Holiday Inn Southwest

HOLIDAY INN SOUTHWEST West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest and Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, Local 181, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-9813 March 29, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing, and a supplemental hearing, were held before Hearing Officer Douglas J. Muir. Following these hearings and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and State- ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 9, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer has filed a brief in this case in support of his position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, who purchased a Holiday Inn franchise from the parent company in Memphis, Tennessee, operates a 125-room motel in Louisville, Kentucky. The Employer stipulated that during the past 12 months, which is a representative period, the motel derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 of which more than 75 percent was derived from transient guests. In addition, the Employer stipulated that direct out-of-state purchases amounted to approximately $3,500 and that the Employer pur- chased beer, liquor, and soft drinks locally that amounted to $30,000. The Employer contends that its operations do not meet the Board's statutory jurisdictional require- ments and further that its operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. We do not agree. We find that the Employer's motel operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,' and meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the motel industry. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- ' Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 N LRB 261 781 cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of 14 housekeeping employees, out of a total complement of 75 employees in the entire motel. The Employer urges that a housekeeping unit is inappropriate because there is no community of interest among these particular employees and, in any event, a unit of housekeeping employees is contrary to Board precedent. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees involved in this case. The record is clear that while the maids in the housekeeping department clean the rooms daily, at least two other departments perform cleaning in the rooms on occasion. The maintenance men perform cleaning and maintenance in the rooms; and the bellmen help with cleaning, performing exactly the same function as the maids, when guests check out after the maids have gone home. Thus, the primary function performed by the proposed bargaining unit is also performed by two other departments. There is further evidence that the bellmen, bartenders, wait- resses, and busboys also work in the rooms. The record further shows that all employees have identical fringe benefits, vacations, health and welfare benefits, hospitalization, holidays, and other benefits. There is one payroll and one bookkeeping system, and all employees punch the same timeclock while all duties and functions are performed in one high-rise building. It thus appears that the proposed bargaining unit has no distinct skill or community of interest singling it out from the other employees in the motel. As the employees in the proposed unit do not possess any special skill or knowledge, their duties are performed by other employees not sought to be included in the bargaining unit, and their functions are integrated with those of other departments, it does not appear that the employees sought enjoy that community of interest which would warrant their being represented separately and, accordingly, we find that the proposed unit is inappropriate. For the above reasons, we shall not direct an election among the employees in the requested unit, but shall dismiss the petition herein. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 202 NLRB No. 114