Holiday Inn Southwest

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 781 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

HOLIDAY INN SOUTHWEST
West, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Southwest and Hotel &
Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International
Union, Local 181, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
9-RC-9813
March 29, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing, and a supplemental hearing, were held
before Hearing Officer Douglas J. Muir. Following
these hearings and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and State-
ments of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 9, this
case was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. The Employer has filed a brief in
this case in support of his position.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer, who purchased a Holiday Inn
franchise from the parent company in Memphis,
Tennessee, operates a 125-room motel in Louisville,
Kentucky. The Employer stipulated that during the
past 12 months, which is a representative period, the
motel derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 of
which more than 75 percent was derived from
transient guests. In addition, the Employer stipulated
that direct out-of-state purchases amounted to
approximately $3,500 and that the Employer pur-
chased beer, liquor, and soft drinks locally that
amounted to $30,000.
The Employer contends that its operations do not
meet the Board's statutory jurisdictional require-
ments and further that its operations do not affect
commerce within the meaning of the Act. We do not
agree. We find that the Employer's motel operations
affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,' and
meet the Board's jurisdictional standards for the
motel industry. Accordingly, we find that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
' Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc, 124 N LRB 261
781
cerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of 14
housekeeping employees, out of a total complement
of 75 employees in the entire motel. The Employer
urges that a housekeeping unit is inappropriate
because there is no community of interest among
these particular employees and, in any event, a unit
of housekeeping employees is contrary to Board
precedent.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any
of the employees involved in this case.
The record is clear that while the maids in the
housekeeping department clean the rooms daily, at
least two other departments perform cleaning in the
rooms on occasion. The maintenance men perform
cleaning and maintenance in the rooms; and the
bellmen help with cleaning, performing exactly the
same function as the maids, when guests check out
after the maids have gone home. Thus, the primary
function performed by the proposed bargaining unit
is also performed by two other departments. There is
further evidence that the bellmen, bartenders, wait-
resses, and busboys also work in the rooms.
The record further shows that all employees have
identical fringe benefits, vacations, health and
welfare benefits, hospitalization, holidays, and other
benefits. There is one payroll and one bookkeeping
system, and all employees punch the same timeclock
while all duties and functions are performed in one
high-rise building. It thus appears that the proposed
bargaining unit has no distinct skill or community of
interest singling it out from the other employees in
the motel.
As the employees in the proposed unit do not
possess any special skill or knowledge, their duties
are performed by other employees not sought to be
included in the bargaining unit, and their functions
are integrated with those of other departments, it
does not appear that the employees sought enjoy that
community of interest which would warrant their
being represented separately and, accordingly, we
find that the proposed unit is inappropriate. For the
above reasons, we shall not direct an election among
the employees in the requested unit, but shall dismiss
the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
202 NLRB No. 114