is: "There are occasions , . . somewhere in the neighborhood of once every month, in that realm . . . one to two times a month . . , as an annual thing." I am inclined to believe that a more forthright witness would have said: "In emergencies." Finally, my colleagues find a substantial commu- nity of interest between desk clerks and other em- ployees requiring their inclusion in the requested unit, absent a showing of a different pattern of bar- gaining in the area." On the facts of this case I view this as a departure from recent Board precedent in this industry," possibly portending a return to the 11 The apparent exception made by my colleagues is supported by La- Ronde Bar & Restaurant, inc, and/or Carrousel Motels, Inc, 145 NLRB 270 (1963), and Management Directors, Inc d/b/a Columbus Plaza Motor Hotel, 148 NLRB 1053 (1964), where in accord with established area practice the overall unit excluded office clerical employees and desk clerks In these cases , the Board initially recognized the separate interests of front desk clerks despite the then lead case on hotel units, Arlington Hotel Company, Inc, 126 NLRB 400 (1960) 12 See, for example , Denver Athletic Club, 164 N LRB 677 (1967), Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, supra, Ramada Inns, Inc, 200 NLRB 283 (1972), where an all-housekeeping unit was granted maids, jani- tors , housemen, painters , and maintenance employees , though the summary judgment indicates that the inn sought an overall unit West, Inc d/b/a 933 simplistic rule of Arlington Hotel.13 It overlooks the fact that the Regency Hyatt House decision being urged by Petitioner and distinguished by my col- leagues drew upon "the analogous area of apartment house units." It was that precedent of a separate "blue collar" unit that was relied upon in the Regency Hyatt House decision to exclude office clericals and front desk people. If further reason for excluding these front desk clerks is needed, I suggest that these front desk employees who make reservations, greet and register guests, assign rooms, act as cashiers and accept charge cards, and are necessarily the motel's direct customer contact, are not unlike inside sales- men, whom the Board normally excludes from retail nonselling units and from production and mainte- nance units when not sought to be included. I would affirm the Regional Director. This record supports that result. Holiday Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781 (1973), where a request for house- keeping employees alone at this 125-room motel was dismissed because maintenance employees , bellmen , bartenders , waitresses , and busboys all did some room maintenance (no issue as to front desk employees), Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB 790 (1974), where a unit limited to kitchen , restaurant , lounge, and banquet employees was found appropriate in this 114-room , 150-employee motel instead of the ho- telwide unit basically urged by the employer, though facts show front desk people may bring linens to a room and one bartender at times works on the front desk ( the Board saw this food service unit as one common in retail store cases), Days Inn of America, Inc, 210 NLRB 1035 (1974), where peti- tioner indicated, without any reservation , that it would go to an overall unit of 39 employees and the Board in granting that unit and rejecting one of housekeeping, maintenance, and laundry employees, referred to the 122- room motel as a "relatively small operation" 13 In the Arlington Hotel case , the petitioner urged the exclusion of front desk people on the ground that they were essentially office clerical employ- ees The Board included them in the overall unit-which it was then setting up for hotels generally-because of their work location which insured con- tact with other employees and with guests