Quantum Hotels, LLC; Metropolitan Lodging, LLC; and Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC; alter egos, d/b

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 2013

359 NLRB No. 132 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

359 NLRB No. 132
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.
Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC,
and Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter
egos d/b/a The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus and
Local 24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO. Case 07–
CA–090429
June 11, 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 Respondent has with-
drawn its answer to the consolidated complaint and com-
pliance specification. Upon a charge, first, second, and
third amended charges filed by Local 24, UNITE
HERE!, AFL–CIO (the Union) on October 1 and 16,
December 11, and December 28, 2012, respectively, the
Acting General Counsel issued a complaint, compliance
specification, and order consolidating complaint and
compliance specification on January 31, 2013, against
Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodging, LLC, and
Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter egos d/b/a
The Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus (collectively, the Re-
spondent) alleging that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. On March 5, 2013, the Respondent filed sep-
arate answers to the complaint and compliance specifica-
tion. However, on April 15, 2013, the Respondent with-
drew its answers to the complaint and compliance speci-
fication.
On April 16, 2013, the Acting General Counsel filed a
Motion for Default Judgment with the Board. Thereaf-
ter, on April 18, 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-
spondent filed a response on April 22, 2013, stating that
it “agrees that it has withdrawn its answer to the Consol-
idated Complaint and the Compliance Specification. The
Respondent further states the General Counsel’s Motion
should be granted.” The allegations in the motion 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 with 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 February 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. Although the Re-
spondent filed answers to the complaint and to the com-
pliance specification on March 5, 2013, it subsequently
withdrew its answers. The withdrawal of an answer has
the same effect as a failure to file an answer, i.e., the al-
legations in the consolidated complaint and compliance
specification must be considered to be admitted as true.1
Accordingly, we grant the Acting General Counsel’s
Motion for Default Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, Respondent Quantum Hotels,
LLC (Respondent Quantum) has been a limited liability
company with an office and place of business in Romu-
lus, Michigan, and has been engaged in the operation of
the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, providing food and
lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, LLC (Respondent Metropolitan Lodging) has been a
limited liability company, with an office and place of
business in Romulus, Michigan, and has been engaged in
the operation of the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus,
providing food and lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Wick Road Hotel
Management, LLC (Respondent Wick Road) has been a
limited liability company, with an office and place of
business in Romulus, Michigan, and has been engaged in
the operation of the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus,
providing food and lodging.
At all material times, Respondent Quantum, Respond-
ent Metropolitan Lodging, and Respondent Wick Road
have had substantially identical management, business
purposes, operations, equipment, customers, supervision,
and ownership.
About mid to late 2011, Respondent Metropolitan
Lodging was established by Respondent Quantum as a
continuation of Respondent Quantum.
About June 9, 2011, Respondent Wick Road was es-
tablished by Respondent Quantum and Respondent Met-
ropolitan Lodging as a continuation of Respondent
Quantum and Respondent Metropolitan Lodging.

1 See Maislin Transport, 274 NLRB 529, 529 (1985).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Based on the operations and conduct described above,
Respondent Quantum, Respondent Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, and Respondent Wick Road (collectively, the Re-
spondent) are, and have been at all material times, alter
egos within the meaning of the Act.
During calendar year 2012, a representative period, the
Respondent, in conducting its business operations de-
scribed above, derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and purchased and received at the Romulus
facility goods and supplies valued in excess of $50,000
from other enterprises in the State of Michigan, including
DTE Energy, which other enterprises received these
goods and supplies directly from points outside the State
of Michigan.
We find that the Respondent is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
We find that the Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) 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 Respondent within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of the
Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the
Act:
Remo Polselli Organizer and Managing Member
Larry Hodge General Manager
At all material times, Kevin Stubbings has been an
agent of the Respondent within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
The following employees of the Respondent (the unit)
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Cocktail Servers, Baristas,
Banquet House Persons, Lead Front Office Agent,
Front Office Agent, Auditor, Driver/Guest Service At-
tendant, and Maintenance employees; employed by
Respondent at its Romulus facility; but excluding man-
agers, supervisors, confidential employees, and guards,
as defined by the Act.
At all material times, the Respondent has 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 October 1, 2008, through Sep-
tember 30, 2011.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
On August 23, 2012, the Respondent closed its Romu-
lus facility. Since August 23, 2012, the Respondent,
pursuant to closing its Romulus facility, failed to pay
employees accrued vacation; failed to pay employees
accrued personal days; failed to pay employees 3 days’
wages in lieu of proper layoff notification; and used
nonunit workers to perform housekeeping/cleaning work
typically performed by unit employees.
The subjects set forth above relate to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the unit and
are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above since August 23, 2012, without prior notice to the
Union and without providing the Union an opportunity to
bargain with the Respondent with respect to this conduct
and the effects of this conduct.2
By letter dated December 3, 2012, the Respondent by-
passed the Union and dealt directly with the employees
in the unit by requesting, among other things, that they
enter into an agreement that could waive their rights to
matters pending before the Board.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has been failing and refusing to bargain collec-
tively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, and has thereby

2 The consolidated complaint and compliance specification alleges
that the Respondent violated the Act by failing to bargain over its deci-
sion to close its Romulus facility. Although the consolidated complaint
and compliance specification alleges that this decision was a mandatory
subject of bargaining, we find that the allegations of the consolidated
complaint and compliance specification do not support a cause of ac-
tion given the Supreme Court’s decision in First National Maintenance
Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981). Accordingly, we shall deny the
motion for default judgment with respect to this allegation and remand
it for further appropriate action. Nothing herein will require a hearing
if, in the event of the amendment to the consolidated complaint and
compliance specification, the Respondent again fails to answer, thereby
admitting evidence that would permit the Board to find the alleged
violation. In such circumstances, the Acting General Counsel may
renew the motion for default judgment with respect to the amended
complaint allegation. See Nick & Bob Partners, 340 NLRB 1196, 1198
fn. 2 (2003).
METROPOLITAN HOTEL, ROMULUS 3
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by repudiating the terms and condi-
tions of the collective-bargaining agreement by, inter
alia, failing and refusing since about August 23, 2012, to
pay employees accrued vacation, accrued personal days,
and 3 days’ wages in lieu of proper layoff notification,
and by using nonunit workers to perform housekeep-
ing/cleaning work typically performed by unit employ-
ees, we shall order the Respondent to make the unit em-
ployees whole by paying them the amounts set forth in
the compliance specification, plus interest accrued to the
date of payment at the rate prescribed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1171 (1987), compounded
daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center,
356 NLRB No. 8 (2010), and minus tax withholding re-
quired by Federal and State laws.
To remedy the Respondent’s unlawful failure to bar-
gain with the Union about the effects of its decision to
close its facility, we shall order the Respondent to bar-
gain with the Union, on request, about the effects of that
decision. As a result of the Respondent’s unlawful con-
duct, however, the unit employees have been denied an
opportunity to bargain through their collective-
bargaining representative at a time when the Respondent
might still have been in need of their services and a
measure of balanced bargaining power existed. Mean-
ingful bargaining cannot be assured until some measure
of economic strength is restored to the Union. A bar-
gaining order alone, therefore, cannot serve as an ade-
quate remedy for the unfair labor practices committed.
Accordingly, we deem it necessary, in order both to
ensure that meaningful bargaining occurs and to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act, to accompany our bargaining
order with a limited backpay requirement designed to
make whole the unit employees for losses suffered as a
result of the violations and to recreate in some practica-
ble manner a situation in which the parties’ bargaining
position is not entirely devoid of economic consequences
for the Respondent. We shall do so by ordering the Re-
spondent to pay backpay to the unit employees in a man-
ner similar to that required in Transmarine Navigation
Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968), as clarified in Melody
Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998).
Pursuant to Transmarine, the Respondent typically
would be required to pay its unit employees backpay at
the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respond-
ent’s employ from 5 days after the date of this Decision
and Order until the occurrence of the earliest of the fol-
lowing conditions: (1) the date the Respondent bargains
to agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining
to the effects on the unit employees of its decision to
close its Romulus facility; (2) a bona fide impasse in
bargaining; (3) the Union’s failure to request bargaining
within 5 business days after receipt of this Decision and
Order, or to commence negotiations within 5 business
days after receipt of the Respondent’s notice of its desire
to bargain with the Union; or (4) the Union’s subsequent
failure to bargain in good faith.
Transmarine provides that the sum paid to these em-
ployees may not exceed the amount they would have
earned as wages from the date on which the Respondent
closed its Romulus, Michigan facility to the time they
secured equivalent employment elsewhere, or the date on
which the Respondent shall have offered to bargain in
good faith, whichever occurs sooner. However, Trans-
marine further provides that in no event shall this sum be
less than the unit employees would have earned for a 2-
week period at the rate of their normal wages when last
in the Respondent’s employ. Backpay is typically based
on earnings that the unit employees would normally have
received during the applicable period, less any net inter-
im earnings, and is computed in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as
prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, supra,
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, supra.
Here, in the circumstances of the Respondent’s cessa-
tion of operations, the Acting General Counsel in the
consolidated complaint and compliance specification
seeks only the minimum 2 weeks of backpay due the unit
employees under Transmarine. Attachments 1 through 6
of the consolidated complaint and compliance specifica-
tion set forth the amount due each employee. We shall
grant the Acting General Counsel’s request and order the
Respondent to pay those amounts to the discriminatees,
plus interest accrued to the date of payment.3
Additionally, in accordance with our recent decision in
Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012), we shall
order the Respondent to compensate the unit employees
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

3 Attachment 5 to the consolidated complaint and compliance speci-
fication indicates that in addition to the summary of amounts due in
attachment 6, set forth below, the amount the Respondent owes for
dates nonunit employees worked is $297.92. Accordingly, we have
added this amount to the total amount due.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
award to the appropriate calendar quarters for unit em-
ployees.
Further, we shall order the Respondent to rescind the
December 3, 2012 letter sent to the unit employees and
advise them in writing of such rescission and that the
Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit.
Finally, in view of the fact that the Respondent has
closed its Romulus, Michigan facility, we shall order the
Respondent to mail a copy of the attached notice to the
Union and to the last known addresses of the unit em-
ployees who were employed by the Respondent at any
time since August 23, 2012, in order to inform them of
the outcome of this proceeding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Quantum Hotels, LLC, Metropolitan Lodg-
ing, LLC, Wick Road Hotel Management, LLC, alter
egos d/b/a the Metropolitan Hotel, Romulus, Romulus,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in
good faith with Local 24, UNITE HERE!, AFL–CIO (the
Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the following bargaining unit by
failing to bargain with the Union over the effects of the
Respondent’s decision to close its Romulus, Michigan
facility:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Cocktail Servers, Baristas,
Banquet House Persons, Lead Front Office Agent,
Front Office Agent, Auditor, Driver/Guest Service At-
tendant, and Maintenance employees; employed by
Respondent at its Romulus facility; but excluding man-
agers, supervisors, confidential employees, and guards,
as defined by the Act.
(b) Failing to pay unit employees their accrued vaca-
tion, personal days, and 3 days’ wages in lieu of proper
layoff notification and using nonunit workers to perform
housekeeping/cleaning work typically performed by unit
employees.
(c) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit
employees by requesting that employees enter into an
agreement that could waive their rights to matters pend-
ing before the Board.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain collectively and in good faith
with the Union concerning the effects of the Respond-
ent’s decision to close its Romulus, Michigan facility and
reduce to writing and sign any agreement reached as a
result of such bargaining.
(b) Pay the unit employees their normal wages for the
period set forth in the remedy section of this decision,
with interest.
(c) Make the unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of its fail-
ure to pay employees accrued vacation, accrued personal
days, and 3 days’ wages in lieu of proper layoff notifica-
tion, and for using nonunit workers to perform house-
keeping/cleaning work typically performed by unit em-
ployees since August 23, 2012, and for its failure to bar-
gain with the Union concerning the effects on unit em-
ployees of its decision to close its Romulus, Michigan
facility, by paying the individuals named below the
amounts following their names, as well as by paying the
amount owed for dates worked by nonunit employees,
plus interest accrued to the date 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:
NAME
VACA-
TION
PAY
PERSO-
NAL
PAY
THREE
DAYS’
WAGES
TRANS-
MARINE
WAGES TOTAL
Mike
Brylinksky $1,278.00 $429.10 $257.46 $ 852.00 $ 2,816.56
Gloria
Chapman 744.80 335.16 223.44 744.80 2,048.20
Gregory
Chappell 874.40 349.76 262.32 874.40 2,360.88
Deeshawn
Clifton 1,117.20 372.40 223.44 744.80 2,457.84
Kimethia
Cummings 186.20 0 111.72 372.40 670.32
Sharonda
Davis 186.20 93.10 111.72 372.40 763.42
Earl Denny 916.80 412.56 275.04 916.80 2,521.20
Bob
Ellingson 1,435.20 478.40 287.04 956.80 3,157.44
Alicia
Farmer 744.80 335.16 223.44 744.80 2,048.20
Robert
Gutkowski 752.00 338.40 225.60 752.00 2,068.00
Latina Green 760.00 342.00 228.00 760.00 2,090.00
METROPOLITAN HOTEL, ROMULUS 5
Jeanen
Hancock 279.30 93.10 111.72 374.40 858.52
Sheila Hayes
101.60 0 121.92 406.40 629.92
Kathie
Henderson 1,540.80 513.60 308.16 1,027.20 3,389.76
Brenda
Hubbart 1,177.20 392.40 235.44 784.80 2,589.84
Margaret
Kretschman 1,320.00 127.90 153.48 516.00 2,117.38
Matthew
Krzesniak 1,100.40 366.80 220.08 733.60 2,420.88
Otis McFad-
den 188.00 94.00 112.80 376.00 770.80
Sandra
Milan 1,117.20 372.40 223.44 744.80 2,457.84
Nicole
Mosley 279.30 93.10 111.72 372.40 856.52
Lynn
Muller 252.00 138.00 165.60 552.00 1,107.60
Brandi
Nellems 372.40 93.10 111.72 372.40 949.62
Javier
Pittman 760.00 342.00 228.00 760.00 2,090.00
Dave Prince 752.00 338.40 225.60 752.00 2,068.00
Mark Rinn 1,512.00 400.20 240.12 804.00 2,956.32
Monique
Robinson-
Scott 186.20 0 111.72 372.40 670.32
Victoria
Skyles 1,117.20 372.40 223.44 744.80 2,457.84
Shawn
Smith 327.90 109.30 131.16 437.20 1,005.56
Marty
Stafford 880.00 125.10 150.12 500.40 1,655.62
Solomon
Wise 1,188.00 396.00 237.60 792.00 2,613.60
TOTAL $56.668.00
Nonunit
Employee
Work $ 297.92
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DUE
$56,965.92
(d) Rescind the December 3, 2012 letter sent to the
unit employees and advise them in writing of this rescis-
sion and that the Union is the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
(e) Compensate the unit employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and file a report with the Social Security Admin-
istration allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate
calendar quarters for each unit employee.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix”
4
to the Union
and to all unit employees who were employed by the
Respondent at the time that it closed its facility on Au-
gust 23, 2012.
(h) 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 the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 11, 2013
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
______________________________________
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
______________________________________
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) 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
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed By Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
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 representative
of our unit employees set forth below by failing to bar-
gain with the Union over the effects of our decision to
cease operations of our Romulus, Michigan facility:
Cooks, Pantry Employees, Utility/Stewards, Bar Por-
ters, Banquet Bartenders, Regular Banquet Servers,
Banquet Servers, Banquet Bartenders, Dining
Room/Bar Personnel, Coffee Break Servers, Lead
Room Attendants, Room Attendants, House Persons,
General Clean-up Attendants, Laundry/Valet employ-
ees, Inspectors, Servers, Room Service Servers, Bus
Attendants, Hosts/Cashiers, Cocktail Servers, Baristas,
Banquet House Persons, Lead Front Office Agent,
Front Office Agent, Auditor, Driver/Guest Service At-
tendant, and Maintenance employees; employed by us
at our Romulus facility; but excluding managers, su-
pervisors, confidential employees, and guards, as de-
fined by the Act.
WE WILL NOT fail to pay employees’ accrued vacation,
personal days, and 3 days’ wages in lieu of proper layoff
notification, and WE WILL NOT use nonunit workers to
perform housekeeping/cleaning work typically per-
formed by unit employees.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal directly with
unit employees by requesting that employees enter into
an agreement that could waive their rights to matters
pending before the Board
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively and in good
faith with the Union concerning the effects on our unit
employees of our decision to close our Romulus, Michi-
gan facility on August 23, 2012, and reduce to writing
and sign any agreement reached as a result of such bar-
gaining.
WE WILL make our unit employees whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our
failure to pay accrued vacation, accrued personal days,
and 3 days’ wages in lieu of proper layoff notification
and as a result of our using nonunit workers to perform
housekeeping/cleaning work typically performed by unit
employees, and for our failure to bargain with the Union
concerning the effects on unit employees of our decision
to close our Romulus, Michigan facility, by paying them
the amounts specified in the Board’s Order, as well as by
paying the amount owed for dates worked by nonunit
employees, plus interest accrued to the date of payment,
minus tax withholdings required by Federal and State
laws.
WE WILL rescind the December 3, 2012 letter sent to
unit employees and advise them in writing of this rescis-
sion and that the Union is the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
WE WILL compensate our unit employees for the ad-
verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum
backpay awards, and WE WILL file a report with the So-
cial Security Administration allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar quarters for each unit
employee.
QUANTUM HOTELS, LLC, METROPOLITAN
LODGING, LLC, WICK ROAD HOTEL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, ALTER EGOS D/B/A THE
METROPOLITAN HOTEL, ROMULUS