Park Avenue Investments, LLC and Hotel Management Advisors-Troy, LLC d/b/a Metropolitan Group and Me

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 13, 2013

359 NLRB No. 134 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

359 NLRB No. 134
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Park Avenue Investments, LLC, and Hotel Manage-
ment Advisors–Troy, LLC d/b/a The Metropoli-
tan Group and The Metro Hotel–Troy and Local
24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO. Case 07–CA–
090297
June 13, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
The Acting General Counsel seeks a default judgment
in this case on the ground that the Respondents have
failed to file an answer to the consolidated complaint and
compliance specification. Upon a charge and amended
charges filed on September 28 and November 28, 2012,
and January 31, 2013, by Local 24, Unite HERE!, AFL–
CIO (the Union), the Acting General Counsel issued the
consolidated complaint and compliance specification on
February 28, 2013, alleging that Park Avenue Invest-
ments, LLC (Respondent Park), and Hotel Management
Advisors–Troy, LLC d/b/a the Metropolitan Group and
the Metro Hotel–Troy (Respondent Hotel Management)
(collectively, the Respondents) have violated Section
8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the Act. The Respondents failed
to file an answer.
On April 23, 2013, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereaf-
ter, on May 1, 2013, the Board issued an order transfer-
ring the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show
Cause why the motion should not be granted. The Re-
spondents filed no response. The allegations in the mo-
tion are therefore undisputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in a complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. Similarly, Section 102.56 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations provides that the allegations in a com-
pliance specification will be taken as true if an answer is
not filed within 21 days from service of the compliance
specification. In addition, the consolidated complaint
and compliance specification affirmatively stated that
unless an answer was received by March 21, 2013, the
Board may find, pursuant to a motion for default judg-
ment, that the allegations in the consolidated complaint
and compliance specification are true. Further, the un-
disputed allegations in the Acting General Counsel’s
motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated March
25, 2013, notified the Respondents that unless an answer
was received by April 4, 2013, a motion for default
judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure to file an answer, we deem the allegations in the con-
solidated complaint and compliance specification to be
admitted as true, and we grant the Acting General Coun-
sel’s Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Park, a Delaware
company with an office and place of business in Troy,
Michigan, has been engaged in the operation of a hotel
providing food and lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Hotel Management,
a Delaware company with an office and place of business
in Troy, Michigan, has been engaged in the operation of
a hotel providing food and lodging.
During calendar year 2012, a representative period, the
Respondents, in conducting their business operations
described above, collectively derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at their
Troy facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
other enterprises in the State of Michigan, including
Consumers Energy, which other enterprises received
these goods directly from points outside the State of
Michigan.
We find that the Respondents are employers engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At all material times, the Respondents have been af-
filiated business enterprises with common officers, own-
ership, directors, management, and supervision; have
formulated and administered a common labor policy;
have shared common premises and facilities; have pro-
vided services for each other; have interchanged person-
nel with each other; have engaged in common purchas-
ing; and have held themselves out to the public as a sin-
gle-integrated business enterprise.
Based on their operations described above, the Re-
spondents constitute a single-integrated business enter-
prise and a single employer within the meaning of the
Act.
At all material times, the Respondents have had sub-
stantially identical management, business purposes, op-
erations, equipment, purchases, premises, facilities, cus-
tomers, and supervision, as well as ownership.
2 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Based on the operations and conduct described above,
the Respondents are, and have been at all material times,
alter egos within the meaning of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
At all material times, the following individuals held
the positions set forth opposite their respective names
and have been supervisors of the Respondents within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondents within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Remo Polselli – Owner & Managing Partner
Hanna Karcho – Partner
Michael Wi-
toszynski
– General Manager
Robert Soto – Front Desk Manager
Carmen Davis – Housekeeping Supervisor (until
about August or September 2012)
Precious Jordan – Housekeeping Supervisor (from
about August or September 2012
until about December 2012)
The following employees of the Respondents (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
Line Cook, Banquet Cook, Garden Manager, Stew-
ard/Utility, Bartender, Banquet Bartender, Banquet Bar
Porter, Housekeeping Attendant, Laundry, House-
person, Restaurant Server, Room Service Server,
Host/Hostess/Cashier, Banquet Houseperson, Banquet
Cashier/Coat Check, Coffee Break Attendant, Banquet
Server, Guest Service Associate/Bell Person, and Guest
Service Associate/Night Auditor employed by Respon-
dents at their Troy, Michigan facility; but excluding
managerial, supervisory, maintenance, sales, adminis-
trative, accounting, security, and confidential employ-
ees, and all other personnel.
At all material times, the Respondents have recognized
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit. This recognition has been embod-
ied in a collective-bargaining agreement which was ef-
fective for the period of February 1, 2008 through Janu-
ary 31, 2011, and assumed by the Respondents on Octo-
ber 21, 2009.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
At all material times, the Respondents and the Union
have maintained in effect and enforced the collective-
bargaining agreement covering wages, hours, and others
terms and conditions of employment of the unit.
Additionally, the following events took place:
1. On about August 6, 2012, the Union filed a griev-
ance on behalf of Krystyna Koskiewicz challenging the
Respondents’ failure to offer her overtime hours in ac-
cordance with the terms of the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement.
2. The grievance described above relates to the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement.
3. On about August 15, 2012, the Respondents, by
their agent, Carmen Davis, interfered with employee
union activities by advising an employee that she was
being sent home because she had filed a grievance.
4. On about August 15, 2012, the Respondents sent
employee Koskiewicz home from work shortly after the
start of her shift.
5. In about mid to late August 2012, the Respondents,
by their agent, Carmen Davis, impliedly threatened an
employee by stating that employee work schedules were
changed because of a grievance filed by another em-
ployee.
6. Since about August 17, 2012, the Respondents re-
duced the work hours of their employees Krystyna Kos-
kiewicz and Linda Kellam.
7. The Respondents engaged in the conduct described
in paragraphs 4 and 6 because Koskiewicz engaged in the
activity described in paragraph 1, and to discourage em-
ployees from engaging in these or other concerted activi-
ties.
8. Since about August 2012, the Respondents denied
vacation and other leave requests made by Koskiewicz
and Kellam, causing Koskiewicz to lose four (4) vacation
days.
9. On about September 27, 2012, the Respondents
discharged Koskiewicz.
10. On about September 29, 2012, the Respondents
reinstated Koskiewicz.
11. The Respondents engaged in the conduct de-
scribed in paragraphs 4, 6, 8, and 9 because Koskiewicz
and Kellam engaged in union activities, and to discour-
age employees from engaging in these activities.
12. Since about August 17, 2012, the Respondents
unilaterally changed their manner of scheduling employ-
ees, and unilaterally disregarded seniority with respect to
the scheduling and workdays of its unit employees.
13. Since about September 2012, the Respondents
have unilaterally changed their policy regarding the use
of their Respondent-owned equipment, by requiring unit
3
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC
employees to submit a drivers’ license or other personal
item in exchange for use of the Respondents’ radios.
14. The subjects set forth in paragraphs 12 and 13 re-
late to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment of the unit and are mandatory subjects for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
15. The Respondents engaged in the conduct set forth
in paragraphs 12 and 13 without prior notice to the Un-
ion, and without affording the Union an opportunity to
bargain with the Respondents with respect to this con-
duct and the effects of this conduct.
16. The Respondents took the action described in
paragraph 9, in part, in reliance on its unilaterally im-
plemented policy pertaining to the Respondent-owned
equipment.
17. On various dates, the Union requested information
from the Respondents related to the scheduling and hours
worked by unit employees, including:
(a) On about August 27, 2012, the Union requested
from the Respondents, in writing, a copy of em-
ployee work schedules for the month of August
2012.
(b) On about September 11, 2012, the Union re-
quested from the Respondents, in writing, a copy
of ADP reports from April 1, 2012, through Au-
gust 31, 2012, and, inter alia, a copy of employee
schedules for September 2012.
18. The information requested by the Union, is neces-
sary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit.
19. Since about August 27, 2012, the Respondents
have failed and refused to furnish the Union with the
information requested by the Union.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By the conduct described in paragraphs 3 and 5, the
Respondents have been interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. By the conduct described in paragraphs 4, 6, 8, and
9, the Respondents have been discriminating in regard to
the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment
of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a
labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
3. By the conduct described in paragraphs 9, 12, 13,
15, 16, and 19, the Respondents have been failing and
refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices of the Respondents affect
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents 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. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondents have violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by: sending Krystyna Koskiewicz
home from work shortly after the start of her shift; reduc-
ing the work hours of Koskiewicz and Linda Kellam;
denying requests for vacation and other leave made by
Koskiewicz and Kellam resulting in the loss of paid va-
cation days for Koskiewicz; and discharging Koskiewicz,
all because Koskiewicz and Kellam engaged in union
activities and to discourage employees from engaging in
these activities, we shall order the Respondents to re-
scind these discriminatory actions.1 In addition, we shall
order the Respondents to make whole Koskiewicz and
Kellam for any loss of earnings or other benefits suffered
as a result of the Respondents’ unlawful actions against
them by paying them the amounts set forth in attach-
ments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to this decision, plus interest accrued
to the date of payment as set forth in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), and minus tax withholdings
required by Federal and State laws.2
Additionally, in accordance with our recent decision in
Latino Express, 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012), we shall order
the Respondents to compensate Koskiewicz and Kellam
for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a
lump-sum backpay award and to file a report with the
Social Security Administration allocating the backpay
award to the appropriate calendar quarters for Kos-
kiewicz and Kellam.
Further, the Respondents shall be required to remove
from their files all references to the unlawful discipline
and discharge of Koskiewicz and the unlawful reduction

1 The consolidated complaint and compliance specification further
alleges, and we find, that Koskiewicz’ discharge also violated Sec.
8(a)(5) and (1) and that the Respondents have reinstated Koskiewicz.
2 The compliance specification indicates that the amounts set forth in
attachment 4 do not include any overtime hours to which Koskiewicz
and/or Kellam may be entitled. The compliance specification also indi-
cates that backpay due as a result of the unilateral changes concerning
the manner of scheduling employees and disregarding seniority with
respect to the scheduling and workdays of unit employees continues to
accrue until those unfair labor practices are remedied.
4 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in work hours and denial of vacation and other leave of
Koskiewicz and Kellam. The Respondents shall notify
Koskiewicz and Kellam in writing that this has been
done and that the unlawful references will not be used
against them in any way.
Having further found that the Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing the man-
ner of scheduling employees and disregarding seniority
with respect to the scheduling and workdays of unit em-
ployees and by unilaterally changing the policy regarding
the use of Respondent-owned equipment by requiring
unit employees to submit a driver’s license or other per-
sonal item in exchange for use of the Respondents’ ra-
dios—all without prior notice to the Union and without
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with the
Respondents with respect to this conduct and the effects
of this conduct, including the discharge of Koskiewicz—
we shall order the Respondents to rescind these unlawful
actions. As noted above, we shall order the Respondents
to make Koskiewicz whole for any losses suffered as a
result of her unlawful discharge by paying her the
amount set forth in attachment 2 to this decision, plus
interest accrued to the day of payment as set forth in New
Horizons for the Retarded, supra, compounded daily as
prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, supra, and
minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State
laws.
Finally, having found that the Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with certain requested information that is rele-
vant and necessary to its role as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees, we shall
order the Respondent to furnish the Union with the in-
formation it requested on August 27 and September 11,
2012.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents, Park Avenue Investments, LLC, and Hotel
Management Advisors–Troy, LLC d/b/a The Metropoli-
tan Group and The Metro Hotel–Troy, Troy, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with employee union activities by advis-
ing employees that they were being sent home because
they had filed a grievance.
(b) Sending employees home from work shortly after
the start of their shift because they engage in union ac-
tivities, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these or other concerted activities.
(c) Impliedly threatening employees by stating that
their work schedules were changed because of a griev-
ance filed by another employee.
(d) Reducing the work hours of employees because
they engage in union activities, and to discourage em-
ployees from engaging in these or other concerted activi-
ties.
(e) Denying vacation and other leave requests made by
employees because they engage in union activities, and
to discourage employees from engaging in these or other
concerted activities.
(f) Discharging employees because they engage in un-
ion activities, and to discourage employees from engag-
ing in these or other concerted activities.
(g) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 24, Unite HERE!, AFL–CIO as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit by unilaterally
changing the manner of scheduling employees and uni-
laterally disregarding seniority with respect to the sched-
uling of unit employees; and by unilaterally changing the
policy regarding the use of Respondent-owned equip-
ment by requiring unit employees to submit a drivers’
license or other personal item in exchange for use of the
Respondents’ radios without prior notice to the Union,
and without affording the Union an opportunity to bar-
gain with the Respondents with respect to this conduct
and the effects of this conduct. The unit is:
Line Cook, Banquet Cook, Garden Manager, Stew-
ard/Utility, Bartender, Banquet Bartender, Banquet Bar
Porter, Housekeeping Attendant, Laundry, House-
person, Restaurant Server, Room Service Server,
Host/Hostess/Cashier, Banquet Houseperson, Banquet
Cashier/Coat Check, Coffee Break Attendant, Banquet
Server, Guest Service Associate/Bell Person, and Guest
Service Associate/Night Auditor employed by Respon-
dents at their Troy, Michigan facility; but excluding
managerial, supervisory, maintenance, sales, adminis-
trative, accounting, security, and confidential employ-
ees, and all other personnel.
(h) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with re-
quested information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees.
(i) 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) Make Krystyna Koskiewicz and Linda Kellam
whole for any loss of earnings and benefits suffered as a
result of the Respondents unlawful conduct, as set forth
in attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to this decision, plus interest
accrued to the date of payment, and minus tax withhold-
5
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC
ings required by Federal and State laws, as set forth in
the remedy section of this decision.3 The total backpay
amount due is: $7122.32.
(b) Reimburse Koskiewicz and Kellam an amount
equal to the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a
lump-sum backpay payment and taxes that would have
been owed had there been no discrimination against
them.
(c) Submit the appropriate documentation to the Social
Security Administration allocating the backpay awards to
the appropriate calendar quarters for Koskiewicz and
Kellam.
(d) Rescind the discipline/discharge notice issued to
Koskiewicz and the unlawful reduction in work hours
and denial of vacation and other leave imposed on Kos-
kiewicz and Kellam.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any references to the unlawful discipline
and discharge of Koskiewicz and the unlawful reduction
in work hours and denial of vacation and other leave of
Koskiewicz and Kellam and within 3 days thereafter,
notify each of them in writing that this has been done and
that the Respondents’ unlawful conduct will not be used
against them in any way.
(f) Rescind the unilateral changes concerning the man-
ner of scheduling employees and disregarding seniority
with respect to the scheduling and workdays of unit em-
ployees.
(g) Rescind the unilateral changes to the policy regard-
ing the use of the Respondent-owned equipment.
(h) Furnish the Union with the information it requested
on August 27 and September 11, 2012.
(i) 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 re-
cords 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.
(j) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Troy, Michigan, copies of the attached no-

3 The compliance specification indicates that the amounts set forth in
attachment 4 do not include overtime hours which Koskiewicz and/or
Kellam may be entitled to. The compliance specification also indicates
that backpay due as a result of the unilateral changes concerning the
manner of scheduling employees and disregarding seniority with re-
spect to the scheduling and workdays of unit employees continues to
accrue until those unfair labor practices are remedied.
tice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or
other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Rea-
sonable 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 pend-
ency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out
of business or closed the facility involved in these pro-
ceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employ-
ees and former employees employed by the Respondent
at any time since August 2012.
(k) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 13, 2013
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
______________________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

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 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.”
6 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 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 interfere with employee union activities
by advising employees that they were being sent home
because they had filed a grievance.
WE WILL NOT send employees home from work shortly
after the start of their shift because they engage in union
activities, and to discourage employees from engaging in
these or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT impliedly threaten employees by stating
that their schedules were changed because of a grievance
filed by another employee.
WE WILL NOT reduce the work hours of employees be-
cause they engage in union activities, and to discourage
employees from engaging in these or other concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT deny vacation and other leave requests
made by employees because they engage in union activi-
ties, and to discourage employees from engaging in these
or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they en-
gage in union activities, and to discourage employees
from engaging in these or other concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively
and in good faith with Local 24, Unite HERE!, AFL–
CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following appropriate unit
by unilaterally changing the manner of scheduling em-
ployees and unilaterally disregarding seniority with re-
spect to the scheduling of unit employees; and by unilat-
erally changing the policy regarding the use of Em-
ployer-owned equipment by requiring unit employees to
submit a drivers’ license or other personal item in ex-
change for use of the Respondents’ radios, all without
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Un-
ion an opportunity to bargain with us with respect to this
conduct and the effects of this conduct. The unit is:
Line Cook, Banquet Cook, Garden Manager, Stew-
ard/Utility, Bartender, Banquet Bartender, Banquet Bar
Porter, Housekeeping Attendant, Laundry, House-
person, Restaurant Server, Room Service Server,
Host/Hostess/Cashier, Banquet Houseperson, Banquet
Cashier/Coat Check, Coffee Break Attendant, Banquet
Server, Guest Service Associate/Bell Person, and Guest
Service Associate/Night Auditor employed by Respon-
dents at their Troy, Michigan facility; but excluding
managerial, supervisory, maintenance, sales, adminis-
trative, accounting, security, and confidential employ-
ees, and all other personnel.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
requested information that is relevant and necessary to its
role as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees.
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 make Krystyna Koskiewicz and Linda
Kellam whole for any loss of earnings and benefits suf-
fered as a result of our unlawful actions, by paying them
the amount set forth in the Board’s Order, plus interest
accrued to the date of payment, and minus tax withhold-
ing required by Federal and State laws.
WE WILL reimburse Koskiewicz and Kellam an amount
equal to the differences in taxes owed upon receipt of a
lump-sum backpay payment and taxes that would have
been owed had there been no discrimination against
them.
WE WILL submit the appropriate documentation to the
Social Security Administration allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar quarters for Kos-
kiewicz and Kellam.
WE WILL rescind the discipline/discharge notice issued
to Koskiewicz and the unlawful reduction in work hours
and denial of vacation and other leave imposed on Kos-
kiewicz and Kellam.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any references to the
unlawful discipline and discharge of Koskiewicz and the
unlawful reduction in work hours and denial of vacation
and other leave requested by Koskiewicz and Kellam,
and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify Koskiewicz
and Kellam in writing that this has been done and that
the unlawful conduct will not be used against them in
any way.
WE WILL rescind the unilateral changes concerning the
manner of scheduling employees and disregarding sen-
7
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC
iority with respect to the scheduling and workdays of
unit employees.
WE WILL rescind the unilateral changes to the policy
regarding the use of our equipment.
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested on August 27 and September 11, 2012.
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND HOTEL
MANAGEMENT ADVISORS–TROY, LLC D/B/A
THE METROPOLITAN GROUP AND THE METRO
HOTEL–TROY
8 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9
PARK AVENUE INVESTMENTS, LLC