Walt Disney World Co.

WALT DISNEY WORLD CO. 421 Walt Disney World Co. and Local 855, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 12-RC-4527 and 12-RC-4531 December 9, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Mary Lee Meder of the National Labor Relations Board. Following the close of the hearing, the Regional Director for Region 12 transferred these cases to the Board for decision . Thereafter, 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 rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:1 1. The parties stipulated that the Employer is a Dela- ware corporation engaged in the entertainment busi- ness at its Vacation Kingdom complex in Orange County, Florida, and that during the 12 months preceding the hearing , the Employer received in excess of $500,000 from its operation of the facility and re- ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Florida . Accordingly we find that the Employer is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. We find that the Petitioner, which claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer, is a labor or- ganization as defined in the Act. 3. The Employer contends that an existing collective- bargaining contract constitutes a bar to elections in the units petitioned for herein . The record, however, does not support this contention. The record discloses that the Employer entered into a recognition agreement on April 25, 1972, with the Service Trades Council (Coun- cil). The Council is comprised of several international unions including the International Alliance of Theatri- cal State Employees and Motion Picture Machine Op- I Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. erators (IATSE). Local 855, the Petitioner herein, is an affiliate of IATSE. The recognition agreement prov- ided, in pertinent part, that the Council disclaimed interest in seeking to represent any employees other than the 29 categories of employees set forth therein. The employees whom Petitioner now seeks to represent are not included in these 29 categories. A collective-bargaining agreement was then nego- tiated between the Council and the Employer and became effective on June 1, 1972,. with an expiration date of November 1, 1977.2 The contract contained a "recognition" clause and a clause providing that the contract constituted the complete agreement of the par- ties. The contract did not, however, contain a dis- claimer provision that was contained in the recognition agreement of April 25, 1972. The Employer contends, however, that it was the clear and continuing under- standing of the parties that the representation dis- claimer was in effect even after the execution of the contract. In the Cessna Aircraft case,' the Board restated the Briggs Indiand` doctrine as follows: A union which agrees by contract not to represent certain categories of employees during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement may not during that period seek their representation. However, this rule will be applied only where the contract itself contains an express promise on the part of the union to refrain from seeking representation of the employees in question or to refrain from accepting them into membership; such a promise will not be implied from a mere unit exclusion, nor will the rule be applied on the basis of an alleged under- standing of the parties during contract negotia- tions. Where an international union is a party to a contract containing a provision within the mean- ing of this rule, the rule will be applied to any locals of the international as well as to the interna- tional itself, and where a local is a party to such a contract, this rule applies to any other local of the same international union. The relevant collective-bargaining contract does not contain the disclaimer of the recognition agreement. The alleged understanding of the parties is not a substi- tute for an express clause in the contract itself disclaim- ing the Union's intent to represent certain employees during the contract term. 2 The agreement also provided for reopening after a little more than year from the effective date, but the reopener provision was limited to certain articles of the initial agreement. The reopener provision was exercised and another agreement was entered into on November 1, 1973. The latter agree- ment, however, also stated that the agreement "shall be in full force and effect from June 1, 1972 to November 1, 1977 ..."; i.e., the same dates as the original agreement. 3 The Cessna Aircraft Company, 123 NLRB 855, 857 (1959). 4 Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 NLRB 1270 (1945). 215 NLRB No. 89 422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that the 1972 contract is not a bar to the present petitions. 4. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: In Case 12-RC-4527, the Petitioner seeks to repre- sent a unit of the Employer's print shop employees. The Employer contends that such a unit is not appropriate since the print shop employees are part of the overall office clerical work force and that the only appropriate unit would consist of all office clerical personnel. The print shop serves as support for the overall office clerical unit by printing or duplicating various forms, logs, and schedules . The printing of forms constitutes about 80 percent of the print shop work . All of the work done in this shop is exclusively for the Employer and no commercial work is accepted . The print shop does not, however, do all of the printing work for the Employer-excess work is sent out to commercial print shops. In addition, the print shop does not do any color process work. The print shop is staffed by 11 employees who have the titles print shop specialist-Jr., print shop specialist, and print shop specialist-Sr. The work in the print shop involves basic duplicating tasks associated with repro- duction and/or platemaking although the print shop specialist-Sr. category performs advanced duplicating tasks. The training required to perform this work is given on the job. No prior experience is required al- though some of the print shop employees did have some prior experience when hired . In addition, the re- cord discloses that the training that is required is mini- mal since the machinery is not of the sophisticated nature usually found in a commercial print shop. The machinery that is used includes a copier , a vertical camera, a platemaker, two multiliths, an offset duplica- tor, a cutter, a folder, a collator, and a printing press. The print shop is located in a building known as the "Center Building," a two-story structure, which is the location of all the Employer's central facilities such as personnel services. Located near the print shop are the mail room, employee identification center, credit union,Disney University, group insurance and compen- sation , personnel , payroll, cafeteria, and break and re- creation areas. On the other floor of the building various administrative offices are located. Although the record does not reflect a substantial degree of inter- change with office clerical employees, the record does reflect an integrated operation in the "Center Build- ing." For example, office clericals from other offices sometimes assist in the print shop drilling, punching, binding, or collating, especially when their particular offices may be having work prepared by the print shop. In addition , a copier located in the print shop is almost constantly used by office clerical personnel from other areas. Salary in the print shop ranges from $2.80 to $5.35 an hour. This falls within the rate range paid to office clerical employees, who number approximately 825. In addition, like office clericals, the print shop employees do not punch a clock . Instead, they fill out a slip of paper recording their time. Like office clerical em- ployees the print shop employees work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and receive 1 hour for lunch . Finally, the print shop employees have the same holiday, vacation, and other fringe benefits enjoyed by office clerical em- ployees. Based on the above facts, we conclude that the print shop employees do not possess the considerable skills necessary to constitute them a craft unit which would possess a community of interest separate from that of office clericals.' Accordingly, we find that the proposed unit of print shop employees is not appropri- ate. In Case 12-RC-4531 , the Petitioner also seeks to represent in a separate unit the Employer 's pageant hosts and hostesses. The Employer contends that this unit also is not appropriate and that the pageant hosts and hostesses should be included in the operations-service unit' which is currently covered by the collective-bargaining agreement it has with the Council.' The pageant hosts and hostesses , hereinafter "char- acters," portray, in costume, various Disney charac- ters and their purpose is to enhance the atmosphere of the Walt Disney World complex. This is accomplished by being seen in the park , posing for pictures, par- ticipating in shows, and sometimes going on trips and appearing with other employees in television commer- cials. The Employer contends that entertainment is the function of all the operations -service people, who in fact sometimes even interchange with the "characters." In this regard it appears that "characters" have worked on a temporary basis in other parts of the park, al- though overall interchange appears to be minimal. However, the record does clearly show that the general function of the employees is to entertain . Additionally, the "characters" are not the only employees who were costumes. All employees within the theme park wear costumes of some sort such as "turn of the century" costumes or, in the tomorrowland section of the com- plex, "futuristic" clothing. 5 United Pacific Insurance Company, 190 NLRB 218 (1971); J. Wein- garten, Inc., 191 NLRB 149 (1971). 6 The operation-service unit is not a formal division but rather consists of personnel from a number of divisions of the entertainment complex whose duties include meeting the public and guests. It does not, however, include the pageant host and hostesses. ' The refusal of the International Union of the Petitioner herein to sign this agreement is the subject of another proceeding in Case 12-CB-1429. WALT DISNEY WORLD CO. 423 The "characters," like the operations-service person- nel, are centrally employed t , trough the Disney em- ployment center. They are processed through the "Dis- ney University" program for training . This consists of an orientation program for all employees . Supplemen- tal training is then given by each department. In the "character" department this consists of observing other "characters" until it is felt that the individual has seen enough to be put into costume. Then someone watches the individual's performance while the training contin- ues. There are 62 full-time and regular part-time "characters" who are divided into two categories. One category , host-hostess, requires 6 months to a year of experience, although the record is not clear as to what type of experience is required . The other category, host-hostess, senior, requires 2 years of experience as a host-hostess. The "characters" are supervised by the coordinator of characters, who, in turn, is responsible to the direc- tor of entertainment. The latter also supervises such employees as production services and musicians, some of whom are covered by the Council's contract. The salary rate structure for the "characters" over- lays and meshes with labor grade 6 of the Council contract covering the operations-service unit. The cur- rent salary range for the "characters" is $2.75-$4. 35 per hour . After 18 months of employ- ment, however, a "character" would earn $3.40 per hour. The current salary range for labor grade 6 begins at $2.80 per hour and increases to $3.40 per hour for an individual with 18 months of experience. Thus, the salary range for the "characters" and for labor grade 6 of individuals covered under the Council contract, though not exactly the same , is quite similar for the first 18 months of employment. Other conditions of employment are substantially similar for the "characters" and operations-service per- so,,nel. All are hourly paid, receive overtime, and have identical fringe benefits . The "characters" use the same entrance as operations-service unit personnel in enter- ing the park, although they have separate dressing areas because of the bulk of their costumes. All punch clocks in the same place ; i.e., at the main tunnel en- trance at the back of the park where all the timecards are kept for all employees. They also use cite same transportation facilities in proceeding from the parking area to the entrance. The hours of work for the "char- acters" are basically the same as for operations -service unit personnel , although the "characters" work a half hour on and a half hour off as opposed to the straight hours of the operations-service people and the "charac- ters" have 1 hour for lunch as opposed to a half hour for the other employees. The slight variations exist to take account of the somewhat greater problem in work- ing with the bulky costumes. The "characters" and operations-service personnel also share meal facilities and break facilities. Finally, we note that in performing their duties the "characters" have contact with operations-service peo- ple. In addition to general contact in the course of their work in the theme park, the "characters" also have contact with stage operators and wardrobe personnel, who are part of the operations-service unit, when they may go on a trip with the "characters." Also "charac- ters" have contact with other employees not only at work, but by virtue of extracurricular activities and clubs of the theme park. As stated by one witness in explaining how operations-service personnel and "char- acters" work side by side, "well on a daily basis they all come to work, park in the same parking lot, ride on the bus to work, clock in at the same location in the majority of cases, their wardrobe in located in the same area. They do have to get garments from the same general wardrobe area, then they walk to work together and they work in the same park and associate in the break area with the operations service people. They participate in the same employee activities and so on." The "characters" are not actors; they do not consti- tute a craft. They are essentially unskilled or at best semiskilled individuals whose working conditions, benefits, etc. are similar to those of other employees working in the Disney World complex. We have been referred to no precedents for finding that such em- ployees may constitute a separate appropriate bargain- ing unit. Moreover, they do not constitute a residual unit. The manager of personnel services testified with- out contradiction that there are numerous other em- ployees including tour guides and employees in security and first aid who are also unrepresented. In view of the foregoing we find that the pageant host and hostesses do not have a community of interest separate from that of other employees to justify establishing them as a separate appropriate unit for bargaining purposes. As we have found that the petitioner's proposed units are not appropriate, we shall dismiss the petitions. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein be, and they hereby are, dismissed.