LaRonde Bar & Restaurant, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 270 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inc., where an object thereof is to force or require Colony Liquor
Distributors, Inc., and Colonial Carriers, Inc., to recognize or bar-
gain collectively with us, or its employees to accept or select us as
their collective-bargaining representative where a valid election
which we did not win has been conducted by the National Labor
Relations Board among the employees of Colony Liquor Distribu-
tors, Inc., and Colonial Carriers, Inc., within the preceding 12
months.
LOCAL 445, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
Or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Fourth Floor, the 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo,
New York, Telephone No. TL 6-1782, if they have any question con-
cerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
LaRonde Bar & Restaurant , Inc. and/or Carrousel Motels, Inc.'
and Cincinnati Joint Executive Board , Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO,2
Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-5449. December 5, 1963
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 Hearing Officer Alan D.
Greene. 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.'
1 At the hearing and in the brief LaRonde Bar & Restaurant , Inc., moved to dismiss the
petition as to itself on the ground that it does not employ any of the employees herein.
The record shows that LaRonde owns certain personal property which it leases to Carrousel
for the conduct of the latter ' s hotel and restaurant business . All restaurant and motel
employees are the employees of Carrousel . Under the circumstances , we find that LaRonde
is not a necessary party to this proceeding . Accordingly , we hereby dismiss the petition
as to LaRonde.
2 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing , and is also referred to
herein as the Excutive Board
'Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc ., 124 NLRB 261.
145 NLRB No. 31.
LARONDE BAR & RESTAURANT, INC., ETC. 271
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) andSection2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates a motel providing lodging, restaurant,
convention, and certain recreational facilities to the public. The Peti-
tioner seeks a unit of the Employer's motel and laundry employees,
or a unit of these employees plus the restaurant employees, but in
either case it would exclude from the units the office clerical employ-
ees,4 as well as certain other classifications. Relying on the Board's
decision in Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., 126 NLRB 400, the Em-
ployer contends that only a unit of all employees including office
clerical employees is appropriate.'
Evidence adduced at the hearing shows that six hotel and motel
owners in the Cincinnati area, as members of the Cincinnati Hotel
Association, have bargained with the Cincinnati Hotel Employees
Council which is made up of various labor organizations. The Asso-
ciation and Council have bargained on an associationwide basis for
over 26 years for all hotel employees, excluding office clerical employ-
ees and pool attendants. The Petitioner herein also has bargaining
agreements with two employers, and, like the Council, its units do not
include office clerical employees or pool attendants. Thus, 8 employers
with establishments having about 3,600 rooms comprising an over-
whelming majority of local hotel and motel guest rooms and with their
over 2,000 employees comprising a like majority in the industry, have
established an area bargaining pattern of long duration which is the
result of voluntary agreement by the parties.
In Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., supra, the Board promulgated
the general rule that, in the hotel industry, "all operating personnel
have such a high degree of functional integration and mutuality of
interests that they should be grouped together for collective bargain-
ing purposes." Subsequently, in Water Tower Inn, 139 NLRB 842,
the Board modified this general rule explaining that in the Arlington
Hotel case "there was no evidence that historic unit patterns existed
in the area which preponderated in favor of bargaining units on a scale
less than hotelwide." Finding that there were such factors present in
Water Tower Inn, the Board held that a less than hotelwide unit was
appropriate where customary in the bargaining area. It is true that
in Water Tower Inn there was evidence that the contract units found
appropriate had been the subject of collective bargaining, whereas
'Petitioner would exclude as office clerical employees : room clerks , room and banquet
reservation clerks , clerk -typists , switchboard operators , billing clerks , bookkeepers, and
secretaries
B The Employer would also include and the Petitioner would exclude pool attendants and
inspectresses ( the assistant housekeepers).
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
here there has been no bargaining history for this particular Employ-
er's employees. But in finding the units appropriate, bargaining his-
tory was not the determinative factor. More relevant was the stability
of bargaining relations inherent in the area's historic unit patterns.
We believe that in finding a unit appropriate here, which is less than
hotelwide in scope, but which conforms to an existing and well-defined
area practice, we are furthering the stability of collective-bargaining
relationships in the industry. Accordingly, we find that u unit of hotel
employees, excluding office clerical employees and pool attendants,°
is appropriate on the basis of the bargaining practices in the Cincin-
nati, Ohio, area.
Petitioner also seeks to exclude inspectresses on the ground that they
are supervisors. The Employer opposes their exclusion. The duty of
the inspectress, of whom there are four employed, is merely to see
that the maids properly make up the rooms and if the work in any
particular room is not done correctly to ask the specific maid involved
to remedy the defects. If there is difficulty over the matter, the house-
keeper is called. Although the inspectress is thus instrumental in
calling the housekeeper's attention to situations which may call for
disciplinary action, it is the housekeeper who determines the need for
such action. The record discloses that inspectresses do not hire, fire,
reprimand, interview, adjust complaints, change work assignments,
grant time off, or excuse tardiness, nor do they have authority effec-
tively to recommend such action. In view thereof, we find that in-
spectresses neither have nor exercise any supervisory authority; ac-
cordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
In view of the foregoing and on the record as a whole, we find the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(b) of the Act:
All motel, laundry, and restaurant employees of the Employer em-
ployed at its Cincinnati, Ohio, facility, including cooks, bakers, bakers'
helpers, pantry girls, cleanup and setup employees, dishwashers,
supply stockmen, porters, busboys, waitresses, busgirls, cashiers,
bartenders, hostesses, bellboys, maids, inspectresses, repairmen, repair-
men's helpers, groundskeepers, carpenters, carpenter helpers, ironers,
and general laundry employees, but excluding the housekeeper, the
office clerical employees, pool attendants, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors' as defined in the Act.
9 While pool attendants would be excluded under the area practice a further reason for
their exclusion is that they are students and teachers hired only for the summer months ;
their employment is terminated at the beginning of the school term and there is no evidence
that these individuals have recurring jobs or are hired each season
4 The parties agree to exclude supervisors , officers of the Company , the general manager,
assistant manager, executive 'housekeeper , laundry manager , LaRonde managers , kitchen
manager, banquet manager, and the chef
LARONDE BAR & RESTAURANT, INC., ETC. 273
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
Contrary to my colleagues, I would not find appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining the Petitioner's requested unit of hotel employees
which would exclude operating personnel, such as room clerks and
room and banquet reservation clerks, as well as office clerical employees.
In the Arlington Hotel case,' the lead case on hotel units, the Board
promulgated the rule that, in the hotel industry, "all operating per-
sonnel have such a high degree of functional integration and mutuality
of interests that they should be grouped together for collective bar-
gaining purposes," and, unless the parties agree to the contrary, such
a unit should include office clerical employees. While in Water Tower
Inn, the Board held that u unit less than hotelwide was appropriate,
that case was recognized as an exception to the Arlington Hotel rule.
There, the Board found significant the existence of a history of collec-
tive bargaining, both at Water Tower Inn and in the area, based on
less than hotelwide units. Here, however, unlike Water Tower Inn,
there is no history of collective bargaining as to any of the Employer's
employees. The majority thus engrafts a further exception on the
Arlington Hotel case, basing a deviation from the rule solely on the
fact that there is an area bargaining practice of hotel units of lesser
scope, a practice to which the Employer has not been a party and which
it does not wish to follow. The effect of the majority decision in this
case is therefore to erode the rule to the point of confining its ap-
plicability only to those situations in which there is no area bargaining
practice, as well as no history of collective bargaining on less than a
hotelwide basis. Indeed, it is noteworthy that to follow the area prac-
tice instead of the rule results here in recognizing as appropriate a
segment of all the operating personnel in a hotel unit,9 and gives
controlling effect to the Petitioner's extent of organization. Ac-
cordingly, as the rule of the Arlington Hotel case is a salutary one,
I would adhere to it. Further, consistent with that case, I would,
contrary to my colleagues, not exclude the office clerical employees
where, as here, one of the parties objects to their exclusion.10
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
s Arlington Hotel Company , Inc., 126 NLRB 400, 406.
Although the Petitioner would exclude room clerks and room and banquet reservation
clerks as office clericals , it is clear and the Board expressly found in the Arlington Hotel
case that such employees are operating personnel not to be differentiated from other em-
ployees who have customer contact and personally serve the customers as do doormen,
bellmen, elevator operators, waiters, and room maids
10 See also Hotel Admiral Semmes, 127 NLRB 988, 990.
7 34-070-04-vol. 145-19