Marriott International, Inc., d/b/a J.W. Marriott Los Angeles at L.A. Live

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Dec 7, 2012

21-CA-039556 (N.L.R.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

NOT INCLUDED IN
BOUND VOLUMES
PHB
Los Angeles, CA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a
J.W. MARRIOTT LOS ANGELES AT L.A. LIVE
and Case 21-CA-039556

UNITE HERE! LOCAL 11
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 28, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board,
by a three-member panel, issued a Decision and Order in this
proceeding,1 finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by maintaining four overly broad rules restricting
employee access to and use of the Respondent’s hotel property.
The Board ordered the Respondent to remedy its unlawful conduct
by rescinding or revising the unlawful rules.
On October 30, 2012, the Respondent filed a motion for
reconsideration. On November 8, 2012, the Acting General
Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent’s motion.

1 359 NLRB No. 8.
2
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2 Having
duly considered the matter, we find that the Respondent’s motion
fails to present “extraordinary circumstances” warranting
reconsideration under Section 102.48(d)(1) of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations.
The Respondent contends that the Board disregarded the
Respondent’s constructive relationship with the Union. It
points out that it agreed to and complied with a neutrality and
card check agreement, and it invited Union representatives to
speak to employees as part of their new-hire orientation. The
Respondent also notes that the challenged rules do not mention,
were not promulgated in response to, and have never been applied
to restrict Section 7 activity. In light of these factors, the
Respondent argues that no reasonable employee would read the
four challenged rules as restricting Section 7 rights. The
Board considered and rejected these arguments in its decision.
The Respondent next contends that the decision does not
provide sufficient guidance for compliance. We disagree. The
decision explained the Board’s reasoning at length and in
detail. The Respondent does not claim that the decision leaves

2 The Respondent argues, inter alia, that the recess appointments
of Members Block and Griffin were invalid because the Senate was
not in recess at the time of the appointments. For the reasons
set forth in Center for Social Change, Inc., 358 NLRB No. 24
(2012), we reject this argument.
3
it unable to understand why its current rules are unlawfully
worded, and it is not the Board’s practice to suggest possible
revisions.
Accordingly, the Respondent’s motion does not present
extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.3
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
Dated, Washington, D.C., December 07, 2012.
_______________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
_______________________________
Brian E. Hayes, Member
_______________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 Member Hayes adheres to his dissent in the underlying decision.
He continues to be of the view that the Hotel’s off-duty access
and use rules are valid. Nonetheless, he agrees that the
Respondent has not presented “extraordinary circumstances”
warranting Board reconsideration of its decision.