A STUDY OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELA'I'IONS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY Thesis for tho Dogma of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Gearge Frederick Davis 1960 LIBRARY Michigan State University A STU DY O F LAHOP -:‘TA\' A (TRUE \‘T I? ELATI 0 \TS T \T TH I“. HOTEL I \TUITSTP Y George Frederick Davis AV ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Business and Public Service Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BESTER OF ARTS School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management 1960 f‘ 5 . Approved fl «(/1 [1/4/Cgfl _ V' George Frederick Davis Labor—management relations in the hotel industry have under gone several periods of change as the American hotel industry developed. Out of the changes a set of procedures and practices concerned with collective bargain— ing have developed. Hotel unions and collective bargaining in the hotel industry have only recently achieved significant importance. The most significant change was due to a recent activity generated by the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union in the Miami Beach case. As a direct result of this case the National Labor Relations Board now asserts jurisdiction over hotels that have gross sales of $500,000 or over, and/or small hotels which are considered an integral part of a chain system having $500,000 annual gross sales. The purpose of the study was to illustrate the historical development of collective bargaining in the hotel industry and to identify current practices followed by labor and management in implementing the collective bargaining process. Information for the study was obtained through the use of library research, interviews and correSpondence with representatives of the American Hotel Association, various union officials, and individual hotel managers. George Frederick Davis The following are the major conclusions: 1. The development of the American hotel and unionization of employees were concurrent in nature. Unioni- zation in the hotel industry followed the general pattern of the national trade union movement but it has tended to lag behind unionization in other industries. Since the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, membership and activity of the Hotel, Restaurant Employees, and Bartenders International Union has increased tremendously. The increase in union membership during this period may be partially due to the fact that hotel unions have been satisfying the individual needs of its members. 2. Collective bargaining has been used in the hotel industry to settle labor—management disputes in metro- politan areas since the 1930's. Further emphasis was placed on collective bargaining in the hotel industry follow— ing the Taft-Hartley Act of 19h7. 3. Hotels in metrOpolitan areas are represented in collective bargaining by employer associations, and hotel employees are represented by Trades Councils or Joint Boards. a. Hotel labor agreements follow a uniform pattern. The clauses of the 22 agreements studied include seven major Sections. The uniformity of the agreements may be due to acorn FrederiCk Davis —-.——-—‘—I—-.— the influence of the International Union which serves as a clearing house, provides legal aid and research services to the local unions. '5. The hotel labor agreement helps preserve labor— management peace through mutual understanding and machinery for the settlement of grievances and disputes. Labor relations in the hotel industry are today relatively peaceful and harmonious. The future will depend primarily upon the degree of cooperativeness between all interested parties. A STUDY CF LAWOR—TJNYACEREELV'I‘ I?_EI“—\'7‘IC"\‘S IV TIFF HCTEL I \70 US'II'RY Hy George Frederick Davis A THESIS Submitted to the College of Business and Public Service i"iichisan state University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of NAS'I‘ER OF ARTS School of hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management 1960 (3Q :4953 Hz" ', .N ‘. . ._ . ...collective bargaining has become a way of industrial living. A major segment of the American public entrusts its liveli— hood to this technique. Thus, the study of collective bargaining offers rewards both to the theoretician and the partici- pants. An understanding of collective bargaining is becoming a necessity to everyone who reads a newspaper or casts a vote. Edwin F. Beal and Edward D. Wichersham, The Practice 2L Collective Bargainign, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959), p. ix. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS For wise counsel, for patient understanding, and for sincere interest and concern, the author wishes to express his appreciation to his major adviser, Doctor Ralph Wilson. His general assistance and helpful guidance were of much value in this study becoming a reality. His penetrating criticisms and valuable suggestions are acknowledge with sincere gratitude. To him much is owed. Various other members of the faculty of Michigan State University contributed valuable assistance. I am grateful for the many suggestions of Dr. Robert McIntosh, which compelled me to justify, rethink, and restate many portions of my manuscript. To Mr. Brad Shaw, Librarian, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, the author expresses appreciation for the many kind suggestions and advice be extended as to how to make greater utilization of the available library facilities. No list of acknowledgements is complete without tribute to my wife, Sandra, whose understanding, confidence, and encouragement contributes immeasurably to the writer's every achievement. George F. DaVis East Lansing, Michigan TAi-JL'E C‘ F C C :‘ITE .‘CTS CHAPTER PAGE I. I\TTRODUCTIO\r o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o l The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methods of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Personal Communications. . . . . . . . . . . . Interviews 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 DelimitationS. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 7 organization 0f the StUdYo o o o o o o o o o o o 8 II. FACTORS AFFECTING JAUOR-MANAGEMEYT RELATIOYS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY. . . . . . . . o . o o o o 10 Historical Background and Growth of the American Hotel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Present Status of the Hotel Industry . . . . . 16 Types of Hotels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Historical Growth and Deve10pment of labor Unions in Hotels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 basic Reasons Why Hotel Employees Join Unions. . 22 Union Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 History of Federal Labor Relations Laws. . . . 35 The Organizing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . an r. I 5‘! DU3YITnary. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 “LC CHAPTER III. THE COLLECTIVE BARGAIYIYG PRCCESj IN THE HOTEL lYnhsTHY . . . . . . . . . . . . bargaining Representatives of the Lnion. . The International Union. . . . . . . . . The Local Union. . . . . . . . . . . . . New York Hotel Trades Council. . . . . . Bargaining Representatives of the Employer Greater Chicago Hotel Association. . . . . The Multiple—Employer Residential Hotel Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Multiple-Employer Downtown Hotel Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Independent and Individual Residen- tial Hotel Group 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Chicago Union Organization for Hargainin: The Conduct of Collective Bargaining . . . Pre-bargaining Activities. . . . . . . . The First Session. . . . . . . . . . . . Counterproposals . . . . . . . . . . . . The Completed Task . . . . . . . . . . . The Hotel Strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Right to Picket Peaceably. . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1V. REPRESENTATIVE CLAUSES COMMON TO HOTEL LA. 3' 0 I} A {I}: b1 E 3} EVII‘S O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O FAG E 51 51 55 57 63 6h 66 72 77 78 79 79 82 87 CHAPTER V. Parties to the Agreement . Preamble and Purpose Clause. Union Security . . . . . . Recognition Clause . . . . Management Prerogatives. . Report Guarantee . . . . . Seniority. .-. . . . . . . Grievances . . . . . . . . Hours and Overtime . . . . Vacations and Holidays . . WageS. . . . . . o . . . . Strikes and Lockouts . . . Terms of Contract. . . . . Selected Clauses Distinctive Labor Agreements . . . . Uniforms . . . . . . . . . Split Shifts . . . . . . . Meals. . . . . . . . . . . Summary. 0 o o o o o o o 0 THE AUHI “JISTI-{ATION OF THE LABOR Purpose of Labor Agreement Two’Diverse Points of View The Significance of the Hotel Agreement. The Grievance Procedure. . The Arbitration Hearing. AGFEEMFYT. PAGE 90 91 91» 95 96 98 100 112 112 113 1111 115 117 117 117 118 CIDIPTIAi Standards for Content of the Agreement . Administration of the Agreement. . . . . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIOVS. . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGPAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al’PENDI X 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 TABLE I. CHICAGO HOTELS CCMPRISIVG THE MULTIPLE- El-TPLOYER DOWNTO‘A’V HOTEL GROUP. . . . . . II. TITLES AYD AFFILIATIOYS OF THE MAJOR UNICVS HAVING-REPRESENTATIOV IN CHICAGO HOTELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. HOURLY WAGES IV HOTELS IV NIYE SELECTED CI’l‘IES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 FIGURE I. ORGANIZATION OF THE HOTEL, FESTAURAVT EMPLOYEES AID RARTEYDEPS IVTERNATIOVAL UNION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. CHART OF OPSATIZATION HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL III. ORGANIZATION FOR BAPGAIWING OF THE MULTIPLE- EMPLOYER DOWNTOWV HOTEL Group. . . . . . IV. RELATIONSHIP or CHICAGO HOTEL BARGAIVING GROL)PO O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V. BARGAINIVG PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . 1&0 67 53 59 71 73 CPAPTER I INTRODUCTION During the last 150 years the United States has evolved steadily from a predominantly rural economy to a highly indus- trialized one. At the beginning of the 19th Century, four- fifths of our peOple were to be found working the soil, while today, approximately four-fifths of our people are employees, dependent upon wages and salaries for their income.1 Thus, our modern society finds itself dominated numeri- cally by the men and women whose only economic security lies in their jobs. With this change from a nation of small farmers and small businessmen to a nation of wage and salary earners, there has occurred a related trend away from emphasis upon the protection and promotion of property rights toward the pro- tection and promotion of job rights and job security. Growing out of these changes is an emerging set of principles and prac- tices concerned with collective bargaining. The process serves as a system of jurisprudence, which means the development of a code of rules, regulations, and Precedents to govern labor-management relationships, in con— trast to the authoritarian and arbitrary control which formerly prevailed in the management of the business enterprise. “.1 10. Wilson Handle, Collective Bargaining, (Cambridge, MaSSachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1951), pp. 5-U8. Increasingly more employee groups are participating in the development of the policies and practices concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. The tool with which this pro- cess operates is in the labor agreement. The Problem The changes that have occurred in manufacturing and other industries have been well noted; however, very little has been written about the changes in the hotel industry. It is the intent of this study to show the historical and current relations of labor and management in hotels. Hotel unions have been in existence since 1866, but only recently have they achieved significant importance. His- torically, hotels were considered intra—state in nature and thereby were subject to the state laws in which they Operated. However, due to recent activity generated on the part of the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NLRB could no longer refuse to assert jurisdiction over the hotel industry. As a result, hotels that do an annual gross business of $500,000, or smaller hotels that are considered an integral part of a chain system doing $500,000 annual gross business, are now subject to Federal laws. Because of this recent deve10pment, the problem in this study is to determine the effects of the historical deve10pment of col- lective bargaining in the hotel industry and to identify the current practices followed by labor and management in imple- menting the collective bargaining process. The author proposes to study the problem by examining the historical factors affecting labor—management relations, by identifying the Specific participants involved in the bargaining process and by examining the methods used in ne- gotiations. Furthermore, an analysis of the basic clauses in hotel labor agreements will be made to reveal the areas in which bargaining takes place. To conclude the study, the final agreement will be examined for special problems in administration of the agreement. Definitions The interpretation and meaning of certain terms are crucial to the intent of this thesis. The more important of these terms are defined here to establish a context for dis- cussion. 1. Association Agreement - An agreement negotiated and signed by an employer's association, as the agent of its members, with the union or unions representing the employees involved. 2. Bargaining Agent - The union which is either rec~ ognized voluntarily by the employer or designated F by the NLRB as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the bargaining unit. 3. Bargaining Rights - The legal rights of employees to bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing. Closed Shop - A form of union security wherein the employer agrees to hire and retain only union members in good standing. Collective Bargaining - A method whereby repre— sentatives of the employees (the union) and employer determine the conditions of employment through direct negotiation, normally resulting in a written agreement setting forth the wages, hours, and other conditions to be observed for the duration of the agreement. DiSpute - A disagreement between an employer and the union. Employers' Association - An organization of hotel employers whose primary purpose is to carry on labor relations with unions organized on a city wide basis. Erinfie lssues - Benefits supplemental to wages received by workers at a cost to employers. Hotel Labor Qgrgemgnt - A written agreement be- tween the union representing the employees and the employer, Specifying the terms and conditions of employment, union status, method of dispute settlement, and other topics. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. Industrial JuriSQrudence - The common law of labor relations as developed by decisions on day-to-day problems. Joint Board - An organization of representatives from the various locals of the hotel union. Some— times called District Councils. Labor—Management Relations — The relations pre- vailing between management, the employees, and the union. Sometimes referred to as "labor re— lations," "employer—employee relations." Multi-Emplover Baggaining — Collective bargaining between the union and a group of employers. Recognition - The employer's acknowledgment that a specific union is the bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit. Strike - An organized walkout to enforce union demands. Eniog §h32_- A type of sh0p which requires all new employees, as a condition of continued employment, to join the union within a specified time period; and all employees to remain union members in good standing to retain employment. Methods of Research Information contained in this thesis was obtained through the use of library books and periodicals, personal communications, and interviews. Literature. The writer conducted a comprehensive survey of all available literature dealing with the problem. The literature may be divided into six categories: (1) the work of academicians who have written in the field, (2) the literature of management organizations, (3) the literature of the union pertaining to the problem, (u) government publi- cations relevant to this study, (5) reports of independent researchers relating to the subject, and (6) union contracts. Bensonal Communications. A portion of the information was obtained by means of correSpondence with the American Hotel Association, various union officials, and hotel managers. The author found in his survey of the literature that some of the information was not current and failed to cover all aspects of the problem. Therefore, to cover the subject as thoroughly as circumstances would permit, it seemed only logical to use personal correSpondence to secure new and unpublished information concerning the subject. Interviews. Non-directive interviews were conducted i with hotel managers in Chicago, Illinois, for the purpose of gathering information concerning the Chicago Hotels Bar- gaining Group. Delimitations The material presented in this thesis is designed to bring together historical and current information pertaining to unions and collective bargaining in hotels, and to make it available in compact form to all those interested in labor— management relations in the hotel industry. Certain conclusions are drawn, but no effort is made to solve any of the problems of labor or management. Within the limited SCOpe of this study, it was only possible for the author to present various thoughts, facts, and ideas on the subject, with the hope that such material will serve in some measure to lay the foundation for additional research. A major limitation arises from the fact that the study was restricted to union activities in metrOpolitan hotels that are now subject to Federal laws. This, of course, means that union activities in cities less densely populated were omitted. Obviously, then, some of the principles and practices of collective bargaining in the smaller cities may not apply Since these hotels are still under state laws. A further limitation is that every phase of collective bargaining is not taken up, nor is any particular phase dis- cussed in great detail. To be informative, a report must necessarily cover many phases of a particular subject, regard- less of how narrow the original t0pic may be. Much of the material for this study necessarily comes from the scattered writings of many serious students of collective bargaining. Thoughts and ideas deemed best suited for the purpose have been selected freely from books, peri— odicals, personal communications, and similar sources. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of all data used. Organization of the Studv The thesis is divided into four distinct, yet intimately related parts. These are: background of labor-management relations in hotels; the structure of collective bargaining; the issues; and the contract. The introductory section endeavors to build the his- torical and legal framework into which collective bargaining fits. The thesis gives attention to a brief history of both the American hotel and the deve10pment of hotel unionism in the United States. To establish a legal framework for col— lective bargaining, a brief history of federal labor relations laws is presented. A discussion is presented concerning the reasons why hotel employees join unions and the stated objec- tives of the union in order to determine if the two are compatible or different. Next, the thesis considers the methods and procedures employed by union organizers. To implement the significance of union organization, a specific exploration is made into the bargaining organi- zations of the union. The New York City Hotel Trades Council is discussed. Collective bargaining in the hotel industry may be generally divided into single-employer and multiple- employer bargaining. For purposes of exposition, a detailed study of the Chicago multiple-employer bargaining group is presented. The negotiation procedure is surveyed from the viewpoint of labor and management which, in its detail, por- trays not only the employer's role, but also that of the union. Once a contract has been negotiated in a bargaining session, it becomes a tool that designs the day—to-day inter— action between union employees and their management. With this in mind, a study of 16 "standard clauses" is analyzed for implications and diversities. The thesis describes the final agreement as to its functions and contributions to workable labor-management re- lations. In Chapter VI, the contents of the study are summarized and the conclusions, based on the data in this report, are presented. CHAPTER II FACTORS AFFECTING LABOR—MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY From colonial times, the American hotel has deve10ped into one of man's most complex business institutions. In fact, it has become so complicated and costly that the ele- mental human reason for its existence is likely to be over- looked.2 In essence, a hotel is nothing more than a group of persons working day and night to provide the traveling public with the finest facilities in comfort, service, safety, and protection. While hotels have added other functions, the basic purposes of the institution have remained the same. In order to understand the problems arising out of labor-management relations in the hotel industry, the reader must first have a basic understanding of the development of the American hotel. The following section of this thesis traces the historical development of the hotel industry. Historical fiackgrOdi and Growth of thesAmerican Hotel The present role of the hotel in America dates back to the settlement of the colonies. The first inns built in this country were to provide lodging for the new settlers 2Donald E. Lundberg, Eersoggel Mgnagement in Hotgls and Restaurants, (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1955): Dell. 11 vehile building their own homes. Since Jamestown, Virginia, .1621, was the first of the English colonies in America, it :is there that we find the first public houses in America.3 The first inns were built in Boston and in Philadelphia, in the years 163k and 1662, respectively. The number of inns :in the colonies grew so rapidly that a law was passed stating that "no person shall keep a vitualing house without a license.' thus, all of the first colonies soon felt the need of inns fRJr the reception of newcomers or strangers, and in the spread th the early settlements to ports, ferries and crossroads, the illnS were often the first indications of the new towns.5 A5 America grew and the need for travel from city to (lity increased, inns or taverns, as they were called in this C(Duntry, began to make their appearance along the travel 170utes. Even in the small hamlets along the traveled roads, \vell kept, comfortable taverns were available. One early traveler describes one such tavern at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: The tavern at Bethlehem is one of an exceeding good plan and well calculated for the convenience and accommodation of travelers. The building, which is very extensive, is divided throughout by a passage near 30 feet wide. On each side are convenient apartments, consisting of a sitting room, which leads to separate bed chambers. All these rooms are well lighted and have fire places in them. 3hlmer Nantzzzuwili. H. Manchester} '"Nna'fiistory of Hospitality," hotel Mancgement, Vol. XI, No. 3, Larch, 1927, P- 193- ull)ido, p0 1:)5. 5Ibid., p. 197. u 12 On your arrival you are conducted to one of the apartments and delivered the key, so that you are as free from interruption as if in your own home. Every other accommodation was equal to the first tavern in London. In Spite of the accommodations offered, the taverns of this period were not much more than private homes providing the guests food and lodging, but with little in the way of luxury. In 1829, the Tremont House of Boston, Opened its doors as the first modern hotel.7 There were two major innovations which were introduced by the Tremont House. First, each guest room was furnished with a private lock and key, and secondly, each room was pro- vided with a free bar of soap.8 The Tremont House became a great success and a new age of hotel keeping was ushered in. Thus, the golden era of American hotels and hotel keeping began. One author stated: It was so far in front of all its contemporaries, either in America or in Europe, that it stood alone, in a class by itself, and was universally conceded to be something entirely new in the realm of hotel keeping.9 61bid., p. 287. 7Donald E. Lundberg and C. Vernon Kane, Business Manage- ment: Hotels, Motels and Restaurants. (Tallahassee, Florida: Peninsular Publishing Co., 1952), p. 3. 81b1d., p. 8. 9Jefferson Williamson, The American Hotel. (New York: Knoft and Company, 1930), p. 13. 13 During the thirty years preceding the Civil War, caravansaries larger and finer than any the world had ever seen were built in all the older cities and in the boom towns that had been non—existent a score of years before. They were kept in the best of style and were full of luxurious innovations of all sorts to pamper the long neglected guest. In 1859, the Fifth Avenue Hotel, built in New York, followed in the footsteps of the Tremont House, further marking the new era. It was the first hotel to contain a passenger elevator. Even though the elevator... "...was merely a nut on the end of a great screw, which, as the screw turned, was carried up and down, ...it was a remarkable improvement for its day." First class hosteleries were soon being built throughout the country. Among them were the Astor House in New York City, the American House in Philadelphia, and the Charleston Hotel in Charleston, South Carolina. ieanwhile, the population of the United States was growing. As the pioneers traveled West, wayside taverns con- tinued to Spring up along the travel routes to accommodate them. The taverns of the West were very crude in construction, as well as in the accommodations and furnishings offered. The taverns in no way resembled the lavish hotels of the eastern seaboard. As time passed, the frontier towns grew into cities and the taverns gave way to the luxury hotels. The deve10pment 1°Mantz and Manchester, 22.0it., Vol. XII, No. 1, July, 1927, p. 280 14 of the Mid-west, northern Mississippi, and Pacific Coast hotel: followed the deve10pment of the eastern hotels. Among the hotels built in the 1860's were the first Palmer House and Sherman Hotels, both of which were rebuilt after the Chicago Fire of 1871. St. Louis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee, all had luxurious hotels by the late 1800's. In the early 1900's every large city in the United States had its "modern palace" catering to the upper strata of society. The itinerant salesman traveling the country and the average middle class worker could not afford such lavish— ness. As a result, while the luxury hotels were being built, the older taverns continued to accommodate the less fortunate traveler. In many instances there arose a "boarding house" type of inn, usually located in the less desirable sections of a city and, like the early taverns, were family establish- ments offering food and lodging. The commercial hotel was designed to meet the growing need for a decent place to stay at reasonable cost. The leading pioneer in this field was Ellsworth M. Statler, who's genius and initiative changed the whole concept of hotel keeping. Statler's hotels stressed the importance of service to the guest. He contributed a code for the treatment of hotel guests, which changed the attitude of industry to the public, from the Nineteenth Centry arrogance of "The Public Be Damned" to his idea that "The guest is always right."11 11Kate D. Davis, "Hotel Man of the Half Century," The éouthern Hotel Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, March 1950, p. 72. 15 In January, 1908, Mr. Statler Opened his first hotel in Buffalo, New York, with rates advertised as "A room and bath for a dollar and a half." The Buffalo Statler was truly a modern hotel that provided comfort, service, and cleanliness for the average man at a price within his budget. Immediate public response assured the success of the Statler Hotel and initiated the development of the Statler Hotel Company.12 Thus, by 1910, the modern commercial hotel was on the road to success. More hotel men followed in building transient hotels until guest rooms in the United States in- creased by over h00,000 between 1920 and 1928. The number of guests did not keep pace with the rise in guest rooms, and by 1928 average OCCUpaHCy in the country had dropped below 70 per cent. During the depression of the 1930's, many hotels took bankruptcy. Occupancy drOpped from 69.5 per cent to 51 per cent.13 Economic recovery was slow because hotels had been over—built and most were over-capitalized during the boom years of the late 1920's. By the late 1930's, hotels were beginning to recover from the "dark years," and occupancy had climbed to 66 per cent by 1937. Occupancy rose in 19b2 for the first time since 1928 to a level of 70 per cent. In 1906, lzlhid. lehe Futugg_0uilook Q£_the Hotel Industry, (American Association, New York: 1906), p. h. 16 occupancy jumped to 9b per cent. The occupancy rate, in 1959, was down from the 19U6 peak of 9% per cent to approximately 67 per cent.1u Present status of the hotel industry. Since the de- velopment of the first public house at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1621, hotel keeping has grown in its number of employees to be the seventh-ranking service industry in the United StateS. The 195k report of the United States Census Bureau shows approximately 2u,778 hotels with a total of 1,500,000 rooms that can accommodate 2,000,000 guests each night and offer dining facilities for over 1,030,000 peeple. Hotel receipts total approximately $2,500,000,000 per year and hotel pay- rolls amount to $1,000,000,000 per year. Of the 2U,778 hotels in the United States, 11,000 have 25 rooms or more and apprbximately 1,500 of these have receipts totaling over $300,000 per year. The hotels with receipts in excess of $500,000 a year account for more than one-half of the entire industry's receipts of $2,500,000,000. The 11,000 hotels with 25 rooms or more employ 270,000 of the 377,000 persons employed in the hotel industry and pay $U73,000,000 or the hotel industry's $1,000,000,000 payroll.15 The dollar volume size of the hotel industry can be compared with that of the beverage, men's and boys' clothing, 1L‘Arnerican Hotel Association, "Facts About America's Hospitality Industry," The Hotel Story, (Yew York: 1959) p.12. v; 1' ‘ - . ‘ _, ' ' l5nureau of Census, L,S. Census of HUbanSS, 1954, Vol. V., Select Services Trades, Summary Statistics Table 2A, C2, p. 30. 17 and cigarette industries. The annual dollar volume of the hotel industry is more than twice that of the total receipts of both the beverage industry and the men's and boys' clothing industry and is one and one-half times that of the cigarette industry. The annual hotel payroll is eight times greater than the payroll of the cigarette industry.16 Gerald w. Lattin, in his book, "Modern Hotel Manage- ment," states that 6 per cent of all American hotels have over 300 rooms, and 70 per cent have fewer than 100 rooms; the remaining 24 per cent range in size between 100 and 300 rooms. The total hotel industry is tremendous in size and scope, but the majority of the hotels in the industry are small businesses with 50 to 100 rooms. Types of hotels. The 2h,778 hotels may be classified by clientele served into three groups, which are: (l) the commercial hotel, (2) the resort hotel, and (3) the resi- dential hotel. The commercial hotels account for 75 per cent of the total, resort hotels for 16 per cent of the total, and residential for 9 per cent.17 The commercial hotel directs its appeal primarily to the individual traveling for business reasons, although some commercial hotels also cater to permanent guests. The two distinguishing features of the commercial hotel relative to 16Bureau of Census, U.S. Census g; Manufacturing, 1953, Vol. I, Summary Statistics Table 2A, 0-2, pp. b, 6, 20, 27. 17Gerald W. Lattin, Modern Hotel Management, (San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1958), p. 16. 18 duration of guest stay are (l) a guest registers for a day or less, and (2) a guest does not sign a lease for his period of stay.]8 Resort hotels, catering to vacationers and recreation minded people, usually operate seasonally and are open for either the summer or winter season, with a small number oper- ating year-round. The majority of guests spend from one week to an entire season at resort hotels. Resorts are usually located at the shore, in the mountains, or at a spa. The resort is usually free of the large city clamor and is easily accessible by train or car. Essentially, a residential hotel is an apartment hotel offering maid service, a dining room, room meal service, and possibly a cocktail lounge. In contrast to the commercial hotel, the guest of the residential hotel will generally stay a minimum period of one month and must sign a lease that des- cribes the terms, duties, and reSponsibilities of both the lessor and the lessee.19 Historical Growth and Develgpment of Labor Unions in Hotels While the hotels of America have grown in size and types, so also have the problems of the manager. The inn of colonial days had been a family enterprise. The owner had been the manager; his wife the cook or housekeeper; and the l8Peter Dukas, Hotel Front Office Management and Oper- ation. (Iowa, Duhuque: W. C. Brown Company, 1957), p. 2. lglbid. 19 children aided whenever help was needed. As the inns gave way to hotels, there was a necessity for hiring employees. With the change from the family Operation to hired employees, it was necessary to establish new relationships between the manager and his workers. During the period of change, the American hotelman employed European craftsmen and apprentices, trained in trade schools, who could cook and bake, arrange food attractively upon a plate, and serve it with skill. AS a result, the majority of the catering workers were immigrants from France, German, Switzerland, and Italy. The immigrant was eager to work, and in his eyes, America was a country of wealth and promise. Though American wages were higher, employers were individualists with a sharp eye to profits and, as a result, they worked their employees very hard. Efforts on the part of the workers to organize and gain recognition in the early years were weak and sporadic. They were faced, on the one hand, by internal dissension; and on the other, by the philosophy of hotelmen that the hotel business was unorganizable due to the nature of the business. The hotel business was not an industrial one; it was a dom- estic one. In the early 1900's, hotel managers assumed that the working man was little more than a commodity of business. The phi1050phy was not confined to the hotel business, but to all industry. The 1h hour day and the 7 day work week 20 were considered inevitable. The secretary of the Buffalo Waiters Alliance reported that in 1901 there were still hotels: where a waiter is compelled to work from five o'clock in the morning until nine and ten at night, seven days a week, for the munificent sum of $3.00 a week. Out of this they must buy jackets and aprons and wear clean linen...2O The waiter's pay was extremely low, and he often had to pay an employer to secure a job. Fines for breakage and disobeying rules was a general practice. At places like the former Belmont Hotel in New York, a system of fines caused intense irritation among the workers. Examples of these fines quoted from Union House Union Bar are as follows: A waiter receiving $25 a month, with meals and tips, would be fined twenty-five cents for dropping a piece of silver, or being late on the job, or talking too much to customers. One waiter was known to have been fined $2.00 for drinking left—over coffee and two others were fined $1.00 each just for looking on...but not reporting it to the management.21 Fines also eat into the restaurant workers earnings. Girls are commonly fined for lateness, one particular restaurant exacting twenty—five cents if a girl is ten minutes late. Her pay is always cut for breakage, and in some places a certain amount is deducted weekly whether she breaks dishes or not.22 In order to alleviate working conditions and to im- prove the wages paid, the hotel workers attempted to 20Matthew Josephson, Union House_ynion Bar, (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 13. 21Ibid., p. 86. 22Ibid., p. 63. 21 organize into worker "societies." The groups were composed of craftsmen confined to a given locality or city. One group, the Society of Cooks and Waiters, was organized in the early 1860's in Chicago, Illinois.23 The society was composed of cooks and waiters of EurOpean descent who joined the society for companionship and fraternalism rather than for higher wages and better working conditions. Nevertheless, these societies were the forerunners of the first trade unions in the hotel field. The first local union of culinary workers, Local 57, was formed in 1866, under the name of "Bartenders and Waiters Union, Chicago." Local 57 was an independent union composed entirely of German immigrants.2u The first evidence of unions joining together to ad- vocate economic action was in Pittsburgh, in 1881. One of the unions sending delegates was the National Marine Cooks and Pastry Cooks Association, No. 1 of Cincinnati, Ohio, which embraced workers employed on the Ohio River boats.25 At this Pittsburgh meeting, the Federation of Or— ganized Trades and Unions was formed, a predecessor of the American Federation of Labor. From this original meeting advocating economic action, the following decade was a period 23Jay Rubin and M. J. Obermier, Growth 22.; Union, (New York: The Comet Press, Inc., 19b3), p. 39. 211‘, . osephson, 92.01t., p. 3. 25Rubin and Obermier, gp,cit., p. #3. 22 of controversies and various attempts at organization leading to what is now the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. Some of the controversies and organi— zational activities are illustrated in the following para- graphs.26 In l88h, Assembly 7&75, composed of bartenders, organized and filed application for affiliation with the Knights of Labor, the dominant labor organization of this era. The group was active mainly in the middle west and Chicago area. Trouble started immediately between the two groups. The knights were Opposed to the liquor business in any form and refused to accept bartenders. A long contro- versy deve10ped, ending in the establishment of independent organizations, again reverting back to national groups composed of German, French, or Italian immigrants. The American Federation of Labor had, in the meantime, made inroads into the membership of the Knights of Labor and called a convention in December 1890, in Detroit, Michigan. Culinary workers, as well as bartenders attended. However, because of disagreement during the convention, Julius Weiner, an official of what is new Local 2, Brooklyn, Started a campaign to form a national union composed of Culinary workers and bartenders. The Waiters and Bartenders National Union was formed in 1891 from workers in the New York area. The next few 26Lundberg, 92,01t., p. 236. 23 years were devoted to the problems of various groups within the national union trying to gain control of the labor organi- zation. Funds were misappropriated and internal strife and dissension were prevalent; all in all, the situation was serious. In 1898, the name of the organization was changed to the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Alliance and Bartenders International League of America, with a total membership of 990 workers.27 Eleven years later, internal union affairs were again running smoothly and membership was increased to 18,268. Membership continued to grow until in 1903 there were 38,571 members.28 The twelfth convention of the International Union, held in l90h, represented a membership of 50,h30 workers and treasury funds of more than $h0,000. A twelve-fold increase in the number of workers organized in the trade within four years. Membership continued to increase and by 1918, had reached 65,938. However, following this rapid growth in unionization was a period of declining union membership due to prohibition and allied causes. Prior to this time, no effort had been made to organize the unskilled workers of the hotels. Cooks, waiters, and bartenders continued to be the main bulk of organized workers in the hotel field. The Industrial Workers of the World tried unsuccessfully to organize the unskilled, but their 27Josephson, gE.cit., p. 32. 28Ibid., p. 52. 2h effort collapsed so quickly that only minor gains were made in the catering and hotel industries. Meanwhile, the hotel business continued to grow. Chain hotels were now in Oper- ation and the workers faced new problems in their attempts to organize. Now, absentee ownership was developing and negotiations had to be carried on with a resident manager who simply carried out instructions. A chain hotel which made profits in one city could afford to finance a strike in one of its hotels in another city. The old style proprietor could not depend upon such financial sugport and was thus apt to settle more quickly.2 During World War I, the hotel workers flocked to the higher paying industries engaged in war production. Foreign immigration stopped, and the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union (AFL) struggled for ex- istence. While workers in other industries were making rapid gains, the hotel workers were unable to make any head- way, especially with the threat of prohibition. On Janu— ary 16, 1920, prohibition went into effect. Membership began to slip, drOpping to 61,687 in 1919, to 51,302 in 1920, and to 37,7u3 in 1923.30 By 1932, union membership had dropped to 27,000, and the International membership had reached its lowest point since 1903. With the repeal of prohibition in 193U, and with the advent of the "New Deal" in Washington, federal administration 29Rubin and Obermier, gn.cit., p. 123. 30Lundberg,‘gp.cit., p. 237. changed its philosophy toward labor and the union movement. As Dulles said: For the first time in our history, a national administration was to make the welfare of indus— trial workers a direct concern of government and act on the principle that only organized labor could deal on equal terms with organized capital in bringing about a proper balance between these two rival forces in a capitalistic society. Here- tofore, labor unions had been tolerated, they were now to be encouraged. The National Industrial Recovery Act, 1935, actively encouraged employee representation and Sponsored collective bargaining between employers and employees. With the en— actment of the National Labor Relations Act, unions were given further encouragement. In a strke conducted in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by locals of the International Union in 1935, the Pittsburgh Hotel Association signed a contract granting wage increases to all unionized hotel workers in member hotels. As a result of this strike, membership soared in the International Union to a total of over 180,000 members by 1937. In 1938, a new and more highly deveIOped form of collective bargaining organization was established in the hotel industry in New York City. The New York Hotel Trades Council was formed and was composed of all crafts in the hotel industry repre- sented by one union. The New York Hotel Trades Council acted as the collective bargaining agent for all craft 31Foster Rhea Dulles, Labor lg America, (New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Company, 19h9), p. 26”. unions in the city. The Council, acting for the craft unions, signed an agreement with the New York Hotel Assoc- iation granting wage increases totaling more than $2,000,000 a year and specifying improved working conditions. Similar agreements granting wage increases and improved working conditions were signed in Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, and San Francisco.32 Following World War II, important gains were made in the reduction of hours, the gradual increase in take-home pay, and in the introduction of health and welfare benefits. The eight-hour workday had become the standard by 19U7, and the forty-hour, five-day week was almost universal in all local unions of the International. As Director of Organization, Weinberger estimated (as of April, 195h): One-third of the entire membership is now covered by collective agreements that provide for the forty-hour week, of five days. The Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union is now the largest service trades union in the AFL-CIO, with 650 local unions representing over “50,000 members.3u Hotel union membership has grown from less than #50 members in 1891 to H50,000 members in a little over a half 32Rubin and Obermier, gp,cit., p. 309. 331953 Convention: Officers Reports, p. 51. I 34Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter- national Union, "A Message for the New Member," Yong Union, (Cincinnati, Ohio, 195h), p. 5. 2? century. The growth has been phenomenal, but not steady, occurring mostly during periods of prOSperity and experi- encing setbacks in depression eras. The International Union has expanded since 1933 at a rate that is twice as rapid as unionization in other industries.35 Records show that hotel labor unions have been cogni- zant of employee needs and have met their needs by obtaining these major gains: 1. Increase in wages 2. Better working conditions 3. Fringe benefits h. Shorter hours As a result, there has been an increase in union activity and bargaining in the hotel industry. Future or continued growth of the union membership in the hotel industry will partially be determined by how well the stated objectives of the hotel unions meet the future needs and requirements of the hotel employees. To help clarify the above statement, we can compare the reasons why hotel employees join unions with the stated union objectives. If these factors are comparable, this may possibly provide some evidence of continued or future growth. Basic Reasons Why Hotel Employees Join Unions Hotel workers join labor unions for a variety of reasons, varying with the individual and the prevailing 35Josephson, gp.cit., p. 1. 28 circumstances. However, the major reasons are classified as the following: to obtain employment; economic interests; protection against favoritism by management; fringe benefits; freedom of speech; leadership aSpiraLions; job security; social pressure; and control over working conditions. The Union controls the job through an agreement with the employer, and the worker must join the union in order to obtain employment with that hotel. Sometimes the workers are convinced that union membership is a means of furthering their own economic interests. The union may help to improve wages, hours and other conditions of work in the hotel. Another potent motive for joining the union is the worker's interest in protecting himself from favoritism by hotel managers. Golden and Ruttenberg observe that the appeal against favoritism is "perhaps the organizer's strongest appeal." The appeal is couched in terms of: "Join the union so you can get a square deal. When you get a contract with seniority protection you don't have to worry every morning when you get to work whether you'll have a job when you come home at night; you won't have to worry about the boss firing you because he doesn't like the color of your skin..."30 In the hotel industry, where many Operations are relatively Small in scale, the hotel union has utilized the equal divi- sion of available work as a strong selling appeal. Favor— itism in dividing the work load among available employees 36Clinton 5. Golden and Harold J. Ruttenberg, The Dynamics 3; Industrial Democracy, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19u2), pp. 128-129. 29 during "slack seasons" may determine the take-home pay of each worker. The older workers find union membership attractive because of increased benefits including pensions, health and accident insurance, and life insurance that the unions obtain from management or that is provided by the unions. Other employees join unions to provide an outlet for their "gripes" and problems, without fear of retaliation. In general, these nonpecuniary motivations may loom larger in workers' calculations than many managements of hotels have realized. The important thing is that the union is the promise of protection from arbitrary discipline. The unions also provide workers with an outlet of expression for their aSpirations to leadership. The employees may become committee heads, be elected to various offices, attend conferences and may be given community posts which are honorary and important. Union meetings give the worker an Opportunity to express his feelings toward the hotel, to influence the attitude of other employees and to convert them to his political and economic philosophy. The indi- vidual alone feels especially weak in a world of mass production and mass movements. An organization provides him an opportunity to join others for the achievement of those objectives that he considers socially desirable. Jobs do not always provide these opportunities for personal actions. 30 Every worker fears the threat of unemployment. The loss of a job may mean financial disaster and severe sacri- fice for the worker and his family. Recognizing this fact, workers desire the kind of job security that is rooted in steady employment, year in and year out, to a chance for advancement, and to the protection of his sense of dignity, which comes from the assurance that what he contributes is going to justly be evaluated and appreciated.37 Often there is a great deal of social pressure upon workers to become union members. Such pressure may come from parents, relatives and friends, or from the community at large in a unionized locality. In addition to threat of social ostracism, there may also be, in certain instances, a fear of personal or property injury if the worker fails to take out union membership. Another basic reason why hotel employees join unions is that employees want more to say about their work and the conditions under which it is performed. The workers feel that with a union they are assured of some participation in decision—making and must be consulted before certain changes are made.38 Union objectives. The stated objectives of the union Can be classified under these main headings: the maintenance 37Neil W. Chamberlain, The Union Challenge Lg Manage- ment Contrgl, (New York: Harper and Brothers, l9u8), p. 98. 38Ibid., p. 9b. 31 of the organization; rationing of job opportunities; improve— ment of wages; and the development of a judicial system for deciding diSputes over rights of individual workers.39 The right to maintain a union organization is a basic primary objective, since without this nothing else can be accomplished. A second facet of union activities involves the con— trol and rationing of job Opportunities. Hotel workers old enough to have lived through the last depression are deeply convinced that there is clearly a shortage of jobs, beyond this, "good"jobs, and that the number of peOple trying to get into these jobs far exceeds the number of vacancies available. In economic theory, the problem of promotion to "good" jobs would be solved through the employer's appraisal of the worker's efficiency. The employer would select the "best man for the job" at a given time. In principal, he would be free to promote or demote, to hire or discharge, on the basis of his most recent evidence concerning relative efficiency. Such reasoning implies great insecurity of job tenure and a constant threat of displacement. It is difficult to overstate the importance attached by the workers to union controls of this nature. The feeling of independence, the relief from insecurity attendant upon the rationalization of personnel policies can be appreciated 39Lloyd G. Reynolds, Labor Economigs and Labor Relations, (New York: Prentice—Hall, 1nc., l956),pp. 119-120. 32 only when contrasted with the feeling of subservience and the despised need for bootlicking of previous days. A third and obvious union objective has to do with improvement of wages. The union starts with the premise that economic security demands steady employment providing adequate income. lts conception of what is adequate is sub- ho ject to upward adjustment. Security, in this case, is not defined as subsistence, but rather progressive improve- ment of the worker's economic status. The union determines how large their demands should be by such things as: gains made in other industries; the cost of living; and the pro- fits of the hotel. A fourth sphere of union activity involves the process by which the general rules stated in the union contract are interpreted and applied to individual workers. The union is concerned, not only with a voice in making the rules, but with seeing that they are equitably applied and that the rights of individual workers are fully protected. The "grievance procedure," through which this is typically done in the hotel industry, is described in Chapter IV. From the presentation of the reasons why hotel employees join unions and from the stated union objectives, it can be concluded that the objectives of the union and the needs of individual members are one and the same. The broad objectives of unionization are to make hotels better places in which to uoChamberlain, 32,0it., pp. 90-91. U3 ‘4) work and to improve the status of each individual employee. More Specifically, the objectives of the individual and the union can be classified into three areas: (1) security, (2) recognition, and (3) self—expression. Security is further broken down into three components. First, economic security, or the wage issue. Employees join unions to further their own economic interests by the increase in wages and fringe benefitS. The union's objective is to provide an adequate income. What is adequate is always being subject to upward adjustment. A second part of security has to do with management's personnel policies. This concerns Such matters as lay-offs, rehiring, promoting, transferring, and disciplining employees. If decisions in this area are the result of favoritism, there is no security. If, however, such decisions are governed by stated rules which are enforce- able by the individual or his union, there is much greater security. The union's objective is to see that the rules are equitably applied and the rights of the employee are pro- tected. The grievance procedure is the method in which this is typically conducted. A third element of the worker's search for security involves an attempt to enlarge the amount of control over his own affairs. The intervention of his union in the decisions of management is one way the employee seeks to secure some measure of control over his own affairs. The union and the individual members are both seeking recognition and self—expression. Workers want something more than an adequate wage; they want the assurance that 3h they won't be pushed around. They want an opportunity to participate and to contribute constructively. Recognition of the union means, at least in part, recognition of the expressions of the individual employee. If we can accept, then, that the stated union objec- tives and the needs of individual members are compatible, we may reasonably conclude that hotel unions will continue to grow in membership in the future. Another factor that may help us to determine future or continued growth in union membership is future economic conditions, in general, and more specifically, in the hotel industry. National economic activity has been increasing, but when we compare the national trend with the hotel industry, we find a decline in hotel occupancy and sales. If this trend continues, no one really knows how this will affect hotel union membership. However, it may be that continued union growth may, to a greater or lesser degree, depend upon high economic activity in the hotel industry. Thus, it has been observed that the growth of union membership, since 1933, has been phenomenal. After the de- pression of the 1930's, and with legislation favoring col- lective bargaining, membership in the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and bartenders Union leaped from 30,000 to #50,000 union members. Continued union growth will be influenced by a favorable labor climate in government. A discussion of labor relations laws applying to hotels would provide the U3 "Jt legislative background and changes in the government's control of union-management relations. History or Federal l_a_bor Relations Laws. The. logical starting point for a discussion of governmental supervision of labor and management activities is with the Railway Labor Act of 1926. This act was an example of the reversal of the trend of legal opposition to union activity. It ras based on the idea that peaceful labor relations could be attained through free collective bargaining between employers and unions in the railroad industry. In 1932, Congress took the first general step to pro- tect employees in their organizing and bargaining activities when it passed the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act, a law prohibiting federal courts from issuing injunctions in labor disputes except under the most limited circumstances. Until this law was passed, one of the most effective means 0f bringing union activity to an end had been court orders prohibiting such activity. Violation of such an order was punished as a contempt of court. The Norris-LaGuardia Act extended and fostered the principles of collective bargaining throughout American industry. The National Industrial Recovery Act was passed in June, 1933. Under the Act, industry was to write its own codes of fair competition, but under these codes labor was also granted concessions. Section 7a of the Act provided that employees should be granted the right to collective 36 bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, free of restraint, interference, or coercion from their employers; it outlawed the yellow—dog contract by stating that no one seeking employment should be required to join a company union or to refrain from joining a labor organi- zation of his own choosing; and it stated that employers should comply with maximum hours, minimum wages, and certain working conditions. The NINA, however, which was hailed so enthusiastically in its early days, was doomed to failure. In May, 1935, the Supreme Court of the United States declared the Act as unconstitutional. The Act did, nevertheless, provide a background for a more important boon to the labor movement. On July 5, 1935, President Roosevelt affixed his signi- ture to the National Labor Relations Act, or as it is more popularly known, the Wagner Act. The Wagner Act provided all the collective bargaining provisions that Section 7a of the NIRA had provided, plus the fact that labor's right to organize and engage in collective bargaining was spelled out in greater detail. The law insured workers freedom to organize into unions, to choose their own representatives without interference and to engage in collective bargaining. The Act also set up the National Labor Relations Hoard to enforce the rights and prohibitions through orders enforce- able in court. The same agency also was to conduct elections in which employees could cast their ballots for or against a particular union to act as their bargaining representative. 37 The \‘L'RH under the Wagner Act, with certain exceptions, refused to exercise jurisdiction over the hotel industry be— cause of its lack of a substantial impact on commerce. The exceptions to the Board's general policy of declining juris— diction are: In Phillips Retrolegm, 97 X.L.R.B. 16, the Board took jurisdiction in a case involving em- ployees of an apartment hotel. The hotel was Operated by an oil company engaged in interstate commerce as an integral part of its building division. In the following cases, the Board asserted jurisdiction of hotel labor diSputes because the establishments were located in the District of Columbia, basing its action upon the premise that it would effectuate the poliCieS of the Act to take jurisdiction of all cases arising in the District of Columbia, regardless of the impact on commerce: N.L.R.B. V. Parkside Hotel, 179 F. 2d 15 7b N.L.R.R. 809; Raleié’;h Hotel Company, 7 N.L.R.B. H3; Willard Hotel, 2 N.L.P.R. 109a. The first case in which the Board made known its reasons for not assuming Jurisdiction over the hotel industry was the White 5_lphur SPTiQflS Company, 1946.“1 The case involved a labor diSpute at the Greenbrier Hotel at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The decision of the Board described briefly the general nature of the hotel's busineSs and pointed out that over 50 per cent of the guests came from outside the state. Notwithstanding this faCt, the board stated: Although the employer's Operations are not wholly unrelated to commerce, it appears that a cessation of the employer's operations would 1White 5312b“? Spring§_Company, 85 N.L.R.B. 288. have such a remote and indirect effect on com- merce that to assert jurisdiction here would not effectuate the policies of the Act.“2 In Hotel Association of St. Louis and Vir in Island Hotel, Inc. cases, the Board, in its decisions, made Speci- fic reference to the White Sulphur Springs case, emphasizing that the hotel industry had relatively slight impact on commerce. Because of these Board rulings, the hotel industry, for purposes of labor-management relations, remained, for 2h years, under the jurisdiction of the states in which they were located. State labor relations laws vary a great deal in scope, but the common feature of the laws is that they are adminis— tered by Special state labor relations boards set up in the state labor departments. It is not within the limited scope of this paper to examine state labor relations laws. On June 23, l9h7, the Taft-Hartley Act was passed, modifying the Wagner Act, but retaining provisions granting the right of employees to join unions, to engage in organized activities for the purpose of improving their working condi- tions, and the right to bargain collectively on terms and conditions of employment. When the Taft-Hartley Act was being considered in Congress, the American Hotel Association sought a Specific exemption for hotels. However, the exemption was disallowed u21})j d o 39 on the grounds that if a Specific exemption were provided for one industry, it would open the floodgates for ex- emption demands by other industries. Regardless of the fact that the hotel industry was under the jurisdiction of the Taft-Hartley Act, the National Labor Relations Board refused jurisdiction over hotel labor cases. The American Hotel Association maintained that the Board's policy of declining hotel cases was based upon findings that the hotel business had little impact on inter- state commerce. The Hotel, Restaurant and Bartenders International Union, on the other hand, claimed that the Board had not taken jurisdiction simply because no cases were brought to it.u3 Hotel Employees Local 255, Miami Beach, Florida, in 1955, used the following steps in bringing a hotel case to the United States Supreme Court. On June 29, 1955, a representation petition was filed by Local 255 with the National Labor Relations Board. The petition was dis- missed on July 1, 1955, by the Regional Director of the NLRB based on a "long standing policy not to exercise juris- diction over the hotel industry.uu Local 255 appealed to the NLRB requesting the Board to over-rule the Regional Director, to order him to “3Background Material, January 25, 1959, Washington, D.C. unnotel Employees Local No. 255, Hotel and Festaurant Employees and Bartenders International Lnion‘x. Boyd Leedom, brief of Petitioners, October, 1958. to investigate the representation petition, to hold a hearing, and to proceed with an election. The NLRH denied the union's request. ‘IOn January 12, 1956, the Local 255 filed a complaint against the Board in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They asked for a declaratory judgment, stating that the Board could not withhold its processes and the benefits of the Taft-Harfljw'Act on the sole grounds that hotels are involved. The Board filed a motion to dismiss for lack of juris— diction, or in the alternative, for summary judgment in its favor. On January 8, 1957, the District Court refused to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, but granted the Board's alternative motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, on appeal, affirmed the judgment of the Court "on the basis of the opinion of the District Court."“5 The union took the case to the Supreme Court. A summary of the petitioner's argument was that the refusal of the National Labor Relations Board to assert jurisdiction over the entire hotel industry, in effect, engrafts a blanket exemption upon the Labor Management Relations Act of 19“? for hotels. This contravened the decision of the majority of the Court in Office Employees 1. ELEQ.[ The decision of the Court in Office Employees reads as follows: u51bid. ht 1. Labor organizations are employers under sec- tion 2 (2) of the Act with respect to their own employees. 2. The Board is without power to decline juris- diction ovEr an entire category of interstate employers. 9’ The union argued that this decision is controlling since (1) hotels are employers within the meaning of sec- tion 2 (2) of the Act, and (2) the board has excluded hotel employers as a class. Also, the NLRB did not have authority to dismiss representation proceedings under section 9 (c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 19h7, when a question of representation effecting commerce existed. Therefore, the Board's refusal to act was directly contrary to the plain, mandatory language of the Act. Section 9 (c) pro- vides, in part, as follows: Whenever a petition shall have been filed in accordance with such regulations as may be pre- scribed by the Board...the Board shall investigate such petition and if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation effecting commerce exists, shall provide for appropriate hearing upon the record of such hearing that such a question of representation exists it shall direct an election by secret ballot and shall certify the results. 7 Local 255 maintained that the decision of the District Court was formulated contrary to the requirements of due pro- Cess of law since the Board never heard evidence on the effect of the entire hotel industry on interstate commerce. uéOffice Employees x. NLRB, 353 U.S. 313 (1957). u7Taft-Hartley Act, 19h? (Act of June 23, l9h7, C. 20, 80th Congress, ist Session, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. 151). u2 Consequently, on November 2b, 1958, the Supreme Court handed down its decision, reading as follows: We believe that dismissal of the representation petition on the sole ground of the Board's "long— standing policy not to exercise jurisdiction over the hotel industry as a class" is contrary to the principles expressed in Office Employees 1.ILabor Board.’ The judgment is therefore reversed.fb ’IThe Supreme Court thereby indicated that the total ex- clusion of the hotel industry from the Taft-Hartley Act was beyond the Board's power./ The Board stated: ...acting within our statutory powers, we will assert jurisdiction over hotel or motel enter- prises, exclusive of permanent or residential hotels, if the enterprise involved receives at least $500,000 in gross revenues per annum. However, two months following the Board's decision, on July 30, 1959, the Hoard asserted jurisdiction over the Floridan Hotel of Tampa, 1nc., because the hotel was part of a chain system doing an annual gross business over $500,000. Significantly, the decision stressed that under the Board's policy, chain enterprises are now considered as single employers for jurisdictional purposes. One of the latestreported decisions in which the Board assumed jurisdiction over smaller hotels that are a part of a chain system was that involving the Bellingham Hotel Company in Bellingham, Washington. The Bellingham unit had an annual u8National Labor Relations Hoard, YLQB Announces Chances in Exercise of Jurisdiction, Press Release 576, October 2, 19fi8. “9National Labor Pelations Board, NLRB Announces Change 13 Jurisdictional Policy with Resnect Lg Hotels, Press Release 586, January 11, 1959. “3 gross of $360,000 per year, but a controlling interest was owned by the Doric Company which managed 10 other hotels on the West Coast. The Doric system had gross revenues in ex- cess of $7,000,000 annually. In its Bellingham decision, the Board pointed out that the controlling organization, the Doric Company provided the local hotel with accounting and auditing services, payroll preparation, the handling of ad- vertising, as well as Operating policies and the provision of managerial personnel on a fee basis. These facts, ac- cording to the Board, made the local hotel an integral part of the parent organization and were cited for the reasons of applying the $500,000 annual revenue test to the entire organization rather than to the individual operating unit.50 As a result of the Board's decisions, it is estimated by the American Hotel Association that 55-65 per cent of the industry's employees are new subject to the Taft—Hartley law,51 in exercising a right to organize and bargain collectively. One of the predictions of future activity is as follows: The United States hotel industry will see a wave of organizing activity unmatched since the first days of mass organization ushered in by the Wagner Act.52 5°American Hotel Association, Employee Relations 1&- Lgrmation Service, "NLRB'S First Year in the Hotel Industry," Vol. V., No. XIII, February, 1960. Permission to use material was granted by Mr. Edward Kenny, Director, Employee Relations Department, American Hotel Association. 511hid. 52Catering Industry Employee, "President's Pages," July, 1959. 14h The information presented indicates that in the future, hotel managers may increasingly feel the effects of this organizational trend. To help explain how the unions increase their membership, it is necessary to examine their plan of action in organizing. The Organizing Proggsg The Taft-Hartley Act of 19U7 guarantees the right of workers to organize with their fellow employees or to refrain from such activities. Union organizers employ a good many techniques to organize a union and different situations call for alternative courses of action. Often employees are overtly seeking representation and contact the union organizers on their own initiative; or, the organizers may go into the area and do a real job of selling, starting from scratch. However, seldom are organizing drives the result of accident or happenstance. Most have the benefit of careful advanced planning. Organizing drives frequently are accelerated when: 1. Management does not give enough attention to the day-to-day problems and complaints of the individual. 2. Supervisors are lacking in understanding as to what management expects or wants them to do. 3. Employees are concerned over security. h. Management or ownership is changing which may be actual, contemplated, or rumored. 5. Personnel practices are weak, especially re- garding rates of pay.53 53American Hotel Association, "Building a Better Under- standing of Employer-Employee Relations," New York, 1957, p- 7- If the union organizer has no real contact with any employees, he has at least three ways in which he can get in touch with them. First, he may appear at the back door. He may pass handbills or buttonhole employees on the side- walk. Female organizers often enter hotels posing as patrons and, over a cup of coffee, try to enroll the workers. Secondly, the organizer can wait until an employee or group of employees take a "coffee break" or go to lunch before he approaches them. This method has advantages, inasmuch as the organizer has more time to give them information and to feel them out as prospects. The third method, calling at the employee's home after working hours, has obvious advantages insofar as the organizer can get a group of employees together at one time.5u If the organizer can do a real selling job at these home meetings, an excellent Opportunity is afforded to build a solid nucleus of workers which can Spread information to their friends in other hotels. Much time must be given and much missionary work must be accomplished by the employees themselves in obtain— ing cooperation from others. The organizer continues to distribute information, styled to motivate recalcitrant employeeS. An example of information distributed to employees and styled with this purpose in mind, is the leaf— let described on the following page. Lu? Waiters,g1fiaitressos, !g;rienders, Chnflus, Kitchen Workers and Miscellaneous Ilotel Empl Ojl-‘PS ORGAYIZE YOU YEED A UYION TO SPEAK FOR YOU! Unorganized workers are without a voice in deter- mining the conditions under which they shall labor or the wages they shall receive. Organization means everything. It gives the workers a voice in the affairs of the industry in which they are employed. Through the representatives Chosen by them they can, when organized, present and contend for their rights when it comes to negotiating with their employers for condi- tions of work and wage scales. Trade unions have proven their worth because they fill a need and meet a situation that can be filled and met by no other agency. Join an organization that is successfully functioning in its field for almost sixty years. It helped to establish one day off in seven; the eight-hour day; has done away with Split shifts in most instances; and is now well on the way to establish the five-day week, eight-hour day with no reduc- tion in wages, vacations with pay, and other benefits hither- to unheard of in the hotel, restaurant and tavern industry. If you want to enjoy similar conditions—-and who doesn't--join now the local union in your city. Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union American Federation of Labor For further information call: Telephone: U7 The organizer, in most cases, appeals to the employees on emotional grounds. Of course, they promise better wages, but their most attractive offer is in the areas of human desire-—improved security, freedom from capricious demotions or firings, greater recognition for the employee, better working conditions, hours, or locker rooms. It should be noted that before the enactment of the Taft—Hartley Act, the previously mentioned organizing tactics, in some cases, were not successful. The union's attempts to organize were often rebuffed by management tactics. Management kept the employees unorganized by refusing to recognize strikes and by offering employees high wages and many fringe benefits. Such was the case of the Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago, where unions have tried unsuccess- fully to organize the employees since 1933. (See Appendix A for details of this organizing effort.) In recent years, the International Union has main- tained an active campaign to establish new locals and increase its power and membership. The work of organizing new members is under a Director of Organization, who is responsible to the General President. Under the Director of Organization are three levels of organizers: (1) Inter- national organizers who receive $750 per month plus expenses when away from their home offices; (2) state organizers who are paid $600 per month plus expenses; (3) Special organizers. U8 There are some thirty—two organizers on assignments in dif~ U1 ‘Jl L - ferent sections of the United States and Canada. In summary, the over—all picture in any given organi- zing situation is set by the motives that impel the workers to join the union, the motives of the union in organizing the unorganized, the climate in which the organizing process occurs, and the personality of the organizer. Differences in organizing tactics are accounted for by interplay of these factors and not by differences in fundamental philoso- phies of organizing or of anything else. 8 umma r y America's hotel dates back to 162l and the public houses which sheltered our first settlers. The coffee houses were also prevalent, but catered mainly to local customers. Inns and taverns stayed at a rough, casual level for some years, but in Boston, in 1829, the Tremont House opened its doors and a new luxurious day in hotel keeping began. How— ever, the inns did not diminish in importance; they pushed westward with our nation's borders, providing bed and board for settlers and salesmen. Soon all major cities had one large luxury hotel and many small boarding—house inns. There Were no satisfactory and economical accommodations for the middle class traveler until E.M. Statler opened the first 53Constitution of the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International hnion, June 2Q, 1953, p. 20. MO I CommerCial hotel in Huffalo, New York. Today's hotels are of three basic types: (1) commercial, (2) resort, and (3) residential. Unionization in the hotels of this study, while fol- lowing the general pattern of the national trade union movement, has tended to lag behind unionization in other industries. The concept that the hotel field was, by nature unorganizable, since it represented a domestic rather than a mercantile establishment, slowed unionization considerably. Prohibition, too, hurt attempts to organize, since many potential union members were thrown out of work as a result of the Act. It was not until the passage of the Wagner Act that hotel unions really made notable gains. Once unioni7ation started, membership in the International Union increased by leaps and bounds and is continuing to increase by means of organizational drives. For 2h years, both under the Wagner Act and the Taft- Hartley Act, the YLRB, with certain limited exceptions, refused to exercise jurisdiction over the hotel industry. The Board took this position under the Wagner Act, largely on the premise that the hotel industry was essentially local in character and had relatively slight impact on interstate commerce. However, in 1955, a labor diSpute arose in a number of hotels at Miami Beach. For four years the battle was waged in the courts, resulting in the decision that hotel enterprises, exclusive of permanent or residential 50 hotels, doing $500,000 in gross revenues per annum are new subject to federal jurisdiction. Later, the Board decided to assert jurisdiction over smaller hotels that were con- sidered an integral part of a chain system, doing an annual gross business over $500,000. This law confers upon management certain rights and benefits, and it imposes certain duties. One of the rights it guarantees workers, is the right of workers to organize with their fellow employees or to refrain from such activities. Union organizers employ many methods in organizing a union. Differences in organizing tactics are set by the motives of the worker, the motives of the union in organizing, the climate, and the personality of the organizer. CHAPTER III THE COLLECTIVE j)ARGAIeYI.MG PROCESS IN “HE HOTEL IVDUSTRY In the preceding chapter, the historical development of the American hotel, the deve10pment of hotel unionization, and a summary of labor relations laws related to labor and management was presented. It is within this framework that hotel labor-management relations were formed and must be conducted in the present and in the future. In Chapter III, the participants in the collective bargaining process are identified and a description of the negotiation procedures, from the vieWpoint of both labor and management, is presented. The following section discusses the bargaining organizations of the union and management for the purpose of providing the matrix in which the collective bargaining process takes place. Bargaining Representatives of the Union The International Union. The international unions affiliated with the AFL exert direct control over their mem- ber local unions. The international usually specifies the amount of dues and initiation fees, and has the authority to examine the financial records of its local unions. On occasion, an international union, by securing a court order, may take over the assets of local unions in extreme cases. The International also grants charters to locals and may expel them from membership for disobedience. The backbone of the AFL, then, is the autonomous inter- national union. These 108 internationals vary in size from a minimum of fifty-five members to over one-million members, depending upon the limit of their jurisdiction. As in the Case of the American Federation of Labor, the supreme legis- lative body is the general convention. The majority of the internationals have annual or bi-annual conventions attended by delegates from their member local unions. In about 75 per cent of the internationals, officers are elected by delegates at the convention. The remainder are elected by referendum vote.56 The Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter- national Union is one of the 108 international unions in the AFL, and is composed of some 650 autonomous locals with mem- berships ranging in size from a handful of workers to several thousand workers.57 At the tOp of the International Union is a General President, elected by the membership at the general con- vention. Figure 1, page 53, shows the organization of the union. The General Executive Board is comprised of thirteen 56U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 1225, A Guide to Labor-Management Relations in the United States, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., March, 1958, pp. U-5. 57The union includes chefs, cooks and cooks' assistants, bartenders, waiters, waitresses, dishwashers, pantry—men, maids, bellmen and other service employees, industrial cafe- teria and commissary employees and other crafts in the industry U: to Figure 1. Organization of the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union General Executive Board 9 vice-presidents from electoral dis- tricts in the United States 1 vice—president from Canada 1 vice-president (female) representing women employees at large 1 vice—president representing dining car employees 1 vice-president representing hotel & club service employees at large I [General President Members at Dining Car I Large Council Local Joint Ex- Local* e0utive Board I [Localls ofj vLocal I Local Miscellane-j - Cooks ters ous Workers , *Locals must have at least 25 members. vice—presidents representing the nine electorial districts in the United States, Canada, women employees at large, dining car employees, and hotel and club service employees at large.58 Under the constitution, the General President pre— sides at all conventions and at all meetings of the General Executive Board. He appoints all committees and has the authority to remove any officials of a local union, and after a trial, place a trustee appointed by him in charge for one year.59 Although the president is titular head of the Inter- national, the actual operation of union business falls into the hands of the secretary-treasurer. His most important functions are supervising the financial and record keeping divisions of the International. Specifically, he keeps convention records, collects money, submits accounting records for examination, audits and provides materials and charters to the locals, and publishes the international organ, The Catering Industry Employee. The Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union also has a research director, appointed in response to a growing need for factual data in their bargaining with employers, and in dealing with legislatures and other government agencies. The director collects and 58Donald E. Lundberg, Personnel Management in Hotels and Pestaurants, (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1955), p. 2&0. 591bid . 55 analyzes needed economic data and promotes and supervises educational activities for union members, especially busi- ness agents. For bargaining purposes, the International Union, in most cases, lets the local unions conduct the bargaining negotiations. However, even at the single hotel level, the international may intervene when the negotiations are likely to set a pattern or when the hotel is to become a "lead hotel." The intervention of the parent union at the single hotel, however, is the exception and not the rule.60 The 19931 union. To gain affiliation with an inter- national union, the local must first write its own by-laws and constitution. Upon ratification of its constitution by the international, the local receives a charter of affili— ation.61 Although it is subject to the rules of the inter- national union, the local has a voice in the formulation of policy through representation in the convention. As a rule, local union members meet once a month, with some requiring attendance by imposing fines on absent members. Officers are elected generally for one year terms, and include a 62 president, vice-president and secretary-treasurer. These positions are not usually salaried, and the work of handling 6oLetter from Mr. Frederick B. Sweet, Managing Direc- tor, Catering IndustrypEmployee, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 23, 1959. 61U.S. Department of Labor, 22,0it., pp. 3-H. 62Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter- national Union, "A Message for the Yew Member," Your Union, 1951‘, I). 60 56 labor-management problems falls to the Business Agent. The Business Agent may be either elected or appointed, depending upon the rules of the local union involved. He is usually a paid official and, unlike the other officers of the locals, spends his full time on union matters.63 Sometimes the Busi- ness Agent carries out the bargaining either as a single negotiator or as a Spokesman of a bargaining committee. The bargaining committee is sometimes headed by the president or secretary of the local union. The remainder of the negoti— ating committee may be composed of their officers, such as the stewards or the Business Agent. At other times, the remainder of the committee is elected from the membership without regard to offices held. The local bargaining struc- ture is reasonably uniform in one regard, however. A local officer usually heads the bargaining, which in turn is usually carried out by a committee whose composition is variously determined, as indicated above.6u In addition to the international and local unions, the AFL has created various other federations and councils for such purposes as promoting union organization, securing uniform working standards in a city or industry, and further- ing the interests of labor in general.65 One of such 63Lloyd G. Reynolds, Labor Economics and LabQ£_Re- lations, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956), p. 156. 6uC. Wilson Randle, Collective Bargaining: Prin— ciples and Practices, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The River- side Press, 1951), Pp. 151—152. 65U.S. Department of Labor, 92,03t. 57 organizations is the Joint Executive Board made up of repre- sentatives of locals of the same international union located within a city. In order to promote favorable legislation on the state level, the AFL has set up State Federation, com- posed of delegates of local unions and city centrals within the state. City centrals are composed of delegates from all the local unions representing the various trades in any one city. Somewhat allied to these organizations are the City Trades Councils which are composed of a combination of local unions having jurisdiction within related trades or in the same industry within a city. These organizations have an important function in that they attempt to secure united action in collective bargaining. One such organization is the Yew York Hotel Trades Council. A description of the Yew York Hotel Trades Council will serve as an illustrative ex- ample of how Councils woik or fit into the. collec tive bar— gaining pattern in the hotel industry. New York Hotel Trades Cmmc 5.1.66 The formation of the New York Hotel Trades Council, in 1938, was unique. The union leaders had no pattern of organization to follow, and yet they felt that only by presenting a united front to the hotelmen of the city could they make any appreciable gainS. In a hotel, many separate crafts were represented-—ranging from cooks and waiters to firemen, oilers, and electricians. International unions of the AFL guarded their crafts 60Robert A. Heck, "A Study of Cooperative Collective bargaining as Developed in the Hotel Industry of New York City," unpublished doctoral thesis, l95h, pp. 127-lb0. jealously, and were not willing to surrender jurisdiction to others. In addition, workers in the engineering and main— tenance departments of hotels, although belonging to the same unions, received less pay than workers in similar jobs out- side the hotel field. Leaders of the local and international unions representing hotel workers became convinced that only by uniting their forces could success he achieved. Figure 2 shows the organizational structure of the New York Hotel Trades Council. At the present time, the New York Hotel Trades Council consists of nine local unions: 1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 3. 2. Hotel and Club Employees Union Local Yo. 6 of the Hotel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union. 3. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 914-914le M. Hotel Front Office Service Employees Union, Local lhh, of the Building Service Employees Inter- national Union. 5. International Brotherhood of Firemen, Oilers, and Maintenance Mechanics, Local 56. 6. Hotel Maintenance Upholstery Workers, Local H3, of the Upholsterers International Union of North America. 7. Hotel Maintenance Painters Union, Local lb22, of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America. 8. Telephone Operators Union, Local 1005-8, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 9. Office Employees International Union, Local 153. x Q Q I < x . _ ccuawEEcc - mpceowhea mccwumHo: wocm>mwh6 mhcwacmmho fieccflmw: owwfisa ‘ anDEmE rm —~eo::oo mmcwhk Hope: zeo> 307g hopooheo o>ewmhpmecmEc \’ ecmuflmehm Heocsoo mmcmafi Hovom cowkuwcmmuo ho guano .N ohswem 60 The local union is first a member of its parent body, the international union. The members of the various locals are subject to the initiation fees, dues, and rules and regu— lations of its international union. For the purpose of collective bargaining, however, the locals are gathered into one group, the New York Hotel Trades Council. Under the provision of the check-off, the dues are deducted from the individual workers, depending upon his particular local dues system, and forwarded by each hotel under contract to the Trades Council office. The Council takes a per capita tax for each member as a source of income to pay the officers, staff, a share of the impartial arbiter's salary and to pub- lish a newspaper. The Council, a permanent body with a full—time staff, is composed of 33 members who have been either appointed or elected by local unions as follows: Local 6 - Seven delegates to the Council Local IUH — Five delegates to the Council All other locals send three delegates each to the Council The formulation of policy and the conduct of union affairs is done through the Council's Executive Board. The Executive Board is made up of nine members with each of the eight inter- national unions represented at least once. This Hoard is the governing force in the administrative affairs of the Council, and its members are elected by the Council itself. The actual carrying out of the Board's program is handled by various committees appointed by the Board. To 61 oversee these committees, an Administrative Director has been appointed by the Board. The Administrative Director is a full—time staff member who may not be a member of one of the locals affiliated with the Council. The committees report to the Administrative Director, who in turn advises the Ex- ecutive Board by means of recommendations. Whenever the need so warrants, Special committees are appointed by the Executive Board. In addition to supervising these committees, the Ad- ministrative Director also acts as liason officer between the Executive Board and the Regional Directors of their respective regions. Prior to 1951, a General Shop Chairman had been appointed by the board as administrator for all the hotels under contract with the Council. His principle duties were to meet the various shop delegates, look into any grievances of a serious nature, and to conduct meetings of individual hotel workers whenever problems arose. This system, however, proved unwieldy and, as a result, committees were set up in each individual hotel. These committees, known as Hotel Trades Council Committees, represent workers from each local union in each hotel under contract with the Council. The members of these committees may or may not be shOp delegates, depending upon the policy of the local union. The Hotel Trades Council committees report to their particular Regional Director. For the purpose of adminis- tration, New York City has been divided into five districts, 62 or regions. While the boundaries of these regions are not necessarily hard—and—fast, they are approximately as follows: Region A - Covers about forty-four hotels. Region B - Covers approximately forty hotels. Re— gions A and B include "upper" flew York City hotels. Region C - Includes the larger hotels on the East side of Manhattan. Some thirty-eight hotels are in this region. Region U - Covers the Central Park area on the East side. About fourteen hotels are in this area. Region E - Includes the uptown area of Manhattan and the Bronx beyond 62nd Street on both the East and West sides. Some forty-three hotels are in this region. Each region is under the jurisdiction of a Regional Director appointed by the Executive Hoard of the Council. The Re- gional Directors, while still members of their particular local unions, are not concerned with local union affairs. Their primary function is to contact the various Hotel Trades Council committees of the hotels within their district as to any major problems or grievances. When the Regional Director is called, he usually meets with the shop delegate of the department in which the grievance arose and the the head of that department. If no settlement can be effected at this level, the director then meets with the General Manager or his representative in an attempt to end the dispute. If no agreement can be reached at this level, the director reports back to the Administrative Director, who will report to, and advise, the Executive Board of the Council. In addition, 63 the Regional Director keeps check on any changes in policy of any hotel in his area, or on any changes of management or ownership. These facts are reported back to the Adminis- trative Director. In this manner the Executive éoard keeps informed on day-to-day changes that may take place in the union contract hotels. Bargaining,Representatives of the Employer Just as the unions have developed group bargaining units for representation, so have the employers formed group organizations to represent them in bargaining with the unions. Employers have two ways in which they can bargain and both influence the choice of bargaining representatives.67 Bargaining may be conducted by a single employer on a single- hotel basis, or on a multiple-employer basis. If negotiation is on a single—hotel basis, the employer's representative is usually a local hotel official. Union pressure for multiple— employer bargaining, or the presence of a significant number of employers within a producing area, often leads to the formation of an employers' association. An excellent example of this type of bargaining is the multiple-employer bargaining 68 unit employed by the hotelmen of Chicago, Illinois. 67Handle, gfl.cit., p. 155. 68Information for this study was obtained through cor- reSpondence with Mr. Patrick Kane, Executive Assistant Manager, Drake Hotel, Chicago, Illinois; Mr. William J. Wilson, Exec- utive Vice—President, Greater Chicago Hotel Association; Mr. Edward L. Buckley, General Manager, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago hotel Operators turned to multiple-employer bargaining with the same logic that employees turned to unions. They were faced with organized strength and ever increasing union demands. Hotelmen sought greater security against the uncertainties and fluctuations of former indi- vidual bargaining by joining together and bargaining as a group. In reality, there are three types of bargaining groups in Chicago hotels: (1) the multiple—employer resi- dential hotel group, (2) the multiple-employer downtown hotel group, and (3) the independent and individual resi- dential hotel group. The residential group will be presented first since it was the first of the three groups formed. Greater Chicago Hotel Association The multipLg-enuilfl'g: residential. hotel. group. In 19h5, a group of Chicago residential hotels petitioned their industry's local organization, the Greater Chicago Hotel Association, to negotiate new contract demands presented to them by the unions. The Association accepted the undertaking of establishing an office and engaging a lawyer, recognized as a labor relations authority, to deal officially with the unions. Acting as spokesman for the group, the lawyer was aided in his negotiations by a committee made up of the best qualified personnel of those hotels desiring the Association to bargain for them. For these and other Association services, Chicago, Illinois; and Mr. Fred G. Guest, Assistant Vice- President, Hilton Hotels Corporation, Chicago, Illinois. 65 O the bargaining group of hotels each paid the Association a fee based on the number of revenue—producing rooms in each hotel. Today, out of 100 residential hotels belonging to the Greater Chicago Hotel Association, 33 such member hotels use the Association as their official group—bargaining agent. Contract terms agreed to by the unions and the committee headed by the Association counsel cover approximately 2,500 union employees in the 33 hotels, and largely determine the eventual settlement of contracts with all other residential hotels. On an individual basis, U0 more residential hotels belonging to the Greater Chicago Hotel Association engage the Association counsel as their official bargaining agent with the unions. The Greater Chicago Hotel Association further serves in preparation of written materials for distribution to its members, monthly bulletins, news letters, Special bulletins, and informational services. The publications provide in- formation on government regulations, statistical data on business conditions, labor relations deve10pments in hotels outside Chicago, general economic trends, and future busi- ness prOSpects. The second distinct bargaining group formed in the Chicago hotels is composed of the downtown transient hotels. The following discussion describes the multiple- employer downtown hotel group. 66 The multiple-e'nployor downtmvn hotel group. lfi thin the downtown area of Chicago are located the larger transient hotels that dominate the Chicago hotel bargaining scene. Ranging in size from MOO to over 2,730 guest rooms, each hotel is equipped to service group meetings and conventions and provide extensive food facilities. These hotels employ from 150 to 2,250 employees. Downtown hotels differ from residential hotels in that they have a larger number of rooms and employees, a higher room rate, and a less stable occu- pancy. In 1947, a group composed of the fourteen major down— town hotels, listed in Table I, formulated a plan to negotiate jointly, future labor contracts with all unions having repre- sentation in their hotels. Earlier attempts by groups of these hotels had failed because of lack of confidence and mutual feelings of reSponsibility. The prOposed plan called for the creation of a Labor Relations Committee, limited to not more than fifteen individuals, to be Selected in whatever manner thought best by the participating hotels. Normally the owner or operator of each hotel, or his picked repre— sentative, would serve on the Labor Relations Committee. From this committee would be picked a Hotels Yogotiaiinn Committee limited iiizirmarimum of five bargaining members and a secretary who would be specialists in their own parti— cular field. The Hotels Negotiation Committee would answer only to the Labor Pelatinns Committee. Duringr the course of Table I 67 CHTCAUO l'TOTEIVS COP-3PRTST"~IG ’Flftl l‘s’lilfl‘lPl.F-VTMPIIJYEP DOWNTOWN HOTEL GROUP 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Hotel Name Ambassador East and West Atlantic Bismarck Blackstone Chicagoan Congress Conrad Hilton Drake Harrison La Salle Morrison Palmer House Sheraton Sherman Number of Guest Bopms* 700 use 600 boo 500 1,000 3,000 675 uoo 1,000 1,uoo 2,268 500 1,u0hmm¢ cham 1 heayohoom Uta oouquEoo cowvmauowoz cons: _ Honcsoo waoA _ muonEoE m on m I weaves IEoo cowamwuommz mHouom unease: ma hHoaaEHNOHQQ< mouuafifioo macawaaom honed peaconOHnom maouom ma macaw Hovom cbovczon ownedno macaw Hovom chopc3on uohoHQEmloHQHuazz on» go mcacwumhdm hem CowpanwcwM&o .m QHSMHM 7O employer residential group of hotels, further serves as the secretary to the Hotels Negotiation Committee of the Down- town Hotel Group. In these capacities he is in a particularly advantageous position to serve and advise both groups on negotiating procedure and background of union demands and settlement not only during the negotiating periods, but throughout the year. The independent and individual residential hotel grogp, Agreements resolved with both multiple-employer groups are concluded before union negotiations begin with independent bargaining prOperties. Although the bargaining outcome is influenced by the Operators of a number or chain of hotels, or even individually operated properties, the final agreement terms usually lie within the framework established by the multiple-employer bargaining groups. Once the main issues of wage rates and hours of work are bargained with the multiple-employer groups, the independent hotels, by bar- gaining, attempt to gain concessions from the unions on the fringe issues of holiday pay, vacations, meal arrangements and health and welfare plans. Figure U shows the organizational structure of the three distinct employer bargaining groups within Chicago's hotels,and their relationship to one another. It is to a consideration of the organizational structure of the union in Chicago that attention is next directed. 71 mcoammom Maw:MGMumm honuo 1 a. . macadaomo aoMCOHum ha coocosamCH ocm mQSOhU echoamemlmaaapazz an tenmaaaeumm stmotaa acacammamm no Choupmm fill Uhmcm 939:0me ”Finch HmooAA coammmm - meacwmmhmm USN 1J». r :oammom mcacamwhmm emu - a Hmuo: oMMOHSU hmpmcku mm mm>uom cowpmauowez maeuom ‘ [I - fl Homcsoo coaumfloommfi — humquumm oouquSoo I A, fl oovaEEoo mCOMQMHwomoz oouuaEEoo , mCOHQMaom honed _. A, l a mmauthOMQ pcmHmCMhH no Hmflvcocwmox Haspw>HGCH Ucm pcoccerUCH mowhoamEm coat: oom.N poomm¢ epochpcoo maouoz mm QZOHU Hovom Hmwucovwmom mmmhoaafim coat: ooo.oH vommm< mpowhvcoo mamuom RH I QDOHU Howe: CBOuCBOQ ommoano a a we otcH museum wad:«MMAmm Houom ammoano mo QHSmCOAudHom .3 ouswum 72 Chicagg union orgggization_for bargaining. The 28 unions which have representation in Chicago's hotels do not bargain individually with independent operators or multiple- employer groups. The Local Joint Executive Board, composed of representatives of seven local unions, takes over the function of negotiating and administrating labor agreements with employers or employer groups. By conducting negotiations through the joint board, the union members of these locals multiply and strengthen their position and the position of their bargaining agents at the negotiations sessions. The Local Joint Executive Board is the recognized bargaining agent for the reSpective memberships of each local union. While bargaining, the individual local retains its identity for voting, registering opinions, and the inclusion of dif- fering wage scales added to the master agreement. The unions banded together to form the Local Joint Executive Board of the Hotel and Pestaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union which today, reports a membership in excess of 30,000 hotel and restaurant employees in Chicago. Figure 5 identifies the unions comprising the Local Joint Executive Board for hotel bargaining, and pictures the negotiating procedure with the three bargaining groups with the Chicago hotel industry. A few summary remarks on the over-all bargaining unit employed in Chicago are now in order. The structure of Chicago hotel unionism is such that the number of organized employees in any one hotel is relatively unimportant to the 73 .mmn H6004 .cowcs moeMOHQEm Hawazmpmom msoocaaaoomaz whoxuoz cow>umm douom ucoEuhmm< use Houom .wnm Hmooq .mueuama Hosea uopepoumm .mw Hmooq .Coaca mxooo hhpmmm pea mxooo .mm Hmooq .eocmadad humped: owmouno .dm: Hmooq .coaCD mommmhpwma owaoano .mnm HaooA .COHCD whomcom Imam ewehebmm pew whoucowhmfl omdoano .Now Hmooq .coaca moohoHQEm Ecmpcmuud. Use 5008x0050 .ceEhoom accusapmcm Uca DSHO .Hopc: coat: HmcowHMCHoch whoccouumm use moeAOHQEm pcwhzmpmmm .h .0 om. «Ukuwom m>au o: ISOQKM peace on Hmooq 0N .H :Ofifi—D a»: AT .2 Hopes awn A» .< Hepo: mvcopcmaoUCH Ucm T macaw Hope: adducopamom and A macaw Hovom ckouczon :mmmflmmMWI mnzohu wcaCHdMHam umMOHQEMIoHQwuasz fice Hovom ms» Mo pumom o>ausooxm unwed adood 0:» ho oh3U000hm McacmeHmm .n ohswflm A‘Iu'|. ||| I‘ll I ll 'lllallllnlllclulll I ll 7h total workers in the hotel industry. Home Chicago hotels are wholly unorganized and deal with no labor unions. Some hotels may deal with one or two unions comprising but five to ten per cent of their employees. Other hotels may negotiate with another two or three locals which comprise 20 to 30 per cent of their employees. Almost any combination of "percentage of workers covered" and "number of unions dealt with" can be found. The highly organized Chicago hotels reach the peak of unionization by normally dealing with 28 unions (Table II) and have 85 per cent of all employees under union contract. While size and location of the hotel have tended to influence the degree of unionization, no definite generali- zation can be made. The larger hotels located in the "loop" area tend to be among those most highly organized. However, other large hotels located in the near loop area have fewer than 10 per cent of their workers under union contract. Smaller hotels in the central location reflect varying degrees of organization, while others equally as small and located throughout the city have a high degree of organi- zation. The claSSification or type of workers covered by some unions further defies any generalization. Though the union may have organized workers in a number of hotels, certain classifications of work are found excluded from contract with one hotel and included under contracts with 75 Table II TITLES AND AFFILIATIONS OF THE MAJOR UNIONS HAVING REPRESENTATION IN CHICAGO HOTELS National Organization Affiliation International Union Affiliation District Council or Joint Board Affiliation Local Chicago Union MER CA1 EDERAT 0N OF LABOP Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartender International Union Local Joint Executive Board 1. Chicago Waiters Alliance, Local 25 2. Cooks and Pastry Cooks Union, Local 88 3. Chicago Bartenders and Beverage Dispensers Union, Local 278 4. Federated Hotel Waiters, Local 356 5. Chicago Waitresses Union, Local h8h 6. Hotel and Apartment Hotel Service Workers and Miscel— laneous Restaurant Employees Union, Local 593 7. Hotel, Club and Restaurant Doormen, Checkroom and Attendants Employees Union, Local 602 Building Service International Union 8. House Officers and Watchmans Union, Local b 9. Elevator Operators and Starters Union, Local 66 10. Chicago Window Washers Union, Local 3h 11. Hotel Service Employees Union, Local h United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Carpenters District Council of Chicago 12. Carpenters Local Union 13. Wood Finishers Union, Local 611 lb. Carpet, Linoleum, and Resilient Tile Layers Union, Local 1185 International Upholsterers Union 15. Upholsterers Union, Local 18 16. Drapery, Window Shade and Tapestry Decorators Union, Local 17 International Plumbers Union 17. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers, Local 130 18. Steamfitters Protective Association, Local 597 Table II (continued) National Organization Affiliation International Union Affiliation District Council or Joint Board Affiliation Local Chicago Union AEEEICAS IEDEBATION OE LABOR International Union of Elevator Constructors 19. Elevator Constructors Union, Local 2 Journeyman Plasterers Protective and Benevolent Society 20. Plasterers Union, Local 5 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 21. Electrical Workers Union, Local 13h International Hod Carriers Building and Common Laborers Union of American Construction and General Laborers District Council of Chicago 22. Hod Carriers and Building Labor Union, Local 6 Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers of America - Painters District Council of Chicago No. 1h 23. Painters Local Union International Brotherhood of Fireman and Oilers 24. Fireman and Oilers Union, Local 7 International Union of Operating Engineers 25. Operating Engineers Union, Local 150 United Shoe Service Employees International Union 26. Shoe Service Employees Union, Local 11h3 Laundry Workers International Union 27. Laundry Workers Union, Local #6 Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists Inter— national Union 28. Barbers Union,_Local 598 77 others. Clerks, telephone Operators or cashiers may be organized in one hotel and unorganized in another hotel although the union has representation in both hotels.70 The section of the thesis just completed identifies the participants of labor and management in the collective bargaining process. Negotiating is a process, carried out by people who meet at a definite point in time and place. These peOple stand in definite organizational relationships to the interests they represent, and perform definite functions in the process. Therefore, attention is next directed to the negotiating procedures employed by labor and management. The Conduct of Collective Bargaining "Collective bargaining, like democracy, is only a technique. It can be good or bad."71 Collective bar— gaining may be located anywhere on the scale between these two extremes. No two contract negotiations follow exactly the same course. The relative strengths of the parties concerned are different, the maturity of the bargaining relationship is not the same, the types of unions and hotels differ, the scepe of the bargaining differs, and 70Organized workers in these classifications belong to the Hotel and Apartment Hotel Service Workers and Miscel- laneous Restaurant Employees Union, Local 593: 10 North Wells Street, Chicago, Illinois. 71Edward T. Cheyfitz, Constructivg Collective ear- gaining, (New York: HCGraw—Hill, 194?), p. 9b. 78 diverse concepts of how bargaining should be conducted make the dissimilarity. DeSpite these variances, there are com- mon basic techniques, pitfalls, and principles of negotiation. Exploration of these common qualities is made in this part of the paper. Egg—bargaining activities. Preparatory bargaining activities may begin at almost any time prior to actual bargaining. They may be conducted on either a bilateral or unilateral basis. In the hotel industry, particularly where an employer's association is involved, the employers meet to agree on unilateral tactics and arrangements.72 Occasion- ally, labor and management meet together, perhaps for the purpose of establishing ground rules. At such a session, it may be decided whether an agenda is to be prepared and adhered to, and what procedural patterns are to be followed. A plan for meeting must be agreed upon-~where and when the parties will meet, how long the meetings should run, whether the union representatives are to be paid and by whom, what procedure should be followed for issuing press releases and bulletins of progress. A list of representa- tives of each side should be exchanged.73 Such arrangements are important in ensuring smooth and successful bargaining. When does actual bargaining begin? As a generality, one may say that the actual beginning of negotiations are 72Personal interview with Mr. Edward L. Buckley, Gen- eral Manager, Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago, Illinois, December 29, 1959. 73Rand1e, gg.ci.t., p. 192. 79 more or less individualized. Contract negotiation may open on an expected basis prior to or at termination, depending upon agreement. It may also Open on a relatively unexpected basis, depending upon the union's inclinations in utilizing the reopening provisions of the agreement. The first session. The parties are now ready to begin actual bargaining. The negotiations usually get under way by the union submitting a list of its demands or prOposals. Some negotiators prefer that the union sub- mit prOposals prior to the first meeting. The chief reason many hotel negotiators prefer the latter method is that it relieves the employer of any obligation to make counter- prOposals at the first meeting.7u He can utilize the time to ask questions about the union's proposals, point out the flaws and inconsistencies in their demands and do probing Operations to determine the preposals which the union is most interested in. Generally, it is possible to find out in the first meeting which of the union's pro- posals will turn out to be real issues. Of course, this can be done if the union had submitted their prOposal prior to the first meeting, but if the union has put its pro- posals in the hotel's hands several days before a first meeting, they can justifiably ask that the hotel make counterprOposals at that time. Counterproposng. The next step is to make counter— proposals. Counterproposals can run all the way from minor 7L» Buckley, O).cit. 80 disagreement with the union down the line to complete dis- agreement with the union on every one of its proposals. It is not uncommon for the employer to prepare a series of changes in the present contract. The procedure is not definitely set and the approach to counterprOposals is de- pendent upon any number of conditions peculiar to the individual case. Some negotiators decide as to which preposals they can, in the final analysis, meet in whole or in part-~and dole these out over a series of meetings. This method comes about through the feeling that a union committee will not believe that the first prOposal is the last one, and if an employer were to "shoot the works" on the first proposal, he might still be talking for the next several months.75 Some hotels brief their arguments, while others pre- pare only for written counterprOposals. In a few instances, the hotel or association will prepare their counter- prOposals in the form of a complete contract ready for signature. Other times, the written counterprOposals just pertain to the issue, or issues, under discussion and, if agreed upon, can be incorporated into the contract.76 Usually, 75Jack Barbash, Labor Unions 13 action, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19MB), p. 102. 76American Hotel Association, "Building a Better Understanding of Employer-Employee Relations," New York, 1956, p. 13. 81 there is a difference between the union's prOposal on an issue and the counterprOposal. Compromise language can be worked out at the negotiating session. Many negotiators do not make an overt effort to anticipate the issues. They do know, however, that issues have taken certain patterns through the years. For example, the unions will make a drive for a certain change in the vacation or holiday pay. When this comes about, it is possible to anticipate that each local of the International will make a somewhat similar prOposal in that respect. How- ever, each local has preferences of their own which they believe satisfy some local desire. Sometimes, this will be brought out as an issue year after year and has to be argued down, compromised, or accepted.77 Some locals believe in proposing just two or three changes, and driving to secure some action on those few. Most local unions seem to follow the theory of "nothing ventured, nothing gained," and toss into the hopper 15 to 20, or even 30 changes in the contract.78 They know when they do this that they cannot get agreement from the employer on most of them and do not seem to be at all un- happy when they only secure two or three changes. On the other side of the balance sheet, the union feels, at least in the words of one union negotiator,79 77Ibid., p. it. 78Randle, gp.cit., p. 203. 79Personal interview with Mr. Arlo Strolpaul, Field Representative, AFL-CIO, February 10, 1960. 82 that its negotiating procedure is sound. Coming into a negotiating session with a number of prOposals and a relatively close estimate of the cost of each to the em- ployer, the union can get some conception of how much money the hotel has available to spend for the next year on that particular local. Using this as a starting point, they can proceed to bargain for the issues on which they really want agreement. Collective bargaining consists of union proposals, hotel counterproposals and concessions on the part of both parties to effect a compromise. The language and implications of any issue should be approached with caution by both the union and the hotel in the light of precedence. The over-all aim of both is a smoothly functioning relation- ship. The completed task. Negotiation is finished. The labor agreement must now be assembled, rephrased, and re- written. Each clause must be tested for meaning and interpretation. It is well to keep in mind that "the sub- stance of the agreement is more important than the words and sincerity far superior to strategy380 Most hotels prefer, at this point, to call in competent lawyers to write the actual agreement.81 80Lee H. Hill, Pgtterg for Good Labor Pelations, (New York: McCraw-Hill, 1947), p. 113. 81American Hotel Association, Qp,cit., p. 3h. 83 It is a matter of record that most negotiations re- sult in a contract.82 However, if agreement isn't reached, then there may be a strike. Attention is next directed to the hotel strike. The Hotel Strike The union's ultimate coercive force behind the bar— gaining process is the strike. Approximate bargaining equality can be achieved only if the union is in a position to exercise an effective choice between working or not working, and the strike is the collective act of refusing to work. There are no longer unions or union leaders who act on the belief that the strike has a complete validity of its own, divorced from the particular strategic purpose it is calculated to serve.83 This pragmatic approach to the strike stems from the realization that successful unionism cannot be perpetuated by purposeless striking. The strike is, therefore, more or less a weapon to be held in reserve as a last resort, and the ultimate threat of strike becomes the functioning vehicle through which the union's demands are realized. According to the Constitution ofthe Hotel and Restau- rant Employees and Bartenders International Union, all strikes require a two-thirds vote of its local members. 821bid., p. 22. 83Barbash, 22,cit., p. 124. 8h If the local has been in existence six months and the strike has been sanctioned by the General Executive Board, the International sends a delegate to lead the strike. Appro- priations are made from the defense fund to aid members. Some of the longest and most bitter strikes in the hotel and restaurant industry have taken place in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco.Bu During a strike, the hotel employer is legally free, under the Taft-Hartley Act, to keep his hotel in operation. He can try to persuade his present employees to stay at work, and he can try to hire new workers from the outside. Any employees he may hire are entitled to free access to the hotel. If the hotel remains in operation, even on a skeleton basis, this fact may strengthen the employer's hand in bargaining with the strikers over the terms on which they are to return to work. W The device which unions have deve10ped to keep workers out of a struck plant or hotel is the picket line. Strikers patrol back and forth in front of the hotel entrance, advertising the existence of a strike by placards and word-of—mouth. Workers entering the hotel are greeted with pleas not to go to work. As a worker leaves the hotel at the end of the work day, a picket may walk alongside him and urge him not to come to work the next day. Under experienced 8L‘Lundberg, 22.01t., p. 2U3. direction, picketing is an effective method of peaceable persuasion, though it can also degenerate into physical con- flict. At present, the interpretation of the law of pickcting is far from clear.85 There may be no blanket prohibition of picketing by the states or the federal government, but it may be confined to situations in which there is close economic relationship between the picketer and the picketed. If the picketing is in support of unlawful objectives, moreover, it may be banned. The government may also enact regulations for the conduct of peaceable picketing.86 A number of states have passed laws limiting the num- ber of pickets who may be stationed at a hotel or plant, requiring that they must not block access to the hotel or plant and regulating other details of picketing procedure. Strikes and picket lines back up the union's force in collective bargaining. The means may be used wisely, effectively, and reSponsiblg or they may be used ineptly and irreSponsibly, but they are means, not ends. Summary The majority of union bargaining is still done at the local level by local officers or representatives. The International may intervene at the single hotel level 85Reynolds, gp.c;t., p. 34h. 86J. Tannenhaus, "Picketing—-Free Speech: The Growth of the New Law of Picketing from 19uo to 1952," Cornell Law Quarterly, xxXVIII, (Fall, 1952), pp. 1-50. 86 whenever the hotel is of significant importance or likely to be used as a pattern. In addition to the two main levels of union representatives-—the local and the International--the AFL has created Joint Boards, State Federations, City Centrals, and City Trades Councils for purposes of promoting and fur- thering the interests of labor. The New York Hotel Trades Council is a sizeable operation with a full—time staff and a bi-weekly newSpaper. The Council represents 35,000 members employed in 161 hotels. Bargaining by the employer is on a single-hotel or multiple-employer basis. In Chicago, Illinois, hotels bar- gain through three distinct groups: (1) the Multiple- Employer Residential Hotel Group, (2) the Multiple-Employer Downtown Hotel Group, and (3) Independent and Individual Residential or Transient Hotels. The highly organized Chicago hotels deal with 28 unions representing more than 30,000 union employees. Collective bargaining is the process by which hotel labor agreements are reached. As far as the bargaining practices are concerned, unions submit their preposals either before or at the first negotiating session. The chief reasons hotel negotiators prefer the last method is that it relieves the employer of the obligation of a counter- proposal at the first meeting and he can devote his time to exploratory discussion. Counterproposals by the employer follow the union's original proposal and compromises are 87 are made by both parties. The procedure from there on is rather fluid, depending upon the issues; but eventually a compromise is worked out and agreement is reached. The strike is the union's major weapon in bargaining with employers. The means by which the union keeps workers out of a struck hotel is the picket line. The strike and picket line back up the union's demands in collective bar- gaining. CHAPTER IV REPRESENTATIVE CLAUSES COMMON TO HOTEL LABOR AGREEMENTS The ultimate objective of the conduct of collective bargaining is the labor agreement which sets forth the terms and conditions of employment, the rights of the workers and the union, and the procedures of handling disputes. The preceding chapter has described the bargaining representatives of labor and management, and has shown how the parties go about bargaining. In Chapter IV, a discussion of the clauses of the labor agreement will be presented. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze 22 hotel labor agreements (See Appendix B) with attention being given to a discussion and presentation of examples of "standard clauses" found most representative by the Employee Relations Department of the American Hotel Association. The 16 clauses selected for consideration in this thesis include the fol- lowing: 1. Parties to the Agreement 2. Preamble and Purpose Clause 3. Union Security 4. Recognition Clause 5. Management PrerOgative 6. Report Guarantee (X) CO 7. Seniority 8. Grievances 9. Hours and Overtime 10. Vacations and Holidays 11. Wages 12. Strikes and Lockouts 13. Terms of Contract lb. Uniforms 15. Split Shifts 16. Mea1587 Each set of clauses on a common subject is introduced by brief comments which are designed to indicate something of the relevance and Significance of the actual examples which follow. The comments are not intended as complete interpretations of the origin or effect of the various types of provisions. In addition to the analyses of 16 selected clauses taken from the American Hotel Association study, additional data is included from Bureau of Labor Statistics studies which provides data pertinent to seven of the selected clauses. So that the reader may be able to see the agreement as a total entity, the "Agreement between Hotel Association 87American Hotel Association, "Building a Better Understanding of EmployeroEmployee Relations," (New York: January, 1957), pp. zu-3u. 89 of New York City, Inc., and New York Hotel Trades Council, A.F.L." is shown in Appendix C. Parties to the Agreement The first clause of the hotel labor agreement contains the full names of the employer and of the union as the bar- gaining representative for the employees. The contracting parties to the agreement can either be the International Union or the local union. In the larger cities, such as New York, Washington, D.C., Pittsburgh, and Chicago, a master agreement is negotiated through the local hotel association and a union or group of unions, known as Trades Councils or Local Joint Executive Boards. The individual hotel manager signs the agreement after it has been agreed upon by representatives of the unions and the members of the hotel association. The agreement between the Local Joint Executive Board, of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and the Chicago Downtown Hotels is such an example: This agreement made and entered into as of the lst day of April, 1957, by and between the Chicago Downtown Hotels (hereinafter referred to as the "Employer," First Party), and the Local Joint Executives Board of the HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTEVDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, A.F.L.-C.I.O. as exclusive bargaining agent for the following affiliated Local Unions: (1) CHICAGO WAITERS ALLIANCE, Local 25; (2) COCKS AND PASTRY COOKS UVION, Local 188; (3) CHICAGO BARTENDERS & BEVERAGE DISPENSERS UNION, Local 278; 90 (u) FEDERATED WAITERS, BARTENDERS, WAITRESSES AND COOKS UNION, Local 356; (5) HOTEL AND APARTMENT HOTEL SERVICE VORKEPS & MISCELLANEOUS RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 593; and (6) HOTEL, CLUB é’: RESTAUEAYT DCCRMEN CHECK- ROOM & ATTEW ANTS EMPLOYEES UNION, Local 602. (hereinafter referred to as the "Union" and the "Locals," Second Party), and concerning each of which a Local Union Supplemgnt is attached here- to and made a part hereof.6 Preamble and Pugposg Clause The majority of the 22 hotel labor agreements under study contained a preamble or declaration of policy and statement of purpose clause. Such.general statements out- line in broad terms the objectives to be attained and the methods for achieving them. They indicate the true intent and purpose of the parties in entering into a collective relationship; they epitomize the basic attitudes in the relations between employer, union, and employees; they set forth what both parties desire and expect from the agree- ment. Preambles emphasize, among other aims, the promotion of greater cooperation and better understanding between the parties and to award maintenance of efficiency and economy in operation. The preamble clause usually contains a mutual pledge of good faith or a statement that the parties agree to be bound by the contract. One such clause reads as follows: 88Loca1 Joint Executive Board of Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and Chicago Downtown Hotels Agreement, April 1, 1957, p. 1. 91 It is recognized by this agreement to be the duty of the signatory Employer and the Union to COOperate fully, individually and collectively. The general purpose of the Agreement is in the mutual interest of the Employer and Employees, to provide for the efficient maintenance and operation of the Employers' respective enterprise. The clause clearly states the declaration of policy to be followed by both parties. Nine of the agreements studied went a little further and pledged to comply with the contract. Such a clause would read: It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto to promote harmonious economic and in- dustrial relationships between the Hotel and its employees; and to set forth herein the basic agreement covering rates of pay, hours of work and conditions of employment to be ob- served between the parties to this agreement. The Hotel and Union jointly agree to perform faithfully the obligations imposed by this agreement. 0 Union Security The most common types of union security clauses bear on the closed Shop issues, maintenance of membership and check-off authorization. The closed Shop means that no one can be hired unless he is a member of the union in good standing and that the employee must remain in good standing in order to keep his job. The closed shOp is illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 19U7. However, these clauses still exist in hotel labor agreements that are still under state laws. The union shOp differs from the closed shop in that 89Restaurant and Hotel Employers' Council of San Diego, California and the Building Service Employers' International Union, Local 103, June 1, 1959, p. 1. 9OU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 686, 92 the employer is free to hire non-union workers and is the sole judge of the qualification of the applicants. However, when an employer negotiates a union-shOp provision, he agrees to require, as one of the conditions of employment, that all, or nearly all, employees must join the union within a Specified time and must remain members in good standing.91 The deve10pment of harmonious relationships between manage- ment and labor is often advanced as one of the benefits to be gained from union security arrangements. One labor agree- ment phrased this attitude as follows: (a) Both the hotel and the union feel that the greatest amount of harmony will ex- ist, that better labor relations will prevail, and that employee interests will be more adequately represented and better served if all eligible employees become members of the union. (b) Accordingly, it is agreed that all eli- gible employees should within 30 days from their hiring date become and remain members of the union in good standing.92 In a study conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 195b, the Bureau found provisions for the union Shop in 32 hotel agreements. The agreements covered 157.6 thousand workers, or 97 per cent of the workers studied.93 gnion Agreement Provisions, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942), p. 18. 91National Labor Relations Board decisions have empha— sized that union membership requirements under the Labor- Management Relations Act may be fulfilled simply by the tender of initiation fees where acquired, and periodic dues. 92U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Eg- view, "Union-Security Provisions," (195h), p. 765. 93U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Union Shop Provi— sions in Collective Bargaining Agreements, l95h, p. 2. 93 These union—shop provisions stipulated some degree of preference for union members in hiring. Usually, the union is permitted to refer union members for job vacancies, who will be considered with other applicants, on the basis of their qualifications. Under a maintenance-of-membership provision, the employee is not required to join the union, but if he is a member when the clause becomes effective, or later chooses to become a member, he must thereafter maintain his member- ship as a condition of employment. The prevalence of member— ship-maintenance clauses in the hotel industry has declined since World War II.9u "Check-off" is a dues-collection method whereby the employer agrees to deduct from the employees' pay his union dues, and in some instances, initiation fees, fines, and assessments, for transmittal to the union at regular inter- vals. The New York City contract on the subject is as follows: The union agrees to furnish the Employer with memorandum showing the amount of dues payable as members of the union by each of the employees of the Employer covered by this agreement, and the union agrees to furnish the Employer with a memorandum showing the amount of initiation fees payable as members of the union by each of the employees of the Employer of the agreement. The Employer agrees to deduct such initiation fees and dues from the wages and salaries of the respective employees monthly (initiation 9“Letter from Mr. Phillip Valley, Director of Research, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL—CIO, Cincinnati, Ohio, September 21, 1959. 9h fees are to be deducted in (2) monthly in- stallments), and the Employer agrees upon such deduction to transmit such sums col- lected by the Employer to the union in the month of collection.95 Check-off is more common in manufacturing than in non-manufacturing agreements. This type of union security is less prevalent in the hotel business because of its high frequency of union-shop agreements.96 Recognition Clause Hotel labor agreements, by their nature, assure sole- bargaining rights to the union. This is supported by Section 9 (a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, which reads: "Representatives designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes, shall be the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ- ment 0 I! In most hotel agreements, the union's status is fur- ther protected by requirements that employees acquire or retain union membership as a condition of employment. How— ever, only 7 per cent of the hotel agreements studied gave 95Donald E. Lundberg, Eersongel Management lg Hgtels agd Restaurants, (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1955), p. 262. 96U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 1091, Prevalgnce and thractgristics g: Selectgd Cgllgctivg Bag: gainigg,glggses, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 22. 95 exclusive right to bargain for all employees in the unit, union and non—union alike. The San Francisco contract states: The hotel hereby recognizes the union as the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment of all employees.97 The remaining 93 per cent of the hotel agreements under study read similar to the following: The Employer recognizes the union as ex- clusive representative of its employers in those job classifications listed in the sup— plements for the purpose of collective bargaining...- Nanagement Prerggatives Management clauses ostensibly reaffirm the right of management to function in that capacity. Unions, for the most part, are inclined to oppose any listing of management functions on the ground that this tends to encourage a rigidity in the industrial relations matters subject to collective bargaining. Some management prerogative clauses in hotel agree- ments definitely limit managerial authority. This is usually done by a statement that all or part of the management rights listed in the agreement are subject to grievance procedure; by a requirement of consultation with the union in some way; 97Hotel Employers Association of San Francisco and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Agreement, 1956, p. U. 98Chicago Downtown Hotels Agreement, 22,0it., p. 2. 96 or by a Specific exclusion of certain matters, such as wages, hours, and working conditions, from managements' authority and a provision that they are subject to change only through collective bargaining. In other agreements, "management rights" clauses state specifically what is implied in the contract as a whole; namely, that in exercising its recognized functions, manage- ment shall not discriminate against employees because of union membership or activity. A "saving clause" is sometimes insisted upon by hotel employers who are fearful that a specific listing of tepics regarded as management functions might prejudice their right to act in matters not covered by the agreement. Report Guarantee Under the terms of the 22 hotel labor agreements, employees who are scheduled to work and, in the absence of prior notice, report at the usual time in the expectation of working, are guaranteed some work for the day or pay in lieu of work.99 Reporting pay guarantees are designed to compensate workers for part or all of the pay lost if no work is avail- able, and for the inconvenience and expenseof coming to work on time. Essentially, reporting pay penalizes management for failing to schedule work efficiently and for calling in 99American Hotel Association, Building a_Better Under- standing afi Emplgyaz-Employeg Relations, Part II, p. 28. 97 more workers than are needed. From 25 hotel agreements studied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, slightly more than 64 per cent included provisions for reporting pay. The Bureau also found that reporting pay provisions were much more prevalent in manufacturing than in hotel agree- ments (non-manufacturing)--9O per cent to 64 per cent, respectively.100 The difference can be attributed to the nature of the hotel industry. The hotel industry provides continuous service and keeps its facilities open each working day, thereby assuring day-to-day stability in employment for regular employees.101 In the hotel industry, a full day's guarantee is more common than any other provision. However, it is common in the hotel industry to waive or modify the report guarantee if the employer is unable to provide work due to causes or events beyond his control. Fire, floods, "acts of God," and power failure are instances of such factors. This is a very important clause in the labor agree- ment. The unions seek to guarantee some work or wage if the employee who reports to work and is sent home; the employer seeks to modify this clause in order to give some flexibility to his operation. The clause should be care- fully written to avoid misunderstanding in the interpretation of this clause. 1°°u.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Reporting and Call- Back Pay in Collective Bargaining gggaamagga, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 2. lollbid. 98 A‘ seniority Seniority clauses, being an integral part of union security, are included in the hotel agreements studied. Seniority clauses present many problems relative to pro- motions, lay-offs, and dismissals. Before discussing the clauses covering seniority among the contracts under study, it may be well to discuss more fully some implications of the problems mentioned above. A hotel, with a seniority clause in its agreement, should study very closely the work- ability of restricting its promotions on this basis. Obviously, one employee may be far superior in capacity, even though his job experience, in terms of years, is short of that of many other employees. A rigidly governed path of progression, based on a seniority clause, could effect undue hardship on efficient utilization of man-power. Hotel managers should also consider the extent to which it is most expeditious to apply group seniority rulings. That is, is it better to have department seniority, hotel-wide seniority, or craft seniority? In most hotel agreements, departmental and craft seniority is the most prevalent since this avoids extensive "bumping" in the event of lay-off, which sometimes occurs in hotel-wide seniority.102 This consideration is important insofar as the transferring of employees may be concerned. Union agreements that have lay-offs based on seniority lists have obviously removed the hotel's authority to exercise and determine the order of lay-off. 102American Hotel Association, 92.01to, Do 3h. 99 In spite of the many problems which seniority poses for both the union and the employer, both parties have found that the practice of seniority has distinct advantages. Seniority has a definite tendency to prevent favoritism and discrimination in employment. Seniority also reduces the number of voluntaiy quits, since employees are hesitant to lose seniority standing with one hotel and to start at the bottom of the seniority list in another.103 Although sen- iority does not, by itself, create or preserve jobs, it promises a security of tenure in relatively direct prOportion to length of service. Moreover, in the case of short lay— off periods, employees are relieved of the necessity of seeking employment elsewhere, since they have reasonable assurance of reemployment when business improves. In providing for the possibility of fluctuation in the need for workers, the San Francisco agreement sets forth the basic ground rules governing the order in which workers will be laid off by stating: In case it shall become necessary for the employer to lay off one or more employees, seniority rules shall apply within classifi- cations; the employee who has been with the (company) the shortest length of time shall be the first to be laid off, and in rehiring, those laid off first shall be the last to be reemployed.10u 1°3Ibid., p. 33. 10L‘Hotel Association of San Francisco and the Fetal and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Agreement, 1956, p. 12. 100 In the Kansas City hotel agreement, seniority is deter- mined by the length of the employee's service since the last date of hiring.105 Transfers affect the seniority clause in all cases since the hotel could easily cause severe hardship to an employee by transferring him to another hotel. For this reason, the union protects the worker by stating that no employee shall be transferred from a union hotel to a hotel where the union does not have jurisdiction. Grievances Hotel labor agreements set up some sort of "grievance" or "adjustment" machinery to handle differences and disputes as to interpretation or application of the agreement, as well as the controversies which arise in the day-to-day working relations of employer and workers. Grievance pro- cedure is thoroughly structured in each agreement and is very similar in application within each of the contracts under investigation. The San Diego labor agreement is in- cluded below inasmuch as it encompasses the techniques of most hotel labor agreements and appears to consist of a clearly stated grievance proceeding. (1) Oral Prggentation of Grievgnce: Prior to filing a grievance in writing, employees either directly or through their super- visor may, if they so desire, orally dis- cuss the subject matter of the grievance with the supervisor. 105Kansas City Hotel Association and Local Joint Execu- tive Board of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Agreement, 1958, p. 12. 101 (2) Step One: If the oral discussion provided for in paragraph (1) above does not settle the grievance to the satisfaction of the aggrieved employee, he may directly or through his committeeman present such grievance in writing to the supervisor, or his designated representative, on a grievance form to be furnished by the com— pany. Such written presentation shall include all of the following information: a. A statement of the grievance and the facts upon which it is based; b. The remedy or correction requested; 0. The section or sections of this agree- ment claimed to have been violated; d. The signature of the aggrieved em- ployee or employees and the committee- man, if he is presenting the grievance. The supervisor shall meet with the grieving employee and with the employee's committee- man if such committeeman wishes to be pre- sent, and shall attempt to adjust the grievance and shall render a decision thereon in writing within forty-eight hours after such meeting has concluded. 106 In the event the last step fails to settle the complaint, arbitration is necessary. The aim of grievance arbitration is to prevent work stoppages which might result in the loss of continuous ser- vice and wages. In this respect, the procedure may be con- sidered as an extension of the in-hotel grievance machinery. It may be noted that in those hotels in which arbitration is seldom used, the fact that arbitration is available often has a salutary effect upon the processing of grievances. 106Restaurant and Employers Council of San Diego, California, and the Building Service Employers International Union, Local 103, June 1, 1959, p. 3. 102 Today, arbitration is a commonly accepted device for settling grievance disputes arising under the terms of the hotel labor agreement. The Bureau of Labor statistics re- ported, in 1959, that 97 per cent of all hotel labor agree- ments contain clauses which provide for arbitration as a final step in the grievance procedure.107 Labor and manage— ment have found that the technique for the peaceful settle— ment of troublesome diSputes yields substantial benefits to both parties. The increasing acceptance of grievance arbitration in the hotel industry undoubtedly reflects a growing maturity in collective bargaining relationships. Working harmony, or at least some degree of union-management accommodation, is necessary for favorable acceptance of the arbitration pro- cedure and for its continuation. In the process, each side gives up a cherished prerogative: management surrenders a part of its authority to make the final decisions affecting the hotel; the union surrenders the use of a strike or other action, awaiting a decision which may be to its disadvantage. Hours and Overtime The hours that constitute a full work week will vary greatly between hotel agreements. In the hotel industry, scheduled hours are permitted to vary according to occupation or seasonal requirements. In this case, a hO-hour week may 107U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Peview, February, 1959, p. 161. 103 be standard for large groups of workers or for long periods of the year. The following excerpts from agreements in the hotel industry illustrate occupational variations. Dining Doom Employees Male - The work week shall be H8 hours per week. Female - The work week shall be an hours per week. Bellman and Doorman The hours of work shall be #8 hours per week. Non-Tip Receiving,Employees The hours of work for male and female employees shall be no hours per week.108 A report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that an eight-hour day is the standard in the majority of hotel agreements.109 Virtually all hotel labor agreements provide one and one—half times the regular rate of pay for work on a Speci- fied holiday. Double time provisions are in the majority of agreements in the northeast and in the Canadian regions, while the one and one-half times rule dominates the Pacific Coast contracts.110 108U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor ggview, "Hours of Work and Overtime Provisions," 1958, p. 135. 1°9Ibid. 110Letter from Mr. M. 0. Ryan, American Hotel Assoc— iation, Washington, D.C., September 3, 1959. lOH This clause should define a normal work—day and a normally scheduled work week. The purpose of this clause is clear, and it should be stated that the work day and the work week is being defined for the purpose of computing overtime. However, in defining the work week, the employer, as a general rule, seeks the number of days, but will speci— fically try' to avoid naming the days. This is for the purpose of not being 00mmitted to a fixed Nonday—to-Friday schedule.111 In negotiations, the union is apparently in favor of overtime, given proper controls. On the other hand, union objectives do not seem to favor long hours of work, either daily or weekly. One is able to reconcile these positions only by concluding that the union is against a long basic or standard work—day or work-week, but is in favor of long hours when accompanied by both premium pay and negotiated controls. In holding this complex position, labor, like management, seems to reCOgnize money as a cure-all for many of the world's ills. Vacations_gnd Holidays Clauses that deal with vacations generally cover employee eligibility, length of time, and pay rate for the vacation period. The main differences that occur in the hotel industry are in the eligibility of the employee and the length of vacation time earned. Each agreement studied 111American Hotel Association, gp.cit., p. 33. 105 stated that the employee shall be paid at his regular rate for the period that he is on earned vacation. The Chicago, San Diego, Washington, San Francisco, and Detroit contracts concerning vacations read: One year full-time employment - one week vacation Two years full-time employment - two weeks vacation However, the New York agreement concerning vacations reads: One year, but less than three years - one week Three years, but less than five years - one and ‘ one-half weeks Five years or more - two weeks All of the 22 hotel agreements studied pay a full day's wage for each of the six holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Many agreements, today, also have the qualification that to be eligible for this vacation pay, the employee must have worked the day preceeding and the day following the holiday. In addition, when a holiday falls on a Sunday and is observed on a Monday, the employee is eligible to obtain that Monday off, also. Waqes Wages are one of the most integral and important parts of a union agreement. Many employees judge a union's quality of representation on the basis of their wage scale. For this reason, there should be a complete meeting of minds as to what is covered by each job classification. Also, the contract should clearly state the status of an employee when 106 be temporarily or permanently is put on a job calling for a different wage rate. Furthermore, within the hotel industry, there is a variation in the number of hours in a work week. This is important insofar as it will define an employees' right to overtime pay. To continue this section on wages, an investigation will be made of both the single or individual I and job rates of pay. Of the 22 agreements studied, each incorporates as a ~ part of its agreement, or on a supplementary sheet, a classi- fication of jobs with wage scales. Representative of the labor agreements is the Pittsburgh agreement. WAC-E SCALES (Daily) 1 12 Classification Effective June 1. 1958/June 1411952. Head Janitor $ 11.65 $ 12.21 Maids 10.12 10.69 Housemen 11.55 12.88 Yardmen 12.59 13.12 Porters, Lobby 10.37 10.79 Valet Help 11.12 11.69 The job, or group rate, consists of a clearly defined minimum and maximum rate. The majority of employees will usually be "hired in" at the minimum job rate and may ulti- mately progress within the range to the maximum. Upon reaching the top of the range, an employee could receive 112Pittsburgh Hotel Association and The Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Agreement, 1958, p. 14. 107 further monetary compensation only by being reclassified or promoted to a higher rated job. To receive merit increases, management generally has full discretion in granting or withholding merit increases. The Chicago and San Francisco agreements provide for the union's review of management's recommendations. Under most instances, the union may challenge the merit position of management through the grievance procedure.113 Merit progression plans are usually favored by the employer, for they allow him to reward the efficient and highly skilled worker, or the worker who is constantly im- proving. The union ordinarily Opposes the merit system on the ground that it allows too much.1atitude for favoritism and for discriminatory treatment. The union's position in this matter is well described by Mr. Cheyfitz. The story of merit rating, or man rating as it is sometimes called, is very similar to the history and abuse and misuse of other scientific management tools. Too often merit rating has resulted in wage increases to "stooges," "apple polishers," and "union busters." Too often has this technique of merit rating been used to "water down" wage rates by keeping all workers at a bottom wage level.l H Hotel labor agreements express that "all gratuities shall be the property of the individual, and shall not be 1130. Wilson Randle, Collective Rargaigigg Principles and Practices, (Heston: The Riverside Press Cambridge, 1951), I). 2170 h 11”Edward T. Cheyfitz, Constructive Collective mar- gaining, (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1947, pp. 85—86. 108 deemed part of the wages payable tO the employees covered by the agreement.115 Within the hotel industry, different rates are paid for work in large cities, as contrasted with smaller cities Or towns; and for work in certain sections Of the country, as Opposed to other sections. The wage variations are normally termed geOgraphical differentials. As a rough example Of wage differences between various areas, observe the hourly earnings in nine selected cities (see Table III). As we can see, there is a wide range of rates within each of the five jobs. The disparity Of wages seems to be typical. A comparison of regular dining room waiter's wages finds the San Francisco hotels paying the highest hourly rate of $1.31, or $.60 per hour greater than the $.71 hourly rate paid to waiters in Cincinnati. A report from the Bureau Of Labor Statistics indicates that the Pacific Coast and Great Lakes are high wage areas according to national stan- dards. The Opposite is true of the southeast and border states. The hotel industry has perpetuated inter-city, and urban—rural differentials. In comparison, the chief indus- trial unions seek geographical differentials on an area basis, but rarely in terms of inter-city or Of urban-rural differences, as is evident in the hotel industry. The union attitude towards area wage variances, then, has been 115Chicago Downtown Hotels Agreement, 22.Cit., p. 8. 109 Table III HOURLY WAGES IN HOTELS IN NINE SELECTED CITIES - 1959116 City Waiter Waitress Bellman Maid Dishwasher San Francisco $ 1.31 s 1.31 $ .81 $ 1.52 S 1.53 Minneapolis* .97 .95 .71 1.10 1.07 Detroit .83 .83 .56 1.0h 1.18 Cincinnati .71 .61 .50 1.02 .96 Chicago .81 .75 .57 1.06 1.12 New York .81 .81 .72 1.21 1.29 Boston .91 .70 .70 1.10 1.10 Washington** .7H .61 .h9 1.10 1.09 Pittsburgh .87 .82 .72 1.36 1.4U *Minneapolis hotels have a 37% hour week. **Waiters, waitresses, bellman: U8 hours; maids and dish- washers work no hours one week, MS the next, and receive equal weekly rates for both. Note: These are rates established after many years Of bar- gaining in these cities. In general, rates Of cooks and bartenders are highest among hourly rated workers in the industry; housekeeping and kitchen helpers next; dining room personnel next; and front Office or service (bellman) workers at the bottom. All ex- cept those noted above are #0 hour agreements. 116Hotel and Restaurant Employees and bartenders Inter- national Union, Catering Industry Employee, June, 1959. 110 somewhat inconsistent.117 This may be due to the fact that most hotel bargaining today is still local rather than industry-wide. It seems valid to conclude that industry- wide bargaining would make more effort to eliminate wage differentials. Strikes and Lockouts One of the principle Objectives in signing a labor agreement is to protect the employer from strikes and other work interruptions. Therefore, this clause should be clearly stated to be effective. One such example is the New York contract which reads: ...the union agrees that it will not call, en- gage in, participate in, or sanction any strike, sympathy strike, stoppage Of work, picketing of the hotel, sit-down, sit-in, boycott, refusal to handle merchandise, or any other interference with the conduct of the employer's business, for any reason whatsoever; nor will it inter- fere with any guest or tenant at the hotel, while he is a guest or tenant occupying a room or space, who sells or exhibits non-union-made merchandise or employs non-union help.118 Such a clause is quite important because it clearly recognizes the service nature Of the hotel industry; that is, to render continuous and hospitable service tO the pub- lic in the way of lodging, food, and other necessary hotel accommodations. The major cause Of strike activity in the hotel industry is due to economic issues and questions of union 117Randle, g2,cit., p. 239. 118 Lundberg, gp,cit., p. 262. 111 security. In 1958, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the hotel industry had 1h stoppages involving 650 employees, causing 8,1h0 idle man-days.119 Terms of Contract This is usually the last clause of the hotel agree- ment. The clause will state the exact date and time of day, such as January 1, 1956, 12:01 a.m., to December 31, 1959, 12:00 midnight. This clause will also contain the number of days prior to the expiration date that notice must be given by one of the parties to the contract to the other, that they wish to reopen or terminate the agreement. How- ever, modifications of the agreement can occur during the life Of the agreement. For instance, both parties may find that a Specified provision is unworkable or impractical in its application. Some agreements Specifically provide for revision by stating the conditions under which revisions may take place. Thus, the agreement may permit modifications at any time during its life after due notice by either party, or at certain Specified periods only. In some instances, it is provided that a particular section or sections of the agreement such as wage rates, overtime, work-week sections may be opened for consideration without reopening other portions. Should the negotiations on the prepesed amendments or modifications to an agreement fail, any one of these 119U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Anglysis g: Work Steppages, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 25. 112 courses may follow: The point at issue may be referred to arbitration; the existing status may remain in effect; or, the entire agreement may terminate. If both parties cannot agree either to submit to arbitration or to terminate the agreement, the existing agreement continues until its ter- mination date. Selected Clauses Distinctive to Hotel Labor Agreements Specific provisions of labor agreements depend pri— marily upon the prevailing circumstances of the particular business involved. It follows, therefore, that the hotel industry provides for certain circumstances which call for agreement provisions different from those included in labor agreements of other types of business. Discussion of the clauses covering uniforms, Split shifts and meals is ob- viously necessary. The purpose of a clause regarding uniforms is to spell out responsibility for supplying and maintaining them. The question of what constitutes a uniform has often been raised. Present day opinion and definitions are that apparel which could ordinarily be worn in places other than on the job is not considered a uniform. For instance, bellmen are often required to wear black shoes. They would not be considered part of a uniform unless a particular style of shoe was Specified. Except for certain waiters' 113 coats, Such as the so-called McAlpen jacket, it is the pre- vailing custom in hotel contracts to require the employer to furnish any specified uniform and to maintain it by laundering or cleaning it or paying for such cleaning. In many cases, cooks' uniforms are the responsibility of the individual cook to supply and maintain. In recent years, this policy has been the rule, not the exception. Split Shifts Because of the peaks and valleys in the normal hotel day's operation in some departments, the Split shifts of employees' working time are highly desirable. However, most workers generally dislike Split shifts because of the spread of time during which they are liable for duty and because of the inconvenience of traveling back and forth to work more than once a day. Many industrial agreements prohibit Split shifts by stipulating that the hours of work shall be con- tinuous and consecutive. However, the daily operation of a hotel is characterized by two or more peak periods, with relatively little interim activity. Hotel agreements usually permit the Splitting of shifts, but regulate the number of Splits permissible and the length of the spread of hours. For example, only one split in.a shift may be permitted, the shift to be completed within 12 hours. Employees working broken hours receive a wage dif— ferential over and above the regular rate of pay. One such agreement reads: 11h. Employees who are scheduled to work a Split Shift shall receive ten cents per hour above the base rate of pay over the same classification.120 Meals In the hotel industry, meals are provided to some employees, eSpecially those in the food department. If the meals or lodging are deducted from the employees' wages, the agreement will so state. The New York City contract reads: In cases where the Employer furnishes housing accommodations to its employees, it shall be allowed $2.50 per week for such housing accom~ modations. In cases where the Employer furnishes housing accommodations and meals by the week, it shall be allowed $7.75 per week.121 Meals that are served to employees must provide: adequate portions of a variety of wholesome, nutri- tious foods. As a standard, it should include at least one of the types of foods from all four of the following groups: ) Fruits and vegetables ) Cereals, bread, or potatoes ) Eggs, meat, or fish ) Milk, tea, or coffee; AAAA CWJA)H except that for breakfast group (3) may be omitted if both cereal and bread are offered in (2). The housing and meals clause in the agreement is very important; but above all, the wording must be quite clear and leave no room for misunderstanding. 1zollearborn Inn and United Catering, Restaurant, Bar and Hotel Workers Local Union look, AFL-CIO, 1957. 121Lundberg, g2.cit., Do 260° 115 Summary No two hotels have exactly the same technology, working conditions, or employee demands. As a result, no two hotel labor agreements are exactly the same. DeSpite the fact that little uniformity exists among hotel labor agreements, there \ remains a basic similarity. The 16 standard clauses analyzed seem to fit into seven major classes. 1. Preamble and Purpose Clauses. The labor agree— ment includes an introductory clause which broadly outlines the general purpose of the agreement and general pledges of mutual good- will and confidence. 2. Security Clauses. This group includes such things as recognition of the union; management prerogatives; pensions, insurance, and sen— iority (which includes lay-offs, promotions, transfers, discharges, and leaves of absence). Also included, are union rights, activities, and reSponsibilitieS. 3. Compensation Clauses. These clauses cover job standards, job rates, vacations, sick-leave benefits, overtime compensation rate, deduc- tions, and other matters related to compen- sation of employees. h. Enforcement Clauses. These clauses deal with explanation, interpretation, and enforcement of the agreement. They cover such things as grievance procedure, arbitration, strikes and lockouts. 5. WorkingeConditions Clause_. Under this cate- gory'are placed such clauses as definitions of the work-week hours, overtime, shifts, Sunday and holiday work, seniority, health, hygiene, and safety. Ox . Duration and Termination Clauses. These are brief clauses dealing with the length of time it is to run, methods of re-opening, renewal, and negotiation. 7. Distinctive Clauses of Hotel Labor Agreements. These clauses deal with circumstances which call for agreement provisions those found in other types of Included are clauses covering shifts, and meals. 116 different from labor agreements. uniforms, split ‘4 CHAPTER V THE AUMIYTS'FRéTION OF THE LABOR AGl‘lEBI-ZEV’I‘ Our discussion of collective bargaining in the hotel industry has emphasized the nature of the collective bar— ga'ning process and the contents of the labor agreement. In Chapter V, a discussion of the final agreement as to its purpose, and administrative considerations in obtaining workable labor-management relations is presented. Purpose_of Labor Agreement Perhaps more than any other legal document, the labor agreement is a very important part of hotel management. It not only helps in determining what the direct labor cost will be, but to a large extent, also determines management's capacity to direct and control the labor force. In simple terms, the agreement defines the working relationship be- tween hotel management and the union employees, and the methods and procedures which will be followed. As an em- ployer-regulating device, it guarantees certain rights and immunities to the employees by limiting the employer's freedom of action. Two diverse points of view. There appear to be two different VieWpoints as to the purpose of a labor agreement. The first one maintains that a labor agreement is simply a 118 series of concessions of management. At the start, manage- ment has everything; and the agreement, resulting from col- lective bargaining: represents the narrowing down of ‘management rights. A second and more modern viewpoint contends that the agreement represents the democratic mutuality of industrial self-government.122 Both parties are stimulated by economic self-interest, and through collective bargaining they jointly determine a document which governs their conduct during the period of the agreement. Hotel managers, whether involved in negotiations with a labor organization or not, would do well to accept this latter concept. Such a philosophy need not involve a union, but can take the form of a well— develOped plan for an employees' representative committee. The Significance of the Hotel‘Agreement The hotel agreement, at least on one side of the bar— gaining table, involves organized group relationships rather than individual dealings. It provides for continuous organized relationships between hotel management and union employees. Today, the labor agreement arrived at by collective bargaining must fulfill three functions: (1) the fixing of the price for labor services; (2) the establishment of worker rights in the hotel industry; (3) the establishment of 122Edwin F. Beal and Edward D. Wickersham, The Practice 2£.Collective Bargaininn, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. II‘Win, IIICQ, 1959), p. 6260 119 machinery for the representation of the individual and group . . 9 interests of employees under contract.1“3 he Grievance Procedure . One of the major objectives of collective bargaining has been the establishment and regulation of procedures for handling grievances. These procedures are written into the agreement and involve a certain number of steps through which the grievance is processed. A typical step-by—step hotel grievance procedure was presented in Chapter IV. In the event a grievance has not been settled by any of the steps contained in the agreement, the question may, at the request of either party, be submitted to arbitration. Today, most hotels use the ad hgg_method of arbitration. This method provides for the selection of the arbitrator by mutual agreement from a list jointly prepared by the parties, or furnished by some outside person or agency, such as the State Mediator, or Labor Service, a local judge, or the American Arbitration Association.12u The arbitrator plays an important role in the main— tenance of good industrial relations and since the cases upon which he acts may be of tremendous importance to the hotel and the union, both parties expect him to be impartial, of sound judgment, immune to pressure tactics, and well 123;pid., p. 319. 12”American Hotel Association, "Building a Better Under- standing of Employer—Employee Relations," (Yew York: 1957), p. 32. 120 versed in the field of labor relations. In addition, it is desirable that he be familiar with the hotel industry and its methods of operation and wage payment. In general, the arbitrator has jurisdiction over three types of issues: (1) interpretation of agreement clauses, where meanings are obscure or questionable; (2) alleged violations of the agreement; and in some situations, (3) new issues arising during the life of the hotel agreement. The arbitrationphearing. The first step in bringing a grievance to arbitration is the stipulation, or submission, generally furnished to the arbitrator before the hearing, although this is not essential unless required by the hotel agreement. In any case, the arbitrator will want to have all of the information contained in the stipulation, which: 1. Notifies the arbitrator of his selection. 2. States the place of hearing. 3. Defines the issue pr issues to be decided by the arbitrator. h. Sets forth the scope of the arbitrator's authority (sometimes by quoting the col- lective bargaining agreement). K. May outline hearing procedures. 6. States how expenses are to be apportioned between parties (usually equally).125 Although the grievance or issue being brought to arbitration has gone through the previous steps of grievance 125Letter from Mrs. L. P. Herrscher, Regional Manager, American Arbitration Association, Detroit, Michigan, August M, 1959., negotiation, it is still necessary for the union and manage— ment representatives to prepare their cases for the arbi- tration hearing. Usually, each party comes to the hearing equipped with all factual material concerning the grievance, and is prepared to present briefs or oral arguments to support its case. As a matter of hearing procedure, the arbitrator will want to know, first, what the issue is; and second, all the . background facts which are not in dispute. Before going into details of the grievance, it is helpful to the arbi- trator for each side to present a brief introductory statement summarizing its position. These statements generally include, in addition to a definition of the issue and a statement of agreed upon facts, the contract clauses pertinent to the dis- pute and a listing of the important arguments which will be made. Each specific type of case calls for its own kind of evidence. For example, disciplinary action may require that the arbitrator determine, frequently from conflicting testi— mony, whether the employee is guilty or not guilty as charged, or partially guilty and subject to more moderate punishment. In job classification grievances, the arbitrator may need an analysis of the hotel job structure, and complete in- formation about the Specific job in question. Once the actual hearing is completed, posthearing briefs may be filed by the parties, commenting on the evidence 122 and summing up their position. No new evidence may be pre— sented in these briefs, since the opposing party would have no Opportunity to refute it. The final step, of course, is the award or decision of the arbitrator. This may be a simple announcement of who won, but many arbitrators offer an "opinion" which sets forth the issues and facts in the case and the arbitrator's reasons for arriving at his decision. The grievance procedure, therefore, is a method of interpreting and applying the agreement to specific cases. It involves the sifting of grievances through a series of appeal steps, with as many cases as possible being settled at each level. Unsettled cases are processed on to a higher level. Finally, arbitration at the top level makes possible a final settlement of grievances without a stoppage of work. Standards for Content pf the Agreement Constructive collective bargaining in the hotel in- dustry should possibly concern itself with standards for the content of the agreement. An agreement is considered satis- factory if it meets the issues present at the bargaining table. It is easily possible, however, that it could be a better contract if it meets certain fundamental "tests" for a good contract. Mr. Handle suggests the following condi- tions which a good agreement should meet: 1. It should give security to the union. 2. It should give management reasonable op- portunity to select its own employees. 123 3. It should protect management from being required to discharge valuable employees because of the imposition of discipline by the union unless the discipline has been reviewed by the same umpire who re- views discipline by management. U. It should give management reasonable freedom to make changes in methods and equipment. 5. It should give workers reasonable pro— tection from technological changes. 6. It should not enforce wastefulutilization of labor. 7. It should provide an orderly way of a1- locating work in the event of a drop in the demand for labor by the enterprise. 8. It should permit management to retain reasonable incentives to encourage effi- ciency. 9. It should provide machinering for deter- mining the meaning of the agreement in the event of disputes over its interpre- tation and for enforcing the agreement in the event of violation by the employer or by the union. 10. It should provide machinery for hearing grievances which do not arise out of alleged violations of the agreement, but which arise because the employer or the union is acting, which the other regards as unfair.120 In practice, the content of a hotel agreement depends on Vtumious factors, such as the prevailing practices in iruiustdjr and in other hotels, the cost of living in the parti— c:ular~zxrea, and the requirements of the law. It seems very Ilikeljr‘thatLagreements will continue to grow in the future :126Ch Wilson Randle, Collective Bargainigg: Principle: arui Ifinactxiceg, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1951), pp. EMS-5’47. 12L» andcmvmrmore and more topics. Thus, one way of defining agrmmmntstandards is to say that they are the demands of theLmimu narrowed down to realistic proportions by bar- gaining with hotel nanagement. Administration of the Agreement No attempt should be made by the negotiators to write a colhxfldve bargaining agreement which covers every possible This sourcetfl‘difference between the employer and employee. would result in extensive detail, which would complicate the agreement and make it extremely difficult to interpret. Making the contract human enough to live under is that part of collective bargaining which deals with the dynamics of the relationships of the parties. because of changing human relationships, observance of the agreement at one mom— ent may be quite different from observation a short time it can be stated that the success of a later. Therefore, ltflaor agreemmnt depends not so much upon the agreement itself, but inather, upon the way the parties go about using it and living under it. ltfter the new agreement is launched, neither the union nor management will know the real meaning of the contract The new agreement may until they start operating under it. The terms create trouble where none previously existed. arnd :itenns of the agreement, now, are unknowns that must be Uliere are also items whose adequacy or inadequacy tested. must be determined in practice. An item may appear to be 125 good on paper, but in practice, it may be inadequate. Con- fusion, disagreements, and challenges may occur in the first few weeks after signing the hotel agreement. It is in this time period that enduring impressions and relationships are formed. Introductigfl_g£_the contract. The major administrative task is to introduce the new agreement to the hotel employees. Essentially, the introduction of the hotel labor agreement is a study of human relations. It concerns the proper deve10p- ment of new labor-management relationships which cannot take place in an atmOSphere of indifference or rigid authoritarian— ism. The hotel worker must be made to believe that a satis- factory joint adjustment has been made; that the labor agreement heralds a new era of mutually promising relation- ships. The parties must become convinced of the advantages of understanding and cooperation over misunderstanding and conflict. George Taylor had this to say: Those who have not worked intimately in the industrial relations field cannot be fully aware of the magnitude and delicacy of the problems met with in applying a labor agreement to plant operations. To begin with, these agreements are not like contracts for the sale of goods; they specify ground rules for a continuing human relationship...The labor agreement has not been drawn that will neatly and exactly provide for every contingency that arises during the year or more of its term. Human relationships are not soundly developed by rigid reliance upon abstract formulae. Allowance must be made for the exercise of considerable judgment applied, to the peculiar facets of a particular case.137 127George Taylor, Government_?eaulations 9§_Industrial Relations, (New York: Prentice-Hall, 19H8), p. 296. 126 Thus, it can be stated that the signing of the labor agreement is merely the beginning of collective bargaining. Successful administration of the agreement depends primarily upon the degree of COOperativeness existing between all inter- ested parties. Even the poorly written agreement can be effective in promoting good labor relations if this spirit of cooperativeness exists. 0n the other hand, without this attitude the success of a well-written agreement can be seriously restricted. Because of this feeling of cooperativeness, relations between the employer and union in the hotel industry are to— day relatively peaceful and harmonious. The future will depend upon the extent to which these principles continue to govern the actions of the two parties. A breakdown may occur as the result of the action of either side. Each side may decide on a test of strength. This is most likely to occur as a result of further union demands for increased wages and fringe benefits. Business has now leveled off from the war time peak, and room oc- cupancy in the United States has dipped from a high of 9b per cent in 19h6 to the present figure of 67 per cent. During the post war years, the union has achieved many gains. Wages, on the average, have risen approximately ho per cent since 19MB, and in addition, the workers have gained non- contributory insurance, health insurance, and pension plans. The concessions, for the most part, were granted during a 127 high peak of prosperity for American hotels. Unless business increases pr0portionately, further wage raises may not be possible. Hotelmen must base their future actions on a sound personnel policy. The problems of the individual worker must be understood, and a program of human relations must be insti— tuted and carried out. High wages and good working conditions do not automatically produce satisfied and well adjusted workers. Individual adjustment has a complex pattern. The research program conducted by the Western Electric Company in its Hawthorne Plant in Chicago, clearly indicated this.128 It was shown in the program at Western Electric, that there existed in the various work groups within a plant an "informal" employee organization of the company. The in- formal and formal organizations may have separate concepts and ideas. The company may have a set pattern of organization with rules and regulations to govern the actions of the workers. The informal relations within the plant may, in most instances, assume a major role in determining the be- havior and actions of the workers with reSpect to their work, their fellow workers, and their supervisors. The ex- tent to which a hotel manager can recognize and deal with this informal organization within his hotel may well deter— mine the outcome of future relations. Part of the attitude of managers toward their workers comes as a result of the society in which they have lived: 128,511,118!!! F. Wllyte, IlldUStIl and SOCiety, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19MB), p. 185. 't. 128 As a rule, management has the attitudes, habits, and values of middle-class groups. Their attitudes are of middle—class indoctrin- ation. They are the result of the powerful motivation and the long process of training extending from early childhood through adult life, which the individual born into the skilled working class receives in his family, in his social cliques, and in his social class.129 Further understanding of the workers' problems both on and off the job is necessary if harmony is to be achieved. If the manager is able to realize the importance of the informal organization within his hotel; if he can alter his beliefs and attitudes to a reasonable degree, a major share of his labor troubles may be won. Happy and contented workers are not likely to be unreasonable over an issue as those who are dissatisfied with their work and their super- visors. If labor conditions are to remain peaceful in the hotels of the United States, effort on the part of the indi- vidual manager is necessary. In summary, like all management—labor agreements, the hotel and the labor organization work under a labor agreement. This agreement works both ways. It pledges the employee to do certain things just as it pledges the employer to grant certain conditions. As a result, each side feels obligated to live up to the minimum conditions imposed by the agreement. In the future, hotel labor-management relations may well con- tinue to be harmonious if the parties continue to cooperate with each other.129 129Allison Davis, "The Motivation of the Underprivileged Worker," Industry and Society, William F. Whyte, Ed., 1952., p. 85. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS One of the eternal conflicts outcf which life is made up is that between the effort of every man to get the most he can for his services, and that of society, disguised under the name of capital, to get his ser— vices for the least possible return. Combination on the one side is pa— tient and powerful, combination on the other is necessary and desirable counterpart if the battle is to he carried on in a fair and equal way. Vegglahg 1, Gunther, 167 Mass. 108, (1896). In 1621, the first colony, Jamestown, was established in.andca and with it, the first inn--or public house. Inns like Hus one remained rough and small until the mid-19th Century, even though hotels such as the Tremont House of Lmston had ushered in new luxuries. E. M. Statler provided pleasing and economical accommodations with the commercial type hotel. Today we have three major types of hotels: (1) commercial, (2) residential, and (3) resort. As the industry grew, employed more workers, and absentee-ownership became common, labor-management relations became strained and there was little communication between the two groups. Unionization seemed an obvious answer to this problem, but the very nature of the industry and the advent of Prohibition made this difficult. However, since the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, the membership and activity of the Hotel, Restau- rant, and Bartenders International Union has increased tre— mendously. Federal labor legislation did not begin until the jRailway Labor Act of 1926. Since then, two national labor Laws have been enacted, which have affected labor-management twihations in the hotel industry. They were the (l) Wagner .Act (fl? 1935, and (2) Taft-Hartley Act of l9h7. The Wagner ‘Act Gustablished the National Labor Relations Board. The i30ar11