Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC, Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, single employer and

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 2012

358 NLRB No. 122 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

358 NLRB No. 122
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC,
Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter egos
d/b/a The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus and Lo-
cal 24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO. Case 07–CA–
065304
September 7, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HAYES
AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case pursuant to the terms of an informal bilateral
settlement agreement. Upon charges and amended
charges filed by the Union on September 22, November
4 and17, December 23, 2011, and March 14, April 25,
and May 25, 2012, the Acting General Counsel issued an
amended complaint on May 31, 2012, against Quantum
Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC, Wick Road
Hotel Management, LLC, alter egos d/b/a the Metropoli-
tan Hotel, Romulus (the Respondent) alleging that it vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.1
Subsequently, the Respondent and the Union entered
into an informal bilateral settlement agreement, which
was approved by the Regional Director for Region 7 on
June 21, 2012. The settlement agreement required the
Respondent to, inter alia: (1) furnish the Union with in-
formation it requested on July 21 and August 10, 2011;
(2) upon request, rescind the suspension of premium
payments to the Wayne County HealthChoice program
for unit employee health insurance, payments to a 401(k)
plan, and the life insurance plan; (3) make all unit em-
ployees whole for any losses they suffered as a result of
the unilateral changes to terms and conditions of em-
ployment by making installment payments of liquidated
backpay; (4) upon request, bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union with respect to wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment; and (5) post appropriate notices, and mail notices
to all current and former employees employed at any
time since September 22, 2011.
The settlement agreement also contained the following
provision:
[Respondent] agrees that in case of non-compliance
with any of the terms of this Settlement Agreement by
[Respondent], and after 14 days notice from the Re-

1 Because the entities named above are alleged to be alter egos, they
are collectively referred to as “the Respondent” herein.
gional Director of the National Labor Relations Board
of such non-compliance without remedy by [Respon-
dent], the Regional Director will reissue the amended
complaint previously issued on May 31, 2012, in the
instant case(s). Thereafter, the General Counsel may
file a motion for default judgment with the Board on
the allegations of the amended complaint. [Respon-
dent] understands and agrees that the allegations of the
aforementioned amended complaint will be deemed
admitted and its Answer to such complaint will be con-
sidered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised
before the Board is whether [Respondent] defaulted on
the terms of this Settlement Agreement. The Board
may then, without necessity of trial or any other pro-
ceeding, find all allegations of the amended complaint
to be true and make findings of fact and conclusions of
law consistent with those allegations adverse to [Re-
spondent] on all issues raised by the pleadings. The
Board may then issue an order providing a full remedy
for the violations found as is appropriate to remedy
such violations. The parties further agree that a U.S.
Court of Appeals Judgment may be entered enforcing
the Board order ex parte, after service or attempted ser-
vice upon [Respondent] at the last address provided to
the General Counsel.
By letter dated June 25, 2012, the Region sent the Re-
spondent a copy of the approved settlement agreement,
and advised the Respondent to take the steps necessary to
comply with the settlement agreement. By letter dated
June 28, 2012, the Respondent was sent a corrected copy
of the settlement agreement. By letter dated July 2,
2012, the Regional Director notified the Respondent that
it had not complied with the terms of the settlement
agreement, by failing to submit the first backpay install-
ment payment of $5000 that was due within 5 days of the
Regional Director’s approval of the settlement agree-
ment. The letter further reminded the Respondent of its
obligation to pay the backpay as described in the settle-
ment agreement, and warned the Respondent that failure
to forward the payment within 14 days would result in
the Regional Director’s reissuing the amended complaint
and filing a motion for default judgment.
Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the noncompli-
ance provisions of the settlement, the Regional Director
reissued the amended complaint on July 17, 2012. On
July 19, the Acting General Counsel filed a Motion for
Default Judgment with the Board. Thereafter, on July
20, 2012, the Board issued an order transferring the pro-
ceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
no response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
According to the uncontroverted allegations in the mo-
tion for default judgment, the Respondent has failed to
comply with the terms of the settlement agreement by
failing to furnish the Union with requested information,
failing to remit the agreed-upon backpay; and failing to
post or mail the required notices to employees. Conse-
quently, pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of the
settlement agreement set forth above, we find that all of
the allegations in the reissued amended complaint are
true.2 Accordingly, we grant the Acting General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Quantum Hotels,
LLC (Respondent Quantum) has been a limited liability
company with an office and place of business in Romu-
lus, Michigan, and has been engaged in the operation of
the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, providing food and
lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, LLC (Respondent Metropolitan Lodging) has been a
limited liability company with an office and place of
business in Romulus, Michigan, and has been engaged in
the operation of the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, pro-
viding food and lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Wick Road Hotel
Management, LLC (Respondent Wick Road) has been a
limited liability company with an office and place of
business in Romulus, Michigan, and has been engaged in
the operation of the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, pro-
viding food and lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Quantum, Respon-
dent Metropolitan Lodging, and Respondent Wick Road
have had substantially identical management, business
purposes, operations, equipment, customers, supervision,
and ownership.
About mid- or late 2011, Respondent Metropolitan
Lodging was established by Respondent Quantum, as a
continuation of Respondent Quantum.
About June 9, 2011, Respondent Wick Road was es-
tablished by Respondent Quantum and Respondent Met-
ropolitan Lodging as a continuation of Respondent
Quantum and Respondent Metropolitan Lodging.

2 See U-Bee, Ltd. 315 NLRB 667 (1994).
Based on the operations and conduct described above,
Respondent Quantum, Respondent Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, and Respondent Wick Road, herein collectively re-
ferred to as the Respondent, are, and have been at all
material times, alter egos within the meaning of the Act.
During the calendar year 2011, a representative period,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations
described above, derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and received at the Romulus
facility goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
from other enterprises in the State of Michigan, including
the DTE Energy Company, which other enterprises re-
ceived these goods and supplies directly from points out-
side the State of Michigan.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
We find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Hanna Karcho Organizer/Member
Remo Polselli Organizer and Managing
Member
Shane Reinhardt General Manager (around
2009)
Doug White Acting General Manager (until
about mid-September 2011)
Devon Dallo Acting General Manager (from
about mid-September 2011)
Mike ______ General Manager
Glen Price Manager
Mike Kralevic Manager
The following employees of the Respondent, the unit,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Bartenders, Cocktail Serv-
QUANTUM HOTELS, LLC 3
ers, Baristas, Banquet Servers, Banquet House Persons,
Lead Front Office Agent, Front Office Agent, Auditor,
Driver/Guest Service Attendant, and Maintenance Em-
ployees; employed by Respondent at its Romulus facil-
ity; but excluding managers, supervisors, confidential
employees, and guards, as defined by the Act.
At all material times, the Respondent has recognized
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit. This recognition has been embod-
ied in a collective-bargaining agreement which was ef-
fective for the period October 1, 2008, through Septem-
ber 30, 2011.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
1. On about July 21, 2011, the Union, by letter, re-
quested that the Respondent provide it with “a copy of all
bargaining unit employees, classifications, full or part-
time status, and rates of pay.”
2. On about August 10, 2011, the Union, by letter, re-
quested that the Respondent provide it with the following
information for each employee: (a) name, gender, and
date of birth; (b) job classification and salary or annual
income of each member for the last 3 years; (c) current
health insurance carrier and current level of coverage; (d)
current cost of employee for participation in plan—both
the employer contribution cost, if any, and the employee
contribution cost, if any; (e) number of claims submitted
by the employee under the plan for the last 3 years, and
date of claim submission; (f) cost per claim submitted by
the employee under the plan for the last 3 years; and (g)
number of family members or dependents of the em-
ployee claimed under the plan.
3. On about August 10, 2011, the Union, by letter, re-
quested that the Respondent provide it with “statements
showing the monthly contribution for each eligible em-
ployee for the last three years for the 401(k)” and
whether the Hantz group still administered the fund.
4. The information requested by the Union is neces-
sary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit.
5. Since about July 21, 2011, the Respondent has
failed and refused to provide the Union with the re-
quested information described in paragraph 1.
6. Since about August 10, 2011, the Respondent has
failed and refused to provide the Union with the informa-
tion described in paragraphs 2 and 3.
7. Since about September 1, 2011, the Respondent
unilaterally suspended contractually required premium
payments to the Wayne County HealthChoice program
for unit employees’ health insurance.
8. Since about September 16, 2011, the Respondent
has failed to pay the contractually required monthly
amount of $30 per employee into a 401(k) retirement
plan.
9. Since about September 16, 2011, the Respondent
has failed to make contractually required contributions to
a life insurance plan on behalf of its employees.
10. From about early April 2012 through May 2012,
the Respondent closed its facility.
11. The subjects set forth in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 re-
late to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for
the purpose of collective bargaining.
12. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 without prior notice to the Un-
ion and without affording it a meaningful opportunity to
bargain with the Respondent with respect to this conduct
and its effects on the employees in the unit.
13. The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
in paragraph 10 without prior notice to the Union and
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with the Respondent concerning the effects of this con-
duct on the employees in the unit.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs
1 through 9 and 12 and 13, the Respondent has been fail-
ing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, and has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Specifically, the Respondent shall comply
with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 7 on June
21, 2012, by paying the backpay due under the settle-
ment agreement, with interest at the rate prescribed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010); providing the re-
quested information to the Union; on request, rescinding
the unilateral changes, and mailing the notice to employ-
ees to all unit employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since September 1, 2011. In limiting our af-
firmative remedies to those enumerated above, we note
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
that the Acting General Counsel is empowered under the
noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement to
seek “full remedy for the violations found as is custom-
ary to remedy such violations, including but not limited
to provisions of this Settlement Agreement.” However,
in his Motion for Default Judgment, the Acting General
Counsel has not sought such additional remedies and we
will not, sua sponte, include them.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, LLC, Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter
egos d/b/a the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, Romulus,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO (the
Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate unit:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Bartenders, Cocktail Serv-
ers, Baristas, Banquet Servers, Banquet House Persons,
Lead Front Office Agent, Front Office Agent, Auditor,
Driver/Guest Service Attendant, and Maintenance Em-
ployees; employed by Respondent at its Romulus facil-
ity; but excluding managers, supervisors, confidential
employees, and guards, as defined by the Act.

3 In his motion for default judgment, the Acting General Counsel
stated that the Respondent has failed to post or mail the notice to em-
ployees, furnish the requested information to the Union, or to submit
the backpay required under the settlement agreement. The Acting
General Counsel requested “[t]hat the Board issue a Decision contain-
ing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an Order, all consistent
with the allegations in the [reissued complaint], and the prayer for relief
set forth therein, including the payment in full of backpay to the named
discriminatees in the amount of $20,455.35, distributed as set forth in
the [ ] Settlement Agreement.” The settlement agreement divides the
$20,455.35 into $5000 in backpay for each unit employee, as well as
specified amounts for reimbursement for out-of-pocket health insurance
expenditures paid by employees and payment of contractual 401(k)
obligations, and thus provides a full make-whole remedy for the unit
employees. The Acting General Counsel further requested that the
Respondent be ordered to pay the unit employees this amount, plus
interest. Accordingly, despite the motion’s request that the Board’s
decision contain an order consistent with the prayer for relief in the
amended complaint, we construe the Acting General Counsel’s motion
as a request to enforce the unmet terms of the settlement agreement.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with the
requested information that is necessary for, and relevant
to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit.
(c) Unilaterally suspending contractually required
premium payments to the Wayne County HealthChoice
program for unit employees’ health insurance.
(d) Failing to pay the contractually required monthly
amount of $30 per employee into a 401(k) retirement
plan on behalf of employees in the unit.
(e) Failing to make the contractually required contri-
butions to a life insurance plan on behalf of employees in
the unit.
(f) Failing to provide the Union timely notice of, and
an opportunity to bargain over the effects of, its closure.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees.
(b) Provide to the Union the information it requested
on July 21 and August 10, 2011.
(c) On request, rescind the unilateral suspension of
payments to the Wayne County HealthChoice program
for unit employees’ health insurance, payments to the
unit employees’ 401(k) plan, and payments to unit em-
ployees’ life insurance plan, and reinstate the Wayne
County HealthChoice program, the 401 (k) plan, and the
life insurance plan.
(d) Remit $20,455.35, plus interest, to Region 7 of the
National Labor Relations Board to be disbursed to the
unit employees in accordance with the settlement agree-
ment approved by the Regional Director on June 21,
2012.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix”4 to the Union
and to all unit employees who were employed by the
Respondent at any time since September 1, 2011.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed By Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
QUANTUM HOTELS, LLC 5
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 7, 2012
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
______________________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
MAILED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT do anything to prevent you from exercis-
ing the above rights.
Local 24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO (the Union) is the
employees’ exclusive collective-bargaining representative in
dealing with us regarding wages, hours, and other working
conditions of the employees in the following unit:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Bartenders, Cocktail Serv-
ers, Baristas, Banquet Servers, Banquet House Persons,
Lead Front Office Agent, Front Office Agent, Auditor,
Driver/Guest Service Attendant, and Maintenance Em-
ployees; employed by us at our Romulus facility; but
excluding managers, supervisors, confidential employ-
ees, and guards, as defined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to provide the Union with
information that is relevant and necessary to its role as
your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT refuse to meet and bargain in good faith
with your Union regarding any proposed changes in
health insurance before putting these changes into effect.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally suspend our premium pay-
ments to the Wayne County HealthChoice program for
your health insurance without prior notice to the Union
and without affording the Union a meaningful opportu-
nity to bargain over the change and its effects on the unit.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally fail to pay the contractually
required monthly amount of $30 per employee into a
401(k) retirement plan without prior notice to the Union
and without affording the Union a meaningful opportu-
nity to bargain over the change and its effects on the unit.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally fail to make contractually
required contributions to a life insurance plan on your
behalf without prior notice to the Union and without af-
fording the Union a meaningful opportunity to bargain
over the change and its effects on the unit
WE WILL NOT unilaterally close our facility temporar-
ily without notice to the Union and without affording the
Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent over
the effects of our conduct.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested on July 21, 2011, of “a copy of all bargaining
unit employees, classifications, full or part time status,
and rates of pay.”
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested on August 10, 2011, for each employee concern-
ing (1) name, gender, and date of birth; (2) job classifica-
tion and salary or annual income of each member for the
last 3 years; (3) current health insurance carrier and cur-
rent level of coverage; (4) current cost of employee par-
ticipation in plan—both the employer contribution cost,
if any, and the employee contribution cost, if any; (5)
number of claims submitted by the employee under the
plan for the last 3 years, and date of claim submission;
(6) cost per claim submitted by the employee under the
plan for the last 3 years; and (7) number of family mem-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
bers or dependents of the employee claimed under the
plan.
WE WILL, if requested by the Union, rescind the unilat-
eral suspension of premium payments to the Wayne
County HealthChoice program for your health insurance,
payments to your 401(k) plan, and payments to your life
insurance plan, that we made without bargaining with the
Union, and reinstate these payments and restore the
Wayne County HealthChoice program, the 401(k) plan,
and the life insurance plan.
WE WILL make you whole for any losses you may have
suffered because of the changes to terms and conditions
of employment that we made without bargaining with the
Union.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively and in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the unit.
QUANTUM HOTELS, LLC, METROPOLITAN
LODGING, LLC, WICK ROAD HOTEL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, ALTER EGOS D/B/A THE
METROPOLITAN HOTEL, ROMULUS