Court upholds city edict on hotel-worker retention

A federal appeals court upheld a Providence city ordinance that requires the new owners of hotels to retain current employees for at least three months, but the attorney for the plaintiffs said his clients are mulling a final appeal to the United States Supreme Court.
Providence Attorney Robert P. Brooks, who represents two downtown hotels and the Rhode Island Hospitality Association, said his clients were “disappointed” by the ruling issued Dec. 2 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston. He represents The Westin Providence and Hilton Providence. The appeals-court decision upholds a March 31 ruling in U.S. District Court by Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi, taken in response to an earlier challenge by the same plaintiffs.
In the Dec. 2 ruling, Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Circuit Judge Michael Boudin and Senior Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl found that the 2009 ordinance does not violate the constitutional rights of hotel owners and current law related to equal protection and contract rights.
“Whether or not this ordinance will in fact protect and enhance tourism in Providence, its stated purpose, is far from clear,” the judges said in the 21-page ruling. “The city has leeway to experiment as long as it does not run afoul of federal labor policy and pre-emption under the United States Constitution. At this stage we cannot say it has.”
Brooks, a shareholder at Adler Pollock & Sheehan, told Providence Business News his clients are “reviewing their options,” including an appeal to the nation’s highest court.
However, he also pointed out that grocery-store operators in Los Angeles, Calif., have filed a U.S. Supreme Court appeal against a similar ordinance in that city. The move appeals a California state Supreme Court decision that ruled in favor of the city.
The local ordinance requires that, when a hotel with 25 or more rooms in Providence changes hands, the new owners must retain for at least three months existing full- and part-time staff members who have been on board two months or more.
Exemptions are built into the measure, allowing a new owner to dismiss workers for good cause or whittle down staff if fewer workers are required under new operations. The new owner retains full right to set conditions and terms of employment for the three months. The measure was enacted Oct. 26, 2009, and substantially amended Nov. 1, 2010.
In addition to affecting hotels, Brooks noted, the ordinance has an impact on in-house businesses that hotels operate such as restaurants or food and beverage services. So for instance, Brooks said, if a new owner wants to replace a hotel’s Italian restaurant with a sushi bar, existing staff may not be trained in sushi techniques, but under the ordinance would have to be kept on for three months. Another objection is the concern among hotel owners that, if they begin dealing with unionized workers for three months, they will be required by law to recognize the union in question, according to Brooks. He said previous case law indicates this is not the case, but concerned hotel owners want to be certain about this.
All in all, Brooks said, the ordinance “makes it difficult to sell a hotel” because it presents “too many unknowns” to potential new owners and bars them from bringing on their own people to run the newly acquired property.
The Westin in Providence is unionized and the Hilton is not. The hospitality association includes eight hotels in Providence, including The Westin and Hilton. Dale J. Venturini, executive director of the association, declined to comment.
Michael Solomon, president of the Providence City Council, was the main architect of the ordinance. He said he proposed it to promote stability in the city tourism industry and preserve jobs. Similar ordinances are in place in other cities, Solomon said, such as New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, Calif.
He confirmed that the impetus for it came in part from a Boston situation in September 2009 when 100 Hyatt hotel housekeepers at three locations were dismissed without warning, prompting demonstrations and a public outcry. Some had held their jobs for many years and some reportedly were required to train what turned out to be their own replacements.
Solomon said he disagrees with objections filed by local hotel owners in court, particularly regarding the alleged difficulty of selling a hotel. “You still need employees whether you’re selling it or not,” he said.
Christopher Cook, vice president of UniteHere Local 217, the union representing approximately 400 hotel workers in Providence, called the court decision a victory for his membership and for every hotel employee in the city.
“The ordinance gives workers a chance. Without it, people would just be put out on the street [when a hotel is sold],” he said. &#8226

No posts to display