Lamar Hotel

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' ru]ings 1 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing 127 NLRB No. 111. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer operates a hotel in Houston, Texas. During the year 1958 the gross revenue of Lamar Hotel exceeded $500,000, and during that year less than 75 percent of its guests remained for a month or longer. During 1959 the Employer purchased goods and materials which were shipped to it directly from points outside the State of Texas, of a total value of $4900. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, on the record, the Board does not have jurisdiction over its operations, asserting that the record fails to establish that the effect of its opera- tions on commerce is more than de minimis. We are satisfied, however, that an annual direct inflow of $4900 is more than the trifle or matter of a few dollars which the courts have characterized as de minim2zis,2 and that the operations of the Employer, therefore, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. As the Employer's operations also meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the hotel industry,3 we further find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case, and the motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is, therefore, denied. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of operating and maintenance em- ployees and engineers, which is in effect a maintenance unit. At the original hearing the Employer stipulated to the appropriateness of the requested unit. However, in its brief filed after the further hear- ing, the Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed because under, the Board's decision in Arlington Hotel Company, Inc.,4 and its emphasis on the hotelwide unit, the proposed unit is inappro- priate. Thus, the Employer, in effect, seeks to withdraw from its unit stipulation. Normally, the Board will not permit a party so to withdraw from a stipulation.' However, under the particular cir- cumstances, we believe an exception is warranted. At the time the parties entered into the stipulation the Board had not issued its deci- sions setting forth generally the basis for unit determinations in the hotel industry 6 and the parties had as a guide only the Board's gen- eral policy in other industries of finding a maintenance unit appro- priate in the absence of a bargaining history on a broader basis. Further, in withdrawing from its stipulation the Employer does not 2 See, e.g., N.L R B. v. Suburban Lumber Company, 121 F. 2d 829, 832 (C.A 3). 3Floridan Hotel of Tampa , Inc, 124 NLRB 261. 4126 NLRB 400. The Employer also relies on Yorktowne Hotel, 120 NLRB 344 Cf. Norris-Thermador Corporation, 119 NLRB 1301. e Arlsngton Hotel, supra ; Yorktowne Hotel, supra ; and Florida Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia d/b/a Cadillac Hotel, 125 NLRB 258, dealing with the specific type of unit here involved. KENTUCKY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION 887 place in issue factual matters which could be resolved only on the basis of evidence introduced at a hearing, but which were not placed in evidence because of such stipulation, for the requested unit is on its face clearly one which the Board will not find appropriate, if con- tested.? Accordingly, we shall permit the Employer to withdraw from its unit stipulation. Consequently, we find that, absent the Employer's agreement, the requested maintenance-type unit is not appropriate. Accordingly, we find that no question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 7 Florida Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia d/b/a Cadillac Hotel, supra. Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation and Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 369, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-3965. May 24, 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 William C. Brafford, 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 Employer, a nonstock corporation, operating a plant in Louisville, Kentucky, is engaged in furnishing services to 23 member rural electric cooperative associations in the State of Kentucky. Each association supplies electric power and related services to as many as 15,000 to 18,000 subscribers. The Employer performs the following services for its member associations : Assembling new transformers and shipping them to members, repairing transformers and related electrical equipment, supplying hardware, home appliances, and pub- lic information advice, and billing of all electrical accounts to sub- scribers of the member associations. A nominal fee is charged for these services to each of the members. If at the end of the year the Employer has a profit, it is returned to the members on a percentage basis. These members are nonprofit associations selling electrical power to subscribers. During the past 12 months, the Employer pur- 127 NLRB No. 109.