Thunderbird Hotel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 84 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record fails to establish that the layout man and his helper exer-
cise craft skills comparable to the carpenters or that they have in-
terests in common with the carpenters. On the contrary, they are
relatively unskilled employees whose interests and conditions of
employment are similar to those of the yard and delivery employees
represented by the Teamsters. Accordingly, we find that the layout
man and his helper are appropriately a part of the Teamsters unit.'
[The Board amended the Certification of Representative issued in
Cases Nos. 9-RM-260, 9-RM-261, and 9-RM-264 on May 23, 1961,
to include in the unit description therein the classification of saw
man-prefabrication department of Peter Kuntz Lumber Company;
and in Cases Nos. 9-RM-259, 9-RM-262, 9-RM-263, and 9-RM-265
to include in the unit description therein the classifications of truss
assembler and of layout man and his helper.]
'See Lumber and Millwork Industry Labor Committee of Cleveland, Oh;o , et al, 13(
NLRB 1083, 1085. Compare Lumber Fabricators , Inc., 110 NLRB 187
Thunderbird Hotel, Inc. and Joe Wells , James Schuyler and
William Deer, Co-partners, d/b/a Thunderbird Hotel Com-
pany 1 and Independent Guards Association of Nevada, Local
No. 1, Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-5294. August 20, 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 James S. Jenson, Hearing
Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
i The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 We find no merit in the contention of Thunderbird Hotel, Inc , that the Heating Officer
improperly permitted its name to be added during the reopened hearing Thunderbird
Hotel, Inc , had been named in the petition and notice of hearing but in the original hear-
ing an amendment was allowed deleting its name However , it participated fully in the
first hearing in all material respects . Further, at the reopened hearing the general
manager and the comptroller ( who, as noted infra, serve both companies in those capacities)
attended and testified , and counsel who appeared for the partnership is also an officer of
and attorney for Thunderbird Hotel, Inc No request was made for continuance Under
these circumstances , we affirm the Hearing Officer ' s action in allowing the amendment
Truss-Mart Corporation, et al., 121 NLRB 1430. Cf. Dekalb Gas, Inc., et al, 133 NLRB
352, and Southwest Hotels, Inc., 126 NLRB 1151.
144 NLRB No. 19.
THUNDERBIRD HOTEL, INC., ETC. 85
1. Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., is a corporation which owns and oper-
ates the Thunderbird Hotel . The partnership of Joe Wells, James
Schuyler , and William Deer does business as Thunderbird Hotel Com-
pany and operates a gambling casino, three bars , and three restaurants
at the hotel in space rented from the corporation . The record reveals,
and the parties do not seriously dispute, that the corporation and the
partnership each meets the Board 's discretionary standards for the
assertion of jurisdiction over hotels 3 and restaurants ' Statutory
jurisdiction is also clearly established.5
In addition , the record shows that the corporation and the partner-
ship constitute a single employer whose total combined income and
indirect inflow clearly meet the Board 's test for asserting jurisdic-
tion over such enterprises . The Employer's testimony reveals that
the two entities are commonly owned and controlled and are held out
to the public as a single enterprise . Thus, individual members of the
partnership own a little less than 25 percent of the stock of the
corporation , and Wells, a partner, is president of the corporation.
The secretary -treasurer of the corporation serves as general manager
of both entities , and the corporation 's vice president , who is also chair-
man of the board of directors , is counsel for both. The two companies
also share all administrative and service facilities . All payroll and
personnel records are kept by a single group of employees under the
supervision of an individual who is comptroller and main office and
payroll manager for both the partnership and the corporation; no
distinction is made between them in their joint advertising, which
is handled by a single advertising and publicity department which is
under one director ; one staff of maintenance , repair, and engineering
employees serves both ; and all employees punch the same timeclock.
Nor is any distinction made in the serving of their patrons . The car
valet, who is on the payroll of the corporation , functions for both;
they have a single telephone number and reservations facility, and
the partnership 's restaurant and bar services are an integral part of
the hotel 's facilities, providing room service and catering banquets,
conventions , and meetings booked by the corporation .' Hotel guests
are billed for their room and restaurant and bar charges on a common
statement . The Employer agreed that "as far as the public is con-
3 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261.
d Colonial Catering Company, 137 NLRB 1607 , at 1608, and cases cited therein.
5 The hotel ' s annual revenue exceeds $ 500,000 and only one-tenth of 1 percent of its
guests stay over 30 days. Of this gross revenue amount , approximately 6 percent is re-
ceived through credit cards of American Express and iCarte Blanche. The partnership's
annual gross revenue from the gambling casino, bars , and restaurants well exceeds
$1,000 , 000. The partnership annually purchases goods valued in excess of $500,000 from
dealers who have received such goods from outside the State of Nevada
6 The partnership rents substantially all its equipment from the corporation , as well as
the space in which it operates.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cerned, there is only one operation . . . ." In view of these facts, we
find that the corporation and the partnership are a single employer.7
However, the Employer contends that, because the employees sought
herein work primarily in the gambling casino which does not itself
have any flow in commerce, this proceeding is outside of the Board's
jurisdiction. We find no merit in this position. It is well established
that the Board applies the concept that it is the impact on commerce
of the totality of an employer's operations that should determine
whether or not the Board will assert jurisdiction.' It is also well
established that where, as here, the Board's statutory jurisdiction is
established by virtue of an inflow of goods, directly or indirectly, to
the employer, it is unnecessary to inquire into the nature of goods
or services furnished by the employer to its customers .9
Finally, the Employer contends that as a matter of policy the Board
should not assert jurisdiction herein because the particular business
in which the employees are working is a gambling casino. The casino
is an integral part of the Employer's total operation, and the Em-
ployer's business as a hotel, bar, and restaurant meets the Board's
jurisdictional standards. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein."
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) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of security guards, time-
keepers, and a clockman. The Employer opposes the unit, alleging
that the security guards are not its employees but are law enforcement
officials not subject to the Act as they are deputized by the Clark
County sheriff, and contending that timekeepers and the clockman
are not "guards" within the meaning of the Act.
The security guards wear uniforms furnished by the Employer.
They also wear badges and carry guns and handcuffs, which are their
own property. They pay for their own false arrest insurance policies
to save them harmless from any such charge arising in the performance
of their duties for the Employer. They work in three shifts, maintain-
ing peace, order, and security in the gambling casino and protecting
the properties of the Employer." Their duties take them throughout
P See Clodomiro Isohno d/b/a Ravens Sportswear, 142 NLRB 1299; Travelers Hotel,
Inc, et at., 129 NLRB 1133, 1135-1137.
8 Appliance Supply Company, 127 NLRB 319, 320.
0 N L R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 371 U.S. 224; International Longshoremen
& Warehousemen's Union, et at. (Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines), 124 NLRB 813; cf.
R. E. Sm4th et al ., d/b/a Southern Dolomite, 129 NLRB 1342, and Colonial Catering Com-
pany, supra.
10 See Harrah's Club, Inc., 143 NLRB 1356.
11 There is no dispute that the duties performed by the security guards are those of
guards within the meaning of the Act and we so find.
THUNDERBIRD HOTEL, INC., ETC. 87
all the properties of the Employer, without exception, including the
Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., and Algiers Motel 12 located adjacent to the
Thunderbird.
The security guards are under the supervision of a chief security
officer who the Employer also contends is not in its employ. It argues
that the former chief security officer was assigned to it by the county
sheriff and at the time of the hearing a replacement was to be chosen
by the sheriff. However, there is no showing that the Employer can-
not reject a chief security officer selected by the county sheriff, or that
it could not itself hire or fire a chief security officer if it wished. On
the facts and record as a whole, we find that the chief security officer
is at least an agent of the Employer if not a supervisor employed by the
Employer.
The record clearly shows that applications for employment as
security guards are made to the Employer and the job content is es-
tablished by the Employer. The chief security officer makes recom-
mendations to the Employer regarding promotions, firings, and hirings
upon which the Employer takes action. He makes job assignments and
directs the security guards in all respects. In performing these func-
tions the chief security officer has the same authority as do other
department heads. It is thus clear that wages, hours, and conditions
of employment of security guards are controlled by the Employer.
The employees, when selected by the chief security officer, are re-
quested to go to the sheriff's office to be cleared and sworn in as special
deputy sheriffs. The clearance appears to be a check into the past
record of the prospective security guard to determine his fitness for
the job. When the clearance is completed, a card is issued which is
valid only at the Thunderbird Hotel. There is no State law requiring
that the security guards be deputized, but the Employer requires this
in order that they may, under State law, carry "concealable" weapons.
The special deputy's commission differs from that of a deputy sheriff in
that the latter works for and under the county sheriff who has
jurisdiction over the entire county. In short the deputy sheriff, unlike
the security guard, is employed and controlled by the county, performs
his duties anywhere in the county, and is paid by the county. Accord-
ingly, in view of the Employer's control over their hiring, assignment
of jobs, wages, hours, and conditions of employment, we find that the
security guards are employees of the Employer.13
There are four timekeepers, one of whom is deputized. They are
hired by the chief security officer but do not wear uniforms or badges,
nor do they carry arms or handcuffs. Their duties are to see that em-
ployees clock in and out, to keep out unauthorized personnel, and to
32 The general manager of the Employer is also general manager of the Algiers Motel.
"General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 1316; ef. Roane-Anderson Company, 95 NLRB
1501.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
see that articles of property are not brought in or removed without
authority. There is no interchange between them and the security
officers and they a,'e paid by the day. Accordingly, as they have the
same supervision and their function, in substantial part, is to protect
the Employer's property, they come within the Board's definition
of guards and we shall include them in the unit.14
A clockman, or fire watcher, on the payroll of Thunderbird Hotel,
Inc., was hired by and is under the direction of the chief security officer.
His duties are to watch for fires by making regular rounds and punch-
ing a clock during the night." The record shows that he does not en-
force any rules against the employees or the public. As the duty of this
employee is to check for fire hazards, we find that he is not a guard
and shall exclude him from the unit.16
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at the
Employer's Winchester, Clark County, Nevada, operations employed
as security guards and timekeepers, but excluding all other employees,
clockmen or fire watchers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 National Hotel Company, d/b/a Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202, 204.
is He also walks through the Algiers Motel property , and the Employer is paid for this
service.
16 New Hotel Monteleone , 127 NLRB 1092, 1094.
General Electric Company and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and its Local 201.
Case No. 1-RC-3312. August 20, 1963
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12, 1954, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representatives 1 certifying Local 201, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as
the bargaining representative of a unit of office clerical employees
at the Employer's River Works. On April 23, 1962, the Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO
and its Local 201 filed a request for clarification of certification "to
include in the bargaining unit, for which the petitioning organization
is now the recognized bargaining agent, certain employees, some of
whole are in the following categories as classified by the Employer :
1107 NLRB No. 244 ( not published in NLRB volumes ). See also General Electric
Company ( Rover TVorks ), 107 NLRB 70.
144 NLRB No. 21.