Tulsa Hotel Management Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 968 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

968 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce and International Union , United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization , all within the meaning of the Act.
2. By ordering employees to remove bowling shirts with the union donor's name
inscribed thereon to interfere with employees' rights to engage in union activity and
embrace union membership , by interrogating an employee with respect to her attend-
ance at union meetings , and by promising a better position to an employee to lure him
away from union organizational activity and union membership , Respondent engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
4. Respondent has not violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by Training Manager
Tinstman 's interviews of employees Wipert, Jones, Shipman , Borck, Watt, and Carver,
Industrial Relations Director Ryon 's interview of employee Jones, and Supervisor
Sipes' interview of employee Repp.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation and Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union AFL-CIO,
Local #135, Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-2784. February 8, 196°
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis L. Vasse, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, which operates a 350-room hotel in Tulsa, Okla-
homa, contends that its operations do not affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that the Board should therefore not assert
jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Employer receives gross an-
nual revenues in excess of $500,000, of which more than 75 percent is
derived from transient guests. In addition, direct out-of-State pur-
chases amount to less than $5,000 a year, of which the largest single
annual purchase amounts to $1,000 to $1,500. We find that the Em-
ployer's hotel operations affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act,' and meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the hotel
industry? Accordingly, we find that it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
1 Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines, 124 NLRB 813; Southwest Hotels, Inc. (Grady
Manning Hotel ), 126 NLRB 1151
2 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 NLRB 261 ; Tulsa Hotel Management Corporation,
132 NLRB 1484. _
135 NLRB No. 105.
TULSA HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 969
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion 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 employees and the
Employer agrees substantially to the appropriateness of this unit.
The parties were in agreement as to the exclusion of the general office
clerical employees who work under the supervision of the hotel man-
ager. As we honor agreements to exclude such office clerical em-
ployees in hotelwide units, we shall exclude -them.3 The parties
disagree, however, with regard to the unit placement of the follow-
ing job classifications. There is no bargaining history.
Employees in the auditing department: The Petitioner questioned
whether the night auditor and the food comptroller are supervisors or
office clericals in the category that the parties agreed to exclude and
whether the accounts receivable clerk is also such an office clerical;
the Employer would include all three classifications in the overall
unit. The night auditor continues the duties of the day cashier, and,
because of the reduced nighttime workload, she performs the added
task of "clearing the machine." The food comptroller, who works in
close conjunction with employees in the auditing and food depart-
ments, checks food receipts and takes the monthly food and store-
room inventories. The accounts receivable clerk checks some reports,
runs errands, and works in close association with the hotel's cashiers
who are included in the unit. It appears that the night auditor and
the food comptroller have no subordinates working under their direc-
tion; Although all three of these disputed classifications function as
part of the auditing department, which includes the cashiers and
other employees whom the parties in effect agreed to include in the
unit, the duties differ greatly from those of auditing department em-
ployees whom the Board finds to be office clericals. On the entire
record, we find that these three classifications are not supervisors, nor
office clerical employees in the category excluded by agreement of the
parties. We find further that their interests, duties, and conditions
of employment ally them closely with employees in the overall unit.
We shall, therefore, include them.
The Employer would include the storeroom man, the linen closet
attendant, the inspectress, and seamstress, while the Petitioner con-
tends that they are supervisors and should be excluded. The store-
room man, who has no employees working under him, serves as
custodian of the hotel's food and other supplies. The linen closet
s Arlington Hotel Company, Inc, 126 NLRB 400, 404
970 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
attendant oversees the linen supply and' makes out the room vacancy
reports, and the inspectress checks the rooms to ascertain whether
the housekeeping department has satisfactorily prepared them for
occupancy. They have no authority to hire, discharge, or effectively
recommend such action, and possess none of the other statutory in-
dicia of supervisory authority. We find, therefore, that the storeroom
man, the linen closet attendant, and the inspectress are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall include
them. The seamstress, who is administratively listed in the house-
keeping department, performs the usual functions of her classification
and, in addition, substitutes for the housekeeper, an admitted super-
visor, during the latter's annual 1 to 2 weeks' vacation. The Petitioner
contends that she should be excluded because of this periodic perform-
ance of supervisory duty. We find, however, in view of the infre-
quency of her exercise of supervisory authority, that she is. not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore
include her.'
The Employer would include the sales representative whom the
Petitioner would exclude as a professional employee. He works di-
rectly under the authority of the hotel manager, and serves as an out-
side solicitor of business for the hotel. After he sells the use of hotel
facilities to a business or organization, he coordinates the hotel activi-
ties for the client. He receives the same fringe benefits as other regu-
lar employees, and a wage scale comparable to that of a room clerk.
It does not appear that his position requires any background, educa-
tion,-or training of a professional nature. Accordingly, we find that
he is not a professional employee within the meaning of the Act, and
we shall therefore include him.'
Part-time banquet waiters: The Employer utilizes part-time ban-
quet waiters for luncheons, dinners, and other special occasions. The
Petitioner would include them while the Employer would exclude
them. They do not receive the fringe benefits of regular employees,
but are carried on a seniority list of part-time waiters maintained by
the catering manager. As there are three regular weekly luncheons,
in addition to other special functions which require the employment
of extra waiters, it is clear that some of these waiters can expect
regular and continuous part-time employment. However, it is also
evident from the entire record that some of them are called upon in-
frequently, and are casual employees. The record does not establish
which individuals fall into the regular or casual classifications. Ac-
cordingly, we shall allow all of them to vote subject to challenge.6
4 See 0. E. McIntyre, Inc, 118 NLRB 1290, footnote 9.
H Cf. The Fair Department Store, 107 NLRB 1501, 1502.
6 See Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202
GUILD INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CORP. 971
In view of the foregoing, 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 at the Employer's Tulsa, Oklahoma, hotel, including
the night auditor, food comptroller, accounts receivable clerk, store-
room man, linen closet attendant, inspectress, seamstress, sales repre-
sentative, and all regular part-time waiters, but excluding general
office clerical employees, auditors, hostesses, bell captains,' engineers,
professional employees, watchmen, guards, timekeepers, backdoor
man,8 and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 The parties agree, and we find that the hostesses and bell captains are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act . They are therefore excluded.
8 Both parties agree that the backdoor man should be excluded , but the Petitioner would
include the two timekeepers , who work at the rear door with the backdoor man, check to
see that all employees punch timecards , and prevent the ingress of unauthorized persons
As the function of both classifications is, at least in part, to protect the Employer ' s prop-
erty, we find that they satisfy the Board's definition of guards and exclude them. See
Thomas Je f erson Hotel, supra, p. 204
Guild Industries Manufacturing Corp . and Florida State Council
of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America , AFL-CIO
Guild Industries Manufacturing Corp ., and Paul A. Saad, Attor-
ney and Florida State Council of Carpenters , United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO
Guild Industries Manufacturing Corp ., and Paul A. Saad and
L. W. Rushing. Cases Nos. 12-CA-1562, 12-CA-1703, 12-CA-
1783, 12-CA-1784, and 12-CA-1785. February 8, 1962
DECISION AMENDING ORDER
On November 1, 1961, the Board issued its Decision and Order in
the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had en-
gaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action. Thereafter, on December 20, 1961, the Regional
Director for the Twelfth Region, on behalf of the General Counsel,
filed a motion to modify the Board's Order so as to require Respond-
ent Saad to take certain affirmative action which the Regional Director
believed the Board had failed to order through an oversight. On
January 9, 1962, Respondents Paul A. Saad and Guild Industries
Manufacturing Corp. filed an answering motion requesting the Board
1 133 NLRB 1719
135 NLRB No. 93.