Marriott Corp.

MARRIOTT IN-FLITS SERVICES Marriott In-Flite Services, a Division of Marriott Corporation , and Locals 840 and- 27, International Brotherhoodof;Teamsters; Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, jointly. Case 29-RC-16-20 July 30, 1971 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Jerome Katz. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure; Series 8, as amended, by direction of the' -Regional Director for Region 29, the case was transferred to the Board for decision. Pursuant'- to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National', Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National'='Labor Relations Board has' delegated its powers in-connection with this case to a. three-member panel. The- Board has reviewed the --Hearing 'Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to'assert jurisdiction herein.2 2. Each of the' Joint Petitioners has a separate charter issued by the International, each has its own constitution, each- -exists for the purposes of organiz- ing unorganized employees and bargaining collective- ly with respect ; to rates of pay and other terms and conditions of- employment,' and each holds regular meetings wherein members participate. We find that they are labor organizations as defined in the Act, which, claim jointly, to represent employees of the Employer.3 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the ° representation' of certain employees of the t During the course of the hearing the Employer moved to postpone the hearing in order to obtain another hearing reporter, upon learning that the reporter was a member of one of the Joint Petitioners , Local 840. The Hearing Officer denied the motion, and granted the Employer pernussion to file a special 'appeal from ' his 'ruling to the Regional Director. The Regional Director -sustained the Hearing Officer 's ruling. The Employer now seeks anew hearing , alleging the reporter was inherently prejudiced. In the absence of any indication of bias resulting in any discrepancy in the record or assertion of prejudicial conduct performance by the reporter, we do not deem such membership to be improper per se so as to require replacement, and the Employer's request is hereby denied. 379 Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioners `seek to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer in a unit encompassing two kitchens-servicing John F. Kennedy Airport, and one kitchen at La Guardia Airport, all within the metropolitan area of New York, City. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one composed of the three aforementioned kitchens and the two located at Newark Airport.' The Employer's In-Flight Services. division involved herein is engaged in the business of providing food catering services to airlines. It is divided into four administrative regions, one of which consists of the five kitchens servicing Kennedy, La Guardia, and Newark Airports.4 - Kitchens 370 and 377 service Kennedy Airport and- have complements of about- 249 and 189 employees, respectively. Kitchen 370 is located at the:airport_and kitchen 377, nearby. Kitchen 375 is located near, and services La Guardia Airport and has a complement of about 89 employees. Kitchen 372 is located near, and kitchen 373 is at, Newark Airport; both serve that airport with complements of approximately 71 and 117 employees, respectively. Kennedy and La Guard- ia Airports are about 8 miles apart, and Newark Airport is about 15 miles from La Guardia and 18 miles from Kennedy. Working conditions at the, five kitchens are identi- cal, as are pay rates, seniority policy, and safety rules. The region involved is generally supervised by a regional vice president, and at the regional level there is also a-maintenance manager, a procurement officer, and safety and personnel directors.. Each kitchen is under the immediate supervision of a manager whose duties and responsibilities are narrowly proscribed. However, the kitchen managers. discipline employees in their kitchens and recommend discharge. They also . recommend merit wage increases and prepare work schedules for the employees of their kitchens. Al-' though seniority policy is'identical in-all five kitchens, seniority is acquired separately at each kitchen and an employee laid off at one kitchen cannot bump a junior employee at another. - Evidence concerning interchange of employees among the five kitchens covering a 13-month period from -January 1, 1970, until January 31, 1971, 2 The Employer is engaged in the airline catering, hotel, and restaurant service industries. This ,proceeding involves the Employer's airline catering operations at two airports in New York and one in, New Jersey. The Employer's contention that the employees involved are not subject to the Act, but rather to the Railway Labor Act, is without merit. Hot Shopper, Inc., 143 NLRB 578. 3 The ' Employer's contention that the Act does not permit the acceptance of a joint petition is without merit . The Bailey Department, Stores Co., 120 NLRB 1239, 1240. 4 The three airports involved herein are operated by the New York Port Authority, 192 NLRB No. 54 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD immediately before the end of the hearing, was received into the record. Permanent transfers- are negligible in number as only about 12 occurred during the entire 13-month period. - The Employer contends, however, that the higher rate of temporary employee, interchange militates in favor of a single unit embracing all five kitchens. There were- approximately 236 instances of individual, employees transferring,temporarily from one kitchen to another during the 13-month period, or an average of approximately 18 per month. However, 63 of those instances involved transfers between the two kitchens serving Kennedy Airport, and 93 between Kennedy and La Guardia., Hence, there were only 173 tempo- rary transfers, or a monthly average of about 13, among the three airports, and only 80,-or about 6 per month, between Newark and the other two airports. Thus, transfers among the five kitchens, affected only about 2.5 percent of the total employees monthly (18 of 716), - and transfers among the three airports affected only about l:8 percent (13 of 716). These figures appear to us to lack significance, particularly when viewed against -the size of, the employee complement at the five kitchens. In our opinion, the unit advocated by the Employer, encompassing the five kitchens at all three airports, might be appropriate. As noted above, such a unit would conform to an administrative subdivision, of the Employer, and the three airports are all operated by the Port of New York Authority.5 However, it is not the only appropriate unit, and in the absence of a claim, by a labor organization to, represent the employees in such h -a unit, we-must determine whether any unit or, units requested by the Petitioners might be appropriate; We see no basis upon which to find appropriate -a unit including both the Kennedy and La Guardia kitchens but excluding those at Newark- On the one hand, such, a unit constitutes only a part of the Employer's administrative subdivision leaving out, without reason, similar employee& of Newark. On the other hand, the employees servicing La Guardia are geographically separated from those servicing Kenne- dy and are concerned with different conditions of employment insofar as their work involves catering to a different airport with different flight schedules. - However, on the record herein, and in the absence of a history of collective bargaining on a broader 5 It is noted, however, that the Employer' s` contention that all five kitchens are located in, and service airports in, the Nevw York metropolitan area is in error, as Newark constitutes a separate metropolitan area. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Metropolitan Area Statistics, Reprinted from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1970. Washington, D.C, 1970, see p. 903. 6 State ,Farm, Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 158 NLRB 925, 930. } T Marriott In-Flight Services a Division of Marriott Corporation, 22-RC=4457. Not published in NLRB volumes. 8 Hot Shoppes, Inc., 139 NLRB 1253; Marriott In-Flight Services, a basis, separate-units of the kitchens servicing Kenne- dy. Airport, on the, one hand. and La Guardia on the other can be appropriate. The single location of La Guardia is-presumptively appropriate and the,-two kitchens at Kennedy are in close geographic proximi- ty and are functionally related by virtue of their common service to that airport. We have previously held that if two or more appropriate units are to merge their separate identities into a larger single unit, the resultant unit should encompass all similarly situated units in order to present some geographic` or administrative coherence .6 Under the' circumstances here, the three airports could be ,a single unit, comprising,as they do the Employer's administrative subdivision, or they could, constitute separate units,, but the two locations may.not properly be combined as the Petitioners ask. Accordingly, ,we find. the requested, unit to be inappropriate, but shall direct separate elections at Kennedy, and La Guardia. Such units are supported by the geographic separation of the airports, the existence of day-to-day autonomy in each unit, and the insigni€icant nature of,employee interchange. The units which we find - appropriate are also supported-by precedent involving the same or,similar operations of this Employer. In, 1970, the same issue as is here presented, involving this Employer,-was considered by thevRegional Director for Region 22. In that case, a different labor organization sought a unit limited to the two Newarkkitchens and the Employer claimed that only a unit including the five, Newark,, LaGuardia, and Kennedy, kitchens was appropriate. The Regional Director, found the unit limited -to the two Newark, kitchens appropriate.7 The Employer has a region similar. to that involved herein , which encompasses Friendship Airport in Maryland- and, National and Dulles Airports in Virginia, all of which serve, Washington, D.C. In, two cases, where 1the Employer took the,position,-as it does here, that,a,regionwide unit alone is appropriate, the Board found units limited to the Friendship Airport facilities appropriate..8 In still other cases where the issue was raised in a different posture, we-have found appropriate units limited to kitchen servicing a single airport.9 As indicated above, we shall -direct an),eleetion in -a unit encompassing kitchens 370 and 377 at Kennedy and another election in a unit consisting of kitchen Division of Marriott Corporation, 188 NLRB No. 72. In one other case, Ilot Shoppes, Inc., 130 NLRB 144, a labor organization sought a unit limited to_Employer'semployees atone of two airports servicing Chicago, and the Bpard found such a .unit inappropriate. However, unlike the instant case, it appeared there that the sole basis, for a unit limited to one Chicago airport was the union's extent of organizationl. 9 Marriott In-Flight Services, a Division of Marriott Hot Shoppes, Inc., 168''NLRB 365; Hot Shoppes,' Inc., 130 NLRB 138; Hot Slioppes, Inc., 29-RC-44. Not reported in published NLRB volumes. . , MARRIOTT IN-FLITS SERVICES 381 375 at La Guardia. Together, the units are coextensive with the single unit sought by the Petitioners. However, since our unit findings differ from the single unit sought, the Petitioners shall be permitted to withdraw the petitionwithout prejudice if they do not wish to proceed. If the Petitioners elect to proceed, the elections will be held subject to a sufficient showing of interest by the Petitioners in each unit. We turn then to-the composition of the units. The parties are in basic agreement except as to two catagories. The Employer would include "shift supervisors," whom the Petitioners would exclude as supervisors.' Likewise, the Employer would include, and the Petitioners exclude, certain clerical employees who work at the kitchens. Shift Supervisors: On the basis of uncontradicted evidence on the record it is clear that shift supervisors possess none of the indicia' of supervisory authority. They are hourly paid; punch a- timeclock, work in various parts of the kitchens, and assist shift or assistant managers who, together with the managers, supervise, each kitchen. ,We find that the shift supervisors are not supervisors as defined in the Act, and shall include them in the units. Clericals: The clericals,, who are located at the kitchens, work both in production and in nonproduc- tion areas, but do not work in office areas, and they perform tasks closely allied to production operations. Their terms and conditions of employment are similar 10 In order, to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the elections should have access to a list of voters and their' addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc., '156 NLRB 1236; N.L.RB. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is 'hereby directed that election eligibility lists, :ontaining the names and,addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed to those of unit employees and, there is interchange between unit employees and such clericals. We conclude that they are plant clericals-and shall include them in the units herein found appropriate. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute units appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 1. All coordinators, food equipment handlers and helpers, cooks, chefs, station attendants, pantry workers, utility and sanitation employees, bakers, storekeepers,' maintenance men and me- chanics, plant clericals, and shift supervisors, at the Employer's Kitchen 370 at John F. Kennedy Airport and Kitchen 377 at 152-65 Rockaway Boulevard, Queens, N.Y. but excludingallprofes- sionals, guards, watchmen, clericals and other statutory exclusions. 2. All coordinators, food equipment handlers and helpers, cooks, chefs, station attendants, pantry workers, utility and santitation employees, bakers, storekeepers, maintenance men and me- chanics, plant clericals, and shift supervisors, at the Employer's Kitchen 375 at 49-220 49th St., Astoria, Queens, N.Y., but excluding all profes- sionals guards, watchmen, clericals and other statutory exclusions. [Direction of Elections 10 omitted from publication.] by the Employer with-the Regional Director for Region 29 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections . The Regional Director shall make the lists available to all parties to the election. No extension of, time to file the lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elections whenever proper objections are filed.