Sheraton Motor Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1974

210 N.L.R.B. 790 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Motor
Inn 1 and Bartenders and Dining Room Employees,
Local 34, a/w Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO,'
Petitioner . Case 1-RC-12934
May 22, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Albert N.
Stieglitz. Following the hearing, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in
Washington, D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended. The Employer and the Petitioner have
filed briefs.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all
service employees in the dining room and lounges,
including waiters, waitresses, bartenders, barboys,
busboys, and busgirls, employed at the Employer's
Lexington, Massachusetts, motel, but excluding
kitchen employees, banquet employees, cashiers,
hostesses, all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.3 The Employer contends
I Name as amended at the hearing
2 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained Petitioner 's objection to
efforts by counsel for the Employer to inquire about what classifications of
employees Petitioner had attempted to organize at this motel The Employer
states that its purpose was to show Petitioner 's extent of organization and
contends that it has been prejudiced by this ruling. We find that no error
was committed and affirm the Hearing Officer's ruling. Sec 9(c)(5) of the
Act precludes the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of
organization when making unit determinations However, even if a
petitioning union's proposed unit were, in part, based upon the extent of its
organizational efforts, it does not follow that such a unit would necessarily
be defective or that in finding that unit appropriate the Board would
thereby be giving any, much less controlling, weight to the union's extent of
that the appropriate unit must include all the
employees at its Lexington facility and urges that the
instant petition be dismissed. Contending that a
hotelwide unit is the most appropriate unit, the
Employer emphasizes that "any unit without kitchen
employees, hostesses, cashiers, and banquet employ-
ees would be inappropriate."
The facility here involved is the Sheraton Motor
Inn in Lexington, Massachusetts, which is one of
several motels and hotels operated by the Employer.
The facility here includes 114 rooms, a dining
room, 2 lounges, and 4 function rooms, the latter
being designed for seminars, banquets, and wed-
dings.
All of the rooms and facilities are located in one
building, the lounges each bear separate trade
names-one called the Crackerbarrel Lounge and
the other called the Tavern Lounge. The restaurant
on the premises is known as "Dunfey's Tavern" and
has a separate entrance from the hotel entrance. The
restaurant is advertised under its own name, al-
though the signs and advertisements indicate its
location at the motel.
There are approximately 150 employees employed
at this facility, working in nine departments: front
office, sales , housekeeping, laundry, maintenance,
kitchen, restaurant, lounge, and banquet.
Approximately 65 employees are employed in the
unit sought by Petitioner and approximately 30
additional employees work in the kitchen and
banquet departments.
The kitchen, restaurant, lounge, and banquet
employees all work under the general supervision of
the food and beverage director, who in turn reports
directly to the general manager of the facility. Also
reporting to the general manager are the assistant
manager and the sales manager. Under the Employ-
er's "MOD Squad," a system of management, any of
these managerial personnel, as well as , on occasion,
lower-echelon supervisors, may be left with prime
managerial supervision when others of the managers
are absent from the facility. Nevertheless, under
normal operations, the food and beverage director
has primary supervisory responsibility over the
employees in the aforementioned departments.
The record herein reveals what appears to be
organization . Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, 139 NLRB 629,63 1 , In. 7. In any event,
we have made our determination of the appropriate unit herein without
giving controlling weight to Petitioner's extent of organization or its work
jurisdiction
3 The parties stipulated that the following individuals and/or positions
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act - general manager , unoccu-
pied, assistant manager, Jean Gear ; sales manager , Marsha Plovnick; food
and beverage manager, Dana Bent ; banquet manager, Verna Schnbner;
assistant banquet manager, Esther Taura; chef , unoccupied ; housekeeper,
Louis Woelk ; beverage manager, Michael Carlson ; and dining room
(restaurant ) manager, unoccupied . However, at the time of the instant
hearing the position of dining room (restaurant) manager was unfilled and
appears to have been vacant since August 1973
210 NLRB No. 85
SHERATON MOTOR INN 791
substantial contact among the employees working in
the motel's four food and beverage departments. All
food is prepared in the kitchen and is picked up
within the kitchen by the restaurant, banquet, and
lounge employees who serve the guests. Although
kitchen employees appear to leave the kitchen
infrequently for work purposes, it is clear that the
employees from these other three departments have
frequent contact with the kitchen employees when
they go into the kitchen to pick up their food orders.
While in the kitchen, all employees are subject to the
supervision of the chef. Bartenders, who are consid-
ered lounge department employees, prepare beverag-
es for restaurant, lounge, and banquet patrons who
are served by employees of those respective depart-
ments. It appears that a bartender will set up a bar in
a function room and prepare beverages there when
the number of guests warrants it; otherwise such
beverages are prepared at one of the two regular
lounge bars and picked up there by banquet
employees. On occasion, meals for small functions
have been served in the restaurant by banquet
employees.
Interchange also takes place among these groups of
employees. Thus, when a shortage of help has
occurred in either the restaurant or banquet depart-
ments, waiters and waitresses are freely shifted back
and forth to cover such shortages. Bartenders
occasionally serve both food and the beverages
which they prepare. During the summer of 1973,
restaurant employees were regularly assigned to
operate the dishwasher in the kitchen.
There is, on the other hand, little contact as
between the employees working in the food and
beverage operations and the remainder of the motel's
employees, particularly those engaged in the house-
keeping and laundry areas. As to interchange, the
dissent cites the only instance of interchange which is
found in this record-the one bartender who at times
works at the front desk. The record is equally devoid
of affirmative evidence of regular contact between
housekeeping and food-beverage personnel, whereas
there is evidence that nonfood and beverage employ-
ees, such as front desk personnel, do keep in close
touch with the housekeeping personnel and may even
bring linens to a room.
It is of course true that all of the employees of both
the food and beverage operation and of the room
operations are hourly paid and have had the same
fringe benefits available to them. It is also true that
to the extent that hotel guests utilize the restaurant
and lounge facilities there may be said to be some
integration of functions, such as the making of
restaurant reservations for guests and the like. But,
on the other hand, it also seems apparent that the
restaurant is patronized by persons who do not stay
in the rooms offered by the facilities, and that room
occupants do not necessarily avail themselves of the
restaurant or lounge facilities located on the premis-
es. The record does not indicate what percentage of
the restaurant and lounge business is attributable to
motel guests nor to what extent hotel guests are
attracted to the facility because of the reputation or
desirability of the restaurant and lounge facilities.
While there can be no doubt but that the overall
unit contended for by the Employer would, under
Board precedent, be appropriate, the Board has long
since abandoned its one-time view that only a hotel
or motelwide unit is appropriate. In John Hammonds
and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating
Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB
927, the Board specifically overruled Arlington Hotel
Company, Inc., 126 NLRB 400 (in which the Board
indicated that only a hotel or motelwide unit was
appropriate) and said (p. 929):
The Arlington case issued only a year after the
Board had first asserted jurisdiction over corpora-
tions in the hotel and motel industry. Since
Arlington, the Board has gained much experience
and better insight into the nature of the hotel-
motel industry. Although, as was held in Arling-
ton, employees in the various facilities of hotels
and motels have a basic mutuality of interest,
neither their functions nor their mutual interests
are in all cases integrated to such a high degree
that an overall unit should be found the only
appropriate unit. Indeed, the employees in all
facilities at hotels and motels today do not
necessarily perform the single function of serving
room guests . A business may operate in such a
manner as to depend substantially upon other
than room guests. Here, for example, the restau-
rant corporation also provides club rooms and
banquet facilities. Nor does it seem that the motel
provides complete restaurant facilities primarily
for its relatively few room guests.
Arlington took a valid principle (if functions
and mutual interests are highly integrated, an
overall unit alone is appropriate) and fashioned
from it an inflexible rule to be applied to all hotels
and motels. But, because our experience has
indicated that such a degree of integrated func-
tions and employee interests does not exist in
every hotel or motel, we shall hereafter consider
each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to
decide wherein lies the true community of interest
among particular employees.
Although the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit appears to have viewed this Holiday Inn case
(sometimes referred to as 77 Operating Company) as
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintaining the Board's hotelwide unit policy subject
only to two exceptions-where area practices estab-
lished other units as typical or where some special
showing of nonintegration of function was made,4 we
do not believe this was an accurate description of the
Board's intent. Rather, as the Board said in Hotel
Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House: 5
Stated otherwise, the Board's intention is to apply
to the hotel industry the general criteria used for
determining units in other industries and to make
unit determinations after weighing all the factors
present in each case, such as the distinctions in
the skills and functions of particular employee
groupings, their separate supervision, the employ-
er's organizational structure, and differences in
wages and hours.
Referring to those factors here, while none of the
employees involved may be highly skilled, we think
there is a clear difference at least in function as
between housekeeping and food and beverage
employees; it is clear that there is separate supervi-
sion of these groups in the instant setting; each
belongs to separate employer organizational depart-
ments for immediate supervision and reports to
separate intermediate supervision. The hours of work
are obviously different, and only the fact that all are
hourly paid and receive like fringe benefits remains
as one factor which might arguably create some
limited community of interest.
It seems equally clear however, that the Petitioner's
desire to limit the unit only to a portion of employees
engaged in the preparation and service of foods and
beverages cannot be sustained on a community of
interest theory and may indeed have been dictated
by extent or organization, a factor which we may
consider, but to which we may not give controlling
weight under Section 9(c)(5) of the Act. The record
facts make clear to us that there is sufficient regular
contact among all the food and beverage employees,
and sufficient interchange as among the employees
performing that function, that only a unit comprising
all the employees working in the motel's food and
beverage operations would be appropriate. The
minor distinction which Petitioner seeks to draw
-i.e., that banquet employees receive gratuities
consisting of a fixed portion of the bill, whereas
restaurant and lounge employees receive gratuities
wholly discretionary with the guests-is not in our
view, such a significant distinction as to counteract
all of the other evidence establishing the community
of interest among all of the food and beverage
employees.
We would note that the unit we do find appropriate
is consistent with the general criteria used for
determining unit in other industries , as referred to in
Hotel Equities, supra. Thus, units of food preparation
and service employees have been found appropriate
in retail stores , separate and apart from other retail
store employees. Allied Stores of Ohio, d/b/a A.
Polsky Company, 90 NLRB 1868 (1950); Thalhimer
Brothers, Incorporated, 93 NLRB 726; John W.
Thomas & Co., 104 NLRB 868; F. W. Woolworth, 144
NLRB 307; Piggly Wiggly California Company, 144
NLRB 708. Similarly, we have found appropriate a
separate unit of such food preparation and service
employees in other industries. Illinois Bell Telephone
Company, 100 NLRB 101 (1952).
Accordingly, we hereby find that a unit limited to
the employees of the kitchen , restaurant , lounge, and
banquet departments of the Employer's Lexington,
Massachusetts, hotel is appropriate.
The supervisory status of the restaurant depart-
ment 's hostesses is in dispute . Petitioner contends
that they are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act and therefore should be excluded. The Employ-
er, asserting that these hostesses have very limited
authority, perform routine duties, and are not
supervisors, would include them in the unit.
At the time of the instant hearing there were three
restaurant hostesses, one of whom was on salary; the
other two were paid on an hourly basis. No
explanation was offered for this disparity in the
manner of compensation for these hostesses and
none appears to exist on the basis of their individual
duties or authority. Their principal duties involve the
seating of guests and overseeing the smooth opera-
tion of the restaurant. The record reveals that these
hostesses can independently handle and adjust
customer complaints; initial timecards if an employ-
ee forgets to punch in; discipline, but not discharge,
an employee in a situation that requires immediate
attention; make work schedule changes at, as well as
against, the request of individual employees; and
grant time off due to illness if the restaurant manager
is not available. In addition, one witness testified
without contradiction that he was hired after having
been interviewed by only a hostess and it appears
that restaurant department employees "report in" to
the hostess after they punch their timecard. As
heretofore noted, at the time of the instant hearing
the position of dining room manager had been
vacant since August 1973. Consequently, if these
hostesses are not supervisors, the restaurant and the
approximately 50 employees that work therein are
without any recognized immediate supervision.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record
4 Westward Ho Hotel Company v NLRB , 437 F 2d 1110 (C.A 9, 1971)
5 171 NLRB 1347, 1348
SHERATON MOTOR INN 793
herein, we find these hostesses are supervisors and
shall exclude them from the unit.
Petitioner would also exclude from the unit the
restaurant department cashiers, contending, without
elaboration, that they do not have a community of
interest with the employees in the unit it is seeking to
represent. The Employer asserts they should be
included in the unit. It appears that there are five or
six cashiers in the restaurant department. They
handle customer bills for both the restaurant and
lounges, and it is clear that they have continuous
contact with the employees of both of these depart-
ments. There is no assertion or evidence that they
possess any of the statutory indicia of supervisory
status.
On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record
herein, we find that these cashiers' community of
interest is substantially the same as that of the other
employees in the unit we have found appropriate.
Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. Cf.
Mounia, Limited, 197 NLRB 697.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed in the kitchen, restau-
rant, lounge and banquet departments of the
Employer's Lexington, Massachusetts, motel,
including the restaurant cashiers, but excluding
all other employees, restaurant hostesses, watch-
men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior fn. 7 omitted
from publication.]
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting:
I agree with my colleagues' rejection of the
Petitioner's request for a unit limited to employees
working in the Employer's restaurant and lounge.
There is no basis on this record to exclude, as
Petitioner urges, kitchen employees, banquet em-
ployees, and cashiers. I respectfully disagree with the
majority's failure to find that an overall unit of all
6 The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Petitioner,
and neither the exact size of the unit nor the exact interest of the Petitioner
in the unit is clear from the record before us Accordingly, we instruct the
Regional Director not to proceed with the election herein directed until he
shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate
showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who are
eligible to vote in the election. In the event the Petitioner does not wish to
participate in an election in such a unit, we shall permit it to withdraw its
petition without prejudice upon notice to the Regional Director within 5
days from the date of issuance of this Direction, and shall thereupon vacate
the Direction of Election
s The majority opinion fails to reflect that the Employer contends that
the minimum unit should include all food and beverage employees and the
housekeepers Its unit position is stated in its brief as follows
operating personnel at this motel should be grouped
together for collective-bargaining purposes.8
In the 77 Operating Company case ,9 the Board
stated that in future hotel cases it would "consider
each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide
wherein lies the true community of interest among
particular employees." I joined two of my colleagues
in Atlas Hotels, Inc., 205 NLRB No. 47, in finding
appropriate a separate unit of all bakery and bakery
sanitation employees.10 In West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday
Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781, I joined two of my
colleagues in dismissing a petition which sought a
unit limited to 14 housekeepers who performed the
cleaning in a 125-room motel. I construe the 77
Operating Company case to hold that we should not
apply an inflexible rule with respect to units in
motels and hotels. Rather, we are obliged to inquire
as to whether there is sufficient integration as to
require a finding that only an overall unit is
appropriate.
The facts in the 77 Operating Company case were
greatly different from the facts in the instant case. In
77 there were separate motel and restaurant corpora-
tions with separate unconnected buildings. One
building consisted only of motel rooms. The other
building housed the motel office and lobby, a dining
room, coffee shop, kitchen, banquet rooms, and
office space leased to local businesses. In the present
case, the motel and its restaurants and lounges are a
single legal entity and all are housed in the same
building. The dining room in the instant case is
located on the second-floor level in the back wing.
The banquet or function rooms adjoin the dining
room. The Board cannot conclude on the record in
this case, as it did in the 77 Operating Company case,
"that the functions of the restaurant herein are
definable and clearly separate from the motel."
In the 77 case, the Board pointed out that "The
duties of the desk clerks, who are on the motel
payroll, do not bring them into contact with
employees working in the restaurant." In the instant
case, one of the bartenders, included in the unit
While the motel-wide unit is clearly the most appropriate unit, the
Director, in his wisdom, may find that a unit of all service employees
also appropriate At minimum such a unit would include all employees
of the food and beverage department (including banquet waitresses)
and the housekeepers [Emphasis supplied.]
9 John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating
Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927
is In the Atlas case, the company operated a bakery on the premises
known as the Town & Country Motel or Hotel The bakery produced
substantially all of the baked goods used at the employer's five motels in
and around San Diego, California The bakery was essentially a commercial
bakery which happened to be located on the motel property, but which was
not an integral part of the motel . I was convinced that the bakery employees
shared a true community of interest separate from the other hotel
employees
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found appropriate by the majority, works the front
desk 20 hours per week on a regular basis.li Front
desk personnel make reservations in the dining room
for motel guests. Sometimes this is done by phone,
but the front desk personnel also walk to the dining
room to confer with the hostess. Furthermore, the
Employer's guest-check control for both the dining
room and lounges is maintained at the front desk
through the auditor.
The majority recites no facts peculiar to the
Employer's operation of its motel that would
distinguish its operation from the usual highly
integrated hotel or motel operation. No contention is
advanced by the majority of an area pattern of
bargaining history in the unit found appropriate.
There is no bargaining history in the particular unit
found appropriate. Early after the Board asserted
jurisdiction over the hotel and motel industry, the
Board recognized that generally there is a high
degree of functional integration and mutuality of
interest of the operating personnel. The record in this
case illustrates the correctness of that general
observation. There is constant contact between
guests and employees in all classifications. There is
constant contact between employees of all classifica-
tions. Cooperation among all employees is necessary
if the Employer is to provide full and complete
service to its guests.
Our recent observations in dismissing a petition for
a housekeeper unit in West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn
Southwest, 202 NLRB 781, are also applicable to the
instant case for the facts are strikingly similar. We
there stated:
The record further shows that all employees
have identical fringe benefits, vacations, health
and welfare benefits, hospitalization, holidays,
and other benefits. There is one payroll and one
bookkeeping system, and all employees punch the
same timeclock while all duties and functions are
performed in one high-rise building. It thus
appears that the proposed bargaining unit has no
distinct skill or community of interest singling it
out from the other employees in the motel.
As the employees in the proposed unit do not
possess any special skill or knowledge, their duties
are performed by other employees not sought to
be included in the bargaining unit, and their
functions are integrated with those of other
11 1 would include the front desk employees in the unit for the reasons
stated in Pacific Hosts, Inc -Padre Trails Motel Corporation, 156 NLRB
1467. The Board , including two of my colleagues in the majority in this
instant case , stated.
departments, it does not appear that the employ-
ees sought enjoy that community of interest
which would warrant their being represented
separately and, accordingly, we find that the
proposed unit is inappropriate. For the above
reasons, we shall not direct an election among the
employees in the requested unit, but shall dismiss
the petition herein.
If a petition were filed for a unit limited to the
housekeepers at the Sheraton-Lexington, we would
be obliged to dismiss that petition if we follow our
1973 precedent in the West, Inc., case. Are the
housekeepers at the Sheraton-Lexington to be de-
prived of collective bargaining? Recent precedent
holds that they are not entitled to a separate unit, but
the majority excludes them from the unit in which
they direct an election. In my view, it would be far
wiser to include the housekeepers in that unit.
The majority opinion includes a quotation from the
decision in Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt
House, supra, in which the Board said that in
determining units it would consider such factors as
supervision and organizational structure, differences
in wages and hours, and distinction in skills and
functions of employees. The factors which the Hyatt
House case said we should consider persuade me that
an overall unit of operating personnel at the motel is
appropriate.
All employees are under the general supervision of
the general manager, but in his absence all employ-
ees are under the overall supervision of the Employ-
er's MOD (Manager on Duty) squad.12 The MOD
squad technique is intended to insure that the facility
is under proper supervision at all times. It is
undisputed that the assistant general manager whose
primary responsibilities include the housekeeping and
front office departments frequently supervises the food
and beverage department employees. This occurs even
when another individual is the designated manager
on duty.
The majority fails to give proper weight to the
similarities in wages and other terms and conditions
of employment at the motel. With the exception of
supervisors and front desk personnel, all employees
are paid hourly wages. All employees receive the
same fringe benefits and they all punch a timeclock
located in the kitchen. Clearly, the employees in the
unit found appropriate do not possess distinctive
hotel employees, we find that the front desk clerks, including the night
auditor-desk clerk, are not office clerical or managerial employees and
should properly be included in a unit of operating and maintenance
hotel employees 12
12 Southwest Hotels, Inc , 126 NLRB 1151, 1155-1156
The Board has held that front-office or lobby employees are
operating personnel whose work brings them in frequent contact with
other employees in the unit and with the hotel guests . Despite the
differences in duties, training , and manner of dress from those of other
12 The MOD squad includes the assistant manager, the food and
beverage director, and the sales manager
SHERATON MOTOR INN 795
skills. Most of the employees work on a regular part-
time basis of 20 to 30 hours per week and either have
other full-time jobs or homemaking responsibilities.
I disassociate myself from the comments in the
majority opinion with respect to the action of the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in refusing to
sustain a bargaining order in the Westward Ho case.
In Hotel Westward Ho,13 the Board found appro-
priate a unit limited to the kitchen employees, noting
the separate identity and functions of the kitchen
employees; their separate immediate supervision;
their minimal contact with the public or other
employees; the fact that no labor organization
sought a broader unit; and less than an overall unit
was clearly feasible because of a history of separate
representation of the steam room employees by
another labor organization. On the employer's
refusal to bargain in that unit, the circuit court
refused enforcement, finding that it represented a
departure from the Board decisions and standards
for unit determination in the hotel-motel industry
and a retrogression to the policy Congress intended
to exclude by the history of Section 9(c)(5), where
"the Board pretends to find reasons other than the
extent to which employees have organized as
grounds for holding such unit to be appropriate." 14
Similarly, in Ramada Inns, Case 7-RC-10053, the
Regional Director found appropriate a unit limited
to the "housekeeping department" although the
employer contended that the only appropriate unit
was an overall unit of employees working at its
motel, restaurant, and bar. The employer's timely
request for review was denied by the Board, and
thereafter the employer refused to bargain in that
unit. A Board Panel in which I did not participate
granted General Counsel's Motion for Summary
Judgment and ordered respondent to bargain.15
13 171 NLRB 1351
14 Westward Ho Hotel Company v N L R B, 437 F 2d 1110 (C A. 9,
1971)
15 Ramada Inns, Inc, 200 NLRB No 19
16 Ramada Inns Inc v N L R B, 487 F 2d 334 (C A 9, 1973)
17 For convenience, the paragraph is repeated here
Enforcement was denied by the circuit court, which
found, understandably, that the reasons assigned by
the Board were inadequate to explain its departure
from its established policy of single-unit representa-
tion of manual employees in a highly integrated hotel
operation.16
My colleagues err, I think, in suggesting that the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not
accurately described the "Board's intent" in the 77
Operating Company case . That case issued before my
appointment to the Board , but I read it to mean that
the Board will no longer presume "in every hotel or
motel" case that there is such integration that an
overall unit is the only appropriate unit . Rather than
applying an "inflexible rule," the Board stated that it
would consider the degree of integration in each
case . The reasonable interpretation of the second
paragraph of the material quoted in the majority
opinion from the 77 Operating Company case is that
in those establishments where, as in the instant case,
there is extensive integration of functions an overall
unit will continue to be found appropriate.i7 I will
follow the 77 Operating Company case only when the
Board's majority decisions are in accord with the
Ninth Circuit's correct interpretation of that deci-
sion . See for example, West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn
Southwest, supra; Atlas Hotels, Inc., supra.
I also disassociate myself from the view expressed
by the majority that food and beverage employees in
the hotel industry are similar to food preparation and
service employees in retail stores. See my concurring
opinion in Atlas Hotels, Inc., 210 NLRB No. 86.
I believe that the true community of interest is in a
larger overall unit, and the majority's fragmentation
of that unit is not justified by either the facts in this
record or Board precedent.
are highly integrated, an overall unit alone is appropriate) and
fashioned from it an inflexible rule to be applied to all hotels and
motels But, because our experience has indicated that such a degree of
integrated functions and employee interests does not exist in every
hotel or motel , we shall hereafter consider each case on the facts
peculiar to it in order to decide wherein lies the true community of
interest among particular employees.
Arlington took a valid principle (if functions and mutual interests