Four Seasons Olympic Hotel, 227 (1984)
FOUR SEASONS OLYMPIC HOTEL
Four Seasons Hotel d/b/a Four Seasons Olympic Hotel and Washington Employees in Service Trades. Case 19-CA-14774
30 April 1984 DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 18 January 1984 Administrative Law Judge Richard D. Taplitz issued the attached decision.
The Charging Party filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a threemember panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
The recommended Order of the administrative law judge is adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
l The Charging Party has excepted to some of the judge's credibility fmdinigr The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir.
1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Seattle, Washington, on June 14 and 30 and November 8, 1983.1 The charge was filed on July 6, 1982, by Washington Employees In Service Trades (the Union). The complaint, which issued on February 7, 1983, and was amended on June 2, 1983, and at the trial, alleges that Four Seasons Hotel d/b/a Four Seasons Olympic Hotels (Respondent or the Hotel) violated Section 8(aXl) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Issue The sole issue is whether various supervisors of Respondent coercively interrogated applicants for employThe trial originally closed on June 30. Thereafter, the unopposed motion of the General Counsel to reopen the record because of newly discovered evidence was granted. The trial resumed and closed on November 8.
' The complaint and other pleadings were amended at the trial to show the correct name of Respondent.
270 NLRB No. 39 ment about their union sympathies during preemployment interviews.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate, to introduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were filed on behalf of the General Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party.3
On the entire record 4 of the case and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT
JURISDICTION Respondent is a State of Washington partnership with an office and place of business in Seattle, Washington, where it is engaged in the business of operating a hotel known as the Four Seasons Olympic Hotel. During the year immediately preceding issuance of complaint, Respondent had gross sales of over $500,000 and directly and indirectly received goods from outside of Washington valued in excess of $50,000. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background For many years the hotel which is now operated by Respondent was known as the Olympic Hotel. It employed approximately 700 employees. Sometime before the incidents involved in this case took place, the Olympic Hotel was closed and all the employees let go. Respondent undertook an extensive renovation project which resulted in reopening the hotel under Respondent's auspices on May 23, 1982. By that time Respondent had employed about 400 employees and subsequently the employee complement rose to 450. A total of some 15,000 applicants sought the available 450 jobs. Of the 700 employees who had formerly worked for the Olympic Hotel, about 300 applied for employment with Respondent. About 60 of those 300 were hired.
In the charge that was filed on July 6, 1982 the Union alleged that Respondent interrogated employees about union matters and refused to hire qualified applicants because they expressed prounion sympathies or were union members. The Union placed a notice in a local newspaper asking rejected applicants to contact the Union if the I In its brief the Charging Party renewed its motion to admit certain documents that had been rejected during the course of the trial. That motion is denied.
I The original exhibit file submitted by the reporter contains many errors. At my request the parties submitted a stipulation dated December 16, 1983 to supplement that file. The stipulation is received in evidence and has been marked ALJ Exh. i. It has been placed at the beginning of the General Counsel's exhibits for November 8, 1983.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD applicant thought he or she was not hired because of race, sex, union membership, or age.
The complaint was very narrowly...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP