Quality Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1119 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1119
313 NLRB No. 194
QUALITY HOTEL
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
In addition, the Respondent contends that some of the judge’s rul-
ings, findings, and conclusions demonstrate bias and prejudice. On
careful examination of the judge’s decision and the entire record, we
are satisfied that the contentions are without merit.
2 We shall substitute a new notice to correct certain inadvertent er-
rors in the judge’s recommended notice.
1 All dates hereafter are in 1992 unless otherwise indicated.
Charles S. Zanetis d/b/a Quality Hotel and Marvine
Nesbeth. Case 9–CA–30145
April 26, 1994
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS STEPHENS, DEVANEY, AND COHEN
On September 30, 1993, Administrative Law Judge
Russell M. King Jr. issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Charles S. Zanetis d/b/a
Quality Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for that of the 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 the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered 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 protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these pro-
tected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees because they
engage in the protected concerted activity of a strike
over their working conditions.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Wanda Alexander, Dale Brown,
Sharon Davis, Barbara Hall, Latasha Hall, Pearl
McDole, Shannon McDole, Janet Mitchell, Marvine
Nesbeth, and Tujuani Perry immediate and full rein-
statement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make the employees named above whole
for any loss of earnings and benefits they suffered by
reason of our discrimination against them with interest.
WE WILL rescind our discharge of the above-named
employees and WE WILL notify them in writing that we
will not use their discharges against them in any way.
CHARLES S. ZANETIS D/B/A QUALITY
HOTEL
Earl Ledford, Esq. and Mary Elizabeth Walker-McBride,
Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. Fox DeMoisey, Esq. and Robert L. Keisler, Esq., of Louis-
ville, Kentucky, for the Respondent Employer.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL M. KING JR., Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Louisville, Kentucky on June 24–25, 1993.1
The original charge was filed by the individual, Marvine
Nesbeth, on November 12. An amended charge was filed by
Nesbeth on December 31, and the complaint was also issued
on December 31.
At about 9 a.m. on September 5, 10 of the Respondent ho-
tel’s housekeeping employees timely reported to work, but
did not start working, with the sympathy of their supervisor
executive housekeeper, Charlene Patterson, all demanding
first to speak to owner Charles Zanetis about what they con-
sidered to be poor working conditions. Zanetis, who was
some miles away from the hotel at the time, was summoned
and arrived at about 11 a.m., and promptly ushered the non-
working housekeepers (including Charging Party Nesbeth
and Supervisor Patterson) out of the hotel and away from the
premises. A fact in controversy in the case is whether or not
Zanetis’ wife had earlier in the morning told the house-
keepers that they were fired.
The complaint alleges that the 10 employees ‘‘ceased
work concertedly and engaged in a strike,’’ and that the re-
sponse of Zanetis was the unlawful discharge of the 10 em-
1120 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 The National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
3 The term ‘‘General Counsel,’’ when used herein, will normally
refer to the two attorneys in the case acting on behalf of the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), through
the Regional Director.
4 The Respondent’s answer admits these jurisdictional allegations
in the complaint. Charles Zanetis and his wife Shayne Zanetis both
testified that they jointly owned the hotel. However, the complaint
alleges and lists only Charles S. Zanetis as the owner and ‘‘Propri-
etor,’’ and lists Shayne L. Zanetis as ‘‘Supervisor,’’ and the Re-
spondent’s answer also admits these allegations. Although no motion
was made at the hearing to amend the complaint regarding joint
ownership, I shall take this into consideration in the recommended
Order at the end of this decision.
5 Helen Mercer, whose testimony is summarized later under the
Respondent hotel’s evidence, indicated that she was the laundry su-
pervisor, and had been so for three years. This apparent conflict in
the testimony was never resolved in the record. Mercer had worked
at the hotel a total of 6 years. On September 5 she came to work
at 10 a.m. and was asked to join the other housekeepers in not work-
ing, but refused. She remained employed at the hotel.
6 A ‘‘houseman’’ had been a male employee who worked mainly
with the room attendants (housekeepers), doing heavy or bulk lifting
or moving as needed, including shampooing carpet, cleaning win-
dows, turning over mattresses, and emptying garbage dumpsters.
7 The complaint lists Peggy A. Brewer as ‘‘Administrative Assist-
ant,’’ which she was to Charles Zanetis. From the testimony in the
case, Brewer was in reality more like the assistant manager, under
Zanetis, who was away from the hotel much of the time, as was his
wife Shayne, who managed a restaurant in another part of the city
which they also jointly owned.
8 Patterson testified that some of the housekeepers without uni-
forms had complained about overtures made to them by Shriners
who had recently stayed at the hotel.
9 Shayne Zanetis actually ran the restaurant, and spent little time
at the hotel. On the morning of September 5, Patterson did not send
two housekeepers to Timothy’s as ‘‘no one really wanted to go.’’
This detail to Timothy’s on Saturdays was one of the complaints of
the housekeepers. According to Patterson, it put a strain on the
workload at the hotel, and the housekeepers did not like working at
the restaurant.
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.2 The Re-
spondent, while admitting knowledge of the housekeepers’
complaints, denies that their work stoppage was concerted
and a strike, alleging that the employees ‘‘voluntarily quit
their employment.’’
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs
filed by the General Counsel3 and counsel for the the Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, the Respondent, a sole propri-
etorship, has been owned by Charles S. Zanetis and his wife
Shayne L. Zanetis, doing business as Quality Hotel, and has
been engaged in the operation of a hotel providing food and
lodging in Louisville, Kentucky.4 During the 12-month pe-
riod prior to issuance of the complaint, the Respondent, in
the conduct of its operations, derived gross revenues in ex-
cess of $500,000. During the same period, the Respondent
purchased and received at its Louisville, Kentucky facility
goods valued in excess of $10,000 directly from points out-
side the State of Kentucky. As alleged and admitted, I find
that at all times material herein, the Respondent has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Testimony and Evidence for the General Counsel
Executive housekeeper Charlene Patterson had worked at
the hotel for a year and nine months. She described herself
as the ‘‘director’’ of housekeeping and as such she issued
purchase orders, hired, fired and disciplined housekeeping
employees, and ran the laundry.5 Patterson testified that there
were approximately 17 employees in housekeeping, which
was broken down into three areas, the room attendants, the
laundry area, and the ‘‘houseman.’’6 Patterson indicated that
Charles Zanetis was not at the hotel ‘‘a lot of times’’ and
thus she usually reported to Peggy Brewer, who she de-
scribed as the assistant to Zanetis.7 On September 5 (the Sat-
urday before Labor Day) Patterson arrived at the hotel at
8:45 a.m. and found the housekeepers loading their carts but
complaining. They had discovered that their time cards re-
flected they were being charged for breaks and lunch, which
had to be purchased outside and away from the hotel, and
which was not the case with other hotel employees. Other
complaints included the failure to pass out a posted $20 re-
ward, the shortage of vacuum cleaners, no linen in the laun-
dry, locked fire exits on the upper floors, the lack of enough
uniforms,8 and the lay off of the houseman earlier that week.
One housekeeper had been stuck with a hypodermic needle
that had been left in a waste basket, but the ‘‘front desk’’
told her if she wanted medical treatment, she would have to
pay for it herself. Patterson testified that there had always
been complaints, and earlier in the week (and throughout the
week) she had gone to Peggy Brewer about the houseman’s
lay off and other complaints, requesting a meeting with
Zanetis because the situation was getting ‘‘out of hand’’ and
she wanted to ‘‘stop it before it got too far gone,’’ but Brew-
er always gave her an excuse as to why Zanetis could not
see her.
Patterson indicated that on Saturdays she would have only
eight or nine housekeepers to clean rooms because she al-
ways had to send two to Timothy’s restaurant (away from
the hotel and also owned jointly by the Zanetis’) to clean
there.9 On September 5, after again hearing all of the com-
plaints, Patterson told the housekeepers she would imme-
diately go to guest service manager, Steve Dress (at the front
desk) with their complaints, which she did, explaining to
Dress that the housekeepers were upset and were not going
to start in the rooms until they had spoken to C. Zanetis. Pat-
terson maintained that she did not tell Drees that anyone had
quit, because ‘‘nobody had indicating [sic] quitting.’’ Patter-
son testified that after she talked to Drees she returned to her
office whereupon she received a phone call from Shayne
Zanetis who told her that her husband was away getting a
haircut, but for her Patterson to lay the phone down and tell
the housekeepers that if they didn’t ‘‘get their mother
fucking asses up and go to work, or [she would] fire them
all.’’ Patterson did this and the housekeepers responded that
they still wanted to talk to C. Zanetis. Patterson went back
to the phone and told C. Zanetis their response, and S.
1121QUALITY HOTEL
10 In cross-examination, Patterson conceded that sometime during
this phone conversation, S. Zanetis indicated that her husband could
meet with the housekeepers after the weekend was over, the follow-
ing week.
11 This Chevron station was across the street, where the house-
keepers frequently went to get snacks. The three housekeepers later
returned to the hotel later that morning, and according to Patterson
were present when C. Zanetis finally appeared.
12 The offer of reinstatement came in the form of a letter dated
December 17, signed by Peggy Brewer. The initial charge in the
case had been filed on November 12.
13 Patterson’s office was in the basement, as was the laundry.
Zanetis then told Patterson that they were all fired and could
go home.10 Patterson then told this to the housekeepers,
whereupon three of them (Nesbeth, Hall, and Davis) left to
go to the nearby Chevron station.11 Peggy Brewer then
called Patterson and ask what was going on, and Patterson
told Brewer that S. Zanetis had fired all the housekeepers,
but that they still wanted to talk to C. Zanetis about their
complaints. According to Patterson, Brewer then asked if the
housekeepers would start the rooms if she got them a house-
man, to which she replied that the housekeepers still wanted
to talk to C. Zanetis.
Patterson then learned from Drees (by phone) that C.
Zanetis had arrived and was on his way down. Patterson
summoned the housekeepers together, and between 10:30 and
11 a.m. C. Zanetis arrived with a ‘‘big guy with him like a
body guard that was standing there with his hand in his
pocket.’’ Patterson testified that she was ‘‘scared’’ and that
Zanetis first stated that he had heard they all wanted to see
him, and then asked what about, and Patterson produced a
list of complaints from which she started to read, whereupon
Zanetis said to them all ‘‘let’s go,’’ instructing them to first
turn in their keys and uniforms. Patterson indicated that she
and the other housekeepers did so, and Zanetis then told the
‘‘big guy’’ to escort them all (including her) to the door, and
they all thus left the hotel. Patterson testified that she still
does not know why she lost her job, but assumed it was a
‘‘racial thing’’ because C. Zanetis would see and confer with
the ‘‘other managers,’’ but not her, and she thus filed an
‘‘EEOC’’ claim over the loss of her job.
Former laundry worker Pearl McDole started to work at
the hotel July 12, 1990. She first cleaned rooms and then
worked in the laundry until September 5. Her daughter Shan-
non was also a housekeeper at the hotel. She arrived at the
hotel at 8:30 a.m. on September 5 and testified that as the
housekeepers began arriving, they were complaining about
different things, including there not being enough sheets,
towels, wash cloths, and pillow cases. McDole related that
she also complained to Patterson about working conditions in
the laundry, and that they all wanted to tell C. Zanetis their
complaints. McDole indicated that she had earlier com-
plained to Patterson about a cut in her working hours, and
Patterson told her that she had been trying to see C. Zanetis
about the complaints of all her employees, but had been un-
successful. McDole was in Patterson’s office when she talked
with Shayne Zanetis, and she corroborated Patterson’s testi-
mony in this regard, indicating that Zanetis had used a ‘‘bad
word.’’ McDole testified that when Zanetis arrived he asked
Patterson what was going on, and Patterson said that she had
a ‘‘bunch’’ of complaints to give him. As Patterson stood up
and started to read the complaints, Zanetis told Patterson to
stop, stating that he didn’t want to hear the complaints,
whereupon he said to them ‘‘come on, let’s go.’’ McDole in-
dicated that they all thought Zanetis meant for everyone to
go to a nearby round table, but when they got into the hall,
Zanetis told them all to ‘‘get out.’’ According to McDole,
Zanetis then told her and her daughter to leave their keys and
uniforms, followed them back to the laundry to get their per-
sonal items, and they then were escorted to the door by ‘‘a
great big guy’’ which she had never seen before. In mid-De-
cember, both McDole and her daughter were offered their
jobs back at the hotel but declined, McDole indicating that
the ‘‘problem’’ was still there, as was the ‘‘person’’ causing
the problem.12
Former housekeeper Tujuania Perry had worked at the
hotel for 3 years prior to September 5. Perry testified that
she arrived at the hotel at about 8:30 a.m. on September 5
and went to the sixth floor, got her cart and came back down
to the basement and clocked in.13 Perry related that she
clocked in after she got her cart because of a shortage of
linen. Perry could not find her timecard at first, and in
searching for it she noticed that employees in the kitchen de-
partment were not being docked for breaks while the house-
keeping employees were, although they were working
straight through for 8 hours. Perry then went to Patterson and
complained, and found other housekeeping employees there
with the same and other complaints. Perry related that Patter-
son was making a list of these complaints, and had been try-
ing to see C. Zanetis about them. It was Perry who had been
stuck in the hand by a needle and Perry also described an
incident where, when she was ‘‘more or less . . . locked on
[her] floor’’ wearing ‘‘half’’ a uniform, she was ‘‘chased by
a guest . . . like sexual advances towards [her].’’ Perry com-
plained to Patterson about this incident and other matters, in-
cluding having to work at Timothy’s. According to Perry, all
the housekeeping employees were complaining the morning
of September 5 and wanted to talk to C. Zanetis before they
reported to their floors to start working. Perry essentially cor-
roborated Patterson’s testimony about her phone conversation
with S. Zanetis (including the foul language and the firing),
about the arrival of C. Zanetis, and about what happened
thereafter. Perry also indicated she was ‘‘scared’’ when
Zanetis arrived with the man ‘‘about six feet tall’’ who she
had never seen before. Perry testified that they all had re-
mained after S. Zanetis told them they were fired because
they wanted to keep their jobs and they felt that because C.
Zanetis was their ‘‘general manager,’’ he was the only one
that could fire them. Additionally, Perry was asked by the
General Counsel if she had ever talked to Patterson ‘‘con-
cerning some sort of stoppage of work,’’ and Perry an-
swered, ‘‘Yes . . . About a week or so before [September
5].’’ Perry was then asked about the ‘‘nature’’ of that con-
versation, to which she responded by stating she spoke about
her complaints, adding ‘‘it was [her] life that was on that
sixth floor.’’ During cross-examination Perry denied the use
or knowledge of the term ‘‘work stoppage,’’ indicating that
she only wanted to convey to Patterson her need to see C.
Zanetis personally. Perry testified that on Friday (September
4) she also asked Patterson to try and talk to C. Zanetis ‘‘this
week’’ because ‘‘we was falling short because he [Zanetis]
1122 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14 Perry was referring here to the lay off of the houseman, which
she testified made the housekeeper’s work much harder.
15 C. Zanetis was asked the last name of the present head of the
housekeeping department, and he could not remember.
16 According to Zanetis, Bersaglia had not been an employee of
the hotel. Bersaglia was not called as a witness to corroborate
Zanetis’ version of what transpired in the basement regarding the
housekeepers. Zanetis later testified that Bersaglia had been called
in by his ‘‘wife and other staff to assist in cleaning rooms.’’
17 The transcript reflects the spelling of S. Zanetis’ first name to
be ‘‘Shane,’’ but the complaint, the Respondent hotel’s brief, and
my hearing notes reflect the spelling to be ‘‘Shayne.’’ The transcript
is riddled with such small errors.
was laying people off.’’14 Perry also received an offer of re-
instatement from the hotel in December, but apparently did
not respond.
Charging Party and former housekeeper Marvine Nesbeth
had worked for the hotel 2-1/2 years as of September 5. She
also told Patterson on the morning of September 5 that she
wanted to see C. Zanetis to, among other things, request a
raise because she had been making $4.25 an hour since she
started working at the hotel. Nesbeth testified that after S.
Zanetis told them they were fired, she, Barbara Hall, and
Sharon Davis left the hotel to go to the Chevron station to
get a pop or coffee and returned 5 minutes later, and soon
thereafter, at almost 11 C. Zanetis arrived with a ‘‘tall’’ man
who she had never seen before, and who she described as
a ‘‘bodyguard.’’ Nesbeth also essentially corroborated Patter-
son’s (and other) testimony as to what transpired after C.
Zanetis’ arrival. Nesbeth testified that she got the idea to
contact the Board from ‘‘a man’’ at the post office who gave
her ‘‘a number’’ to call.
B. Testimony and Evidence for the Respondent Hotel
The hotel’s general manager, Charles Zanetis, confirmed
that he and his wife Shayne both own the Quality Hotel and
Timothy’s restaurant. Zanetis testified that at the hotel there
was no ‘‘innkeeper of sorts,’’ but that department heads run
the hotel, and that Peggy Brewer ‘‘oversees’’ the hotel ‘‘al-
most as an assistant manager.’’ The departments are house-
keeping, dining room, kitchen, lounge, and front desk.15
Zanetis related that he had an ‘‘open door’’ policy, and if
anyone wanted to see him, all they had to do was to contact
Peggy Brewer. Zanetis added that about a month prior to
September 5 he had met with Patterson and given her a raise,
at which time he asked her if she had any problems in
housekeeping, to which she replied a ‘‘few small’’ ones
which she felt she could handle. Zanetis indicated that on
September 5 he was in the ‘‘barber’s chair’’ when his wife
called and told him that the housekeepers were quitting be-
cause of ‘‘job conditions,’’ but also told him that she thought
she could take care of it with the management that was at
the hotel. After his wife, Steve Drees also called him at the
barber shop, after which he left for the hotel. Zanetis related
that while on the way, his wife called on his car phone, stat-
ing that the housekeepers were upset about the houseman, to
which he replied that they should concede that and arrange
to have a houseman come in. In later testimony, Zanetis
changed and indicated that it was either Drees or Brewer
who called at the barber shop (after his wife), and the con-
cession of a houseman was then discussed. Zanetis initially
testified that on the car phone he and his wife also discussed
a meeting with the housekeepers Sunday, Monday, or Tues-
day, which was ‘‘not acceptable,’’ but in later testimony
Zanetis said nothing about a meeting during this car phone
conversation, but related that his wife told him a houseman
was not going to help and that the housekeepers were ‘‘walk-
ing out.’’ Thus Zanetis indicated that he did not go to hotel
that morning (September 5) to have a meeting with the
housekeepers. Zanetis related that also while in route to the
hotel he made several phone calls to cleaning companies and
other people in the business to see if he could hire or borrow
people to go in and clean the rooms. Zanetis testified that
he arrived at the hotel between 10:30 and 11 and observed
‘‘some’’ of the housekeepers in the parking lot leaving, and
that he went in and first talked to Drees at the front desk,
asking him if they had quit and left the property, to which
Drees replied ‘‘about half.’’ Zanetis testified that he then had
‘‘one of the people that had come in to help us clean rooms’’
(one Jim Bersaglia) to go to the housekeeping department
with him ‘‘to see if the carts were being loaded or where
they were at, so that the people we had called to clean the
rooms could get the carts and get into housekeeping sup-
plies.’’16 Zanetis related that when he arrived at the house-
keeping office Patterson and six to nine employees were
there, some with their coats on, and he saw carts that were
not ready to go up to the floors. Zanetis testified that he then
told Patterson that he understood there was a problem, to
which she replied, ‘‘We are quitting because of job condi-
tions,’’ Zanetis adding that he did not see a list and did not
know whether or not Patterson had a list. Zanetis said he re-
plied ‘‘let’s go,’’ and as the housekeepers walked by him he
asked them to leave their keys and uniforms. Zanetis could
not remember whether he or ‘‘other staff’’ accompanied any
employee while getting their personal belongings, but related
that he told Bersaglia to make sure there were no problems
and that the housekeepers left without any further disruption
to the business. Zanetis testified that the weekend of Septem-
ber 5 was a holiday weekend and the hotel was full with de-
manding guests, and the lobby was full of people checking
out or in.
Shayne Zanetis17 also confirmed that she and her husband
owned both the hotel and Timothy’s restaurant, and that she
basically operated Timothy’s. Zanetis testified that at about
9 a.m. on Saturday September 5 her husband’s ‘‘secretary’’
Peggy Brewer called her at home stating that there was a
problem at the hotel, and that the ‘‘maids’’ were leaving.
Zanetis testified she then called the hotel and talked to Pat-
terson, who said they (the housekeepers) were not going to
work, mainly because her husband had let the houseman go.
Zanetis related she then asked Patterson what the houseman
did, and then told Patterson she did not think even ‘‘the Ritz
Carlton in New York and Chicago . . . had maids for their
maids.’’ According to Zanetis, Patterson then complained
that ‘‘C. Zanetis couldn’t talk to me . . . [and] didn’t go on
the floors and talk to the maids enough,’’ to which she re-
plied that there was an ‘‘open door’’ policy and that other
hotel owners didn’t go on the floors and talk to maids, but
they could have a meeting Monday. Zanetis indicated that
Patterson then said the Monday was a holiday, and she then
suggested Tuesday. Zanetis related that Patterson then put the
phone down, and after there was ‘‘mumbling voices in the
background,’’ Patterson came back on and said, ‘‘No, we are
1123QUALITY HOTEL
18 During his cross-examination Drees changed these numbers to
‘‘five or six,’’ and then to ‘‘six or seven,’’ and finally back to ‘‘at
least four to five, maybe more,’’ none of which he could identify
and none of which he saw come back.
19 Drees’ testimony was, at times, confusing and inconsistent. He
started with one car phone call from Zanetis and ended with four
in cross-examination, the last being from the hotel parking lot. How-
ever, it should be noted that the front desk was extremely busy at
the time.
quitting,’’ and she then asked Patterson if she too was quit-
ting, and Patterson responded, ‘‘Yes.’’ Zanetis indicated she
then hung up the phone and ‘‘immediately’’ called her hus-
band, and began to call around to get people to help clean
the rooms. Zanetis testified that later on that day she went
to ‘‘my’’ restaurant. In cross-examination, Zanetis conceded
that at some point during the conversation with Patterson but
before Patterson said they were quitting, she did tell Patter-
son that if they went upstairs and started cleaning, they could
have their jobs. Also during cross-examination, Zanetis was
shown her investigative affidavit given to the Board, reflect-
ing that Patterson did state that her husband refused to have
a meeting with the housekeepers. Zanetis was then asked if
in fact Patterson had made the statement, and Zanetis replied
that she could not remember. She specifically denied telling
Patterson that the housekeepers were fired, and that she used
foul language. She also denied that Patterson ask for a meet-
ing that day with her husband.
Guest Service Manager Steven Drees came to work at the
hotel in January 1989, and worked at the front desk. Drees
testified that when he needed to see C. Zanetis regarding
problems or other matters, he would go to C. Zanetis’ ‘‘sec-
retary’’ Peggy Brewer for an appointment. Drees related that
at about 9:15 a.m. on September 5 Patterson called him and
told him that the ‘‘maids’’ were ‘‘refusing to go to work’’
and that some had already quit, mainly because they did not
have a houseman, and they wanted a meeting with C.
Zanetis. Drees indicated he then called Brewer at home and
told Brewer to contact C. Zanetis and have him call Patter-
son to get the maids working. According to Drees, Patterson
then again called him and asked if he had reached C. Zanetis
yet, adding that if he called, to put him through to her. Sub-
sequently, Patterson again called and asked if Zanetis was on
his way, to which Drees replied that he had not heard from
Zanetis, but that Brewer had called him and told him that
Zanetis was on his way. Drees testified that he saw ‘‘three
or four’’ maids go out the front door,18 and then S. Zanetis
called and ask what was going on, and he responded by tell-
ing her what Patterson had told him, whereupon S. Zanetis
asked to be connected to Patterson. Drees testified that while
S. Zanetis and Patterson were talking, C. Zanetis called in
from his car phone as asked to be put through to Patterson,
and Drees informed him that his wife and Patterson were on
the line, after which C. Zanetis indicated he was on the way
and would be there within the hour. According to Drees,
Zanetis asked what was going on and he replied that Patter-
son had informed him that some had already quit, adding
that he had seen three or four leave, and Zanetis then asked
him to call other hotels to see if they could get ‘‘some help
in there to help Charlene [Patterson] get the rooms clean, be-
cause the other ones were refusing to work.’’ In cross-
eximination Drees added that he also told Zanetis that Patter-
son and the maids were still waiting to have a meeting with
him.19 Drees testified that Patterson then (and again) called
him, stating that she also was going to quit because she did
not have any help, and he told Patterson that she didn’t have
to quit because they were ‘‘sending over some maids to help
her,’’ and that if he had to he would get more front desk
help and come down and help her himself. Drees indicated
that when Zanetis arrived, ‘‘some other person . . . a large
guy’’ (who he didn’t know) was with him who asked where
everybody was, and he Drees replied that they were still
downstairs, and Zanetis and the other person left and got on
the elevator. Then Drees, himself, got on an elevator and
went to the basement, relating that he overheard Zanetis ask-
ing for keys, and saw some maids getting on the elevator as
he got off.
Peggy Brewer described herself as administrative assistant
to Charles Zanetis, taking care of all the books, and handling
‘‘a lot of situations that come up at the hotel.’’ Brewer was
not working on September 5 and testified Drees called her
about 9 a.m. stating that the ‘‘maids’’ would not go to work.
Brewer then talked to Patterson and ask her what the prob-
lem was, and Patterson responded that she had a list and
wanted a meeting with Zanetis ‘‘before they would go to
work.’’ Brewer indicated she then suggested setting up a
meeting the first of the week because Zanetis lived ‘‘quite
far’’ from the hotel, and Patterson said ‘‘no.’’ Brewer testi-
fied that she then called Zanetis’ home and talked to S.
Zanetis, told her what the problem was, and S. Zanetis said
she would call her husband at the barber shop. Brewer relat-
ed that soon thereafter, S. Zanetis called back and asked her
to start calling other hotels in an attempt to get maids to start
cleaning rooms. Brewer testified that there was an open door
policy at the hotel and the department heads could ‘‘knock
on [Zanetis’] door or come to her and she would set up a
meeting. Brewer was asked if within two weeks prior to Sep-
tember 5 Patterson had approached her about a meeting with
Zanetis, and she responded ‘‘not to my knowledge, no.’’
Brewer was also asked if Patterson ever took advantage of
the open door policy, and she replied, ‘‘I really can’t say.’’
Brewer did concede that Brewer had a meeting with Zanetis
‘‘a few weeks’’ prior to September when Patterson ask for
and received a raise, adding that she set up the meeting at
Patterson’s request.
Housekeeper Barbara Hall testified that when she arrived
at the hotel the morning of September 5 Pearl McDole told
her that Patterson didn’t want them to ‘‘touch anything’’
until she got there. Hall indicated that Patterson and ‘‘all the
other employee housekeepers’’ wanted and requested a meet-
ing with C. Zanetis, who took a ‘‘few hours’’ to get there.
Hall related that when Patterson arrived she told her not to
touch anything until Zanetis got there, and that she, Marvine
Nesbeth, and Sharon Davis then left the hotel and went to
the Chevron station, after which they went to a mall to pay
for and get Nesbeth’s dress out of ‘‘lay away,’’ and when
they returned to the hotel everybody was leaving, and
Zanetis was standing at the door. Patterson, who was also
leaving, then told her that they were all fired so she went
and cleaned out her locker and also left. Hall related some-
time that morning, housekeeper Tujuani Perry asked her if
Patterson had called her at home the previous evening, to
1124 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
20 During the hearing and during his examination of Hall, counsel
for the Respondent attempted to draw an inference that Patterson had
called other housekeepers the night before to enlist support for with-
holding their services the following morning until they were able to
meet with Zanetis.
21 In cross-examination Mercer accused Pearl McDole of once try-
ing to take her job away from her.
which she responded that she did not have a phone.20 Hall
testified that several days later she called Zanetis and asked
him what had happened, and Zanetis told her that everybody
had been fired, and she then asked Zanetis for her job back,
which she got, and has worked for the hotel since then. In
cross-examination Hall indicated that it was Brewer she
talked to about getting her job back, and that she told Brewer
that ‘‘she wasn’t down there when C. Zanetis said we was
all fired.’’ Later in her cross-eximination Hall again indicated
it was Zanetis she talked to about getting her job back and,
contrary to her earlier testimony Hall denied asking Zanetis
what had happened.
Annie Price described herself as ‘‘the lobby maid,’’ and
has worked at the hotel for 20 years. Price testified that on
September 5 she came to work at 6 a.m., got her cart from
downstairs and cleaned first the lobby and then started clean-
ing the lounge, when she took the bar rags to the basement
to be washed and saw Patterson and the housekeepers ‘‘sit-
ting down’’ in Patterson’s office. Price indicated that house-
keeper Dale Brown came out and asked her if she was going
to ‘‘participate with them . . . did [she] want better,’’ to
which she replied yes, but that what they were doing was
wrong, and then she went back upstairs and ‘‘locked’’ her-
self in the lounge until all the housekeepers had left the
hotel.
Helen Mercer had worked at the hotel for 6 years, the last
3 of which were in the laundry. Mercer described herself as
‘‘the supervisor’’ in the laundry, arriving at 10 a.m. She tes-
tified when she arrived on September 5 all the ‘‘maids’’
were in Patterson’s office and when she got to the laundry,
she found that no carts had been brought down and there was
nothing to do, so she called Patterson and asked her what
was going on and Patterson said ‘‘come up and join us,’’ to
which she replied no, adding that she was staying in her own
department. Mercer testified that she called Steve Drees and
told him what was happening, and Drees indicated he had
another call and they hung up. According to Mercer, Pearl
and Shannon McDole also worked in the laundry, but at the
time they also were in Patterson’s office.21 Mercer indicated
that about an hour later Zanetis came into the laundry and
asked her to ‘‘gather up all the keys,’’ and then left stating
that he was going up to the front door. Mercer related that
there was a table in the laundry where the ‘‘maids’’ ate their
lunch, and that on the previous day at the lunch table she
heard Patterson state to the others present that ‘‘we can get
more food stamps than we can working here.’’
C. Analysis and Initial Conclusions
In this case I credit the four witnesses called by the Gen-
eral Counsel (Patterson, McDole, Perry, and Nesbeth). The
Respondent called seven witnesse, C. and S. Zanetis, Drees,
Brewer, Hall, Price, and Mercer. I discredit almost com-
pletely the testimony of C. and S. Zanetis, who showed little
or no respect for or attention to most of the employees in
the housekeeping department (including Patterson). They did
not know many of their names, and their status as employees
at the hotel was as low as you could get. For the most part
they were not considered as room attendants, laundry work-
ers, or housekeepers by the hotel’s management. They were
considered as ‘‘maids,’’ the term used exclusively by C. and
S. Zanetis, Drees and Brewer. As maids, they were not de-
serving of the consideration or attention (much less the truth)
which they were finally demanding. C. and S. Zanetis con-
sidered that the gall of this lowest of employee groups could
not be tolerated, and had to be put down. This attitude
showed through in their testimony and demeanor. Drees and
Brewer were basically truthful, but when it came to key
questions and answers, misguided loyalty to the hotel’s own-
ers overcame them, causing them to skirm and hedge. I dis-
credit them both in certain instances. But Brewer I find did
truthfully confirm that Patterson stated the housekeepers
wanted a meeting with C. Zanetis ‘‘before they would go to
work.’’ Housekeeper Barbara Hall I find to be an unreliable
witnesses, not mainly for a lack of veracity, but for her obvi-
ous inability to remember important aspects of events, which
made her easy pray for the power of suggestion. I do credit
‘‘lobby maid’’ Price and laundry worker Mercer, whose testi-
mony however does little to support the hotel’s case.
Whether planned or spontaneous, the actions of Patterson
and the housekeepers the morning of September 5 were con-
certed and came as a result certain complaints about the
terms and conditions of their employment, most of which (if
not all) were real and legitimate. Patterson had tried to meet
with Zanetis, but without success. If the hotel had an ‘‘open
door’’ policy, it was not applied to the housekeeping depart-
ment, contrary to what Brewer indicated in her testimony.
When Patterson called Drees at the front desk that Saturday
morning, she told him that the housekeepers refused to go
to work until they meet with C. Zanetis about their com-
plaints, but she did not tell Drees that some or all had quit,
as Drees claimed. At some point, three housekeepers did
leave but they shortly returned. Three others also left and
stayed away for a longer period, but also returned. When S.
Zanetis called Patterson, I find that she did use foul language
and told Patterson to tell the others that if they did not get
to work, she would fire them. When they refused, S. Zanetis
fired them, but they remained in the housekeeping depart-
ment waiting for the arrival of C. Zanetis, thinking that he
would hear their complaints and disregard his wife’s firing.
C. Zanetis had no such plans, and as he testified, he did not
go to the hotel that morning for any meeting. I find that at
some point that Saturday morning, C. Zanetis found out what
his wife had done, and that his sole purpose upon his arrival
at the hotel was to stand behind his wife and see that the
housekeepers left the premises. Toward this end he took one
certain Jim Bersaglia with him, claiming (falsely) that when
he arrived at the housekeeping department, Patterson told
him that they were quitting because of job conditions. C.
Zanetis’ version of what happened, if true, could of course
been corroborated by testimony from Bersaglia, who was not
called to testify.
In this case the General Counsel must make a prima facie
showing sufficient to support the inference that conduct pro-
tected under the Act was a motivating factor in the Respond-
ent hotel’s actions in discharging the 10 housekeepers. The
burden then shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that the
1125QUALITY HOTEL
22 Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st
Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982).
23 Hall testified that she got her job back, and the evidence reflects
that both Pearl and Shannon McDole, and Perry were offered rein-
statement in mid-December. However, they will all be included in
the remedy, as the reinstatement offers were deficient. If it is found
that Hall actually did go back to work, adjustments for this can be
made during the compliance stage of the case.
24 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Ruses and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
25 There is evidence in the record that the hotel’s name has been
changed, but there was no motion to amend in this regard.
26 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.’’
discharges would have taken place notwithstanding the pro-
tected conduct.22 I find that the General Counsel did make
a prima facie showing that the housekeepers were discharged
because they ceased work concertedly and engaged in a
strike over their working conditions, and that they did not
voluntarily quit as alleged by the Respondent. I further find
that the sole reason for the discharge of the housekeepers
was their concerted and protected activity, and thus I find
that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the discharges
would have taken place for other reasons.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent hotel is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and (6) of the Act.
2. The Respondent, on September 5, 1992, violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act when it discharged Wanda Alexander,
Dale Brown, Sharon Davis, Barbara Hall, Latasha Hall, Pearl
McDole, Shannon McDole, Janet Mitchell, Marvine Nesbeth,
and Tujuani Perry.
3. The unfair labor practices found in paragraph 2, above,
affected commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
The Respondent will be required to offer immediate and
full reinstatement to the 10 discharged employees, and make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them.23 In ad-
dition, the Respondent shall be required to post an appro-
priate notice, and to remove from its files and records any
reference to the unlawful discharges and notify the employ-
ees in writing that this has been done and that the discharges
will not be used against them in any way. Loss of earnings
and other benefits due hereunder shall be computed on a
quarterly basis from the date of the discharges to the date of
a proper offer of reinstatement, less any interim net earnings,
as proscribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), plus interest to be computed in the manner prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended24
ORDER
The Respondent, Charles S. Zanetis and Shayne L.
Zanetis, d/b/a Quality Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky, its offi-
cers, agents, successors (in name or otherwise25), and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they engage in con-
certed activities which are protected under Section 7 of the
Act.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or co-
ercing employees in the exercise of the right guaranteed them
by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Wanda Alexander, Dale Brown, Sharon Davis,
Barbara Hall, Latasha Hall, Pearl McDole, Shannon McDole,
Janet Mitchell, Marvine Nesbeth, and Tujuani Perry imme-
diate and 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, and make them 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. In addition, remove from its
files and records any reference to the unlawful discharges
and notify the employees in writing that this has been done
and that the discharges will not be used against them in any
way.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security records, timecards, personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount
of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Louisville, Kentucky hotel copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’26 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt 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 ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.