Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC and Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 15, 2013

29-CA-093850 (N.L.R.B. May. 15, 2013)

JD(NY)–21–13
Hauppauge, NY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
NEW YORK BRANCH OFFICE
REMINGTON LODGING & HOSPITALITY, LLC
and Case No. 29-CA-093850
REMINGTON LODGING & HOSPITALITY, LLC
AND HOSPITALITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
LLC, joint employers
and
LOCAL 947, UNITED SERVICE WORKERS
UNION, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND ALLIED TRADES
Brent Childerhose, Esq., Ashok Bokde, Esq. and
Lara Haddad, Esq., for the General Counsel
Karl M. Terrell, Esq., for Remington
Jonathan J. Spitz, Esq., for HSS
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Raymond P. Green, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in Brooklyn, New York
on various days from March 6 to 20, 2013. The charge was filed on November 27, 2012 and
the Complaint was issued on January 15, 2013. 1 In substance, the Complaint alleges as
follows:
1. That in or about mid-June 2012, Remington, by Andrew Arpino, at the time the
housekeeping manager, interrogated employees about their union activities.
2. That in August and September 2012, Remington by Percida Rosero, a housekeeping
supervisor, (a) threatened employees with discharge, (b) threatened employees regarding their
immigration status; (c) interrogated employees about their union activity; and (d) told employees
that their work was being subcontracted to avoid the Union.

1 At the hearing, Hospitality Staffing Solutions, (HSS) offered to fully settle the case to the extent that
the Complaint alleged that it engaged in or was responsible for unlawful conduct. The General Counsels
asserted that they were not alleging that HSS would be liable for any backpay resulting from a finding of
illegal discrimination and that there were no prior instances where HSS had been found to have violated
the Act. Accordingly, as HSS agreed to fully remedy all of the allegations that were attributable to it, and
as the Charging Party also agreed to enter into the settlement, I approved the Settlement on March 19,
2013 over the objection of the General Counsel.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
3. That in August and September 2012, the Respondent by Osiris Arango, the Human
Resources Director, (a) interrogated employees about their union activities; (b) directed
employees to report union activity; (c) told employees that work was being subcontracted to
avoid the Union; (d) directed employees not to sign union authorization cards; and (e)
threatened employees with discharge.
4. That from August 21, 2012, to October 19, 2012, Remington for discriminatory
reasons subcontracted the housekeeping work at the Hyatt Hotel to HHS.
5. That on or about October 19, 2012, Remington, for discriminatory reasons discharged
about 37 housekeeping employees, some of whose names are unknown and including the
following named employee:
Maria Armay Vilma Barzallo
Andre Bonard Estela Cabrera
Maria Garcia Berty Gandados
Noris Gutierrez Francis Lopez
Efer Monge Ninfa Palacios
Roxana Pereria Ana Salgado
6. That alternatively, from about September 19, 2012 to October 19, 2012, Remington
for discriminatory reasons refused to hire or consider for hire, the housekeeping employees who
were directly employed by HHS and are described in the preceding paragraph.
7. That on or about January 2, 2013, the Respondent for discriminatory reasons
discharged Margaret Loiacono.
8. That in January 2013, the Respondent distributed literature to employees that (a)
threatened employees with more onerous working conditions; (b) threatened employees with
unspecified reprisals; and (c) threatened to withhold a benefit.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed, I make the following
Findings and Conclusions
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondents admit and I find that they are employers engaged in interstate
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act. It also is admitted and I
find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
(a) Background and the nature of the operations
The facility involved in this case is a hotel located in Hauppauge, New York. Although
branded as a Hyatt hotel, it is not owned by that entity, which instead leases its brand to a group
of independent owners. For many years, the hotel utilized the Hyatt organization to provide the
actual management services for the hotel. Hyatt in turn, subcontracted out the housekeeping
department, consisting of about 40 employees, to a company called Hospitality Staffing
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Services, herein called HSS. HSS is based in Atlanta Georgia and provides staffing services
specifically for hotels throughout the country. At the time that it was performing the
housekeeping functions for this particular hotel, HSS had an office in Long Island and this hotel
was its only customer on the Island.
In 2011, the owners of the hotel decided that they no longer wished to use Hyatt to run
the hotel and contracted this function to Remington Lodging & Hospitality LLC. This company
has its main headquarters in Dallas, Texas and currently manages 70 hotels in the United
States.
The President of Remington is Mark Sharkey. Under him is Evan Studer who is the
Executive Vice President of Operations. In turn, there are about 15 divisional managers who
report to Studer, including Sileshi Mengiste who is responsible for a number of hotels including
the Hyatt in Hauppauge. When Remington, in December 2011, took over the running of the
hotel, the local General Manager was Michael Lawrence. He left in 2012 and after a short
period when there was an interim general manager; Jeff Rostek took over this position in or
about the middle to late July 2012. At one point, Mark Arpino was the head of housekeeping,
but he was moved to be the front desk manager and his position was taken by Blanca Dunleavy
on August 1, 2012. In the housekeeping department there were two supervisors who reported
to Dunleavy and these were Percido Rosero and Yohenna Guerro. The Respondent concedes
that these two individuals are supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. At the
corporate level, Remington employs a Director of Human Resources who is Sharon Glees. At
the local level, the Director of Human resources for this particular hotel is Osiris Arango.
In December 2011, when Remington took over the management of the hotel, it decided
that it would directly employ the hotel’s employees including the employees in the housekeeping
department. Accordingly, the arrangement with HSS was cancelled and the housekeeping
employees, including their supervisors, were hired by Remington. This decision was in fact
consistent with Remington’s general preference which is to directly employ hotel staff so that it
can have more control over the hotel’s operations. 2
So, from the time that Remington took over the management of the hotel and until
August 20, 2012, it directly employed the housekeeping staff and supervisors who worked under
the direction first of Mark Arpino and then of Blanca Dunleavy.
Before moving on, I note that hotels are generally rated in various categories based on
guest surveys that are conducted either by the brand, (e.g. Hyatt) or by an independent entity.
In this respect, customers are sent, usually by e-mail, surveys in which they can rate various
aspects of the hotel, such as service, cleanliness, etc. Although not every guest will respond,
sufficient guests do respond and a rolling tally is sent to each hotel and their respective
managements. For our purposes, the main category we should be concerned with is the survey
results for guest rooms. According to the Respondent’s witnesses, a reason that the hotel’s
owners decided to contract with Remington was because the survey scores under Hyatt and

2 Although there have been occasions in the past when Remington has subcontracted various
functions to other companies, there are far fewer instances when Remington has contracted out
housekeeping functions. There are some exceptions, but by and large, except for one past instance
involving a hotel in Key West, Remington never contracts out all of the housekeeping work. Either it will
directly employ the employees or subcontract for only a supplemental staff. In the case of the Key West
Hotel, the housekeeping work was contracted out for only a limited period of time and was later brought
back in-house.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
HSS were unacceptable. They also testified that after Remington took over, the scores
continued to place this hotel at or near the bottom of all full service Hyatt hotels. It is
Remington’s contention that when the scores for the hotel did not improve, it decided that the
remedy should be to outsource the housekeeping work to another company. And to this end,
the record indicates that a decision to explore the possibility of contracting out this work was
initiated sometime in mid to late June and no later than June 28, 2012.
(b) Commencement of union organizing and the
decision to subcontract housekeeping operations.
Jose Vega, a union agent, visited the hotel in April and while there started to
communicate with some of the housekeeping staff about unionization. Thereafter, he made a
habit of visiting the hotel and during the course of his visits from April, he met with an employee
named Veronica Flores who became his liaison with the other employees. As a result, a union
meeting was planned for sometime June 10, 2012. However, that meeting was called off
because, Vega was told by Flores that management had learned of the union activity. 3
Ninfa Palacios, a housekeeping employee testified that sometime in May 2012, she was
approached by supervisor Percida Rosero who asked her if she was asked to participate in a
union meeting. Palacios testified that she told Rosero that she new nothing and had not been
invited to any meeting. She states that Rosero said that there were some rumors that a meeting
was going on.
Veronica Flores testified that in June 2012, Andrew Arpino, then the director of
housekeeping, called her into his office and asked if she knew anything about a union. She
testified that she said that she didn’t know anything and that he said that if she heard anything,
she should let him know. Flores states that when she asked him what was going on, Arpino
showed her a union business card and said that another employee named Amaya, had given it
to him. 4 In relation to this meeting, Flores was not all that certain as to when it occurred but
from the context of her testimony it most likely occurred shortly before June 10. She also
testified that no one else was present. According to Flores, it was after this meeting that she
contacted Vega and asked that the meeting be called off.
Flores testified that in late June, she had another conversation with Arpino and that while
in his office, he showed her a picture on a computer screen and asked if the person was Jose
Vega. She testified that although it looked like Vega, it was not him and that she told Arpino
that it was not him.
Flores testified that in early July, she was approached by Rosero who said that the
Union was trying to get into the hotel that this was impossible because it would take money
away from everyone and that a union would not work with someone who is not documented.
Finally, Flores testified that in early August, she overheard Rosero talking to another
employee and that Rosero said that employees would be dismissed if they talked to the union
and that the Union did not work with people who were undocumented,

3 I am not relying either on Vega’s testimony or the testimony of employees that the meeting was
canceled because employees believed management knew of union activities to prove the truth of that
assertion.
4 Vega testified that on his visits to the hotel, he would walk around the hallways and when he spoke
to an employee would hand out his business card.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
The Respondent did not call Arpino or Rosero as witnesses and they therefore did not
contradict the testimony of Flores or Palacios. Accordingly, I shall credit their testimony which
shows that by no later than June 10, 2012, management was aware that a union agent was
soliciting employees inside the hotel.
In my opinion, the above noted conversations constituted illegal interrogations under the
rationale of Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). I also conclude that the statements
overheard by Flores that Rosero made in August, constituted an impermissible threat of reprisal
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Although the record is not clear as to exactly when the Respondent commenced the
process resulting in the subcontracting of the housekeeping work, the first written
communication regarding this subject is dated June 28, 2012. On this date, Sileshi Mengiste,
sent two similar e-mail reports to Mark Sharkey, (the CEO), Evan Studer, (the Executive Vice
President of Operations) and Sharon Glees, (the head of Human Resources). The report sent
at 8:39 p.m., which slightly modifies a report sent at 3:51 p.m., states:
Dear Mark
As you aware, the hotel made the decision sometime ago to bring the outsourced
housekeeping department in house in order to improve guest satisfaction and
operations scores. This approach has not delivered the expected results as our
scores are still a major problem for this hotel.
In order to improve the hotel’s financial position and flow through, as well as to
improve operational efficiencies, I recommend that we again outsource the
housekeeping department to Hospitality Staff Solutions (HSS), a reputable
contract labor company that the hotel has worked with on a limited basis since
2008.
Additional benefits to outsourcing the department follow:
Financial – Attached is an analysis computed with the current contract rate of
$12.60 per hour. This represents a “worst case” scenario and I will be working
on a reduced rate considering the amount of business we will be bringing to
HSS.
Workers Compensation – HSS will carry all liability insurance, which will reduce a
significant amount of financial burden and responsibility from the hotel
operations.
Healthcare – Considering the Supreme Court’s ruling today on the Affordable
Healthcare Act, the hotel’s exposure to increase healthcare expenditures in the
future is uncertain at best and more likely represents a significant increase
financial burden on the hotel operations.
Hiring and Recruiting – Currently, the hotel is struggling to fill open positions in
the housekeeping department. On average, it will take 30 to 45 days to hire a
house person or a room attendant. HSS has vast resource as and expertise to
meet our staffing needs.
Over time – Currently the hotel incurs overtime if business demand increases on
short notice, staff calls out sick or our forecasting proves to be inaccurate. HSS
had the resources to readily provide the necessary staffing levels on short notice
in order to meet business demands.
On the same day at 9:02 in the evening, CEO Mark Sharkey responded to the e-mails
and stated:
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
Sileshi, I have reviewed your email and agree that it is time to address this
problem. We cannot allow service to be this low or to continue to suffer from
staffing problems. This has gone on too long and we must make a change
immediately. Reach out to HSS and make the necessary changes tomorrow. Do
what you can to get HSS to lower their hourly rate or to tie the rate to a level of
service, etc. Ps get this done before the weekend. Thanks.
According to Rick Holliday, his company was first contacted by Remington on June 28.
In this regard, Holliday testified that he checked his records and confirmed that this was when
Sileshi Mengiste contacted HSS’ business development team.
Holliday testified that in late June or early July, he participated in a conference call with
Mengiste, Studer and Glees who said that they needed to move in this redirection because of
low survey scores and because they were having some turnover issues. He states that they
told him that they were having a problem getting enough housekeeping staff. Holliday also
testified that they told him that they wanted this to happen right away: “the next day.”
On June 30, 2012 Rick Holliday sent an e-mail to Remington which stated:
I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. We are working on determining
the time frame to be able to re-open the branch office back up.
Sharon, are there any issues with unions, ICE or wage and hour at the property
now?
On July 1, 2012, Evan Studer of Remington, sent a message to Holliday which stated
inter alia:
To my knowledge there are no issues with the items you noted. I’m sure you’re
aware that union organizing on the island has been in play for many years and
has also heated up in the past year, something to be aware of. Our objective is to
get this department outsourced for all the reasons we reviewed with you, such as
better recruiting pool, keeping our cost at or near to its current level and the
primary reason to quickly grow our guest satisfaction rating in the Hyatt system.
Our research has led us to believe all these items can be best served in this
market through a professional nationwide cleaning organization.
From July 2 to July 9, Studer also communicated with David Tucker from a company
called Jani-King about a possible contract. On July 2, Tucker sent an e-mail to Studer attaching
a proposed contract. At 5:59 p.m. Studer acknowledgement receipt of the contract and in a
response, with copies to Sharon Glees and Sileshi Mengiste, he stated; “We will review tonight
and be back in the contact with you tomorrow morning. Our intent is to still move forward with
an outsourced service.” However, in the end, Remington decided to use HSS instead of Jani-
King because the quoted price was too high and Studer found out that what Jani-King did was
to further subcontract to yet another local company.
On July 4, Vega had a meeting with a number of Remington employees and managed to
obtain four signed authorization cards. The evidence shows that from July 5 to July 11, the
Union obtained seven other signed authorization cards.
At some point before July 12, Holliday visited the hotel and on July 12, he submitted a
contract proposal to Remington. Between July 12 and July 16, HSS and Remington by their
respective agents, engaged in extensive negotiations regarding the subcontracting of the
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
housekeeping department. The major issues were that HSS was insistent that the wages and
compensation currently paid by Remington were not high enough to attract suitable and
sufficient employee applicants. And the other major issue was that HSS was insisting on and
Remington was resisting, a provision whereby if the contract was terminated, Remington would
not solicit any employees of HSS and would, as a remedy, pay to HSS, a substantial amount of
money in the event that Remington hired HSS employees after a contract had been terminated.
On August 16, 2012, a contract was executed between Remington and HSS and the
start date was scheduled for August 21. In essence, the agreement called for the transfer of
Remington’s housekeeping employees to HSS; a new and higher starting pay rate; a raise for
already employed employees; and a penalty clause whereby Remington would pay a half year’s
wage for any HSS housekeeping employee that Remington hired in the event that the contract
was terminated. The Housekeeping Director and two housekeeping supervisors would remain
employed by Remington and HSS agreed to hire at least one new supervisor. 5
On August 20, the employees of Remington were told that HSS was taking over the
housekeeping functions and that if they wished to be hired by HSS, they should fill out
applications. Most did so and most were hired. However, there were a few whose information
was questioned by HSS’s e-verify system and who did not get employed by HSS. 6 Those that
were hired by HSS began on its payroll as of August 21, 2012. They also got substantial wage
increases. Those hired after August 21, were paid at a higher rate than new hires were paid by
Remington.
After the meeting was held on August 20, the Union filed its first representation petition
on the same date. (Case No. 29-RC-87706). This petition sought to have an election amongst
the housekeeping employees who were employed at the Hyatt hotel. Presumably this petition
was received by the company on August 21. It later was withdrawn and replaced by another
petition.
It should be noted that in addition to the sudden quest to contract out the housekeeping
duties, it is conceded that Remington’s cost for utilizing HSS to perform this function was higher
than Remington’s existing costs. 7 I also note that there was no issue about the quality of the

5 Except for one former employee of Remington, HSS agreed to hire all of Remington’s employees
who passed a drug screen, a background check and the company’s e-verify system.
6 Without going into too much detail, employers can voluntarily enroll in a Federal Government
system called e-verify. Under this system, a company can, after obtaining certain documents from a new
employee, (often social security cards), utilize this computer system to check to see, for example, if a new
hire’s social security number is a match to one on file with Social Security. If there is non-match, the
newly hired employee is given a fixed period of time to contact the government agency and fix the
problem. If it can’t be fixed or explained (for example a non-match because of a name change), then the
employee has to be fired.
7 Some of the considerations cited in favor of contracting out the work set forth in Mengiste’s June 28
memorandum, strike me as being somewhat bogus. For one thing, he cites the Supreme Court decision
on health care, which would not go into effect for at least a year and would not really affect an employer
that already was providing health insurance to its employees. In part, Mengiste claims that by contracting
out the work, Remington would likely be able to lower costs because a contractor might be able to lower
wage rates and because various of the existing employee costs, such as worker compensation insurance
and health insurance, would be carried by HSS instead of Remington. But the people who run HSS have
ample experience in hotel staffing and I don’t see how Mengiste would be so naïve as to assume that
HSS would negotiate a contract where it would take on those costs without setting a price to offset the
costs and earn a profit. Indeed, as the negotiations got underway, it became obvious that hiring HSS to
Continued
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
Remington housekeeping staff. It was acknowledged by Remington that the reason why the
quality scores were not good was not because the employees were lazy or incompetent, but
rather because Remington simply could not employ enough workers to get the job done right.
Thus, Remington’s management asserts that they thought that because HSS specialized in
manpower recruitment, it would be in a better position to get sufficient staff for this hotel. But it
seems that the problem was not so much HSS’s recruitment skills as the amount of money that
Remington was offering to work at this hotel. Indeed, HSS after having its contract for this hotel
terminated back in December 2011, had no office in Long Island, had no staff for Long Island
and had no contacts with the local labor market in that area. Moreover, if HSS had not been
successful before December 2012, why would Remington assume that HSS would be more
successful now?
Remington asserts that the main reason that it decided to contract out this work to HSS
was because the customer service scores were and remained low. However, I note that
although the Respondent put into evidence those scores over an extended period of time, there
is no evidence showing how these scores compared to Hyatt’s scores when it along with HSS
ran the hotel and its housekeeping department before Remington took over. Moreover, and
more significantly, there was no evidence of any communications between Remington, Hyatt or
the hotel’s owners indicating that either Hyatt or the owners were worried or had any concerns
about the scores after Remington had taken over. Indeed, there is no evidence of any
communications by Remington’s management to either Hyatt or to the hotel’s owners that
Remington was concerned about the scores or that it was even contemplating any measures to
improve the scores.
The General Counsel contends that the decision to subcontract out the work of the
housekeeping employees was so that Remington could avoid being their employer and
therefore avoid having to bargain with a union. Since this is alleged to be violative of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, the legal standard would be the one set forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F. 2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
In my opinion, the facts cited above, including the evidence that the decision to
subcontract was undertaken shortly after management became aware of union activity at the
hotel, strongly support a primae facie showing that the decision was motivated by anti-union
considerations. Best Plumbing Supply, 310 NLRB 143, 144 (1993); Flat Rate Moving Ltd., 357
NLRB No. 112, slip opinion at page 8, (2011) affd. by 2nd Cir. on November 21, 2012; Evenflow
Transportation Inc., 358 NLRB No. 82 (2012). As it is also my opinion that Remington has not
met its burden of proof to show that it would have taken this action notwithstanding the
employees’ union activity, I also conclude that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)&(3)
of the Act.
Having concluded that Remington illegally made a decision to contract out the
housekeeping department to HSS, I conclude that given the chain of causation, Remington is
legally responsible for what happens to those employees thereafter. Thus, the decision to
contract out the housekeeping department resulted in the discharge of those employees from
Remington’s employment. Accordingly, to the extent that some of the employees were not hired
by HSS, those particular employees, absent any other legal impediment, would be entitled to
_________________________
do the housekeeping work would substantially increase Remington’s costs and not reduce them. In fact,
it strikes me that the only rational way to justify this kind of cost increase, would be because Remington
could off load not the costs, but the employees to someone else so that it could avoid being required to
bargain with a union.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
reinstatement and backpay from August 20, 2012 to such time as they receive an unconditional
offer of reinstatement. As to those former Remington employees who were hired by HSS, they
also would be entitled to reinstatement by Remington after their discharge by HSS on or before
October 19, 2012. In these circumstances, their employment at HSS should be considered as
interim employment for purposes of calculating backpay owed by Remington. Therefore, any
Remington employees who were hired by HSS and who had their employment terminated for
any reason other than gross misconduct would be entitled to backpay starting from the date of
their termination to such time as they receive unconditional offers of reinstatement.
As noted above, HSS commenced operating at the hotel on August 21, 2012 and hired
almost all of the housekeeping employees of Remington. Nevertheless, the housekeeping
director, Bianca Dunleavy and the two housekeeping supervisors remained employees of
Remington. Thus, although the regular employees were on the payroll of HSS, they continued to
be supervised by Remington.
(c) Continued union organizing activity and the termination
of the contract between Remington and HSS
By the time of the transfer, the Union had obtained a total of 25 signed authorization
cards from employees. After August 21, 2012, the Union continued to solicit authorization cards
during the months of August through November and obtained an additional 30 cards during that
period of time. (Most were obtained in August and October). Thus, the transfer of the
employees from Remington to HSS did not stop employees from seeking representation.
On September 11, 2012, the Union filed a new petition in Case No. 29-RC-89045 for a
unit of about 40 housekeepers, housemen, maintenance and drivers. The Petition lists both
Remington and HSS as the employers. This was amended on September 21, 2012 and
amended again on October 16, 2012. The final amendment lists only Remington as the
employer, (deleting HSS), and sought to have an election in a wall to wall unit consisting of 120
employees.
HSS continued to perform services at the hotel until October 19, 2012. In this regard, the
record shows that this was HSS’s only client in Long Island and that although it had attempted
to interest Marriott in using its services for this area, those solicitations were unsuccessful and
occurred before HSS entered into the contract with Remington.
The record shows that during August and September, there were a number of written
communications between Remington and HSS whereby Remington complained about a number
of issues including the level of staffing; the non-hiring by HSS of a supervisor; the mispayment
of wages; and the lack of a trainer.
On September 19, 2012, Holliday sent a memorandum to Studer which stated:
Per our contract, this letter serves as 30 days notice to terminate our agreement
with Remington Hotels… effective October 19, 2012. As a courtesy, we waive
section 9 of our services agreement and have no objection to Remington
soliciting and hiring HSS employees currently employed at the property.
Holliday not only stated that HSS was going to terminate the contract, but that it would
not enforce the penalty clause that would otherwise require Remington to pay the equivalent of
six month’s pay for each HSS employee that Remington decided to reemploy at the hotel.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Holliday explained that he waived section 9 because HSS had no other locations in the area,
and therefore had nowhere to put these people anyway.
At some point before October 19, 2012, Remington went out and recruited an entirely
new housekeeping staff and trained them at another hotel. Thus, when October 19 arrived, all
of the housekeeping employees who worked at the hotel were told, (to surprise of the HSS
management), that they were being fired and that they would not be hired back by Remington.
In justification of this action, Remington witnesses testified that although HSS had waived the
penalty clause, they couldn’t be sure that HSS wouldn’t try to have these employees work
elsewhere and that Remington could not be sure if it would have an adequate staff available
when it resumed control of the housekeeping operations. To me this is absurd. For one thing,
HSS had no other place to put these people and in my opinion, Remington was aware that HSS
had not been successful in soliciting other business in Long Island. For another thing, it would
have been a simple matter to ask the employees, after HSS had given its termination notice, if
they wished to be reemployed by Remington. It had a month to do so.
Based on the above, I am convinced that Remington chose not to hire the housekeeping
employees because of their continued union activities and to avoid a possible adverse
consequence resulting from the pending election petition. See FES, 331NLRB 9, supplemented
at 333 NLRB 66 (2011) enfd. 301 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 2002) explicating the legal framework for
deciding cases involving alleged discriminatory refusals to hire. I therefore conclude that by
refusing to offer these employees their jobs back, Remington violated Section 8(a)(1) & (3) of
the Act. 8 Also, as I have already concluded that the prior discharge of the housekeeping
employees on August 20, was a violation of the Act, it is not necessary for me to determine
whether Remington as a single employer with HSS, also violated that Act by discharging these
employees on October 19. As they would be entitled to reinstatement and backpay either as a
result of the illegal discharges on August 20 or the illegal refusals to hire on October 19, the
remedy would be the same. 9
(d) Other alleged 8(a)(1) violations.
Apart from what has already been described, the General Counsel presented a number
of employee witnesses who testified to conversations with Osiris Arango, the hotel’s local
human resource director and with Percida Rosero. It is contended that these two persons
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act either by engaging in coercive interrogations or by making
threats of reprisal. As previously noted, Rosero did not testify so the testimony about what she
said, stands uncontradicted. As to Arango, although she conceded that she did have similar
conversations with these employees, she denied those aspects that are alleged to be unlawful.
Because of the mutually corroborative nature of their testimony and also based on demeanor
factors, I shall credit the General Counsel’s witnesses.

8 I note among other things, that none of the witnesses called by Remington could testify as to who
actually made the decision to not hire the housekeeping employees or when that decision was made. All
asserted that they did not make the decision but were told of it shortly before October 19, 2012. Whoever
the decision maker was, that person was not called as a witness by the Respondent.
9 Because Remington retained supervisory control over the housekeeping employees after their
transfer to HSS, I would also conclude that Remington and HSS were joint employers of these employees
during the period from August 21 to October 19. See International Transfer of Florida Inc., 305 NLRB 150
(1991); Laerco Transportation, 269 NLRB 324 (1984) and Capital EMI Music, Inc., 311 NLRB 997, 1000
(1993) enf’d sub nom., 23 F.3d 399 (4
th
Cir. 1994).
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
According to Maritza Torres, on August 21, 2012, the day of the transfer to HSS, she
asked Percida Rosero what was going on and Rosero said that this was happening because of
the Union. She also testified that Rosero stated that other things were going to happen. I
construe this as a threat of unspecified reprisals which is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Delia Berti Reyes Granados testified that in early August, (before the transfer of the
housekeeping employees to HSS), Osiris Arango asked her if the two people from the Union
had spoken to her. Granados states that she said no and Arango asked what benefits the
union would give her. According to Granados, she responded that she didn’t know. In my
opinion, this constitutes coercive interrogation and is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Josefina Jurado Portillo testified that on or about August 28, she asked Arango about
her health insurance and then after they went to the latter’s office, she was asked “what do you
know about the Union.” In this respect, I conclude that this is unlawful interrogation within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Noris Gutierrez’s testimony was that in late August or early September, 2012, Osiris
Arango called her into her office and asked if she knew of anyone who was talking to the Union.
When Gutierrez responded no, Arango said that the union was not good. In my opinion, this
constitutes unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Estela Cabrera testified that on or about September 5, 2012, she had a conversation
with Arango in her office and was asked if she knew anything about the Union. According to
Cabrera, she told Arango that she didn’t know anything about the union because she had been
on vacation and that Arango said that the union was not good. Cabrera states that Arango
reminded her that when the housekeepers went to work for HSS, their pay had been increased.
Based on the credited testimony of Cabrera, I conclude that the Respondent coercively
interrogated employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Ana Salgado testified that in mid September, 2012, she was asked by Percida Rosero if
she was going to a meeting with the Union that the women were having. Salgado responded
that she wasn’t aware of such a meeting and Rosero said that HSS had found out that they
were holding a meeting. As previously noted, Rosero was not called as a witness and I
therefore conclude that these remarks constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. 10
Francis Lopez testified that in late September 2012, she had a conversation with Arango
in the latter’s office in which Arango asked if she knew what the union was. According to Lopez,
when she said no, Arango explained that the Union was there to protect the employees but that
it wasn’t good because the employees had to pay them a lot of money. Lopez testified that
Arango asked her what other employees were saying about the Union and asked her if she
signed a union card. According to Lopez, Arango stated that if they found out, they would fire
everybody. (In fact, as described above, less than a month later everybody was fired). Based
on the credited testimony of Lopez, I conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by coercively interrogating an employee and threatening to discharge employees if they
joined or supported the Union.

10 This might also be construed as the Respondent giving employees the impression of surveillance,
but that was not alleged in the Complaint.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
Reina Trejo testified that in or about the middle of September 2012, she had a
conversation with Arango when she was working on the sixth floor. She testified that while
training a new employee, Arango came into the room, asked the other person to wait outside
and after a brief discussion of employee benefits, asked if she would go with the Union or stay
with the hotel. Trejo responded that if the Union gave her better benefits, then she would go with
the Union and if the hotel gave her better benefits then she would go with the hotel. According
to Trejo, Arango said that the Union was two faced and that it would take a percentage of what
she earned. Although not earth shattering, I conclude that this also constituted unlawful
interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In addition to the conversations that have been described above, the General Counsel
alleges that three leaflets distributed by Remington to employees in January 2013, violated the
Act. These are as follows:
Fact #2
Question:
Would the enforcement of work rules change if the Union is voted in?
Answer: YES! The rules would be applied and enforced more strictly. Right now,
managers have a lot of flexibility and room to be fair. We believe in “extra
chances” (except for very serious violations).
In a Union hotel, that would go away. The rules would have to be enforced very
rigidly. That’s just the way it is in ‘union’ companies – employers are afraid of
“doing favors”; afraid of being flexible.
Why is that? Because “union” companies worry that when they give an otherwise
good employee an “extra chance”, the union will use it against them later on – by
a grievance filing – when the same violation is committed by an employee who
really does deserve to be fired.
This is a bad thing for good employees.
Fact # 5
Question:
Obviously, the Union will ask for higher wages, more benefits and less work. The
Hotel will have to agree to this… right?
Answer:
Let’s be realistic. Some things may go up. But, if that happens other things will
go down.
Think about your “Real Wage Pie Chart.” The Pie doesn’t get bigger just because
the Union wins the election. The Hotel can only pay what it can afford.
The Pie only gets bigger if…
More guests stay her, and
Spend more money.
Good guest service grows the Pie … Not the Union.
Fact # 6
Question:
What happens if no agreement is reached?
Answer:
Everything could stay the same: No increases at all! … It is not unusual for unions and
employers to go years without reaching agreement.
Example: At Remington’s hotel in Alaska –The Anchorage Sheraton – the Union has
tried without success since February 2009 to get a new agreement. The employees
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
there haven’t had an across-the board pay increase since February 2008 – almost 5
years now!
These pieces of propaganda are of a type that is fairly typical in union election
campaigns. As to Fact # 5 and Fact # 6, I don’t think that either constitutes a threat of reprisal
or a threat that certain benefits would be withheld if the Union were to win an election. The
statement that the hotel can only pay what it can afford, is simply a general truism and the
statement as a whole, cannot, in my opinion, be reasonably understood by employees that by
selecting a union, they would necessarily lose some of their existing benefits as a result of
bargaining. Similarly the questions and answers in Fact # 6 are opinions as to how long
bargaining could theoretically take during which, in the absence of an interim agreement, the
status quo might be maintained. 11
On the other hand, it is my opinion that the statements in Fact #2 do constitute a threat
that if a union was selected and a contract reached, the company would more strictly enforce its
existing disciplinary rules. As such, I conclude that in this respect, Remington violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. See Olympic Supply, Inc. d/b/a Onsite News, 359 NLRB No. 99 (2013).
(e) The discharge of Margaret Loiacono
The Complaint alleges that the Respondent discharged Loiacono on January 2, 2013
because Remington believed that she assisted the Union and engaged in concerted activities
and to discourage employees from engaging in those activities. A problem here is that
Loiacono did not join the Union or assist it in any other way and she did not, in my opinion,
engage in what can be described as concerted activity within the meaning of Section 7 of the
Act. The issue therefore is whether the evidence would support the contention that
notwithstanding the above, the Respondent discharged this employee, (before her probationary
period had ended), because it believed that she engaged in such activities. And if that is the
case, then the General Counsel would prevail.
The Respondent, on the other hand, argues that because her job was as a lobby
ambassador, she can’t do her job, if she wasn’t in the lobby. It asserts that she was absent
from the lobby for about 10 to 15 minutes on Sunday morning, December 30, 2012. It contends
that this is a prime checkout time for guests and that it is important for a luxury style hotel to
have the lobby ambassador give the guests a positive feeling as their last experience of their
stay.
Loiacono was hired in September 2012, when HSS was still operating the housekeeping
department. She was hired mainly as a lobby ambassador and she also functioned, part of the
time, as a PBX operator. As a lobby ambassador, her responsibilities were to greet guests, be

11 I note that the reference in Fact # 6 to the situation at the Sheraton Anchorage, brings to mind that
on April 24, 2013, the Board issued a Decision and Order in Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC d/b/a
Sheraton Anchorage, 359 NLRB No. 95. In that case, the Board found that this Employer, represented by
the same law firm, violated the Act by among things; (1) changing the employees' terms and conditions of
employment after contract expiration without first providing at least 30 days' notice to Federal Mediation &
Conciliation Service; (2) unilaterally implementing a new health benefit plan without first bargaining to
impasse or agreement; (3) disciplining off-duty employees for presenting a petition to the Employer in the
lobby; (4) discharging off-duty employees for distributing handbills under the hotel's porte cochere; (5)
maintaining and/or enforcing certain employee handbook rules; (6) soliciting employees to sign a
decertification petition; and (7) withdrawing recognition from the union.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
of assistance to guests and to have a pleasant attitude when dealing with guests. She also,
from time to time, (along with other employees), drove a company van to take guests to various
locations.
In late December 2012, the Company, as a part of its prospective election campaign,
distributed to each employee a pie chart setting forth each employee’s compensation and how it
was divided. Loiacono was invited into Arpino’s office and he gave her the pie chart while
saying that Remington was giving employees a certain amount of money and that they couldn’t
guarantee anything with a union. She states that she told him that he didn’t have to explain
because she had been a member of a New York State employee union. During this
conversation, Arpino told her that her work had improved and that she was doing a good job. 12
After receiving the pie chart, Loiacono discussed it with Yohenna Borrero, a
housekeeping supervisor and said that the chart was incorrect as to Loiacono because it set
forth an amount for uniforms and she didn’t have a uniform. She asked Borrero if her chart was
also incorrect and suggested that she check it over. Borrero said that she would. This probably
occurred on December 30, 2012 and is likely the incident where the Respondent asserts that
Loiacono was away from the lobby for 10 to 15 minutes.
On December 30, Loiacono asked to speak to Rostek and they went into his office.
Loiacono said that there was a mistake in her pie chart because there was a section for a
uniform allowance and she didn’t have a uniform and didn’t get a uniform allowance. She also
pointed out that some of the pie charts for other employees might also have mistakes because
although hers had a slice for health insurance, some employees did not take health insurance.
She asked Rostek who made the pie charts and he said Osiris Arango. She suggested that
they correct the charts and he said he would look into it and talk to Osiris.
Loiacono testified that later on December 30, Rostek held a conversation with her and
two other employees in which he stated that it would take a long time to get a union contract
and that there was no guarantees that we would get a raise. She also testified that Rostek said
that even if they got a “contract and stuff,” Remington wouldn’t necessarily have to honor it.
According to Loiacono, she responded that she was not for the Union or against it, but that she
would probably be a non-union employee.
Rostek’s version of the earlier conversation is not much different from Loiacono’s. He
states that she brought up the mistake in her pie chart and that he thanked her for pointing it
out. According to Rostek, he felt that she was simply trying to be helpful.
I note that Loiacono’s complaint about the pie chart, as described by her own testimony,
was not really a complaint about her actual compensation. It was simply a complaint about how
her compensation was incorrectly represented on her pie chart. Nor was she speaking on
behalf of other employees about their actual wages and conditions of employment. She was
pointing out to supervisor Borrero and General Manager, Rostek, a mistake in a pie chart that
represented her own compensation and merely suggested, (without talking to any other
employees), that the company may have made a mistake in the pie charts that it distributed to
other employees.

12 At an earlier point, she had been spoken to about her attitude and she had pledged to correct that
aspect of her job.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
In an e-mail dated Monday, December 31, 2012, Arpino relayed to Rostek a statement
from Yohenna regarding the conversation she had with Loiacono about the pie chart. Arpino
states that he was told by Yohenna that Loiacono asserted that since she didn’t have a uniform,
she should get paid the amount of money that was put in the chart for cleaning uniforms. His e-
mail goes on to state:
Marge then explained that she was calculating from her house all of the money
since she started working here that she should get for the dry cleaning and it was
over $200. Marge was then waiting for today (Monday) to speak with Jeff and
see his face when she asked for that money. Marge then said that she is not
stupid and that is not legal, putting things that they are not getting and lying to the
people and that was against the law. And that she was waiting for Ken to talk to
Jeff about it. Then she asked me if I send my clothes to the dry cleaner and I said
“No”. Then she said “then see they should pay you for that”.
This e-mail finally relates that Loiacono told Yohenna Borrero that she was going
to bring the hotel to court after January 14, regarding her pay rate.
Loiacono was discharged on January 2, 2013, shortly before her probationary period
was about to end. The termination report written by Arpino states:
On 12/30/12 at approximately 11:30 AM, Marge was outside of her work area
ignoring her duties as Lobby Ambassador as she was not engaged in work
activities while in the Housekeeping office with Yohenna. Additionally, Marge
has been spoken to in the past regarding displaying an attitude that does not
meet the hotel’s standards for hospitality and attitude.
* * *
Our service scores continue to be some of the worst in Hyatt and Remington.
During the time Marge was not performing Lobby Ambassador duties, numerous
guests would have passed the lobby and not been offered assistance and
service which is a Remington standard for Lobby Ambassadors and a key
component of our service culture. On or about December 11th, Marge
approached the General Manager to complain about the Van light being on and
how this had been unrepaired for approximately four months; Jeff asked her if
she had addressed this with the FO manager, Marge said no but that everyone
was aware of this issue; Jeff asked Marge how did she know about this issue if
she had joined us about three months prior, Marge responded that everyone
knew about it but it was not repaired. A few weeks ago I, Andrew Arpino and Jeff
Rostek, General manager had a conversation with Marge in regards to her
responsibilities and attitude and how important her disposition was to impact the
overall service scores, at this time no improvement has been observed.
What is peculiar here is that Arpino’s e-mail message regarding Lioacono’s conversation
with Yohenna Borrero is different from how Loiacono described this conversation in her own
testimony. (Borrero did not testify). And unlike Loiacono’s rather bland description, the version
reported to Rostek on December 31 is far more emphatic and colorful; even going so far as to
relate a threat by Loiacono to sue the company.
As of December 2012, the election petition was still pending before the Board’s Regional
office. And the pie charts that were distributed to the employees were part and parcel of the
Respondent’s campaign to convince employees to vote against the Union. In these
circumstances, it seems to me that the Respondent’s view of Loiacono’s reported extravagant
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
reaction to the pie charts could likely have led management to view her as a potential thorn in
the side when it came to other campaign literature that it intended to issue as an election drew
nearer. (As noted, Loiacono had told Rostek that she had been a member or a New York State
employee union).
Even though Loiacono did not join or support the Union or engage in concerted activity
with other employees, I cannot escape the conclusion that it is more probable than not, that the
Respondent’s management viewed her as a potential obstacle in relation to their own election
campaign propaganda. Accordingly, I conclude that by discharging Loiacono, the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and on the entire record, I issue the following conclusions and
recommended
13
Conclusions of Law
1. By contracting out the work of the housekeeping department and thereby discharging
the employees in that department on August 20, 2012, because of their membership in or
activities on behalf of Local 947, United Service Workers Union, International Union of
Journeymen and Allied Trades, or because of their protected concerted activities, Remington
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. By refusing to offer employment to the employees of HSS who were employed in the
housekeeping department on October 19, 2012 because of their union or protected concerted
activities, Remington has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the act.
3. By discharging Marge Loiacono because it believed that she would impede the
Respondent’s electioneering campaign, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees about their activities in relation to the Union, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By notifying employees that it would more strictly enforce work place rules if the Union
was selected as their bargaining representative, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
6. By threatening employees with discharge and other reprisals if they joined or selected
the Union, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having discriminatorily discharged its housekeeping employees on
August 20, 2012 and having illegally refused to hire the housekeeping employees working at the

13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
Hyatt hotel in Hauppauge, Long Island on October 19, 2012, it must offer them reinstatement
and make them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against them. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth
Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010), enf’d denied on other grounds sub. nom., Jackson Hospital Corp. v. NLRB,
647 F. 3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Respondent shall also be required to expunge from its
files any and all references to the unlawful discharges and to notify the employees in writing that
this has been done and that the unlawful discharges will not be used against them in any way.
The Respondent shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to
the appropriate calendar quarters. Respondent shall also compensate employees for the
adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering
periods longer than 1 year. Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012).
Finally, because of the extensive nature of the unfair labor practices found to have been
committed herein and because of the findings in the previously cited case involving the same
employer, it is recommended that a broad order be issued.
ORDER
The Respondent, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC., its officers, agents and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Contracting out work and/or discharging employees because of its employees’ actual
or perceived membership or activities on behalf of Local 947, United Service Workers Union,
International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades, or because of any other protected
concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.
(b) Refusing to offer employment to individuals because of their union or protected
concerted activities.
(c) Interrogating employees about their union or protected concerted activities.
(d) Telling employees that it would more strictly enforce work place rules if a Union is
selected as their bargaining representative.
(e) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals, if the employees choose to
be represented by a union.
(f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer the housekeeping employees
employed at the Hyatt hotel in Hauppauge, New York, as of August 20, 2012, full reinstatement
to their former jobs, or if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer employment to the housekeeping
employees employed at the Hyatt hotel in Hauppauge, New York, as of October 19, 2012, or if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed. 14
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Marge Loiacono full reinstatement to
her former job, or if that job no longer exist, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(d) Make the above described employees whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the manner set forth in the
Remedy section of this Decision
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any reference to the
unlawful actions against those employees who have been found to have been illegally
discharged, and within three days thereafter, notify them in writing, that this has been done and
that the discharges will not be used against them in any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the
Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the Hyatt Hotel in Hauppauge
New York, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix” 15 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by the Respondent’s
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed
electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these
proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 20, 2012.

14 The fact that Remington hired other employees before and after October 19, 2012 for the
housekeeping department at the hotel should not be construed as meaning that those jobs no longer exist
for purposes of this Order. The Respondent has the choice of replacing those employees with the
discriminated employees or retaining the services of both sets of people.
15 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
JD(NY)–21–13
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 15, 2013
_____________________
Raymond P. Green
Administrative Law Judge
JD(NY)–21–13
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted 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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to hire employees because of their membership or activities
in Local 947, United Service Workers Union, International Union of Journeymen and Allied
Trades or to discourage employees from engaging in union or protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire employees because of their union or protected concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their union or protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we would more strictly enforce work place rules if a union is
selected as their bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or other reprisals, if they choose to be
represented by a union.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer the housekeeping employees employed at the Hyatt hotel in Hauppauge, New
York, as of August 20, 2012, full reinstatement to their former jobs, or if those jobs no longer
exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL offer the housekeeping employees employed at the Hyatt Hotel in Hauppauge, New
York as of October 19, 2012, employment to housekeeping jobs or if those jobs no longer exist,
to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL offer Marge Loiacono full reinstatement to her former job, or if that job no longer exist,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
JD(NY)–21–13
WE WILL make the above described employees whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against them.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharges and notify those
employees, in writing, that this has been done and that those actions will not be used against
them in any way.
REMINGTON LODGING & HOSPITALITY, LLC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to
enforce the National Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine
whether employees want union representation and it investigates and remedies unfair labor
practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how
to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website:
www.nlrb.gov.
Two MetroTech Center
Jay Street and Myrtle Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11201-4201
718-330-2862. Hours: 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, 718-330-2862.