134 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

Holiday Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 9, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

HOLIDAY HOTEL k 113 Crumley Hotel, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Hotel and Hotel &Motel Service Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Res- taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner Riverside Casino Corp ., d/b/a Riverside Hotel and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Mapes Hotel Corp ., d/b/a Mapes Hotel and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24, affiliated with Hotel and Res- taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL- CIO, Petitioner New Golden Hotel Co., General Partner, and 24 Limited Partners,, d/b/a Golden Bank Operating Co., Golden Hotel and Golden Casino and Hotel & Motel Service Employees Local 24, affili- ated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Cases Nos. 20-RC- 4422, 20-RC-4423, 20-RC-4433, and 20-RC-4434. November 9, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS On April 14, 1961, the Board issued a Decision and Order dis- missing the petitions in this proceeding on the ground that the units sought were inappropriate.2 Thereafter, on April 19, 1961, the Peti- tioner filed a motion for reconsideration and remand. On April 27, 1961, the Board issued an order denying the motion for reconsidera- tion and remand. Thereafter, on May 15, 1961, the Petitioner filed a further motion for reconsideration. The Employers filed opposition thereto. For the reasons stated below, we hereby grant the Petitioner's second motion for reconsideration and vacate the Decision and Order herein. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 The names of the Employers and the Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing. 2 131 NLRB 106. 134 NLRB No. 15. 630849-62-vol. 134-9 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization named above claims to represent certain employees-6f the Employers. 3., A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section - 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The four Employers, named above, operate hotels in Reno, Nevada. The Petitioner seeks separate residual units of all unrepre- sented employees of each Employer.3 The Employers contend that the petitions should be dismissed on the ground that the units are in- appropriate.4 While there has been no collective-bargaining history as to the employees sought, the Employers have bargained on a multi- employer basis as to other of their employees, specifically culinary employees, fountain employees, waiters, bartenders, and "front help." 6 In its original Decision and Order in this proceeding, the Board, re- lying on The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel,' found that the units sought were inappropriate. In Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the peti- tioner sought separate residual units of all unrepresented employees at two Los Angeles hotels. The employers and the intervenors there con- tended that the units sought were inappropriate on the ground that the employers had bargained, together with other employers in the area, on a multiemployer basis as to other of their employees. The Board dismissed the petitions, finding that only the multiemployer unit was appropriate. The Board found that the employees sought were a "miscellaneous grouping of unrepresented employees lacking in internal homogeneity or cohesiveness," whose only claim to separate identity was that they comprised all the unrepresented employees of each employer. In view of the multiemployer bargaining history as to other employees, the Board held that such a miscellaneous grouping of employees, in order to be residual, must be coextensive in scope with the multiemployer unit and not merely coextensive with a single em- ployer's operations. As the grouping sought was not coextensive with the multiemployer unit, the Board found that the petition sought only a segment of the residual group and hence an inappropriate unit. In the Decision and Order in the instant case, the Board concluded that the single-employer units sought were not coextensive with the exist- ing multiemployer unit, and hence were inappropriate. In its motion for reconsideration, the Petitioner contends that the instant case is distinguishable from Los Angeles Statler Hilton. We 3 Specifically , these Include housekeeping employees , maintenance employees, porters, bellmen, doormen, elevator operators, parlormaids, telephone operators, setup men, and room clerks. 4 The Employers also contend that the petitions, insofar as they seek housekeeping em- ployees, are barred by an existing contract between Reno Employers Council and the Reno Local Joint Executive Board of Bartenders, Culinary and Hotel Service Workers As the record indicates that the existing contract does not cover housekeeping employees, we find no merit in this contention s "Front help" includs waiters , waitresses , busboys, cashiers, and checkers. 6129 NLRB 1349. HOLIDAY HOTEL , 115 find merit in this contention. The Petitioner here, as in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, seeks to represent employees employed by hotels. However, in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the two employer-hotels involved were members of the Hotel Employers Council, an association of hotels, which acted on behalf of all the major hotels in the Los Angeles area in negotiating collective-bargaining agreements with various labor organizations; 7 and there were in effect at the time of the decision a number of collective-bargaining agreements on a multi- employer basis between the Hotel Employers Council and labor or- ganizations covering hotel employees." In view of the fact that the employers had bargained on a multiemployer basis as part of a hotel association for hotel employees, the Board held, in Los Angeles Stat- ler Hilton, that the units sought, in order to be appropriate, must be coextensive with the existing multiemployer hotel unit. In the instant case, however, the Employers are members only of the Reno Employ- ers Council 9 which is composed of 6 hotels and more than 50 restau- rants, coffeeshops, and bars in the Reno area. As noted, the Employ- ers have bargained through the Council for their culinary employees, waiters, waitresses, busboys, cashiers, checkers, fountain employees, and bartenders. These are categories of employees which are em- ployed not only by hotels, but, as well, by restaurants and other mem- bers of the Council. Unlike the situation in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the Employers here are not members also of a hotel association and they have never bargained on a multiemployer basis for employ- ees employed exclusively by hotels and not by other enterprises such _as restaurants. Accordingly, there is nothing in our decision in Los Angeles Statler Hilton to require a finding that the multiemployer pattern of bargaining keyed to the restaurant-hotel employees is con- trolling as to the hotel employees sought here. Indeed, were we to find that only a multiemployer unit was appropriate, we would, in effect, be assigning the employees involved in these proceedings to a residual multiemployer bargaining unit consisting, for all practical purposes, of only the six hotel members of the Reno Employers Council. But- the Board's residual unit findings are based on the premise that, though the most appropriate unit placement of residual groups of employees is in the existing bargaining unit, they may constitute sepa- rate appropriate units where the representative of the existing unit is not seeking to represent them, so long as such residual unit includes all ' The Employers in Los Angeles Statler Hilton were also members of the Restaurant Hotel Council which acted on behalf of these hotels and a large number of restaurants in the Los Angeles area in negotiating contracts with the Los Angeles Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union , AFL-CIO 8 These labor organizations were Building Service Employees Union, Local 399, AFL- CIO ; Window Cleaners Local 349, AFL-CIO ; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 , AFL-CIO ; District Council of Painters No 36; Laundry and Dry Cleaning Workers International Union Local 52; Teamsters Local No. 62. 0 Herein referred to as the Council 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unrepresented employees and is coextensive in scope with the existing unit. That is the premise on which our Los Angeles Statler Hilton decision rested. However, here, as already indicated, there exists no hotel employers bargaining unit to which these employees are residual. Accordingly, in the absence of such multiemployer bargaining history, we cannot find that the multiemployer unit favored by the Employers is the only appropriate unit.10 Accordingly, we find that the separate employer units sought by the Petitioner are appropriate.li We shall now consider whether certain categories of emloyees should be included in each of the units found appropriate herein. The Em- ployers would include office clerical employees in the unit. The Peti- tioner would exclude them from the unit, but would represent them if the Board included them. The Board has held in Arlington Hotel Company, Inc. 12 that, where the parties disagreed as to unit place- ment, office clerical employees would be included in hotel units. We shall therefore include the office clerical employees in each of the units. The parties stipulated that gambling casino employees employed by each Employer should be excluded from the unit. In Arlington Hotel Company, Inc.,13 the Board indicated that, where the parties stipulated to exclude office clerical employees from units of hotel em- ployees, the Board would honor such stipulations and exclude office clerical employees from the units. We shall, similarly, accept stipu- lations to exclude categories of employees other than office clerical employees from hotel units where such employees, like office clerical employees, are shown to have sufficiently different interests from other hotel employees to justify their exclusion. The gambling casino em- ployees here are under separate supervision from other hotel employ- ees. While otherwise they have the same benefits as other employees, gambling casino employees are paid more than 'other employees.14 Gambling casino employees work in-the following classifications : pit bosses, keymen, change girls, dealers, crap dealers, roulette dealers, stickmen, boxmen, shills, and cashiers.15 With the exception of cash- iers and security employees, the employee classifications at the gam- bling casino do not exist elsewhere the hotel. While there have been some permanent transfers from hotel departments to the gambling casino, there is no employee interchange. On the basis of the fore- going, we find that gambling casino employees have interests different 10 In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to pass on the validity of other alleged distinctions between L08 Angeles Statler Hilton and the instant case 11 Joseph E -Seagram & Sons , Inc , 101 NLRB 101 ; Carbondale Retail Druggists' Asso- ciation, 131 NLRB 1021. u 126 NLRB 400. 13 Supra 14 A representative of the Employers testified that gambling casino employees receive additional compensation in order to "alleviate the temptation " that might confront these employees at the casino. u Security employees, discussed below, work both at the gambling casino and in the hotel HOLIDAY HOTEL 117 from those of other hotel employees and we shall therefore accept the stipulation of the parties and exclude gambling casino employees from the units. The parties are in disagreement as to the unit placement of certain employees employed by the respective Employers.ls Holiday Hotel: Contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner would ex- clude the housekeeper, the head engineer, and the night assistant man- ager from the unit as supervisors. The housekeeping department, which consists of 25 maids and 11 housemen, is under the direction of the general manager, the assistant manager, and the housekeeper. The housekeeper's principal responsibility is to assign work to maids. While the housekeeper has no authority to hire or discharge employees, she makes recommendations with respect thereto, and, according to the general manager, her recommendations are followed "most of the time." We find that the housekeeper is a supervisor and we shall ex- clude her from the unit. The head engineer is in charge of eight engineers, maintenance men, and repairmen employed in the maintenance and repair depart- ment. He makes routine assignments of daily jobs to the employees working in the department on the basis of policies established by the general manager. The head engineer has no authority to hire or dis- charge employees. Applicants for employment in this department are interviewed jointly by the general manager and the head engineer. As to technical engineering matters, the applicant is questioned by the head engineer, and, regarding such matters, the general manager ac- cepts the recommendations of the head engineer. If an employee does not perform his job properly, the head engineer, reports this fact to the general manager who makes an independent investigation before deciding whether Ito discharge the employee. The head engineer other- wise normally performs the same type of work as the other employees in his department. We find that the head engineer is not a supervisor and we shall include him in the unit. The night assistant manager has no authority to hire or discharge employees; although he makes recommendations with respect thereto, the general manager makes an independent investigation before acting thereon. The night assistant manager is in charge of the hotel at night. During this period, it is his duty to see that "everything is operating properly." If he discovers that the service is improper in 16 The parties agree that the following employees should be excluded from the units as supervisors: Holiday Hotel, the hotel manager, the hotel assistant manager, and the auditor ; Rsver8ide Hotel, the president and general manager, the assistant to the general manager, the manager, and the auditor ; Mapes Hotel, the general manager and the resi- dent manager, Golden Hotel, the general managers and the manager. The parties also agree that the controller at the Holiday Hotel is a managerial employee and should be excluded from the unit and that the secretary to the controller of the Holiday Hotel is a confidential employee and should be excluded' from the unit. We shall exclude these em- ployees from the units. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD some way, the night assistant manager informs the general manager of this fact by leaving a note or, if the matter is urgent, the night assistant manager consults with the general manager by telephone. The night assistant manager spends a portion of his time at the front' desk checking in guests and relieving the, switchboard operator. Like front desk employees, he is paid by the month, but he receives 50 per- ,cent more than front desk employees. Although he points out their mistakes to employees or reports the matter to the appropriate de- -partment head, the night assistant manager has no authority to dis- cipline employees. We find that the night assistant manager is not a supervisor and we shall include him in the unit. Contrary to.the Employer, the Petitioner contends that the sports department employees at the Holiday Hotel have no community of in- terest with other hotel employees and should be excluded from the unit. There are three employees in this department : A cosports di- rector who spends most of his time in the hotel handling reservations by guests to hunt at the hotel's pheasant farm, which is located ap- proximately 14 miles from the hotel; a secretary who does the clerical work for the department at the hotel ; and a cosports director who spends 95 percent of his time away from the hotel managing the pheasant farm and acting as a guide for hotel guests. On occasion, the outside cosports director returns to the hotel to bring in reports, and he, as well as the other sports department employees, comes into contact with other hotel employees. In Arlington Hotel, supra, the Board held that all operating personnel in hotels should be included in hotel units. We find that the pheasant farm is a part of the hotel's operations and that the sports department employees are part of the hotel's operating personnel. We shall therefore include the sports de- partment employees in the unit.17 Riverside Hotel: The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of the housekeeper and head engineer. The housekeeper is in charge of the housekeeping department which is composed of 19 maids and 16 housemen. While she has no authority to hire or discharge employees or to effectively recommend their hire or discharge, the housekeeper is responsible for checking the work of the maids and housemen and is authorized to discipline the employees in her department. The house- keeper performs the same duties as the nonsupervisory employees in the housekeeping department only in times of emergency. We find that the housekeeper is a supervisor and we shall exclude her from the unit. The head engineer is in charge of the engineering, maintenance, and repair department, comprising seven employees. Although the head 17 The Holiday Hotel has the following leased facilities : cigar and newspaper stand, travel agency , and barbershop ., The Employer exercises no control over the employees of these facilities . There is no contention that these employees should be included in the unit. They are excluded from the unit. HOLIDAY HOTEL 119 engineer is not authorized to hire or discharge employees, after an employee is hired,' he is "turned over" to the head engineer, who as- signs the employee to a particular job. The head engineer is also authorized to reprimand employees in his department for not doing their jobs properly. We find that the head engineer is a supervisor and we shall exclude him from the unit.18 Mapes Hotel: The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of the housekeeper, the head engineer, and the head auditor. The house- keeper is in charge of a department consisting of 25 maids and 8 housemen. Her duty is to "run" the housekeeping department and to inspect rooms. Under direction of the manager, she assigns work to the employees in, her department. She is authorized to reprimand employees. While she has no authority to hire or discharge em- ployees, she is authorized to make recommendations regarding dis- charges, which are accorded "great weight." We find that the house- keeper is a supervisor and we shall exclude her from the unit. The head engineer is in charge of a department comprising 15 em- ployees. While he has no authority to hire or discharge employees, he has authority to make effective recommendations with respect to their hire and discharge. We find that the head engineer is a supervisor and exclude him from the unit. The head auditor is in charge of a department comprising 223 clerks and 3 beauty shop operators. As the record is not clear as to the head auditor's status, we shall allow him to vote subject to challenge. The Petitioner contends that the aforementioned beauty parlor operators are technical employees and should be excluded on that basis. The beauty parlor operators do hairdressing. No other union seeks to represent them separately. As the record does not establish that the beauty parlor operators are technical employees, and as no other basis appears for excluding them from the unit, we shall there- fore include them in the unit. Contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner would exclude the security employee at the Mapes Hotel as a guard. The security employee is responsible to maintain order on the hotel premises, toy protect guests against assaults, and to make certain that property of the hotel and the guests is not stolen or destroyed. We find that the security em- ployee is a guard and exclude him from the unit. The Petitioner contends that the valet at the Mapes Hotel is an independent contractor and should be excluded from the unit. The Employer apparently contends that he is an employee and should be included in the unit. The valet shop, where guests' clothes are pressed Is The Petitioner would include and the Employer would exclude the Riverside Hotel stage crew employees from the unit. As the general manager of the Employer testified at the hearing without contradiction that the Employer planned to eliminate the stage crew by Januaiy 1961, we find it unnecessary to make a determination with respect to the unit placement of these employees. , 120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and cleaned, is located in the basement of the hotel. The hotel owns all the equipment in the valet shop and bills customers for valet serv- ices rendered. The valet has a verbal contract with the hotel under which he receives a percentage of the amounts collected by the hotel. The valet is supervised by Mapes' general manager and the hotel con- trols his hours of work. The hotel manager, on occasion , discusses' with the valet his conduct in relation to customers. Although the hotel does not deduct social security or income tax from the amounts it pays to the valet, we find, in view of the foregoing, particularly the degree of control exercised by the employer over the valet, that he is an em- ployee and we will include him in the unit.19 Golden Hotel: The parties disagree as to the supervisory status of the head housekeeper, the chief engineer, the chief auditor, and the chief decorator. The head housekeeper is in charge of the housekeep- ing department comprising 22 maids and 4 housemen. While she is without authority to hire or discharge employees, her recommenda- tions regarding the hiring and discharging of employees are "valued" by the general manager. The housekeeper spends a majority of her time inspecting rooms and, on occasion, she cleans rooms herself. She assigns rooms to the individual maids for cleaning on the basis of determinations made by the manager, and if an employee does not do his work properly, she reprimands him. The housekeeper is paid ap- proximately 15 to 20 percent more than other employees in her depart- ment. We find that the head housekeeper is a supervisor and we shall exclude her from the unit. The chief engineer, in charge of a department consisting of eight engineers and maintenance employees, is directly in charge of five employees. The chief engineer spends a majority of his time perform- ing the same type of work as engineers and maintenance employees in the department. Although the decision as to hiring is made by the general manager, the chief engineer is responsible for recruiting new personnel. After an employee is hired, he is "turned over" to the chief engineer who assigns work to him and follows through to make cer- tain that the work is properly done. If the employee does not do his work properly, the chief engineer informs the employee of this fact and makes a report thereof to the general manager. We find that the chief engineer is a supervisor and we shall exclude him from the unit. The chief auditor is in charge of a department composed of four employees. He is responsible for making certain that the hotel books are properly kept, and he does bookkeeping himself. He is not au- thorized to hire or discharge employees. After an employee has been hired, the chief auditor assigns that person to particular duties within IS The Mapes Hotel has the following leased facilities retail store and barbershop The Employer has no control over the employees of these facilities and they are not on the hotel payroll Neither of the parties wishes to include these employees in the unit They will be excluded. HOLIDAY HOTEL - 121 the department. The chief auditor is authorized to transfer persons from one job to another within the department, and he is also au- thorized to reprimand employees who fail to do their job properly. We find that the chief auditor is a supervisor and we shall exclude him from the unit. - The chief decorator is in charge of a department comprising four employees. She has no authority to hire or discharge employees. So far as appears, she performs the same type of work as the other em- ployees in her department. The record does not establish that the chief decorator is a supervisor. We shall include her in the unit. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, would exclude the se- curity employee as a guard. The security employee does not carry a gun and he is not deputized. The security employee is authorized to take care of a situation where an employee or guest becomes drunk or disorderly. He is also responsible for stopping fights and prevent- ing guests from destroying hotel property. We find that the security employee is a guard and exclude him from the unit 2° We find the following employees of the Employers constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining : Case No. 20-RC-4422: All employees of the housekeeping depart- ment, maintenance employees, porters, bellmen, doormen, elevator op- erators, parlormaids, telephone operators, setup men, room clerks, and all other unrepresented employees at the Holiday Hotel, Reno, Nevada, including the head engineer, the night assistant manager, the sports department employees, and office clerical employees, but excluding gambling casino employees, the housekeeper, the controller, the secre- tary to the controller, the hotel manager, the hotel assistant manager, the auditor, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Case No. 20-RC-44°3: All employees of the housekeeping depart- ment, maintenance employees, porters, bellmen, doormen, elevator operators, parlormaids, telephone operators, setup men, room clerks, and all other unrepresented employees at the Riverside Hotel, Reno, Nevada, including office clerical employees, but excluding gambling casino employees, the president and general manager, the assistant to the general manager, the manager, the auditor, the housekeeper, the head engineer, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Case No. 20-RC-41433: All employees of the housekeeping depart- ment, maintenance employees, porters, bellmen, doormen, elevator op- erators, parlormaids, telephone operators, setup men, room clerks, and all other unrepresented employees at the Mapes Hotel, Reno, Nevada, including office clerical employees and the valet and beauty parlor operators, but excluding gambling casino employees, the general man- 20 The Golden Hotel has the following leased facilities : barbershop, cigar stand, hotdog stand , and malt shop The Employer exercises no control over the employees at these facilities and neither of the parties contend that they should be included in the unit. They will be excluded 122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ager, the resident manager, the housekeeper, the head engineer, the security employees guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Case No. 2O-RC-4434: All employees of the housekeeping depart- ment, maintenance employees, porters, bellmen, doormen, elevator op- erators, parlormaids, telephone operators, setup men, room clerks, and all other unrepresented hotel employees at the Golden Hotel, Reno, Nevada, including office clerical employees and the chief decorator, but excluding gambling casino employees, the general manager, the man- ager, the head housekeeper, the chief engineer, the chief auditor, the security employee, all guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM dissenting : ,, I would deny the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that it presents nothing which has not previously been con- sidered by the Board. However, since the majority has decided to grant the motion for reconsideration, I shall join them in reconsider- ing the case on the merits. I am unable to agree with my colleagues that the rule stated in Los Angeles Statler Hilton is inapplicable here. I would therefore adhere to the Board's original decision and dismiss the petitions herein. The Petitioner here seeks to represent separate alleged residual units at four Reno hotels. There is no collective-bargaining history on any basis for these employees. However, for a number of years, the Em- ployers have bargained, together with two other hotels and a number of restaurants and bars in Reno, on a multiemployer basis for other categories of their employees. In its original decision, the Board relied on the decision in Los Angeles Statler Hilton and found that only the multiemployer unit was appropriate and that the separate units sought were inappropriate. In Los Angeles Stater Hilton, as in the instant case, the employers had bargained on a multiemployer basis for categories of employees other than those sought and the petitioners sought separate alleged residual units. The Board, in dismissing the petitions in Los Angeles Stater Hilton, held that the alleged residual units, to be appropriate, must be coextensive with an existing multiemployer unit and not merely coextensive with a par- ticular employer's operations. The Petitioner here now contends, and the majority agrees, that the instant case is distinguishable, since, unlike Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the Employers have bargained on a multiemployer basis only for hotel-restaurant employees but not for employees employed by hotels and not by restaurants. In my view, the majority misconceives the basis of the Board's decision in Los Angeles Statler Hilton. In order to clarify my position, I shall state more fully the background and the substance of the Los Angeles Statler Hilton decision. HOLIDAY HOTEL 123 Prior to 1952, the Board ruled that a multiemployer or multiplant history of bargaining as to certain categories of employees of an employer was controlling as to the appropriateness of the multiem- ployer or multiplant unit of other categories of employees of the employer, even though there was no bargaining history as to these latter employees 2' However, in the Seagram case,22 the Board modi- fied this rule and held that a history of collective bargaining on a multiplant basis does not preclude the establishment of a single-plant unit for employees as to whom there was no bargaining history. In subsequent cases, the Board followed the Seagram rule in cases involv- ing multiemployer as well as multiplant units23 In Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the petitioner, relying on the Seagram rule, contended that since there had been no multiemployer collective-bargaining history as to the employees sought, the separate residual units were appropriate. The Board, however, rejected this contention, - dis- tinguishing the Seagram line of cases on the ground that there the single-employer and the single-plant units found appropriate were composed of categories of employees such as office clerical employees and salesmen, categories which have an "internal homogeneity and cohesiveness," while in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the petitioner sought residual units composed of employees without such internal homogeneity. A residual unit consists of a group of unrepresented employees, lacking in internal homogeneity, which would not or- dinarily constitute an appropriate unit. However, where such em- ployees have been omitted from the group of employees represented, and thus would otherwise be without representation, the Board has found that such units of employees are appropriate as residual units. The Board has insisted, however, that in order for a unit to be an appropriate residual unit, it must include all unrepresented employees omitted from the represented group. For this reason , the Board has refused to'find a unit appropriate as a residual unit if such unit con- stitutes only a segment of the unrepresented employees involved.24 Applying these principles, the Board, in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, found, because the existing units were multiemployer in scope, that the separate employer units sought by the petitioner were only a seg- ment of the residual units and therefore inappropriate. With this analysis in mind, it is plain that the alleged distinction between the instant case and Los Angeles Statler Hilton is without substance. The majority says that Los Angeles Statler Hilton is dis- tinguishable on the ground that here, unlike Los Angeles Statler Hilton, the employees in the multiemployer group are restaurant-hotel 21 Kenosha Auto Transport Corporation, 98 NLRB 482. 22 Joseph E Seagram & Sons , Inc., 101 NLRB 101. 23 E.g, Continental Baking Company , Wonder Bakery, 109 NLRB 33. 24 Jordan Marsh Company , 85 NLRB 150,3; The Daily Press , Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573, 578. 124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees while those sought by the Petitioner are employed exclu- sively by hotels. This distinction would possibly have some basis if Los Angeles Statler Hilton constituted a return to the pre-Seagram rule that a multiemployer bargaining history as to certain categories of employees was controlling as to a residual unit of employees with respect to whom there was no bargaining history. However, as I have already indicated, the Los Angeles Statler Hilton decision was predi- cated solely on the theory that since the existing units were multi- employer in scope, the units sought by the petitioner were not residual units of the type granted by the Board. Under this rationale, whether the employees sought are, like those currently represented on a multi- employer basis, hotel-restaurant employees or whether they are hotel employees, is irrelevant. The only significant facts are that the peti- tioner seeks allegedly residual units on a single employer basis and that the existing units are multiemployer in scope. The majority concedes that these facts are present in the instant case as well as in Los Angeles Statler Hilton. I can therefore see no basis for distin- guishing the instant case from Los Angeles Statler Hilton. The majority does not find it necessary to reach the merits of the Petitioner's other alleged distinction between this case and Los An- geles Statler Hilton, namely, that, in Los Angeles Statler Hilton, there was a multiemployer bargaining history as to a large majority of the employees of each employer while in the instant case there has been multiemployer bargaining history only as to a minority of employees. The Employers, on the other hand, contend that there is no basis to this distinction and that, in any event, here there has been a multiemployer bargaining history as to the majority of employees. I see no necessity to decide the factual issue since I believe that there is no basis to this distinction. In my view, where, under applicable Board principles, a group of employees would otherwise constitute a residual unit, such group is residual even if it comprises a majority of the employees of the employer involved 25 As the units sought are not coextensive with the existing multi- employer unit, they are not appropriate residual units. I would there- fore dismiss the petitions herein. zs See J. R. Simplot Co., Food Processing Division , Heyburn Operations , 130 NLRB 1283, footnote 6. Minnesota Manufacturing Company, Inc. and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. 18-CA- 1252. November 13, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On August 9, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas L. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent had engaged 134 NLRB No. 18.