New Bedford Hotel Corp.

NEW BEDFORD HOTEL CORPORATION 849 or by International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 130; or by neither. If a majority of the professional employees in voting group (A) vote "Yes" to the first question, indicating their desire to be included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will be so included, and in such circumstances, the Board finds a unit comprised of the employees listed in both voting groups to be appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The votes of the professional employees in voting group (A) on the second question will then be pooled with the votes of the nonprofessional employees in voting group (B) to determine the question of representation existing in such unit." If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting group (A) vote against inclusion, they will not be included and in such circum- stances, the Board finds that employees in the two voting groups will constitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. In such circumstances, the votes of the two voting groups will be tallied sep- arately, in accordance with the Board's normal policies, to determine the question concerning representation then existing in each unit. [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 5-RD-203 and 5-RM-421.] [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 11 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL- CIO, Local 130, cast in voting group (B) shall be counted as valid votes but neither for nor against Salaried Employees Association of -the Baltimore Division , affiliated with the Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions. All other votes shall be accorded their face value whether for or against representation. New Bedford Hotel Corporation and Bartenders Union, Local No. 100, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. 1-KC-6171. November 30, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing offi- cer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. 1 The names of the parties appear as amended at the hearing. 129 NLRB No. 104. 586439-61-vol. 129-55 850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act' 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act.' All bartenders at the Employer's New Bedford, Massachusetts, hotel, including all regular part-time bartenders, but excluding all casual bartenders, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 In 1956 , the Employer recognized the Petitioner as the representative of Its bartenders, and signed a contract with it providing for automatic annual renewal absent timely written notice . In 1958, the Petitioner notified the Employer that it wished to add a provision to the contract . The Petitioner , which now seeks Board certification , maintains that this notice terminated the contract. The Employer contends that the contract is in effect, and it has continued to comply with its provisions The parties request Board determination of the validity of this termination notice. However, as there is no contract bar contention , adjudication of this issue is unnecessary 3 The Petitioner seeks a unit of bartenders . The parties are in agreement as to the appropriateness of such a unit, but the Petitioner would include , while the Employer would exclude as casual employees , all part-time bartenders . There is no evidence as to the bargaining status of any of the Employer's employees except the bartenders. The Employer operates its bar 16 hours a day with two regular bartenders who work 8-hour shifts When special occasions require extra help, the hotel manager informs a regular bartender, who requests the Petitioner to supply part -time help The manager testified that there are no regularly scheduled functions requiring part -time bartenders, but that, during peak operating months and vacation periods of the regular bartenders, extra help usually is required He stated that the Employer has no control over the men selected by the Petitioner, and that 25 men have done this part-time work in the past several years However, employment records for the first 9 months of this year list only four part-time bartenders , three of whom, Karakas, Pollitt, and Crabtree , have been paid respectively for work during this period averaging 24, 16, and 11 hours a week During this 9-month period , there have been only 2 weeks when the Employer has not called in extra bartenders . All the bartenders are governed by the same contractual payrate provi- sions and work under the same employment conditions , but the part-time employees do not receive the fringe benefits of regular bartenders. As it appears that these part-time bar- tenders can reasonably expect continuous part-time employment and have a community of employment interests with the regular bartenders , we find that they are regular part-time employees and therefore include them There is evidence, however, that on very rare occasions , additional bartenders are called in . We find that they are casual employees, and therefore exclude them. Westinghouse Electric Corporation and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO . Case No. 6-CA-1502. December 1, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On May 19,1960, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the 129 NLRB No. 98.