Cp Anchorage Hotel 2, LLC, D/ B / Ahilton Anchorage v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 12, 2024 Decided April 9, 2024
No. 23-1029
CP ANCHORAGE HOTEL 2, LLC,
D/ B / A HILTON ANCHORAGE,
P ETITIONER
v.
NATIONAL LABOR R ELATIONS B OARD ,
R ESPONDENT
Consolidated with 23-1039
On Petition for Review and Cross-Application
for Enforcement of an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board
Maurice Baskin argued the cause for petitioner. With him
on the briefs was Emily Carapella.
Kellie Isbell, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board,
argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were
Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel, Peter Sung Ohr, Deputy
General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General
Counsel, David Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel,
Milakshmi V. Rajapakse, Supervisory Attorney, and Jared D.
Cantor, Senior Attorney.

-- 1 of 18 --

2
Before: KATSAS and GARCIA, Circuit Judges, and
EDWARDS , Senior Circuit Judge.
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge
EDWARDS .
EDWARDS , Senior Circuit Judge: This case involves an
unfair labor practice charge filed with the National Labor
Relations Board (“Board” or “NLRB”) by Unite Here! Local
878, AFL-CIO (“Union”), charging CP Anchorage Hotel 2,
LLC d/b/a Hilton Anchorage (“Company”) with violations of
the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). The Union
represents the hotel’s housekeepers for purposes of collective
bargaining. The dispute between the Company and Union arose
in 2018, when the Company substantially renovated the hotel,
including replacing the old bathtub showers in about half of the
hotel guest rooms with walk-in, glass-walled showers. After
the renovations were largely complete, the Company
unilaterally required the housekeepers to meet the same room-
cleaning work quotas that were in place before the renovations,
even though the housekeepers claimed that the rooms were
harder to clean and involved different work skills and
equipment. The Company also threatened to discipline
housekeepers for failing to meet the more difficult room-
cleaning quotas.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the
Board challenging the unilateral actions taken by the Company
insofar as the actions affected bargaining unit employees. The
Board’s General Counsel issued a Complaint, charging the
Company with violating Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the
Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5). After a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the Board found that the
Company had committed unfair labor practices by: (1) failing

-- 2 of 18 --

3
to provide the Union with requested information relevant to
bargaining; (2) unilaterally changing its housekeepers’ duties
when it increased the work required per room but maintained
the same room-cleaning quota; and (3) threatening its
housekeepers with discipline if they failed to comply with the
increased workload requirements. See CP Anchorage Hotel 2,
371 N.L.R.B. No. 151, at *3 (Sept. 29, 2022) (“Board
Decision”). The Board ordered the Company to rescind the
unlawful changes to the housekeepers’ working conditions to
the full degree practicable and to make the housekeepers whole
for any loss of earnings from the Company’s unlawful conduct.
Id. at *10.
In its petition for review to this court, the Company’s
principal claim is that “decisions like the renovation decision
at issue here do not require bargaining with a union.” Brief
(“Br.”) of Petitioner 12. But on the facts of this case, the
Company had an obligation to give the Union at least a
meaningful opportunity to bargain, regardless of whether the
changes to the housekeepers’ duties were better thought of as a
separate decision regarding the conditions of employment or as
merely the effect of a business decision about what kinds of
rooms to offer hotel customers. A more apt summary of this
case is found in the brief submitted on behalf of the Board:
Although the Company had no obligation to bargain
with the Union over its choice to renovate the hotel, it
had an obligation to provide information to the Union
about the renovations—so that the Union could evaluate
possible impacts on its members—and to bargain over
increases in employee workloads following the
renovations. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s
findings that the Company failed to meet these
obligations, thus violating the Act, and then committed
a further unfair labor practice by threatening employees

-- 3 of 18 --

4
with discipline for failing to comply with their
unilaterally increased workloads.
Br. for the NLRB 14. We agree. Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review and grant the Board’s cross-application for
enforcement of its order.
I. B ACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
The Company operates a full-service hotel in Anchorage,
Alaska. The hotel consists of about 600 rooms across two
towers, the Anchorage Tower and the West Tower. During the
relevant period, the Union represented a bargaining unit that
included housekeepers, housepersons, and housekeeping
inspectors. Since 2016, the housekeepers have been required to
clean a quota of 17 rooms per eight-hour shift, with a few
exceptions, depending on the types of rooms and how far the
housekeepers have to travel within the hotel to clean them.
Housekeepers exceeding the quota receive a bonus of $4.95 per
extra room cleaned.
On February 26, 2018, the Company began renovations to
the hotel. Among the changes, the Company replaced the
showers in about 300 rooms, or around half of the hotel’s guest
rooms. The old showers were comprised of bathtubs with fabric
shower curtains and inner liners, whereas the new showers
were walk-in with glass doors. The Company also added new
furniture to the rooms. Sofa beds, previously an amenity found
only in suites, were added to more rooms, including most
rooms with king-sized beds in the West Tower. In addition, the
Company replaced all pillows with new ones that were heavier

-- 4 of 18 --

5
and longer, and added an extra pillow for each double-sized
bed.
As a result of these changes, the renovated rooms posed
cleaning duties that differed from the cleaning work involved
in the unrenovated rooms. To clean the old showers,
housekeepers sprayed the bathtub curtains and liners with a
cleaning solution and then wiped them. If a curtain or liner was
dirty, a housekeeper would tie it in a knot and a houseperson
would replace it. In contrast, housekeepers must keep the new
glass-walled showers streak-free by removing smudges and
water marks. To achieve this, housekeepers use squeegees or
rags to clean both sides of the new glass panels, including the
tracks underneath the sliding door and the narrow area where
the sliding door overlaps with the stationary panel. The
housekeepers must also remove and clean the newly installed,
grated metal drain covers. In addition to the renovated showers,
the new furniture in the rooms also affected the housekeepers’
cleaning tasks. When guests use sofa beds, which are now in
more rooms post-renovation, housekeepers must remove the
bed linens and fold the mattress back into the sofa.
Housekeepers also need to change more pillows in guest rooms
with double-sized beds than before, as well as handle heavier
and longer pillows in all of the rooms.
On February 28, 2018, two days after renovations began,
the Union sent an information request to the Company. This
first information request asked for a description of the
renovation work to be performed, the anticipated or actual start
and completion dates, and whether there would be any change
in work requirements for Union-represented employees. On
March 6, 2018, the Company replied that the number of glass-
walled showers was “to be determined,” claimed “[t]here

-- 5 of 18 --

6
should be no changes in work requirements based on the
renovation,” and estimated a completion date of May 31, 2018
for renovations in the West Tower. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”)
255-56.
On June 19, 2018, with the renovations still ongoing, the
Union inquired again about the expected date of completion. In
addition, the Union asked “which guestrooms underwent
changes to walk-in showers,” as well as the measurements of
the glass in the new showers so that the Union could
“determine the impact on housekeeper workload.” J.A. 267. On
July 2, 2018, having received no response, the Union repeated
its request. The next day, the Company replied that the
projected completion date for renovations in both towers was
approximately December 31, 2018, that “[n]o rooms ha[d] been
converted yet to showers,” and that it was “still being
determined which rooms [would] receive the showers.” J.A.
269. On July 6, 2018, the Company supplemented its answers
with a photograph of a walk-in, glass-walled shower and its
measurements.
On November 20, 2018, the Union sent a third request for
information to the Company. In relevant part, the Union asked
which rooms or floors would be or had been converted to glass-
walled showers, what classifications of employees would clean
the glass doors, what tools the Company considered
appropriate for cleaning the glass doors, and what training, if
any, would be conducted with respect to the new showers. The
Union further added that, in its experience, “the introduction of
glass shower doors has a material impact on the workload of
housekeepers due to the increased physical demands involved
with the task, the difficulty of cleaning glass without leaving
water spots, and the impact upon work rate owing to the

-- 6 of 18 --

7
introduction of a more time-consuming work process.” J.A.
337. The Union requested time-and-motion studies “before any
housekeeper is required to engage in this task” and to meet and
“confer” with the Company about the requested studies and the
housekeepers’ workload. Id.
On December 6, 2018, a Company representative
responded that renovations to the West Tower were completed
on November 5, 2018, and that renovations to the Anchorage
Tower began on September 24, 2018. On January 4, 2019, the
Company representative supplemented his response, stating
that “approximately 300 showers” would be renovated
“throughout both towers,” “[s]taff [were] expected to clean the
glass shower doors,” “[v]arious cleaning products and tools”
would be provided, and the Company “d[id] not believe it
[took] staff more time to clean rooms with walk-in showers
than . . . rooms with bathtubs.” J.A. 339-40. The Company
representative did not respond to the Union’s question about
training, but he did express a willingness to “meet to discuss
any information or concerns the Union or staff may have.” Id.
In February 2019, three housekeepers complained to the
Company that it was unfair they had to clean 17 rooms with
glass-walled showers, when some other housekeepers were not
meeting their quotas. In response, the Company convened the
housekeepers and instructed the housekeepers to sign and date
a document reminding them of their room-cleaning quota and
notifying them that failure to comply could result in discipline,
up to and including termination. About a month later, a group
of housekeepers met with the Union and the Company to voice
concerns regarding the changed work duties. The housekeepers
shared that the glass-walled showers were harder to clean, and
that cleaning the new showers caused them physical pain.

-- 7 of 18 --

8
Some also asserted that the number and size of the new pillows
made it harder to meet their quota. A Company representative
replied that it would take time to get used to the changes, and
that the housekeepers would receive training and new tools.
There is no evidence in the record that any training was
provided.
B. Procedural History
On September 20, 2019, after investigating an unfair labor
practice charge filed by the Union, the Board’s General
Counsel issued a Complaint against the Company. The
Complaint alleged that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act by: (1) failing to furnish requested
information to the Union; and (2) changing housekeepers’
duties by requiring the housekeepers to satisfy the existing
room-cleaning quota despite the increased time needed to clean
the renovated rooms, without first bargaining over the decision
or its effects. The Complaint also alleged that the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening employees
with discipline for failing to meet their cleaning quotas.
Following a hearing, an ALJ found that the Company violated
the Act as alleged.
On September 29, 2022, over a dissent, the Board agreed
with the ALJ that the Company violated Sections 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act “by changing the housekeepers’ duties by
requiring them to spend more time per room while still meeting
the same room-cleaning quota without bargaining with the
Union, and by failing to provide relevant information to the
Union, requested on November 20, 2018.” Board Decision, at
*3. The Board reasoned that the “additional new bed-making
tasks, combined with changing the numerous, heavier, and

-- 8 of 18 --

9
longer new pillows and cleaning the renovated glass showers,”
caused housekeepers to “work harder and spend more time
cleaning the renovated rooms.” Id. at *2. The Board majority
also affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Company
violated Section 8(a)(1) “by threatening housekeepers with
discipline for failing to comply with an increased workload,
implemented through unlawful unilateral changes.” Id. at *8.
To remedy the violations, the Board ordered the Company to
rescind the unlawful changes to the housekeepers’ working
conditions to the full degree practicable and compensate the
housekeepers for any loss of earnings, including a decrease in
bonuses from extra rooms cleaned. Id. at *9-10. The Board then
denied the Company’s motion for reconsideration. On
February 3, 2023, the Company petitioned this court for review
of the Board’s orders, challenging all of the Board’s unfair
labor practice findings and the remedy. On February 17, 2023,
the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review an NLRB decision “deferentially.” Windsor
Redding Care Ctr., LLC v. NLRB, 944 F.3d 294, 299 (D.C. Cir.
2019). “We must uphold the judgment of the Board unless,
upon reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the
Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or
that the Board acted arbitrarily or otherwise erred in applying
established law to the facts of the case.” Wayneview Care Ctr.
v. NLRB, 664 F.3d 341, 348 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Mohave
Elec. Coop., Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1183, 1188 (D.C. Cir.
2000)). A Board finding is supported by substantial evidence
so long as “a reasonable mind might accept a particular
evidentiary record as adequate to support a conclusion.”

-- 9 of 18 --

10
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 162 (1999) (quotations
omitted). To set aside a Board’s decision, we must find the
record “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail
to find to the contrary.” Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v.
NLRB, 833 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Bally’s
Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 935 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).
B. Information Requests
“There can be no question of the general obligation of an
employer to provide information that is needed by the
bargaining representative for the proper performance of its
duties.” NLRB v. Acme Indus. Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435-36
(1967). Information “pertaining to wages, hours or conditions
of employment” of employees in the bargaining unit “is
presumptively relevant, and must be disclosed unless the
employer proves a lack of relevance.” Oil, Chem. & Atomic
Workers Loc. Union No. 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 359
(D.C. Cir. 1983) (emphasis and quotation omitted). The
Company does not dispute that “the requests at issue pertain
directly to the housekeepers’ daily work of cleaning the hotel’s
guest rooms and are therefore presumptively relevant.” Board
Decision, at *27. Rather, the Company contends that it
“provided enough information to substantially comply with the
information request.” Br. of Petitioner 47 (quotation omitted).
We disagree.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination
that the Company failed to provide the Union with the
requested information needed to meaningfully bargain. As the
Board reasonably found, the Company failed to adequately
answer the Union’s queries regarding which rooms or floors
would have glass-walled showers; the classifications of
employees who would clean the glass doors; the appropriate
tools to clean the glass doors; and what training, if any, would

-- 10 of 18 --

11
be provided with respect to cleaning. Board Decision, at *5. In
response to the Union’s information request, the Company
vaguely answered that showers would be renovated
“throughout both towers”; “[s]taff [would be] expected to clean
the glass shower doors”; and “[v]arious cleaning products and
tools” would be made available. J.A. 340. And the Company
provided no response to the training inquiry. The Union had
clearly expressed concerns to the Company that the glass
shower doors could have “a material impact on the workload
of housekeepers.” J.A. 337. The record supports the Board’s
determination that the Company’s failures to respond to the
Union’s queries fell short of providing the Union with
information it needed to understand the new work
arrangements contemplated by the Company so as to allow the
Union to effectively bargain on behalf of unit employees.
C. Unilateral Change to Housekeepers’ Duties
Although parties to collective bargaining agreements may
bargain over any legal subject, Congress has imposed on
employers and unions a “mandate or duty to bargain [only on]
matters of ‘wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment.’” First Nat’l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S.
666, 674 (1981) (quoting Section 8(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(d)). Before an employer changes a condition of
employment, it must first “notify[] the Union of the proposed
change, offer[] to bargain, and bargain[] with the Union in good
faith concerning the change.” Teamsters Loc. Union No. 171 v.
NLRB, 863 F.2d 946, 954 (D.C. Cir. 1988). An employer may
not “unilaterally chang[e] an existing term or condition of
employment without first bargaining to impasse,” Regal
Cinemas, Inc. v. NLRB, 317 F.3d 300, 309 (D.C. Cir. 2003), for
“a circumvention of the duty to negotiate . . . frustrates the
objectives of § 8(a)(5) much as does a flat refusal,” NLRB. v.
Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962). However, “not every minor

-- 11 of 18 --

12
unilateral change in working conditions constitutes an unfair
labor practice.” Microimage Display Div. of Xidex Corp. v.
NLRB, 924 F.2d 245, 253 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “[T]he change in
working conditions must be material, substantial and
significant,” id. (quotation omitted), which the Board’s General
Counsel must establish, N. Star Steel Co., 347 N.L.R.B. 1364,
1367 (2006).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that,
after permissibly deciding on its own to complete major
renovations to its hotel, the Company then violated its duty to
bargain by unilaterally increasing housekeepers’ workload
while retaining the same room-cleaning quota. See Board
Decision, at *4. The parties debate over whether this case
concerns a decision by the Company to change housekeepers’
workload by keeping the pre-renovations quota despite an
increase in work required per room, or whether it concerns an
effect of the permissible renovations that resulted in a higher
workload when the housekeepers’ room quota remained
unchanged. According to the Company, this distinction matters
because decision bargaining would require that the Company
notify and bargain with the Union over any decision to
materially change housekeepers’ workload, whereas effects
bargaining requires only that the Company notify the Union of
the permissible renovations and bargain upon the Union’s
request over the effects. The Company also contends that
effects-bargaining violations do not support the recission and
make-whole remedy ordered by the Board. On the record
before us, the Company is wrong on all counts.
As a preliminary matter, the Board contends that we do not
have jurisdiction to entertain the Company’s so-called effects-
bargaining argument. We disagree. Section 10(e) of the Act
limits this court’s jurisdiction by providing that “[n]o objection
that has not been urged before the Board . . . shall be considered

-- 12 of 18 --

13
by the court” absent “extraordinary circumstances.” 29 U.S.C.
§ 160(e). Here, the Company raised an effects-bargaining
argument with the Board. The ALJ’s analysis framed the
housekeepers’ increased workload as both a decision by the
Company to “[u]nilateral[ly] [c]hange” housekeepers’ duties,
Board Decision, at *27, as well as an “impact[]” of the
renovations, id. at *27 n.19. The Company’s exceptions before
the Board, in turn, argued that the Company did not fail to
notify the Union of and allow bargaining over the “impact” of
the renovations on the housekeepers’ work. J.A. 381. The
Board then assessed the case both as a decision by the
Company to change housekeepers’ duties, see Board Decision,
at *4, and as an effect of the renovations on housekeepers’
duties, see id. at *4-6. Since the Company viewed the case as
one concerning only the impact of its renovations, and because
the Board duly considered the effects-bargaining issue, we
have jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
However, even though the Company has not forfeited its
so-called effects-bargaining challenge, given the record in this
case, the distinction between decision and effect is of no real
consequence here. Even in an effects-bargaining case, an
employer must still provide the Union with pre-implementation
notice and an opportunity to bargain over any material changes
to working conditions, see 800 River Rd. Operating Co., LLC
d/b/a Care One at New Milford, 369 N.L.R.B. No. 109, at *9
& n.23 (Jun. 23, 2020), enf’d. 848 Fed. Appx. 443 (D.C. Cir.
2021), provided the employer could have reasonably foreseen
the changes to the workload, see 11 West 51 Realty LLC d/b/a
The Jewel Facing Rockefeller Center, 371 N.L.R.B. No. 83, at
*3 (May 27, 2022), and provided the Union demands
bargaining after receiving timely notice of the proposed
changes, see Berklee Coll. of Music, 362 N.L.R.B. 1517, 1518
(2015).

-- 13 of 18 --

14
Therefore, whether this case is framed as concerning a
decision or an effect, the simple point is that the Company’s
major renovations resulted in changes in the housekeepers’
terms and conditions of employment that were subject to
collective bargaining. Ample evidence supports the Board’s
findings that the changes were material, substantial, and
significant, as well as reasonably foreseeable. See Board
Decision, at *1, *27 & n.18 (adopting ALJ’s findings that
cleaning glass-walled showers was more physically difficult
and time-consuming, and that the extra pillows and the addition
of sofa beds further added to the cleaning time); id. at *4 n.10
(finding that Company could have reasonably anticipated
bargainable changes in workload resulting from the
“substantial renovations”). Given the material changes in
housekeepers’ terms and conditions of employment, settled
Board law mandates that the Company should have “notif[ied]
the Union of the proposed change” and, should the Union wish
to bargain, “bargain[] with the Union in good faith.” Teamsters
Loc. Union No. 171, 863 F.2d at 954. Yet, the Company did
not do so.
As the Board found, and the record supports, the Company
failed to give timely notice of the changes sufficient to allow
for bargaining over the Company’s decision to keep the pre-
renovation quota despite the renovations’ effects on workload.
The Company did not notify the Union of the number of
renovated showers until 10 months after the Union’s request
for this information, and almost two months after the Company
had already completed renovations in one of the towers. See
Board Decision, at *5. Yet, “the Union [had] made clear that it
was concerned about the impact on employee workload and
wanted more information from the [Company] in order to
assess that impact.” Id. As the Board reasonably explained,
“[i]t is unreasonable to expect that the Union could have
anticipated the impact on the housekeepers’ workload without

-- 14 of 18 --

15
knowing, at the very minimum, the number of rooms that were
going to be renovated.” Id. at *6. The record therefore supports
the Board’s determination that the Company failed to provide
the Union with sufficient notice about the changes to the
housekeepers’ workload.
The Board also reasonably found that the Union did not
waive its bargaining rights by waiting to respond to the
Company’s answers to its information requests. Because the
Company did not timely notify the Union of the change in
workload, the Union could not be expected to request
bargaining. As the Board points out, not only did the Company
largely refuse to provide the Union with requested information,
but the Company also consistently represented that the
renovations did not increase the workload. Id. at *6.
Given the record in this case, we have no reason to second-
guess the Board’s finding that the Company violated Sections
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Company had a duty to notify
the Union of any proposed material change to the
housekeepers’ workload, as well as a duty to bargain over the
proposed change should the Union request it. Instead, without
bargaining or giving the Union a meaningful opportunity to
request bargaining, the Company unilaterally required the
housekeepers to perform more work under the same
compensation scheme, in violation of the Company’s duties
under the Act. Because the Board permissibly found that the
Company’s refusal to bargain over the housekeepers’ duties
was unlawful regardless of whether this case involves decision
or effects bargaining, we need not decide the question of which
framing is more appropriate. Cf. First Nat’l Maint. Corp., 452
U.S. at 676-77.

-- 15 of 18 --

16
D. Threats of Discipline
Section 8(a)(1) prohibits an employer from “mak[ing]
statements with a ‘reasonable tendency’ to ‘interfere with,
restrain, or coerce’ an employee’s exercise of his statutory
rights.” Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 865 F.3d 630, 641
(D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d
114, 124 (D.C. Cir. 2001); 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)).
Accordingly, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) if the
employer threatens an employee with discipline for not
complying with an unlawful, unilaterally implemented change
to his working conditions. See, e.g., Orchids Paper Prods. Co.,
367 N.L.R.B. No. 33, at *2 (Nov. 20, 2018) (finding employer
violated Section 8(a)(1) by “threatening an employee with
discipline for not complying with the unilaterally implemented
flame-resistant clothing policy”); U.S. Postal Serv., 341
N.L.R.B. 684, 696 (2004) (affirming ALJ’s finding that
employer violated Section 8(a)(1) “[b]y threatening discipline
for failure to comply with a unilaterally changed procedure”);
Advanced Installations, Inc., 257 N.L.R.B. 845, 850 (1981)
(affirming ALJ’s finding that employer violated Section
8(a)(1) by “threat[ing] to discharge employees who failed to
observe the unilaterally imposed” payment changes), enf’d.
698 F.2d 1231 (9th Cir. 1982).
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination
that the Company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening housekeepers with discipline if they failed to meet
the original quota after the Company unilaterally increased
their work duties per room. The record reflects that the Union
had expressed concerns to the Company about the difficulty of
cleaning glass-walled showers, and the Union had asked to
confer with the Company before any housekeeper began
cleaning the new showers. The Company instead unilaterally
decided to maintain the same quota. Once cleaning resumed in

-- 16 of 18 --

17
the renovated rooms, several housekeepers then complained to
the Company about unequal workloads resulting from the
renovations. In response, the Company merely convened the
housekeepers and told them “that failure to comply with the
existing quotas would result in discipline, up to and including
termination.” Board Decision, at *8. In sum, the record
supports the Board’s finding that the Company’s response to
the housekeepers’ complaints “can reasonably be interpreted
by an employee as a threat.” PruittHealth-Virginia Park, LLC
v. NLRB, 888 F.3d 1285, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting
Smithers Tire & Auto. Testing of Texas, Inc., 308 NLRB 72, 72
(1992)).
E. Remedy
Finally, the Company’s challenge to the Board’s remedy is
meritless. “[T]he Board’s remedial authority is ‘a broad
discretionary one, subject to limited judicial review,’ and a
remedy ‘will not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the
order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which
can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the Act.’” United
Food & Com. Workers Union Loc. 204 v. NLRB, 447 F.3d 821,
827 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp.
v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1964)). In this case, the Board
found recission of the unlawful changes to housekeepers’
duties to the full degree practicable and make-whole relief for
lost bonuses appropriate, on the grounds that the Company’s
bargaining violation adversely affected the housekeepers’
earnings. See Board Decision, at *7. The remedy ordered
clearly was within the Board’s discretion.
The Company has not cited any authority to support the
proposition that cases concerning so-called effects-bargaining
violations mandate a uniform remedy, such as the one the
Company cites from Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170

-- 17 of 18 --

18
N.L.R.B. 389 (1968). See Br. of Petitioner 33. Indeed, the
Board decision in Transmarine makes it clear that, “[i]n
fashioning an appropriate remedy, . . . the remedy should ‘be
adapted to the situation [which] calls for redress.’”
Transmarine, 170 N.L.R.B. at 389 (quoting NLRB v. Mackay
Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333, 348 (1938)). And there is no
doubt that, over the years, the Board has ordered rescission
and/or make-whole relief for effects-bargaining violations
when appropriate. See, e.g., McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a
The Fresno Bee, 339 N.L.R.B. 1214, 1216 (2003) (ordering
rescission and make-whole relief and explicitly declining to
rely on the Transmarine remedy); KIRO, Inc., 317 N.L.R.B.
1325, 1329 (1995) (ordering make-whole relief); Natomi
Hospitals of California, Inc. d/b/a Good Samaritan Hospital,
335 N.L.R.B. 901, 904 (2001) (ordering rescission). In sum,
the Board here acted within its remedial discretion when it
ordered recission and make-whole relief to address the
Company’s unfair labor practices.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we deny the Company’s
petition for review and grant the Board’s cross-application for
enforcement of its order.
So ordered.

-- 18 of 18 --