St. Regis Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 2003

339 N.L.R.B. 143 (N.L.R.B. 2003)

ST. REGIS HOTEL 143
Pastelle Company, Inc., d/b/a St. Regis Hotel and Lo-
cal 24, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em-
ployees International Union, AFL–CIO. Case 7–
CA–45206
May 30, 2003
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS WALSH AND
ACOSTA
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment1 in this
case on the ground that the Respondent has failed to file
an answer to the complaint. Based on a charge and
amended charges filed by the Union on June 13, July 1,
August 29, and September 30, 2002, the General Counsel
issued the complaint on September 30, 2002, against
Pastelle Company, Inc., d/b/a St. Regis Hotel, the
Respondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act. The Respondent failed to file an
answer.
On December 11, 2002, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On De-
cember 12, 2002, the Board issued an order transferring
the proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted. The Respondent
filed no response. The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is
shown. In addition, the complaint affirmatively notes
that unless an answer is filed within 14 days of service,
all the allegations in the complaint will be considered
admitted. Further, the undisputed allegations in the Gen-
eral Counsel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter
dated October 17, 2002, notified the Respondent that
unless an answer were received by October 31, 2002, a
Motion for Default judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the
failure to file a timely answer, we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for default Judgment.2

1 The General Counsel’s motion requests summary judgment on the
ground that the Respondent has failed to file an answer to the com-
plaint. Accordingly, we construe the General Counsel’s motion as a
Motion for Default Judgment.
2 The General Counsel’s motion indicates that the Respondent has
filed a petition for bankruptcy. It is well established that the institution
of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction or
authority to entertain and process an unfair labor practice case to its
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
has maintained a facility in Detroit, Michigan (the Re-
spondent’s Detroit facility). The Respondent has been
engaged in the operation of a hotel.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 2001,
the Respondent, in conducting its business operations,
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and re-
ceived at its Detroit facility products valued in excess of
$50,000, which were shipped directly from points lo-
cated 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 and
that Local 24, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employ-
ees International Union, AFL–CIO, 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 below opposite their 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:

David Steele President
Tom Wilkerson Controller
Joyce Martin Dining Room Manager

The employees set forth in appendix A through F of
the collective-bargaining agreement described below (the
unit), constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
Since at least the 1970’s and at all material times, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit and has been so recognized by the
Respondent. This recognition has been embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent
of which is effective from January 1, 2001, to December
31, 2002.

final disposition. See, e.g., Cardinal Services, 295 NLRB 933 fn. 2
(1989), and cases cited there. Board proceedings fall within the excep-
tion to the automatic stay provisions for proceedings by a governmental
unit to enforce its police or regulatory powers. See id. NLRB v. 15th
Avenue Iron Works, Inc., 964 F.2d 1336, 1337 (2d Cir. 1992). Accord:
Aherns Aircraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 703 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1983).
339 NLRB No. 25
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 144
At all times since the 1970s, based on Section 9(a) of
the Act, the Union has been the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit.
About January 2002, the Respondent, by its agent,
David Steele, at the Respondent’s Detroit facility, threat-
ened employees with discharge if they filed grievances.
On about July 5, 2002, the Respondent discharged
John Porteus, its employee. The Respondent engaged in
this conduct because of its employees’ union activities
and to prevent other employees from engaging in these
and other concerted activities.
Since about late December 2001, and continuing to
date, the Respondent repudiated the following provisions
of the collective-bargaining agreement:
(a) In about late December 2001, the provisions relat-
ing to paying moneys to the Hotel Employees and Res-
taurant Employees International Union Pension Fund and
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union
Welfare Plan.
(b) In about January 2002, the provisions relating to
paying for employee and dependent medical insurance.
(c) In about April 2002, the provisions relating to gra-
tuities paid to banquet employees when no banquet cap-
tain works, gratuities for serving additional customers,
and bar gratuities.
These subjects relate to wages, hours, and other terms
and conditions of employment of the unit and are manda-
tory subjects for the purpose of collective bargaining.
On about May 29 and 30, and June 3, 2002, the Union
requested that the Respondent furnish it with information
relating to whether the Respondent was complying with
the collective-bargaining agreement and other matters
important to the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit. In addition, on
about July 9, 2002, the Union requested that the Respon-
dent furnish it with information relating to the discharge
of unit employee John Porteus. The information re-
quested by the Union is necessary for and relevant to the
Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the unit.
The Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the
Union with the information it requested.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By threatening employees with discharge if they filed
grievances, the Respondent has interfered with, re-
strained, and coerced employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. In addition, by discharging
employee John Porteus because of its employees’ union
activities, the Respondent has discriminated 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. Finally, by repudiating certain provisions of
the collective-bargaining agreement and refusing to pro-
vide the Union, on request, with necessary and relevant
information regarding the discharge of Porteus and Re-
spondent’s compliance with the agreement, the Respon-
dent has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in
good faith with the exclusive bargaining representative
of its unit employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.3 The Respondent’s unfair labor practices
affect 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 to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by discharging John Porteus, we shall
order the Respondent to offer him full reinstatement to
his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against him. Backpay shall be computed in accor-
dance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent shall
also be required to remove from its files any and all ref-
erences to the unlawful discharge of John Porteus, and to
notify him in writing that this has been done.

3 As indicated above, the complaint alleges that the Union also re-
quested information relating to “other matters important to the Union.”
However, neither the complaint nor the motion describe what those
“other matters” were, and the Union’s written information requests are
not included as exhibits to the motion. In these circumstances, we
decline to find that Respondent violated the Act by refusing to provide
that information, and we will not order the Respondent to provide it.
See Spencer Group Inc., 338 NLRB No. 44 (2002) (not reported in
Board volumes) (limiting order in default judgment proceeding to re-
quested information specifically identified in the complaint). Thus, to
the extent the General Counsel’s motion seeks a default judgment and
order with respect to information regarding such “other matters,” the
motion is denied and the matter is remanded to the Regional Director
for further appropriate action.
Member Walsh disagrees. By failing to file any answer to the com-
plaint, the Respondent has admitted all of its allegations, including the
allegations that all the information requested in the Union’s letters of
May 29 and June 3, 2002, was relevant and necessary to the Union’s
collective-bargaining responsibilities, and the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to provide all that information. Accord-
ingly, Member Walsh would grant the General Counsel’s motion in all
respects, and Member Walsh would order the Respondent to provide all
the requested information.

ST. REGIS HOTEL 145
Further, having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by repudiating provi-
sions of the parties’ January 1, 2001, through December
31, 2002 collective-bargaining agreement relating to the
Pension Fund and Welfare Plan, medical insurance, and
gratuities, we shall order the Respondent to honor the
terms and conditions of that agreement, until a new
agreement or good-faith impasse in negotiations is
reached, and to make whole the unit employees for any
loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suf-
fered as a result of the Respondent’s unlawful conduct.
In addition, we shall order the Respondent to restore the
employees’ medical insurance coverage and make all
required payments or contributions to the Pension Fund
and Welfare Plan that have not been made since late De-
cember 2001, including any additional amounts due the
funds in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240
NLRB 1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).4 In addition, the Re-
spondent shall reimburse unit employees for any ex-
penses ensuing from its failure to make the required
Medical insurance and benefit-fund payments or contri-
butions, as set forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252
NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th
Cir. 1981). All payments to unit employees shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Ser-
vice, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.
1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, supra.
Finally, having found that the Respondent has also vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to provide neces-
sary and relevant information requested by the Union on
May 29 and 30, June 3, and July 9, 2002, relating to the
discharge of Porteus and Respondent’s compliance with
the agreement, we shall order the Respondent to provide
that information to the Union.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Pastelle Company, Inc., d/b/a St. Regis Ho-
tel, Detroit, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with discharge if they file
grievances.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for supporting the Union or any other la-
bor organization.

4 To the extent that an employee has made personal contributions to
a fund that are accepted by the fund in lieu of the Respondent’s delin-
quent contributions during the period of the delinquency, the Respon-
dent will reimburse the employee, but the amount of such reimburse-
ment will constitute a setoff to the amount that the Respondent other-
wise owes the fund.
(c) Repudiating the provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement relating to the Pension Fund and
Welfare Plan, medical insurance, and gratuities. The
appropriate unit is the employees set forth in appendix A
through F of the agreement.
(d) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with in-
formation that is relevant and necessary to the perform-
ance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of the unit employees.
(e) 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) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
John Porteus full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make John Porteus whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of his unlawful
discharge, with interest, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any and all references to the unlawful dis-
charge of John Porteus, and within 3 days thereafter no-
tify him in writing that this has been done, and that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way.
(d) Honor the terms and conditions of the January 1,
2001, through December 31, 2002 collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union, until a new agreement or
good-faith impasse in negotiations is reached, and make
whole the unit employees for any loss of earnings and
other benefits they may have suffered as a result of its
repudiation of the provisions of the agreement relating to
the Pension Fund and Welfare Plan, medical insurance,
and gratuities since late December 2001.
(e) Restore the employees’ medical insurance coverage
and make all required payments or contributions that
have not been made to the Pension Fund and Welfare
Plan since late December 2001, and reimburse the unit
employees for any expenses resulting from its failure to
make the required payments or contributions, in the man-
ner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Furnish the Union with the information it requested
on May 29 and 30, June 3, and July 9, 2002, relating to
the discharge of Porteus and Respondent’s compliance
with the collective-bargaining agreement.
(g) 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-

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 146
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.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Detroit, Michigan, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since late December 2001.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
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 threaten employees with discharge if
they file grievances.

5 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.”
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employee for supporting the Union or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT repudiate the provisions of our collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with Local 24, Hotel Employ-
ees and Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL–CIO, relating to the Pension Fund and Welfare
Plan, medical insurance, and gratuities. The appropriate
unit is the employees set forth in appendix A through F
of the agreement.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish the Union with
information that is relevant and necessary to the per-
formance of its duties as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, offer
John Porteus full reinstatement to his former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
job, without prejudice to seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make John Porteus whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of his
unlawful discharge, with interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, remove
from our files any and all references to the unlawful dis-
charge of John Porteus, and WE WILL, within 3 days
thereafter notify him in writing that this has been done,
and that the discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
WE WILL honor the terms and conditions of our Janu-
ary 1, 2001, through December 31, 2002 collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union, until a new
agreement or good-faith impasse in negotiations is
reached, and WE WILL make whole the unit employees for
any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have
suffered as a result of our repudiation of the provisions of
the agreement relating to the Pension Fund and Welfare
Plan, medical insurance, and gratuities since late Decem-
ber 2001.
WE WILL restore the employees’ medical insurance
coverage and make all required payments or contribu-
tions to the Pension Fund and Welfare Plan that have not
been made since late December 2001, and WE WILL re-
imburse the unit employees for any expenses resulting
from our failure to make the required payments or con-
tributions, with interest.

ST. REGIS HOTEL 147
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information it re-
quested on May 29 and 30, June 3, and July 9, 2002,
relating to the discharge of Porteus and our compliance
with the collective-bargaining agreement.
PASTELLE COMPANY, INC., D/B/A ST. REGIS
HOTEL