Seville-Sea Isle Hotel Corp.

SEVILLE-SEA ISLE HOTEL CORPORATION 299 D The significance of the grievance procedure In the Respondent's answer reference is made to the fact, previously noted, that each of the complainants in this consolidated case filed a grievance with respect to his termination, it is asserted that each of these grievances was duly processed to the fourth step of the contractual grievance procedure, and that an agreement was reached at the step indicated, with respect to each grievance, that the discharge in question would stand The Respondent argues that each of the agreements reached in the fourth step of the grievance procedure ought to be recognized by this agency as sufficient justification for the agency 's refusal to assert its remedial powers Spielberg Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1080 in view of my determination, however, that neither of the discharges challenged involved the commission of any unfair labor practice, the legal issue presented by the Respondent's contention does not appear to require consideration In the light of the factual findings noted in this report, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I 1 The Respondent, Victor Chemical Works, is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, engaged in commerce and business activities which affect commerce, within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, as amended 2 International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local No 163, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, as amended 3 The General Counsel has failed to establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent discriminated against James F O'Connell and Thomas Dean, within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, as amended [Recommendations omitted from publication ] Seville-Sea Isle Hotel Corporation Operating the Seville Hotel i and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 491, 491A, 491B, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 12-RC-482 No- vember 23, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations At, a hearing was held before Claude B Calkin, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds 1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 2 The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer 3 No 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, for the following reasons 2 i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 2 For the reasons discussed below, it is unnecessary to resolve the contract bar question raised herein 125 NLRB No 42 300 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner seeks to serve a unit of operating engineers, air- -conditioning and refrigeration mechanics, and maintenance mechanics from an existing hotelwide unit. The Employer and Hotel Employees Union, Local 255, the Intervenor, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that a contract bars the petition, and that the unit sought is inappropriate. Since 1955, the employees of the Employer have been represented in a hotelwide unit under contracts between the Intervenor and the Employer, a member of the Southern Florida Hotel and Motel Association.3 The Employer is engaged in operating a resort hotel. In this con- nection, the Employer has a maintenance department, comprised of eight employees, classified as general maintenance men, who work under the direction of the chief engineer. One of them performs all the maintenance and repair work required for the refrigeration and air-conditioning units of the hotel. He works primarily in the engine- room and has complete responsibility for the performance of his type of work. He has had vocational training at night school and experi- ence with other employers in this field., and is licensed. He is also a qualified instructor in refrigeration and air-conditioning in a voca- tional school. He has his own specialized hand tools and earns $400 a month. The other seven employees perform whatever maintenance and repair work is required at the Employer's hotel. In the perform- ance of such duties, they do electrical work, plumbing, plastering, car- pentry, and painting. The record does not establish that they have any special skills other than the ability to perform general mainte- nance work. With respect to the unit the Petitioner seeks, Board precedent does not permit the severance of a maintenance unit en masse from an existing broader unit.' In such circumstances, however, there is the possibility that appropriate craft or departmental units may be severable. In this connection, the air-conditioning and refrigeration employee, described above, is the only employee in the maintenance de- partment affirmatively shown by the record to have any skill beyond that of general handyman. However, the Board does not consider em- ployees performing refrigeration and air-conditioning repair and maintenance work entitled to severance as either a craft. grouping or a traditional department .5 Moreover, as a single employee, he could not, 3 It appears that the Employer, as a member of the Southern Motel Association, an employer association , executed its contracts with the Intervenor. Because of the disposi- tion herein of the unit issue, it is unnecessary to resolve whether the unit sought should be employerwide or associationwide. 4 Union Steam Pump Company, 118 NLRB 689 , 693 ; Cincinnati Division, Davison Chemical Company, Division of W. R. Grace & Company, 110 NLRB 85, 86 ; The Kroger Company, 103 NLRB 218 , 219. In the hotel industry, the Board has recently refused to establish a maintenance unit even in the absence of bargaining history. Florida Enter- prises, Inc. of Georgia d/b/a Cadillac Hotel, 125 NLRB 258. 5 Hughes Aircraft Company, 115 NLRB 504, 507-508 ; Inland Cold Storage Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 973; Merck & Co., Inc., 111 NLRB 960. THOMPSON, WEINMAN AND CO . AND PAGA MINING CO . 301 0 in any event, be severed.6 Finally, even assuming that the remaining maintenance men could qualify as craftsmen in the trades in which they work and could therefore constitute an appropriate unit, there is no showing that the Petitioner is the traditional representative for such crafts.' In these circumstances, we grant the motions of the Em- ployer and the Intervenor, and we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] e Louis F. Dow Company, 111 NLRB 609, 610. 4 Union Steam Pump Company, supra. American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. Thompson, Weinman and Company and Paga Mining Company and United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4466. Novem- ber 23, 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 Stephen D. Hise, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a single unit comprising all production and maintenance employees of both companies. The Employers, while conceding that the unit described in the petition is appropriate, con- tend that there should be separate units for each company because each is a separate entity, engaged in the production of different products, and because there is little interchange of employees between the companies. The record indicates that Thompson, Weinman and Company owns all of the stock of Paga Mining Company and that both corporations have the same officers. Although separate payrolls, accounting, and financial statements are maintained for the two companies, they share 125 NLRB No. 32.