I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for allowing me to appear hear today. I appreciate the opportunity to offer the support of my company in your attempt to ensure that the wishes of our country’s workers are given full consideration by the nation’s labor laws which govern the workplace environment.

My name is Ron Kipling and I am the Director of Room Operations for The New Otani Hotel & Garden in Los Angeles, California. I have been employed in that capacity with the hotel for over seven years. I am responsible for all of the non food and beverage operations within the hotel. The New Otani Hotel & Garden is a 434-room hotel in the heart of the Civic Center of downtown Los Angeles. The hotel derives its name from the half acre Japanese garden which overlooks the two Japanese restaurants on the third level of the hotel. The hotel lies on the border of the area termed "Little Tokyo", and in fact was built in the mid 1970’s as the cornerstone of the revitalization of the Little Tokyo community.

The New Otani Hotel & Garden is operated by New Otani America which was formed as a division of New Otani Hotels based in Tokyo, Japan. New Otani America operates the hotel under a renewed 20-year contract for management of the New Otani Hotel & Garden. The Hotel is owned by East West Development Corporation which was formed to oversee the opening of the hotel and the Weller Court Shopping Plaza located adjacent to the hotel property.

The hotel opened in the fall of 1977 and has been operated since that time to serve both the Japanese and American markets. The employee base has traditionally been made up of over 90% minority workers both in the line staff and on supervisory and management levels. In an industry noted for its very high turnover and seasonal hiring practices, it is noteworthy that over a third of the hotel employees have over ten years of service, and many of them have been employed over twenty years. These employees have been a loyal and highly recognized part of the New Otani’s proud tradition of service over the last 25 years, and are the primary reason that so many of our clients are return guests.

It is precisely because we feel so strongly about our family of employees that we wished to appear before the committee today. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees’ Local 11 has been attempting to organize a group of our employees since the hotel opened in 1977. The employees voted in an NLRB approved election in 1982 by a margin of nearly 90% against representation by Local 11. The union began to renew this organizing attempt in 1991 and in 1994 the campaign began to gather momentum. However this time the union seemingly wanted no part of an election, and entered into a corporate campaign against the hotel management and its ownership. The union began a series of activities designed to force the hotel management to enter into an agreement to recognize the union as the collective bargaining agent for hotel employees without an election being held. To this day that campaign continues, and our hotel employees have yet been provided no opportunity to make their feelings known on a subject which is of paramount importance to them.

The intent of this campaign was explained on November 20, 1995, by Maria Elena Durazo, the Local 11 President. She declared to La Opinion newspaper that "It has not worked to do it in the traditional way of election. Each time there is a bigger number of unions that are not going by the election method. Now we use the economic pressure. Before we initiate a campaign, we investigate who we are dealing with and who are their sources of income." She also stated that finding where companies get their profits is a system that could prove useful to pressure the companies into accepting the union.

This set the stage for a campaign against The New Otani Hotel & Garden which involved every form of economic pressure. The premise was that if Local 11’s actions could cause our revenues to be drastically reduced while our legal expenses were dramatically increasing, the hotel might look favorably upon the union’s proposition of recognizing them via the card check method.

However from the very start of this campaign, the hotel’s management has made it clear that the decision whether to recognize a union and operate under a collective bargaining agreement was strictly up to the hotel’s employees. Many had been working at the property for a long period of time, and they deserved the opportunity to have a voice in a decision that would have a direct effect on their lives and workplace relationships. To this day there has been absolutely no change in the view of hotel management toward this subject.

Local 11 has made a point to emphasize throughout their campaign that the New Otani Hotel is a "non-union" hotel, and has an anti-union bias. This could not be farther from the truth. The hotel has had a long standing relationship with Operating Engineers Local 501, and our engineering staff has worked under a collective bargaining agreement with this organization for over two decades. Our working relationship with Local 501 has been cordial and professional in every way, and we have welcomed the opportunity to work with them. When the Democratic National Convention was held in Los Angeles in 2000, the Democratic National Convention Committee advised convention delegates not to stay at The New Otani Hotel & Garden. Don Mears, the President of Local 501, wrote a letter on December 16, 1999, to Ms. Lydia Camarillo, Chief Executive Officer of the DNCC, advising Ms. Camarillo that she had erred in telling delegates that the New Otani was a "non-union’ hotel. He also asked that she apply the principle she was expounding in a fair and consistent manner.

Initially the union applied pressure on hotel employees in an attempt to gain their signatures on union authorization cards. High pressure tactics were utilized including having groups of eight to ten people show up at employee’s homes late at night and demand to be let in. This intimidating tactic was terrifying to many of our employees, and we instructed them to call the police when it occurred. However the union representatives usually had left by the time police arrived, and local authorities were very hesitant to become involved in what they saw as a labor issue. Attorneys representing the hotel filed an unfair labor charge against this practice on March 29, 1994 and again on November 2, 1995. Region 21 of the National Labor Relations Board chose not to act on the matter. It was not until February of 1996 that the hotel took the matter to Los Angeles Superior Court where Commissioner William Allen issued an order setting limits on tactics used by the union, including visits by union organizers to the homes of New Otani workers. Commissioner Allen referred to the stalking prohibition of the California Penal

Code in ordering organizers to stay a specified distance from New Otani employees at their residences and when they entered their workplace.

It was during this same period that Local 11 announced a formal boycott of The New Otani Hotel and began recruiting support for their campaign. Local 11 began writing letters to Tour Operator specializing in bringing Japanese tourists to Los Angeles. They warned them that their clients would not necessarily have an enjoyable experience if they stayed at the New Otani due to the existence of a labor dispute. Although this gave the impression of workers on strike, the only "labor dispute" that actually existed was that Local 11 wanted to represent our employees but did not want those same employees to be involved in the process.

This same tactic was used in sending wedding planners notices advising them that if they wanted to ensure a beautiful once in a lifetime event, then they should be aware of the ongoing "labor dispute" at the New Otani. Their flyer stated, "And if your goal is customer satisfaction, labor disputes and weddings don’t mix." This "Special Service" was expanded to other market segments as it proved its value to the union corporate campaign.

Another means of encouraging Japanese visitors from coming to the hotel was to spread the word that the hotel restaurants and kitchens had insect problems. Flyers printed in Japanese were handed out to arriving guests as they passed through customs at Los Angeles International Airport, as well as those stepping off buses at the hotel. Anonymous employees were quoted as saying that there were roaches in the kitchens, that they served left over food to other patrons, and used chemicals to hide the smell of bad food. They stated that the hotel had received numerous health code violations. They of course failed to point out that these were the sum of over two years worth of inspections in four different dining facilities, that they were far less than most competitors received, and that most were the result of minor violations such as the height of a sneeze guard or the clearance of a drain unit.

A significant aspect of the union’s campaign was to press the image that minority workers were mistreated and not respected at the New Otani. This belief became widely accepted even though at the time 40 of the 48 supervisory and management personnel at the hotel were members of minority groups themselves. Yet the continuing volume of newspaper articles quoting the union leaders in conjunction with loud demonstrations at the hotel created a rising tide of politicians supporting the union boycott. Nearly every minority member of the city council and state assembly joined in the boycott, and they were soon joined by Jesse Jackson, Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Henry Censors, and a host of city and national government officials. Joining this coalition were clergy from throughout the city, and labor organizations from around the world. During this period, we were visited by several city councilpersons and clergy. All were invited to speak directly to our employees who they had been told were being mistreated. Not one of them chose to do so. They just wanted us to know their feelings, and obviously wanted their constituents to know they had called upon hotel management on behalf of the boycott movement.

Union leadership expanded the boycott when a delegation flew to Tokyo to meet with New Otani management there. New Otani officials on different occasions met with both John Sweeney and Jesse Jackson, but in both cases explained that the issue was up to the employees and also that they Los Angeles property made their own management decisions. Soon the boycott included all New Otani Hotels around the world.

Another important aspect of the corporate campaign against the New Otani was to inform governmental agencies of the boycott and to prevent them from utilizing the hotel for their meeting or overnight needs. Our hotel is located in the heart of the Civic Center of Los Angeles, within easy walking distance of city, state and federal office buildings. By effecting both our overseas tourist trade and our regular government business, the union could make a serious impact in our business model and our revenue flow. This was evident from the accompanying flyer advertising "Internships Available at HERE Union Local 11", "Assistant Boycott Organizers for New Otani Hotel Campaign". The positions included researching the Japanese customer base of the hotel, researching government agencies that used the hotel, and building support for the boycott among the various religious communities in Los Angeles. The intent of course was to be in a position to convince hotel clients to no longer patronize the New Otani.

The next step for the corporate campaign waged against the New Otani Hotel was to attack the credibility of the hotel management and ownership. The General Manager & Executive Vice President of The New Otani Hotel & Garden, Mr. Kenji Yoshimoto, soon came under personal attacks from the union. He was accused of being a racist, and an individual who had no consideration for his employees. With handouts and news articles reprinting these accusations, he had to be content with the knowledge that whose who had worked with him and alongside him through the years knew him to be a gentleman and a man of his word. The General Manager responded to the attacks in the following fashion:

"I urge the leadership of Local 11 to move to a vote in a law-abiding way. If the end result is a fairly-supervised election, then I will accept whatever the decision of the employees is. What I cannot accept and sit quietly listening to is the constant barrage of misinformation produced by Local 11, which claims that our employees want to join this union, but aggressively acts to prevent them from exercising their independent right to express their own views on the matter in the voting booth. To this end, I ask community and business leaders to support our position and ignore Local 11’s call for a boycott."

The next victim of the corporate campaign became the majority shareholder of East West Development Corporation, Kajima Corporation. One of the world’s largest construction company, Kajima assisted in the financing and building of the New Otani 25 years ago at the request of Japanese and Los Angeles officials. They had no idea that this very insignificant holding of theirs in relation to their world wide interests would become such a thorn in their side. For over five years, they have been attacked and vilified by labor organizations due to their relationship to the New Otani Hotel in Los Angeles.

Their name has become so controversial in Los Angeles due to union propaganda that they have refused to bid on projects that would under normal circumstances welcome their participation, including the Japanese American National Museum expansion in the heart of Little Tokyo. In cities across America. politicians friendly to labor have attacked them even before they had the opportunity to enter the bidding process. To their great credit, they have stood firmly behind the hotel’s position through the years that union membership is an employee issue to be determined by the employees. They also have pointed out that New Otani America is the contracted operator of the hotel, and they leave operational decisions with the management team.

Another tactic typically used by unions engaged in corporate campaigns is to attempt to overwhelm the company with nuisance law suits and filing complaints of unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Board’s regional office. The cost of having attorneys defend you against these sometimes outrageous charges can be astronomical if left unchecked. In our particular case, we eventually were forced to accept the fact that it was not financially feasible or advisable to contest all of these charges.

Local 11’s campaign has made great use of this tactic through the years, and in many instances we have agreed to stop doing something that we were never doing in the first place. This of course meant that we have to post the NLRB settlement agreement and notice for thirty days where our employees can clearly see it, and that it will become another source of fodder for the Local 11 propaganda machine. Nevertheless we must carefully select what NLRB filings warrant the cost and effort to fight, and realize that both economics and principle will continue to dictate our choices in these matters. Yet this philosophy enables us to continue running our business in an economically responsible manner, and that enables us to continue to protect both the jobs and the rights of our employees.

Our most recent settlement of such charges with the NLRB, Region 21, occurred last year when we agreed to alter certain phrasing and ignore specific rules in our employee handbook. Four cases ( 21-CA-31147; 21-CA-32213; 21-CA-33534; 21-CA-33823) were combined into one settlement for economic reasons. These rules included a ban on Profanity and Abusive Language, directing employees to follow their departmental chain of command when they wish to discuss a problem, prohibiting employees from discussing or releasing information about the company, and prohibiting employees from making derogatory remarks or engaging in idle gossip about co-workers and superiors.

The increase in the popularity of the internet through the last decade has introduced a new element into the corporate campaign. The effective use of websites and domain names has enabled the unions to reach a new market in a number of ways. There are now a number of websites which provide information of ongoing labor disputes and labor declared boycotts. These sites can be linked to other sites and will often appear as a result of name searches for hotels and destinations. They will also be linked to subject matter which enables them to reach people around the world who are interested or sympathetic to their causes.

If your travel agent books a reservation at the New Otani, you may want to look up information on the hotel. If you search for the New Otani, you are more likely to get a choice of websites set up by union programmers than you are to get our website. You will then, of course, be the recipient of a variety of propaganda regarding our "anti-union stance", "our treatment of minorities", and be provided a list of alternate accommodations in the area. As union leaders continue to improve their use and understanding of the potential of the web, the challenge is for small businesses to find a way to effectively utilize this technology themselves.

Our ongoing battle against the corporate campaign of HERE Local 11 has always been based on our belief that our employees must share in a decision which is of most importance to them. We have stated throughout the years of this campaign that we would like our employees to decide this important issue in the universally recognized manner of a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board. We have not even insisted that Local 11 obtain the necessary signatures required by the NLRB to call an election.

Instead we first filed a petition in August 26, 1997, demanding that the NLRB acknowledge the extensive campaign of Local 11 for what is - a demand for recognition. The repeated letters from the President of Local 11 asking us to negotiate a neutrality agreement and accept a card check process date back to June 12, 1996. Certainly these

documents seemed to acknowledge the intent of Local 11 to gain recognition. Yet the NLRB denied the petition on October 16, 1997 finding that the union had not exhibited a present demand for recognition. We asked for a review of this decision on October 29, 1997, and then filed a second petition on April 24, 1998 based on new evidence received. That was again turned down on the regional level on June 8, 1998, and we subsequently filed a request for review of that decision on June 17, 1998. This appeal was undertaken at the national level by a three-member panel, and on August 24, 2000 the appeal was denied on a 2 to 1 vote.

Thus after a decade of economic and legal battles, the issues have essentially remain unchanged. HERE Local 11 wants a card check to be the acceptable means of recognizing them as the bargaining agent of our employees. However we can not agree with this request. Card checks are rife with abuse, a lack of oversight, and a result which leaves both parties with the knowledge of how specific employees feel about union membership. Through the years, Local 11 has time and again stated that hotel management treats employees who favor the union unfairly. I can speak from seven years of experience that there is no truth whatsoever to those accusations. In fact it is our view that we have no desire to know how any employee feels about union membership. Yet if our having knowledge of an employee’s feelings toward union representation could affect our treatment of that employee, then why would the union insist upon a card check procedure which provides that very information in the process.

The New Otani Hotel & Garden insists that an NLRB supervised secret ballot election is the only acceptable means to achieve a result which is fair and objective. I don’t think there is anyone in this room who would deny that the strength of this country is the willingness of our citizens to accept the ballot box as a means to lawfully and peacefully determine those issues most dear to us as a society. And for that reason, I simply cannot understand why our workers should not be granted those same privileges. It is time that the nation’s labor laws reflected that their intent is not only to protect the worker’s rights, but also to protect their right to choose.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee today.