The North Shore Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 15, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 854 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD James A. Hume and J . C. Jordan d/b/a The North Shore Club ' and United Trades Council of AFL-CIO Affiliated Unions, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-7703 February 15, 1968 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS , AND ZAGORIA Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William F. Roche. Subsequent to the hearing the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs with the National Labor Relations Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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. 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 pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2 2. The parties stipulated that the Intervenor, The American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees, is a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act, and we so find. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the Petitioner is not a labor organization. However, we found in Crystal Bay Club, 169 NLRB 845, that Petitioner is a labor organization. The record in this case confirms our conclusion in that case and we accordingly find here that Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain 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 a unit of all regular casino employees, all maintenance employees, and all hotel employees, excluding all guards, office clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in ' The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 2 El Dorado, Inc., dlbla El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579. 3 The Intervenor does not, however, presently seek a separate election in such a unit and its showing of interest is in any event insufficient forthat purpose. " We note that the Petitioner is not seeking to represent the office em- ployees and there is no record evidence concerning them. However, Peti- tioner states in its brief to the Board that it is otherwise seeking to the Act, and all employees presently represented by a union. The Employer contends that three separate units of casino, maintenance, and hotel employees are appropriate. The Intervenor contends that a unit limited to casino employees only is appro- priate.3 It should be noted that the Culinary Work- ers and Bartenders Unions, 2 of the 14 locals con- stituting the Petitioner, represent the culinary em- ployees of the Employer's establishment by con- tract. The Employer operates a combined casino, bar, restaurant, and hotel at Crystal Bay, Nevada. Two partners actively manage the club. In general, how- ever, all departments are separately supervised, with the employees having different wages and skills. There is no interchange of employees. Despite the absence of substantial contact between the groups of employees, the operations of the hotel, casino, bar, restaurant, and maintenance are closely integrated. Thus, the hotel was originally built to house the clientele of the casino and the hotel lobby is right off the casino area. The hotel and casino both operate 24 hours a day, and open and close for the season at the same time. The main- tenance department serves the hotel, casino, restau- rant, and bar. In Crystal Bay Club, 169 NLRB 845, a case similar to the instant case, we found that a unit con- sisting of all the Employer's employees ap- prorpriate. For the same reasons we found such a unit appropriate there, we find a unit consisting of all the Employer's unrepresented employees ap- propriate here.4 The parties are in disagreement over the unit placement of certain classification of employees. The Employer and Intervenor would include slot mechanics whom the Petitioner would exclude as supervisors. The slot machine mechanics' duties are to repair and maintain the slot machines. In- cidental to their main duties is the responsibility to see that the slot machine area is operating smoothly. The slot mechanics do not hire, or fire, or recommend hiring or firing. The record does not in- dicate that they effectively direct the activities of the change girls or boys in any way. We find they are not supervisors and shall include them in the unit. The Petitioner also contends that the hotel housekeeper is a supervisor. Testimony shows that the hotel manager has complete charge of the hotel, including the two or three maids. The housekeeper is known as the "head maid," who oversees the represent the entire establishment which, we have found, operates on an integrated basis; in Crystal Bay Club, supra, involving a substantially similar operation, we found that office employees were appropriately a part of an overall unit; and, as in Crystal Bay Club, there is no agreement here to exclude office employees from a unit encompassing all of the Em- ployer's other unrepresented employees. In these circumstances we shall not make any finding concerning their unit placement at this time but shall permit the office employees, if any exist, to vote subject to challenge and shall if necessary determine their unit placement in postelection proceedings. 169 NLRB No. 123 THE NORTH SHORE CLUB other maids, receives 20 percent greater wages, transmits instructions , and reports inefficiencies. Most of the housekeeper 's time is spent doing maid's work. As we are unable to determine from the record whether the housekeeper possesses and exercises supervisory powers, we shall allow her to vote subject to challenge. In view of the foregoing, we shall direct an elec- tion in the following unit of employees which we find appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be 855 gaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act: All regular casino employees , including box- men, slot machine mechanics and shills, main- tenance employees , and hotel employees, ex- cluding guards , supervisors as defined in the Act, and all employees presently represented by a collective -bargaining agreement. [Direction of Election 5 omitted from publica- tion.] granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236