Parties and Appearances
0645-81-R Hotel, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 75, Applicant, v. Waldorf Astoria Hotel, Respondent.
BEFORE: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members M. J. Fenwick and W. H. Wightinan.
APPEARANCES: Ian Roland and George Pineo for the applicant; R. C. Filion, Peter J. Thorup and Ward Hagar for the respondent.
Decision of the Board
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 17, 1981
1The name: "Waldorf Astoria Apartment Hotel" appearing in the style of cause of this application as the name of the respondent is amended to read: "Waldorf Astoria Hotel".
2This is an application for certification.
3The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(l)(n) of The Labour Relations Act.
4The parties are in partial agreement with respect to the description of the bargaining units. However, the parties are in dispute as to whether S. Harris, the head housekeeper, should be included in the bargaining units, as contended by the applicant, or excluded from the bargaining units, as submitted by the respondent. It is the respondent's position that the head housekeeper should be excluded on the ground that he exercises managerial functions within the meaning of section l(3)(b) of the Act.
5The criteria which are generally considered by the Board to be relevant to the determination of whether or not an individual exercises managerial functions are well established in the Board's jurisprudence; see, for example, Hydro Electric Commission of the Borough of Etobicoke, [1981] OLRB Rep. Jan38 and the cases cited therein. Having regard to all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board is of the opinion that as of the date of this application, Mr. Harris exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section l(3)(b) of the Act. He exercised effective control and authority over the housekeeping staff of the respondent's 126 room hotel by making effective recommendations to the respondent's Manager, Ward Hagar, with respect to the hiring and discharge of housekeeping staff. Moreover, on at least one occasion he hired an employee on his own initiative without any prior consultation with Mr. Hagar. He also prepared the work schedule for the housekeeping staff and had power to grant time off. It was his responsibility to prepare time sheets indicating the number of hours worked by his staff for payroll purposes. The fact that he also regularly performed non-managerial functions does not detract from the fact that he devoted a significant amount of his time to managerial functions. Accordingly, the position of head housekeeper will be excluded from the bargaining units.
6Having regard to the partial agreement of the parties concerning the description of the bargaining units and to the foregoing determination with respect to the managerial status of the head housekeeper, the Board finds that the following constitute units of employees appropriate for collective bargaining:
All employees of the respondent at the Waldorf Astorial Hotel in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, save and except head housekeeper, those above the rank of head housekeeper, office staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period (hereinafter referred to as "bargaining unit #1").
All employees of the respondent at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except head housekeeper, persons above the rank of head-housekeeper, and office staff (hereinafter referred to as "bargaining unit #2").
7In support of this application the applicant filed in timely fashion combination membership applications and receipts for thirteen of the seventeen employees in bargaining unit #1 as of the date of the application and for each of the five employees in bargaining unit #2 as of the date of the application. Thus, the applicant would under normal circumstances be entitled to a certificate for each bargaining unit without a representation vote. However, the respondent submits that this application should be dismissed because the membership evidence does not represent the true wishes of the employees. The respondent alleges that Mr. Harris represented himself to employees in the bargaining units to be acting on behalf of management in soliciting the membership evidence filed in this matter, and induced employees to join the applicant by telling them that management wanted them to join the applicant and that he and they might be discharged if they did not join the applicant.
8In support of its allegations, the respondent called as witnesses Mr. Hagar and two assistant housekeepers employed at its hotel, Elizabeth O'Neill and Muriel Grigg. Ms. O'Neill