Milner Hotels, Inc.

MILNER HOTELS, INC. 599 Milner Hotels, Inc. and Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bar- tenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3845. August 19, 1959 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 Bernard Samoff, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees at the Colonial Hotel, York, Pennsylvania, which is 1 of 13 hotels located in that State and operated by the Employer,' Milner Hotels, Inc.,' a Pennsyl- vania corporation. The estimated out-of-State purchases of the Colonial Hotel are $1,800 and its estimated annual gross income is $146,500.3 Less than 75 percent of the guests stay at the hotel for a month or more. In view of these facts, the Employer contends that the Board should not assert jurisdiction in this proceeding because the Colonial Hotel is essentially a local enterprise and because its operations do not meet, as is clear from the above facts, the Board's jurisdictional standards for the hotel industry 4 The Petitioner, how- ever, takes the position, opposed by the Employer, that, for purposes of jurisdiction, the overall operations of the Employer must be taken into account and not just those of the Colonial Hotel. We agree with this contention. It is the impact of the totality of an employer's operations on commerce that must be considered for jurisdictional purposes .5 Thus, with respect to the Employer's overall operations in the State of Pennsylvania, the record shows that during 1958 Milner Hotels, Inc., made out-of-State purchases of approximately $10,000 and had a gross income of approximately $704,000. Further, 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. In view of our decision herein, we need not consider the Petitioner 's contention that various corporations named Milner Hotels, Inc., including the Employer, each incorpo- rated in different States, and certain other related corporations, constitute a single employer for jurisdictional purposes under the Act. 8 As the Employer had not operated the Colonial Hotel for a year at the time of the hearing, the jurisdictional facts were computed by projecting the information then avail- able for a 12-month period. a Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261. 61The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732, 1735; see also Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., supra. 124 NLRB No. 80. 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD none of the 13 hotels owned or operated by the Employer are residen- tial hotels in which 75 percent of the guests stay a month or more. Consequently, we find that the Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act 6 and meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the hotel industry.' Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. 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 the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer and the Petitioner agree that a unit limited to the employees at the Colonial Hotel is appropriate. The Petitioner, how- ever, would include, and the Employer exclude, as a supervisor, the "chef." This individual is responsible generally for the kitchen, as well as for the preparation and serving of food at the hotel. He also has limited authority to make small purchases for the hotel kitchen. He does not have the authority to hire or discharge other employees, nor is there a substantial basis for concluding that he can effectively recommend such action. Accordingly, we find he is not a supervisor, and therefore include him in the unit.' The Employer would also exclude, and the Petitioner include, three desk clerks identified as the day clerk, afternoon clerk, and night clerk. They are responsible for the direction of other employees in the manager's absence and for the hotel in general. Though they do not have the authority to hire or discharge other employees they can effectively recommend such action. Accordingly, we find the desk clerks to be supervisors. They are, therefore, excluded from the unit .9 In view of the foregoing, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed at the Employer's Colonial Hotel, York, Pennsylvania, including the chef, saladmaker, waitresses, elevator operators, bellhops, helpers, bar employees, and maintenance em- ployees, but excluding the manager, housekeeper, desk clerks, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] "See N.L.R.B. v. Richland Laundry & Dry Cleaners , 207 F. 2d 305 ( C.A. 9). 7 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., supra. - s Bear Brand Hosiery Company, 93 NLRB 95, 96. e See American Factors, Limited, 109 NLRB 834 , 837 (senior clerk).