Harrah's Illinois Corp.

749 319 NLRB No. 101 HARRAH’S ILLINOIS CORP. 1 Prior to October or November of 1994, however, maintenance employees had their own budget, and the other two classifications within the department were grouped together administratively. Harrah’s Illinois Corporation and Local 150, Inter- national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL– CIO, Petitioner. Case 13–RC–19062 November 24, 1995 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS COHEN AND TRUESDALE On February 17, 1995, the Acting Regional Director for Region 13 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion finding a unit of all full-time and regular part-time maintenance trade employees at the Employer’s Joliet, Illinois riverboat complex to be an appropriate unit. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67(b) of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s decision. The Em- ployer argued that the unit in which the election was directed was inappropriate because it should also in- clude other employees in the Employer’s environ- mental service (EVS) and maintenance department. By Order dated March 24, 1995, the Board granted the Employer’s request for review. The Employer and the Petitioner submitted briefs on review. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the Acting Regional Di- rector’s decision in light of the record and briefs, and has decided to reverse the Acting Regional Director’s finding that a unit limited to maintenance employees is appropriate. The Employer has operated a riverboat complex on the Des Plaines River since May 1993. The complex includes two riverboats. It also includes a pavilion, which serves as the Employer’s base of operations and includes food and beverage facilities, a lounge with a stage, a gift shop, administrative offices, and ticketing for boat cruises. The Employer also occupies two ad- ministrative offices in Joliet: the E. B. Brown building, which houses administrative functions and shops for maintenance employees and heavy-duty cleaners; and the Scott Street building, which is the principal admin- istrative office. The Employer’s operations consist of five depart- ments: casino operations, marine operations, food and beverage, surveillance, and EVS and maintenance em- ployees. The EVS and maintenance department, under the overall supervision of EVS and Maintenance Man- ager Richard Simms, has approximately 115 employees classified as maintenance, heavy-duty cleaners, and cleaners. Within the maintenance department, mainte- nance and heavy-duty cleaners are grouped together for administrative and payroll purposes, and cleaners have a separate budget and payroll department.1 The Petitioner seeks to represent the 16 workers classified as maintenance employees, whose respon- sibilities are to build, repair, and maintain the facility. Their work has included building tables, toke (tip) boxes, and toke carriers; changing light bulbs; repair- ing and installing lighting fixtures; repairing door latches; building and installing cabinets; cleaning gam- ing tables; cleaning and balancing roulette wheels; maintaining and troubleshooting the heating, air condi- tioning, and ventilation systems; installing plumbing and faucets; and painting the facility. Periodically, maintenance employees work on special projects, such as installing Christmas decorations and building of- fices. Some of these employees possess special skills. There are, for example, two skilled painters, an elec- trician, a skilled and licensed plumber, a locksmith, three employees skilled in carpentry and cabinet- making, and an employee who has received training in air and powerplant maintenance. There are approximately 15 employees classified as heavy-duty cleaners. Their cleaning tasks require the use of power equipment, such as vacuums and carpet cleaners, which is stored about 40 feet from the main- tenance department. In addition, they repair small ma- chines, mow lawns, set up decorations, move equip- ment and supplies, and assist maintenance employees by bringing them equipment and supplies. One heavy- duty cleaner does upholstery work and drills cards and dice for purposes of ensuring the Employer’s compli- ance with applicable gaming laws. Additionally, there are approximately 84 employees classified as cleaners, who perform general house- keeping functions. They polish, empty trash, and clean the facility and equipment with the use of mops, dust- ers, and cleaning products that are stored throughout the facility. Maintenance and heavy-duty employees interact fre- quently on the job. Thus, on construction projects, heavy-duty employees assist maintenance employees by bringing supplies to them and cleaning up the site after the project is completed. Although not a routine occurrence, cleaning employees may sometimes per- form jobs that are designated maintenance work, such as hanging pictures, changing light bulbs, and replac- ing switches. Similarly, many of the maintenance em- ployees spend all or most of their time performing jobs that do not utilize their skills on the job all or most of the time. Thus, during the summer, maintenance employees interact with heavy-duty employees by per- forming landscaping work between 20 and 30 percent of the time. Some work, such as drilling holes in play- 750 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 Similarly, the supervisors to whom heavy-duty and cleaning em- ployees report also work only on one shift, while their respective employees work all shifts. Thus, employees in these classifications report to different supervisors on the shifts their immediate super- visors do not work. Although, as found by the Acting Regional Di- rector, maintenance employees on these shifts receive their assign- ments through work orders, the record indicates that work orders for maintenance employees originate not only from Maintenance Super- visor Felowitz, but from other EVS and maintenance department su- pervisors as well. 3 At least four employees have carpentry and cabinetry skills; one painter has completed an apprenticeship program; another specializes in painting and paperhanging; one employee has electrical skills; one works as a locksmith; one is a licensed plumber with HVAC servic- ing experience; and two perform exterior boat painting. That the current maintenance employees may have some slightly greater skills than their nonmaintenance counterparts might be a fac- tor supporting a separate unit. It is but one factor to be considered, however, and it is outweighed here by all other relevant factors. Cf. Ore-Ida Foods, 313 NLRB 1016, 1019 fn. 3 (1995), enfd. 66 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 1995), relied on by the Acting Regional Director, in which a maintenance unit composed of skilled, though not craft, em- ployees was found appropriate when those employees had their own ing cards and dice, which was once a maintenance job, is now performed by heavy-duty cleaning employees. Furthermore, maintenance employees have used heavy- duty equipment, such as power vacuums, when the sit- uation has required it, and are expected to contribute to the overall cleanliness of the premises by, for exam- ple, emptying ashtrays that they see are overflowing— work routinely performed by cleaning employees. Ad- ditionally, all employees both within and outside the EVS and maintenance department share common bene- fits and labor relations policies, as well as common fa- cilities, such as the lunchroom and parking lot. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit consists of all employees in the department be- cause they share a community of interest based on common supervision, interchange, functional integra- tion, and common labor relations policies. The Em- ployer also argues that the maintenance employees do not possess a sufficient level of skill or experience to justify their being found a separate appropriate unit. The Petitioner contends that the maintenance employ- ees constitute a separate appropriate unit because of the similarity of their skills, duties, and working condi- tions and that the Employer’s EVS and maintenance department is not so functionally integrated as to make the petitioned-for unit inappropriate. In concluding that a separate unit of maintenance employees is appropriate, the Acting Regional Director relied on his finding that maintenance employees have separate skills and functions; he also relied on factors of autonomy within the Employer’s organizational structure and separate immediate supervision. He con- cluded that a separate unit is justified on these factors, notwithstanding some transfer and interchange between classifications and common labor relations policies. We do not agree. Since American Cyanamid Co., 131 NLRB 909, 910 (1961), the Board has held that a separate unit of maintenance employees may be appropriate when the record establishes ‘‘that maintenance employees are readily identifiable as a group whose similarity of function and skills create a community of interest such as would warrant separate representation.’’ Contrary to the Acting Regional Director, we do not find that the record here supports a finding that the maintenance unit sought is composed of a distinct and homogeneous group of employees with interests separate from others in their department. First, all employees in the EVS and maintenance de- partment are grouped administratively in the same de- partment of the Employer’s operations and have the same overall supervision. Although, as the Acting Re- gional Director notes, maintenance employees at one time in the Employer’s brief history had a separate budget and payroll department, that is no longer the case, and since about October 1994, maintenance em- ployees have been grouped with heavy-duty cleaners for budgetary and payroll purposes. Second, employees within the EVS and maintenance department, including cleaners and heavy-duty clean- ers, share not only the same overall supervision but also some common immediate supervision. Thus, al- though there is one supervisor, Terry Felowitz, to whom maintenance employees specifically report, there are four other supervisors within the department, three assigned to cleaners and one to heavy-duty cleaners. All five of these supervisors possess, and at least some have exercised, authority to direct and discipline any employee in the department as necessary. This author- ity is significant in terms of common direct super- vision within the department because there are week- end days and weekday shifts in the 24-hour-per-day, 7- day-per-week operation of the casino when mainte- nance employees work and Felowitz is not present, and therefore those maintenance employees are more fre- quently under the watch of the other supervisors in the department.2 A further factor weighing against the appropriate- ness of a separate unit of maintenance employees is the number of transfers among department classifica- tions. The Employer recognizes a progression within the department from cleaner to heavy-duty cleaner to maintenance. Thus, over the relatively short period of less than 2 years, seven cleaning employees have be- come heavy-duty employees, and one of these moved on to become a maintenance employee. Further, four additional heavy-duty cleaners have become mainte- nance employees, and one former part-time mainte- nance employee later became a full-time heavy-duty cleaner. The petitioned-for maintenance employees are not craft employees, and, although there is no dispute that some of them are skilled,3 we find, as in Monsanto 751 HARRAH’S ILLINOIS CORP. separate department and separate supervision and limited contact and interchange with the excluded production employees. 4 When the Employer commenced operations, it advertised for ap- plicants with skills and experience in carpentry; electricity; heating, venting, and air conditioning; and plumbing. The Employer no longer seeks to fill maintenance worker vacancies with applicants with these skills unless it is replacing one of its current skilled work- ers. In fact, it now encourages and gives preference in hiring to its own heavy-duty cleaning employees. Co., 183 NLRB 415 (1970), that ‘‘the employees sought are a diverse group ranging from unskilled custodians to relatively skilled technicians.’’ Id. at 417 fn. 5. See also Greater Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, 226 NLRB 971, 973 (1976) (40 percent of the unit sought had transferred into maintenance jobs). Further- more, under the Employer’s current hiring policy,4 maintenance employees are not required to be licensed or to have any special certification or schooling. See id. Our finding in this regard is underscored by the fre- quent job interaction between maintenance and heavy- duty employees, and the fact that many of the mainte- nance employees do not use their skills on the job all or most of the time. Accordingly, we conclude that the common super- vision and relative fluidity of movement and job inter- action of employees within the EVS and maintenance department, together with other traditional community- of-interest criteria, compel a conclusion that all em- ployees in the maintenance employee classification constitute the minimum appropriate unit. See Harrah’s Club, 187 NLRB 810, 812 (1971). In that case, involv- ing another of the Employer’s operations, the Board rejected the appropriateness of a separate maintenance unit in a gambling casino complex, finding instead that the ‘‘minimum’’ appropriate unit must include employ- ees engaged in cleaning and repair functions without regard to the employer’s departmental classifications. In that case, as here, those involved in cleaning func- tions were required to work in conjunction with repair- men in the performance of a variety of tasks. In such circumstances, maintenance mechanics do not comprise a homogenous grouping of employees warranting a separate unit. Because the Petitioner is unwilling to proceed to an election in an expanded unit, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER The petition is dismissed.