- 69 -
agreements are entitled to uninterrupted breaks for meals, and,
as one of petitioners' witnesses admitted at trial, employees
under the culinary workers' agreement are seldom called to work
during a meal period. We also know that: (1) Petitioners do not
routinely call an employee back to his or her job from a break in
case of necessity, but that the employees tend to postpone their
breaks until the necessity subsides, (2) petitioners began
furnishing the meals to all of their employees because management
believed it was unreasonable to require 75 to 80 percent of
petitioners' workforce to remain on the premises during their
full shifts without offering them a free meal, and (3)
petitioners must furnish the meals to their employees free of
charge to remain competitive in the industry. These facts add to
our belief that either petitioners furnish the meals to their
employees for the employees' convenience, or that petitioners
furnish the meals to their employees to compensate them for
remaining on the premises for their complete shifts.
There may be senior managers who are so indispensable to the
operation of the Properties that they would be personally
consulted and called to duty when an emergency occurs. On the
basis of the record, however, we are unable to determine which,
if any, employees are within this category. Petitioners have
addressed this factor from an all-or-nothing point of view, and
the record does not otherwise allow us to determine who these
senior managers are. We decline to sift through the long list of
job titles at each Property and speculate as to which employees
Page: Previous 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011