Big Sky Hospitalities, LLC d/b/a Butte War Bonnett Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 729 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

BUTTE WAR BONNET HOTEL 729

358 NLRB No. 83
Big Sky Hospitalities, LLC d/b/a Butte War Bonnet
Hotel and Butte Hotels, LLC & Butte Motels,
LLC joint employers d/b/a Butte War Bonnet
Hotel and UNITE HERE! Local 427. Cases 19–
CA–033164, 19–CA–033165, 19–CA–033185, 19–
CA–065517, 19–CA–065566, 19–CA–067196, and
19–CA–067200
July 16, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
Upon charges filed on various dates by UNITE HERE!
Local 427 (the Union) against Big Sky Hospitalities,
LLC d/b/a Butte War Bonnet Hotel (Respondent Big
Sky) and Butte Hotels, LLC & Butte Motels, LLC, joint
employers d/b/a Butte War Bonnet Hotel (Respondent
Butte Hotels; collectively, the Respondents),1 the Acting
General Counsel issued an order further consolidating
cases, amended consolidated complaint, and notice of
hearing (amended consolidated complaint) on January
30, 2012, against the Respondents.2 The amended con-
solidated complaint alleges that the Respondents engaged
in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5),
(3), and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, and that
Respondent Butte Hotels is a successor to Respondent
Big Sky and is jointly liable with Respondent Big Sky
for affirmatively remedying Respondent Big Sky’s al-
leged unfair labor practices pursuant to Golden State
Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).
Both Respondents filed answers to the amended con-
solidated complaint, and Respondent Big Sky filed an
amended answer and a second amended answer. In its
second amended answer, for the limited purpose of re-
solving this proceeding only, Respondent Big Sky admit-
ted the allegations in the amended consolidated com-
plaint that relate to Respondent Big Sky, and it agreed
not to assert affirmative defenses to these allegations.
With respect to the remaining paragraphs that relate to
Respondent Butte Hotels, Respondent Big Sky stated that
it is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these
allegations. Further, Respondent Big Sky expressly re-
served the right to withdraw its first and second amended
answers and to assert all applicable affirmative defenses

1 The Union filed charges against Respondent Big Sky in Cases 19–
CA–033164 and 19–CA–033165 on July 13, 2011; Case 19–CA–
033185 on August 1, 2011; Cases 19–CA–065517 and 19–CA–065566
on September 23, 2011; an amended charge in Case 19–CA–033165 on
November 28, 2011; and charges against Respondent Butte Hotels in
Cases 19–CA–067196 and 19–CA–067200 on October 20, 2011.
2 The Acting General Counsel had initially issued an order consoli-
dating cases, consolidated complaint, and notice of hearing on Novem-
ber 30, 2011.
in the event that all charges against it are not fully re-
solved.3 On March 29, 2012, the Acting General Coun-
sel and Respondent Butte Hotels entered into a stipula-
tion stating that Respondent Butte Hotels agreed to
amend its answer to admit specified allegations of the
amended consolidated complaint.
In addition, on March 30, 2012, the Acting General
Counsel and Respondent Butte Hotels entered into a pre-
hearing stipulation conditionally resolving the charges in
Cases 19–CA–067196 and 19–CA–067200 against Re-
spondent Butte Hotels. In this stipulation, Respondent
Butte Hotels agreed that its potential liability is condi-
tioned on the outcome of the allegations against Re-
spondent Big Sky, and it also agreed to remedy these
violations in the event of a final Decision and Order by
the Board finding the violations against Respondent Big
Sky. Specifically, Respondent Butte Hotels agreed that:
its potential liability in Cases 19–CA–67196 and 19–
CA–67200 is exclusively conditioned on the outcome of
the amended consolidated complaint’s withdrawal of
recognition allegations against Respondent Big Sky; in
the event that there is a final Decision and Order of the
Board dismissing the withdrawal of recognition allega-
tions against Respondent Big Sky, there can be no liabil-
ity running to Respondent Butte Hotels in these matters;
solely in the event that there is a final Decision and Or-
der by the Board that Respondent Big Sky violated the
Act by unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the
Union, Respondent Butte Hotels is a Burns4 and Golden
State successor as alleged in the complaint, and Re-
spondent Butte Hotels agrees to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit and to provide the Union with
the information it requested on October 12, 2011; and in
the event that there is a final enforced Decision and Or-
der of the Board determining that Respondent Big Sky
violated the Act by discharging Angie Sizemore, Re-
spondent Butte Hotels will abide by the terms of the
Board’s Order granting relief to Sizemore.5

3 Although Respondent Big Sky’s answer specifically refers to the
charges being “fully resolved through an appropriate settlement agree-
ment with the NLRB,” it is evident from the pleadings that the parties
have agreed to resolve the charges through the instant Motions for
Summary Judgment.
4 Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 281 (1972).
5 In addition, the stipulation stated that Respondent Big Sky’s col-
lective-bargaining agreement with the Union expired on March 31,
2011, and is no longer in effect; Respondent Butte Hotels is not bound
by any collective-bargaining agreement at this time; Respondent Butte
Hotels purchased Respondent Big Sky on September 26, 2011, with the
express understanding that there was no collective-bargaining agree-
ment and that it was under no duty to recognize the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the housekeepers because
the predecessor had properly withdrawn recognition; and that it was not
730 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On April 16, 2012, the Acting General Counsel filed
with the Board Motions to Transfer Cases to the Board,
for Summary Judgment and for Default6 Judgment.
Thereafter, on April 19, 2012, the Board issued an order
transferring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to
Show Cause why the motions should not be granted. On
May 14, 2012, the Board issued a revised Notice to Show
Cause and served it by certified mail on the Respondents,
noting that the original notice was not served on Re-
spondent Butte Hotels. Respondent Big Sky filed no
response to the Notice to Show Cause, and Respondent
Butte Hotels filed a response to the revised Notice to
Show Cause. Respondent Big Sky filed a reply to Re-
spondent Butte Hotels’ response to the revised Notice to
Show Cause, Respondent Butte Hotels filed a motion to
strike Respondent Big Sky’s reply, and Respondent Big
Sky filed an “Objection to Butte Hotels’ Motion to
Strike.”7
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment
In its second amended answer, Respondent Big Sky
admitted the substantive allegations of the amended con-
solidated complaint that relate to Respondent Big Sky.
In its stipulations, Respondent Butte Hotels admitted the
substantive allegations of the amended consolidated
complaint that relate to Respondent Butte Hotels, and it
agreed that its potential liability is conditioned on the

necessary for Respondent Butte Hotels to appear at the hearing that was
then scheduled for April 2, 2012, or to respond to a subpoena duces
tecum issued to its custodian of records.
6 On April 25, 2012, at the request of Respondent Butte Hotels,
counsel for the Acting General Counsel filed a joint motion to amend
motions to transfer cases to the Board, for Summary Judgment, and for
Default Judgment, requesting that the motion for default judgment with
respect to Butte Hotels be changed to a Motion for Summary Judgment.
7 We find that the revised Notice to Show Cause did not preclude
Respondent Big Sky from filing a reply to Respondent Butte Hotels’
response, and we therefore deny Respondent Butte Hotels’ motion to
strike. See, e.g., Baker Electric, 330 NLRB 521, 521 fn. 4 (2000)
(moving party permitted to file a reply to a response). In any event, we
find that the assertions made by the Respondents in the reply, motion to
strike, and objection are not relevant to our analysis in ruling on the
motions for summary judgment. In these pleadings, the Respondents
dispute various assertions concerning the procedural history of the case,
such as Respondent Big Sky’s motive for filing its second amended
answer and whether Respondent Butte Hotels knew, at the time it en-
tered into the prehearing stipulations, that Respondent Big Sky would
no longer assert a defense to the allegations against it. Nonetheless,
none of the Respondents’ assertions calls into question the validity of
Respondent Big Sky’s second amended answer or Respondent Butte
Hotels’ prehearing stipulations, which include facts and admissions that
are relevant to this proceeding. Accordingly, the assertions contained
in the reply, motion to strike, and objection do not impact our ruling on
the Motions for Summary Judgment, and we have not evaluated the
veracity of either Respondent’s assertions in these pleadings.
outcome of the allegations against Respondent Big Sky.
Although each Respondent denied sufficient knowledge
to admit or deny the allegations relating to the other Re-
spondent, neither raised a specific dispute as to any of
those allegations. Therefore, the allegations in the
amended consolidated complaint are undisputed. Ac-
cordingly, we grant the Acting General Counsel’s Mo-
tions for Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
1. Respondent Big Sky, a State of Montana corpora-
tion with an office and place of business in Butte, Mon-
tana, was engaged in the business of operating a hotel
and conference center (the Hotel).
2. Respondent Big Sky, during the period from Sep-
tember 26, 2010, to September 26, 2011, a representative
period, in conducting its business operations described
above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and
purchased and received at the Hotel goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Montana.
3. Respondent Butte Hotels, State of Montana corpo-
rations with an office and place of business, among oth-
ers, in Butte, Montana, are engaged in the business of
operating a Quality Inn hotel and conference center.
4. Based on projections from its operations since Sep-
tember 26, 2011, at which time Respondent Butte Hotels
commenced its operations of the Hotel, Respondent
Butte Hotels will annually have gross revenues in excess
of $500,000 and will annually purchase and receive at
the Hotel goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the State of Montana.
5. On about September 26, 2011, Respondent Butte
Hotels purchased the business of Respondent Big Sky
and since then has continued to operate Respondent Big
Sky’s former business in basically unchanged form and
has employed as a majority of its employees individuals
who were previously employees of Respondent Big Sky.
6. Before engaging in the conduct described above in
paragraph 5, Respondent Butte Hotels knew or should
have known about the pending charges alleging unfair
labor practice conduct by Respondent Big Sky. On Sep-
tember 23 and October 19, 2011, by letter, Respondent
Butte Hotels was put on written notice of Respondent
Big Sky’s potential liability arising from the allegations
in the pending charges filed by the Union against Re-
spondent Big Sky.
7. Based on the operations described above in para-
graph 5, Respondent Butte Hotels has continued the em-
BUTTE WAR BONNET HOTEL 731

ploying entity and is a Burns successor to Respondent
Big Sky.
8. Based on the conduct and operations described
above in paragraphs 5 and 6, Respondent Butte Hotels
has continued as the employing entity with notice of Re-
spondent Big Sky’s potential liability to remedy its al-
leged unfair labor practices, and is a Golden State suc-
cessor to Respondent Big Sky.
9. We find that Respondent Big Sky has been, at all
material times prior to September 26, 2011, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
10. In addition, we find that Respondent Butte Hotels
has been, at all material times after September 26, 2011,
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.8
11. We find that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
1. At all material times prior to September 26, 2011,
the following individuals held the positions set forth op-
posite their respective names and have been supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and/or
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act,
acting on behalf of Respondent Big Sky:

Andrea Gustafson - Sales Manager
Pat Harrington - Catering Manager
Randy Hornbacher - Food and Beverage
Manager
Virginia Karlsen - General Manager
Vicky Rowling - Front Desk and
Housekeeping Man-
ager

2. At all material times prior to September 26, 2011,
an unnamed agent held the position of Respondent Big
Sky’s legal representative and has been an agent of Re-
spondent Big Sky within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act.

8 Respondent Butte Hotels admits the allegations in sec. I, pars. 9
and 10, except to the extent that they allege that the Respondents are
affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(7) of the Act. In its
original answer to the amended consolidated complaint, Respondent
Butte Hotels asserted that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the Re-
spondents’ operations because the Board’s monetary jurisdictional
standards should be adjusted for inflation. However, Respondent Butte
Hotels admitted that it is an employer within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, we agree with the Acting General Counsel that there is no
material issue of fact in dispute with respect to the Board’s jurisdiction.
3. At all material times since September 26, 2011, the
following individuals held the positions set forth oppo-
site their respective names and have been supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and/or
agents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act,
acting on behalf of Respondent Butte Hotels:

Matt Rutz - General Manager
Sanjeev Amin - Majority Owner

4. At all material times since September 26, 2011, an
unnamed agent held the position of Respondent Butte
Hotels’ legal representative and has been an agent of
Respondent Butte Hotels within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
5. The following employees of Respondent Big Sky
(formerly) and Respondent Butte Hotels (currently) con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
(the unit):

All maids employed [at the Hotel] excluding all clerical
employees, culinary employees, lounge employees,
front desk employees, maintenance employees, laundry
workers, and all other employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.

6. On about June 15, 1994, a majority of the unit des-
ignated and selected the Union as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining with Respondent
Big Sky.
7. On November 10, 1994, the Union was certified as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
unit.
8. At all times since November 10, 1994, based on
Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
9. On about June 21, 2011, Respondent Big Sky dis-
charged its employee Angie Sizemore.
10. Respondent Big Sky engaged in the conduct de-
scribed above because Sizemore joined and assisted the
Union and/or engaged in protected concerted activities
and to discourage employees from engaging in these and
other protected concerted activities.
11. On about June 24, 2011, Respondent Big Sky, by
Gustafson, Harrington, and/or Hornbacher at the Hotel,
engaged in surveillance of its employees engaged in un-
ion and/or protected concerted activities by setting up a
table and chairs and monitoring a union rally in front of
the Hotel.
12. On about June 24, 2011, Respondent Big Sky, by
Hornbacher at the Hotel, engaged in surveillance of its
employees engaged in union and/or protected concerted
732 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities by photographing employees and others partic-
ipating in a union rally in front of the Hotel.
13. From about July 12 through 18, 2011, Respondent
Big Sky unlawfully interfered with and/or monitored
employees’ financial and contractual relationship with
the Union.
14. Since about August 11, 2011, the Union, by letter,
email, and facsimile, has requested that Respondent Big
Sky furnish the Union with the following information:

All reasons [Respondent Big Sky] has for not schedul-
ing Housekeeper Priscilla Evans to her regular shift
days of Sunday, August 7, Monday, August 8 and
Tuesday August 9, 2011; copies of every schedule for
the housekeeping department from May 1, 2011 to
[August 11, 2011]; and a copy of Evans’ personnel file,
except for documents involved in the hiring process.

15. The information requested by the Union, as de-
scribed above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Un-
ion’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
16. Since about August 19, 2011, Respondent Big Sky
has failed and/or refused to furnish the Union with the
information requested by it as described above.
17. On about August 19, 2011, Respondent Big Sky,
by letter from its legal representative, withdrew its
recognition of the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit and, since August
19, 2011, has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union concerning the wages, hours, and other terms and
conditions of employment of the unit.
18. On about October 7, 2011, the Union, by letter and
facsimile, requested that Respondent Butte Hotels recog-
nize and bargain collectively with it as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit.
19. Since about October 13, 2011, Respondent Butte
Hotels has failed and refused to recognize and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
20. Since about October 12, 2011, the Union, by letter
and facsimile, has requested that Respondent Butte Ho-
tels furnish the Union with the following information:

All reasons [Respondent Butte Hotels] has for terminat-
ing Housekeepers Margaret Horsley and Maria Hurta-
do; [a] list of witnesses related to the terminations, with
their addresses and telephone numbers; [a] copy of
Horsley’s and Hurtado’s personnel files; and [c]opies
of any and all documents related to the terminations.

21. The information requested by the Union, as de-
scribed above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Un-
ion’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
22. Since about October 13, 2011, Respondent Butte
Hotels has failed and refused to furnish the Union with
the information requested by it as described above in
section II, paragraph 20.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described above in section II, para-
graphs 9 through 13, Respondent Big Sky has been inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described above in section II, para-
graphs 9 and 10, Respondent Big Sky has been discrimi-
nating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms or condi-
tions of employment of its employees, thereby discourag-
ing membership in a labor organization and engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
3. By the conduct described above in section II, para-
graphs 14 through 17, Respondent Big Sky 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.
4. By the conduct described above in section II, para-
graphs 18 through 22, Respondent Butte Hotels has been
failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good
faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
5. The Respondents’ unfair labor practices described
above affect commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Big Sky and Respond-
ent Butte Hotels have engaged in certain unfair labor
practices, we shall order them to cease and desist and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the
Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing
and refusing since about August 19 and October 13,
2011, respectively, to recognize and bargain with the
Union, and having found that Respondent Butte Hotels is
a successor of Respondent Big Sky, we shall order Re-
spondent Butte Hotels to meet and bargain in good faith
with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit, and if an understanding is
reached, to embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment. In addition, having found that the Respondents
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and
BUTTE WAR BONNET HOTEL 733

refusing to furnish the Union with necessary and relevant
information it requested on August 11 and October 12,
2011, we shall order the Respondents to provide the Un-
ion with the requested information.
Further, having found that the Respondents have vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging Angie
Sizemore, we shall order Respondent Butte Hotels to
offer Sizemore full reinstatement to her former position,
or, if that position no longer exists, to a substantially
similar position, without prejudice to her seniority and
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed. In addi-
tion, we shall order the Respondents, jointly and several-
ly, to make Sizemore whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her, with interest accrued to the date of payment.
Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at
the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010), enf. denied
on other grounds sub nom. Jackson Hospital Corp. v.
NLRB, 647 F.3d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2011).9 The Respond-
ents shall also be required to remove from their files all
references to the unlawful discharge of Sizemore, and to
notify her in writing that this has been done and that the
unlawful discharge will not be used against her in any
way.
Finally, in view of the fact that Respondent Big Sky
sold its business to Respondent Butte Hotels, we shall
order Respondent Big Sky to mail a copy of the attached
notice to the Union and to the last known addresses of its
former unit employees who were employed at any time
since June 21, 2011, in order to inform them of the out-
come of this proceeding.
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that
Respondent Big Sky Hospitalities, LLC d/b/a Butte War
Bonnet Hotel, Butte, Montana, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall

9 The Acting General Counsel’s motion seeks an order requiring re-
imbursement of amounts equal to the difference in taxes owed upon
receipt of a lump-sum payment and taxes that would have been owed
had there been no unlawful conduct. Further, the Acting General
Counsel requests that the Respondents be required to submit the appro-
priate documentation to the Social Security Administration so that
when backpay is paid, it will be allocated to the appropriate periods.
Because the relief sought would involve a change in Board law, we
believe that the appropriateness of this proposed remedy should be
resolved after a full briefing by the affected parties, and there has been
no such briefing in this case. Accordingly, we decline to order this
relief at this time. See, e.g., Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc., 337 NLRB
175, 176 (2001), enfd. 354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004), and cases cited
therein.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
UNITE HERE! Local 427, AFL–CIO (the Union), as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following bargaining unit:

All maids employed [at the Hotel] excluding all clerical
employees, culinary employees, lounge employees,
front desk employees, maintenance employees, laundry
workers, and all other employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.

(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in union activity on behalf of,
or otherwise supporting UNITE HERE! Local 427, or
any other labor organization.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of its employees’ union or
other protected concerted activities.
(d) Interfering with and/or monitoring employees’ fi-
nancial and contractual relationship with the Union.
(e) Withdrawing recognition from the Union and refus-
ing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Un-
ion as the representative of the unit.
(f) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with re-
quested information that is necessary and relevant to the
performance of its duties as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit.
(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) Jointly and severally with Respondent Butte Ho-
tels, make Angie Sizemore whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrim-
ination against her, with interest, in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to Sizemore’s unlawful dis-
charge and, within 3 days thereafter, notify Sizemore in
writing that this has been done and that the discharge will
not be used against her in any way.
(c) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(d) Furnish the Union with the information it request-
ed by letter dated August 11, 2011.
734 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by Respondent Big Sky’s authorized representative, cop-
ies of the attached notice marked “Appendix A,”10 to the
Union and to all unit employees who were employed by
the Respondent at any time since June 21, 2011. In addi-
tion to physical mailing 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 Respondent Big Sky customarily communicates with
its employees by such means.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent Big Sky has taken to
comply.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that
Respondent Butte Hotels, LLC & Butte Motels, LLC,
Joint employers d/b/a Butte War Bonnet Hotel, Butte,
Montana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
UNITE HERE! Local 427, AFL–CIO (the Union), as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the following bargaining unit:

All maids employed [at the Hotel] excluding all clerical
employees, culinary employees, lounge employees,
front desk employees, maintenance employees, laundry
workers, and all other employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.

(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in union activity on behalf of,
or otherwise supporting UNITE HERE! Local 427, or
any other labor organization.
(c) Engaging in surveillance of its employees’ union
or other protected concerted activities.
(d) Interfering with and/or monitoring employees’ fi-
nancial and contractual relationship with the Union.
(e) Withdrawing recognition from the Union and re-
fusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
Union as the representative of the unit.
(f) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with re-
quested information that is necessary and relevant to the
performance of its duties as collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit.

10 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.”
(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 with the Union as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit on
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, offer An-
gie Sizemore full reinstatement to her former job, or if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(c) Jointly and severally with Respondent Big Sky,
make Angie Sizemore whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her, with interest, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, re-
move from its files any reference to Sizemore’s unlawful
discharge, and within 3 days thereafter, notify Sizemore
in writing that this has been done and that the discharge
will not be used against her in any way.
(e) 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 desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, rescind
the August 19, 2011 withdrawal of recognition from the
Union.
(g) Furnish the Union with the information it request-
ed by letters dated August 11 and October 12, 2011.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Butte, Montana, copies of the attached no-
tice marked “Appendix B.”11 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19,
after being signed by the Respondents’ authorized repre-
sentatives, shall be posted and maintained for 60 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In

11 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
BUTTE WAR BONNET HOTEL 735

addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if Respondent Butte Hotels customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent Butte Hotels
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, Respondent Butte Hotels
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, Respondent Butte Hotels shall dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, copies of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed
by Respondent Butte Hotels at any time since about Sep-
tember 26, 2011.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that Respondent Butte Hotels has tak-
en to comply.
APPENDIX A
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to mail 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 fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with UNITE HERE! Local 427, AFL–CIO (the Union),
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the following bargaining unit:

All maids employed by us at our Hotel excluding all
clerical employees, culinary employees, lounge em-
ployees, front desk employees, maintenance employ-
ees, laundry workers, and all other employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in union activity on behalf of,
or otherwise supporting, the Union, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with and/or monitor your fi-
nancial and contractual relationship with the Union.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union or
refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
Union as the representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
requested information that is necessary and relevant to
the performance of its duties as collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
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, jointly and severally with Respondent Butte
Hotels, LLC & Butte Motels, LLC, joint employers d/b/a
Butte War Bonnet Hotel, make Angie Sizemore whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against her, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files any reference to Sizemore’s un-
lawful discharge, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify Sizemore in writing that this has been done and
that the discharge will not be used against her in any
way.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested by letter dated August 11, 2011.

BIG SKY HOSPITALITIES, LLC D/B/A BUTTE
WAR BONNET HOTEL
APPENDIX B
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 vio-
lated 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 fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with UNITE HERE! Local 427, AFL–CIO (the Union),
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees in the following bargaining unit:

736 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All maids employed by us at our Hotel excluding all
clerical employees, culinary employees, lounge em-
ployees, front desk employees, maintenance employ-
ees, laundry workers, and all other employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act.

WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against you for engaging in union activity on behalf of,
or otherwise supporting, the Union, or any other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of your union or
other protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT interfere with and/or monitor your fi-
nancial and contractual relationship with the Union.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from the Union or
refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
Union as the representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
requested information that is necessary and relevant to
the performance of its duties as collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
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, on request, bargain with the Union as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit
on terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody the understanding in a
signed agreement.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the date of this Order, of-
fer Angie Sizemore full reinstatement to her former job,
or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, jointly and severally with Respondent Big
Sky Hospitalities, LLC d/b/a Butte War Bonnet Hotel,
make Angie Sizemore whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order,
remove from our files any reference to Sizemore’s un-
lawful discharge, and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify Sizemore in writing that this has been done and
that the discharge will not be used against her in any
way.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, rescind our August 19, 2011 withdrawal of recog-
nition from the Union.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested by letters dated August 11 and October 12, 2011.

BUTTE HOTELS, LLC & BUTTE MOTELS, LLC
JOINT EMPLOYERS D/B/A BUTTE WAR BONNET
HOTEL