Ramada Beverly Hills

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1986

278 N.L.R.B. 691 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

RAMADA BEVERLY -HILLS
Ramada Inns , Inc. d/b/a Ramada Beverly Hills and
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
Union, Local 11 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
31-RC-5631 and 31-RC--5650
25 February 1986
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 27 March 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in two petitioned-for units composed of: (1)
The hotel services unit including all full-time and
regular part-time maids, laundry workers, house-
men, janitors, and maintenance employees;, and (2)
the food and beverage unit including all full-time
and regular part-time cooks, kitchen utility persons,
waiters, waitresses, bus persons, room service wait-
ers and waitresses, restaurant cashiers, maitre d'
employees, and bartenders.' The Regional Director
rejected the Employer's contention that the only
appropriate unit was an overall unit excluding
office clericals, accounting clerks, sales department
employees, guards, and supervisors.
The Employer timely filed a request for review.
An election in the -units found appropriate was con-
ducted 26 April 1984, and the ballots were im-
pounded. By telegraphic order dated 27 April 1984
the Board granted the Employer's -request for
review. 2 The Employer and the Petitioner filed
briefs.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review,.
and concludes that the Regional Director erred in
finding appropriate the two petitioned-for units.
The Employer operates a 12-floor, 260-room
hotel that includes a restaurant, a lounge, banquet
facilities, and a pool. More than 100 employees
work in the hotel under the overall supervision of,
the general manager. The Employer employs per-
sons in the customary classifications found in the
lodging and food and beverage industry. These in-
clude the following: maids, housemen, laundry em-
ployees, maintenance employees, bellmen, front
desk clerks„ PBX operators, dining room and room
' Excluded from both units were front desk employees, accounting and
sales department employees, office clerical employees, confidential em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2 The Employer has requested oral argument. The request is denied as
the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of
the parties
278 NLRB No. 95
I
691
service waiters and waitresses, cashiers, bartenders,
cocktail waitresses, cooks, and dishwashers.
In his Decision and Direction the Regional Di-
rector noted that on 23 October 19813 a Decision
and Direction of Election was issued involving the
same parties. There the Regional Director found
three units appropriate. The three units were the
two petitioned for in the instant case and a front
desk unit that included all full-time and regular
part-time front desk clerks and cashiers, switch-
board operators, night auditor, and reservation
manager, and excluding office clericals, confiden-
tial employees, guards, and supervisors.4
Relying on the foregoing, the Regional Director
found- that the issue before him was "whether the
evidence establishes that the units previously found
appropriate by the Board and currently sought by
the Petitioner have, due to any changed circum-
stances, now become inappropriate." The Regional
Director found that the Employer's operation "has
essentially remained unchanged" since the 1981
proceeding and further held that the two peti-
tioned-for units were appropriate. We disagree.
Our review of the record reveals that the Em-
ployer's operations have undergone significant
changes since 1981, which have resulted in a sub-
stantial centralization of the administration and op-
eration of the hotel. Thus, the Employer now em-
ploys a general manager who has overall responsi-
bility for the hotel's administration including the
implementation and administration of a centralized
labor relations policy. The general manager pos-
sesses final authority to approve all hirings and fir-
ings,5 acts as the Employer's final in-house griev-
ance representative, 6 and sits on ` the Employer's
executive committee.
The executive committee is composed of the
seven department heads and the general manager.
While an executive committee existed in 1981, it
was made up of between 25 and 30 persons. The
current executive' committee meets weekly to dis-
cuss procedures, benefits, and promotions. The ex-
ecutive committee effectively sets hotel policy. It
also runs monthly general staff meetings which all
3 The 23 October 1981 Decision and Direction was amended on 3 No-
vember 1981
' Both the Employer and the Petitioner requested review of the 1981
Decision and Direction. The Board granted review on 20 November
1981 limited to the unit placement of bell persons and an issue unrelated
to the instant case The Board ruled that the bell persons should be al-
lowed to cast challenged ballots in two of the three units.
5 Previously, each department head exercised final authority on such
matters.
5 Since 1981 the Employer has instituted a formal grievance proce-
dure. Employee grievances are filed initially with the employee's immedi-
ate supervisor Fatting resolution, step two entails a meeting of the griev-
ant, his or her immediate supervisor, and the personnel manager with the
general manager. If there is no resolution at step two, the grievance is
forwarded to the Employer's home office in Phoenix, Arizona.
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees attend. The general staff meetings deal
with hotel-wide problems and policies.
The seven department heads who sit_ on the ex-
ecutive committee also participate in the "Manager
on Duty" program. Pursuant to that program, each
department head fulfills the function of the general
manager during "off hours" on a rotating schedule
three to four times each month. When acting as the
manager on duty, that individual exercises supervi-
sory authority over employees in all departments.
Finally in this regard, the Employer utilizes a
centralized personnel department. That department
handles recruitment , training , recordkeeping, and
the administration of personnel policies and benefits
on a hotel-wide basis. These hotel-wide personnel
policies include a new policy regarding job vacan-
cies whereby openings for hotel-wide positions are
posted and all employees are encouraged to apply.
All employees also have common fringe benefits
including vacation pay, group insurance policies,
holidays, paid leave, funeral pay, sick pay, jury
duty pay, and profit sharing. All employees have
the same probationary period, pay periods, and
parking privileges. There is also a common credit
union , a uniform payroll, and employees all use one
of two timeclocks.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the
Employer's operation is substantially more central-
ized in its administration , particularly in personnel
and labor relations matters, than it was in 1981.
Accordingly, we find that the Regional Director
erred in finding that the operation "essentially re-
mained unchanged" since 1981. Unlike the Region-
al Director, therefore, we do not place reliance on
the 1981 determination that three separate units
would be appropriate.7
In Atlanta Hilton & Towers, 273 NLRB 87 (1984),
modified on other grounds 275 NLRB 1413 (1985),
the Board found appropriate an overall unit of
hotel employees. The Board's finding was predicat-
ed on the following factors:
... the highly integrated functions and
mutual interests of the [Employer's] employ-
ees, the common pay rates and fringe benefits
shared by all employees, the centralized con-
trol of the Employer's day-to-day operations,
the centralized formulation of personnel poli-
cies, the daily work contacts of employees in
different departments, and the transfers of em-
ployees between departments ... .
7 The Employer argues that the 1981 unit determination cannot be
relied on by the Petitioner because the appropriateness of the three units
was not passed on specifically by the Board on review. Because we have
found a substantial change in circumstances, we need not address that ar-
gument.
273 NLRB 91. In our view, a similar result is re-
quired here.
The Employer, like most hotel operations, runs a
functionally integrated enterprise whose purpose is
to provide lodging, dining, and related services to
its guests and patrons. Thus, while the employees
perform a variety of duties, their common objec-
tive is to provide a highly integrated group of serv-
ices, directly and indirectly, for the hotel's guests.
We have already detailed the common pay rates
and fringe benefits that all the Employer's employ-
ees share as well as the centralized control of the
day-to-day operations and the centralized forma-
tion of personnel practices. Thus, the general man-
ager effectively runs the operation. He is the ulti-
mate authority on personnel decisions and, as re-
flected in the grievance procedure, is the final in-
house interpreter of management's -personnel poli-
cies. Along with the general manager, there is the
executive board which is composed of the depart-
ment heads. That Board sets policy for the hotel
and all of its employees. The collegial nature of the
executive board, as reflected by the manager on
duty program, also militates against a finding that
the Employer's operation can be compartmental-
ized into separate, autonomous units.
The Employer's high degree of functional inte-
gration and centralized policymaking is also reflect-
ed in the substantial overlap of employee job func-
tions and frequent employee contact. Thus, house-
keeping employees clean the lobby, front desk, and
restaurant areas in addition to the guestrooms. The
kitchen area is also cleaned by housekeeping em-
ployees. The maids and housemen have repeated
daily contact with front desk employees concern-
ing room occupancy and availability. Both front
desk and housekeeping employees utilize a house-
keeping report. Housekeeping and laundry employ-
ees deliver and stack linen in the kitchen on a daily
basis.
Maintenance employees work throughout the
hotel in conjunction with virtually all other em-
ployee 'groups. A maintenance log and keys are
kept at the front desk. Another maintenance log,
for repairs in the food and beverage areas, is kept
at the dining room cashier's stand. Maintenance
employees keep the banquet room in order and set
up electrical equipment while servicing' other me-
chanical needs.
Room service, dining room, and cocktail waiters
and waitresses work throughout the hotel. In addi-
tion to dining area services, they serve guests in
their rooms, at the pool, in the banquet area, and
throughout the hotel. Bell persons 'often assist in
these functions as do housekeeping employees.
RAMADA BEVERLY HILLS
Restaurant and lounge cashiers consult frequent-
ly with front desk employees to determine whether
a guest has an account or is paying cash. The cash-
iers' reports are compiled jointly by the cashiers,
lounge employees, and front desk employees. Cash
drops are made at the front desk twice daily.
Bell persons , as noted, assist food and beverage
employees. They also assist the front desk employ-
ees and share a common supervisor . Bell persons
often assist housekeeping employees as well.
The front desk employees, in many respects,
constitute the "hub" of the operation. These em-
ployees have repeated daily contact with virtually
all other hotel employees , including maintenance,
housekeeping, food and beverage, and bell person
employees. In short, although each employee
group has a primary function, the employees in
those groups assist each other, work in close and
repeated contact, and generally act toward the
common goal of providing guest and patron serv-
ices.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the criteria
that resulted in an overall unit finding in' Atlanta
Hilton, supra, are present here.8 In our view, it is
8 Although there is little evidence of employee transfers from one clas-
sification to another, we note the Employer 's recently instituted policy of
posting all vacancies and encouraging all employees to apply. In any
event, this factor is somewhat mitigated by the high degree of functional
integration and job overlap.
693
simply inappropriate to carve out individual units
without regard to the extensive functional integra-
tion and confluence of employee concerns that is
present here.
As the unit found appropriate is broader than the
units in which the election was conducted, we shall
order that the election conducted on 26 April 1984
be vacated and shall direct an election9 in the unit
found appropriate herein, as described below.
All employees of the Employer at its Beverly
Hills, California facility excluding office cleri-
cal employees, confidential employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
The election conducted on 26 , April, 1984 is va-
cated.
[Direction of Second Election omitted from pub-
lication.]
9 The Petitioner stated at the hearing that it was willing to participate
in an election in a unit or units broader than those which it sought. As
the unit found appropriate herein is larger than those sought by the Peti-
tioner, the Regional Director is instructed not to proceed with the elec-
tion until he determines that the Petitioner has made an adequate show-
ing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who are eligi-
ble to vote in the election The Petitioner is accorded a period of 10 days
in which to submit the requisite showing of interest to support the elec-
tion. In the event ' the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election
for such a unit, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition upon notice to
the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of issuance of this
decision and shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election.