Sheraton Motor Inn

790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dunfey Family Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Motor Inn 1 and Bartenders and Dining Room Employees, Local 34, a/w Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case 1-RC-12934 May 22, 1974 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, 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 Albert N. Stieglitz. Following the hearing, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended. The Employer and the Petitioner have filed briefs. 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 af- firmed.2 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. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the 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 a unit of all service employees in the dining room and lounges, including waiters, waitresses, bartenders, barboys, busboys, and busgirls, employed at the Employer's Lexington, Massachusetts, motel, but excluding kitchen employees, banquet employees, cashiers, hostesses, all other employees, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act.3 The Employer contends I Name as amended at the hearing 2 At the hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained Petitioner 's objection to efforts by counsel for the Employer to inquire about what classifications of employees Petitioner had attempted to organize at this motel The Employer states that its purpose was to show Petitioner's extent of organization and contends that it has been prejudiced by this ruling. We find that no error was committed and affirm the Hearing Officer's ruling. Sec 9(c)(5) of the Act precludes the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of organization when making unit determinations However, even if a petitioning union's proposed unit were, in part, based upon the extent of its organizational efforts, it does not follow that such a unit would necessarily be defective or that in finding that unit appropriate the Board would thereby be giving any, much less controlling, weight to the union's extent of that the appropriate unit must include all the employees at its Lexington facility and urges that the instant petition be dismissed. Contending that a hotelwide unit is the most appropriate unit, the Employer emphasizes that "any unit without kitchen employees, hostesses, cashiers, and banquet employ- ees would be inappropriate." The facility here involved is the Sheraton Motor Inn in Lexington, Massachusetts, which is one of several motels and hotels operated by the Employer. The facility here includes 114 rooms, a dining room, 2 lounges, and 4 function rooms, the latter being designed for seminars, banquets, and wed- dings. All of the rooms and facilities are located in one building, the lounges each bear separate trade names-one called the Crackerbarrel Lounge and the other called the Tavern Lounge. The restaurant on the premises is known as "Dunfey's Tavern" and has a separate entrance from the hotel entrance. The restaurant is advertised under its own name, al- though the signs and advertisements indicate its location at the motel. There are approximately 150 employees employed at this facility, working in nine departments: front office, sales, housekeeping, laundry, maintenance, kitchen, restaurant, lounge, and banquet. Approximately 65 employees are employed in the unit sought by Petitioner and approximately 30 additional employees work in the kitchen and banquet departments. The kitchen, restaurant, lounge, and banquet employees all work under the general supervision of the food and beverage director, who in turn reports directly to the general manager of the facility. Also reporting to the general manager are the assistant manager and the sales manager. Under the Employ- er's "MOD Squad," a system of management, any of these managerial personnel, as well as, on occasion, lower-echelon supervisors, may be left with prime managerial supervision when others of the managers are absent from the facility. Nevertheless, under normal operations, the food and beverage director has primary supervisory responsibility over the employees in the aforementioned departments. The record herein reveals what appears to be organization . Dixie Belle Mills, Inc, 139 NLRB 629,63 1 , In. 7. In any event, we have made our determination of the appropriate unit herein without giving controlling weight to Petitioner's extent of organization or its work jurisdiction 3 The parties stipulated that the following individuals and/or positions are supervisors within the meaning of the Act - general manager, unoccu- pied, assistant manager, Jean Gear; sales manager, Marsha Plovnick; food and beverage manager, Dana Bent ; banquet manager, Verna Schnbner; assistant banquet manager, Esther Taura; chef , unoccupied ; housekeeper, Louis Woelk ; beverage manager, Michael Carlson ; and dining room (restaurant) manager, unoccupied. However, at the time of the instant hearing the position of dining room (restaurant) manager was unfilled and appears to have been vacant since August 1973 210 NLRB No. 85 SHERATON MOTOR INN 791 substantial contact among the employees working in the motel's four food and beverage departments. All food is prepared in the kitchen and is picked up within the kitchen by the restaurant, banquet, and lounge employees who serve the guests. Although kitchen employees appear to leave the kitchen infrequently for work purposes, it is clear that the employees from these other three departments have frequent contact with the kitchen employees when they go into the kitchen to pick up their food orders. While in the kitchen, all employees are subject to the supervision of the chef. Bartenders, who are consid- ered lounge department employees, prepare beverag- es for restaurant, lounge, and banquet patrons who are served by employees of those respective depart- ments. It appears that a bartender will set up a bar in a function room and prepare beverages there when the number of guests warrants it; otherwise such beverages are prepared at one of the two regular lounge bars and picked up there by banquet employees. On occasion, meals for small functions have been served in the restaurant by banquet employees. Interchange also takes place among these groups of employees. Thus, when a shortage of help has occurred in either the restaurant or banquet depart- ments, waiters and waitresses are freely shifted back and forth to cover such shortages. Bartenders occasionally serve both food and the beverages which they prepare. During the summer of 1973, restaurant employees were regularly assigned to operate the dishwasher in the kitchen. There is, on the other hand, little contact as between the employees working in the food and beverage operations and the remainder of the motel's employees, particularly those engaged in the house- keeping and laundry areas. As to interchange, the dissent cites the only instance of interchange which is found in this record-the one bartender who at times works at the front desk. The record is equally devoid of affirmative evidence of regular contact between housekeeping and food-beverage personnel, whereas there is evidence that nonfood and beverage employ- ees, such as front desk personnel, do keep in close touch with the housekeeping personnel and may even bring linens to a room. It is of course true that all of the employees of both the food and beverage operation and of the room operations are hourly paid and have had the same fringe benefits available to them. It is also true that to the extent that hotel guests utilize the restaurant and lounge facilities there may be said to be some integration of functions, such as the making of restaurant reservations for guests and the like. But, on the other hand, it also seems apparent that the restaurant is patronized by persons who do not stay in the rooms offered by the facilities, and that room occupants do not necessarily avail themselves of the restaurant or lounge facilities located on the premis- es. The record does not indicate what percentage of the restaurant and lounge business is attributable to motel guests nor to what extent hotel guests are attracted to the facility because of the reputation or desirability of the restaurant and lounge facilities. While there can be no doubt but that the overall unit contended for by the Employer would, under Board precedent, be appropriate, the Board has long since abandoned its one-time view that only a hotel or motelwide unit is appropriate. In John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927, the Board specifically overruled Arlington Hotel Company, Inc., 126 NLRB 400 (in which the Board indicated that only a hotel or motelwide unit was appropriate) and said (p. 929): The Arlington case issued only a year after the Board had first asserted jurisdiction over corpora- tions in the hotel and motel industry. Since Arlington, the Board has gained much experience and better insight into the nature of the hotel- motel industry. Although, as was held in Arling- ton, employees in the various facilities of hotels and motels have a basic mutuality of interest, neither their functions nor their mutual interests are in all cases integrated to such a high degree that an overall unit should be found the only appropriate unit. Indeed, the employees in all facilities at hotels and motels today do not necessarily perform the single function of serving room guests. A business may operate in such a manner as to depend substantially upon other than room guests. Here, for example, the restau- rant corporation also provides club rooms and banquet facilities. Nor does it seem that the motel provides complete restaurant facilities primarily for its relatively few room guests. Arlington took a valid principle (if functions and mutual interests are highly integrated, an overall unit alone is appropriate) and fashioned from it an inflexible rule to be applied to all hotels and motels. But, because our experience has indicated that such a degree of integrated func- tions and employee interests does not exist in every hotel or motel, we shall hereafter consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide wherein lies the true community of interest among particular employees. Although the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appears to have viewed this Holiday Inn case (sometimes referred to as 77 Operating Company) as 792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintaining the Board's hotelwide unit policy subject only to two exceptions-where area practices estab- lished other units as typical or where some special showing of nonintegration of function was made,4 we do not believe this was an accurate description of the Board's intent. Rather, as the Board said in Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House: 5 Stated otherwise, the Board's intention is to apply to the hotel industry the general criteria used for determining units in other industries and to make unit determinations after weighing all the factors present in each case, such as the distinctions in the skills and functions of particular employee groupings, their separate supervision, the employ- er's organizational structure, and differences in wages and hours. Referring to those factors here, while none of the employees involved may be highly skilled, we think there is a clear difference at least in function as between housekeeping and food and beverage employees; it is clear that there is separate supervi- sion of these groups in the instant setting; each belongs to separate employer organizational depart- ments for immediate supervision and reports to separate intermediate supervision. The hours of work are obviously different, and only the fact that all are hourly paid and receive like fringe benefits remains as one factor which might arguably create some limited community of interest. It seems equally clear however, that the Petitioner's desire to limit the unit only to a portion of employees engaged in the preparation and service of foods and beverages cannot be sustained on a community of interest theory and may indeed have been dictated by extent or organization, a factor which we may consider, but to which we may not give controlling weight under Section 9(c)(5) of the Act. The record facts make clear to us that there is sufficient regular contact among all the food and beverage employees, and sufficient interchange as among the employees performing that function, that only a unit comprising all the employees working in the motel's food and beverage operations would be appropriate. The minor distinction which Petitioner seeks to draw -i.e., that banquet employees receive gratuities consisting of a fixed portion of the bill, whereas restaurant and lounge employees receive gratuities wholly discretionary with the guests-is not in our view, such a significant distinction as to counteract all of the other evidence establishing the community of interest among all of the food and beverage employees. We would note that the unit we do find appropriate is consistent with the general criteria used for determining unit in other industries, as referred to in Hotel Equities, supra. Thus, units of food preparation and service employees have been found appropriate in retail stores, separate and apart from other retail store employees. Allied Stores of Ohio, d/b/a A. Polsky Company, 90 NLRB 1868 (1950); Thalhimer Brothers, Incorporated, 93 NLRB 726; John W. Thomas & Co., 104 NLRB 868; F. W. Woolworth, 144 NLRB 307; Piggly Wiggly California Company, 144 NLRB 708. Similarly, we have found appropriate a separate unit of such food preparation and service employees in other industries. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 100 NLRB 101 (1952). Accordingly, we hereby find that a unit limited to the employees of the kitchen, restaurant, lounge, and banquet departments of the Employer's Lexington, Massachusetts, hotel is appropriate. The supervisory status of the restaurant depart- ment's hostesses is in dispute . Petitioner contends that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and therefore should be excluded. The Employ- er, asserting that these hostesses have very limited authority, perform routine duties, and are not supervisors, would include them in the unit. At the time of the instant hearing there were three restaurant hostesses, one of whom was on salary; the other two were paid on an hourly basis. No explanation was offered for this disparity in the manner of compensation for these hostesses and none appears to exist on the basis of their individual duties or authority. Their principal duties involve the seating of guests and overseeing the smooth opera- tion of the restaurant. The record reveals that these hostesses can independently handle and adjust customer complaints; initial timecards if an employ- ee forgets to punch in; discipline, but not discharge, an employee in a situation that requires immediate attention; make work schedule changes at, as well as against, the request of individual employees; and grant time off due to illness if the restaurant manager is not available. In addition, one witness testified without contradiction that he was hired after having been interviewed by only a hostess and it appears that restaurant department employees "report in" to the hostess after they punch their timecard. As heretofore noted, at the time of the instant hearing the position of dining room manager had been vacant since August 1973. Consequently, if these hostesses are not supervisors, the restaurant and the approximately 50 employees that work therein are without any recognized immediate supervision. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record 4 Westward Ho Hotel Company v NLRB , 437 F 2d 1110 (C.A 9, 1971) 5 171 NLRB 1347, 1348 SHERATON MOTOR INN 793 herein, we find these hostesses are supervisors and shall exclude them from the unit. Petitioner would also exclude from the unit the restaurant department cashiers, contending, without elaboration, that they do not have a community of interest with the employees in the unit it is seeking to represent. The Employer asserts they should be included in the unit. It appears that there are five or six cashiers in the restaurant department. They handle customer bills for both the restaurant and lounges, and it is clear that they have continuous contact with the employees of both of these depart- ments. There is no assertion or evidence that they possess any of the statutory indicia of supervisory status. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record herein, we find that these cashiers' community of interest is substantially the same as that of the other employees in the unit we have found appropriate. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. Cf. Mounia, Limited, 197 NLRB 697. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed in the kitchen, restau- rant, lounge and banquet departments of the Employer's Lexington, Massachusetts, motel, including the restaurant cashiers, but excluding all other employees, restaurant hostesses, watch- men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Elections and Excelsior fn. 7 omitted from publication.] MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: I agree with my colleagues' rejection of the Petitioner's request for a unit limited to employees working in the Employer's restaurant and lounge. There is no basis on this record to exclude, as Petitioner urges, kitchen employees, banquet em- ployees, and cashiers. I respectfully disagree with the majority's failure to find that an overall unit of all 6 The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Petitioner, and neither the exact size of the unit nor the exact interest of the Petitioner in the unit is clear from the record before us Accordingly, we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with the election herein directed until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who are eligible to vote in the election. In the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in such a unit, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition without prejudice upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date of issuance of this Direction, and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election s The majority opinion fails to reflect that the Employer contends that the minimum unit should include all food and beverage employees and the housekeepers Its unit position is stated in its brief as follows operating personnel at this motel should be grouped together for collective-bargaining purposes.8 In the 77 Operating Company case,9 the Board stated that in future hotel cases it would "consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide wherein lies the true community of interest among particular employees." I joined two of my colleagues in Atlas Hotels, Inc., 205 NLRB No. 47, in finding appropriate a separate unit of all bakery and bakery sanitation employees.10 In West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781, I joined two of my colleagues in dismissing a petition which sought a unit limited to 14 housekeepers who performed the cleaning in a 125-room motel. I construe the 77 Operating Company case to hold that we should not apply an inflexible rule with respect to units in motels and hotels. Rather, we are obliged to inquire as to whether there is sufficient integration as to require a finding that only an overall unit is appropriate. The facts in the 77 Operating Company case were greatly different from the facts in the instant case. In 77 there were separate motel and restaurant corpora- tions with separate unconnected buildings. One building consisted only of motel rooms. The other building housed the motel office and lobby, a dining room, coffee shop, kitchen, banquet rooms, and office space leased to local businesses. In the present case, the motel and its restaurants and lounges are a single legal entity and all are housed in the same building. The dining room in the instant case is located on the second-floor level in the back wing. The banquet or function rooms adjoin the dining room. The Board cannot conclude on the record in this case, as it did in the 77 Operating Company case, "that the functions of the restaurant herein are definable and clearly separate from the motel." In the 77 case, the Board pointed out that "The duties of the desk clerks, who are on the motel payroll, do not bring them into contact with employees working in the restaurant." In the instant case, one of the bartenders, included in the unit While the motel-wide unit is clearly the most appropriate unit, the Director, in his wisdom, may find that a unit of all service employees also appropriate At minimum such a unit would include all employees of the food and beverage department (including banquet waitresses) and the housekeepers [Emphasis supplied.] 9 John Hammonds and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating Company, d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927 is In the Atlas case, the company operated a bakery on the premises known as the Town & Country Motel or Hotel The bakery produced substantially all of the baked goods used at the employer's five motels in and around San Diego, California The bakery was essentially a commercial bakery which happened to be located on the motel property, but which was not an integral part of the motel . I was convinced that the bakery employees shared a true community of interest separate from the other hotel employees 794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD found appropriate by the majority, works the front desk 20 hours per week on a regular basis.li Front desk personnel make reservations in the dining room for motel guests. Sometimes this is done by phone, but the front desk personnel also walk to the dining room to confer with the hostess. Furthermore, the Employer's guest-check control for both the dining room and lounges is maintained at the front desk through the auditor. The majority recites no facts peculiar to the Employer's operation of its motel that would distinguish its operation from the usual highly integrated hotel or motel operation. No contention is advanced by the majority of an area pattern of bargaining history in the unit found appropriate. There is no bargaining history in the particular unit found appropriate. Early after the Board asserted jurisdiction over the hotel and motel industry, the Board recognized that generally there is a high degree of functional integration and mutuality of interest of the operating personnel. The record in this case illustrates the correctness of that general observation. There is constant contact between guests and employees in all classifications. There is constant contact between employees of all classifica- tions. Cooperation among all employees is necessary if the Employer is to provide full and complete service to its guests. Our recent observations in dismissing a petition for a housekeeper unit in West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest, 202 NLRB 781, are also applicable to the instant case for the facts are strikingly similar. We there stated: 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 11 1 would include the front desk employees in the unit for the reasons stated in Pacific Hosts, Inc -Padre Trails Motel Corporation, 156 NLRB 1467. The Board, including two of my colleagues in the majority in this instant case, stated. departments, it does not appear that the employ- ees 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. If a petition were filed for a unit limited to the housekeepers at the Sheraton-Lexington, we would be obliged to dismiss that petition if we follow our 1973 precedent in the West, Inc., case. Are the housekeepers at the Sheraton-Lexington to be de- prived of collective bargaining? Recent precedent holds that they are not entitled to a separate unit, but the majority excludes them from the unit in which they direct an election. In my view, it would be far wiser to include the housekeepers in that unit. The majority opinion includes a quotation from the decision in Hotel Equities, d/b/a The Regency Hyatt House, supra, in which the Board said that in determining units it would consider such factors as supervision and organizational structure, differences in wages and hours, and distinction in skills and functions of employees. The factors which the Hyatt House case said we should consider persuade me that an overall unit of operating personnel at the motel is appropriate. All employees are under the general supervision of the general manager, but in his absence all employ- ees are under the overall supervision of the Employ- er's MOD (Manager on Duty) squad.12 The MOD squad technique is intended to insure that the facility is under proper supervision at all times. It is undisputed that the assistant general manager whose primary responsibilities include the housekeeping and front office departments frequently supervises the food and beverage department employees. This occurs even when another individual is the designated manager on duty. The majority fails to give proper weight to the similarities in wages and other terms and conditions of employment at the motel. With the exception of supervisors and front desk personnel, all employees are paid hourly wages. All employees receive the same fringe benefits and they all punch a timeclock located in the kitchen. Clearly, the employees in the unit found appropriate do not possess distinctive hotel employees, we find that the front desk clerks, including the night auditor-desk clerk, are not office clerical or managerial employees and should properly be included in a unit of operating and maintenance hotel employees 12 12 Southwest Hotels, Inc , 126 NLRB 1151, 1155-1156 The Board has held that front-office or lobby employees are operating personnel whose work brings them in frequent contact with other employees in the unit and with the hotel guests . Despite the differences in duties, training, and manner of dress from those of other 12 The MOD squad includes the assistant manager, the food and beverage director, and the sales manager SHERATON MOTOR INN 795 skills. Most of the employees work on a regular part- time basis of 20 to 30 hours per week and either have other full-time jobs or homemaking responsibilities. I disassociate myself from the comments in the majority opinion with respect to the action of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in refusing to sustain a bargaining order in the Westward Ho case. In Hotel Westward Ho,13 the Board found appro- priate a unit limited to the kitchen employees, noting the separate identity and functions of the kitchen employees; their separate immediate supervision; their minimal contact with the public or other employees; the fact that no labor organization sought a broader unit; and less than an overall unit was clearly feasible because of a history of separate representation of the steam room employees by another labor organization. On the employer's refusal to bargain in that unit, the circuit court refused enforcement, finding that it represented a departure from the Board decisions and standards for unit determination in the hotel-motel industry and a retrogression to the policy Congress intended to exclude by the history of Section 9(c)(5), where "the Board pretends to find reasons other than the extent to which employees have organized as grounds for holding such unit to be appropriate." 14 Similarly, in Ramada Inns, Case 7-RC-10053, the Regional Director found appropriate a unit limited to the "housekeeping department" although the employer contended that the only appropriate unit was an overall unit of employees working at its motel, restaurant, and bar. The employer's timely request for review was denied by the Board, and thereafter the employer refused to bargain in that unit. A Board Panel in which I did not participate granted General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered respondent to bargain.15 13 171 NLRB 1351 14 Westward Ho Hotel Company v N L R B, 437 F 2d 1110 (C A. 9, 1971) 15 Ramada Inns, Inc, 200 NLRB No 19 16 Ramada Inns Inc v N L R B, 487 F 2d 334 (C A 9, 1973) 17 For convenience, the paragraph is repeated here Enforcement was denied by the circuit court, which found, understandably, that the reasons assigned by the Board were inadequate to explain its departure from its established policy of single-unit representa- tion of manual employees in a highly integrated hotel operation.16 My colleagues err, I think, in suggesting that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not accurately described the "Board's intent" in the 77 Operating Company case. That case issued before my appointment to the Board, but I read it to mean that the Board will no longer presume "in every hotel or motel" case that there is such integration that an overall unit is the only appropriate unit. Rather than applying an "inflexible rule," the Board stated that it would consider the degree of integration in each case. The reasonable interpretation of the second paragraph of the material quoted in the majority opinion from the 77 Operating Company case is that in those establishments where, as in the instant case, there is extensive integration of functions an overall unit will continue to be found appropriate.i7 I will follow the 77 Operating Company case only when the Board's majority decisions are in accord with the Ninth Circuit's correct interpretation of that deci- sion. See for example, West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest, supra; Atlas Hotels, Inc., supra. I also disassociate myself from the view expressed by the majority that food and beverage employees in the hotel industry are similar to food preparation and service employees in retail stores. See my concurring opinion in Atlas Hotels, Inc., 210 NLRB No. 86. I believe that the true community of interest is in a larger overall unit, and the majority's fragmentation of that unit is not justified by either the facts in this record or Board precedent. are highly integrated, an overall unit alone is appropriate) and fashioned from it an inflexible rule to be applied to all hotels and motels But, because our experience has indicated that such a degree of integrated functions and employee interests does not exist in every hotel or motel, we shall hereafter consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in order to decide wherein lies the true community of interest among particular employees. Arlington took a valid principle (if functions and mutual interests