PARK AVENUE INVESTMENT ADVISOR, LLC d/b/a MET HOTEL DETROIT/TROY d/b/a METROPOLITAN HOTEL DETROIT-TR

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 2014

360 N.L.R.B. 640 (N.L.R.B. 2014)

640 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
360 NLRB No. 75
Park Avenue Investment Advisor, LLC d/b/a Met
Hotel Detroit/Troy d/b/a Metropolitan Hotel De-
troit-Troy d/b/a Metropolitan Hotel Group,
Troy, Michigan, and Hotel Management Advi-
sors-Troy, LLC d/b/a The Metropolitan Group
d/b/a The Metro Hotel-Troy, and its successor,
5500 Management, LLC, and Quantum Hotels,
LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC, Wick Road
Hotel Management, LLC, alter egos, d/b/a The
Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, Single Employer
and/or Alter Egos and Local 24, UNITE HERE,
AFL–CIO. Case 07–CA–060921
April 10, 2014
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS MISCIMARRA, HIROZAWA, AND JOHNSON
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondents have failed to
file an answer to the compliance specification.
On April 17, 2012, the Board issued a Decision and
Order1 that, among other things, ordered Park Avenue
Investment Advisor, LLC d/b/a Met Hotel Detroit/Troy
d/b/a Metropolitan Hotel Group (Respondent PAIA), to
remit to the Union all dues deducted from employee
paychecks and withheld from the Union in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, and to remit to the bargaining-
unit employees all dues deducted from their paychecks in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It further ordered
Respondent PAIA to remedy its additional violations of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by: (1) making delin-
quent contributions to the employees’ retirement, health,
vision, dental, and life insurance funds; (2) making em-
ployees whole for any expenses resulting from the delin-
quent contributions; and (3) making employees whole for
any losses resulting from the failure to follow seniority in
scheduling employees for work. On September 10,
2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit entered its judgment enforcing the Board’s Or-
der.2
A controversy having arisen over the amount of back-
pay, union dues, and contributions due under the terms of
the Order, on September 19, 2013, the Regional Director
for Region 7 issued a compliance specification and no-
tice of hearing alleging the amounts due under the
Board’s Order. Although not parties to the original un-
fair labor practice litigation, Respondents Hotel Man-
agement Advisors-Troy, LLC d/b/a The Metropolitan
Group d/b/a The Metro Hotel-Troy (Respondent HMA),
5500 Management, LLC (Respondent 5500), Quantum

1 358 NLRB No. 30 (not reported in Board volumes).
2 No. 12–1787.
Hotels, LLC d/b/a The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus
(Respondent Quantum), Metropolitan Lodging, LLC
d/b/a The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus (Respondent
ML), and Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC d/b/a The
Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus (Respondent Wick Road)
were added to the compliance specification and alleged
to be jointly and severally liable for Respondent PAIA’s
unfair labor practices, as alter egos of Respondent PAIA
and a single-integrated enterprise and single employer
within the meaning of the Act.
The compliance specification set forth the following
allegations regarding the relationships among the Re-
spondents.
Respondents PAIA and HMA: At all material times,
Respondent PAIA, a Delaware limited liability company
with a registered office located at 30600 Telegraph Road,
Suite 2345, Bingham Farms, Michigan, has been en-
gaged in the operation and management of a hotel
providing food and lodging located at 5500 Crooks
Road, Troy, Michigan. At all material times, Respondent
HMA, a Delaware limited liability company with a regis-
tered office located at 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite
2345, Bingham Farms, Michigan, has been engaged in
the operation and management of a hotel providing food
and lodging located at 5500 Crooks Road, Troy, Michi-
gan. On June 13, 2013, the Board issued a Decision and
Order, reported at 359 NLRB No. 134 (not reported in
Board volumes), finding Respondent PAIA and Re-
spondent HMA to be a single employer (Respondents
PAIA-HMA).3
Respondent 5500 and Respondents PAIA-HMA: At all
material times since January 1, 2013, Respondent 5500, a
Michigan limited liability company with a registered
office located at 55 East Long Lake Road, Suite 204,
Troy, Michigan, has been engaged in the operation and
management of a hotel providing food and lodging locat-
ed at 5500 Crooks Road, Troy, Michigan. About January
1, 2013, Respondent 5500 took over the business of Re-
spondents PAIA-HMA, and since then has continued to
operate the business of Respondents PAIA-HMA in ba-
sically unchanged form, and at all material times since
January 1, 2013, has been a successor of Respondents
PAIA-HMA. At all material times, Respondents PAIA-
HMA and Respondent 5500 have been affiliated business
enterprises with common officers, ownership, directors,
management, and supervision; have formulated and ad-
ministered a common labor policy; have shared common
premises and facilities; have provided services for each
other; have interchanged personnel with each other; have

3 The Board also found that Respondent PAIA and Respondent
HMA were alter egos within the meaning of the Act. Id., slip op. at 2.
MET HOTEL DETROIT/TROY 641
engaged in common purchasing; have a lack of arm’s
length transactions; have integrated finances; and have
held themselves out to the public as a single, integrated
business enterprise. Based on these operations, Re-
spondents PAIA-HMA and Respondent 5500 (Respond-
ents PAIA-HMA-5500) constitute a single, integrated
business enterprise and a single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
Moreover, about October 15, 2012, Respondent 5500
was established by Respondents PAIA-HMA as a con-
tinuation of Respondents PAIA-HMA. At all material
times, Respondents PAIA-HMA and Respondent 5500
have had substantially identical management, business
purposes, operations, equipment, purchases, premises,
facilities, customers, supervision, and ownership. Thus,
Respondents PAIA-HMA and Respondent 5500 (Re-
spondents PAIA-HMA-5500) have been, at all material
times, alter egos within the meaning of the Act.
Respondents Quantum, ML, and Wick Road: At all
material times, Respondent Quantum, a Michigan limited
liability company with a registered office located at
40800 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,
has been engaged in the operation and management of a
hotel providing food and lodging located at 31500 Wick
Road, Romulus, Michigan. At all material times, Re-
spondent ML, a Michigan limited liability company with
a registered office located at 55 East Long Lake Road,
Suite 204, Troy, Michigan, has been engaged in the op-
eration and management of a hotel providing food and
lodging located at 31500 Wick Road, Romulus, Michi-
gan. At all material times, Respondent Wick Road, a
Michigan limited liability company with a registered
office located at 55 East Long Lake Road, Suite 204,
Troy, Michigan, has been engaged in the operation and
management of a hotel providing food and lodging locat-
ed at 31500 Wick Road, Romulus, Michigan. On Sep-
tember 7, 2012, and June 11, 2013, the Board issued De-
cisions and Orders, reported at 358 NLRB No. 122 (not
reported in Board volumes) and 359 NLRB No. 132 (not
reported in Board volumes), respectively, finding Re-
spondent Quantum, Respondent ML, and Respondent
Wick Road (Respondents Quantum-ML-Wick Road) to
be alter egos within the meaning of the Act. On June 4,
2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit entered a judgment enforcing the Board’s Deci-
sion and Order reported at 358 NLRB No. 122.4
Respondents PAIA-HMA-5500 and Respondents
Quantum-ML-Wick Road: At all material times, Re-
spondents PAIA-HMA-5500 and Respondents Quantum-
ML-Wick Road have been affiliated business enterprises

4 No. 12–2613.
with common officers, ownership, directors, manage-
ment, and supervision; have formulated and administered
a common labor policy; have shared common premises
and facilities; have provided services for each other; have
interchanged personnel with each other; have engaged in
common purchasing; have a lack of arm’s-length transac-
tions; have integrated finances; and have held themselves
out to the public as a single, integrated business enter-
prise. Based on these operations, Respondents PAIA-
HMA-5500 and Respondents Quantum-ML-Wick Road
constitute a single, integrated business enterprise and a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.
Moreover, about June 9, 2011, Respondent Wick Road
was established by Respondents PAIA-HMA and Quan-
tum as a continuance of Respondents PAIA-HMA and
Quantum. About mid or late 2011, Respondent ML was
established by Respondents PAIA-HMA, Quantum, and
Wick Road, as a continuance of Respondents PAIA-
HMA, Quantum, and Wick Road. At all material times,
Respondents PAIA-HMA-5500 and Respondents Quan-
tum-ML-Wick Road have had substantially identical
management, business purposes, operations, equipment,
purchases, premises, facilities, customers, supervision,
and ownership. Based on these operations, Respondents
PAIA-HMA-5500 and Respondents Quantum-ML-Wick
Road are, and have been at all material times, alter egos
within the meaning of the Act.
Based on the foregoing single-employer and alter-ego
relationships, the compliance specification alleged that
the Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the
backpay calculated as due under the Board’s court-
enforced Order against Respondent PAIA.5
The compliance specification notified the Respondents
that they should file a timely answer complying with the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. Although properly
served with a copy of the compliance specification, the
Respondents failed to file an answer.
By letter dated October 30, 2013, the Region advised
the Respondents that no answer to the compliance speci-
fication had been received and that unless an appropriate
answer was filed by November 6, 2013, a motion for
default judgment would be filed. To date, the Respond-
ents have failed to file an answer.
On November 7, 2013, the General Counsel filed with
the Board motions to transfer case to and continue pro-

5 The compliance specification noted that the Respondents failed to
fully comply with an investigative subpoena issued by the Region for
purposes of calculating backpay. Given the resulting lack of certain
records, and the Region’s ongoing subpoena–enforcement efforts, the
Region has reserved the right to amend the backpay claims in the com-
pliance specification if and when it receives the subpoenaed employer
records.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD642
ceedings before the Board and for default judgment, with
exhibits attached. On November 12, 2013, the Board
issued an order transferring the proceedings to the Board
and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion should not
be granted. The Respondents again filed no response.
The allegations in the motion and the compliance speci-
fication are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on the Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.56(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regula-
tions provides that a respondent shall file an answer
within 21 days from service of a compliance specifica-
tion. Section 102.56(c) provides that if the respondent
fails to file an answer to the specification within the time
prescribed by this section, the Board may, either with or
without taking evidence in support of the allegations of
the specification and without further notice to the re-
spondent, find the specification to be true and enter such
order as may be appropriate.
According to the uncontroverted allegations of the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondents, despite hav-
ing been advised of the filing requirements, have failed
to file an answer to the compliance specification. In the
absence of good cause for the Respondents’ failure to file
an answer, we deem the allegations in the compliance
specification to be admitted as true, and we grant the
General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the Respondents are alter
egos and a single employer under the Act, and are jointly
and severally liable to make whole the bargaining-unit
employees, the Union, and the employee insurance funds
by paying them the amounts set out in the compliance
specification. We will order the Respondents to jointly
and severally pay the amounts specified therein, plus
interest accrued to the date of payment.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Park Avenue Investment Advisor, LLC
d/b/a Met Hotel Detroit/Troy d/b/a Metropolitan Hotel
Detroit-Troy d/b/a Metropolitan Hotel Group, Troy,
Michigan, and Hotel Management Advisors-Troy, LLC
d/b/a The Metropolitan Group d/b/a The Metro Hotel-
Troy, and its successor, 5500 Management, LLC, and
Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC,
Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter egos, d/b/a
The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, a single employer and
alter egos, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall jointly and severally make whole the bargaining-
unit employees, the Union, and the employee insurance
funds by paying them the amounts specified after their
names below, plus interest accrued to the date of pay-
ment, as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), and minus
tax withholdings required by Federal and State laws.6
Name Amount
Blazo, Kristopher $161.00
Castillo, Megan 113.00
Huang, Jainmin 483.00
Jones, Sabrina 92.00
Fisher, Hugh 276.00
Fisher, Hugh—Out of Pocket Medical 254.38
Fisher, Hugh—Out of Pocket Welfare 287.15
Karas, Jackie 253.00
Karas, Jackie—Out of Pocket Medical 90.85
Karas, Jackie—Out of Pocket Welfare 229.72
Kuchta, Artur 46.00
Kuchta, Artur—Out of Pocket Medical 59.76
Zhang, Qian 874.00
Berger, Christine 553.02
Bey, Jerry 652.03
Bey, Jerry—Out of Pocket Medical 266.08
Bey, Jerry—Out of Pocket Welfare 287.15
Dong, Lilin 368.00
Hussain, Shabbir 506.00
Kellam, Linda 989.00
Kellam, Linda—Out of Pocket Medical 1,290.07
Kellam, Linda—Out of Pocket Welfare 1,722.90
Koskiewicz, Krystyna 966.00
Koskiewicz, Krystyna—Out of Pocket
Medical 1,452.07
Koskiewicz, Krystyna—Out of Pocket
Welfare 1,493.18
Edge, Ryan 966.00
Liu, Liz 69.00
Pasamba, Nancy 69.00
Ruhig, Mary Ann 989.00
Ruhig, Mary Ann—Out of Pocket
Medical 3,633.66
Ruhig, Mary Ann—Out of Pocket
Welfare 873.18

6 As noted in the compliance specification, backpay will continue to
accrue until the unfair labor practices are remedied.
MET HOTEL DETROIT/TROY 643
Name Amount
Syed, Ismail 506.00
Syed, Ismail—Out of Pocket Medical 436.08
Syed, Ismail—Out of Pocket Welfare 689.16
Xie, Ping 115.00
Zhang, Hui Qing 644.00
Zhang, Hui Qing—Out of Pocket
Medical 4,037.57
Zhang, Hui Qing—Out of Pocket Welfare 918.88
Zhong, Jihong 989.00
Zhong, Jihong—Out of Pocket Medical 13,489.67
Name Amount
Zhong, Jihong—Out of Pocket Welfare 1,724.70
Holly, Sharonda 159.00
Mackie, Mark—Out of Pocket Medical 403.74
Wright, Margrethe—Out of Pocket
Medical 403.74
Wayne County Health Choice 15,236.13
National Retirement Fund 84,654.24
UNITE HERE Culinary Fund 1,017.95
Local 24, UNITE HERE—Dues 805.00
Total Amount due: $146,595.06