UNITE HERE! Local 5 (Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 2017

365 NLRB No. 169 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 169
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.
UNITE HERE! Local 5 and Aqua-Aston Hospitality,
LLC d/b/a Waikiki Beach Hotel And Hotel Re-
new. Cases 20–CB–163657, 20–CB–166055, and
20–CB–171212
December 16, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND MCFERRAN
On January 18, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Lisa
D. Thompson issued the attached decision in Cases 20–
CB–163657 and 20–CB–166055. On January 27, 2017,
Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Wedekind issued
the attached decision in Case 20–CB–171212. By order
dated February 13, 2017, the Board granted the Re-
spondent’s motion to consolidate these cases. Thereaf-
ter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, the General Counsel and Charging Party filed an-
swering briefs, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The Board has considered the decisions and the rec-
ords in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided
to affirm the judges’ rulings, findings,1 and conclusions2

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of Judge Thompson’s cred-
ibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an
administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are in-
correct. 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.
2 Contrary to the assertion of our dissenting colleague, we do not
conclude that “any picket line blockage is a per se violation regardless
of duration.” Rather, we agree with the judges that, under the particular
circumstances of this case, the Respondent’s conduct was “reasonably
calculated to coerce anti-union or non-union [employees] in the exer-
cise of their right, under the amended Act, to refrain from joining the
Union.” Electrical Workers Local 98 (Tri-M Group, LLC), 350 NLRB
1104, 1107 (2007) (internal quotations omitted), enfd. 317 Fed.Appx.
269 (3d Cir. 2009). Despite our colleague’s contentions, the Board has
found that blocking employees’ ingress or egress can violate Sec.
8(b)(1)(A), even if the blocking does not occur in the context of a
strike. See id at 1107–1108; Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Ser-
vices), 342 NLRB 740, 752 (2004), enfd. 251 Fed.Appx. 101 (3d Cir.
2007). The Board has also found violations where the union acted
peacefully and blocked employees for only a short period. See, e.g.,
Shopmen’s Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.), 243 NLRB 340, 348
(1979); Metal Polishers Local 67 (Alco-Cad Nickel Plating Corp.), 200
NLRB 335, 336, 339–340 (1972). Finally, we find the facts of this case
distinguishable from the cases relied upon by our dissenting colleague.
In those cases, the picketing occurred only on one or two occasions and
affected relatively few employees. See Hendricks-Miller Typographic
Co., 240 NLRB 1082 (1979) (a total of four employees were delayed
on two different occasions); Service Employees Local 50 (Evergreen
Nursing Home), 198 NLRB 10, 11–12 (1972) (one employee and a few
trucks were briefly delayed). Here, conversely, the Respondent picket-
and to adopt the recommended Orders as modified and
set forth in full below.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, UNITE HERE! Local 5, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Blocking or impeding Waikiki Beach Hotel em-
ployees or others while in the presence of hotel employ-
ees from entering or exiting the hotel’s property.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coerc-
ing 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 after service by the Region, post at
its offices in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix”4 in English, Ilocano, and Ta-
galog. Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consec-
utive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees and members are customari-
ly posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notic-
es, the 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 members 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.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, deliver
to the Regional Director for Region 20 signed copies of
the notice in sufficient number for posting by Aqua-
Aston Hospitality, LLC at its Honolulu, Hawaii facility,
if it wishes, in all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the

ed at least 10 different times over many months, and any valet employ-
ee who attempted to cross the picket line was delayed for several
minutes.
3 The attached Order has been modified to reflect the consolidation
of the cases and to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language,
and we shall substitute a new notice to conform to the Order as modi-
fied.
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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 16, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER PEARCE, dissenting.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right
of employees to engage in peaceful organizational and
recognitional picketing with the assistance of a labor
organization is one of the most fundamental activities
protected by Section 7 of the Act. Lechmere, Inc., v.
NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 533 (1992); NLRB v. Fruit Packers
(Tree Fruits), 377 U.S. 58, 62–63 (1964); NLRB v. Driv-
ers, 362 U.S. 274, 279 (1960). Accordingly, the Board’s
authority to regulate such peaceful picketing under Sec-
tion 8(a)(1)(A) is “limited to authority to proceed against
union tactics involving violence, intimidation, and re-
prisal or threats thereof.” Id. at 290. Here, the judges
and my colleagues concede that the Respondent at all
times engaged in peaceful organizational picketing;
nonetheless, they find that the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(1)(A) solely because on certain occasions dur-
ing that picketing, some vehicles were momentarily
stopped while entering or exiting a hotel. I disagree and
find that the minimal delays could not have reasonably
coerced or intimidated employees, and are not the kind of
obstructive conduct that Section 8(b)(1)(A) was meant to
reach. Therefore, I would dismiss the complaint.
The facts in these consolidated cases are not materially
in dispute. In February 2015, the Respondent com-
menced a campaign to organize employees of the Aston
Waikiki Beach Hotel (hotel) in Waikiki, Hawaii. Ap-
proximately once a week during that campaign, which
has since ceased, the Respondent established a peaceful
organizational picket line on a public sidewalk in front of
the hotel’s entrance where valet employees greeted arriv-
ing guests and offered to ferry their vehicles to a nearby
parking garage. Vehicles approaching or leaving the
hotel entrance, whether driven by valets, taxi drivers,
guests or visitors, proceeded around a circular driveway
that bisects the public sidewalk and then turned onto a
public boulevard.
At no time during the Respondent’s organizing cam-
paign did its picketing infringe on hotel property, or last
longer than 1 hour. The pickets followed the same rou-
tine on each occasion by walking back and forth in a
narrow oblong path along the public sidewalk, traversing
the driveway. The pickets carried signs, chanted slogans
through bullhorns, and banged metal cans with drum-
sticks.
As each vehicle approached or exited from the hotel’s
front entrance, the driver necessarily had to stop as the
pickets progressed along the public sidewalk. The wait
was minimal, however. The delay typically averaged 2–
3 minutes before a picket captain directed the line to part
to allow the vehicles to pass.1 Although the Employer
called the police on most days that the picketing oc-
curred, the police assisted with crowd control. They
never cited the pickets for blocking the hotel’s entrance
and exit; nor is there any evidence that they charged any
pickets with trespassing on hotel property or any other
unlawful conduct.
Notwithstanding these facts, the judges found
8(b)(1)(A) violations in both cases, determining that on
nine occasions the Respondent obstructed the driveway
exit, and on one occasion obstructed the driveway en-
trance. The judges found, and my colleagues agree, that
the failure of the pickets to break ranks immediately on
each of these occasions when a vehicle approached con-
stituted picket line “blocking” that unlawfully restrained
and coerced hotel employees. Under these facts, I cannot
agree that the conduct of the pickets is unlawful under
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
Discussion
Section 8(b)(1)(A) states that it is unfair labor practice
for a labor organization or its agents “to restrain or co-
erce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7.” In analyzing an alleged 8(b)(1)(A) violation,
the Board applies an objective standard that focuses on
whether the conduct would have a reasonable tendency
to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. Carpenters (Society Hill Towers Own-
ers’ Assn.), 335 NLRB 814, 815 (2001), enfd. 50 Fed.
Appx. 88 (3d Cir. 2002). Significantly, in applying this
objective standard to picketing situations, like those at
issue here, the Board is to consider all of the “surround-
ing circumstances” to determine whether blocking inci-
dents restrain or coerce the employees of a picketed em-
ployer. See e.g. Hendricks-Miller Typographic Co., 240
NLRB 1082, 1099 (1979); Service Employees Local 50
(Evergreen Nursing Home), 198 NLRB 10, 12 (1972).

1 The delay lasted less than 2 minutes on 6 of the 10 days, 2–4
minutes on 2 days, and 3–4 minutes on the other 2 days.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 3
The judges and my colleagues failed to fully conduct this
analysis. Had they done so, they could not reasonably
find that the relevant surrounding circumstances support
the conclusion that the Respondent restrained or coerced
the hotel employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights.
First, the nature of the picketing was entirely peaceful
and orderly. The pickets did not physically or verbally
accost valets or any other persons, or act toward them in
any threatening, hostile or confrontational manner. To
the contrary, the record reflects that interactions between
the pickets and employees were friendly, with valets giv-
ing pickets “thumbs up” signs as the employees traversed
the picket line. And as noted above, police on the scene
at every picketing event never charged any picket with
misconduct.
Second, unlike most cases in which 8(b)(1)(A) block-
ing violations have been found, the instant case did not
involve a strike where the potential for employee coer-
cion is greater than during an organizational campaign.
In a strike, employees approaching a picket line are
forced to make an observable Section 7 choice on wheth-
er to support a union by joining the strike (or honoring
the picket line), or by refraining from doing so. And the
consequences of the choice whether to cross the picket
line may well linger, with ill feelings between strikers
and nonstrikers after the strike ends. Here, the hotel em-
ployees were not confronted with such a dilemma. Any
brief stoppages that occurred during the Respondent’s
organizational picketing did not force the employees to
make an observable choice on whether they supported
the Respondent. That choice, were it to have been made
at all, would have occurred privately in a secret ballot
election.2
Third, because employees were not confronted by a
strike, they were not faced with the prospect of lost em-
ployment due to the brief, intermittent stoppages. The
only hotel employees subjected to the Respondent’s
picketing were the valets who were already on the job
and were only momentarily delayed from performing
their parking duties. By contrast, in most cases where

2 Judge Thompson, in Case 20–CB–163657 and 166055, is plainly
wrong, therefore, by referring to the hotel workers as “non-strik[ers]”
who reasonably would have been restrained by the Respondent’s pro-
test activity and “redirected themselves away from the front of the
hotel” in order to “refrain from participating in the Union’s protests.”
As stated, this case did not involve a strike and there is no evidence that
any employees, including valets, sought to avoid the front of the hotel
because of the Respondent’s organizational activities. Even if they had,
there would have been no resulting restraint or coercion affecting em-
ployees’ choice on whether to support or reject the Respondent’s organ-
izational efforts, as there were other hotel entrances that included one
reserved for employees.
the Board has found 8(b)(1)(A) violations, the picketing
occurred during a strike and the blockages prevented
employees from getting to, or leaving, their jobs. See
e.g. Operating Engineers Local 17 (Hertz Equipment
Rental), 335 NLRB 578, 584 (2001) (strikers blocked
employees from entering or leaving employer’s facility,
requiring police to intervene); Metal Polishers Local 67
(Alco-Cad Nickel Plating Corp.), 200 NLRB 335, 336
(1972) (strikers blocked employees from entering em-
ployer’s facility). In these strike circumstances, which
the hotel employees here did not face, the Board has
found a tendency to coerce nonstrikers in their Section 7
right to refrain from joining the strike.
Finally, the blockages were very brief. As stated
above, the stoppages were the only factor the judges and
my colleagues relied on in finding violations, and their
holding is tantamount to a finding that any picket line
blockage is a per se violation regardless of duration.3
The Board, however, has never applied such a strict lia-
bility standard.4 Indeed, in cases involving picket line
blocking lasting as long or longer than here, the Board
has found no 8(b)(1)(A) violation even when there were
accompanying physical confrontations. For example, in
Hendricks-Miller Typographic Co., 240 NLRB at 1098–
1099, the Board dismissed the 8(b(1)(A) allegation that
the union engaged in mass picketing where the pickets
blocked ingress and egress on four occasions for periods
generally longer than the brief blockage in this case. In
finding no violation, the Board adopted the judge’s rea-
soning that the employees were only “delayed briefly in
their attempts to enter the parking lot . . . [and n]o dam-
age was done. No one was injured. No threats were
made. No employee was prevented from working.” Id.
at 1099. Accord, Service Employees Local 50 (Ever-
green Nursing Home), supra, 198 NLRB at 12 (no viola-
tion found, despite momentary blocking of several trucks
entering and leaving nursing home and pickets blocking
an employee for 2 minutes from entering home, where
surrounding circumstances showed that “[n]o one was
injured, nothing was thrown, no one was prevented from

3 Judge Thompson stated that “in general, the Board has found that
the blocking of a vehicle’s ingress/egress, even for a short period of
time, is coercive and violative of the Act,” citing Operating Engineers
Local 17, supra, 335 NLRB at 584, and Sheet Metal Workers Local 19
(Delcard Associates), 316 NLRB 426, 431 (1995). Judge Wedekind
similarly stated that blockages are “generally unlawful regardless of
whether it blocks employees’ ingress or egress for a short or long peri-
od of time, and/or whether it is accompanied by other violent or threat-
ening conduct,” citing Shopmen’s Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.),
243 NLRB 340, 348 (1979), and Metal Polishers Local 67 (Alco-Cad
Nickel Plating Corp.), supra, 200 NLRB at 336.
4 The General Counsel and the Employer appear to agree that there
is no per se standard, but contend in their answering briefs that judges
did not apply such a standard.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
going to work or leaving, and no vehicle was harmed or
excluded from the premises.”).
Here, the basis for finding no unlawful restraint or co-
ercion is even more compelling than in Hendricks-Miller
and Evergreen Nursing. On each of the 10 days alleged
in the complaint, the Respondent choreographed the
same 1-hour picketing. Drivers were halted only briefly,
ranging from less than 2 to 3–4 minutes, before the line
parted allowing them to pass. And significantly, unlike
the 8(b)(1)(A) violation cases where employees had no
assurances whether or when the picket line would open
for them, the valet drivers understood—based on the
Respondent’s course of conduct—that they would expe-
rience only minimal delays. As valet driver Tolentino
testified, “as soon as they’re done with their singing jin-
gle, it’s always the same and then they let me go.”
The majority points to no case in which a violation
was found where, as here, the blocking was entirely
peaceful, of short duration, and did not involve a strike.
Instead, they selectively cite from cases without account-
ing for all of their circumstances, as Board law requires.
For example, in asserting that the Board has found
‘blocking’ violations even in the absence of a strike, the
majority relies on a case involving additional conduct
that supported the Section 8(b)(1)(A) violations. Thus,
in Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Services), 342
NLRB 740, 751–753 (2004), the union agent not only
used his car to block a foreman from operating his fork-
lift for 15–30 minutes, but also threatened the foreman
with physical harm and photographed/videotaped him
and other employees while they performed nonunion
work that the union opposed.5 Similarly, in claiming that
the Board has found peaceful blockages of short duration
to violate 8(a)(1)(A), the majority relies on cases arising
during union strikes which, as discussed above, have a
natural tendency to coerce employees who choose not to
strike.6 Finally, the majority seeks to distinguish Ever-
green Nursing and Hendricks-Miller on the basis that the
blockages in both cases occurred on fewer occasions and
affected a few employees. This surely misses the mark.
If, as here, conduct is not coercive, the frequency of its
occurrence cannot render it otherwise.
In sum, the momentary stoppage of vehicles that oc-
curred during the Respondent’s peaceful organizational
picketing is not the kind of conduct that 8(b)(1)(A) was
designed to deter. As there is simply no evidence that

5 And in citing Electrical Workers Local 98 (Tri-M Group), 350
NLRB 1104 (2007), for the same proposition, the majority fails to note
that the blockage there lasted approximately 30 minutes, far eclipsing
the couple to few minute delay at issue here.
6 Shopmen’s Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton Corp.), supra; Polishers
Local 67 (Alco-Cad Nickel Plating Corp.), supra.
the picketing had a reasonable tendency to coerce em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, I would
dismiss the complaint.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 16, 2017
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
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 on your behalf
with your employer
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT block or impede Waikiki Beach Hotel
employees or others while in the presence of hotel em-
ployees from entering or exiting the hotel’s property.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights listed
above.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5
The Board’s decision can be found at
http://www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CB-163657 or by using the
QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Re-
lations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 5
Jeff Beerman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David Barber, Esq. (Davis, Cowell & Bowe), for the Respond-
ent.
Robert Katz and Jennifer Gitter, Esqs. (Torkildson, Katz, et al.),
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LISA D. THOMPSON, Administrative Law Judge. On Novem-
ber 6, 2015, Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC, d/b/a Waikiki
Beach Hotel and Hotel Renew (Charging Party, Aqua-Aston or
the Hotel) filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against
UNITE HERE! Local 5 (Respondent), alleging violations of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act).1 The Hotel
amended its ULP charge on December 14, 2015. On December
15, 2016, the Hotel filed a second ULP charge against Re-
spondent.2 The Regional Director for Region 20 (Regional
Director) issued a complaint and notice of hearing on January
29, 2016, then, on March 30, 2016, consolidated both charges
and issued a consolidated complaint and notice of hearing.
The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act when, on multiple occasions in
2015, it established a picket line and unlawfully blocked the
ingress/egress to the entrance/exit of the Hotel. Respondent
filed its answer and amended answer denying all material alle-
gations and setting forth its affirmative defenses to the com-
plaint.
This case was tried before me in Honolulu, Hawaii, on April
19 and 20, 2016. All parties were afforded a full opportunity to
appear, introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, argue orally on the record, and file briefs. After careful-
ly considering the entire record, including the demeanor of the
witnesses and the parties’ posthearing briefs, I find that Re-
spondent violated the Act as alleged in the complaint.3
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
At all material times, Aqua-Aston Hospitality, a limited lia-
bility company, has been engaged in the business of operating
hotels that provide food and lodging. It has a place of business
in Honolulu, Hawaii, where it operates and manages the Aston
Waikiki Beach Hotel and the Hotel Renew.
Although not specifically admitted in this case, in a separate
case, the parties previously admitted that, in conducting its
business operations, Aqua-Aston derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and received at its Honolulu
hotel goods valued in excess of $5000 directly from points
outside the State of Hawaii. Accordingly, I find that Aqua-
Aston has been an employer engaged in commerce within the

1 Case 20–CB–163657.
2 Case 20–CB–166055.
3 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for the
Transcript, “GC Exh.” for the General Counsel’s exhibits, “U. Exh.”
for Respondent’s Exhibits, “GC Br.” for the General Counsel’s brief,
“U. Br.” for Respondent’s brief, and “CP Br.” for the Charging Party’s
brief. Specific citations to the transcript and exhibits are included
where appropriate to aid review, and are not necessarily exclusive or
exhaustive.
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.4
It is also undisputed, and I find that, at all material times, Re-
spondent, UNITE HERE! Local 5, has been a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
1. Charging Party’s operations
The Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel and the Hotel Renew are
two adjacent hotels located in Waikiki. The Aston Waikiki is
located on the corner of Kalakaua Avenue and Paoakalani Ave-
nue. Kalakaua Avenue is a one-way street that runs parallel to
the ocean. Paoakalani Avenue is also a one-way street that runs
perpendicular to Kalakaua Avenue. The entrance to the Aston
Waikiki faces Paoakalani Avenue.
The Hotel Renew is located next to the Aston Waikiki on
Paoakalani Avenue at the intersection of Lemon Road. Lemon
Road is also a one-way street that runs parallel to Kalakaua
Avenue.
In order to enter and exit the Aston Waikiki, guests, taxis,
and other vehicles must access the property through the hotel’s
porte cochere (driveway). The porte cochere is a single-
direction, u-shaped driveway with a designated entrance and
exit along Paoakalani Avenue.5 There is a pedestrian walkway
leading from Paoakalani Avenue’s sidewalk into the Aston
Waikiki that bisects the porte cochere.6
The porte cochere is the only location where guests can drop
off their vehicles at the Hotel.7 Guests cannot self-park their
cars. As such, all of the Hotel’s guests must leave and retrieve
their parked cars using the valet service located in the porte
cochere. Similarly, taxis, recently retrieved (but not picked up)
valeted-vehicles, and vehicles of persons patronizing the Ho-
tel’s restaurant must utilize the porte cochere for short-term
parking. These cars are parked inside the porte cochere near the
driveway exit.8 All vehicles entering or exiting the Hotel
through the porte cochere entrance or exit must cross over the
public sidewalk along Paoakalani Avenue.9
The Aston Waikiki has a single parking garage located on
Lemon Road next to the Hotel Renew. Valet employees are the
only individuals authorized to park guest vehicles in the park-
ing garage.10
In order to park a guest’s vehicle, valet drivers must exit the
porte cochere, drive out of the driveway exit, cross over the

4 See Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC, et al., JD(SF)-24–16 2016 WL
3072194 (May 31, 2016). I take administrative notice of the jurisdic-
tional findings of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mara-Louise
Anzalone.
5 GC Exh. 2; see also GC Exhs. 3–4.
6 GC Exhs. 2–4.
7 Tr. 41, see also GC Exh. 2.
8 U. Exh. 1.
9 GC Exhs. 3–4 (photographs of the entrance into the porte cochere
and exit out of the porte cochere. The sidewalk in front of the Hotel is
parallel to Paoakalani Avenue).
10 Tr. 40. Hotel employees have a separate parking lot—also on
Lemon Road—where they park their vehicles during their shifts. Em-
ployees park their own vehicles when they arrive for work and do not
use the Hotel’s valet to park their cars. Tr. 108, 110–111.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Paoakalani public sidewalk to get to Paoakalani Avenue, then
park the vehicle in the Hotel’s parking garage on Lemon
Road.11 Similarly, to retrieve a guest’s vehicle, valet drivers
must drive around to Kalakaua Avenue, turn right onto Paoa-
kalani Avenue, cross the Paoakalani public sidewalk then drive
through the driveway entrance into the Hotel’s porte cochere.12
There are approximately 16 valet/bell employees, including a
bell clerk and a public area attendant who work at or near the
porte cochere.13 Randy Tolentino (Tolentino) served as one of
the Hotel’s Bell Captains/valet employees. It is undisputed that
he parked guest’s vehicles as part of his job duties during the
matters at issue in this complaint.
The Charging Party contracts with the Universal Protection
Services (UPS) to provide security for the Aston Waikiki and
the Hotel Renew. Andrew Smith (Smith) is a UPS employee
and serves as the post commander for the Aston Waikiki and
Hotel Renew.
2. The Union’s organizing campaign
It is undisputed that, beginning February 2015 until mid-
March 2016, Respondent began an organizing campaign at the
Hotel, which involved numerous union-sponsored rallies and/or
pickets in front of, near and around the Hotel.14 On average,
Respondent maintained at least one picket line at least once a
week or once every other week since February 2015.
The number of union picketers ranged from approximately
15–37 picketers (small picket) to between 75–200 picketers
(larger picket).15 The larger pickets occurred once or twice a
month and were held in the afternoons. Respondent held the
smaller-sized pickets in the mornings between approximately
6:30 and 7:30 a.m. During the smaller rallies, Respondent usu-
ally maintained picketers in front of the porte cochere exit, but
on a few occasions, Respondent positioned picketers in front of
the porte cochere entrance. During the larger rallies, Respond-
ent positioned picketers in two picket lines: one in front of the
porte cochere exit and one in front of the porte cochere en-
trance.
Whether Respondent picketed in front of the Hotel’s drive-
way entrance or exit or during a morning or afternoon rally, it is
undisputed that the participants marched in an oblong circle on
the sidewalk, although sometimes the width of the picketers’
circle did not accommodate pedestrian traffic. During each of
protests at issue, the picketers carried signs that read, “As-
ton/Renew No Respect, No Union Contract with Unite HERE!
Local 5,” chanted slogans using bullhorns, banged cans with
drumsticks and used other noise makers while they marched in
front of the Hotel. It is also undisputed that, while the picketers
marched, all vehicles that approached the Hotel, whether they
were driven by valets, guests, taxis or the general public, were
made to wait and were unable to enter and/or exit the porte
cochere.16
Picket line captains were responsible for directing each pick-

11 GC Exhs. 2, 4.
12 GC Exhs. 2, 3.
13 Tr. 403, 418–419.
14 GC Exh. 5.
15 GC Exhs. 5, 6.
16 Tr. 53, 79, 83, 87, 90, 202–203; see also GC Exh. 7, U. Exh. 1.
et line, monitoring and breaking the line, and stopping vehicu-
lar traffic while the picketers marched in front of the Hotel.
During all of the protests at issue, Daniel Kerwin (Kerwin),
Respondent’s director of internal organizing, was the picket
line captain covering the driveway entrance. Union organizer
Victor Gonzales (Gonzales) served as the picket line captain
covering the driveway exit.17 In directing vehicular traffic
during the protests, it is undisputed that, when a car approached
the picket line, Kerwin or Gonzales placed themselves between
the car and picket line then extended their hand toward the
approaching vehicle to signal the vehicle to stop. Thereafter,
Kerwin/Gonzales motioned the picketers to continue marching,
and, after approximately one to four minutes, they signaled the
picketers to “break [or disperse].” After hearing the “break”
call, the picketers moved from the driveway exit or entrance—
depending on where they were picketing—to allow the vehicle
to enter/exit the Hotel. It was within Kerwin’s or Gonzales’
discretion as to how long he blocked a car from entering/exiting
the Hotel.18 Regardless, the Union’s purpose for stopping all
vehicles was to “annoy” drivers and bring attention to Re-
spondent’s message.19 It is against this backdrop that the fol-
lowing incidents occurred.
B. Specific Incidents of Alleged Unlawful Conduct
The issue in this case is whether Respondent Union, dur-
ing its protests, unlawfully blocked the ingress/egress to the
entrance/exit of the Hotel on six separate occasions: August 18,
October 3, 14, 24, and 30, and December 7, 2015. After care-
fully reviewing the record, I find the following facts.20
1. The August 18, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent videotaped all of its pickets.
Except for the rally on October 24, 2015, Respondent’s videog-
raphers did not continuously record the entire picket; rather,
they only recorded various segments of the picket.21

17 U. Exh. 1, File 20150818154254 at 6:55, 15:00; see also Tr. 233–
234.
18 Tr. 229, 300, 302, 338–339.
19 Tr. 203, 298, 324, 328–329, 336, 427.
20 In making my credibility findings, all relevant factors have been
considered, including the interests and demeanor of the witness; the
impact of bias on the witness’ testimony, the quality of the witness’
recollection; whether their testimony is corroborated or consistent with
the documentary evidence and/or the established or admitted facts;
inherent probabilities; and reasonable inferences that may be drawn
from the record as a whole. See, e.g., Daikichi Corp., 335 NLRB 622,
633 (2001), enfd. 56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003); and New Breed
Leasing Corp. v. NLRB, 111 F.3d 1460, 1465 (9th Cir.), cert. denied
522 U.S. 948 (1997). Credibility findings need not be all-or-nothing
propositions, and it is common for the fact finder to credit some, but
not all, of a witness’ testimony. Daikichi Corp., supra.
21 The parties stipulated that all of the videos were taken by individ-
uals who work for the Union. A single camera owned by the Union
recorded all of the videos. The Union established a rotating system for
recording the pickets. Specifically, different teams of organizers were
assigned to film different actions on particular weeks. Thereafter, the
camera was given to the next team whose turn it was to film the next
union activity. At the end of the day, the camera was returned to the
Union office and video was uploaded onto a server. The Union never
edited the videos.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 7
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at approximately 3:30 p.m.,
Respondent staged an afternoon protest in front of the Hotel.
Approximately 170 union members participated. Picketers
marched in circular formations in front of the Hotel driveway
entrance and exit.22 Kerwin was the picket line captain cover-
ing the driveway entrance, and Gonzales served as the picket
line captain covering the driveway exit. Two other groups of
protesters marched on both sides of Kalakaua Avenue. The
majority of the picketers carried signs, chanted, through bull-
horns, and used various noise makers during the protest. The
Honolulu Police Department (Police or HPD) was called to the
Hotel to assist with crowd control and the noise. The protest
ended around 4:40 p.m. Respondent videotaped portions of the
protest, but the video focused primarily on the picket line in
front of the porte cochere driveway entrance.23
Post Commander/Security Supervisor Smith observed some
of the picketing on August 18. He testified that approximately
15 to 20 vehicles attempted to either enter or exit the Hotel but
were stopped and forced to wait between 30 seconds and four
minutes while the Union picketed. Smith timed each vehicles’
wait times on his watch. He also observed traffic backed up on
Paoakalani Avenue multiple times due to the picketing in front
of the driveway entrance. According to Smith, Kerwin made
each vehicle wait approximately three to four minutes before
allowing access to the Hotel entrance.24 For his part, although
Kerwin testified that he stopped cars at the driveway entrance
for, at most, 30 seconds during the August 18 protest, he admit-
ted that he did not independently time how long he made each
car wait before directing the picket line to move aside.
Overall, I credited Smith’s testimony over that of Kerwin. I
found Kerwin’s testimony less than fully credible, mainly be-
cause he gave inconsistent statements and was often evasive
when asked about the back up of cars entering the Hotel while
he was captain covering the driveway entrance. Specifically,
Kerwin initially testified that he could not recall whether any
cars were backed up on Paoakalani Avenue during the August
18 protest. Subsequently, Kerwin admitted that he was not
paying attention to any backup because he was focused on
monitoring the line. Yet, upon further questioning, he recalled
seeing “three or four” cars backed up on Paoakalani Avenue
waiting to turn into the driveway entrance. However, the video
at Union Exhibit 1 clearly shows at least one instance where the
Union’s picketing caused a backup of traffic on Paoakalani
Avenue all the way to Kalakaua Avenue.25
Moreover, Kerwin was equivocal regarding the wait times
for the vehicles he stopped. Although Kerwin testified that, in
general, he allowed the picketers to march in an oblong circle
“twice” before breaking the line, he had no independent con-
firmation of how long that process lasted. While Respondent’s
counsel argues that the August 18 video recording is the best

22 GC Exh. 5 at 111; see also GC Exh. 6.
23 U. Exhs. 1–2. The video of the August 18 picket consisted of six
separate recordings that were approximately 57 minutes long in total.
The video focused on the Union’s picketing activity in front of the
porte cochere driveway entrance. No records were submitted on the
Union’s picketing in front of the porte cochere driveway exit.
24 Tr. 79–81, 234, 309–312; see also U. Exh. 1.
25 U. Exh. 1, File 20150818154254 at 34:00–35:00.
evidence of the approximate wait times of each vehicle, the
video is not entirely reliable because it only captured random
portions of the protest. In sum, Kerwin’s changing testimony on
this issue made him appear as if he was less than forthcoming
which made his testimony unreliable. Accordingly, I find that,
during the August 18 protest, the union picketed in front of the
Hotel’s entrance, and in so doing, Kerwin made multiple vehi-
cles stop and wait approximately three to four minutes each
before they could enter the Hotel. The Union’s activity caused a
backup of cars from the Hotel’s entrance onto Paoakalani Ave-
nue.
2. The October 3, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent maintained a single, small
picket on the morning of October 3 in front of the porte co-
chere driveway exit. The picket lasted from approximately 6:37
to 7:25 a.m. Approximately 17 individuals participated in the
picket. Gonzales was the picket line captain that day.26 Smith
was working that day and observed the picketing. Again, the
picketers carried signs, chanted, through bullhorns, and used
other noise makers. The HPD was called to the Hotel to assist
with crowd control and the noise. It is undisputed that Re-
spondent recorded approximately 26:48 minutes of video over
five separate recordings of the October 3 picket.27
Smith testified that he observed Gonzales stop approximately
six or seven vehicles as they attempted to leave the Hotel’s
porte cochere.28 According to Smith, as the Union had done
previously, when a vehicle approached the driveway exit, Gon-
zales held up his hand toward the vehicle to signal the vehicle
to stop. Afterwards, Gonzales turned around and motioned the
protestors to continue picketing. In fact, on one occasion, a
male picketer was overheard saying, “go on, go on, keep go-
ing,” while a guest’s vehicle was blocked from leaving.29 On
another occasion, picketers were overhead saying, “wait for a
while, a little while longer,” as a guest attempted to exit the
driveway. That guest was blocked for approximately two
minutes before being allowed to leave the Hotel.30 According to
Smith, Gonzales and/or the picketers blocked the egress of
these six or seven vehicles for between two and four minutes
that day.31
Although Gonzales testified that, in general, he typically
held cars at the driveway exit between 30 seconds and two
minutes, or until the picketers marched twice in a circular for-
mation before breaking the line, I credit Smith’s testimony for
several reasons. First, Smith observed, timed each vehicle’s
wait time on his watch and noted those times in his incident

26 Tr. 261; see also GC Exhs. 5–6; U. Exh. 1.
27 U. Exh. 1 File AM Rally 630 and File AM Rally 7.
28 Tr. 84; see also GC Exhs 5 at 93–94; U. Exh. 1 File AM Rally 630
and File AM Rally 7. U. Exh. 1 does not extend in time over the entire
October 3 protest. Rather, the video shows the wait times experienced
by only two vehicles (both approximately one minute). See U. Exh. 1,
File AM Rally 630 at 12:16–13:23 and File AM Rally 7 at 0:37–1:37;
see also Tr. 353, 438. However, Smith recorded every car that he ob-
served trying to exit the Hotel but was blocked by the Union’s picket.
See GC Exh. 5 at 93–94.
29 GC Exh. 5 at 94.
30 Id.
31 Tr. 84, 279–280; see also GC Exh. 5 at 93–94.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
report.32 His notes were specific and detailed regarding the wait
times as well as the picketers’ statements, if any, as they
blocked each vehicle’s egress.
Although Smith testified that, during the October 3 protest,
wait times ranged from two to three minutes and his incident
reported noted wait times between two and four minutes, his
Board affidavit (also known as his Jencks statement) claimed
that some wait times were as long as five minutes. However, I
do not find these varying wait times internally inconsistent but
were Smith’s attempt to give a range of the wait times of the
vehicles he observed on October 3. Rather, I find Smith’s recol-
lection and testimony of the wait times generally consistent
from between two and four minutes. While I note that Smith
contradicted himself about how he recorded vehicle wait times
(i.e., Smith initially testified that he did not write down any
wait times less than two minutes long, then stated he recorded
wait times of less than two minutes, however, other than his
observations during the October 14 protest, no wait times of
less than two minutes were noted in GC Exh. 5), this discrepan-
cy does not detract from Smith’s overall testimony that vehicles
he observed were blocked from between two and four minutes
during the October 3 protest.
Finally, while Respondent argues that the October 3 video
shows the average wait time of vehicles blocked was between
58 seconds and 1.10 minutes, again, the video failed to capture
every vehicle that was blocked during the morning protest.33 As
such, the video is not entirely representative of all vehicle’s
wait times since some vehicles could have been stopped for no
more than one minute, while others were blocked for two to
four minutes as Smith recorded. Accordingly, I found Smith’s
testimony credible and that, on October 3, at least six to seven
vehicles were blocked by Respondent’s picketers for between
two to four minutes before being allowed to leave the Hotel.
3. The October 14, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent held a single, small picket
on the morning of October 14 in front of the porte cochere
driveway exit. The picket lasted from 6:35 to 7:35 a.m.34 Ap-
proximately 21 individuals participated in the picket. Gonzales
served as the picket line captain that day.35 Smith was also
working and he and Security Officer Roberto Vargus observed
the picket that day. The picketers again carried signs, chanted,
using bullhorns, and used other noise makers during the protest.
The HPD was called to the Hotel three times for assistance with
crowd control and the noise. It is undisputed that Respondent
recorded portions of the October 14 picket.36
Smith testified that he saw at least two vehicles that were
stopped while attempting to cross Respondent’s picket line.
According to Smith, one vehicle drove up to the picket line and
tried to exit the Hotel but was stopped by Gonzales and the
picketers. That vehicle was stopped at the driveway exit for less

32 See GC Exh. 5 at 93–94.
33 R. Br. at 10.
34 Tr. 87; GC Exhs. 5–6, see also U. Exh. 1.
35 Tr. 265; see also U. Exh. 1.
36 U. Exh. 1 File 20151014064201, File 20151014064259, File
20151014070331, File 20151014070647, File 20151014071005, and
File 20151014071803.
than one minute before reversing and exiting through the porte
cochere entrance.37 Another vehicle was stopped by Gonzales
for approximately 1½ minutes before being allowed to cross
Respondent’s picket line and exit the porte cochere.38 For his
part, Gonzales admitted that he typically stopped vehicles for
approximately 1½ minutes before allowing them to exit the
Hotel.39
4. The October 24, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent held a single, small picket
on the morning of October 24 in front of the porte cochere
driveway exit. The picket lasted from approximately 6:35 to
7:28 a.m.40 Approximately 23 individuals participated in the
picket. Gonzales was the picket line captain that day.41 As with
the other protests, it is undisputed that picketers carried signs
that read, “Aston/Renew No Respect; No Union Conract with
Unite Here Local 5.” Picketers also chanted through bullhorns
and used various noise makers during the protest. The HPD was
called to the Hotel for assistance with crowd control and to
“protect . . . the working Hotel employees.”42 It is undisputed
that Respondent recorded a portion of the October 24 picket.43
Hotel security officers on duty observed at least three to four
vehicles attempting to exit the Hotel. Each car was stopped by
Gonzales and prevented from exiting for approximately three
minutes.44
Again, while Gonzales testified that, when he served as pick-
et captain on the driveway exit, he generally stopped vehicles
for at least 1½ minutes, or to allow picketers to march in a cir-
cular formation twice before breaking the line, his testimony is
not entirely reliable. Specifically, I note that Gonzales had no
objective, independent measure of the wait times of each vehi-
cle. Moreover, while the video of the October 24 protest gener-
ally shows wait times ranging from approximately 51 seconds
to two minutes, as stated above, the video only captured a por-
tion of the protest and is not representative of the wait times of
all the vehicles that attempted to exit the Hotel that day. How-
ever, I rely on the incident report made contemporaneous with
the October 3 protest in finding that security guards on duty
observed and timed that at least three vehicles were blocked
from exiting the Hotel for approximately 3 minutes.45

37 Id.; see also Tr. 87; GC Exh. 5 at 83. U. Exh. 1 did not record the
entire October 14 protest. Rather, the video shows the wait time of one
taxi driver (approximately 1:15 minutes). However, Smith recorded
every car that he observed trying to exit the Hotel but was blocked by
the Union’s picket. See GC Exh. 5 at 83.
38 GC Exh. 5 at 83; see also GC Exh. 6; U. Exh. 1 File
20151014064201, File 20151014064259, File 20151014070331, File
20151014070647, File 20151014071005 and File 20151014071803.
39 Tr. 279–280.
40 GC Exh. 5–6; U. Exh. 1.
41 Tr. 267; see also U. Exh. 1.
42 GC Exh. 5 at 78.
43 U. Exh. 1 File 10-24–2015.
44 Id. The video did not record the wait times of any of the vehicles
before they exited the Hotel that day. However, Smith compiled the
reports from the security officers on duty that day who observed cars
trying to exit the Hotel but were blocked by the Union’s picket. See GC
Exh. 5 at 78–79.
45 GC Exh. 5 at 78–79.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 9
5. The October 30, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent maintained a single, small
picket on the morning of October 30 in front of the porte co-
chere driveway exit. The picket lasted from 6:33 to 7:20 a.m.46
Approximately 17 individuals participated in the picket. Gon-
zales served as the picket line captain that day. Smith and Valet
driver Tolentino were also on duty and observed the picket on
October 30. As with the other protests, the HPD was called to
the Hotel for assistance with crowd control, noise and to secure
“the safety of working Hotel employees.”47
Smith testified that he observed union picketers block the
egress of seven or eight vehicles.48 According to Smith, Gonza-
les/picketers detained most vehicles for approximately two to
four minutes that day, but he noted in his incident report that
vehicles were detained from between one and two minutes that
day.49 Specifically, one vehicle, who was detained for about a
minute, exited through the driveway entrance when he became
inpatient because he was prevented from leaving through the
driveway exit.50 Another vehicle was blocked for about 1 mi-
nute.
Tolentino testified that, on October 30, he was stopped by
Respondent’s picket line three times while he valeted cars that
day. According to Tolentino, Smith made eye contact with him
the first time that Tolentino was stopped by Gonzales and
Smith timed how long Tolentino was blocked. Both believed
that Tolentino was stopped by Gonzales for between two and
three minutes on that first occasion. Tolentino also testified
that, on the other two occasions he valeted cars, he was stopped
between two and four minutes when he tried to exit the Hotel
that morning.51
Tolentino also witnessed other valet drivers being prevented
from exiting the Hotel. According to Tolentino, he saw several
guests drive their vehicles out of the driveway entrance to avoid
the picketers stationed at the exit. Tolentino noted that when
one guest was blocked for several minutes from exiting the
Hotel he became so frustrated with the wait he accelerated his
vehicle toward the picketers as if he was going to hit them.52
Again, Gonzales admitted that, when he served as picket cap-
tain on the driveway exit, he generally stopped vehicles for at
least 1½ minutes.
Overall, I credit Gonzales’ testimony that he stopped vehi-
cles for about 1½ minutes as his testimony is corroborated with
the documentary evidence. However, I found Smith’s and To-
lentino’s testimony less than credible regarding vehicle wait
times on October 30. Specifically, Smith’s and Tolentino’s
testimony that vehicles waited between two to three minutes is
belied by Smith’s own incident report, which shows vehicles
waited more than two minutes before being allowed to exit the
Hotel. To that end, I agree with counsel for Respondent that
Smith/Tolentino either overestimated or exaggerated the wait

46 Tr. 90; see also GC Exh. 5–6.
47 GC Exh. 5 at 72.
48 Tr. 90, 194; see also GC Exh. 5 at 72–74.
49 Tr. 90–91, see GC Exh. 5 at 72–73.
50 GC Exh. 5 at 73.
51 Tr. 91–92, 192–194.
52 Tr. 162, 209; see also GC Exh. 5 at 73.
times on October 30. Rather, I primarily rely on the documen-
tary evidence which reveals that, during the October 30 pro-
tests, vehicles were blocked from egress for between one to two
minutes.53 To a lesser extent, I rely on the October 30 record-
ings of the protests that generally corroborate the one to two
minute wait times of the vehicles recorded on the video. Ac-
cordingly, I find that, during the October 30 protests, vehicles
were blocked from egress for between 1 to 2 minutes.
6. The December 7, 2015 picket
It is undisputed that Respondent maintained a single, small
picket line on the morning of December 7 in front of the porte
cochere driveway exit. The picket lasted from 6:25 to 7:24 a.m.
Again, approximately 17 individuals participated in the picket.
Gonzales was the picket line captain that day.54 Smith was on
duty that day and observed the entire rally. Tolentino also val-
eted cars that morning. Picketers carried signs that read, “As-
ton/Renew No Respect, No Union contract with Unite Here!
Local 5.” They chanted, through bullhorns and used various
noise makers during the protest. The HPD was called to the
Hotel for assistance with crowd control, the noise and “for the
safety of non-working hotel employees.”55
Tolentino testified that he was stopped by Gonzales at least
once while valeting vehicles that morning. He believed he was
blocked from exiting the Hotel between two to four minutes.56
Moreover, at least four guests and one other valet driver were
forced to drive their vehicles out of the driveway entrance due
to the picketing.57 In addition, a taxi was blocked for approxi-
mately two minutes before exiting through the driveway exit.
Accordingly, I find that, on December 7, vehicles were blocked
from egress for between two and four minutes.
Lastly, it is undisputed that, throughout all the days of the
protests/pickets, no threats or other negative language or ges-
ture were directed at valets as they drove vehicles into or out of
the porte cochere. In fact, some of the picket captains gave the
valets the “thumbs up” or the “Shaka” sign – a hand ges-
ture/greeting used to say “hello” as they drove through the line.
In fact, many of the valets, except Tolentino, smiled at the
picket captains and/or responded using the “Shaka” sign as they
drove into or out of the porte cochere.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The complaint alleges, and the General Counsel and Charg-
ing Party contend, that Respondent’s conduct in blocking the
ingress/egress of vehicles entering and exiting the Hotel’s porte
cochere during its picketing was coercive and violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Respondent denies the allegation, essen-
tially arguing that if some blocking occurred, the conduct did
not amount to restraint or coercion; rather, constituted nothing
more than a minor inconvenience lasting at most, a few minutes
in length. Alternatively, Respondent argues that no violation
occurred since the picketing was not directed at employees and
ultimately, no employees’ rights were restrained. I disagree

53 GC Exh. 5 at 73.
54 GC Exh. 7; U. Exh. 1.
55 GC Exh. 5 at 49.
56 Tr. 196–197.
57 GC Exh. 5 at 49–50.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
with Respondent and find a violation occurred.
A. Legal Principles
To establish a Section 8(b)(1)(A) violation, there must be:
(1) restraint or coercion, (2) by a labor organization or its
agents, (3) against employees in the exercise of rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.58 It is well settled that the union’s
conduct in blocking the ingress/egress from an employer’s
facility constitutes restrained, coercive conduct violative of
Section 8(b)(1)(A).59 Although, in certain circumstances, sin-
gle, isolated, brief or momentary delays to the entry or exit of
the employer’s facility may not violate the Act,60 in general, the
Board has found that the blocking of a vehicle’s ingress/egress,
even for a short period of time, is coercive and violative of the
Act.61 The test for determining restraint or coercion is an ob-
jective one which focuses on whether the blocking is such that,
under the circumstances, may reasonably tend to coerce or
intimidate employees in the exercise of rights of their Section 7
rights.62 Although not a bright line rule, the Union’s conduct
will violate the Act when it’s “pattern of conduct evidenc[es] a
strategy of refusing to limit [its] picket to peaceful appeals for
support.”63
B. Analysis
In this case, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Union
blocked the ingress/egress of many vehicles over several days
for between one to three minutes.
The record evidence makes clear, and it is uncontested, that
at various times during the picketing on August 18, October 3,
14, 24, and 30, and December 7, 2015, the Union intentionally
blocked the ingress/egress of valet employees (and other guests,
taxis and patrons) from entering or leaving the Hotel when the
Union’s picket captains positioned themselves between the
vehicles and the entrance/exit to the Hotel. Photographs and
video recordings show how picket captains Kerwin and Gonza-
les extended their hand signaling each driver (including valet
employees) to stop for periods ranging on average between two
and four minutes while the picketers marched in front of the
Hotel entrance/exit. I generally credited the documentary evi-
dence and the General Counsel’s witnesses (where the testimo-

58 Longshoremen ILWU (Sunset Line and Twine, Inc.), 79 NLRB
1487, 1504 (1948).
59 Tube Craft, 287 NLRB 491, 493 (1987)(union violated the Act
where its picket intentionally blocked the entrance and prevented em-
ployee access to an employer’s facility for about 2 ½ to 65 minutes
multiple times over an 8-day period).
60 See SEIU Local 525, 329 NLRB 638, 655 (1999), enfd. 52 Fed.
Appx. 357 (2002) (Board found no violation when, in a single incident,
two strikers, for 2 to 3 minutes, impeded a single coworker from enter-
ing the employer’s premises while one of the strikers placed his hand
on the coworker’s shoulder. The Board considered the incident “mo-
mentary and noncoercive, amounting to an inconsequential act of mis-
conduct.”).
61 Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 17 (Hertz Equip-
ment Rental Corp), 335 NLRB 578, 584 (2001); Sheet Metal Workers
Local 19 (Delcard Associates), 316 NLRB 426, 431 (1995).
62 Carpenters (Society Hill Towers), 335 NLRB 814, 815 (2001),
enfd. 50 Fed. Appx. 88 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Plumbers Local 38
(Bechtel Corp.), 306 NLRB 511, 518 (1992).
63 Carpenters, supra.
ny was corroborated by the documentary evidence) of having
personally observed on numerous occasions various vehicles
driven by valet employees being blocked on average for be-
tween 2 to 3 minutes.
Credited testimony also demonstrates that, at least on one
occasion on August 18, the Union held up vehicles so long that
traffic backed up onto Paoakalani Avenue. Such a line of traffic
would have been seen by valet and other non-striking employ-
ees as they began work for the day. As such, I reject Respond-
ent’s argument that whatever blocking that may have occurred
was brief and merely inconvenienced vehicles, and as such, did
not rise to the level of restraint or coercion under the Act.64 On
the contrary, I note that, for the August 18 protest, Respondent
presented no evidence, and for the October 3 protest, Respond-
ent presented little evidence to contradict Smith’s account of
the two to three minute wait times for vehicles to enter/exit the
Hotel during the Union’s picket. As found above, the blocking
of vehicles, even for a brief period, as was the case here, is
coercive and violates the Act.65 Moreover, unlike the case in
SEIU Local 525, 329 NLRB 638 (1999), where the Board
found the blocking of a single coworker from entering the
worksite by the Union on one occasion inconsequential, the
blocking that occurred in this case occurred repeatedly for sev-
eral minutes at a time on eight separate occasions. Viewing the
totality of the circumstances, I find that the Union’s picketing
activities would reasonably tend to coerce or intimidate em-
ployees in the exercise of rights of their Section 7 rights.
Respondent also argued that no employee’s rights were re-
strained since its pickets were not directed at non-striking em-
ployees. I disagree. Indeed, the valet employees were directly
affected by and prevented from entering/exiting the Hotel due
to Respondent’s pickets. Moreover, the fact that some valet
employees responded positively to the picket by using the
“Shaka” sign does not negate the fact that those employees
were blocked from entering/exiting the Hotel. Furthermore, it
is undisputed that the Union protests were loud, with chanting,
shouting slogans using bullhorns, and carrying picket signs.
Most significantly, the record reveals that the police were
called to intervene on each day of the protests for crowd con-
trol, the noise and for the safety of other nonstriking employ-
ees. As such, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that non-
striking employees would have seen/heard the commotion of
the Union’s protests and redirected themselves away from the
front of the Hotel. Such activity constitutes a restraint on those
employees’ right to be free to refrain from participating in the
Union’s protests.66

64 See e.g., Evergreen Nursing Home & Rehab Center, 198 NLRB
10, 12 (1972) (finding that the union had not violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A)
when, among other things, it placed two chairs on either side of a
driveway that still allowed vehicles to pass between them).
65 Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 (Delcard Assoc), supra at 431.
66 Respondent raised several affirmative defenses to this complaint;
namely, that the allegations herein fail to state a claim, are time barred
pursuant to Sec. 10(b) of the Act, and that its conduct was protected
under Sec. 8(c) of the Act and by the First Amendment. However,
since I found that Respondent’s conduct in blocking the ingress/egress
of vehicles, including those driven by valet employees, violate Sec.
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, I reject all of Respondent’s defenses for the
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 11
Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s conduct in blocking
multiple vehicles seeking to enter/exit the Hotel’s porte co-
chere was coercive and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Charging Party, Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC, which
operates the Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel and Hotel Renew, is
an employer engaged in commerce with the meaning of Sec-
tions 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent, UNITE HERE! Local 5, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by
blocking the ingress and/or egress to the Aston Waikiki Beach
Hotel on August 18, October 3, 14, 24, and 30, and December
7, 2015.
4. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent UNITE HERE! Local 5 has
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find that it must be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended67
ORDER
The Respondent, UNITE HERE! Local 5, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Blocking vehicles seeking to enter/exit the Aston Waikiki
Hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its of-
fices in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix”68 in both English, Ilocano and Tagalong. Copies
of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Subregion 37, after being signed by the Respondent’s author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to em-

reasons and authorities cited by the General Counsel and Charging
Party.
67 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
68 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.”
ployees and members69 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 and members by
such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, deliver to the
Regional Director for Subregion 37 a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting
to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated: Washington, D.C., January 18, 2017.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with
your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT block your ingress or egress to the entrance or
exit of the Aston Waikiki Hotel’s porte cochere.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce you in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days after service by the NLRB’s Subre-
gion 37, post at our offices in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of this
notice marked “Appendix” in both English, Ilocano and Taga-
log advising you of your Section 7 rights.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CB-163657 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.

69 The notice should be addressed to “EMPLOYEES AND
MEMBERS” where a union violates the Act in a manner that affects
both members and nonmembers. Postal Workers Local 735 (Postal
Service), 342 NLRB 545 (2004).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
Jeff F. Beerman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David L. Barber, Esq. (Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP),1 for the
Respondent Union.
Christine K.D. Belcaid, Esq. (Torkildson, Katz, Moore, Hether-
ington & Harris), for the Charging Party Employer.
DECISION
JEFFREY D. WEDEKIND, Administrative Law Judge. The
complaint in this case alleges that the Respondent Union,
UNITE HERE! Local 5, unlawfully picketed at the Aston Wai-
kiki Beach Hotel in Honolulu between mid-December 2015 and
late January 2016 in a manner that deliberately and repeatedly
impeded vehicles from exiting the hotel’s front semi-circular
driveway.2
It is the second such complaint issued against the Union. The
first (Case 20–CB–163657) alleged similar unlawful picketing
at the hotel in August, October, and early December 2015. On
January 18, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Thomp-
son issued a decision in that case finding that the picketing
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act
as alleged. Unite HERE! Local 5 (Waikiki Beach Hotel),
JD(SF)–50–16, 2017 WL 219678.
As discussed below, the same conclusion is warranted re-
garding the picketing at issue here.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
As in the prior case, the relevant facts are generally undis-
puted and well documented both by hotel security reports and
notes (Jt. Exh. 1E, pp. 24–45, GC Exhs. 3, 5, 6), and by video
taken by the Union itself (R. Exh. 1). On each of the subject
days (Dec. 15 and Jan. 9, 16, and 29), the Union set up a picket
line on the public sidewalk in front of the hotel for about an
hour in the early morning or late afternoon.3 The number of
pickets varied, from about 10 to 60 at a time. But, regardless of

1 Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP recently changed its name to
McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry, LLP.
2 The Regional Director issued the complaint on August 31, 2016,
and the Union filed its answer a few weeks later on September 14. The
hearing was subsequently held on December 12, and the General Coun-
sel and the Respondent Union filed their posthearing briefs on January
13, 2017. The Board’s commerce jurisdiction is undisputed and estab-
lished by the uncontested facts and findings by Administrative Law
Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone in Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel, 20–CA–
154749, JD(SF)–24–16, 2016 WL 3383760 (May 31, 2016), of which I
take judicial notice.
3 The picketing occurred in the early morning (about 6:30 to 7:30
am) on December 15 and January 9 and 16, and in the late afternoon
(about 3:30 to 4:30 pm) on January 29. Although the record includes
evidence of picketing on other dates, the complaint allegations are
limited to the four dates in December 2015 and January 2016 (Tr. 19–
20).
the number, the pickets marched back and forth on the sidewalk
in a narrow oblong circle that extended across the exit of the
hotel’s semi-circular driveway. They displayed picket signs
(stating “No Respect” and “No Union Contract”), chanted or
sang prounion songs (sometimes with bullhorns), and otherwise
made noise (such as by shaking metal cans with coins in them
or banging pots or pans).4
A picket captain employed and trained by the Union directed
the pickets when to start and stop marching. If a vehicle ap-
proached the exit, the captain stood in the middle of the drive-
way and signaled the driver to stop by extending his arm with
his palm facing outward. The captain then waited there for
about 1–2 minutes for the picket line to make one to two full
rotations (depending on the length of the picket line) before
calling for the line to stop and break so the vehicle could drive
out.5
Although the picket captain had complete discretion, and
could have stopped the line immediately, he made the vehicles
wait in order to draw more attention to the picketing. See Jt.
Exh. 1A, p. 327 (the purpose of keeping vehicles waiting “is to
be a little annoying to get a point across, to get your message
out”); and 427 (the captain keeps the vehicles waiting “because
we get more attention when we’re in front of those cars for a
little bit longer. It draws more attention to the action.”). Even
if a driver lost patience or expressed an urgent need to exit and
honked and/or drove the vehicle up close to the captain’s legs,
he would not move aside. See R. Exh. 1, Dec. 15, 6:51 am, at
59 seconds; and Jan. 29, 4:01 pm, at 1 minute and 20 seconds.
Nor would he indicate how long he was going to make the
driver wait.
The picket captain followed this same procedure even if the
vehicle was being driven by a uniformed hotel valet rather than
a guest or taxi driver. The hotel valet/bell stand is on the exit
side of the driveway near the top of the semi-circle. The valets
regularly drive the guest vehicles from there out the exit to the
hotel garage. (Guests are not allowed to park their vehicles in
the garage themselves.) And the hotel security reports and
notes confirm that, on January 29, when numerous vehicles
were delayed attempting to exit, at least seven were driven by a
valet (Jt. Exh. 1E, pp. 24–27; GC Exh. 3; Tr. 33–45).
There is insufficient evidence that any vehicles driven by ho-
tel valets were delayed exiting on the other three days at issue.
On December 15, numerous vehicles were delayed, but there is
no evidence that they were driven by a valet (Jt. Exh. 1E, pp.

4 The Union is not currently the bargaining representative of the ho-
tel employees.
5 There were a few exceptions. In some instances, the picket captain
stopped and broke the line in less than a minute or after more than 2
minutes. See, e.g., R. Exhs. 1, 2, and Jt. Exh. 1E, p. 45 (Dec. 15). And,
if the line was unusually small, the captain might let it fully rotate three
times before calling for it to stop and break. See R. Exh. 1, Dec. 15,
6:51 am, beginning at 30 seconds, when the vehicle approached the
exit, and ending at 2 minutes and 10 seconds, when the vehicle drove
out (showing that the captain allowed the line, which included only 8
marching pickets, to rotate three and a half times before directing it to
stop and break).
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5 (AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY, LLC) 13
44–45; R. Exh. 1). As for January 9, only a taxi was delayed.6
Although two other vehicles drove out the entrance on the op-
posite end of the driveway, the drivers were not identified (Jt.
Exh. 1E, pp. 38–39; GC Exh. 5; R. Exhs. 1, 2; Tr. 58). The
same is true on January 16; a taxi and another vehicle were
delayed at the exit, and numerous vehicles drove out the en-
trance instead, but there is no evidence that any of them were
driven by a valet (Jt. Exh. 1E, pp. 34–35; GC Exh. 6; R. Exhs.
1, 2; Tr. 59).7 However, it is undisputed that the valet and bell
employees would have been able to observe the foregoing inci-
dents from the valet/bell stand.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Under Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, it is unlawful for a un-
ion to picket an employer’s premises in a manner that inten-
tionally blocks employees’ ingress or egress. Such picketing is
unlawful regardless of whether the employees are attempting to
enter or exit at the beginning or end of the workday, or are
attempting to perform their assigned tasks during the workday.
See Electrical Workers Local 98 (Tri-M Group), 350 NLRB
1104, 1107–1108 (2007) (finding the picketing unlawful be-
cause it temporarily blocked an employee from driving a back-
hoe out onto the street to drop his load into a dumpster).8 It is
also generally unlawful regardless of whether it blocks employ-
ees’ ingress or egress for a short or a long period of time,
and/or whether it is accompanied by other violent or threaten-
ing conduct. See Shopmen’s Local 455 (Stokvis Multi-Ton
Corp.), 243 NLRB 340, 348 (1979) (finding the picketing un-
lawful even though it blocked a truck that was attempting to
back into the employer’s loading dock for only about 5
minutes); and Metal Polishers Local 67 (Alco-Cad Nickel Plat-
ing Corp.), 200 NLRB 335, 336, 339–340 (1972) (finding the
picketing unlawful even though it blocked a vehicle that was
transporting labor pool employees for only 3–5 minutes and
was not accompanied by other physical violence), and cases
cited there.
Union picket-line misconduct directed toward nonemployees
likewise violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act if it occurs in
the presence of employees. See Local Joint Executive Board of
Las Vegas (Casino Royale), 323 NLRB 148, 159 (1997), and
cases cited there. Thus, even if picketing does not block em-
ployees’ ingress or egress, it is unlawful if it blocks other indi-

6 Contrary to Aqua-Aston’s brief (p. 8), the videotape for January 9
does not show the type of vehicle being delayed at the exit. Only the
glow from the headlights is visible. Thus, it is not clear that another
vehicle besides the taxi noted by the security officer was delayed at the
exit that morning.
7 Contrary to Aqua-Aston’s brief (pp. 8–9), the evidence does not
show that the vehicles drove out the entrance on January 9 and 16 be-
cause they had been “completely prevented” from departing through
the exit. The hotel security reports state only that the vehicles departed
via the front entrance “due to protest[] activity at the front exit” (Jt.
Exh. 1E, pp. 34–35, 40). Further, it is uncontroverted that the union
picket captain always let vehicles pass through the line eventually (Tr.
86).
8 See also Electrical Workers Local 98 (MCF Services), 342 NLRB
740, 752 (2004), enfd. 251 Fed. Appx. 101 (3d Cir. 2007) (union agent
used his personal vehicle to temporarily block an employee from driv-
ing a forklift to a dumpster).
viduals’ ingress or egress in the presence of employees. See,
e.g., Shopmen’s Local 455, 243 NLRB at 346 (finding the pick-
eting unlawful because it blocked a truck driven by a manager
from departing the loading dock for several minutes until the
police intervened, and employees would have observed or
heard about the incident).
As indicated by the General Counsel and Aqua-Aston, the
subject picketing here was clearly unlawful under the foregoing
principles. As fully discussed above, on January 29 the pickets,
at the direction of the union picket captain, deliberately, repeat-
edly, and persistently blocked numerous vehicles, including at
least seven driven by hotel valet employees, from exiting for 1–
2 minutes at a time. The pickets engaged in similar conduct on
December 15 and January 9 and 16, likewise at the direction of
the picket captain, temporarily blocking numerous vehicles in
the presence or view of the hotel valet and bell employees.9
Contrary to the Union’s contention, such calculated and re-
curring conduct cannot reasonably be excused as minor or de
minimis. Nor can it be equated with the relatively few “haphaz-
ard” and/or isolated attempts to temporarily block ingress or
egress that the Board found did not rise to the level of an
8(b)(1)(A) violation in Service Employees Local 50 (Evergreen
Nursing Home), 198 NLRB 10, 12 (1972), and Hendricks-
Miller Typographic Co., 240 NLRB 1082, 1099 (1979).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By picketing the Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel on December
15, 2015 and January 9, 16, and 29, 2016 in a manner that de-
liberately and repeatedly impeded hotel valets or others in the
presence of hotel valet and bell employees from exiting the
hotel for approximately 1–2 minutes at a time, UNITE HERE!
Local 5 committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
The appropriate remedy for the violations found is an order
requiring UNITE HERE! Local 5 to cease and desist from its
unlawful conduct and to take certain affirmative action. The
latter properly includes a requirement that the Union post a
notice to employees and members, and to provide signed copies
of that notice for voluntary posting by the hotel as well. Fur-
ther, given that many of the hotel employees apparently speak
the Philippine dialects Ilocano or Tagalog,10 rather than Eng-
lish, as their primary language, the notices must be posted in all
three languages. See, e.g., Teamsters Local 455 (Cargill Meat
Solutions Corp.), 364 NLRB No. 127 (2016).

9 As indicated above, it is undisputed, and ALJ Thompson found,
that the Union previously engaged in such conduct in August, October,
and early December 2015 as well.
10 See ALJ Anzalone’s decision in Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel, supra.
I also take judicial notice that some of the hotel employees testified
through an Ilocano-language interpreter at a recent hearing in another
case involving the same parties, Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel, 20–CA–
167132.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
ORDER11
The Respondent, UNITE HERE! Local 5, Honolulu, Hawaii,
its officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Blocking or impeding Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel em-
ployees or others in the presence of hotel employees from en-
tering or exiting the hotel property.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its of-
fices in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix” in English, Ilocano, and Tagalog.12 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
20, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted. In addition
to physical posting of paper notices, the notices shall be distrib-
uted electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or
an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respond-
ent customarily communicates with its members by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, sign and re-
turn to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice in
all three languages for physical and/or electronic posting by
Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC, if willing, at all places or in the
same manner as notices to the hotel employees are customarily
posted.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official

11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
12 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.”
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 27, 2017
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES AND MEMBERS
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 no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT block or impede Aston Waikiki Beach Hotel
employees or others in the presence of hotel employees from
entering or exiting the hotel property.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights listed
above.
UNITE HERE! LOCAL 5
The Administrative Law Judge's decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CB-171212 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273–1940.