Hilton Hotel Employer LLC d/b/a Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort

372 NLRB No. 61 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. Hilton Hotel Employer LLC d/b/a Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort and UNITE HERE! Local 5. Case 20–CA–276192 February 28, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS KAPLAN, WILCOX, AND PROUTY On December 14, 2021, Administrative Law Judge El- eanor Laws issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.1 The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to provide requested relevant information to the Union. For the following reasons, we agree with the judge that the Respondent’s actions were unlawful. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Union represents a unit of approximately 1600 em- ployees including housekeepers at the Respondent’s hotel. The parties’ combined collective-bargaining agree- ment/letter of agreement (hereinafter “CBA”) was effec- tive through June 2022 and stated in part that “the Hotel shall not implement any program or policy whereby guests’ rooms are not cleaned after each and every night of their stay.” Prior to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Respondent’s practice was to clean each occupied guest room daily unless the guest de- clined by hanging a “do not disturb” sign on the doorknob outside their room. Due to the pandemic, the hotel was closed from April 14 until December 14, 2020. In preparation for reopening, the Respondent implemented a program entitled CleanStay, which included enhanced cleaning protocols, social distancing, and related safety measures. In summer 2020, the Respondent provided the Union with general in- formation about CleanStay, including a press release and a guest brochure. 1 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order and substitute a new notice to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in In the days around the hotel’s mid-December 2020 reo- pening, there were meetings of the Respondent’s safety committee, comprised of hotel managers, union represent- atives, and unit employees. Notes of the meeting taken by the Respondent’s assistant human resources director (an admitted agent of the Respondent) and reviewed by Julie Walker, the Respondent’s area human resources director, show that at a December 16 meeting, an employee asked the managers if the Respondent continued to solicit guest feedback about hotel operations using its “kipsu” pro- gram, which allowed guests to provide feedback via text message, and satisfaction and loyalty tracking (SALT) surveys. The assistant human resources director’s notes show that a manager (identified in the notes as “D” in a meeting where the Respondent’s managing director, Debi Bishop, was the only manager with an initial D) responded that “we are still doing SALT and [additional] questions regarding Clean Stay program, so important [with] safety. I [have] been communicating with [guests] and will con- tinue to do that, very important.” When the hotel reopened on December 15, the Re- spondent enacted a policy change under which it would only clean a guest’s room during a multi-night stay if the guest requested it at the hotel front desk. On December 29, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Respond- ent breached the CBA by discontinuing daily room clean- ing and causing a loss of housekeeper work opportunity and wages. On March 16, 2021,2 lead organizer Tammy Omoso sent the following letter to the Respondent on behalf of the Union: This is a request for information regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. The Employer has taken the posi- tion that it refuses to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the “voice of the guests.” It is the Union’s position that daily room clean- ing is a requirement under the CBA and a refusal by the Employer to do so based on the “voice of the guests” violates the CBA. Please provide the following infor- mation on the Employer’s position: (1) Please provide any and all documents that indicate the “voice of the guests” regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. This may include (but is not limited to) emails, guest comments, memos, notes, correspondence, reviews, or any other documents; a. If there are surveys, please provide copies. Please also provide information, documents, and data regarding the Employer’s methodology for analyzing accordance with our decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104 (2022). 2 The following dates are in 2021. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 this survey data, and all documents indicating the re- sults of such analysis. Please provide this information no later than March 23, 2021. Omoso testified that she initially submitted the information request because she had been told that the Respondent’s “general manager” stated at a December meeting that the ho- tel would no longer provide daily room cleaning based on guests’ preference. Receiving no response, the Union re- peated the request on April 1. On April 23, the Respondent denied the Union’s re- quest, stating, in relevant part, the following: As we have discussed previously, we disagree with the Union’s position that “daily room cleaning is a require- ment of the CBA.” In your letter, you claim that the Em- ployer has taken the position that it “refuses” to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the “voice of the guests.” You have misstated the Em- ployer’s position. The Hotel is not “refusing” to provide guests with daily room cleaning. We are also unfamiliar with phrase, “voice of the guests,” as used in your letter. As we have indicated previously, current room cleaning protocols are based on the Hilton CleanStay program, information and documentation about which we have previously provided to the Union. The information you request is therefore irrelevant and unnecessary for the Union to carry out its statutory duties and responsibili- ties. Should you still believe the information is relevant, please demonstrate such and the Hotel will further con- sider your request. On April 27, Omoso again requested the information, explaining, in relevant part, to the Respondent that: You are incorrect in your assertions. This request for information is a direct response to the Employer’s posi- tion that the reason the hotel refuses to offer daily room cleaning is because it is listening to guests’ preference. This was specifically stated by Debbie Gibson3 in a large Zoom meeting with approximately 50-70 workers and director of organizing Kalena Miyashiro that took place at the end of 2020. In this meeting, the Employer made clear to the Union and Hilton workers that the Employer relied on input from guests in order to decide to no longer provide daily room cleaning as it had prior to the pandemic. The request for information simply asks for the information that the Employer relied upon as stated by Debbie Gibson. We have now demonstrated that this information is rel- evant and necessary. The Employer has stated that this 3 The Union erroneously referred to “Debbie Gibson” instead of hotel managing director Debi Bishop. information exists and the Employer relied upon it to make decisions that have a direct impact on workers and the disposition of a Union grievance. Please provide any and all documents named in my March 16, 2021 request for information no later than April 30, 2021. The Respondent responded as follows on May 12: I am writing in response to your letter of April 27, 2021, in which you now claim that, rather than pointing to something called the “voice of the guest,” someone named “Debbie Gibson” stated that the Employer “re- lied on input from guests in order to decide to no longer provide daily room cleaning as it had prior to the pan- demic.” Your claim, albeit different from your last com- munication, remains inaccurate. First, we know of no one named, “Debbie Gibson.” Presumably, you are re- ferring to Debi Bishop (the Managing Director of the Hotel for the last five years). Second, consistent with Hilton CleanStay, Ms. Bishop has explained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request house- keeping service during the guest’s stay. She did not, however, make any of the statements you ascribe to her. Thus, our position remains the same: The information you seek has no relevance to the issue underlying the grievance in question. Kalena Miyashiro, the Union’s director of internal or- ganizing, replied on May 25 in the following letter: I am writing in response to your May 12, 2021 letter to Tammy where you claim that Debi Bishop did not make statements to me and workers regarding the Hilton’s de- cision to stop offering daily room cleaning. First of all, you are incorrect that in the past it was the guest’s choice whether to request daily room cleaning. I am surprised you even made that assertion because this indicates that you have no idea how the hotel provided room cleaning at Hilton Hawaiian Village prior to the pandemic. As you may know, the CBA prohibits the Employer from implementing any policy whereby guest rooms are not cleaned each and every night of their stay. In case you have forgotten, prior to the pandemic, guests were auto- matically provided daily room cleaning and had the op- tion to “opt out” by putting a DND sign on their doors. Guests never had to request daily room cleaning. Sec- ondly, I was at the meeting with Debi Bishop and HHV workers. Debi was clear that the Hilton’s decision to stop providing daily room cleaning to guests was based on the guests’ preference. I recall this because I was at that meeting, as were many HHV workers. I am certain that this information is relevant to the grievance because, HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 3 from the Union’s perspective, it goes to the heart of why the Employer chose to violate the clear language of the CBA. You have not claimed that this information does not exist. We are entitled to it. Please provide it no later than June 2nd, 2021. The Respondent did not respond further. Its representa- tive testified at the hearing in this case that it has no re- sponsive documents. II. ANALYSIS A. Applicable Law An employer must provide a union with requested in- formation relevant to the union’s representational duties and responsibilities under the National Labor Relations Act. See NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 435–436 (1967). The union has the burden of establishing relevance when the requested information relates to mat- ters that do not directly pertain to the bargaining unit. See Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993); Duquesne Light Co., 306 NLRB 1042 (1992). However, where a showing of relevance is required, the burden is “not exceptionally heavy.” See A-1 Door & Building Solutions, 356 NLRB 499, 500 (2011); Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994); see also Country Ford Trucks, Inc. v. NLRB, 229 F.3d 1184, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he threshold for relevance is low.”). The union must “demonstrat[e] a reasonable belief supported by objective evidence that the requested information is relevant, unless the relevance of the information should have been appar- ent to the [employer] under the circumstances.” E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 NLRB No. 178, slip op. at 4 (2018) (citing Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1258 (2007)). “The Board uses a broad, discovery-type stand- ard in determining relevance in information requests, . . . and potential or probable relevance is sufficient to give rise to an employer’s obligation to provide information.” Shoppers Food Warehouse, supra at 259. B. The Respondent’s Unlawful Refusal to Furnish the Requested Relevant Information Applying the above principles, we agree with the judge that the Respondent unlawfully refused to provide rele- vant4 information to the Union. As the Union explained in its May 25 letter to the Respondent, the requested infor- mation about guest preferences pertained to the Union’s statutory duties to police the CBA and process its pending 4 Because the General Counsel did not argue that the information was presumptively relevant, the judge assumed it was not. No party excepts to this aspect of the judge’s analysis, and we do not pass on it. 5 The judge found no merit in the Respondent’s argument that the Union’s justification for the request was limited to grievance processing and did not include general policing of the CBA. See, e.g., Conrock Co., December 29 grievance over the Respondent’s apparent noncompliance with the contractual daily room-cleaning requirement.5 The judge correctly found that the Union was aware that guests’ preferences were likely relevant to its grievance because the Respondent solicited infor- mation on guests’ preferences (as confirmed in the Re- spondent’s notes from a December 2020 safety meeting with employees) and the Respondent acknowledged that “it is the guest’s choice whether to request housekeeping service.” Whether guest preferences proved to support or not support the change undertaken by the Respondent (and grieved by the Union) is a matter the Union would reason- ably want to know and be entitled to know to assist it in processing its pending grievance. Critically, it would help the Union decide whether to continue pursuing the griev- ance, what remedy to seek, or whether to negotiate a set- tlement. See, e.g., Public Service Company of New Mex- ico, 364 NLRB 1017, 1018 (2016) (requested information regarding whether breach was intentional or merely negli- gent relevant); Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 346 NLRB 62, 65 (2005) (requested information that does not directly relate to whether contract breach occurred may nonetheless be relevant to union’s decision of whether to pursue griev- ance). The judge correctly rejected the Respondent’s attempts to narrow the scope of the request to programs specifically entitled “voice of the guests” or to already-provided infor- mation regarding CleanStay. As the judge found, to the extent there was any ambiguity over what the Union meant by “voice of the guests” in its March 16 letter, the Union clarified on April 27 that its request was “a direct response to the Employer’s position that the reason the hotel refuses to offer daily room cleaning is because it is listening to guests’ preference.” We agree with the judge that “it is abundantly clear from the Union’s multiple requests that it was seeking guest feedback” and that the Respondent’s position was “semantic gamesmanship.” Regarding the Respondent’s response that hotel room cleaning protocols were based on CleanStay, we agree with the judge that this did not fulfill the Respondent’s obligation to respond to the Union’s request. The Union requested all documents discussing guest preferences regarding daily room clean- ing. The Respondent failed to provide any of this data, whether it pertained specifically to CleanStay or to hotel operations more generally. 263 NLRB 1293, 1293–1294 (finding that information necessary for a grievance was also necessary to enforce the CBA), enfd. mem. 735 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1984). In any event, the Union only needed one valid purpose to establish relevance. See, e.g., LBT, Inc., 339 NLRB 504, 505 fn. 9 (2003). DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 We also agree with the judge that the Union established relevance “[r]egardless of what was or was not said at the December 2020 safety meetings.” As the judge noted, “the contract specifically references daily room clean- ing[,] the grievance was about daily room cleaning[, and t]he request directly concerns daily room cleaning.” Here, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Respondent violated the CBA by changing its room-cleaning policy to an opt-in system whereby rooms would only be cleaned when the guest requested it. In these circumstances, the judge correctly found that the relevance to the Union’s grievance of the requested information about guest prefer- ences on daily room cleaning—information solicited and maintained by the Respondent—was clear, and the Re- spondent at least had constructive notice of it. The judge also correctly found that the Respondent did not cure the violation by stating at the hearing, 7 months after the Union’s initial request, that it had no responsive documents. Apart from the delay, the judge found that “[t]he Respondent’s continued position that its duty to provide documents was limited to a ‘voice of the guest’ program at another hotel chain,” as well as evidence that the Respondent had a practice of soliciting guest feedback, “raises questions as to whether its belated response that there are no responsive documents is valid.” C. Response to the Respondent’s Exceptions and the Dissent The Respondent and our dissenting colleague contest the judge’s finding that the requested information was rel- evant. The Respondent contends that the Union’s corre- spondence did not adequately inform the Respondent of the basis for the request, and our dissenting colleague ar- gues that the correspondence did not establish that the Un- ion had a reasonable belief supported by objective evi- dence that the requested information was relevant. In do- ing so, they narrowly focus on what they see as factual errors in the Union’s March 16 letter to the Respondent, such as the Union’s reference to the “voice of the guests” and whether the Respondent technically “refused” to pro- vide daily room cleaning following the hotel’s reopening. In addition, they argue that several bases for the Union’s request were inadequate, including the Respondent’s acknowledgement that “it is the guest’s choice whether to 6 Our colleague criticizes our reliance on Postal Service, arguing that the case does not stand for the proposition we cite it for above. However, our colleague acknowledges that in Postal Service, the judge invoked the principle that relevance may be established as late as the unfair labor practice hearing. The judge also found that “any doubt to the relevance of any of the disputed information was explained by the union officials during their testimony at the hearing.” Id. at 253 fn. 13. In adopting the judge’s finding that the requested information was relevant, only then- Member Miscimarra, in a personal footnote, declined to rely on that por- tion of the judge’s analysis. See id. at 230 & fn. 3. Regardless, the cases request housekeeping service,” the Union’s claim that ho- tel managing director Bishop stated at a December 2020 safety committee meeting that the hotel would no longer automatically clean each guest room daily because guest surveys and feedback showed that guests did not want em- ployees in their rooms, and the Respondent’s meeting notes regarding the Respondent’s use of guest surveys. The Respondent and our colleague also maintain that the Union failed to establish the relevance of the requested in- formation because the Respondent’s room-cleaning changes were mandated by CleanStay, a nationwide cor- porate initiative, and were not based on any data gathered by the Respondent. Finally, they contest the judge’s find- ing that the Respondent failed to timely inform the Union that it had no responsive documents prior to the hearing. We reject these arguments for the reasons discussed be- low. 1. The Respondent’s and the dissent’s failure to consider the entire circumstances of the Union’s request First, in narrowly focusing on potential ambiguities in the Union’s initial communications with the Respondent, the Respondent and our dissenting colleague disregard the overall context of the information request, an error our colleague compounds by analyzing the Union’s March 16, April 27, and May 25 letters to the Respondent as separate requests. See Ohio Power Co., 216 NLRB 987, 990–991 fn. 9 (1975) (“The adequacy of the requests to apprise the Respondent of the relevancy of the information must be judged in the light of the entire pattern of facts available to the Respondent.”), enfd. 531 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir. 1976). They thereby ignore facts elucidating the Union’s reason- able objective basis for its request, including the Respond- ent’s clear admitted reliance on guest feedback in conduct- ing its operations, its undisputed change in room-cleaning protocol, and the Union’s progressive clarification of the parameters of its request. The Union did not, contrary to our colleague’s suggestion, need to establish such a basis at the time it initially requested the information, as the Board has consistently held that relevance may be estab- lished as late as the unfair labor practice hearing. See, e.g., Postal Service, 364 NLRB 230, 247 (2016).6 We further find that any ambiguity in the Union’s March 16 letter was fleeting and inconsequential. As cited by the judge in Postal Service plainly demonstrate that the Board has consistently held that relevance can be established at the hearing. See id. at 247 (“The Board has held a respondent can be apprised of the rel- evancy of requested information through the testimony of union officials at the unfair labor practice hearing.”). See also National Grid USA Ser- vice Co., 348 NLRB 1235, 1246–1247 (2006); Ormet Aluminum Mill Products, 335 NLRB 788, 802 (2001); Barnard Engineering Co., 282 NLRB 617, 620 (1987); Oil Workers Local 6-418 v. NLRB, 711 F.2d 348, 363 fn. 40 (D.C. Cir. 1983); and Ohio Power Co., supra at 990–991 fn. 9. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 5 discussed above, the Union clarified that its reference to the “voice of the guests” encompassed any documentation of guest preferences regarding daily room-cleaning. And in response to the Respondent disputing that it “refuses” to provide daily room-cleaning, the Union explained that the Respondent had required guests to opt out of regular room cleaning prior to the pandemic but had changed this policy upon reopening in December 2020. Whether or not the Respondent’s new opt-in requirement was technically a “refusal” to provide daily room cleaning, as the Union initially claimed, we do not see—and neither the Respond- ent nor our dissenting colleague explain—why the Un- ion’s characterization of the change would prevent the Re- spondent from comprehending that the Union was seeking information about guests’ preferences related to room cleaning in connection with a possible grievance over the well-understood change to room-cleaning policy. 2. The Respondent’s and the dissent’s misapplication of the relevance standard We find no merit in the Respondent’s and our dissenting colleague’s argument that certain evidence relied on by the Union to show a connection between guest feedback and the contested room-cleaning change provided an in- adequate basis for its information request. Specifically, they contend that the Union failed to establish relevance because the Respondent’s acknowledgement in its May 12 response that “it is the guest’s choice whether to request housekeeping service,” Bishop’s alleged statement at the December 2020 safety meeting, and the Respondent’s De- cember 2020 meeting notes do not conclusively show that the Respondent made the change based on guest feedback. Their view is incorrect, for it would require the Union to meet a heightened relevance standard incompatible with the dictates of NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., supra, and its progeny. First, we reject the Respondent’s and our dissenting col- league’s attempt to minimize the effect of the Respond- ent’s acknowledgement that it is the guest’s choice whether to request daily room cleaning. The Respondent and our dissenting colleague maintain that the acknowl- edgment was inadequate because it did not explicitly state that guest surveys drove the policy change. Further, the 7 Our colleague also erroneously faults the Union for not mentioning this acknowledgment in its May 25 letter to the Respondent, invoking a purportedly “well-established principle” that the basis for an information request must be cited at the time of the request. The acknowledgement shows that the Respondent understood the nature of and reason for the Union’s request, so there was no need for the Union to repeat it for the Respondent. Further, while the Union contemporaneously established the relevance of its request, we reiterate that it could have done so as late as the unfair labor practice hearing. See, e.g., Postal Service, supra at 247. Respondent’s representatives disclaimed such a connec- tion at the hearing in this case. However, the Respondent and our colleague concede that the Respondent plainly in- formed the Union that under CleanStay a housekeeper would only clean a guest’s room during their stay if the guest requested it. As already explained, this was a change from the Respondent’s prior default policy of cleaning each guest room daily, and the Union had a right to information that reasonably would have informed the change. Such a right did not depend, as the Respondent and our colleague assert, on the Respondent first telling the Union that a direct connection existed between the change and guest surveys.7 The Union is entitled to con- duct its own investigation in conjunction with its pending grievance and to uphold its duty to police the CBA. See, e.g., Shoppers Food Warehouse, supra at 259. Next, the Respondent and our colleague argue that the information request lacked a reasonable objective basis due to the absence of a credibility finding as to whether hotel managing director Bishop stated at a December 2020 safety committee meeting that the hotel would no longer automatically clean each guest room daily because guest surveys and feedback showed that guests did not want em- ployees in their rooms. This argument misses the mark. The Union is not required to show that the basis for its information request is accurate or reliable. See Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB at 259. Rather, “[t]he Board’s only function in such situation is in ‘acting upon the probability that the desired information [is] relevant, and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.’” W-L Molding Co., 272 NLRB 1239, 1240 (1984) (quoting NLRB v. Rock- well-Standard Corp., 410 F.2d 953, 957 (6th Cir. 1969)). Here, as discussed, the requested information is clearly relevant and the Union’s request had a reasonable objec- tive basis. Whether or not Bishop said, or was found to have said, that the guest surveys and feedback motivated the change in room cleaning policy, lead organizer Omoso and the Union could rely on reports of the mention of the existence of guest surveys at the December 15 meeting as part of the initial basis for the Union’s request even if those reports were ultimately inaccurate.8 See, e.g., NLRB 8 We note as a corollary to the Respondent’s and our dissenting col- league’s argument that there is no conclusive evidence that Bishop did not make the statement ascribed to her. Our colleague distinguishes the instant situation from precedent we cite finding an objective basis for a request where a union heard a rumor about an employer’s statement. He suggests that the precedent we cite would be applicable if the Union had characterized reports of Bishop’s statement merely as “rumor.” It is of course not clear that this was just a rumor, and even if it were, we reject our colleague’s counterintuitive suggestion that deliberate equivocation would create a stronger basis for DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 v. PDK Investments, LLC, 433 Fed.Appx. 297, 302–303 (5th Cir. 2011) (union entitled to rely on potentially “fac- tually inaccurate” hearsay reports and its own investiga- tion as basis for information request); Shoppers Food Warehouse, supra at 259–260 (similar). The Respond- ent’s disagreement with the factual basis for the request does not legitimize its refusal to provide the information. See, e.g., Management & Training Corp., 366 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 2–3 (2018) (employer’s denial of rumors underlying an information request was immaterial to the reasonableness of the union’s belief that the requested in- formation was relevant). The Respondent and our colleague criticize the judge’s analysis with respect to the Respondent’s December 2020 meeting notes. The Respondent claims that the notes show only that the Respondent conducted guest surveys after the hotel reopened, not before. It also argues that the notes do not show that the surveys related to daily room cleaning. We disagree with both arguments. The notes— from the day after the hotel reopened—state that the Re- spondent was “still doing” the surveys, clearly suggesting that it also conducted them before the hotel reopened. Re- garding the content of the surveys, it appears that they in- cluded “[additional] questions regarding Clean[]Stay pro- gram” and were therefore connected to the Respondent’s room-cleaning change. The Union did not need to show any more explicit connection for the notes to form part of the basis for its information request. As the judge found, the meeting memorialized in the notes contributed to the Union’s reasonable belief that hotel guests had provided input on the Respondent’s cleaning practices, which led the Union to seek information about the Respondent’s consideration of that input in effecting the room-cleaning change. Our dissenting colleague also asserts that the judge failed to determine whether the notes accurately reflected the discussion at the meeting. However, the judge plainly found that the Union’s belief “[t]hat guests were given the opportunity for input is also supported by notes from a De- cember safety meeting referencing the Hotel’s posting of the ‘kipsu’ number for providing feedback (including feedback about housekeeping), as well as its continued use of the SALT surveys with additional questions regarding the CleanStay program.” Further, there is no dispute re- garding the authenticity and reliability of the notes, which the request, much less that the Union’s characterization of Bishop’s state- ment should be determinative of the Union’s right to information. 9 For this reason, as well as the fact that the nature of the change was not necessarily apparent until it was implemented in December 2020, our colleague’s suggestion that the Union was at fault for not requesting in- formation sooner has no merit. 10 Accepting that the Respondent generally followed CleanStay direc- tives, the fact that the Respondent made a “change” in placement does the General Counsel offered as an exhibit at the hearing and the judge admitted into the record with no objection by the Respondent. The portion of the notes in question— taken by an admitted agent of the Respondent, recording the statement of another admitted agent (the hotel’s man- aging director)—constitutes an admission. In any event, the Respondent on exception argues only that the judge gave too much weight to the notes. Our colleague’s op- posite argument – that the judge gave no weight to the notes – was never made by the Respondent, and we will not consider it now. See IMI South, LLC d/b/a Irving Ma- terials, 364 NLRB 1373, 1377 (2016). 3. The Respondent’s ineffective defense based on CleanStay’s corporate origin We disagree with the Respondent’s and our colleague’s argument that the requested guest survey information could not be relevant because the Respondent imple- mented CleanStay in accordance with a corporatewide di- rective that did not take local guest preferences into ac- count. As the judge correctly found, the Union did not limit its request to information available in summer 2020 or pertaining specifically to CleanStay,9 so the program’s provenance is beside the point. Beyond that, the record does not show that the Respondent had no role in the de- velopment and ongoing implementation of CleanStay and similar COVID-19-related safety measures. It instead ap- pears that the Respondent retained some discretion to modify or supplement corporate directives in this regard. For instance, Bishop testified that the Respondent changed its positioning of plastic airflow barrier screens based on employee feedback; according to Walker, the Respond- ent’s area human resources director, plastic or plexiglass airflow barrier screens were an element of CleanStay.10 Bishop also acknowledged that the Respondent went be- yond CleanStay by implementing an employee tempera- ture check requirement.11 Accordingly, the Union had reason to believe that the Respondent may have conducted its own guest surveys in implementing room-cleaning pro- tocols that may not have entirely conformed to CleanStay. But even assuming the Respondent had no control over CleanStay, it was nonetheless obligated to meaningfully respond to the Union’s information request. The Union’s mere awareness of CleanStay’s corporate origin and the limited information provided by the Respondent did not indeed suggest, contrary to our dissenting colleague’s assertion, that CleanStay at least recommended where the screens should be placed. 11 This was a “supplement” to CleanStay referenced above. Our col- league mischaracterizes our position when he states that we “assert that the Respondent could have decided not to follow the housekeeping changes mandated by [CleanStay] because it chose to take measures that went beyond what Hilton required” (emphasis omitted). HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 7 give the Union reason to believe that the Respondent lacked discretion or gathered no data before implementing the room-cleaning change. More fundamentally, the Re- spondent could not plead ignorance and rebuff the Union’s request based on the Respondent’s subsidiary status. The requested information remained relevant for the reasons discussed above, including the Union’s decision regarding whether or not to pursue its grievance. If the information was not in its possession, the Respondent was obligated to try to obtain the information from its parent corporation. See Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico v. NLRB, 966 F.2d 36, 37–38 (1st Cir. 1992) (employer must make reasonable effort to obtain requested relevant infor- mation from parent corporation); Firemen & Oilers Local 288 (Diversy Wyandotte), 302 NLRB 1008, 1008–1009 (1991) (recognizing “employer’s duty to supply relevant information during grievance processing . . . where the information is not in the employer’s possession, but . . . likely can be obtained from a third party with whom the employer has a business relationship that is directly impli- cated in the alleged breach of the [CBA]”). The Respond- ent has not shown that it made reasonable efforts to do so. See Congreso de Uniones Industriales, supra at 39. 4. The Respondent’s failure to state that it had no re- sponsive documents Finally, the Respondent and our dissenting colleague ar- gue that the Respondent sufficiently informed the Union that it lacked responsive documents by telling the Union that (1) it was not aware of any “voice of the guests” pro- gram, (2) Bishop did not make the statements ascribed to her, and (3) the room-cleaning change was based on CleanStay, which the Respondent provided information about in summer 2020. Our colleague acknowledges that the Respondent did not expressly state that it had no re- sponsive documents but maintains that its “response sent that clear message.” The Respondent also requests that we take administrative notice of its position statement sub- mitted to the Regional Office in advance of the hearing, which purportedly stated that the Respondent had no re- sponsive documents. We reject these arguments, which the judge substan- tially addressed in other contexts. As discussed above, the Respondent’s replies to the Union’s letters—that it was not aware of any “voice of the guests” program, that Bishop did not make the alleged statements, and that the room-cleaning change was based on CleanStay—were nonresponsive to the Union’s request for information re- garding guest preferences. Assuming that the Respondent did not in fact possess the requested information, it also 12 The Respondent may, as the judge recognized, attempt to show in compliance that it does not possess the requested information. However, failed to make the necessary showing that it sought the re- quested information from its parent corporation in good faith and was unable to obtain it. See, e.g., Arch of West Virginia, 304 NLRB 1089, 1089 fn. 1 (1991). Contrary to the Respondent’s argument, its position statement cannot fill this gap in its defense. Because the Respondent failed to enter the position statement into evidence at the hearing and it is not in the record, we deny the Respondent’s ad- ministrative notice request. See, e.g., Laborers Local 1184 (Golden State Boring & Pipejacking), 337 NLRB 157, 158 fn. 1 (2001) (refusing to take administrative no- tice of position statement not entered into evidence at hearing). Regardless, the position statement’s evidentiary value would be questionable. As already discussed, the Respondent’s constrained interpretation of the scope of the Union’s request casts doubt on any of its prior asser- tions that no responsive documents exist.12 D. Conclusion In sum, we agree with the judge that the requested in- formation regarding guest feedback was relevant to the Union’s grievance over the Respondent’s room-cleaning change as a potential breach of the parties’ CBA. The Un- ion reasonably believed that the Respondent reviewed such feedback in effecting the change and was not re- quired to prove it in order to demonstrate the relevance of the Respondent-maintained information on guest feed- back to its grievance over the change to daily room clean- ing. The Respondent had notice of the Union’s purpose in requesting the information. In arguing otherwise, the Re- spondent and our dissenting colleague inappropriately ap- ply a heightened relevance standard. Further, we disagree with them that the record shows that the Respondent lacked any discretion over the contested change, but re- gardless, the Respondent was still obligated to meaning- fully respond to the request and seek available information from its parent corporation. Finally, assuming that no re- sponsive documents exist, we agree with the judge that the Respondent failed to adequately inform the Union of that fact. For all these reasons, we find that the Union was entitled to a good-faith response to its request and the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to pro- vide one. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom- mended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Hilton Hotel Em- ployer, LLC d/b/a Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort, Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, successors, it must also show that responsive information is not obtainable from its parent corporation. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). “(a) Provide to the Union in a timely manner the infor- mation requested by the Union on March 16, 2021.” 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b). “(b) Post at its Honolulu, Hawaii facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”13 Copies of the no- tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 20, after being signed by the Respondent’s author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. The Respondent shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re- spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em- ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since March 23, 2021.” 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin- istrative law judge. Dated, Washington, D.C. February 28, 2023 ______________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member ______________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 13 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility involved in these pro- ceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employ- ees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the no- tice must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a sub- stantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating with its employees by electronic means, the notice must also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electronically more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously [sent or posted] electronically MEMBER KAPLAN, dissenting. My colleagues affirm the judge’s finding that the Re- spondent violated its duty to bargain with the Union by failing and refusing to provide it with the information that it requested on March 16, 2021. As my colleagues acknowledge, the information at issue is not presump- tively relevant to the Union’s role as the unit’s bargaining representative. Therefore, to trigger the Respondent’s duty to respond to the request, the Union had to communi- cate, with “some precision,” a “reasonable belief, sup- ported by objective evidence” that the information had such relevance or “that the relevance of the information should have been obvious to the Respondent under the cir- cumstances.” Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 & fn. 5 (2007). Because I would find that the General Coun- sel failed to establish that the Union met this requirement, and because I would also find that, even assuming the Un- ion met the requirement, the General Counsel failed to es- tablish that the Respondent did not provide a sufficient re- sponse, I dissent. The relevant facts may be stated briefly. The Respond- ent, a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business in Honolulu, Hawaii, is engaged in the business of operating the Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort (the “Hotel”). The Hotel, in turn, is managed by the Hilton corporate entity (Hilton), which is headquar- tered in Virginia.1 The Union represents a bargaining unit that includes the Hotel’s housekeepers. Throughout the period at issue, the parties were signatories to a letter of agreement (“LOA”), which provided in pertinent part: “Due to the unique char- acteristics of a resort environment, the Hotel shall not im- plement any program or policy whereby guests’ rooms are not cleaned after each and every night of their stay.”2 (Em- phasis added.) On April 24, 2020, as a result of the pandemic, the Re- spondent closed the Hotel. On April 27, 2020, Hilton an- nounced plans for a new corporate-wide policy, “Hilton CleanStay with Lysol” (hereinafter, “Hilton CleanStay program”), expected to launch in June 2020. The on [date].” 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 National 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.” 1 I take judicial notice of the fact that Hilton is a global hospitality company with a portfolio of 18 brands comprising approximately 7000 properties with more than 1 million rooms in 122 countries and territo- ries. Hilton, https:/Hilton.com/en/corporate (last visited October 19, 2022). 2 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent assigned house- keepers to clean guest rooms after each night of a guest’s stay, except for when the guest left a “do not disturb” placard on his or her door. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 9 announcement stated that Hilton would be collaborating with RB, the maker of Lysol and Dettol, as well as the Mayo Clinic to develop “hotel brand” standards for clean- liness in light of “evolving customer expectations during the COVID-19 pandemic.” During the summer of 2020, Hilton implemented the new corporate-wide Hilton CleanStay program and also made available on its website a document—somewhat re- sembling a pamphlet—that set forth the various aspects of the new program. The “pamphlet” expressly stated that changes to housekeeping practices were part of the new Hilton CleanStay program and that guests would be re- quired to contact the Front Desk in order to schedule housekeeping services. As with the April 27 announce- ment, the “pamphlet” made clear that the program was a corporate-wide policy being implemented in all Hilton properties. In July 2020, the Respondent informed the Union of the new Hilton CleanStay policy. At that time, the Respond- ent provided information to the Union that included a printout of the “pamphlet,” including, as noted above, the information that, under the Hilton CleanStay policy, guests would be required to contact the Front Desk in or- der to schedule housekeeping services. On December 15, 2020, the Respondent reopened the Hotel. As mandated by the Hilton corporate office, the Respondent implemented the corporate-wide Hilton CleanStay program, which was consistent with its prior notification to the Union approximately 5 months earlier. The Hotel’s safety committee held a meeting on De- cember 16, 2020, the day after the Hotel had reopened. Testimony regarding what was said at that safety commit- tee meeting varied widely, but no factual finding was made regarding what was said at that meeting. Indeed, the judge expressly chose not to resolve the conflicting testi- mony, stating that “[t]he issue in this case, and resolution thereof, remains the same regardless of what occurred dur- ing the December safety meetings.” On March 16, 2021, the Union served the written re- quest for information at issue. The request reads: This is a request for information regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. The Employer has taken the posi- tion that it refuses to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the “voice of the guests”. It is the Union’s position that daily room clean- ing is a requirement under the CBA and a refusal by the Employer to do so based on the “voice of the guests” violates the CBA. Please provide the following infor- mation on the Employer’s position: 3 The Union also sent a second request to the Respondent on April 1, 2021. That request did not include any change to the initial request. (1) Please provide any and all documents that indicate the “voice of the guests” regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. This may include (but is not limited to) emails, guest comments, memos, notes, correspondence, reviews, or any other documents; a. If there are surveys, please provide copies. Please also provide information, documents, and data regarding the Employer’s methodology for analyzing this survey data, and all documents indicating the re- sults of such analysis. On April 23, 2021, the Respondent sent a response to the request,3 in which it indicated, in part: In your letter, you claim that the [Respondent] has taken the position that it “refuses” to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the “voice of the guests.” You have misstated the [Respondent’s] posi- tion . . . . We are [also] unfamiliar with the phrase, “voice of the guests,” as used in your letter. As we have indi- cated previously, current room protocols are based on the Hilton CleanStay program, information and docu- mentation about which we have previously provided to the Union. The information you request is therefore ir- relevant and unnecessary for the Union to carry out its statutory duties. Should you believe the information is relevant, please demonstrate such and the [Respondent] will further consider your request. On April 27, 2021, the Union responded to this letter, reasserting the same basis for the relevancy of the infor- mation sought, but with a bit more detail. Specifically, the Union states: This request for information is a direct response to the Employer’s position that the reason the hotel refuses to offer daily room cleaning is because it is listening to guests’ preference. This was specifically stated by Deb- bie Gibson in a large Zoom meeting with approximately 50 - 70 workers and director of organizing Kalena Miyashiro that took place at the end of 2020. In this meeting, the Employer made clear to the Union and Hil- ton workers that the Employer relied on input from guests in order to decide to no longer provide daily room cleaning as it had prior to the pandemic. The request for information simply asks for the information that the Em- ployer relied upon as stated by Debbie Gibson. (Emphases added.)4 On this same day, the Union filed a charge alleging that the Respondent had violated the Act by failing to provide relevant requested information. In response, the Respondent sent a letter on May 12, again informing the Union 4 As noted in the judge’s decision, “Debbie Gibson” was actually a reference to the Respondent’s managing director Debi Bishop. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 [C]onsistent with Hilton CleanStay, Ms. Bishop has ex- plained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request housekeeping service during the guest’s stay. She did not, however, make any of the statements you ascribe to her. Thus, our position remains the same: The information you seek has no relevance to the issue un- derlying the grievance in question. (Emphasis added). The Union’s final response was sent by union organizer Kalena Miyashiro, in which she rejected the Respondent’s response indicating that Bishop had not made the state- ment at issue. Specifically, Ms. Miyashiro stated: As you may know, the CBA prohibits the Employer from implementing any policy whereby guest rooms are not cleaned each and every night of their stay. In case you have forgotten, prior to the pandemic, guests were automatically provided daily room cleaning and had the option to “opt out” by putting a DND sign on their doors. Guests never had to request daily room cleaning. Sec- ondly, I was at the meeting with Debi Bishop and HHV workers. Debi was clear that the Hilton’s decision to stop providing daily room cleaning to guests was based on the guests’ preference. I recall this because I was at that meeting, as were many HHV workers. I am certain that this information is relevant to the grievance because, from the Union’s perspective, it goes to the heart of why the Employer chose to violate the clear language of the CBA. You have not claimed that this information does not exist. We are entitled to it. Please provide it no later than June 2nd, 2021. (Emphasis added.) I. THE UNION DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THE RELEVANCE OF THE NON-PRESUMPTIVELY RELEVANT INFORMATION IN THE FIRST INFORMATION REQUEST To begin, in determining whether or not the General Counsel met her burden in this case, one must first exam- ine whether the Union met the requirements to establish relevance in its initial information request, sent on March 16, 2021. As detailed above, the sole basis for relevance provided by the Union was that the Respondent had “taken the position that it refuses to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the ‘voice of the guests[.]’” Indeed, the only information sought was “any and all documents that indicate the ‘voice of the guests’ 5 This is not mere semantics. The General Counsel had the burden to establish that the Union met the conditions for establishing relevance at the time of the request. The fact that the Union’s sole premise for rele- vance was that the Respondent was taking a position that it was not, in fact, taking should not be ignored. regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel,” a direct refer- ence back to the Union’s asserted basis for relevance. Although my colleagues correctly note that the burden on the union to establish relevance in cases involving non- presumptively relevant information is “not heavy,” that does not mean that unions may meet the requirements for establishing relevance for their information requests by referencing statements that were never made. Indeed, Board law makes that clear that in order to establish rele- vance, the union must demonstrate a “reasonable belief supported by objective evidence . . . .” E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 NLRB No. 178, slip op. at 4 (2018) (emphasis added) (citing Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1258 (2007)). In terms of objective evidence, the request alleged that the Respondent was taking the position that the changes to its housekeeping practices were based on the “voice of the guests.” The record, however, does not contain any evi- dence that anyone associated with the Respondent used that phrase. Nor does Union’s request suggest the infor- mation sought is relevant because its reference to the “voice of the guests” was intended to be more interpreted more generally, so as to cover any statements based on guest preferences. Indeed, throughout the information re- quest that exact phrase was used, cited in quotation marks. In addition, it is clear that the General Counsel did not meet her burden to establish that the relevance of the Un- ion’s request should have been obvious to the Respondent. In addition to relying on the specific, and confusing, quo- tation “voice of the guests,” the Union asserted that the Respondent had “taken the position that it refuses to pro- vide guests with daily room cleaning.” To the contrary, under the Hilton CleanStay Program, the Respondent con- tinued to allow guests to receive daily room cleaning, they simply had to request it.5 Prior to the implementation of the Hilton CleanStay program, the default was that guests’ rooms would be cleaned on a daily basis, but guests were still permitted to “opt out” of that daily cleaning. Under the Hilton CleanStay Program, the only difference was that daily cleaning was no longer the default and that guests were permitted to “opt in” to daily room cleaning.6 At no point did the Respondent indicate that it would not permit guests to choose to have their rooms cleaned daily. For all the above reasons, the General Counsel did not meet her burden to establish that the Union’s first infor- mation request met the requirements for establishing rele- vance required under Disneyland Park. 6 In stating that the daily cleaning operations changed from an “opt out” to “opt in” policy,” I note that Miyashiro characterized the system by which guests decided whether or not to have daily room cleaning prior to the pandemic as an “opt out” option; I am not suggesting that the Re- spondent’s prior procedures constituted a past practice. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 11 II. THE RESPONDENT WENT BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUIRED AND ANSWERED THE UNION’S INITIAL INFORMATION REQUEST The fact that the Union failed to establish the relevance of the information sought in the first information request, however, is somewhat of a red herring in this case, be- cause the Respondent in fact responded to the Union’s in- formation request. In response to the Union’s information request, the Respondent expressly stated, “As we have in- dicated previously, current room protocols are based on the Hilton CleanStay program, information and documen- tation about which we have previously provided to the Un- ion.” (Emphasis added.) The Respondent’s statement is unequivocal. It does not state that the current room cleaning protocols, including the change in daily housekeeping policy, were based “in part” on the Hilton CleanStay program. It states that the changes were based on the Hilton CleanStay program. This statement, of course, was fully consistent with the Respondent’s actions prior to reopening, including in- forming the Union that it would be implementing new room protocols consistent with the Hilton CleanStay pro- gram.7 True, the Respondent did not include the magic words “and therefore we have no documents that are re- sponsive to your request,” but by affirmatively stating that the changes were based upon the Hilton CleanStay pro- gram, and not any “voice of the guests,” the Respondent’s response sent that clear message. III. THE UNION FAILED TO ESTABLISH RELEVANCE IN ITS SECOND INFORMATION REQUEST BECAUSE THE BASIS FOR ITS REQUEST WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE Apparently unhappy with the Respondent’s statement that, consistent with what it had told the Union in July, the 7 Although I do not rely on the testimony of either Debi Bishop or Julie Walker, I note that this answer is consistent with the sworn testi- mony of both individuals. 8 I note that my colleagues state that the Union’s information request maintained that Bishop had stated that the Hotel “would no longer auto- matically clean each guest room daily because guest surveys and feed- back showed that guests did not want employees in their rooms.” With all due respect, this is not an accurate description of the Union’s April 27 information request. 9 Although my colleagues agree that the Union was required to have “objective evidence” to support its assertion of relevance, they assert that “[t]he Union is not required to show that the basis for its information request is accurate or reliable.” And I am not arguing otherwise. What my colleagues are missing, however, is that the cases upon which they rely for this principle do not assert that information requests can be based upon objective evidence that does not exist. In Shoppers Food Ware- house, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994), the union’s request for information was based on a rumor that the respondent would be opening a new store. The respondent did not reply that there was no such rumor; to the con- trary, the respondent confirmed the rumor. The objective evidence sup- porting the union’s request was the rumor of a new store opening, and no room protocols were implemented pursuant to the Hilton CleanStay program, the Union sent a second information request. This time, the request deleted the quoted phrase “voice of our guests,” stating instead that the Respondent was taking the following “position”: [T]he hotel refuses to offer daily room cleaning . . . be- cause it is listening to guests’ preference. This was spe- cifically stated by Debbie Gibson in a large Zoom meet- ing with approximately 50 - 70 workers and director of organizing Kalena Miyashiro that took place at the end of 2020. In this meeting, the Employer made clear to the Union and Hilton workers that the Employer relied on input from guests in order to decide to no longer provide daily room cleaning as it had prior to the pandemic. The request for information simply asks for the information that the Employer relied upon as stated by Debbie Gib- son. (Emphases added).8 Although the Union still erroneously stated that the Respondent was refusing to offer daily room cleaning, it did provide more context for its request, referenc- ing a statement allegedly made by a specific individual, whom the Respondent inferred to be Debi Bishop. Again, I would find that the Union failed to meet its bur- den to establish the relevance of the requested information in this request. Under the standard set forth in Disneyland Park, the General Counsel was required to establish that the Union’s request was based on objective evidence. The judge, however, did not apply the objective evidence standard. Rather, she found that “[i]t is clear the union officials believed that guests provided input regarding the Hilton’s cleaning practices . . . .”9 Under Disneyland Park, however, mere “belief” is not sufficient; the infor- mation request must reflect objective evidence in support of a belief. one asserts that the objective evidence did not exist. Similarly, in Man- agement & Training Corp., 366 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 2–3 (2018), the unit employees’ request for information asserted it was relevant be- cause there was a rumor that nonunit employees had received a raise. Although the respondent refused to provide the requested information, asserting that the rumor was not true, the respondent did not assert that no such rumor existed. In the instant case, by contrast, the Union did not assert that its request for information was based on a rumor. The Union’s information requests all proffer, as objective evidence in support of the information’s rele- vance, that Bishop stated at a December safety meeting that the Respond- ent’s decision to change to an “opt out” daily housekeeping policy upon reopening was based upon guests’ preferences. Unlike in the cases cited by my colleagues, however, the Respondent asserted that the objective evidence cited by the Union in support of its request did not exist; it stated that Bishop never made any such statement. And, because the judge chose not to resolve conflicting testimony regarding what, if anything, Bishop said at the December safety meeting, the General Counsel did not meet its burden that, in fact, the objective evidence cited by the Union existed. This makes the instant case clearly distinguishable from the cases upon which my colleagues rely. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 12 The record, however, does not support a finding that the objective evidence requirement was satisfied. In light of the judge’s decision not to make fact findings regarding what, if anything, Gibson said at the meeting, the record does not establish that Debi Bishop ever stated that the Respondent took guests’ preference into account in imple- menting the Hilton CleanStay program, let alone that it “solicited information” on guests’ room cleaning prefer- ences prior to reopening after the pandemic.10 In finding that the information request sufficiently con- tained objective evidence, the judge and my colleagues ap- parently rely on notes from a December meeting taken by Julie Walker, the Respondent’s area director of human re- sources. The notes suggest that an employee named Cait- lyn, who did not testify, asked, “[A]ssume no surveys[,] SALT[.] [sic] [A]re we implementing surveys for [guests] on how their stay was[,] how to improve, what to work on from [the guest’s] perspective.” (Emphasis added). The notes reflect that, in response, Bishop indicated that the Respondent was “still doing SALT and [additional] ques- tions regarding [Hilton CleanStay program], so important to safety” [sic] and that she was speaking with guests and would continue to do so. Nothing in the substance of the notes at issue suggest that the question asked, or Bishop’s response, touched on the issue of what led the Respondent to implement changes in its housekeeping processes.11 But, in any event, in order to rely on these notes as objective evidence, the judge would have had to credit that the notes were an 10 My colleagues’ assertion that “the [Respondent acknowledged] that it had previously solicited guest feedback on topics including CleanStay and daily room cleaning” is not supported by the record. Even if the judge had credited the notes at issue, there is no reference to the Re- spondent having previously solicited guest feedback pertaining to CleanStay. The notes indicate that the Respondent was adding the ability to comment on the Hilton CleanStay program to its existing methods for obtaining guest feedback. 11 It should be noted that, when the question posed as well as the an- swer are considered together, only a truly tortured reading of Walker’s notes would lead to the conclusion that they were consistent with the Union’s assertions that Bishop was “clear” at the meeting that the Re- spondent’s decision to change its housekeeping practices “was based on the guests’ preference.” Rather, it is clear from the notes that the question allegedly posed by Caitlyn was an inquiry regarding the methods that the Respondent would be using to track guest feedback concerning their stays, with the hope of learning areas for possible improvement. Testimony establishes that the surveys to which Bishop was allegedly referring were the same surveys that had been offered to guests before the pandemic should they wish to provide feedback on what they experienced during their stay at the Hotel. Even though I am not relying on the sworn testimony of Bishop and Walker, I note that the notes are consistent with their testimony. Bishop testified that she did not make any statement suggesting that the change in housekeeping practices was based on the guests’ preference. Further, contrary to the judge’s representation of her testimony, she testified that the specifics of the Hilton CleanStay program were not discussed and specifically stated that the issue of room cleaning was not discussed. accurate or approximate record of what was said at the meeting.12 However, consistent with her earlier statement that resolution of the case “remains the same regardless of what occurred during the December safety meetings,” the judge expressly failed to make any such finding, conclud- ing instead that “[r]egardless of what was or was not said at the December 2020 safety meetings, the Union has es- tablished relevance.” The judge’s failure to make any fact findings whatso- ever regarding what may, or may not, have been said at the December meeting is the critical issue here. If no such statements were made, the inescapable conclusion is that the Union’s belief was not supported by objective evi- dence and that the General Counsel failed to meet her bur- den that the Union met its burden to establish relevance based on objective evidence. IV. THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED THE SECOND INFORMATION REQUEST, DESPITE HAVING NO DUTY TO DO SO, AND CONFIRMED ITS ANSWER TO THE FIRST INFORMATION REQUEST Once again, the issue of whether or not the Union met its burden to establish relevance is a bit of a red herring because, despite having no duty to do so, the Respondent answered the second information request. As described previously, the Respondent stated, in relevant part: [C]onsistent with Hilton CleanStay, Ms. Bishop has ex- plained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request housekeeping service during the guest’s stay. Similarly, Walker expressly testified that housekeeping was not dis- cussed at the meeting and that Bishop did not make any statement sug- gesting that the Hotel’s housekeeping practices were changed as a result of guest preference. Accordingly, had the judge decided to credit the notes as an accurate accounting of what was said at the meeting, the notes suggest that she should have credited the testimony of Bishop and Walker as well. 12 My colleagues assert that the Respondent did not raise this argu- ment and that, therefore, “they will not consider it now.” To the extent that my colleagues are suggesting that I should be precluded from apply- ing my own analysis to the Respondent’s exceptions, I note that the Board’s Rules and Regulations do not support that position. Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations indicates that ex- ceptions not raised by a party “will be deemed to have been waived.” (Emphasis added). The second sentence of Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii), in turn, states that exceptions that are raised but fail to conform with the require- ments of Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(i)—including Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(i)(D), per- taining to bare exceptions containing no supporting argument—"may be disregarded.” Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). In other words, even when parties make exceptions that do not include any supporting argument, the Board still has the option to consider those exceptions. And if the Board has the option to consider exceptions that lack support- ing argument, the Board must have the authority to decide those excep- tions based on its own legal analysis. Accordingly, although Sec. 102.46(a)(1)(ii) suggests that exceptions not raised by a party are deemed to have been waived, the section does not support an interpretation that “arguments” in support of those exceptions may not be considered as part of the Board’s analysis when they are not raised by a party. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 13 She did not, however, make any of the statements you ascribe to her. Thus, our position remains the same: The information you seek has no relevance to the issue un- derlying the grievance in question. (Emphases added). Again, the Respondent asserted that the Respondent’s new room cleaning procedures were being im- plemented consistent with the Hilton CleanStay program. In addition, in response to the Union’s new information identi- fying that their request is based on statements made by a spe- cific individual (whom the Respondent inferred to be Debi Bishop), the Respondent expressly and unequivocally states that Bishop did not make any of statements that the Union is citing as the basis for the relevance of its information request. Again, although the Respondent did not append the magic words “and therefore no such documents exist” to its re- sponse, it is hard to imagine a world where documents sup- porting a statement that was never made would exist. V. THE UNION’S FINAL INFORMATION REQUEST FAILED TO ESTABLISH RELEVANCE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE AND BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT HAD ALREADY FULLY RESPONDED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN ITS PRIOR RESPONSE Despite the Respondent’s clear assertion that Bishop had not made any of the statements being ascribed to her, the Union sent a final request that, in essence, repeated the substance of the prior information request. The request first asserted that the room cleaning system had changed. This was not an issue in dispute; the Respondent had pre- viously, and consistently, been informing the Union that it was changing the room cleaning system pursuant to the Hilton CleanStay program.13 The request then asserted that the Respondent’s prior response was incorrect be- cause Debi Bishop did make the statement being refer- enced in the second information request, providing addi- tional information as to why she believes that her recol- lection of that statement was correct. She then concluded 13 My colleagues suggest that the Union was reasonable in continuing to assert that the Respondent was taking the position that its decision to implement the housekeeping changes prescribed by Hilton, as set forth in the Hilton CleanStay program that was implemented at all 7000 of its properties worldwide, was “based on the guests’ input.” In support of this assertion, they cite testimony suggesting that the Hotel was able to reposition (but not eliminate) plastic airflow screens, but cite no record evidence establishing that the Hilton CleanStay program mandated where the screens were to be positioned in the first place. They also assert that the Respondent could have decided not to follow the house- keeping changes mandated by the Hilton CleanStay program because it chose to take measures that went beyond what Hilton required. I see no need to explain the obvious fallacy of that argument. 14 My colleagues state that the Union was not required to establish the relevance of the requested information at the time that the requests were made, asserting that “the Board has consistently held that relevance may be established as late as the unfair labor practice hearing.” See, e.g., Postal Service, 364 NLRB 230, 247 (2016).” In fact, Postal Service does that, because the statement was made, the requested infor- mation is relevant. Once again, the Union’s request fails to establish the relevance of the requested information.14 As discussed previously, as a result of the judge’s decision not to make any finding regarding what Bishop may, or may not, have said, the General Counsel failed to establish that any ob- jective evidence supported the Union’s assertion that Bishop had stated that “the Hilton’s decision to stop providing daily room cleaning to guests was based on the guests’ preference.”15 Furthermore, the Respondent’s response to the second information request included the explanation that “con- sistent with Hilton CleanStay, Bishop has explained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request house- keeping service during the guest’s stay.” The judge and my colleagues assert that this statement constitutes objec- tive evidence establishing the relevance of the Union’s third information request.16 I disagree. To begin, the Un- ion’s third information request does not mention this state- ment by the Respondent. I am not sure how one can find that the Union met its burden to establish that objective evidence was sufficient to meet its burden to establish rel- evance at the time of the information request when it was not cited at the time of the information request. But even ignoring that well-established principle, the language cited does not establish the relevance of the requested in- formation. In relying on the Respondent’s language, the judge and my colleagues conveniently omit the opening clause of the Respondent’s sentence, “consistent with Hilton CleanStay.” Read in its entirety, it is clear that the sen- tence is stating that, in the past, Bishop has explained that, consistent with the Hilton CleanStay program, guests will have the choice to decide whether to receive housekeeping services during their stay. There is no other reasonable interpretation of that sentence. And, furthermore, the not stand for that proposition. Id. at 230, 247 (Although the general prin- ciple that “relevance may be established as late as the unfair labor prac- tice” was cited in the judge’s decision, neither the judge nor the Board relied on that principle; the judge found that “the relevance of the re- quested information was self-evident,” and the Board found that the re- quested information was “plainly relevant, and it was readily apparent from the circumstances of the request that the information was rele- vant.”). Further, I do not believe it is accurate to say that this principle has been a “consistent” holding of the Board. 15 As discussed above, the notes—which the judge neither credited nor, according to her decision, relied on as an accurate or approximate account of what was said at the December safety meeting—did not ref- erence the initial decision to implement the room cleaning changes but rather the feedback options that would be available to guests after the Hotel reopened. 16 The statement could not be used as evidence that the Union estab- lished the relevance of the requested information for the prior requests, of course, because it did not exist at the time of the previous requests. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 14 sentence accurately explains how the Hilton CleanStay program operates. Under the Hilton CleanStay program, guests would have the choice to “opt in” for receiving housekeeping services, similar to how, in the past, guests had the choice to “opt out” of housekeeping services. Fur- ther, nothing in this sentence indicates that guests’ general preferences played any role in the Respondent’s imple- mentation of the changes to housekeeping practices as set forth in the Hilton CleanStay program. The bottom line is that nothing about this sentence was inconsistent with what the Respondent had expressly, and consistently, said to the Union: the Respondent, like all other Hilton proper- ties, was implementing the Hilton CleanStay program upon reopening and that, consistent with the terms of that program, the Respondent was changing its housekeeping practices.17 Finally, the record is clear that the Respondent had al- ready answered the Union’s third information request. Again, the Union’s request is based on statements alleg- edly made by Bishop. The Respondent had already an- swered that no such statements were made. The fact that the Union did not happen to agree with that statement does not indicate that the Respondent failed to respond, absent any credited evidence that any such statement was made. And, again, the fact that the Respondent did not expressly state that “no documents exist” does not render its express statement that “no such statements were made” insuffi- cient.18 Conclusion It is clear that the judge made a fundamental error in her decision, and it is unfortunate that my colleagues have compounded that error. The Union’s information request was based on one fundamental premise: that Bishop made statements at a December meeting suggesting that the Re- spondent’s decision to change its housekeeping practices was based on guest preferences. The Respondent, in turn, answered that the statements cited by the Union in support of the relevance of its request were never made. Absent any credited evidence that Bishop did, in fact, make any such statements, the General Counsel failed to meet her burden to establish that objective evidence supported the Union’s assertion of relevance. Furthermore, absent that objective evidence, the Respondent’s response informing 17 Although I do not rely on this point, in light of the judge’s failure to resolve conflicting testimony regarding what was said at the December meeting, I note that the testimony of Affron Herring supports this inter- pretation. Herring testified that Bishop stated “[t]hat [due to] the pan- demic and due to the new safety CleanStay Program for the hotel, . . . daily housekeeping will not be provided and that hotel guests would have to call down to the front desk and opt into the daily housekeeping.” 18 My colleagues seem to take the position that, even assuming that there is no record evidence establishing that Bishop made any comment suggesting that guest preference played a role in changing its daily the Union that its decision to change its housekeeping practices was based on the standards set forth in the Hilton CleanStay program, and that Bishop did not make the statements being ascribed to her, was a sufficient response to the Respondent’s request. For the reasons stated above, I would dismiss the com- plaint. Dated, Washington, D.C. February 28, 2023 ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio- lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with UNITE HERE! Local 5 (the Union) by failing or refusing to provide it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bargaining representative of our employ- ees in the following appropriate unit: All employees employed by Respondent identified in Exhibit B (Banquet Bushelp, Banquet Captain, Banquet Dining Room Steward, Banquet Porter, Banquet Waithelp, Head Banquet Porter, Bar Porter, Bartender, housekeeping practices, the Respondent was still required to seek docu- ments from its parent corporation. Of course, if the Union’s request did not cite objective evidence supporting its assertion of relevance, the Re- spondent would not have had the duty to provide any information what- soever. Furthermore, it is hard to imagine how any guest input Hilton may have considered in developing the Hilton CleanStay program, which it implemented across its 7000 properties, would be relevant to a deter- mination whether the Respondent violated the parties’ contract by chang- ing its housekeeping practices or relevant to the Union’s decision whether or not to pursue its grievance. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 15 Cocktail Waithelp, Combination Bartender, Function Bartender, Head Bartender, Head Mini-Bar Porter, Lead Bartender, Mini-Bar Porter, Service Bartender, Assis- tant Baker, Assistant Pastry Chef, Assistant Pastry Cook, Baker/Pastry Cook, Bakery Cook, Baker, Pastry Chef, Pastry Cook, Butcher, Head Butcher, Assistant Cook, Breakfast Cook, Cafeteria Cook, Cook’s Helper, Dinner Cook, Fry Cook, Second Cook, Working Chef/Working Sous Chef, Assistant Gardemanager, As- sistant Pantry, Counter Person, Fountain Dispenser, Head Gardemanager, Head Pantry/Gardemanager, Pan- try, Assistant Head Steward, Buffet Food Runner, Head Utility Steward, Utility Steward, Bushelp, Cafeteria At- tendant, Cashier/Host/Hostess, Coffee Attendant, Coun- ter Attendant, Dining Room Steward, Food Service As- sistant, Head Bushelp, Host/Hostess, Tea Attendant, Waithelp, Waithelp Captain, Wine Steward, Front Of- fice Clerk, Front Office Working Supervisor, Guest Ser- vice Agent, Guest Service Agent Working Supervisor, Junior Front Office Clerk, Junior Reservations Clerk, Reservations Clerk, Senior Front Office Clerk, Senior Reservations Clerk, Accounting Clerk, Accounting Working Supervisor, Assistant Auditor, Assistant Head Food & Beverage Cashier, Auditor, Chief Clerk/Bookkeeper, Food & Beverage Cashier, Food & Beverage Control Clerk, Front Office Cashier, General Cashier, Head Cashier, Head Night Auditor, Income Auditor, Junior Accounting Clerk, Paymaster, Posting Clerk, Receptionist Cashier, Senior Accounting Clerk, Voucher Clerk, Beach Clerk, Exit Watch, File Clerk Typist, Housekeeping Clerk, Junior Beach Clerk, Junior Tour Desk Clerk, Maintenance Clerk, Secretary, Time- keeper, Timekeeper/Receiving Clerk, Tour Desk Clerk, Assistant Senior Storekeeper, Buyer, Junior Store- keeper, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Clerk, Senior Storekeeper, Storekeeper, Head Telephone Operator, Message Telephone Operator, Telephone Operator, Housekeeping Department Working Supervisor, Head Linen Room Attendant, Inspectress, Linen Room At- tendant, Seamstress, Housekeeper III, Housekeeper II, Housekeeper I—General Cleaner, Housekeeper I- Rooms, Personal Housekeeper, Head Laundry At- tendant, Laundry Attendant III, Laundry Attendant II, Laundry Attendant I, Laundry Working Supervisor, General Maintenance, Maintenance Foreman, Mainte- nance First Class, Maintenance Second Class, Mainte- nance Trainee, Maintenance Utility, Stage Maintenance, Carpenter Foreman, Carpenter Journeyman, Carpenter Maintenance, Locksmith, Mason, Electrician Foreman, Electrician Journeyman, Electrician Maintenance, Me- chanic Foreman, Mechanic Journeyman, Mechanic Maintenance, Air-Condition/Refrigeration Specialist- Journeyman, Painter Foreman, Painter Journeyman, Painter Maintenance, Plumber Foreman, Plumber Jour- neyman, Plumber Maintenance, Upholster Foreman, Upholster Journeyman, Upholster Maintenance, Uphol- ster Seamstress, Assistant Head Gardener, Gardener, Gardener First Class, Insect and Rodent Control, Insect and Rodent Control Aide, Insect and Rodent Control Foreman, Laborer, Parking Garage Cleaner, Truck Driver, Assistant Bell Captain, Beach/Pool Attendant, Bell Clerk, Bell Porter, Bell Sergeant, Bell Valet, Bell- hop, Door Attendant, Front Services Clerk, Limousine Driver, Messengers, Parking Valet, Pool Captain, Valet Assistant, Working Bell Captain, Parking Garage Cleaner, Parking Lot Attendant, Senior Parking At- tendant, Working Supervisor Parking) of the collective- bargaining agreement in effect between Respondent and the Union from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2018, and incorporated by reference into the most recent collec- tive-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Un- ion in effect from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL provide to the Union in a timely manner the information requested by the Union on March 16, 2021. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT The Board’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-276192 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. Scott E. Hovey, Jr., Esq., for the General Counsel. Alan I. Model, Esq., for the Respondent. Jennifer Cynn, Esq., for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried using the Zoom for Government platform on October 19, DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 16 2021. UNITE HERE! Local 5 (the Union or Charging Party) filed the charge on April 23, 2021, and the General Counsel is- sued the complaint on August 3, 2021.1 Hilton Hotel Employer LLC, d/b/a Hilton Hawaiian Village Waikiki Beach Resort (The Respondent or Hotel), filed a timely answer denying all material allegations. The complaint alleges the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) when it failed to respond to the Union’s request for information related to a grievance it filed regarding the Respondent’s alleged failure to schedule daily room cleaning, resulting in lost work oppor- tunity and lost wages for bargaining unit employees. For the rea- sons detailed below, I find the General Counsel has met the bur- den to prove this allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. On the entire record, including my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION The Respondent, a corporation, operates a hotel at its facility in Honolulu, Hawaii, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchases and receives goods at its Hon- olulu, Hawaii location valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of Hawaii. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Un- ion is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Respondent operates the Hilton Hawaiian Village, a large resort hotel in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Union represents about 1600 employees at the Hotel. The Union and the Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) that ran from July 2013 through June 30, 2018. They also entered into a letter of agreement (LOA) that ran from July 2018 through June 2022. The CBA and LOA together spelled out the contractual terms binding the parties. (GC Exhs. 2–3.)2 During the relevant time period, Julie Walker was the Re- spondent’s area director of human resources, which included the Hilton Hawaiian Village. Debi Bishop was the Hotel’s managing director during the relevant time period, and Eileen Nepomuceno was the assistant human resources director. Tammy Omoso was the Union’s lead organizer for its contract enforcement team.3 Kalena Miyashiro, the director of internal organizing for the Union, was a member of the safety committee and attended safety meetings at the Hotel. Affron Herring, who 1 The complaint was amended to change the caption to reflect the Respondent’s correct legal name. 2 Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “GC Exh.” for the General Counsel’s exhibit; and “R Exh.” for the Respondent’s ex- hibit. Although I have included some citations to the record, I emphasize that my findings and conclusions are based not solely on the evidence specifically cited, but rather are based on my review and consideration of the entire record. 3 Her duties included filing and processing grievances. worked in the Hotel’s culinary department, was a union steward and first responder,4 who also served on the Hotel’s safety com- mittee. The Hilton Hawaiian Village was closed from April 14, 2020, through December 14, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pan- demic. Upon reopening, Hilton implemented a program at its hotels, including the Hilton Hawaiian Village, called CleanStay, which included enhanced cleaning protocols, social distancing, and other measures meant to enhance safety in light of the ongo- ing pandemic. The Union was provided information regarding CleanStay during the summer of 2020.5 Part of the CleanStay program involved inviting the guests to tailor their housekeeping services to their comfort level. To this end, guests were in- structed to contact the front desk if they wanted to schedule a room cleaning, but otherwise the rooms would not be cleaned during the guest’s stay. (R Exh. 3.) Prior to the pandemic, daily room cleaning was the norm, and guests could opt out of having their rooms cleaned on any given day by placing the “do not dis- turb” sign on the room’s door. While the Hotel was closed, its safety committee, comprised of Hotel management, Union representatives, and Hotel employ- ees, continued to hold meetings via videoconference.6 During a videoconference safety committee meeting in December 2020, Miyashiro recalled asking Walker and Bishop whether the rooms would be cleaned on a daily basis when the hotel reopened. Ac- cording to Miyashiro, Bishop responded that the rooms would not be cleaned on a daily basis because, according to surveys, guests did not want anyone coming into their rooms. Herring recalled Bishop stating during one or more of the meetings that, due to the new CleanStay program, daily housekeeping would not automatically be provided, and guests would need to call down to the front desk and opt into daily housekeeping if they wanted it. As he recounted, Bishop explained that guests were telling them nationwide and locally that they did not want daily housekeeping due to the pandemic, and they wanted to have little or less contact with the workers at the Hotel. According to Bishop and Walker, daily room cleaning and the CleanStay program were not discussed at the safety meetings.7 Walker’s notes from a December safety meeting reflect that a front desk employee named Caitlyn asked about the kipsu pro- gram, which was a texting program for guests to provide feed- back. Caitlyn noted the kipsu number was posted “everywhere” and asked who was responding to the guests on the Hotel’s be- half, including regarding housekeeping matters. Caitlyn also asked if the Hotel was still doing satisfaction and loyalty tracking (SALT) surveys, and Bishop responded, “[W]e are still doing SALT and addl questions regarding Clean Stay program, so im- portant w/ safety. I been communicating with gsts and will con- tinue to do that, very important.” (GC Exh. 13.) 4 A first responder is one of the first people on the scene if a coworker has a question or concern about their job or the contract. 5 Bishop testified that the Union was provided information on CleanStay after May 2020. Walker testified she gave the Union infor- mation on CleanStay in July 2020. The precise timing is not material. 6 Section 15.1 of the CBA establishes the safety committee. 7 The issue in this case, and resolution thereof, remains the same re- gardless of what occurred during the December safety meetings. HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 17 The LOA provides, in relevant part, “Due to the unique char- acteristics of a resort environment, the Hotel shall not implement any program or policy whereby guests’ rooms are not cleaned after each and every night of their stay.” (GC Exh. 3, p. 21.) On December 29, 2020, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Respondent violated the CBA by failing and refusing to schedule daily room cleaning, resulting in loss of work opportunity and wages for the housekeepers. (GC Exh. 4.) On March 16, 2021, Omoso sent (via facsimile) a letter to Walker, stating: This is a request for information regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. The Employer has taken the position that it refuses to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listen- ing to the “voice of the guests”. It is the Union's position that daily room cleaning is a requirement under the CBA and a re- fusal by the Employer to do so based on the “voice of the guests” violates the CBA. Please provide the following infor- mation on the Employer’s position: (1) Please provide any and all documents that indicate the “voice of the guests” regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel. This may include (but is not limited to) emails, guest com- ments, memos, notes, correspondence, reviews, or any other documents; a. If there are surveys, please provide copies. Please also provide information, documents, and data regarding the Employer’s methodology for analyzing this survey data, and all documents indicating the results of such analysis. Please provide this information no later than March 23, 2021. (GC Exh. 5.) There was no response, so Omoso followed up on April 1, 2021, stating: A request for information was sent on March 16, 2021. To date the union has not received a (sic) any informationr (sic). This is a second request. A copy of the original request is attached. Please provide this information no later than April 5, 2021. If we do not receive the requested information the Union will file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. Should you have any questions please contact me. (GC Exh. 6.) On April 7, 2021, Walker responded to Omoso as follows, “The Hotel is in receipt of the Union’s information request re- garding the above referenced matter. The Hotel is reviewing your request and will respond to your April 1, 2021 letter no later than Friday, April 16, 2021.” (GC Exh. 7.) On April 23, Nepo- muceno wrote to Omoso the following: I am writing in response to the Union’s March 16, 2021 request for information with respect to “daily room cleaning at the ho- tel.” As we have discussed previously, we disagree with the Union’s position that “daily room cleaning is a requirement of the CBA.” In your letter, you claim that the Employer has taken the position that it “refuses” to provide guests with daily room cleaning because it is listening to the “voice of the guests.” You 8 Omoso clarified this in writing on June 1, 2021. (GC Exh. 12.) Though the reference to Debbie Gibson may have seemed “Out of the have misstated the Employer’s position. The Hotel is not “re- fusing” to provide guests with daily room cleaning. We are also unfamiliar with phrase, “voice of the guests,” as used in your letter. As we have indicated previously, current room cleaning protocols are based on the Hilton CleanStay program, infor- mation and documentation about which we have previously provided to the Union. The information you request is therefore irrelevant and unnecessary for the Union to carry out its statu- tory duties and responsibilities. Should you still believe the in- formation is relevant, please demonstrate such and the Hotel will further consider your request. (GC Exh. 8.) Omoso responded on April 27, stating in relevant part: This request for information is a direct response to the Em- ployer’s position that the reason the hotel refuses to offer daily room cleaning is because it is listening to guests’ preference. This was specifically stated by Debbie Gibson in a large Zoom meeting with approximately 50 - 70 workers and director of organizing Kalena Miyashiro that took place at the end of 2020. In this meeting, the Employer made clear to the Union and Hil- ton workers that the Employer relied on input from guests in order to decide to no longer provide daily room cleaning as it had prior to the pandemic. The request for information simply asks for the information that the Employer relied upon as stated by Debbie Gibson. We have now demonstrated that this information is relevant and necessary. The Employer has stated that this information exists and the Employer relied upon it to make decisions that have a direct impact on workers and the disposition of a Union grievance. Please provide any and all documents named in my March 16, 2021 request for information no later than April 30, 2021. (GC Exh. 9.) Omoso was referring to Debi Bishop, the Hotel’s managing director; the reference to “Debbie Gibson” was an er- ror.8 Walker responded on May 12, noting the mistake in Bishop’s name and stating, in relevant part: [C]onsistent with Hilton CleanStay, Ms. Bishop has explained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request house- keeping service during the guest’s stay. She did not, however, make any of the statements you ascribe to her. Thus, our posi- tion remains the same: The information you seek has no rele- vance to the issue underlying the grievance in question. (GC Exh. 10.) On May 25, Miyashiro sent Walker a follow-up, stating in relevant part: As you may know, the CBA prohibits the Employer from im- plementing any policy whereby guest rooms are not cleaned each and every night of their stay. In case you have forgotten, prior to the pandemic, guests were automatically provided daily room cleaning and had the option to “opt out” by putting a DND sign on their doors. Guests never had to request daily room cleaning. Secondly, I was at the meeting with Debi Bishop and HHV workers. Debi was clear that the Hilton’s Blue,” those of us who grew up in the 80’s were nostalgically reminded of our “Electric Youth.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 18 decision to stop providing daily room cleaning to guests was based on the guests’ preference. I recall this because I was at that meeting, as were many HHV workers. I am certain that this information is relevant to the grievance because, from the Un- ion’s perspective, it goes to the heart of why the Employer chose to violate the clear language of the CBA. You have not claimed that this information does not exist. We are entitled to it. Please provide it no later than June 2nd, 2021. (GC Exh. 11.) The Respondent provided no documents or further responses. At the hearing, Walker testified there were no responsive docu- ments. III. DECISION AND ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, each party to a bargain- ing relationship is required to bargain in good faith. Part of that obligation is that both sides are required to furnish relevant in- formation upon request. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The employer’s duty to provide relevant infor- mation exists because without the information, the union is una- ble to perform its statutory duties as the employees’ bargaining agent. Like a flat refusal to bargain, “[t]he refusal of an employer to provide a bargaining agent with information relevant to the Union’s task of representing its constituency is a per se violation of the Act” without regard to the employer’s subjective good or bad faith. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 220 NLRB 189, 191 (1975); Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 237 NLRB 747, 751 (1978), enfd. 603 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1979). In determining possible rele- vance, the Board does not pass upon the merits, and the labor organization is not required to demonstrate that the information is accurate, not hearsay, or even ultimately reliable. Postal Ser- vice, 337 NLRB 820, 822 (2002). Information concerning employees in the bargaining unit and their terms and conditions of employment, is deemed “so intrin- sic to the core of the employer-employee relationship” to be pre- sumptively relevant. Disneyland Park, 350 NLRB 1256, 1257 (2007); Sands Hotel & Casino, 324 NLRB 1101, 1109 (1997). Presumptively relevant information must be furnished on request to employees’ collective-bargaining representatives unless the employer establishes a legitimate affirmative defense to the pro- duction of the information. Metta Electric, 349 NLRB 1088 (2007); Postal Service, 332 NLRB 635 (2000). When the requested information does not concern subjects di- rectly pertaining to the bargaining unit, such material is not pre- sumptively relevant, and the burden is upon the labor organiza- tion to demonstrate the relevance of the material sought. Dis- neyland Park, supra at 1257; Richmond Health Care, 332 NLRB 1304, 1305 fn. 1 (2000). To determine relevance, the Board uses a “liberal, discovery-type standard” that requires only that the requested information have “some bearing upon” the issue be- tween the parties and be “of probable use to the labor organiza- tion in carrying out its statutory responsibilities.” Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 360 NLRB 573, 574 (2014); Postal Service, 9 The General Counsel does not argue that the information requested was presumptively relevant. 332 NLRB at 636. A valid information request imposes a duty upon the non-re- questing party to respond in a timely manner—either by comply- ing with the request or by asserting its rationale for not doing so. “Failure to make either response in a reasonable time is, by itself, a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.” Columbia Uni- versity, 298 NLRB 941, 945 (1990), citing Ellsworth Sheet Metal, 232 NLRB 109 (1977); see also Daimler Chrysler Corp., 331 NLRB 1324, 1329 (2000); Interstate Food Processing, 283 NLRB 303, 304 at fn. 9 (1987). “To determine whether requested information has been pro- vided in a timely manner, the Board considers a variety of fac- tors, including the nature of the information sought, the difficulty in obtaining it, the amount of time the employer takes to provide it, the reasons for the delay, and whether the party contempora- neously communicates these reasons to the requesting party.” TDY Industries, LLC d/b/a ATI Specialty Alloys & Components, Millersburg Operations, 369 NLRB No. 128, slip op. at 2 (2020), citing Safeway, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 30, slip op. at 7 (2020); see also Linwood Care Center, 367 NLRB No. 14 lip op. at 4–5 (2018)(finding 6-week delay in providing requested information about wage increases unreasonable where information was not difficult to retrieve and respondent provided no justification for the delay). If no responsive documents exist, the employer must timely convey this to the union. Safeway, Inc., above, slip op. at 7 (2020); See also Graymont PA, Inc., 364 NLRB 356, 361–362 (2016), enf. denied on other grounds Nos. 16-1249 & 16-1288 (D.C. Cir. March 3, 2017); Endo Painting Service, 360 NLRB 485, 486 (2014) (Employer “obligat[ed] to timely disclose that requested information does not exist” as part of the duty to timely provide information); Tennessee Steel Processors, 287 NLRB 1132, 1132–1133 (1988) (respondent unlawfully waited 6 months to inform the union that certain requested information did not exist). B. Analysis and Findings The LOA provides, in relevant part, “Due to the unique char- acteristics of a resort environment, the Hotel shall not implement any program or policy whereby guests’ rooms are not cleaned after each and every night of their stay.” (GC Exh. 3, p. 21.) In the instant case, the Union filed a grievance stating, “The Em- ployer is violating the CBA by failing and refusing to schedule daily room cleaning which is resulting in lost work opportunity and lost wages for the Grievants.” (GC Exh. 4.) Assuming the information requested is not presumptively relevant, I find the Union has established its request for information regarding guest preference as to daily room cleaning is relevant both to policing the collective-bargaining agreement and processing its griev- ance.9 It is clear the union officials believed that guests provided input regarding the Hilton’s cleaning practices, including the housekeeping components of these practices. Indeed, in one of the responses to the information request, the Respondent stated, “Ms. Bishop has explained in the past that it is the guest’s choice whether to request housekeeping service during the guest’s HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 19 stay.” (GC Exh. 10.) Any documents reflecting this choice would therefore be responsive to this request. That guests were given the opportunity for input is also supported by notes from a De- cember safety meeting referencing the Hotel’s posting of the “kipsu” number for providing feedback (including feedback about housekeeping), as well as its continued use of the SALT surveys with additional questions regarding the CleanStay pro- gram. Regardless of what was or was not said at the December 2020 safety meetings, the Union has established relevance.10 The Respondent provided no responsive documents, and did not state that it possessed no responsive documents until the hearing. To support its position, the Respondent first focuses on the Union’s repeated use of the term “voice of the guests” and argues that the Union erred in seeking a very narrow set of infor- mation under a specific program at a different hotel. Because such a program did not exist at the Hilton, the Respondent con- tends, no response was warranted. In her initial response to the Union, however, Nepomuceno did not indicate she believed the Union was referring to a specific program, and only stated that she was unfamiliar with the phrase “voice of the guests”. In any event, just four days later, Omoso clarified that she was referring to input from the guests or the guests’ preference.11 Despite the use of the term “voice of the guests” and its placement in quota- tions, it is abundantly clear from the Union’s multiple requests that it was seeking guest feedback. The Respondent’s attempt at semantic gamesmanship is flimsy and unconvincing. The Respondent next argues that its response stating the cur- rent room cleaning protocols were based on Hilton’s CleanStay program should have ended the Union’s inquiry. The Union, however, requested all documents reflecting guests’ preference about daily room cleaning, regardless of the CleanStay pro- gram.12 As such, the Hotel’s implementation of the CleanStay program does not obviate its duty to respond to the Union’s re- quest. Finally, the Respondent contends there were no responsive documents. As noted above, this was first raised at the hearing, after repeated refusals to provide responsive documents on rele- vance grounds. As the assertion no responsive documents ex- isted was raised more than seven months after the initial request, this was an unlawful delay under extant Board law. See, e.g., Tennessee Steel Processors, above. The Respondent’s continued position that its duty to provide documents was limited to a “voice of the guest” program at an- other hotel chain raises questions as to whether its belated re- sponse that there are no responsive documents is valid. Particu- lar considering the evidence regarding the “kitsu” texts and SALT surveys, it is unclear whether the Respondent has 10 It is clear Omoso prefaced the information request by expressing a belief that the change to having rooms cleaned daily as a default to hav- ing them cleaned upon request was the result of guest feedback. Regard- less, the contract specifically references daily room cleaning and the grievance was about daily room cleaning. The request directly concerns daily room cleaning. It is therefore relevant. 11 If the Respondent’s officials were still confused about what infor- mation the Union was seeking after Omoso’s April 27 clarification, it was incumbent upon them to request further clarification. Keauhou Beach Hotel, 298 NLRB 702 (1990). complied with the Union’s request. Accordingly, the remedies and order sections below will provide that responsive infor- mation shall be provided should it exist. If it does not exist, the Respondent shall promptly notify the Union that no responsive information exists. Based on the foregoing, I find the General Counsel has met the burden to prove the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By failing and refusing to provide, and/or unduly delaying in providing, the Union with requested information relevant to the Union’s proper performance of its collective-bargaining du- ties as the exclusive bargaining representative of an appropriate unit of the Respondent’s employees, the Respondent has en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2. The above violation is an unfair labor practice affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found the Respondent failed and refused to provide requested relevant information and/or failed to timely provide requested relevant information to the Union, I shall order the Re- spondent to cease and desist from this action and to provide to the Union any relevant information as specified in the recom- mended Order below. The Respondent shall be required to post a notice that assures its employees that it will respect their rights under the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended13 ORDER The Respondent, Hilton Hotel Employer, LLC, d/b/a Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with the Union, Unite Here! Local 5, by failing and refusing to furnish it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Re- spondent’s employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit: 12 Though not material to decide this case, it indeed appears the CleanStay program was based, at least in part, on guest feedback. Pro- gram literature notes, “Research indicates that consumers have height- ened concerns regarding hygiene on their journey, and trust in cleanliness will be critical to restarting travel.” (R Exh. 2, p. 2); and “We also under- stand that our guests’ expectations for cleaning and disinfection have changed.” (R Exh. 3, p. 1). 13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or- der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 20 All employees employed by Respondent identified in Exhibit B (Banquet Bushelp, Banquet Captain, Banquet Dining Room Steward, Banquet Porter, Banquet Waithelp, Head Banquet Porter, Bar Porter, Bartender, Cocktail Waithelp, Combination Bartender, Function Bartender, Head Bartender, Head Mini- Bar Porter, Lead Bartender, Mini-Bar Porter, Service Bar- tender, Assistant Baker, Assistant Pastry Chef, Assistant Pastry Cook, Baker/Pastry Cook, Bakery Cook, Baker, Pastry Chef, Pastry Cook, Butcher, Head Butcher, Assistant Cook, Break- fast Cook, Cafeteria Cook, Cook’s Helper, Dinner Cook, Fry Cook, Second Cook, Working Chef/Working Sous Chef, As- sistant Gardemanager, Assistant Pantry, Counter Person, Foun- tain Dispenser, Head Gardemanager, Head Pantry/Gar- demanager, Pantry, Assistant Head Steward, Buffet Food Run- ner, Head Utility Steward, Utility Steward, Bushelp, Cafeteria Attendant, Cashier/Host/Hostess, Coffee Attendant, Counter Attendant, Dining Room Steward, Food Service Assistant, Head Bushelp, Host/Hostess, Tea Attendant, Waithelp, Waithelp Captain, Wine Steward, Front Office Clerk, Front Office Working Supervisor, Guest Service Agent, Guest Ser- vice Agent Working Supervisor, Junior Front Office Clerk, Junior Reservations Clerk, Reservations Clerk, Senior Front Office Clerk, Senior Reservations Clerk, Accounting Clerk, Accounting Working Supervisor, Assistant Auditor, Assistant Head Food & Beverage Cashier, Auditor, Chief Clerk/Bookkeeper, Food & Beverage Cashier, Food & Bever- age Control Clerk, Front Office Cashier, General Cashier, Head Cashier, Head Night Auditor, Income Auditor, Junior Accounting Clerk, Paymaster, Posting Clerk, Receptionist Cashier, Senior Accounting Clerk, Voucher Clerk, Beach Clerk, Exit Watch, File Clerk Typist, Housekeeping Clerk, Junior Beach Clerk, Junior Tour Desk Clerk, Maintenance Clerk, Secretary, Timekeeper, Timekeeper/Receiving Clerk, Tour Desk Clerk, Assistant Senior Storekeeper, Buyer, Junior Storekeeper, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Clerk, Senior Storekeeper, Storekeeper, Head Telephone Operator, Message Telephone Operator, Telephone Operator, Housekeeping De- partment Working Supervisor, Head Linen Room Attendant, Inspectress, Linen Room Attendant, Seamstress, Housekeeper III, Housekeeper II, Housekeeper I—General Cleaner, House- keeper I- Rooms, Personal Housekeeper, Head Laundry At- tendant, Laundry Attendant III, Laundry Attendant II, Laundry Attendant I, Laundry Working Supervisor, General Mainte- nance, Maintenance Foreman, Maintenance First Class, Maintenance Second Class, Maintenance Trainee, Mainte- nance Utility, Stage Maintenance, Carpenter Foreman, Carpen- ter Journeyman, Carpenter Maintenance, Locksmith, Mason, Electrician Foreman, Electrician Journeyman, Electrician Maintenance, Mechanic Foreman, Mechanic Journeyman, Mechanic Maintenance, Air-Condition/Refrigeration Special- ist-Journeyman, Painter Foreman, Painter Journeyman, Painter Maintenance, Plumber Foreman, Plumber Journeyman, Plumber Maintenance, Upholster Foreman, Upholster Jour- neyman, Upholster Maintenance, Upholster Seamstress, 14 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the Assistant Head Gardener, Gardener, Gardener First Class, In- sect and Rodent Control, Insect and Rodent Control Aide, In- sect and Rodent Control Foreman, Laborer, Parking Garage Cleaner, Truck Driver, Assistant Bell Captain, Beach/Pool At- tendant, Bell Clerk, Bell Porter, Bell Sergeant, Bell Valet, Bell- hop, Door Attendant, Front Services Clerk, Limousine Driver, Messengers, Parking Valet, Pool Captain, Valet Assistant, Working Bell Captain, Parking Garage Cleaner, Parking Lot Attendant, Senior Parking Attendant, Working Supervisor Parking) of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect be- tween Respondent and the Union from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2018, and incorporated by reference into the most re- cent collective-bargaining agreement between Respondent and Union in effect from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Furnish the Union with the following information it re- quested on March 16, 2021: (1) any and all documents that indicate the guests’ preference regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel, including (but . . . not limited to) emails, guest comments, memos, notes, corre- spondence, reviews, or any other documents; (2) Copies of any surveys, as well as information, documents, and data regarding the Employer’s methodology for analyzing this survey data, and all documents indicating the results of such analysis. (b) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa- cility in Honolulu, Hawaii, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”14 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by the Re- spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re- spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, 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 em- ployees 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. In the event that, during the pen- dency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of busi- ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re- spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees em- ployed by the Respondent at any time since March 23, 2021. (c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” HILTON HOTEL EMPLOYER LLC D/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT 21 Dated, Washington, D.C. December 14, 2021 APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your 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 interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the ex- ercise of the above rights. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with Unite Here! Local 5 (Union), the employees’ representative in dealing with us re- garding wages, hours and other working conditions of the em- ployees in the following unit: All employees employed by Respondent identified in Exhibit B (Banquet Bushelp, Banquet Captain, Banquet Dining Room Steward, Banquet Porter, Banquet Waithelp, Head Banquet Porter, Bar Porter, Bartender, Cocktail Waithelp, Combination Bartender, Function Bartender, Head Bartender, Head Mini- Bar Porter, Lead Bartender, Mini-Bar Porter, Service Bar- tender, Assistant Baker, Assistant Pastry Chef, Assistant Pastry Cook, Baker/Pastry Cook, Bakery Cook, Baker, Pastry Chef, Pastry Cook, Butcher, Head Butcher, Assistant Cook, Break- fast Cook, Cafeteria Cook, Cook’s Helper, Dinner Cook, Fry Cook, Second Cook, Working Chef/Working Sous Chef, As- sistant Gardemanager, Assistant Pantry, Counter Person, Foun- tain Dispenser, Head Gardemanager, Head Pantry/Gar- demanager, Pantry, Assistant Head Steward, Buffet Food Run- ner, Head Utility Steward, Utility Steward, Bushelp, Cafeteria Attendant, Cashier/Host/Hostess, Coffee Attendant, Counter Attendant, Dining Room Steward, Food Service Assistant, Head Bushelp, Host/Hostess, Tea Attendant, Waithelp, Waithelp Captain, Wine Steward, Front Office Clerk, Front Office Working Supervisor, Guest Service Agent, Guest Ser- vice Agent Working Supervisor, Junior Front Office Clerk, Junior Reservations Clerk, Reservations Clerk, Senior Front Office Clerk, Senior Reservations Clerk, Accounting Clerk, Accounting Working Supervisor, Assistant Auditor, Assistant Head Food & Beverage Cashier, Auditor, Chief Clerk/Bookkeeper, Food & Beverage Cashier, Food & Bever- age Control Clerk, Front Office Cashier, General Cashier, Head Cashier, Head Night Auditor, Income Auditor, Junior Accounting Clerk, Paymaster, Posting Clerk, Receptionist Cashier, Senior Accounting Clerk, Voucher Clerk, Beach Clerk, Exit Watch, File Clerk Typist, Housekeeping Clerk, Junior Beach Clerk, Junior Tour Desk Clerk, Maintenance Clerk, Secretary, Timekeeper, Timekeeper/Receiving Clerk, Tour Desk Clerk, Assistant Senior Storekeeper, Buyer, Junior Storekeeper, Purchasing Agent, Purchasing Clerk, Senior Storekeeper, Storekeeper, Head Telephone Operator, Message Telephone Operator, Telephone Operator, Housekeeping De- partment Working Supervisor, Head Linen Room Attendant, Inspectress, Linen Room Attendant, Seamstress, Housekeeper III, Housekeeper II, Housekeeper I – General Cleaner, House- keeper I- Rooms, Personal Housekeeper, Head Laundry At- tendant, Laundry Attendant III, Laundry Attendant II, Laundry Attendant I, Laundry Working Supervisor, General Mainte- nance, Maintenance Foreman, Maintenance First Class, Maintenance Second Class, Maintenance Trainee, Mainte- nance Utility, Stage Maintenance, Carpenter Foreman, Carpen- ter Journeyman, Carpenter Maintenance, Locksmith, Mason, Electrician Foreman, Electrician Journeyman, Electrician Maintenance, Mechanic Foreman, Mechanic Journeyman, Mechanic Maintenance, Air-Condition/Refrigeration Special- ist-Journeyman, Painter Foreman, Painter Journeyman, Painter Maintenance, Plumber Foreman, Plumber Journeyman, Plumber Maintenance, Upholster Foreman, Upholster Jour- neyman, Upholster Maintenance, Upholster Seamstress, Assis- tant Head Gardener, Gardener, Gardener First Class, Insect and Rodent Control, Insect and Rodent Control Aide, Insect and Rodent Control Foreman, Laborer, Parking Garage Cleaner, Truck Driver, Assistant Bell Captain, Beach/Pool Attendant, Bell Clerk, Bell Porter, Bell Sergeant, Bell Valet, Bellhop, Door Attendant, Front Services Clerk, Limousine Driver, Mes- sengers, Parking Valet, Pool Captain, Valet Assistant, Working Bell Captain, Parking Garage Cleaner, Parking Lot Attendant, Senior Parking Attendant, Working Supervisor Parking) of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect between Respondent and the Union from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2018, and incorporated by reference into the most recent collective-bar- gaining agreement between Respondent and Union in effect from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022. WE WILL NOT refuse and fail to provide the Union with the in- formation it requested that is relevant and necessary to its role as your bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT unreasonably delay in responding to the Union’s information requests or otherwise unreasonably delay in provid- ing the Union with information it requests that is relevant and necessary to its role as your bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with your rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL, to the extent we have not already done so, provide the Union with the information it requested in its March 16, 2021, information request: (1) any and all documents that indicate the guests’ preference regarding daily room cleaning at the hotel, including (but . . . not limited to) emails, guest comments, memos, notes, corre- spondence, reviews, or any other documents; (2) Copies of any surveys, as well as information, documents, and data regarding the Employer’s methodology for analyzing this survey data, and all documents indicating the results of such analysis. HILTON HOTEL LLCD/B/A HILTON HAWAIIAN VILLAGE DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 22 WAIKIKI BEACH RESORT The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/20–CA–276192 or by using the QR code be- low. 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.