Canal Street Hotel Corp.

:880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record, we find that the toolroom and model shop employees comprise a functionally distinct and homogeneous depart- mental group who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appro- priate unit.' As the Petitioner is a labor organization which has .traditionally represented such employees, we shall permit the toolroom and model shop employees to determine whether they desire to be ,represented'separately by the Petitioner. We shall therefore direct an election at this time among the follow- ing employees at the Employer's Morton Grove, Illinois, plant : All toolroom and model shop employees, excluding office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the tunit described above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate. In the event that a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 See Bendier Aviation Corporation, 125 NLRB 380; A.P. Controls Corporation, 108 NLRB 593. Canal Street Hotel Corporation 1 and New Orleans Hotel Em- ployees Trades & Craft Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1996. May 20, 1960 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 John H. Immel, Jr., hearing .officer. The hearing officer's rulings Blade at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing 2 On December 21, 1959 , after the hearing in this case had been closed, the Board ordered that the record be reopened and the proceeding be remanded to the Region for the purpose of adducing additional evidence to establish the legal jurisdiction of the Board At the reopened hearing, the Employer stated that it would not voluntarily comply with a subpena which directed the Employer to produce records showing the amount of goods purchased during the preceding 12 months The Employer filed a petition to revoke the subpena, which was denied by the bearing officer. The hearing officer then received in evidence letters from suppliers of the Employer which established that the Employer had purchased more than $50,000 worth of goods in 1959, which had been received by the 127 NLRB No. 105. CANAL STREET HOTEL CORPORATION 881 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in the operation of a hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. The hotel offers over 900 rooms for rent at daily rates, and the Employer asserts it is the largest hotel in the South. The Employer provides the customary hotel services including a dining room, a bar, and banquet and convention facilities. During the calendar year 1959 the Employer made purchases of good in excess of $50,000 from suppliers who had received such good directly from outside the State of Louisiana. We find that this volume of indirect inflow establishes the legal jurisdiction of the Board over the Em- ployer.3 Since the Employer concedes that during the last 12 months it did a gross business in excess of $500,000, which is the income cri- terion prescribed by the Board for its assertion of jurisdiction over hotels,4 we find that the Employer's hotel operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' 2. The original petition was filed on May 29,1959, prior to the repeal of Sections 9(f), (g), and (h) of the Act. At the hearing, the Em- ployer sought to litigate various compliance issues, particularly the compliance status of the American Guild of Variety Artists which was allegedly affiliated with the Petitioner. The record reveals that the American Guild of Variety Artists withdrew as a member of Petitioner prior to the commencement of the hearing. Nevertheless, in its brief, the Employer moved that the Board dismiss the petition because of lack of compliance by AGVA and by an officer of one of the other members of the Petitioner, or that, in the alternative, the Board hold a collateral hearing on compliance. The motion to dismiss is denied on the ground that the matters raised by the Employer may not be litigated in a representation proceeding.' The alternative re- suppliers directly from outside Louisiana The Employer asserts that it was an error to receive such evidence, and also, in its brief, moved to strike from the record the ad- mission into evidence of the Hotel Greeter's tourist guide which contained a brief de- scription of the Employer's operations We find that this evidence was properly i eceived since the Employer ignored the subpena, the reply to which would have furnished pri- mary evidence of jurisdictional facts, and since, in any event, representation proceedings are not governed by technical rules of evidence The Jacksonville Journal Company, 116 NLRB 1136, footnote 1; Pepper Printing Company, Inc, 121 NLRB 1297, footnote 3. Further we note that if the Employer questioned the accuracy of the letters from his suppliers, he was entitled as a matter of right to subpenas requiring them to appear and testify a Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines, 124 NLRB 813; Southwest Hotels, Inc, 126 NLRB 1151. 4 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 254; Member Jenkins concurring in part and dissenting in part, and Member Fanning concurring specially. 5 The Employer contends that the Board may not assert jurisdiction over hotels because of the failure of the Board to publish its jurisdictional standards in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. As the Board's jurisdictional stand- ards are promulgated in cases brought before it for adjudication, the publication re- quirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not applicable to the announcement of such standards. The Jacksonville Journal Company, 116 NLRB 1136, footnote 2. O Plant City Welding and Tank Company, 118 NLRB 280. 1560040-61-vol. 12 7-5 7 882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quest that the Board hold a collateral hearing on compliance issues is also denied, since such request may not be entertained unless pre- sented in a proceeding entirely separate and apart from a representa- tion proceeding.' 3. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.8 4. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section '2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Petitioner seeks to represent all regular and part-time em- ployees excluding all part-time banquet employees, managerial em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' The Petitioner also seeks to exclude as office clericals the following em- ployees: the file clerks, the general cashier, the payroll clerk, the gen- eral clerks, the accounts receivable clerks and secretaries, and the office secretaries, especially the secretaries of the general manager, assistant general manager and director of sales. The Employer con- tends that there is no real basis for distinction between certain clerks whom the Petitioner would exclude and other clerks whom it would include. Therefore the Employer takes the position that the appro- priate unit is an overall unit of all employees other than part-time banquet employees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties are also in disagreement over the supervisory status of the following employees : the head bartender, the headwaiter in the Charcoal Room, the stewards in the kitchen, the 7 Monsanto Chemical Company , 119 NLRB 69 8In view of the Board 's recent decision that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, the Employer 's contention to the con- trary is rejected. Dinkier-St. Charles Hotel, Inc, 124 NLRB 1302 At the hearing, the hearing officer received in evidence a letter from the secretary- treasurer of Local No. 270 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America expressing a desire to intervene in the proceeding. The Employer objected to the motion to intervene on the grounds that: ( 1) The Teamsters was not present at the hearing and has not shown any adequate interest in the proceeding , and (2) the motion was not filed in accordance with the Board 's Rules and Regulations since it was addressed to the Regional Director and not the hearing officer, the requisite number of copies were not filed , and the other parties were not immediately served with copies . We find the Employer's objections to be without merit The Employer has not been prejudiced by the Teamsters' failure to appear at the hearing, and we are administratively satisfied that the Teamsters has an adequate showing of interest Toledo Marine Terminals, Inc, 123 NLRB 583, footnote 1. Furthermore, although the motion was addressed to the Regional Director , it was properly referred to the hearing officer for appropriate action , and we are satisfied that the granting of the motion will not violate Section 102 03(a) of the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 7. Accordingly, we shall grant the motion and place the Intervenor on the ballot in the election directed herein See Supreme Transformer Corporation, 124 NLRB 164 The parties stipulated that the following employees are supervisors within the mean- ing of the Act . the general manager, the assistant general manager , the three assistant managers , the director of sales, the catering manager, the laundry manager , the head housekeeper, the chief engineer, the assistant chief engineer , the superintendent of service, the chef, the assistant chef , the auditor, the head telephone operator , and the cleanup man in the kitchen . The parties further stipulated that the house detectives are guards within the meaning of the Act. CANAL STREET HOTEL CORPORATION 883 valet, the hostesses in the coffee shop, the room service captain, the assistant to the auditor, and the assistant to the sales director. The employees whom the Petitioner would exclude as office clericals all work in the general office of the Employer with the exceptions of the secretaries to the general manager, assistant general manager, and director of sales. However, there is considerable contact between the general office employees and other hotel employees. Thus the gen- eral cashier makes up "banks" of money for all the other cashiers who are located at various places in the hotel. The payroll clerk coordi- nates the payroll and makes out the checks for all employees, and the general clerks spend their time taking perpetual inventory throughout the hotel. It is difficult to draw a line between the duties of some of the clerks in the general office whom the Petitioner would exclude, and the duties of some of the clerks at the front desk and in the auditor's and sales director's offices whom the Petitioner would include. Also, some of the employees whom the Petitioner would exclude are under the same supervision as some it would include. Upon the record as a whole, we find that the unit proposed by the Petitioner which seeks to include some brit not all the employees who have an identity or community of interests for collective-bargaining purposes is inappropriate. Therefore, in accordance with the Board's policy in the hotel industry, we shall include the disputed office cleri- cals in an overall unit of all hotel operating personnel.lo We now turn to a consideration of those employees whose super- visory status is in issue." Head bartender: The head bartender mixes drinks at the bar like the other bartenders, and the only duty that distinguishes him from the other bartenders is that he replenishes the bar stock from the stockroom. His wages are only slightly higher than the other bar- tenders and he enjoys the same benefits and working conditions. He has no authority to hire or fire, and any recommendations he may make as to hiring or firing are given no more weight than the recom- mendations of any similar old employee. We find the head bartender is not a supervisor and include him. Headwaiter in the Charcoal Room: The headwaiter directs the work of five waiters and five busboys. He stands by the cash register and greets guests as they arrive. He also answers the phone and helps both in the taking of bar orders and the serving of food. He has no authority to hire or fire, but any recommendations he makes as to hiring or firing are usually followed by the catering manager. We 10 Arlington Hotel Company, Inc, 126 NLRB 400 In its brief, the Employer claimed that the head painter should be excluded as a supervisor. The head painter has a separate shop in the backyard of the hotel. He directs a crew of painters whose size varies during the year from 8 to 20 men He also has authority to hire and fire these painters We find he is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and exclude him from the unit. 884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find the headwaiter in the Charcoal Room is a supervisor and exclude him. Kitchen stewards : The two kitchen stewards assist the chef in getting his work done in the kitchen. They perform such tasks as physically carrying food to the chef and supervising the cleaning of the silver- ware. They also obtain cleaning materials for the dishwashers, make sure the dishes are washed, and get new dishes from the storeroom. They have no authority to hire or fire, but they interview applicants for employment, and make recommendations to the chef regarding hiring and firing which are usually followed. We find the kitchen stewards are supervisors and exclude them. Valet: The valet directs four or five employees who do pressing and cleaning work in the hotel. Although he does some pressing himself, he spends more of his time delivering and picking up clothes. He has no authority to hire or fire, but any recommendations he may make as to hiring or firing are generally followed by the general manager who is in ultimate charge of this service. We find the valet is a supervisor and exclude him. Hostesses in the coffee shop: There is always one hostess on duty in the coffee shop. They stand at the door greeting customers, handing out menus, and occasionally taking orders and turning them over to the waitresses. They also help the waitresses fold napkins and set up tables, and they may help serve food and relieve the cashier de- pending on the flow of business. They receive about the same salary as the waitresses. Although they direct the waitresses and busboys in their work, this work is of a fairly routine nature, and, in fact, the hostesses and waitresses may sometimes exchange positions. They have no authority to hire or fire, and any recommendations they make as to hiring or firing are given no more weight than the recommenda- tions of any similar experienced employee. We find the hostesses in the coffee shop are not supervisors and include them. Room service captain: The room service captain wears the same uniform as the room service waiters, and serves food to rooms just like the other waiters. He is an old experienced employee who shows new men what to do, but any direction he gives to the room service waiters is of a routine nature. Room service work is handled by whatever waiters are on duty in response to calls from guests, and the room service waiters can perform their work without any direct super- vision. The room service captain has no authority to hire or fire, and any recommendations he may make as to hiring or firing are given no more weight than the recommendations of any similar experienced employee. We find he is not a supervisor and include him. Assistant to the auditor: The assistant to the auditor works in the general office and has been employed by the Employer for more than 20 years. She helps the various cashiers in the hotel to balance their LAMAR HOTEL 885 accounts, obtains a substitute if one of the cashiers fails to appear at work, and may even do cashier work when the Employer is short- handed. Because of her long experience she also helps to break in new clerical employees. She has no authority to hire or fire, and any recommendations she may make as to personnel action are subject to independent investigation by the auditor, who has close control over all the cashiers and office clerical employees. We find the assistant to the auditor is not a supervisor and include her. Assistant to the director of sales : The assistant to the director of sales helps the sales director to coordinate the scheduling of various functions at the hotel. He helps to promote business for the hotel by contacting prospective customers who might desire to hold banquets or parties at the hotel, and he may spend a good part of his time away from the sales office. In addition to the assistant to the director of sales, there are only two or three girls in the sales office and they are under the direction of the director of sales. The assistant has no authority to hire or fire. We find the assistant to the director of sales is not a supervisor and include him. We find that the following employees employed at the Employer's Jung Hotel, New Orleans, Louisiana, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees including the head bartender, the hostesses in the coffee shop, the room service captain, the assistant to the auditor, and the assistant to the director of sales, but excluding the headwaiter in the Charcoal Room, the stewards in the kitchen, the valet, part-time banquet employees, managerial employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Lamar Hotel and Stationary Engineers Local Union No. 707, IUOE, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 23-RC-1396. May 24, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Helms, hearing officer. Thereafter, by order of the Board, a further hearing was held before Lewis T. Roebuck, hearing officer. The hearing officers' rulings i The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 127 NLRB No. 111.