Hotel Bel-Air

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 12, 2011

31-CA-029841 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 12, 2011)

JD(SF-30-11
Los Angeles, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
HOTEL BEL-AIR
and Case 31-CA-29841
UNITE HERE LOCAL 11
Steven Wyllie and Nicole Pereira,
for the General Counsel.
George E. Preonas, Los Angeles, California, and
William J. Dritsas, San Francisco, California
(Seyfarth Shaw, LLP) for the Respondent.
Kristen L. Martin (Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP)
San Francisco, California, for the Union.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
JAY R. POLLACK, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this case in trial in Los Angeles,
California, on April 25–28, 2011. On July 12, 2010,UNITE HERE (the Union) filed the charge in
Case 31-CA-29841 alleging that Hotel Bel-Air (Respondent) committed certain violations of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). On October 28, 2010, the
Acting Regional Director for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued
a complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent, alleging that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint, denying all
wrongdoing.
The parties have been afforded full opportunity to appear, to introduce relevant
evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file briefs. Upon the entire record,
from my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the posthearing
briefs of the parties, I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent corporation, with an office and principal place of business in Los
Angeles, California, has been engaged in the operation of a hotel providing food and lodgings.
In the 12 months prior to October 1, 2009, Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Further, Respondent received goods and
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of California.
Accordingly, Respondent admits and I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits 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
Respondent operates an historic five star hotel that has had a long standing collective-
bargaining relationship with the Union. The Respondent and the Union have been party to a
series of collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective by its terms
from April 16, 2006, to September 30, 2009.
On July 24, 2009, the Union notified Respondent’s general manager of its intent to
reopen the contract to bargain for a successor agreement. On July 31, Respondent’s attorney
responded by notifying the Union that Respondent would be closing on September 30, 2009
and offered to bargain over “the effects of this closure on bargaining unit employees, and any
other terms and conditions you wish to discuss.” The purpose of the closure was to perform
major construction and renovation expected to last 18 to 24 months. As of the date of the
hearing, the hotel had not reopened.
The Union sought help in its negotiations from UNITE HERE local 6 in New York
because of its relationship with the New York Palace Hotel, a hotel affiliated with Respondent.
Between August 25 and October 1, 2009, the parties met on six occasions. The Union was
represented by Karine Mansoorian and Respondent was represented by attorney George
Preonas. From the inception of bargaining, the Union sough to obtain a successor agreement
that secures for employees guaranteed recall rights, continued healthcare coverage, and
compensation for the loss of work during the temporary shutdown of the hotel. The Union’s
initial proposal pertaining to severance pay and recall rights were all encompassed in an overall
proposal for a successor collective-bargaining agreement. In contrast, the hotel sought to
bargain over the effects of the temporary closure before addressing a successor bargaining
agreement.
On September 18, 2009, Respondent made its first “last, best and final offer.”
Respondent proposed 2 weeks of severance pay per year of service for employees who sign a
waiver and release. In addition Respondent proposed a $900 payment that employees could
use for continued health care coverage for those employees who signed a waiver and release.
On September 21, 2009, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that
Respondent failed and refused to negotiate a successor collective-bargaining agreement. This
charge was later withdrawn.
Around late September, Mansoorian and Preonas learned that Peter Ward of Local 6
and Chris Cowdray of Respondnet’s higher management, had reached some overarching
principles for a deal between the parties. Accordingly, Mansoorian and Preonas met outside the
presence of the Union’s employee bargaining committee on September 29 to discuss employee
rights upon the hotel’s reopening. Mansoorian took the position of guaranteed recall while
Preonas maintained that employees who declined severance pay would be offered rehire, if
qualified.
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
The parties met again on October 1. Respondent presented the Union with a written
proposal regarding rehire which mirrored what he had proposed to Mansoorian on
September 29. Respondent continued to propose 2 weeks of severance pay for employees
who signed a waiver and release and $900 for those employees to pay for health coverage.
Mansoorian objected to the term “if qualified” on Preonas’ rehire offer and proposed that
employees have a guaranteed right to recall.
In October, Peter Ward of Local 6 and Chris Cowdray, CEO of Respondent’s
management group exchanged letters reflecting principles for an agreement, The three
principles were:
1. Employees will be offered severance. If accepted they would have no right to
recall when the hotel reopens.
2. Employees who choose not to take severance would be offered their jobs
back provided these jobs still exist (This is not clear because of the renovation
and the restructuring of the business model);
3. Employees for whom no job is available, severance will be paid.
By letter dated October 7, 2009, the Union provided a counter proposal offering the
same terms for a successor bargaining agreement. The Union proposed 3 weeks severance
pay per year of service for employees who wish to return to their jobs. For employees who did
not wish to return, the Union proposed 6 weeks of severance pay per year of service. Finally,
the Union proposed 1 year of healthcare coverage through the Union’s Welfare Fund. By letter
dated October 15, Respondent rejected the Union’s proposal and held to its final offer.
On November 2, Mansoorian wrote Preonas complaining that Respondent had rejected
every union proposal regarding a successor agreement and had made no proposals. By letter
dated November 4, Preonas withdrew Respondent’s final offer and included a new separation
pay proposal which included a new waiver and release.1 Preonas wrote that Respondent
wished to negotiate an agreement over the effects of the closure first. He indicated that the
hotel would be closed for 2 years and that there was no urgency to reach an agreement for
2011.
On November 24, 2009 the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the
Respondent had insisted to impasse on permissive subjects of bargaining. In its response to
the charge, Respondent contended that there was no impasse. The charge was ultimately
withdrawn or dismissed.
On February 4 and 5, 2010, the parties met in New York. The Union was represented
by Mansoorian, Tom Walsh, the Union’s president, Peter Wardof Local 6, and Richard Maroko,
Local 6’s general counsel. Respondent was represented by Preonas, Arch Stokes, attorney
and Peter Fisher, attorney. Tim Lee, Respondent’s general manager was also present. The
parties agreed that these sessions were “off the record.” The parties agreed that there would be
no need to take notes or have any formal record of the meetings. There is disagreement
between the parties as to the meaning of “off the record.” I accept the Respondent’s version
that off the record meant that the parties could freely discuss settlement but that the parties
were not bound by the discussions and that they were not officially negotiations.

1 Respondent’s waiver agreement had been a subject of a charge. Preonas amended the
waiver language to avoid any legal problems.
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
During the February 4 and 5 sessions, the parties were able to reach some tentative
agreements regarding a collective-bargaining agreement. Regarding the effects of the closure,
Respondent offered first preference for rehire and, if qualified, offered an available position, for
employees who wish to return to their jobs. For employees who do not wish to return to their
jobs, 2 weeks of severance pay per year of service is offered for those who sign a waiver and
release. Finally, Respondent offered $900 pay that employees could choose to use for
continued coverage for those who sign a waiver and release.
On February 10, the parties met in Los Angeles in the presence of the employee
bargaining committee. Here, the Union proposed 2.5 weeks of severance pay for employees
who want to return to their jobs. For employees who do not wish to return to their jobs, 5 weeks
of severance pay per year of service. Finally the Union proposed 14 months of healthcare
coverage through the Welfare Fund. The Union’s proposal was greater than that proposed at
the “off the record” meetings, thus indicating that the Respondent’s understanding of “off the
record” was correct.
On March 29, 2009, Mansoorian e-mailed Preonas regarding Respondent’s February 10
proposals. The parties met again on April 9 at the Union’s offices. The employee bargaining
committee was present. The Respondent increased its offer of severance pay from 2 weeks to
2.5 weeks pay per year of service. Preonas came to the meeting with prepared checks that
Respondent was willing to distributre that day. Mansoorian informed Preonas that she did not
believe that was Respondent’s final offer.
By letter dated April 12, 2010, Respondent’s attorney Shartin wrote that Respondent had
rejected the Union’s counteroffer and resubmitted Respondent’s April 9 “last, best and final
offer.” Shartin stated that if the offer was not accepted by April 16, the Respondent would
deem negotiations at an impasse and would act accordingly. Ward of Local 6 called attorney
Stokes and requested that the deadline be extended as the parties had negotiation sessions
scheduled for May 5 and 6. By letter dated April 16, Respondent extended the deadline to
May 6, 2010.
The parties met for off the record discussions on May 5, 6, and 21. The May 5 and 6
sessions were held in Los Angeles. The May 5 meeting was brief and the parties discussed the
proposed bargaining agreement.
Respondent offered a proposed collective-bargaining agreement. On May 6, attorney
Stokes shuttled between Respondent’s negotiators and the union representaives. For the first
time, Respondent proposed making contributions to the Welfare Fund for the period January 1,
2011, until the reopening of the hotel. The Union proposed right to recall for employees who
want to return. The Union also proposed three weeks of severance per year of sevice for those
employees who do not wish to return to their jobs. Finally, the Union proposed contributions to
the Welfare Fund for the period July 2010 until the reopening of the hotel.
On May 21, the parties met at Local 6’s offices in New York. The parties discussed
proposals for a successor agreement. There were no discussions regarding severance and
recall.
On June 4, 2010 David Rothfeld, attorney,2 sent Ward a proposal which made steps
toward an agreement. The proposal provided recall rights for employees who want to return to

2 Ward had made a request of attorney Stokes that Rothfeld be brought into the
Continued
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
their jobs, 3 weeks severance pay per year of service for those employees who do wish to
return to their jobs and healthcare contributions to the Welfare Fund for the period January 1,
2011 until the reopening of the hotel.
On June 4, Ward met with the employees of the New York Palace. Ward told the
employees that Respondent had made insulting proposals. Later that day attorney Fischer
wrote to Rothfeld to communicate to Ward that because of what Ward had said to employees at
the Palace Hotel, Cowdray had withdrawn Rothfeld’s proposal until Ward makes a public
apology. The next day, Fischer wrote to Maroko demanding a public apology and withdrawing
the proposal until Ward makes a public apology.
On June 7, Ward informed Cowdray the remarks were aimed at Stokes and not
Cowdray. Ward expressed the view that an agreement could be reached in a few hours.
On June 9, the parties met at Local 6’s offices in another “off the record” meeting.
Stokes and Preonas participated by telephone. Maroko asked that the June 4 proposal be
reinstated. Stokes declined to do so stating that he did not have the authority to do so. After
Maroko raised a question about the date required for severance, Stokes stated that employees
employed as of January 1, 2009, were eligible for severance pay. Later that day Maroko e-
mailed Respondent’s attorneys “the union’s counter-proposal to the hotel’s June 4 2010
proposal.”
On June 10, attorney Fischer e-mailed Maroko ”our counter proposal of 6/10/10”. The
counter proposal was made with two alternatives:
1) Since the Union is tethering its agreement on the severance to the agreement
on a CBA without knowing how many employees might acceot, Hotel Bel-Air
offers 2. weeks per year of service and the CBA language in the attached
proposal. We agreed during yesterday’s negotiations that the severance
package would extend to those employees who were laid off between
January 1, 2009 and September 30, 2009, due to the Hotel’s renovation.
Without knowing how many employees might accept the severance offer, the
employer must plan for the possibility that a small percentage of the current
workforce would accept, and therefore needs to have more flexibility in the
CBA to deal with some historic operational concerns that have developed with
the current workforce. The medical coverage will begin on January 2011 and
last until the hotel re-opens so long as there is an agreement in place.
2) In the alternative, if the Union chooses to agree to present the severance offer
to the employees immediately and separate from the bargaining over the CBA
language, the employer will offer 3 weeks severance for every year of service.
As discussed yesterday, an immediate presentation of this offer to the
employees will result in quick determination of what percentage of the
employees intend to accept the severance offer and therefore waive
reinstatement. Depending on the percentage who accept, the employer may
be willing to be more flexible on the CBA language in subsequent negotiations,
which we are prepared to commence immediately after the severance offer is
presented to the employees and their responses are ascertained.
3) A copy of a proposed successor agreement was attached.
_________________________
negotiations.
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
On June 11, Fischer followed up with Maroko with an e-mail concerning Respondent’s
latest counter proposal. Fischer invited the Union to make a counter proposal. Later that day,
Maroko told Fischer that he needed to speak with Mansoorian before responding.
On June 21, the parties met at Local 6’s offices in New York. The Union was
represented by Ward and Maroko. Respondnet was represented by Stokes, Rothfeld, Fischer
and Preonas (by telephone). The parties discussed terms of a successor agreement but did not
discuss severance or recall.
The following day, Maroko sent an e-mail to Rothfeld, which Rothfeld forwarded to
Stokes, Preonas, Fischer, and Wagner. There was a 3-page attachment to the e-mail. The first
page consisted of nine items, the first of which stated “Adopt existing Bel-Air CBA, except as
expressly modified herein.” The next eight items consisted of modifications to the existing
bargaining agreement.
The third page of the attachment consists of a 1-page agreement. It states that “the
parties will continue to negotiate in good faith regarding changes, if any to the CBA.” Finally the
“agreement” contains four terms:
1) All employees employed by the Hotel on or after January of 2009, shall be
offered recall to his/her formaer position or, if the position is unavailable, a
substantially similar position.
2) Each employee may, in his/her sole discretion elect to receive severance pay
in an amount equal to three (3) weeks pay for each year of continuous service
with the Hotel in lieu of recall. Any employees accepting severance pay shall
waive his/her recall rights and execute a general release [attached].
3) The Hotel shall make contributions to the Local 11 Welfare Fund beginning
January 1, 2011, on behalf of employees who do not accept severance and
continuing until the Hotel reopens, provided that any such employee is not
then receiving coverage from another participating employer. Employees
accepting recall shall not accrue benefits or seniority during the period frm the
closing of the Hotel for renovations until their recall.
4) This agreement is subject to ratification.
The Union intended this agreement to be a separate agreement from a successor
bargaining agreement. Maroko testified that the intent was to accept the second option of
Fischer’s June 10 counter offer. However, the e-mail never separated the contract demands
from the alleged acceptance and the e-mail never stated that the Union was making an
acceptance. The e-mail also attached a demand regarding another hotel.
On June 25, Preonas thanked Maroko for his June 22 proposal and asked several
questions regarding the proposed contract. Maroko did not respond. However, on July 7, 2010
Respondent implemented its last, best, and final offer of April 9, 2010. Respondent sent each
employee a cover letter, a severance plan document, and a personalized waiver and release
form. After receiving the packet, approximately 179 employees signed the waiver and release
forms and received severance pay. Preonas e-mailed the Union a copy of the severance
packet but did not notify the Union in advance of his intent to mail the packet to employees.
Respondent’s Defense
Respondent contends that the parties were at impasse on April 19, 2010, when it made
its last, best, and final offer. It contends that all bargaining which took place thereafter was off
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
the record. Respondent further contends that Fischer’s off the record proposal of June 10 was
never accepted by the Union. In this regard it states that in the June 21 bargaining, the Union
was pursuing a successor agreement, the first option in the June 10 counter proposal. Further,
Maroko’s June 22 e-mail was entitled “counter proposal” and included items not agreed to by
Respondent. Accordingly, Respondent contends that it bargained to impasse over the effects of
the closure and was entitled to implement its last, best, and final offer.
III. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. The Respondent Was Obligated to Bargain
The general rule is that when parties are engaged in negotiations for a new agreement,
an employer’s obligation to refrain from unilateral changes encompasses a duty to refrain from
implementation unless and until an overall impasse has been reached on bargaining for the
agreement as a whole. Pleasantview Nursing Home, 335 NLRB 96 (2001) citing Bottom Line
Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991).
The Board considers negotiations to be in progess, and thus will find no genuine
impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be
futile or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion . . . . would be
fruitful.” Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., 343 NLRB 542 556 (2004).
The existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a variety of factors,
including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of negotiations, the
good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’ bargaining history,
and the lenghth of their negotiations. Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967).
The first issue to be decided is Respondent’s contention that the off the record
negotiations should not be considered in deciding whether the parties were at impasse.
Respondent cites Berbiglia, Inc., 233 NLRB 1476, 1495 (1977) for the proposition that “the
parties must be able to formulate their positions and devise their strategies without fear of
exposure.” The holding was in the context of a subpoena for internal bargaining
communications. I have found no case holding that off the record negotiations, particularly
written communications, are not part of negotiations. I will therefore, consider the written
communications of June 2010 in deciding whether the parties were at impasse.
Impasse is a recurring feature in the bargaining process which is only a temporary
deadlock or hiatus in negotiations, eventually broken in almost all cases through either a change
of mind or the application of economic force. Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB, 454
U.S. 404, 412 (1982). Indeed, anything that creates a new possibility of fruitful discussion
breaks an impasse.
The June proposals of the parties show a willingness to compromise. The Hotel made
movement from its April 19 “last, best and final offer.” The Union’s June 22 counter proposal set
forth Respondent’s offer regarding severance and recall rights. Even if Respondent did not
understand the Union’s proposal to be an acceptance of its June 10 offer, there was clearly
movement to break any purported impasse. Further, neither party claimed an impasse in June
or July. Apparently, the only thing lacking was a clear indication from the Union that it was
willing to agree to an agreement on the Hotel’s closure in the absence of agreement on a
collective-bargaining agreement.
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
“Both parties must believe they are at the end of their rope.” Larsdale, Inc., 310 NLRB
1317, 1318 (1993); Huck Mfg. Co. v. NLRB, 693 F.2d 1176, 1177 (5th Cir. 1982). See also
NLRB v. Powell Electrical Mfg., 906 F.2d 1007, 1011–1012 (5th Cir. 1990). In Grinnell Fire
Protection Systems Co., 328 NLRB 585 (1999), the Board concluded that the parties had not
yet reached a legal impasse even though the employer asserted that it had reached its final
position, as during the final session, the charging party-union “not only continued to declare its
intention to be flexible, but demonstrated this throughout its dealings with the Respondent that
day.” The Board stated:
Where as here, a party who has already made significant concessions indicates a
willingness to compromise further, it would be both erroneous as a matter of law and
unwise as a matter of policy for the Board to find impasse merely because the party is
unwilling to capitulate immediately and settle on the other party’s unchanged terms. . . .
Further, even assuming arguendo that the Respondent has demonstrated it was
unwilling to compromise any further, we find that it has fallen short of demonstrating that
the Union was unwilling to do so. [Id. At 586.]
In this case, the Union argued that the parties were not at impasse. It is not sufficient for a
finding of impasse to simply show that the Employer had lost patience with the Union. Impasse
requires a deadlock. As the Board stated in Powell Electrical Mfg. Co., 287 NLRB 969, 973
(1987):
That there was no impasse when the Company declared is not to suggest that if the
parties continued their sluggish bargaining indefinitely there would have been agreement
on a new contract. Such a finding is not needed, nor could it be made without extra-
record speculation, to find on this record that when the Company declared an impasse
there was not one, even as far apart as the parties were. They had most of their work
ahead of them, and judging by the opening sessions clearly had different goals in mind
for a contract. Whether their differences ever would have been resolved cannot be
known; but that is the nature of the process. It is for the parties through earnest,
strenuous, tedious, frustrating and hard bargaining to solve their mutual problem—
getting a contract—together, not to quit the table and take a separate path.
Accordingly, I find that the parties were not at impasse when Respondent implemented
its offer of April 19. Respondent was obligated to bargain to impasse before implementing its
bargaining proposals.
B. Respondent Bypassed the Union and Dealt Directly With Employees
It is well settled that the Act requires an employer to meet and bargain exclusively with
the bargaining representative of its employees, and that an employer who bypasses the
bargaining representative to make offers regarding the terms and conditions of employment
directly to employees violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Allied Signal, Inc., 307 NLRB
752 (1992).
To establish unlawful direct dealing, the Board has set forth a 3-factor test: (1) the
employer was communicating directly with union-represented employees; (2) for the purpose of
establishing or changing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment or undercutting
the union’s role in bargaining; and (3) such communication was made without notice to, or to the
exclusion of the union.
JD(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
First the July 7 letter to each unit employee was a direct communication to represented
employees. Second, the purpose of the letter was to establish terms and conditions of
employment, i.e., severance. Third, the communication was to the exclusion of the Union, in
that it requested a broad waiver of claims and rights. The Union was not named as a party to
the release and waiver.
Accordingly, I find that when Respondent sent the waiver and release to employees, in
the absence of impasse, it bargained directly with employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally implementing its
offer of April 19.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it dealt directly with employees
regarding severance pay and waiver and release.
5. Respondent’s conduct above is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend
that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action to effectuate
the purposes and policies of the Act. Accordingly, I shall order Respondent to rescind
the waiver and release forms signed by bargaining unit employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Hotel Bel-Air, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively by unilaterally implementing its April 29 offer
regarding closure of the Hotel.

3 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(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(b) Dealing directly with bargaining unit employees regarding severance pay and
waiver and release forms.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
(a) Upon request, meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
described below with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
The appropriate unit is described in Section 3, A of the August 16, 2006 to
September 30, 2009 Agreement between the Union and Respondent
(b) On request by the Union, rescind any unilateral changes it has implemented in its
employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
(c) On request by the Union rescind the waiver and release forms signed by
bargaining unit employees.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facility in Los Angeles,
California copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, 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. 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 June 2010.

4 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(SF)-30-11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for
Region 31, a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by
Region 31 attesting to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 12, 2011.

Jay R. Pollack
Administrative Law Judge
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 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively by unilaterally implementing our offer
regarding closure of the Hotel.
WE WILL NOT deal directly with our employees regarding severance pay and waiver
and release forms.
WE WILL NOT In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL upon request, meet and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate bargaining unit
described below with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions, and if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The appropriate bargaining unit is:
The appropriate unit is described in Section 3, A of the August 16, 2006 to
September 30, 2009 Agreement between the Union and the Hotel.
WE WILL on request by the Union, rescind any unilateral changes we have
implemented in our employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL on request by the Union rescind all waiver and release forms signed by
bargaining unit employees.
HOTEL BEL-AIR
Dated: _______________________________
(Employer)
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.
11150 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90064
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 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 MUSTNOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER
MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THISNOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS
PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, 310.235.6424.