Western Renaissance Corporation d/b/a Detroit Plaza Hotel, n/k/a Westin Hotel, 1030 (1983)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Western Renaissance Corporation d/b/a Detroit Plaza Hotel, n/k/a Westin Hotel and Erwin Trager and Kim Pope and Ernestine Olszewski Local 24, Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees,Cooks, and Bartenders International Union,AFL-CIO and Erwin Trager and Kim Pope and Ernestine Olszewski. Cases 7-CA-17967, 7-CA-18500, 7-CA-18758, 7-CB-4803, 7-CB5004, and 7-CB-502226 August 1983 DECISION AND ORDERBY MEMBERS JENKINS, ZIMMERMAN, AND HUNTEROn 13 August 1982 Administrative Law Judge Donald R. Holley issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent Employer filed exceptions and a supporting brief.Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.ORDERPursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent Western Renaissance Corporation d/b/a Detroit Plaza Hotel, n/k/a Westin Hotel, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondent Local 24, Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees,Cooks, and Bartenders International Union, AFLCIO, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order, except that the attached Appendix A is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge.i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule all administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Producis.91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F. 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.In agreeing that Respondent Employer violated the Act herein,Member Hunter notes that the Administrative Law Judge found that discriminatee Trager was disparately treated by Respondent Employer for coming onto Respondent Employer's premises to pick up his paycheck on his day off. Since Trager was unlawfully suspended. it follows, as found by the Administrative Law Judge. that Respondent Employer's attempt to evict Trager from otherwise lawfully observing the ballot count and its discharging him for allegedly assaulting a guard during the eviction also violated the Act 267 NLRB No. 168 APPENDIX ANOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THENATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDAn Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT prevent employees from participating fully in last offer elections by refusing to permit them to observe the tally of ballots at the conclusion of such elections.WE WlI.L NOT suspend or discharge employees because they oppose contract offers the hotel makes to their collective-bargaining representative.WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.WE WILL offer Erwin Trager immediate and full reinstatement to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make him whole for any loss of pay or other benefits suffered by reason of our discrimination against him, with interest.WE WILL expunge and physically remove from our records and files any reference concerning the suspension of Erwin Trager on 30April 1980.WESTERN RENAISSANCE CORPORATION D/B/A DETROIT PLAZA HOTEL,N/K/A WESTIN HOTEL DECISIONSTATEMENT OF THE CASEDONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge: This case results from the consolidation of six complaints, i.e., three naming Western Renaissance Corporation, d/b/a Detroit Plaza Hotel, n/k/a Westin Hotel (herein called Respondent Employer or the Detroit Plaza),' as the Respondent and three naming Local 24, Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees, Cooks, and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called Respondent Union or Local 24), as the Respondent. The six complaints were issued after investigation of charges filed by three separate individuals. Thus, upon charges filed in Cases 7CA-17967 and 7-CB-4803 by Erwin Trager (herein called Trager), the Regional Director for Region 7 issued complaints on August 14, 1980,2 and July 7, ret The name of Respondent Employer was amended at the hearing.2 All dates herein are 1980 unless otherwise indicated.1030DETROIT PLAZA HOTEL spectively. The complaint in Case 7-CA-17967 alleges, inter alia, that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act) by: threatening to fire Trager because he engaged in protected concerted activity; interfering with Trager's right to witness the count of ballots after a last offer election; and suspending and subsequently terminating Trager because he engaged in protected concerted activities. The complaint in Case 7-CB-4803 alleges, inter alia, that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by: attempting to prevent Trager from distributing literature opposing a union dues increase; assaulting the employee in the union hall; and threatening that it would not represent dissident members because they opposed a dues increase.After issuing the above-described complaints, the Regional Director, upon charges filed by Kim Pope3 (herein called Pope), issued complaints in Cases 7-CA18500 and 7-CB-5004 on June 29, 1981. Such complaints alleged, inter alia, that the Detroit Plaza violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by suspending Pope on November 5, 1980, and by discharging her on November 8, 1980, and that Local 24 violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by refusing to fairly represent Pope since November 6, 1980, because she actively supported an anti-Local 24 group called Committee for a Democratic Union.The two remaining complaints were issued in February 1981, upon charges filed by Ernestine Olszewski (herein called Olszewski). The complaint in Case 7-CA18758 alleges, in substance, that the Detroit Plaza violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by polling steady banquet employees to ascertain whether they wished extra steady servers to work reception functions, and by entering an agreement with Local 24 to alter the method of assigning banquet employees to reception functions, thus depriving extra steady banquet employees from participation in gratuities derived from reception functions.The complaint in Case 7-CB-5022 alleges, in substance, that Local 24 violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by:threatening reprisal against extra steady banquet employees because they complained the Union failed to represent them; polling steady banquet employees to determine whether they desired to deprive extra steady banquet employees of reception gratuities; and by insisting since August 1, 1980, that the Detroit Plaza follow a method for assigning banquet employees to reception functions that was designed to deprive extra steady banquet employees of gratuities derived from receptions.The case was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on December 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1981, and on February 2, 3, and 5, 1982. Subsequent to the close of the hearing, counsel for Respondent Employer and counsel for Respondent Union filed briefs which have been carefully considered.Upon the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of witnesses when they gave testimony, I make the following::' At the time of the hearing, Pope was married to Erwin Trager.FINDINGS OF FACTI. JURISDICTION Respondent Employer, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the operation of a hotel at the Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. During calendar year 1980, its gross revenues from the operation of the hotel exceeded $500,000 and during the same period it purchased goods, materials, and supplies valued in excess of $10,000 from suppliers located outside the State of Michigan. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.111.THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts 1. Background The Detroit Plaza is a large hotel located in the Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. It employs some 1,400 employees. A segment of its employees are represented by Respondent Union.During the period when the events at issue here occurred, the hotel's employees were controlled by, inter alia: David Ling, hotel director; Hud Hinton, food and beverage director; Lynn Kirsch, personnel director; Michael Abela, assistant personnel director; Jeff Humes, assistant manager; and Catherine Chipukites, manager of the Inner Circle (since October 1980). 4The record reveals that Local 24 is a large union which represents hotel employees, including those employed by the Detroit Plaza. During the period involved herein, Respondent Union was operated and controlled by, inter alia: Herbert Triplett, secretary-treasurer;George Greenwell, administrative assistant to secretarytreasurer; Daniel Spinks, business agent for Detroit Plaza; Dennis Tapp, business agent; Peg A. Lukacs, business agent; Roosevelt Luster, business agent until July 1980; Diana Jo Jacobs, organizer; Helen Maxey, steward and member of arbitration panel; Virginia Washington, steward; and Ellen Crawford, steward. 5In March 1979, a number...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP