Sheraton-Anaheim Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 959 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

SHERATON-ANAHEIM HOTEL
Anaheim Operating, Inc., d/b/a Sheraton-Anaheim
Hotel and International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local Union No. 501, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 21-RC-16250
September 30 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On April 25, 1980, the Regional Director for
Region 21 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found to be appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining a unit consisting of all operating en-
gineers, maintenance employees, and paint and
vinyl employees employed by the Employer at its
Anaheim, California, hotel, excluding all other em-
ployees. Thereafter, the Employer filed a request
for review of the Regional Director's Decision and
Direction of Election, on the ground that the em-
ployees in the designated bargaining unit do not
share a community of interests, separate from that
of the Employer's other employees, sufficient to
make that unit appropriate. By telegraphic order
dated June 20, 1980, the Board granted the request
for review.
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 considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issue under review and
hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Regional Director, with respect to that issue, as set
forth in the portion of his Decision and Direction
of Election attached hereto.
Accordingly, as we have affirmed the Regional
Director, we shall, and hereby do, remand this pro-
ceeding to him, in order that he may open and
count the ballots in the election held herein and for
further appropriate action.
APPENDIX
The Employer is a California corporation engaged in
the operation of a hotel in Anaheim, Calfornia. The hotel
contains 396 guest rooms, a dining room, coffee shop,
snack bar and cocktail lounge. In addition to its guest
rooms, the Employer maintains 14 rooms which are set
aside for banquet and convention usage. The Employer
estimates that approximately 80 percent of its commer-
cial and guest room usage, as well as its food and bever-
age business, is derived from conventions. The Employer
employs approximately 200 full-time employees in var-
ious classifications and approximately 100 part-time em-
ployees employed primarily in the food and beverage
classifications. Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the oper-
252 NLRB No. 134
ating engineers, maintenance employees and their help-
ers, and painters. All of the petitioned-for employees are
employed in the hotel's engineering department; no other
employees are employed in that department. The Em-
ployer contends that the only appropriate unit is a hotel-
wide unit. There is no history of collective bargaining
and it appears that no other labor organization is present-
ly seeking to represent the Employer's employees in a
broader unit.
* * * * *
The engineering department consists of approximately
six semiskilled employees who are primarily engaged in
the maintenance and repair of the operating equipment at
the Employer's facility, and thus often work alongside
other employees. These employees are supervised by the
chief engineer, who maintains an office in the boiler
room. All persons assigned to the engineering depart-
ment are interviewed and hired by the chief engineer
who thereafter assigns them their work and makes rec-
ommendations for their merit increases. At the hearing
the parties entered into a stipulation that Don Wright,
the present chief engineer, has the authority to hire, fire,
and discipline employees and, therefore, is a supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. In addi-
tion to the chief engineer, the Employer had also em-
ployed an assistant chief engineer until some time within
the 12-month period preceding the hearing. The Em-
ployer's assistant general manager, Small, testified that it
was the Employer's intent to again fill that position in
the foreseeable future. Other classifications within the en-
gineering department include two or three persons classi-
fied as engineers, two persons classified as maintenance
laborers and one person classified as the paint and vinyl
man.
The engineering department employees are hourly
paid and punch a timeclock. Their time cards are a dif-
ferent color from the other employees at the hotel and
are arranged separately in the time card rack under a
blank card marked "Engineering." They receive the
same fringe benefits and employee privileges as the other
full-time employees. It appears that the part-time em-
ployees do not receive the same fringe benefits as do the
full-time employees. All employees are provided free
meals and coffee in a common employee dining room.
Only the engineering department employees wear blue
uniforms and badges bearing their name and the word
"Engineering." Unlike the other employees, the engi-
neering department employees have separate lockers
which are located in the boiler room. Only the engineer-
ing department employees have a key for the boiler
room. All other employees have lockers located in either
the men's or the women's locker room. Upon reporting
for work the engineering department employees change
into their blue uniforms and report to the chief engineer
who issues them their work assignments for the day.
Work assignments for the engineering department are in
the form of work orders, which are special maintenance
request forms submitted to the engineering department
by other departments where maintenance or repair is
needed, complaints from guests regarding air condition-
959
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing or equipment, or directions from members of man-
agement. There are no other employees at the hotel who
operate on a work order system. Each of the engineering
department employees carries a beeper while working in
the hotel in order that he may be contacted by the chief
engineer in case a rush job or emergency situation arises
during the day. In addition to meeting with the chief en-
gineer at the beginning of each shift, the engineering de-
partment employees have separate departmental meetings
each month. No other employees attend these monthly
meetings in the engineering department nor do any other
members of management.
The engineering department employees work two
shifts. The first shift begins at 7:30 a.m. and the second
shift runs from 5 p.m. to I a.m. Engineering department
employees are occasionally called back to work if an
emergency arises with the operating equipment after I
a.m. It appears from the record that banquet housemen
and the laundry employees are the only other employees
that have been called back to work after their shift
ended. Engineering department employees are the only
nonsupervisory employees who have access to such areas
as the boiler room, the room where the television sets
are stored, the key room, the cocktail lounge while it is
closed during the day and the electrical panels through-
out the hotel. Two of the employees classified as engi-
neers attended night school for two evenings at the
hotel's expense for training in air conditioning controls.
During the two-year period preceding the hearing in
this case, two employees from other departments had
transferred permanently into the engineering department,
and it appears that a third nonengineering department
employee had performed some sign painting work for
that department on a temporary basis.
The engineering department staff services all of the
stationary operating equipment housed in the boiler
room. In connection therewith, the engineers must
repack valve stems and pump shafts, change gaskets, and
perform other regular boiler maintenance pursuant to the
hotel's preventive maintenance program. The soft water
treatment plant is located in the boiler room and must be
chemically tested by the engineering employees twice a
day and regenerated when it reaches a certain level of
hardness. There is a workbench located in the boiler
room where such tools as electric drills, pipe wrenches, a
circular saw, electrical test equipment, a gas welder and
an arc welder are utilized. Engineering department em-
ployees are required to purchase their own hand tools.
Some of the duties performed by the engineering de-
partment employees outside the boiler room include: re-
placing motors and timers on the commercial washers
and dryers used in the hotel laundry; unjamming or re-
placing the commercial garbage disposals; replacing
pumps on the dishwashers; maintenance and repair of the
ice machines, freezers and refrigeration equipment; serv-
icing the air conditioning equipment to the extent of re-
placing fan control motors, exhaust motors, heat sensors
and thermostats; repairing vacuum cleaners; repairing
chandeliers and fluorescent lighting fixtures; unplugging
toilets; rebuilding flush valves on urinals; replacing sink
faucets and shower heads; repairing or replacing broken
pipes; replacing damaged or loose tiles in bathrooms; re-
placing glass; replacing thermocouples on gas lines; re-
pairing heater units on banquet hot carts and repairing
laundry carts. In addition, the engineering department
employees are responsible for the maintenance and repair
of the swimming pool equipment such as pool heaters
and filters. They also repair or replace room locks and
make keys. Outside contractors provide repair service on
such items as the air conditioning absorption unit which
is located on the roof, the elevator, the roof, the televi-
sion sets, and the tall parking lot lights.
Subsequent to the filing of the petition herein, the Em-
ployer hired two employees whom it assigned to the en-
gineering department and classified as maintenance labor-
ers or helpers. Petitioner takes the position that the two
maintenance laborers are only temporary employees and
thus should not be included in the unit. Contrary to Peti-
tioner, the Employer takes the position that the mainte-
nance laborers are permanent full-time employees as-
signed to the engineering department. Both employees
were hired by and report to the chief engineer. At the
time of the hearing one of the two employees was as-
signed to work with the Acting Assistant Chief Engi-
neer, Carl Craig, in cleaning and refurbishing equipment
in the boiler room and also cleaning and replacing light
fixtures in the hotel. The second employee spends at
least part of his time working in connection with the
painting and refurbishing project which is currently
being carried out in the guest rooms at the hotel. Al-
though an outside contractor has been retained to paint
the rooms, the maintenance laborer has been assigned the
job of detaching the pictures, mirrors and headboards
which are secured to the walls with screws. Television
sets, telephone jacks, and receptacle covers are also re-
moved from the walls and all of the funiture is moved to
the center of the room in order to expedite the work of
the painting contractor. After a room has been painted,
the maintenance laborer will replace the furniture and
reattach the items set forth above. The above functions
are performed under the direction of Assistant General
Manager Small. In view of maintenance laborer Valen-
cia's testimony that 3 weeks after he was hired he was
told by Chief Engineer Wright that he could remain em-
ployed at the hotel for 5 years, and in the absence of any
testimony to the contrary, I find that the maintenance la-
borers are permanent full-time employees assigned to the
engineering department.
The Employer, through Small, testified that engineer-
ing department employees are assisted on certain jobs by
nonengineering department employees. In support there-
of, Small testified that on one occasion he had observed
Martinez, one of the two maintenance laborers hired
after the petition was filed, taking down a mirror in the
same room in which a housekeeping housemen was
taking down drapes, and that on another occasion he had
observed a banquet houseman handing bulbs to Martinez
who was replacing fluorescent light bulbs. Small further
testified that on one occasion he saw one of the engi-
neers and a banquet houseman together in a banquet
room where the engineer was setting up audio equip-
ment. On another occasion Small saw an engineer spend
about 10 minutes setting up audio equipment in a banquet
960
SHERATON-ANAHEIM HOTEL
room. Small testified that the function of setting up the
air walls in the banquet area is normally performed by
the banquet housemen, but if problem arose in connec-
tion therewith, one of the engineers would be called to
assist the banquet housemen. Small further testified that
during inclement weather the gardening employees are
sent in to report to the chief engineer and perform sand-
ing and spray painting of the boiler room equipment.
Also testifying at the hearing were: Clyde Bankers, the
Employer's chief engineer until I month before the hear-
ing began; Carl Craig, the Employer's acting chief engi-
neer, who had been employed as an engineer at the hotel
for 2 years prior to the hearing; and Bob Van Exel, who
was employed for 1-1/2 years in the engineering depart-
ment until his termination 3 weeks before the hearing
began. All three of the above-named witnesses testified
that gardeners had never worked in the boiler room or
otherwise performed any engineering department duties
during the time they had been employed at the hotel.
Craig and Van Exel both testified that, during their em-
ployment in the engineering department, they had never
been assisted by nonengineering department employees in
performing such duties as setting up audio equipment, re-
pairing air walls, or replacing fluorescent lights, nor had
they ever observed any other engineering department
employees ever having been so assisted. Thus, it appears
that the overlapping functions described by Small occur,
at best, rarely, in view of the testimony of the three engi-
neers.
Petitioner called as a witness its business manager,
Robert Fox, who testified as to Petitioner's experience
on organizing and bargaining on behalf of units of main-
tenance and engineering employees employed at major
hotels in Southern California and Southern Nevada,
which is the geographical area of Petitioner's jurisdic-
tion. Petitioner also submitted as exhibits approximately
34 collective bargaining agreements covering engineering
and maintenance employees employed at major hotels in
Southern California and Southern Nevada, for the pur-
pose of establishing that there is a local bargaining pat-
tern of separate unit representation of engineering/main-
tenance employees at hotels similar to that operated by
the Employer. In view of the evidence submitted by Pe-
titioner in this regard I am satisfied that it has at least
been established that the local pattern of bargaining is
mixed--some overall units and some smaller units--and
that Petitioner traditionally represents the interests of
maintenance and engineering employees. The signifi-
cance which can be attached thereto is that both overall
and smaller units of employees employed at full service
hotels, such as that operated by the Employer, are a
matter of industrial reality in Southern California and
Southern Nevada.
Since the issuance of its decision in John Hammonds
and Roy Winegardner, Partners, d/b/a 77 Operating Com-
pany. d/b/a Holiday Inn Restaurant, 160 NLRB 927, the
Board's policy for the hotel industry has been that it
would consider each case on the facts peculiar to it in
order to decide wherein lies the true community of inter-
est among particular employees of a hotel. The Board
further clarified its position in Dunfey Family Corporation
d/b/a Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRB 790, wherein it
stated that: ". . . 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 skills and functions of particular em-
ployee groupings, their separate supervision, the employ-
er's organizational structure, and differences in wages
and hours."
Applying the criteria set forth by the Board in Shera-
ton Motor Inn, supra, to the factors in the case at hand,
while none of the engineering department employees
may be highly skilled, there appears to be a clear differ-
ence at least in function as between those employees and
the employees employed in the housekeeping, banquet,
grounds, and food and beverage departments. The
record does not support the Employer's contention that
there is a functional integration of the duties performed
by the engineering department and those performed by
employees working in the other departments within the
hotel. There is substantial evidence in the record to dem-
onstrate that there is a clear functional distinction be-
tween the essentially maintenance and repair duties per-
formed by the engineering department employees in con-
nection with the hotel's operating equipment, and the
duties performed by the nonengineering department em-
ployees. Moreover, the [minimal] overlapping of duties
which does occur does not demonstrate that the engi-
neering department employees share a community of in-
terest with the employees of other departments. Similar-
ly, the rare transfer of a nonengineering department em-
ployee into the engineering department does not consti-
tute a significant degree of interchange. Beck Corp. v.
N.L.R.B. 590 F.2d 290 (9th Cir. 1978).
Effective supervision of the engineering department
employees is vested in the chief engineer, including the
effective power to hire and discharge employees, assign
work and recommend wage increases. The engineering
department employees enjoy a separate functional identi-
ty centered around their special skills and duties in re-
pairing and maintaining the hotel's operating equipment.
I also note the mixed pattern of bargaining for engineer-
ing and maintenance units in the local area, the lack of
any bargaining history at the hotel on a broader basis
and the fact that no other labor organization is seeking to
represent the hotel employees in a broader unit.
In its posthearing brief the Employer contends that
this case should be controlled by the Decision, Order,
and the Direction of Election issued by this Region on
March 22, 1974, in connection with Sheraton Harbor
Island Corporation d/b/a Sheraton Island Hotel, Cases 21-
RC-15373 and 21-RC-13576. In these cases, the same
Petitioner herein sought an election in a unit of all hotel
maintenance and engineering employees at the Sheraton
Harbor Island Hotel located in San Diego, California. I
refused to direct an election in the unit sought by Peti-
tioner inasmuch as it appeared in that case that any sepa-
rate community of interest which the employees in that
maintenance department might have had, had been large-
ly submerged in the broader community of interest
which they shared with the other hotel employees. In
following the policy of the Board set forth in Sheraton
961
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Motor Inn, I have weighed all the factors present in this
case and I have not concluded, as I did in the Sheraton
Harbor Island Hotel case, that the community of interest
of the engineering department employees herein has sub-
merged in the broader community of interest which they
share with the other hotel employees. As the Ninth Cir-
cuit stated in Atlas Hotel Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 89 LRRM
3057 (1979), ". . . [I]n designating bargaining units,
minor factual differences may justify opposite results." It
should be noted that in the Atlas case, this Region did
direct an election in a unit confined to all bakery and
bakery sanitation employees in a 600-room full service
hotel in San Diego, California, where there was no bar-
gaining history for any of the other employees and no
other labor organization sought an election in a broader
unit. It should also be noted that in the Sheraton Harbor
Island Hotel case, unlike the situation in the instant case,
another labor organization was, at the same time, seeking
an election in a broader overall unit.
In view of all the foregoing, and the record as a whole
but particularly noting the separate identity and functions
of the engineering department employees, their separate
immediate supervision, the minimal interchange with
other employees, the absence of a bargaining history on
a broader basis, the fact that no other labor organization
seeks a broader unit at this time, and the fact that a less
than overall unit of this Employer's employees is clearly
feasible in view of the mixed pattern of bargaining in the
local area, I find that a unit limited to the employees em-
ployed in the engineering department under the supervi-
sion of the chief engineer, including the two maintenance
laborers and the paint and vinyl man, is appropriate,
John Hammonds, supra, Beck Corp., supra, Sheraton
Motor Inn, supra, Hotel Equities d/b/a The Hyatt Regency
House, 171 NLRB 1347, and I shall direct an election in
that unit.
In so finding I do not suggest that the overall unit
contended for by the Employer would, under Board pre-
cedent, be inappropriate. However, I do not need to
reach this question for there is nothing in the Act which
requires that the unit for bargaining be the only appro-
priate unit. The Act requires simply that the unit be "ap-
propriate" to insure to employees in each case the fullest
freedom in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by the
Act. Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, 163
NLRB 138.
962