Marriott Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

MARRIOTT IN-FLITS SERVICES
Marriott In-Flite Services , a Division of Marriott
Corporation , and Locals 840 and- 27, International
Brotherhoodof;Teamsters; Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , jointly. Case
29-RC-16-20
July 30, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Jerome Katz.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure; Series 8, as
amended, by direction of the' -Regional Director for
Region 29, the case was transferred to the Board for
decision.
Pursuant'- to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National', Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National'='Labor Relations Board has' delegated its
powers in-connection with this case to a. three-member
panel.
The- Board has reviewed the --Hearing 'Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.' -
Upon the entire record in this case, the board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to'assert jurisdiction herein.2
2. Each of the' Joint Petitioners has a separate
charter issued by the International, each has its own
constitution, each- -exists for the purposes of organiz-
ing unorganized employees and bargaining collective-
ly with respect ; to rates of pay and other terms and
conditions of- employment,' and each holds regular
meetings wherein members participate. We find that
they are labor organizations as defined in the Act,
which, claim jointly, to represent employees of the
Employer.3
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the ° representation' of certain employees of the
t During the course of the hearing the Employer moved to postpone the
hearing in order to obtain another hearing reporter, upon learning that the
reporter was a member of one of the Joint Petitioners , Local 840. The
Hearing Officer denied the motion, and granted the Employer pernussion
to file a special 'appeal from ' his 'ruling to the Regional Director. The
Regional Director -sustained the Hearing Officer 's ruling. The Employer
now seeks anew hearing , alleging the reporter was inherently prejudiced.
In the absence of any indication of bias resulting in any discrepancy in the
record or assertion of prejudicial conduct performance by the reporter, we
do not deem such membership to be improper per se so as to require
replacement , and the Employer's request is hereby denied.
379
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioners `seek to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer in a unit encompassing two
kitchens-servicing John F. Kennedy Airport, and one
kitchen at La Guardia Airport, all within the
metropolitan area of New York, City. The Employer
contends that the only appropriate unit is one
composed of the three aforementioned kitchens and
the two located at Newark Airport.'
The Employer's In-Flight Services. division involved
herein is engaged in the business of providing food
catering services to airlines. It is divided into four
administrative regions, one of which consists of the
five kitchens servicing Kennedy, La Guardia, and
Newark Airports.4 -
Kitchens 370 and 377 service Kennedy Airport and-
have complements of about- 249 and 189 employees,
respectively. Kitchen 370 is located at the:airport_and
kitchen 377, nearby. Kitchen 375 is located near, and
services La Guardia Airport and has a complement of
about 89 employees. Kitchen 372 is located near, and
kitchen 373 is at, Newark Airport; both serve that
airport with complements of approximately 71 and
117 employees, respectively. Kennedy and La Guard-
ia Airports are about 8 miles apart, and Newark
Airport is about 15 miles from La Guardia and 18
miles from Kennedy.
Working conditions at the, five kitchens are identi-
cal, as are pay rates, seniority policy, and safety rules.
The region involved is generally supervised by a
regional vice president, and at the regional level there
is also a-maintenance manager, a procurement officer,
and safety and personnel directors.. Each kitchen is
under the immediate supervision of a manager whose
duties and responsibilities are narrowly proscribed.
However, the kitchen managers. discipline employees
in their kitchens and recommend discharge. They also .
recommend merit wage increases and prepare work
schedules for the employees of their kitchens. Al-'
though seniority policy is'identical in-all five kitchens,
seniority is acquired separately at each kitchen and an
employee laid off at one kitchen cannot bump a junior
employee at another. -
Evidence concerning interchange of employees
among the five kitchens covering a 13-month period
from -January 1, 1970, until January 31, 1971,
2 The Employer is engaged in the airline catering, hotel , and restaurant
service industries . This ,proceeding involves the Employer 's airline catering
operations at two airports in New York and one in, New Jersey. The
Employer's contention that the employees involved are not subject to the
Act, but rather to the Railway Labor Act, is without merit. Hot Shopper,
Inc., 143 NLRB 578.
3 The ' Employer's contention that the Act does not permit the
acceptance of a joint petition is without merit . The Bailey Department,
Stores Co., 120 NLRB 1239, 1240.
4 The three airports involved herein are operated by the New York Port
Authority,
192 NLRB No. 54
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
immediately before the end of the hearing, was
received into the record. Permanent transfers- are
negligible in number as only about 12 occurred during
the entire 13-month period. -
The Employer contends, however, that the higher
rate of temporary employee, interchange militates in
favor of a single unit embracing all five kitchens.
There were- approximately 236 instances of individual,
employees transferring,temporarily from one kitchen
to another during the 13-month period, or an average
of approximately 18 per month. However, 63 of those
instances involved transfers between the two kitchens
serving Kennedy Airport, and 93 between Kennedy
and La Guardia., Hence, there were only 173 tempo-
rary transfers, or a monthly average of about 13,
among the three airports, and only 80,-or about 6 per
month, between Newark and the other two airports.
Thus, transfers among the five kitchens, affected only
about 2.5 percent of the total employees monthly (18
of 716), - and transfers among the three airports
affected only about l:8 percent (13 of 716). These
figures appear to us to lack significance, particularly
when viewed against -the size of, the employee
complement at the five kitchens.
In our opinion, the unit advocated by the Employer,
encompassing the five kitchens at all three airports,
might be appropriate. As noted above, such a unit
would conform to an administrative subdivision, of
the Employer, and the three airports are all operated
by the Port of New York Authority.5 However, it is
not the only appropriate unit, and in the absence of a
claim, by a labor organization to, represent the
employees in such h -a unit, we-must determine whether
any unit or, units requested by the Petitioners might be
appropriate;
We see no basis upon which to find appropriate -a
unit including both the Kennedy and La Guardia
kitchens but excluding those at Newark- On the one
hand, such, a unit constitutes only a part of the
Employer's administrative subdivision leaving out,
without reason, similar employee& of Newark. On the
other hand, the employees servicing La Guardia are
geographically separated from those servicing Kenne-
dy and are concerned with different conditions of
employment insofar as their work involves catering to
a different airport with different flight schedules. -
However, on the record herein, and in the absence
of a history of collective bargaining on a broader
5 It is noted , however, that the Employer' s` contention that all five
kitchens are located in, and service airports in, the Nevw York metropolitan
area is in error , as Newark constitutes a separate metropolitan area. U. S.
Bureau of the Census, Metropolitan Area Statistics, Reprinted from Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1970. Washington, D.C, 1970, see p. 903.
6 State ,Farm, Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 158 NLRB 925,
930. }
T Marriott In-Flight Services a Division of Marriott Corporation,
22-RC=4457. Not published in NLRB volumes.
8 Hot Shoppes, Inc., 139 NLRB 1253; Marriott In-Flight Services, a
basis, separate-units of the kitchens servicing Kenne-
dy. Airport, on the, one hand. and La Guardia on the
other can be appropriate. The single location of La
Guardia is-presumptively appropriate and the,-two
kitchens at Kennedy are in close geographic proximi-
ty and are functionally related by virtue of their
common service to that airport.
We have previously held that if two or more
appropriate units are to merge their separate identities
into a larger single unit , the resultant unit should
encompass all similarly situated units in order to
present some geographic` or administrative
coherence .6 Under the' circumstances here, the three
airports could be ,a single unit, comprising,as they do
the Employer's administrative subdivision, or they
could, constitute separate units,, but the two locations
may.not properly be combined as the Petitioners ask.
Accordingly, ,we find. the requested, unit to be
inappropriate, but shall direct separate elections at
Kennedy, and La Guardia. Such units are supported
by the geographic separation of the airports, the
existence of day-to-day autonomy in each unit, and
the insigni€icant nature of,employee interchange.
The units which we find - appropriate are also
supported-by precedent involving the same or,similar
operations of this Employer. In, 1970, the same issue
as is here presented, involving this Employer,-was
considered by thevRegional Director for Region 22. In
that case, a different labor organization sought a unit
limited to the two Newarkkitchens and the Employer
claimed that only a unit including the five, Newark,,
LaGuardia, and Kennedy, kitchens was appropriate.
The Regional Director, found the unit limited -to the
two Newark, kitchens appropriate.7
The Employer has a region similar. to that involved
herein , which encompasses Friendship Airport in
Maryland- and, National and Dulles Airports in
Virginia, all of which serve, Washington, D.C. In, two
cases, where 1the Employer took the,position,-as it does
here, that,a,regionwide unit alone is appropriate, the
Board found units limited to the Friendship Airport
facilities appropriate..8 In still other cases where the
issue was raised in a different posture, we-have found
appropriate units limited to kitchen servicing a single
airport.9
As indicated above, we shall -direct an),eleetion in -a
unit encompassing kitchens 370 and 377 at Kennedy
and another election in a unit consisting of kitchen
Division of Marriott Corporation, 188 NLRB No. 72.
In one other case , Ilot Shoppes, Inc., 130 NLRB 144, a labor
organization sought a unit limited to_Employer 'semployees atone of two
airports servicing Chicago, and the Bpard found such a .unit inappropriate.
However, unlike the instant case, it appeared there that the sole basis, for a
unit limited to one Chicago airport was the union's extent of organizationl.
9 Marriott In-Flight Services, a Division of Marriott Hot Shoppes, Inc.,
168''NLRB 365; Hot Shoppes,' Inc., 130 NLRB 138; Hot Slioppes, Inc.,
29-RC-44. Not reported in published NLRB volumes. . ,
MARRIOTT IN-FLITS SERVICES 381
375 at La Guardia. Together, the units are coextensive
with the single unit sought by the Petitioners.
However, since our unit findings differ from the single
unit sought, the Petitioners shall be permitted to
withdraw the petitionwithout prejudice if they do not
wish to proceed. If the Petitioners elect to proceed, the
elections will be held subject to a sufficient showing of
interest by the Petitioners in each unit.
We turn then to-the composition of the units. The
parties are in basic agreement except as to two
catagories. The Employer would include "shift
supervisors," whom the Petitioners would exclude as
supervisors.' Likewise, the Employer would include,
and the Petitioners exclude, certain clerical employees
who work at the kitchens.
Shift Supervisors: On the basis of uncontradicted
evidence on the record it is clear that shift supervisors
possess none of the indicia' of supervisory authority.
They are hourly paid; punch a- timeclock, work in
various parts of the kitchens, and assist shift or
assistant managers who, together with the managers,
supervise, each kitchen. ,We find that the shift
supervisors are not supervisors as defined in the Act,
and shall include them in the units.
Clericals: The clericals,, who are located at the
kitchens, work both in production and in nonproduc-
tion areas, but do not work in office areas, and they
perform tasks closely allied to production operations.
Their terms and conditions of employment are similar
10 In order, to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the elections should have access to a list of voters and their'
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., '156 NLRB 1236; N.L.RB. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly, it is 'hereby directed that election eligibility lists,
:ontaining the names and,addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
to those of unit employees and, there is interchange
between unit employees and such clericals. We
conclude that they are plant clericals-and shall include
them in the units herein found appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute units appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
1. All coordinators, food equipment handlers
and helpers, cooks, chefs, station attendants,
pantry workers, utility and sanitation employees,
bakers, storekeepers,' maintenance men and me-
chanics, plant clericals, and shift supervisors, at
the Employer's Kitchen 370 at John F. Kennedy
Airport and Kitchen 377 at 152-65 Rockaway
Boulevard, Queens, N.Y. but excludingallprofes-
sionals, guards, watchmen, clericals and other
statutory exclusions.
2. All coordinators, food equipment handlers
and helpers, cooks, chefs, station attendants,
pantry workers, utility and santitation employees,
bakers, storekeepers, maintenance men and me-
chanics, plant clericals, and shift supervisors, at
the Employer's Kitchen 375 at 49-220 49th St.,
Astoria, Queens, N.Y., but excluding all profes-
sionals guards, watchmen, clericals and other
statutory exclusions.
[Direction of Elections 10 omitted from publication.]
by the Employer with-the Regional Director for Region 29 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections . The Regional Director
shall make the lists available to all parties to the election . No extension of,
time to file the lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the elections whenever proper objections are
filed.