Ilikai Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1264 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ilikai Incorporated , and Association of Owners Ilikai Apartment
Building 1 and Hotel , Restaurant Employees & Bartenders'
Union , Local 5, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner
Ilikai Incorporated ; Association of Owners Ilikai Apartment
Building ; and International Innkeepers Incorporated ,3 Peti-
tioner and ILWU Local 142.4 Cases Nos. 37-IBC-1067 and
37-RM-49. September 23, 196,
DECISION 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
Hearing Officer Dennis R. MacCarthy. The Hearing Officer's rul-
ings 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit.
Hotel Employees' Union, Petitioner in Case No. 37-RC-1067, seeks
a single unit of the employees employed by Ilikai Incorporated and
Association of Owners Ilikai Apartment Building,5 two of the three
separate legal entities referred to as the Ilikai Complex. Ilikai Com-
plex, the Employer-Petitioner in Case No. 37-RM-49,6 has requested
that an election be conducted among the employees of the three cor-
porations : Ilikai Incorporated, the Association, and International
Innkeepers Incorporated.7 The Intervenor, ILIATU Local 142, takes
the position that the Ilikai Complex, including Innkeepers, consti-
tutes the appropriate unit.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
d Hereinafter referred to as Hotel Empoyees' Union
s The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
4 ILWU Local 142 was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of a card
showing
5 Hereinafter referred to as the Association
U The petition was filed based upon a demand for recognition in such a unit by ILWU
Local 142
' Hereinafter referred to as Innkeepers.
148 NLRB No. 142.
ILIKAI INCORPORATED, ETC. 1265
The basic question raised by the petitions is whether or not the
three corporations comprising the Ilikai Complex should be treated
as a single employer for unit purposes . With respect to this ques-
tion, the record shows that the operations of all three corporations
are carried on exclusively in the Ilikai building , a hotel-apartment
facility. The Ilikai building has over a thousand rooms , half of
which are controlled by Ilikai Incorporated which operates a hotel,
while the remaining rooms are owned by the Association which is
engaged in the sale and maintenance of condominium apartments.
Innkeepers , as the lessee of Ilikai Incorporated , operates all the res-
taurant and dining facilities in the building.
Financial and operational control of the three corporations is to a
great extent in the hands of two individuals , Chinn Ho and Howard
Donnelly. Ho controls Ilikai Incorporated by reason of his control-
ling interest in Latipac , Inc., which owns 100 percent of the stock of
Ilikai Incorporated . Ho and Donnelly also are the majority share-
holders in Innkeepers . The shareholders of the Association are the
individual apartment owners. Operational control over all three
corporations is exercised by Donnelly who is the executive vice presi-
dent and general manager of Ilikai Incorporated , president and a
director of Innkeepers , and the managing agent for the Association.
Ho is the president and director of Ilikai Incorporated and vice presi-
dent of Innkeepers.
Labor relations and wage policies are established by Donnelly and
uniformly applied to all employees of the three corporations. All
employees receive the same fringe benefits. All operations are ad-
vertised as the Ilikai and represented as a single facility to the pub-
lic. Donnelly testified that it is his responsibility to see that the over-
all operation realizes a profit and in carrying out this function his
decisions sometimes adversely affect the interest of one or more of
the corporations . He cited instances where he required Innkeepers
to provide additional services which were unprofitable in order to
benefit Ilikai Incorporated.
There are few instances of interchange of employees among the
three corporations . However, the day-to-day operations of all three
are interwoven to a great extent. The maids and porters employed
by Ilikai Incorporated are also responsible for cleaning the facilities
operated by the Association and Innkeepers . The maintenance em-
ployees and security guards employed by the Association perform
their duties throughout the entire building. Innkeepers provides
room service for hotel guests and Association members, and all guests
using the restaurant facilities may have their expenses charged on
their hotel bill. Each corporation maintains separate books, and ex-
penses such as electricity , gas, and water are prorated . However,
Ilikai Incorporated prepares all payroll checks, accounts receivable,
760-577-65-vol. 148-81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and accounts payable billings for the benefit of all three. Applica-
tions for employment with any of the three corporations are screened
by Snodgrass, personnel director for Ilikai Incorporated, although
the actual hiring is done by the individual department head to whom
the applicant is referred. All department heads attend weekly staff
meetings with Donnelly at which overall policies are discussed.
In our opinion the foregoing clearly establishes that Ilikai Incor-
porated, the Association, and Innkeepers constitute a single employer
for collective-bargaining purposes. It is equally clear under these
facts that the restaurant employees properly should be included in
the unit, especially when as here there is no bargaining history for
the employees involved; there is no discernible area bargaining pat-
tern favoring the exclusion of restaurant employees from units of
hotel employees, and there is a labor organization seeking to, repre-
sent employees in the overall unit. Accordingly, 'we find the appro-
priate unit to be one encompassing the employees of Ilikai Incorpo-
rated, the Association, and Innkeepers.'
The parties are in agreement with respect to the unit placement of
employees except as follows:
Accounting departmentt : This department comprises several em-
ployees who are employed in various clerical capacities. Hotel Em-
ployees' Union would exclude them from the unit based upon their
classification as office clerical employees. The Employer and the
Intervenor would include them in the unit. As we have stated in the
past,9 when, in the hotel industry the unit placement of'office clericals
as a class is in dispute, we will generally include them in the unit, un-
less the bargaining history at the hotel in question, or the pattern of
bargaining at the hotels in the area, establishes that the disputed class
of employees is not usually included.10 Here there is no bargaining
history involving any of these employees. Moreover the bargaining
history at hotels in the Honolulu area indicates that with one ex-
ception, the office clericals are included in hotelwide units. `Accord-
ingly, we shall include the accounting department employees in the
unit.
Houseman supervisor: The petitioning Union would include and
the Employer and Intervenor exclude the houseman supervisor. This
individual has charge of 25 housekeeping employees, whom he super-
vises, trains, and directs. He is paid 25, cents an hour more than the
employees under him. The houseman supervisor has the authority
to hire and di,chal,ge employees and has in fact hired employees. We
find the houseman supervisor to be a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act and therefore we shall exclude him from the unit.
fl Cf Arlengton hotel Company, Inc . 126 NLRB 400
°Arltngton Hotel Company, file slipla
10 Water Tower Inn, a Pai tnership, 139 NLRB 842
WILLIAM J. BURNS INT'L DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. 1267
Junior assistant housekeepers: Hotel Employees' Union would in-
clude the junior assistant housekeepers in the unit, while the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor would exclude them. These individuals
are three in number and each responsibly directs 25 to 30 housekeep-
ing employees. Junior assistant housekeepers are paid 20 percent
more than the employees they direct and perform no manual labor.
They possess the authority to hire and discharge employees. We find
the junior assistant housekeepers to be supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act and therefore we shall exclude them from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we shall direct an election in the follow-
ing unit of employees which we find to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act: 11
All employees employed by the Employer, Ilikai Incorporated,
Association of Owners Ilikai Apartment Building, and International
Innkeepers Incorporated at its hotel-apartment building located in
Honolulu, Hawaii, including restaurant employees and accounting de-
partment employees, but excluding the houseman supervisor, junior
assistant housekeepers, all professional employees, guards, watchmen,
and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' Hotel Employees' Union has indicated that it wishes to proceed to an election in
whatever unit the Board finds to be appropriate.
The William J . Burns International Detective Agency, Inc. and
International Guards Union of America
The William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc. and
International Guards Union of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos.
17-CA-2145, 17-CA-2161, and 17-RC-4028. September 04, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 16, 1964, Trial Examiner James T. Barker issued his
Decision and Report on Objections in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and interference with the election held in Case
No. 17-RC-4028, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, and that the election be set aside,
as set forth in the attached Decision. He also found that Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and dismissed
the allegations of the complaint as to them. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General. Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and supporting briefs.
148 NLRB No. 113.