Extract
Inn at Fox Hollow, 1072 (2008)
Woodbury Partners, LLC d/b/a The Inn at Fox Hollow and Ana Hernandez and Berta Luz Garcia. Cases 29CA28122, 29CA28164, and 29CA28235
August 22, 2008DECISION AND ORDERBy Chairman Schaumber and Member LiebmanOn December 5, 2007, Administrative Law Judge Howard Edelman issued the attached decision and, on December 31, 2007, he issued an erratum modifying the notice. The Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Parties each filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and the Respondent and the Charging Parties filed answering briefs. The National Labor Relations Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judges rulings, findings,[1] and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order.[2]The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by photographing employees while they were engaged in lawful picketing. He dismissed the consolidated complaint allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) threatening employees with loss of employment and hotel closure if they supported Local 1102, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers (the Union); (2) making statements indicating that support for the Union would be futile; and (3) discharging employee Berta Luz Garcia. The judge did not address the consolidated complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging Supervisor Alicia Arvelo.For the reasons explained below, we remand to the judge the Arvelo discharge allegation, and we reverse the judge and find that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Garcia. We otherwise adopt the judges findings with certain modifications, as set forth below.[3] 1. Arvelos discharge. The consolidated complaint alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Supervisor Alicia Arvelo in order to induce employees to abandon their support of the Union. The judge failed to address this allegation and the General Counsel excepted to the judges failure to do so. We find merit in the General Counsels exception.The Respondent operates a hotel in Woodbury, New York. In the summer of 2006,See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
