Stamford Plaza Hotel and Conference Center and Stamford Plaza, LP, a Joint and/or Single Employer

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 2013

359 NLRB No. 119 (N.L.R.B. 2013)

359 NLRB No. 119
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.
Stamford Plaza Hotel & Conference Center and
Stamford Plaza, LP, a Joint and/or Single Em-
ployer and United Food and Commercial Work-
ers Union, Local 371. Case 01–CA–098145
May 9, 2013
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS GRIFFIN
AND BLOCK
This is a refusal-to-bargain case in which the Respon-
dent is contesting the Union’s certification as bargaining
representative in the underlying representation proceed-
ing. Pursuant to a charge filed by the Union on February
12, 2013, the Acting General Counsel issued the com-
plaint on March 6, 2013, alleging that the Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus-
ing the Union’s request to recognize and bargain follow-
ing the Union’s certification in Case 34–RC–081443.
(Official notice is taken of the “record” in the representa-
tion proceeding as defined in the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, Secs. 102.68 and 102.69(g). Frontier Ho-
tel, 265 NLRB 343 (1982).) The Respondent filed an
answer, admitting in part and denying in part the allega-
tions in the complaint, and asserting an affirmative de-
fense.
On March 28, 2013, the Acting General Counsel filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment and a supporting
memorandum. On April 2, 2013, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and a No-
tice to Show Cause why the motion should not be
granted. The Respondent filed a response.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
The Respondent admits its refusal to bargain, but con-
tests the validity of the certification on the basis of the
issues raised in the representation proceeding, including
its assertion that the President’s recess appointments are
constitutionally invalid and the Board lacks the authority
to act. The Respondent further asserts that the Board had
no valid quorum when it issued its decision in Specialty
Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357
NLRB No. 83 (2011), and therefore the unit certification
in the underlying representation case was improper.1

1 For the reasons stated in Bloomingdale’s Inc., 359 NLRB No. 113
(2013), these arguments are rejected. Finally, in its answer to the com-
plaint, the Respondent alleges as an affirmative defense the statute of
limitations. However, the Respondent has not presented any factual or
legal basis in support of this defense, and its answer admits the com-
plaint allegations that it has refused to bargain with the Union since
All representation issues raised by the Respondent
were or could have been litigated in the prior representa-
tion proceeding. The Respondent does not offer to ad-
duce at a hearing any newly discovered and previously
unavailable evidence, nor does it allege any special cir-
cumstances that would require the Board to reexamine
the decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that the Respondent has not raised any
representation issue that is properly litigable in this un-
fair labor practice proceeding. See Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Co. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941).
Accordingly, we grant the Motion for Summary Judg-
ment.2
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent has provided ho-
tel guest room and suite accommodations, meeting
rooms, and other event space at its Stamford, Connecti-
cut facility (the facility).
At all material times, Stamford Plaza Hotel & Confer-
ence Center and Stamford Plaza, LP have been affiliated
business enterprises with common officers, ownership,
directors, management, and supervision; have formulated
and administered a common labor policy; have shared
common premises and facilities; have provided services
for and made sales to each other; have interchanged per-
sonnel with each other; have interrelated operations with
common sales; and have held themselves out to the pub-
lic as a single-integrated business enterprise.
Based on its operations described above, Stamford
Plaza Hotel & Conference Center and Stamford Plaza,
LP constitute a single-integrated business enterprise and
a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
At all material times, Stamford Plaza Hotel & Confer-
ence Center and Stamford Plaza, LP have been parties to
a contract which provides that Stamford Plaza, LP is the
agent for Stamford Plaza Hotel & Conference Center in
connection with hiring banquet employees for its facility
located at 2701 Summer Street, Stamford, Connecticut.
At all material times, Stamford Plaza Hotel & Confer-
ence Center has possessed control over the labor rela-
tions policy of Stamford Plaza, LP and administered a
common labor policy with Stamford Plaza, LP for the
banquet employees of Stamford Plaza Hotel & Confer-
ence Center.

about December 6, 2012, and that the charge was filed on February 12,
2013. We therefore find that the Respondent’s 10(b) defense is without
merit.
2 The Respondent’s request that the complaint be dismissed in its en-
tirety is therefore denied.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
At all material times, Stamford Plaza Hotel & Confer-
ence Center and Stamford Plaza, LP have been joint em-
ployers of the banquet employees of Stamford Plaza Ho-
tel & Conference Center.
During the 12-month period ending January 31, 2013,
the Respondent, in conducting its operations described
above, derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and
purchased and received at its facility goods valued in
excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside
the State of Connecticut.
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 the Union, United Food and
Commercial Workers Union, Local 371, is a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Certification
Following a representation election held on June 22,
2012, in Case 34–RC–081443, the Union was certified
on September 12, 2012, as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit:
All full-time and regular part-time banquet housemen
employed by Stamford Hospitality, LP d/b/a Stamford
Plaza Hotel and Conference Center, LP and Stamford
Plaza, LP, joint employers, at the Stamford, Connecti-
cut facility; but excluding office clerical employees, all
other employees, and guards, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Union continues to be the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit employees under
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. Refusal to Bargain
By letters dated December 6, 2012, and January 3,
2013, the Union requested that the Respondent bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the unit. Since about De-
cember 6, 2012, the Respondent has failed and refused to
recognize and bargain with the Union. We find that this
failure and refusal constitutes an unlawful failure and
refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By failing and refusing since about December 6, 2012,
to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of employees in the
appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order it to cease and
desist, to bargain on request with the Union, and, if an
understanding is reached, to embody the understanding
in a signed agreement.
To ensure that the employees are accorded the services
of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of the certifi-
cation as beginning the date the Respondent begins to
bargain in good faith with the Union. Mar-Jac Poultry
Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); accord: Burnett Construc-
tion Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d
57 (10th Cir. 1965); Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229
(1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied
379 U.S. 817 (1964).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Stamford Plaza Hotel & Conference Center
and Stamford Plaza, LP, a Joint and/or Single Employer,
Stamford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 371
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the bargaining unit.
(b) 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 with the Union as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit on terms and conditions of
employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time banquet housemen
employed by Stamford Hospitality, LP d/b/a Stamford
Plaza Hotel and Conference Center, LP and Stamford
Plaza, LP, joint employers, at the Stamford, Connecti-
cut facility; but excluding office clerical employees, all
other employees, and guards, professional employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Stamford, Connecticut, copies of the at-
3
STAMFORD PLAZA HOTEL & CONFERENCE CENTER
tached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
1, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, 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. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent 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 Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since about December 6, 2012.
(c) 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
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 9, 2013
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
Richard F. Griffin, Jr., Member
Sharon Block, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

3 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.”
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 fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Lo-
cal 371 as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the bargaining unit.
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 with the Union and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the fol-
lowing bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time banquet housemen
employed by us at our Stamford, Connecticut facility;
but excluding office clerical employees, all other em-
ployees, and guards, professional employees and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
STAMFORD PLAZA HOTEL & CONFERENCE
CENTER AND STAMFORD PLAZA, LP, A JOINT
AND/OR SINGLE EMPLOYER