Sheraton Park Hotel & Motor Inn

728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Washington Sheraton Corporation t/a Sheraton Park Hotel & Motor Inn and Office & Professional Em- ployees International Union, Local 2, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-7873 October 13, 1972 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING 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 John L. Kluttz. 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 5, the case was transferred to the Board for decision. The Employer filed a brief with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's ruling 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 operates a hotel within the Dis- trict of Columbia. Accordingly, we find that the Em- ployer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and, as the Board has plenary jurisdiction over enterprises engaged in trade, traffic, or com- merce within the District of Columbia, we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to rep- resent certain employees of the Employer. At the hearing, the Employer stipulated that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, but refused to enter into such a stipulation with re- spect to the Intervenor, Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders In- ternational Union, AFL-CIO.' The Employer con- tends, citing Independent Metal Workers Union, Local No. 1 (Hughes Tool Company),2 that the Intervenor should be denied the opportunity to seek certification because, the Employer alleges, it engages in unlawful sex discrimination and separately classifies and segre- gates male and female members and employees. In support of this contention, the Employer introduced into evidence the bylaws and Labor Organization An- nual Report of Waiters Local 781, and the bylaws and Labor Organization Annual Report of Waitresses Lo- cal 507, two locals of the Intervenor; a letter to the Employer from the Director of the Washington Dis- trict Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stating that the EEOC has issued a "No- tice of Right to Sue," entitling Lorraine Evens, a member of Waitresses Local 507, to institute a civil action in the appropriate Federal District Court; and copies of the formal documents in a class action filed by said Lorraine Evans in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against, among others, said locals and the Intervenor. In our opinion, the evidence adduced at the hear- ing fails to support the Employer's claim that the In- tervenor engages in unlawful sex discrimination. While the record focused on certain alleged practices of two locals, it does not disclose any evidence what- soever that the Intervenor, itself, has engaged in dis- crimination or is likely to engage in discrimination with respect to the employees in the unit sought. In these circumstances, we find no basis for denying the Intervenor the opportunity to seek certification and conclude that the Intervenor is not disqualified from seeking the representation of the employees in the unit described below. However, it is well established that certification of a union does not give it a license to engage in discriminatory practices. Accordingly, any certifica- tion which may eventuate as a result of this Decision is subject to revocation upon a showing that the certi- fied representative has not complied with its statutory duties relative to equal representation of all employ- ees in the unit? 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing representation 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 to represent all front of- fice clerical employees of the Employer, excluding all other employees including guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 The Intervenor agrees as to the appropriateness of the unit. However, the Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate because it in- cludes "circuit board operators," a classification cov- ered by the current contract. The facts show that the Intervenor's contract does cover "telephone opera- tors" and "night operators" and, since the record sug- 3 American Mailing Corporation, 197 NLRB No. 33. The Intervenor currently has a contract with the Employer covering "all ° The unit sought consists of the following classifications : room clerks, of its employees, with the exception of managerial and supervisory employ- night manager, customer service representatives, key clerks, circuit board ees, office employees, musicians, engineers, firemen, carpenters, barbers, and operators, mail and information clerks, night auditors, cashiers, reservation upholsterers." clerks, and reservation statisticians, all on the clerical payroll; and mail s 147 NLRB 1573 . clerks, and assistant front office supervisor on the administrative payroll. 199 NLRB No. 104 SHERATON PARK HOTEL 729 gests that these terms refer to the same jobs as per- formed by circuit board operators, we shall exclude the "circuit board operators" from the unit sought. We therefore find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All front office clerical employees at the Employer's Sheraton Park Hotel & Motor Inn, including room clerks, night manager, customer service representatives, key clerks, mail and in- formation clerks, night auditors, cashiers, reser- vation clerks, and reservation statisticians (all on the clerical payroll), and mail clerks, and assist- ant front office supervisor (on the administrative payroll), excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]