RB Associates, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1997

324 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1997)

874
324 NLRB No. 138
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The election was held on May 23, 1997, and the ballots im-
pounded.
2 The Regional Director excluded pool engineers Anderson and
Renderos from the Washington Plaza unit. However, we find that the
record is unclear as to whether they are pool employees regularly
assigned to the Washington Plaza and whether they have a commu-
nity of interest with the other unit members. We therefore direct that
their ballots be handled in accordance with the Board’s normal chal-
lenge procedure.
RB Associates, Incorporated and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 99-99A,
AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 5–RC–14470
October 30, 1997
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS FOX AND
HIGGINS
On May 23, 1997, the National Labor Relations
Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of
the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election (pertinent portions are attached as an appen-
dix).1 Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we
affirm the Regional Director’s finding that a single lo-
cation unit of maintenance employees and painters at
the Employer’s Washington Plaza hotel, excluding
those roving/pool employees not regularly assigned to
the Washington Plaza, is an appropriate unit. We find,
for the reasons set forth in the Regional Director’s de-
cision, that the petitioned-for single-facility unit is pre-
sumptively appropriate; that the Employer has failed to
meet its burden to overcome the presumption; and that,
therefore, the petitioned-for, single-location unit of the
Employer’s maintenance employees and painters is ap-
propriate for bargaining.2
In affirming the Regional Director, we note that al-
though the painters regularly assigned to the Washing-
ton Plaza are termed ‘‘pool’’ painters, the same term
given to the Employer’s roving painters and mainte-
nance employees, the Washington Plaza painters are
distinct. Thus, the pool painters working at the Wash-
ington Plaza are regularly assigned to that hotel. Al-
though prior to its purchase of the Washington Plaza,
the Employer had used these painters as roving paint-
ers at its other hotels, at the time of the hearing, these
pool painters had worked on a regular basis at the
Washington Plaza for 3 to 4 months. The vice presi-
dent of maintenance and construction for the Employer
expected these painters to continue working at the
Washington Plaza indefinitely, perhaps including the
entire period of construction which might be 5 years
or longer, and considered them for all intents and pur-
poses to be permanent ‘‘for now.’’ By contrast, the
Employer’s pool painters and other pool employees
who are not regularly assigned to the Washington
Plaza rove from one hotel of the Employer’s group to
another to perform their work. Indeed, the Employer in
its staffing list distinguishes these pool employees
from those regularly assigned to the Washington Plaza
because they have more flexibility—they might be
working at any of the Employer’s hotels next month.
The pool employees who are not regularly assigned to
the Washington Plaza are occasionally sent there to do
special projects. While some have worked for several
days or longer at the Washington Plaza, such assign-
ments were not on a regular, long-term basis. Although
the Washington Plaza pool employees are classified by
the Employer as temporary there, their indefinite but
long-term employment with the hotel supports the Re-
gional Director’s finding that they should be consid-
ered employees of the Washington Plaza for purposes
of determining the appropriate unit. Ameritech Commu-
nications, 297 NLRB 654, 656 (1990).
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is affirmed, and the case is remanded for fur-
ther appropriate action.
APPENDIX
REGIONAL DIRECTOR’S DECISION AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Union amended the petition at the hearing and it seeks
to represent a unit consisting of:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance staff
employees and helpers, painters, including the painting
supervisor, employed by the Employer at the Washing-
ton Plaza Hotel in Washington, DC, excluding all other
employees, carpenters, chief engineers, roving/pool em-
ployees not regularly assigned to the Washington Plaza
Hotel, the director of engineering, the lease adminis-
trator, the vice president of maintenance and construc-
tion, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
There are approximately 14 employees in the unit sought
by the Petitioner. The unit sought by the Petitioner includes
five painters, including the individual classified as the paint-
ing supervisor, whose primary job responsibilities are to per-
form painting and plastering work at the Washington Plaza.
There is an additional part-time painter, Medrano, who works
a full shift at another hotel, who the Union would include
in the unit. The maintenance staff at the Washington Plaza
consists of five general maintenance employees, an HVAC
engineer, and a mechanic/electrician. There is also a mainte-
nance helper who the Petitioner would include in the unit.
With one exception, the Employer agrees that the 14 employ-
ees sought by the Petitioner should be included in any appro-
priate unit. The exception is the position of painting super-
visor; the Employer asserts that this position should be ex-
cluded on the ground that the person holding that classifica-
tion is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act. The parties also agree that temporary painters, num-
bering approximately 14, should be excluded from any ap-
propriate unit. Furthermore, the parties stipulated to the su-
pervisory and managerial status of the director of engineering
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00874 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
875RB ASSOCIATES
at the Washington Plaza Hotel and of the Employer’s cor-
porate vice president of maintenance and construction. Fi-
nally, the parties agree that the lease administrator should be
excluded from any appropriate unit.
Positions of the Parties
The Petitioner asserts that this proposed single location
unit is an appropriate bargaining unit. The Employer argues
that the only appropriate unit must include all maintenance
employees, helpers, painters, and carpenters working at the
Employer’s five hotels located within the District of Colum-
bia. Besides employees at the Washington Plaza Hotel, the
Employer would include employees at the Morrison-Clark
Inn (the Morrison), the Henley Park Hotel (the Henley), the
State Plaza Hotel (the State), and the Hotel Lombardy (the
Lombardy). The Employer’s proposed multilocation unit
would include: an engineer and a painter employed at the
Morrison; two general maintenance employees and two
painters employed at the Lombardy; an engineer and two
general maintenance employees employed at the State; and
an engineer and an assistant engineer employed at the Hen-
ley. Furthermore, the Employer would include within the
multilocation unit four pool carpenters, four pool painters,
and a pool helper. These pool employees are not regularly
assigned to any one of the Employer’s hotels but are as-
signed to a site as needed. Finally, the Employer would in-
clude two pool engineers, Renderos and Anderson. As to An-
derson, the Employer asserts that because of the high propor-
tion of time he spends working at the Washington Plaza
Hotel, he should be included in the unit even if it is limited
to employees employed at that single site. The Petitioner as-
serts that all of the pool employees should be excluded be-
cause they lack a sufficient community of interest to warrant
their inclusion. It also asserts that Anderson should be ex-
cluded as a supervisor. The parties did stipulate to the super-
visory status of the chief engineers employed at the Lom-
bardy and the State. Overall, to the 14 employees sought by
the Petitioner, the Employer’s proposed multisite unit would
add approximately 21 employees. The Petitioner expressed
its willingness to proceed to an election in a unit larger than
the one it asserts is appropriate.
The Employer’s Operations
The Employer purchased the Washington Plaza Hotel in
October 1996. Along with a restaurant located in the George-
town section of the District of Columbia and a hotel located
in Virginia, the Employer refers to and markets the five ho-
tels involved in this proceeding as its classic collection.
Three of the hotels, the Morrison, the Henley, and the Wash-
ington Plaza Hotel, are located within several blocks of each
other. The State and Lombardy are a bit more distant, located
more than a mile away from the other three hotels. Possess-
ing 338 rooms, the Washington Plaza is the largest of the 5
hotels. The Morrison has 54 guest rooms, the Henley has 96,
the Lombardy has 125, and the State has 223 rooms. Since
purchasing the Washington Plaza Hotel, the Employer has
been involved in integrating that hotel into its classic collec-
tion, a process that remains in progress.
Stephen Golsch holds the position of the Employer’s di-
rector of human resources, a position he has held since No-
vember 1996. In this capacity Golsch oversees matters per-
taining to human resources at all five hotels involved in this
proceeding. The personnel policies applicable to the five ho-
tels are the same. The Employer has one employee handbook
that describes employee benefits and rules and regulations.
This handbook applies to employees at all five hotels.
New employees at all five hotels are subject to a 3-month
probationary period, which is subject to extension at the sole
discretion of the Employer. The handbook establishes a regu-
lar workday for employees at all five hotels, consisting of 8
consecutive hours, excluding a 30-minute unpaid lunch pe-
riod, as scheduled by the Employer. If an employee desires
to leave work during working hours, the handbook requires
that the employee receive permission from his supervisor or
department head. With regard to overtime, the handbook
states that employees will be compensated at the rate of time
and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work rate.
However, overtime work must be approved in writing by the
employee’s supervisor.
Concerning the subject of performance reviews, the hand-
book provides that new employees will be evaluated after
their first 3 months of employment and at the end of their
first year. After that employees are evaluated on an annual
basis.
The employer handbook declares that promotion from
within is the Company’s policy, whenever it is advisable, in
the Company’s judgment, to follow that course. As to trans-
fers, the handbooks says that employees transferring within
from one property to another do not lose benefits or senior-
ity.
The handbook establishes that employees will be paid on
Fridays for the work they performed the previous week. If
a particular Friday happens to be a holiday, employees will
be paid on the last workday preceding the holiday. The hand-
book lists paid eight holidays which all regular part-time em-
ployees who have completed their probationary period re-
ceive, provided they work on the last regularly scheduled
workday before and the first regularly scheduled workday
after the holiday. However, employees may be required by
the Employer to work on a holiday, in which case the Em-
ployer will grant the employee another day off later in the
same week.
The Employer has a progressive discipline policy that ap-
plies to employees at all five of the hotels. According to
Golsch, he is involved in all decisions to terminate employ-
ees. A manager or supervisor at one of the hotels may sus-
pend an employee pending termination, but before a termi-
nation action becomes final Golsch must approve the action.
This system is designed, in part, to maintain consistency in
the application of the Employer’s disciplinary policies at its
various properties.
Golsch is also involved in the process of hiring employees
for all five hotels. There is a single application form which
the Employer uses for all of its properties. Applications are
submitted to the Employer’s corporate office and are routed
through Golsch. Golsch also reviews all appraisals for em-
ployees at the five hotels. The purpose of his review is to
maintain consistency in the application of the Employer’s
standards. After reviewing the appraisal, assuming that he
does not perceive any problems with it, Golsch signs the ap-
praisal and routes it to the owner of the Employer. Apprais-
als are supposed to be prepared on employee anniversary
dates. A part of the evaluation process involves granting an
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00875 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
876 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employee a wage increase. The employee’s manager or su-
pervisor prepares the appraisal and sets the employee’s job
rating. Golsch determines the actual increase that an em-
ployee will receive, although this determination appears to
involve a minimal exercise of discretion because the Em-
ployer has a formula linking the size of an increase to a par-
ticular rating level. The same appraisal form is used at all
of the Employer’s properties.
Employees receive their paycheck at the hotel where they
work. Pooled employees receive their checks at the site
where they are working on payday. The checks for pooled
employees are taken to the appropriate site by Willard
McGraw, vice president of maintenance and construction.
The Employer maintains its payroll in one company ac-
count. Each hotel also has an operating account. Once pay-
roll information is compiled by a hotel, the information is
submitted to the corporate office. From the corporate account
an individual hotel is provided funds to cover its payroll.
Employees regularly assigned to work at a hotel receive a
check with the name of the hotel on it. Pooled employees
receive a check containing the name of RB Associates. The
Washington Plaza has a separate payroll system which the
Employer is in the process of integrating into its overall sys-
tem, a process that should be completed by May 1997.
Employees at all of the Employer’s hotels wear uniforms,
but the uniforms vary a bit. The Employer attempts to design
uniforms that blend with the decor of a particular hotel. Em-
ployees at the Washington Plaza wear name tags; employees
at several other of the hotels do not wear name tags. Vice
President for Hotel and Restaurant Operations Rawson makes
the principal decisions concerning the type of uniforms worn
by employees at the various hotels.
The Employer has a centralized purchasing procedure.
There is a corporate purchasing manager who is in charge of
purchases for all of the hotels comprising the classic collec-
tion. The office of the purchasing manager is located at the
Washington Plaza. Individual hotels do make small purchases
from time to time, particularly when there is a pressing need
to obtain an unavailable item.
The Employer conducts orientation meetings once a
month. The location of these meetings is rotated from site to
site among the properties comprising the classic collection.
All employees are invited to attend these meetings.
The Employer has a system designed to facilitate transfers
by employees from one of its properties to another. It main-
tains what it refers to as an open-position list which lists va-
cancies at the properties comprising the classic collection.
This list is generated by Golsch. The list is routed to and
posted at each of the classic collection properties. If an em-
ployee is interested in transferring to a vacant position, the
employee can contact his or her supervisor or Golsch. The
decision about whether to transfer an employee is made by
Golsch in conjunction with the general managers at the af-
fected properties. This transfer procedure has only been in
place since February 1997. It does not appear that any rank-
and-file employees have transferred under this new proce-
dure. The evidence does show that a number of supervisors
and managers have been transferred by the Employer from
one hotel to another, including the general manager at the
Washington Plaza, who transferred from the Morrisson. In
addition, there have been involuntary transfers of rank-and-
file employees from one hotel to another.
The maintenance staff at the Washington Plaza performs
tasks such as changing light bulbs, changing filters, checking
problems with heating and air-conditioning, checking elec-
trical problems, and performing minor plumbing repairs.
Once in a while members of the maintenance staff assist in
the renovation of rooms or portions of the hotel. On such oc-
casions they perform tasks such as removing drapes, curtain
rods, pictures, headboards, or other furniture, performing
minor electrical work, and, after the renovation work is com-
pleted, putting things back in place. Maintenance engineers
receive some of their work assignments in the form of tickets
outlining repairs that need to be undertaken. The members of
the maintenance crew are largely interchangeable from the
standpoint of their respective skills, but not entirely so. The
HVAC engineer has more knowledge regarding air-condi-
tioners. Likewise, the mechanic/electrician spends a lot of
time working on the washers and dryers in the hotel laundry.
All members of the maintenance staff at the Washington
Plaza are supervised by the chief engineer, Ewin. Ewin, in
turn, reports to the director of engineering, Sardarbegians.
The maintenance engineers are assigned to specific shifts, re-
ferred to as watch shifts. Maintenance staff members punch
a timeclock located near the entrance of the building.
The painters at the Washington Plaza all work a shift from
7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. They punch the same timeclock as is
used by maintenance employees. The work assignments of
painters are determined by the director of engineering, who
communicates the assignments to the painting supervisor,
Nelson Del Cid. Del Cid informs the other painters about
their assignments. Del Cid performs painting and plastering
work alongside the other painters. Painters also perform tasks
related to repairing damaged walls, caulking, and removing
wallpaper. At the end of the day Del Cid reports to the direc-
tor of engineering and informs him about the amount of
work accomplished. Painters ordinarily do not work along-
side the maintenance engineers. When the pooled carpenters
perform work at the Washington Plaza, after the carpenters
have finished their work the painters go in and paint and
plaster the renovated area. However, the painters normally do
not work alongside the carpenters. In addition to painting and
plastering, painters sometimes perform functions such as re-
moving wallpaper. Painters at the Washington Plaza wear
white uniforms. Del Cid wears the same uniform as the other
painters. When overtime work is required for painters, the
decision about which painters should work the overtime is
made by the director of engineering. The wage rates of the
painters range from about $11 per hour to $14 per hour. Del
Cid, the painting supervisor, earns $15.50 per hour. Medrano,
who regularly works part-time as a painter at the Washington
Plaza, earns $9 per hour. He receives a lower wage rate be-
cause he is a houseman who does not have much experience
painting and plastering.
The helper at the Washington Plaza performs functions
such as pressure washing the driveway to the hotel, removing
carpet from around the swimming pool, cleaning up after
construction work, and mopping hallways. Occasionally the
helper assists with sanding, caulking or cleaning work per-
formed in connection with a renovation project.
The pooled employees, who the Employer would include
in the unit, work on special projects at the various hotels
comprising the classic collection. The project could involve
work such as renovating a floor at a hotel or installing a new
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00876 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
877RB ASSOCIATES
office, which recently occurred at the Washington Plaza.
Other examples of special projects performed by pool em-
ployees are a bar/lounge in the process of being installed at
the Lombardy, a new suite built at the Henley and two new
rooms built at the State. On occasion pooled employees per-
form more routine work. For instance pooled employees re-
cently fixed a water leak under the kitchen at the State.
There are a total of 11 pooled employees: 2 engineers, 4 car-
penters, 4 painters; and 1 helper.
The pooled employees are supervised by McGraw, the
vice president of maintenance and construction. McGraw de-
termines where pooled employees will work and oversees
their work. He determines the scheduling of special projects
and allocates personnel depending on what is required to per-
form a job. Pooled employees use their own tools as well as
tools provided by the Employer. They bring their own tools
to the site where they are working. If a pool employee re-
quires a new tool, that employee would contact McGraw
about the matter. McGraw also prepares the appraisals of the
pooled employees. Pooled employees receive the benefits as
employees assigned regularly to work at a specific hotel.
Pooled employees do not use a timeclock; they fill out daily
timesheets. If a pooled employee needs to leave during the
day he would obtain permission from McGraw. McGraw car-
ries a pager which ordinarily makes him easy to contact. If
for some reason McGraw is unavailable, the pooled em-
ployee would leave a message for McGraw at his office.
The record reflects that pooled employees occasionally
come into contact with employees regularly assigned to a
hotel, but that the contact between these two groups of em-
ployees is limited and sporadic. Even when pooled employ-
ees are working on a project at the Washington Plaza, they
ordinarily do not work in conjunction with the maintenance
employees or painters assigned to that site.
The maintenance employees and painters regularly as-
signed to the other hotels perform functions at their respec-
tive hotels similar to those performed by the maintenance
employees at the Washington Plaza. Supervision of these em-
ployees is provided by the chief engineer or other supervisor
at the respective hotel. For the most part these employees do
not work at other hotels, but once in a while they are as-
signed to work at another site when the workload requires
it.
Analysis and Conclusion
Section 9(b) of the Act states that the ‘‘Board shall decide
in each case whether, to assure to employees the fullest free-
dom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act, the unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining shall be
the employer unit, craft unit, or subdivision thereof.’’
The statute does not require that a unit for bargaining be
the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most
appropriate unit. Rather, the Act requires only that the unit
be ‘‘appropriate, that is, appropriate to insure to employees
in each case the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guar-
anteed by this Act.’’ Morand Bros. Beverage Co., 91 NLRB
409 (1950), enfd. 190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951); Parson In-
vestment Co., 152 NLRB 192 fn. 1 (1965); Federal Electric
Corp., 157 NLRB 1130 (1966); Capital Bakers, 168 NLRB
904, 905 (1968); National Cash Register Co., 166 NLRB
173 (1967); and Dezcon, Inc., 295 NLRB 109 (1989). When
seeking to represent employees, a union is not required to
seek representation in the most comprehensive grouping of
employees unless ‘‘an appropriate unit compatible with that
requested does not exist.’’ P. Ballantine & Sons, 141 NLRB
1103 (1963); Bamberger’s Paramus, 151 NLRB 748, 751
(1965); Purity Food Stores, 160 NLRB 651 (1966). There is
typically more than one way to group employees for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. General Instrument Corp. v.
NLRB, 319 F.2d 420, 422–423 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied
375 U.S. 478, 480 (1964); Mountain Telephone Co. v. NLRB,
310 F.2d 478, 480 (10th Cir. 1962). Recently, the Board af-
firmed that, in determining whether a petitioned-for unit is
appropriate, the unit sought by the petitioning union is al-
ways a relevant consideration. Lundy Packing Co., 314
NLRB 1042, 1043 (1994), citing E. H. Koester Bakery &
Co., 136 NLRB 1006 (1962).
In the hotel industry, at one time the Board applied a rigid
rule mandating that an overall unit of hotel employees was
presumptively appropriate. See Arlington Hotel Co., 126
NLRB 400 (1960); 77 Operating Co., 160 NLRB 927
(1966), enfd. 387 F.2d 646 (4th Cir. 1967). The Board, how-
ever, rejected that approach in Omni International Hotel, 283
NLRB 475 (1987). In Omni, the Board decided to make unit
determinations in the hotel industry on a case-by-case basis
utilizing traditional community-of-interest criteria. It is also
clear that the well-established principle that under the Act a
union may petition for an appropriate unit, and is not re-
quired to seek the most appropriate unit, applies to the hotel
industry. See Dinah’s Hotel & Apartments, 295 NLRB 1100
(1989).
In the instant proceeding, the Petitioner seeks to represent
the maintenance employees, including the painters, at the
Washington Plaza, whereas the Employer maintains that this
single-location unit is not appropriate. In determining wheth-
er to direct an election in a single-facility unit or a broader,
multisite unit, the Board looks at a variety of factors, includ-
ing bargaining history, centralization of labor relations, and
local autonomy and supervision. The Board begins, however,
with the presumption that a single location unit is an ap-
propriate unit for collective bargaining. Penn Color, Inc., 249
NLRB 1117, 1119 (1980); Hegins Corp., 255 NLRB 160
(1981); Sentry Security Services, 230 NLRB 1170 (1977).
This presumption applies even where a larger, more com-
prehensive unit might also be found appropriate. Dixie Belle
Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962). The role of the
Board is to find ‘‘an appropriate unit’’ and not necessarily
‘‘the most appropriate unit.’’ NLRB v. Pinkertons, Inc., 416
F.2d 627, 628 (7th Cir. 1969). As stated in J&L Plate, Inc.,
310 NLRB 429 (1993):
A single plant or store unit is presumptively appropriate
unless it has been so effectively merged into a more
comprehensive unit, or is so functionally integrated,
that it has lost its separate identity. Dixie Belle Mills,
139 NLRB 629, 631 (1962). To determine whether the
presumption has been rebutted, the Board looks at such
factors as central control over daily operations and
labor relations, including the extent of local autonomy;
similarity of skills, functions, and working conditions;
degree of employee interchange; distance between loca-
tions; and bargaining history, if any. Esco Corp., 298
NLRB 837, 839 (1990), and cases cited.
. . . .
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00877 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
878 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The presumption is in favor of petitioned-for single fa-
cility units, and the burden is on the party opposing that
unit to present evidence overcoming the presumption.
See Red Lobster, 300 NLRB 908, 910–911 (1990);
Esco Corp., supra. Hence, in the instant case it was the
Employer’s burden to rebut the presumption by intro-
ducing affirmative evidence establishing a lack of au-
tonomy at the individual plant level. This the Employer
failed to do, and the Regional Director erred by con-
struing the absence of evidence regarding local auton-
omy (i.e., that the record was supposedly silent) as
being the equivalent of affirmatively presenting the evi-
dence to rebut the presumption.
J&L Plate, Inc., 310 NLRB at 429.
In evaluating issues regarding the appropriateness of a sin-
gle-location unit, although the Board must take into consider-
ation the organizational structure of the employer’s operation,
such structure is not controlling. The Board must balance the
needs of employee organizational activities against possibly
competing interests of an employer. While an employer has
an expectation of ‘‘reasonably adequate protection from the
disruptive effects of piecemeal unionization,’’ NLRB v. Pin-
kertons, Inc., 428 F.2d 479, 485 (6th Cir. 1970), the Board
must also ‘‘assure to employees the fullest freedom in exer-
cising the rights guaranteed by the Act.’’ Kalamazoo Paper
Box Corp., 136 NLRB 134, 139 (1962).
I now turn to the issue of whether the Petitioner’s sought-
after single-site unit is appropriate. Consistent with the
Board’s well-established directives concerning this issue, I
must begin with the presumption that the single-location unit
is appropriate. This presumption may be overcome by show-
ing functional integration so substantial as to negate the sep-
arate identity of the single-location unit. In making findings
in such matters, the Board considers factors such as control
over daily operations and labor relations, skills and functions
of employees, employee interchange, geographic location of
the sites in relation to each other and general working condi-
tions. It is the Employer’s burden to demonstrate that the
presumption is overcome. I do not find that the Employer
has here met its burden.
To be sure there are factors that support the Employer’s
position that a multisite unit is appropriate. Through its di-
rector of human resources the Employer exercises centralized
control of its labor relations. Among other things, hiring, dis-
cipline, and the development of work rules and benefits are
channeled through this centralized system. It is also apparent
that the work performed by the employees at the Washington
Plaza is virtually identical to the type of work performed by
the employees at the other hotels that the Employer seeks to
include. The skills of all the employees are also similar. Se-
niority is Employer-wide. Purchasing is also handled through
a centralized process. The relative proximity of the hotels
comprising the classic collection also tends to support the
Employer’s position in favor of a multilocation unit.
There are, however, factors favoring the single-site unit
sought by the Petitioner. Unit employees at the Washington
Plaza are supervised by an individual employed at that hotel.
The maintenance employees work under the direction of the
chief engineer. The chief engineer reports to the director of
engineering, who is also based at the Washington Plaza.
Likewise, the painters work under the direction of the paint-
ing supervisor (a disputed supervisor) who also reports to the
director of engineering. The actual day-to-day work of the
maintenance employees and painters at the Washington Plaza
is directed entirely by supervisors stationed at that site. Pool
employees are separately supervised by the vice president of
maintenance and construction. Maintenance employees and
painters at the other hotels are supervised by supervisors
based at the other hotels. In addition, the evidence shows that
the interaction between the petitioned-for employees and
those the Employer would seek to include is irregular and
sporadic. Pooled employees are assigned to work on special
projects that only occasionally and for limited periods in-
volve employees assigned to a particular hotel. And while
there is evidence of some interchange among employees at
the various hotels, the interchange appears to be quite lim-
ited. Indeed, it appears that employees regularly assigned to
one hotel very infrequently work at another hotel. The paint-
er Medrano is an exception to this rule, but he is distinct
from other employees because, as a practical matter, he has
two regular shifts at two different hotels. There is no evi-
dence of any other employee with a similar arrangement. The
evidence also establishes that the employees at the various
hotels wear uniforms that differ a bit from those worn at
other hotels.
In sum, I find that the evidence establishes that the Wash-
ington Plaza operates with a sufficient degree of autonomy,
with a sufficiently segregated, identifiable work force to jus-
tify a finding that single-site unit is appropriate. In making
this determination, of course, I am not required to find that
the single-site unit is either the only appropriate or even most
appropriate unit. Rather, it is sufficient that the evidence
show that a unit limited to employees at the Washington
Plaza constitutes an appropriate unit. Taken as a whole, the
record evidence establishes that the petitioned-for unit is an
appropriate one. Accordingly, I find that the petitioned-for
unit to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
Unit Composition Issues
Having determined that a unit limited to the maintenance
employees and painters at the Washington Plaza is appro-
priate, there remain to be decided two issues concerning the
composition of that unit. The first issue involves the super-
visory status of the painting supervisor, Nelson Del Cid. The
Employer would exclude Del Cid as a supervisor while the
Petitioner contends that Del Cid is not a supervisor within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The second issue
involves the status of pool engineer Jim Anderson. The Peti-
tioner would exclude Anderson as lacking a sufficient com-
munity of interest to warrant his inclusion. Contrary to the
Petitioner, the Employer contends that because he spends the
great majority of his time working at the Washington Plaza,
Anderson should be included in the unit, even if the unit is
limited to that single site.
Turning first to the position of painting supervisor, the evi-
dence shows that Del Cid assumed the position of painting
supervisor at the Washington Plaza in or around early Janu-
ary of this year. Prior to that Del Cid had worked as a paint-
er for the Employer at other sites. In total Del Cid has
worked for the Employer for about 5 years. Del Cid’s wage
rate is $15.50 an hour, at least 50-cents-per-hour higher than
any other painter. Del Cid works alongside the other painters
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00878 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
879RB ASSOCIATES
and performs the same type of work as the others. He also
wears the same uniform.
Del Cid plays some role in directing the work of the other
painters. The Employer contends that Del Cid oversees and
directs the work of the other painters. Del Cid, on the other
hand, contends that he acts more of a conduit of information
between the director of engineering and the painters. There
is a similar dispute about what role, if any, Del Cid plays
in disciplining employees. The Employer introduced testi-
mony about Del Cid’s presence at the counseling of an em-
ployee in regard to his attitude and performance problems.
Del Cid’s testimony suggests that he attended the session
more in the role of an interpreter rather in the role as a rep-
resentative of management. The evidence does show that Del
Cid signed termination forms given to two employees. It also
appears that before the decision to terminate these employees
was finalized the Employer sought Del Cid’s assessment of
the employees’ work performance. From Del Cid’s testi-
mony, however, there is some dispute about whether he exer-
cised any independent judgment or authority in these matters,
or simply acted in a ministerial function.
What is not disputed is Del Cid’s role in the hiring of
three temporary painters. The evidence shows that Del Cid
recommended to management that additional painters were
required at the Washington Plaza. After the Employer adver-
tised for painters, the Employer gave the approximately 20
applications it received to Del Cid, who was asked to evalu-
ate the qualifications of the applicants and to select the three
most qualified applicants. Del Cid reviewed the applications,
from which he selected three. The evidence establishes that
no one else made an independent assessment of the three ap-
plicants selected by Del Cid. The three applicants selected by
Del Cid were hired.
Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as ‘‘any indi-
vidual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, as-
sign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to
direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing
the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or
clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judg-
ment.’’ It is well established that the statutory indicia of su-
pervisory status are written in the disjunctive, the possession
of only one of the indicia is sufficient to confer supervisory
status on an individual. Opelika Foundry, 281 NLRB 897,
899 (1986); Allen Services Co., 314 NLRB 1060, 1061
(1994). The evidence in this case shows that Del Cid exer-
cised significant authority with regard to the hiring of three
temporary painters. He was asked to review a large number
of applications and to select three candidates based on his as-
sessment of the applicants’ respective qualifications. The
three applicants selected by Del Cid were hired. No one else
conducted any sort of assessment of the applicants’ qualifica-
tions. This evidence persuades me that, at a minimum, Del
Cid possesses the authority to make effective recommenda-
tions in hiring and that he exercises independent judgment in
performing that function. Accordingly, I find that the paint-
ing supervisor is a supervisory position that should be ex-
cluded from the unit.
The final issue left for determination is the status of An-
derson, a pool engineer. Although he is a pool employee, the
evidence shows that in recent months Anderson has spent the
bulk of his worktime, estimated at about 75 percent, at the
Washington Plaza. However, Anderson does not report to the
chief engineer, like the regular maintenance employees at the
Washington Plaza. Rather he reports directly to McGraw,
who supervises all of the Employer’s pool employees.
Anderson possesses a higher level of skills than other
maintenance employees. Because of his skills he is assigned
to maintain and repair large, complicated equipment, func-
tions which other members of the maintenance staff are un-
able to perform. Anderson also is assigned to work on spe-
cial projects that require the greater skill and expertise that
he can bring to a problem.
Unlike any other member of the maintenance staff, Ander-
son is paid a salary. His pay is also significantly higher than
any other member of the maintenance staff. Also, because he
is salaried Anderson does not have to punch a timeclock. He
also receives benefits that are not received by other members
of the maintenance staff. For instance he does not pay for
parking at the Washington Plaza. Unlike other maintenance
employees, Anderson does not wear a uniform. He also has
greater ability to order parts and equipment and to call in
outside contractors.
While the Petitioner initially asserted that Anderson should
be excluded from the unit as a supervisor, in its posthearing
brief the Petitioner appears to have abandoned this assertion.
In any event, I find that the evidence fails to establish that
Anderson possesses supervisory authority. On the other hand,
the Petitioner argues that Anderson should be excluded be-
cause he lacks a sufficient community of interest with other
unit employees. Based on the record evidence I find the Peti-
tioner’s contention on this issue to be persuasive. While An-
derson appears to work a majority of his time at the Wash-
ington Plaza, as a pool employee he is subject to being as-
signed to work at any of the hotels comprising the classic
collection. More significantly, he is paid a salary, does not
punch a timeclock, receives benefits that other employees do
not receive, has entirely separate supervision, and possesses
unique authority to order supplies and to bring in outside
contractors. Anderson also possesses skills and knowledge
that differentiate him from the other maintenance employees
in the unit. These factors persuade me that Anderson lacks
a sufficient community of interest to warrant his inclusion in
the unit. Accordingly, I shall exclude Anderson from the
unit.
Conclusion
I find that the petitioned-for bargaining unit is appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining and I shall direct an
election among the employees in the following bargaining
unit:
All full-time and regular part-time maintenance staff
employees and helpers, and painters employed by the
Employer at the Washington Plaza Hotel in Washing-
ton, D.C., excluding all other employees, carpenters,
chief engineers, roving/pool employees not regularly as-
signed to the Washington Plaza Hotel, the director of
engineering, the lease administrator, the vice president
of maintenance and construction, the painting super-
visor and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:48 Apr 30, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 00879 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\324.107 APPS10 PsN: APPS10