Thunderbird Hotel, Inc.

84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The record fails to establish that the layout man and his helper exer- cise craft skills comparable to the carpenters or that they have in- terests in common with the carpenters. On the contrary, they are relatively unskilled employees whose interests and conditions of employment are similar to those of the yard and delivery employees represented by the Teamsters. Accordingly, we find that the layout man and his helper are appropriately a part of the Teamsters unit.' [The Board amended the Certification of Representative issued in Cases Nos. 9-RM-260, 9-RM-261, and 9-RM-264 on May 23, 1961, to include in the unit description therein the classification of saw man-prefabrication department of Peter Kuntz Lumber Company; and in Cases Nos. 9-RM-259, 9-RM-262, 9-RM-263, and 9-RM-265 to include in the unit description therein the classifications of truss assembler and of layout man and his helper.] 'See Lumber and Millwork Industry Labor Committee of Cleveland, Oh;o, et al, 13( NLRB 1083, 1085. Compare Lumber Fabricators, Inc., 110 NLRB 187 Thunderbird Hotel, Inc. and Joe Wells , James Schuyler and William Deer, Co-partners, d/b/a Thunderbird Hotel Com- pany 1 and Independent Guards Association of Nevada, Local No. 1, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-5294. August 20, 1963 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 James S. Jenson, Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : i The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 We find no merit in the contention of Thunderbird Hotel, Inc , that the Heating Officer improperly permitted its name to be added during the reopened hearing Thunderbird Hotel, Inc , had been named in the petition and notice of hearing but in the original hear- ing an amendment was allowed deleting its name However, it participated fully in the first hearing in all material respects . Further, at the reopened hearing the general manager and the comptroller (who, as noted infra, serve both companies in those capacities) attended and testified, and counsel who appeared for the partnership is also an officer of and attorney for Thunderbird Hotel, Inc No request was made for continuance Under these circumstances , we affirm the Hearing Officer 's action in allowing the amendment Truss-Mart Corporation, et al., 121 NLRB 1430. Cf. Dekalb Gas, Inc., et al, 133 NLRB 352, and Southwest Hotels, Inc., 126 NLRB 1151. 144 NLRB No. 19. THUNDERBIRD HOTEL, INC., ETC. 85 1. Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., is a corporation which owns and oper- ates the Thunderbird Hotel . The partnership of Joe Wells, James Schuyler, and William Deer does business as Thunderbird Hotel Com- pany and operates a gambling casino, three bars , and three restaurants at the hotel in space rented from the corporation . The record reveals, and the parties do not seriously dispute, that the corporation and the partnership each meets the Board 's discretionary standards for the assertion of jurisdiction over hotels 3 and restaurants ' Statutory jurisdiction is also clearly established.5 In addition , the record shows that the corporation and the partner- ship constitute a single employer whose total combined income and indirect inflow clearly meet the Board 's test for asserting jurisdic- tion over such enterprises . The Employer's testimony reveals that the two entities are commonly owned and controlled and are held out to the public as a single enterprise . Thus, individual members of the partnership own a little less than 25 percent of the stock of the corporation, and Wells, a partner, is president of the corporation. The secretary -treasurer of the corporation serves as general manager of both entities, and the corporation's vice president, who is also chair- man of the board of directors, is counsel for both. The two companies also share all administrative and service facilities . All payroll and personnel records are kept by a single group of employees under the supervision of an individual who is comptroller and main office and payroll manager for both the partnership and the corporation; no distinction is made between them in their joint advertising, which is handled by a single advertising and publicity department which is under one director ; one staff of maintenance , repair, and engineering employees serves both ; and all employees punch the same timeclock. Nor is any distinction made in the serving of their patrons. The car valet, who is on the payroll of the corporation , functions for both; they have a single telephone number and reservations facility, and the partnership's restaurant and bar services are an integral part of the hotel's facilities, providing room service and catering banquets, conventions, and meetings booked by the corporation.' Hotel guests are billed for their room and restaurant and bar charges on a common statement. The Employer agreed that "as far as the public is con- 3 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc., 124 NLRB 261. d Colonial Catering Company, 137 NLRB 1607, at 1608, and cases cited therein. 5 The hotel's annual revenue exceeds $500,000 and only one-tenth of 1 percent of its guests stay over 30 days. Of this gross revenue amount, approximately 6 percent is re- ceived through credit cards of American Express and iCarte Blanche. The partnership's annual gross revenue from the gambling casino, bars , and restaurants well exceeds $1,000 ,000. The partnership annually purchases goods valued in excess of $500,000 from dealers who have received such goods from outside the State of Nevada 6 The partnership rents substantially all its equipment from the corporation , as well as the space in which it operates. 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cerned, there is only one operation . . . ." In view of these facts, we find that the corporation and the partnership are a single employer.7 However, the Employer contends that, because the employees sought herein work primarily in the gambling casino which does not itself have any flow in commerce, this proceeding is outside of the Board's jurisdiction. We find no merit in this position. It is well established that the Board applies the concept that it is the impact on commerce of the totality of an employer's operations that should determine whether or not the Board will assert jurisdiction.' It is also well established that where, as here, the Board's statutory jurisdiction is established by virtue of an inflow of goods, directly or indirectly, to the employer, it is unnecessary to inquire into the nature of goods or services furnished by the employer to its customers .9 Finally, the Employer contends that as a matter of policy the Board should not assert jurisdiction herein because the particular business in which the employees are working is a gambling casino. The casino is an integral part of the Employer's total operation, and the Em- ployer's business as a hotel, bar, and restaurant meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein." 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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of security guards, time- keepers, and a clockman. The Employer opposes the unit, alleging that the security guards are not its employees but are law enforcement officials not subject to the Act as they are deputized by the Clark County sheriff, and contending that timekeepers and the clockman are not "guards" within the meaning of the Act. The security guards wear uniforms furnished by the Employer. They also wear badges and carry guns and handcuffs, which are their own property. They pay for their own false arrest insurance policies to save them harmless from any such charge arising in the performance of their duties for the Employer. They work in three shifts, maintain- ing peace, order, and security in the gambling casino and protecting the properties of the Employer." Their duties take them throughout P See Clodomiro Isohno d/b/a Ravens Sportswear, 142 NLRB 1299; Travelers Hotel, Inc, et at., 129 NLRB 1133, 1135-1137. 8 Appliance Supply Company, 127 NLRB 319, 320. 0 N L R.B. v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corporation, 371 U.S. 224; International Longshoremen & Warehousemen's Union, et at. (Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines), 124 NLRB 813; cf. R. E. Sm4th et al., d/b/a Southern Dolomite, 129 NLRB 1342, and Colonial Catering Com- pany, supra. 10 See Harrah's Club, Inc., 143 NLRB 1356. 11 There is no dispute that the duties performed by the security guards are those of guards within the meaning of the Act and we so find. THUNDERBIRD HOTEL, INC., ETC. 87 all the properties of the Employer, without exception, including the Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., and Algiers Motel 12 located adjacent to the Thunderbird. The security guards are under the supervision of a chief security officer who the Employer also contends is not in its employ. It argues that the former chief security officer was assigned to it by the county sheriff and at the time of the hearing a replacement was to be chosen by the sheriff. However, there is no showing that the Employer can- not reject a chief security officer selected by the county sheriff, or that it could not itself hire or fire a chief security officer if it wished. On the facts and record as a whole, we find that the chief security officer is at least an agent of the Employer if not a supervisor employed by the Employer. The record clearly shows that applications for employment as security guards are made to the Employer and the job content is es- tablished by the Employer. The chief security officer makes recom- mendations to the Employer regarding promotions, firings, and hirings upon which the Employer takes action. He makes job assignments and directs the security guards in all respects. In performing these func- tions the chief security officer has the same authority as do other department heads. It is thus clear that wages, hours, and conditions of employment of security guards are controlled by the Employer. The employees, when selected by the chief security officer, are re- quested to go to the sheriff's office to be cleared and sworn in as special deputy sheriffs. The clearance appears to be a check into the past record of the prospective security guard to determine his fitness for the job. When the clearance is completed, a card is issued which is valid only at the Thunderbird Hotel. There is no State law requiring that the security guards be deputized, but the Employer requires this in order that they may, under State law, carry "concealable" weapons. The special deputy's commission differs from that of a deputy sheriff in that the latter works for and under the county sheriff who has jurisdiction over the entire county. In short the deputy sheriff, unlike the security guard, is employed and controlled by the county, performs his duties anywhere in the county, and is paid by the county. Accord- ingly, in view of the Employer's control over their hiring, assignment of jobs, wages, hours, and conditions of employment, we find that the security guards are employees of the Employer.13 There are four timekeepers, one of whom is deputized. They are hired by the chief security officer but do not wear uniforms or badges, nor do they carry arms or handcuffs. Their duties are to see that em- ployees clock in and out, to keep out unauthorized personnel, and to 32 The general manager of the Employer is also general manager of the Algiers Motel. "General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 1316; ef. Roane-Anderson Company, 95 NLRB 1501. 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD see that articles of property are not brought in or removed without authority. There is no interchange between them and the security officers and they a,'e paid by the day. Accordingly, as they have the same supervision and their function, in substantial part, is to protect the Employer's property, they come within the Board's definition of guards and we shall include them in the unit.14 A clockman, or fire watcher, on the payroll of Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., was hired by and is under the direction of the chief security officer. His duties are to watch for fires by making regular rounds and punch- ing a clock during the night." The record shows that he does not en- force any rules against the employees or the public. As the duty of this employee is to check for fire hazards, we find that he is not a guard and shall exclude him from the unit.16 Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees at the Employer's Winchester, Clark County, Nevada, operations employed as security guards and timekeepers, but excluding all other employees, clockmen or fire watchers, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 14 National Hotel Company, d/b/a Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202, 204. is He also walks through the Algiers Motel property , and the Employer is paid for this service. 16 New Hotel Monteleone, 127 NLRB 1092, 1094. General Electric Company and International Union of Electri- cal, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and its Local 201. Case No. 1-RC-3312. August 20, 1963 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On February 12, 1954, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives 1 certifying Local 201, Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as the bargaining representative of a unit of office clerical employees at the Employer's River Works. On April 23, 1962, the Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and its Local 201 filed a request for clarification of certification "to include in the bargaining unit, for which the petitioning organization is now the recognized bargaining agent, certain employees, some of whole are in the following categories as classified by the Employer : 1107 NLRB No. 244 ( not published in NLRB volumes ). See also General Electric Company ( Rover TVorks ), 107 NLRB 70. 144 NLRB No. 21.