SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 20-CA-32754, 268 (2008)

Extract

---

SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC, 20-CA-32754, 268 (2008)

SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC and Unite Here! Local 2. Case 20–CA–32754

March 20, 2008

DECISION AND ORDER

By Members Liebman and Schaumber

On September 28, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Jay R. Pollack issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed a brief in support of the judge’s decision, limited cross-exceptions and a supporting brief, and an answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions. The Respondent filed an answering brief to the General Counsel’s limited cross-exceptions and a reply brief.

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 judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions as modified below and to adopt his recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.2

We agree with the judge, for the reasons stated in his decision, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting employees Christina Valencia and Maria Maldonado to sign a union disaffection petition and by accompanying that solicitation with a promise of benefits.3 For the reasons set forth below, we also affirm the judge’s findings that the Respondent discriminatorily selected Maldonado and Valencia for discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and unlawfully withdrew recognition of the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5).4

i. background

The Respondent owns and operates a hotel located near the San Francisco International Airport. The Union was party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent’s predecessor, Wyndham International, effective December 5, 1999, through November 30, 2003, and extended by agreement through November 2004. The Respondent purchased the hotel in March 2004, and assumed the collective-bargaining agreement, which included a union-security clause. In August 2004, the Union gave notice of its intent to modify the agreement; the parties agreed that it would remain in effect during bargaining. The parties met and bargained on three dates in 2005 without concluding a successor agreement.5 On August 23, the Union demanded that several housekeepers, including Valencia and Maldonado, be discharged unless they met their union-security obligations.

On August 31, Valencia and Maldonado were called to a meeting with General Manager Chaudhry. Banquet Manager Naomi Grace Vargas also attended and served as an interpreter. Chaudhry informed the employees that they owed the Union $400 in dues and that the Union would have them fired if they did not pay the amount due. He also said that the Union was no good and that it was costing the Respondent a lot of money. Chaudhry then told the employees that they could sign a petition to “deunionize” the hotel. Chaudhry told them to have lunch and that they could come back later and sign “the paper.” The employees did not return after lunch and did not sign the petition. Later that afternoon, Vargas approached Valencia and asked if she was going to sign “the paper” and why the employees did not want to “de-unionize.”6

In late August, ...

See the full content of this document

---