According to the union, during three recent protests in April and May — which called for the hotel to rehire more of the workers it laid off during the pandemic and supported a boycott of the institution until demands are met — demonstrators witnessed various individuals they deemed to be hotel employees allegedly surveilling or taking pictures or video, including the hotel’s managing director.
“Chateau Marmont and Andre Balazs’ pandemic profiteering seemingly has no limits,” UNITE HERE Local 11 co-president Kurt Petersen said in a statement about the filing. “The hotel fired their workers and cut off health insurance at the outset of this pandemic. And when workers rise up to fight for their jobs, the Chateau’s top manager spied on them. Balazs and his managers should be fired.”
A hotel spokesperson said in a statement about the NLRB charge, “This meritless claim is just another attempt by Unite Here Local 11 to harass a non-union hotel — a hotel which actually provides significantly better pay and health benefits to its employees than the union does for the same positions.”
The unfair labor practices charge filed Wednesday specifically cites three individuals that allegedly attempted to restrict employee rights on behalf of the Chateau by surveilling protestors, including managing director Amanda Grandinetti, one unnamed individual and one unnamed security guard. “I just saw her [Grandinetti] in this car watching everybody passing by,” says former Chateau houseman of over three years, Alejandro Roldan, who attended the April 8 protest.
Last September, after Chateau employees were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic without offers of severance packages or extended health insurance, over 30 former workers at the storied Sunset Blvd. establishment
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: VanityFair - 🏆 391. / 55 Read more »
Source: NYMag - 🏆 111. / 63 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »