Page One

In one of its last acts as manager of the recently-sold Claremont Hotel and Resort, former Claremont owner KSL Resorts has fired two workers whose charges of unfair labor practices against the resort were upheld by the National Labor Relations Board. 

KSL, the company that sold the Claremont to Orlando-based real estate investment trust CNL properties last February, learned this week that it is not being asked by CNL to stay on as the Claremont’s management company. Pat Peoples, a spokesperson for KSL, would not comment, other than to say that it “was under the terms of the sale.” Union officials cheered the news of the final severing of KSL’s final ties with the Claremont. 

Meanwhile the two dismissed workers, Meheret Fikre-Sellasie and Kathryn Fairbanks, both estheticians in the Claremont Hotel spa, are calling the firings a company reaction to the NLRB ruling, as well as a retaliation against them because they have both been outspoken union supporters during the two-year labor dispute that has plagued the resort. 

The union representing the workers, the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees (HERE) union Local 2850, supports the workers’ claims and is currently in the process of deciding whether to file another charge with the NLRB. 

Annie Appel, a spokesperson for the Claremont, refused to talk about the two employees’ firings, citing employee privacy concerns. 

“It’s pretty clear that these people were fired for supporting the union. We don’t know why [KSL is] doing this when they are on their way out of the hotel,” said Leslie Fitzgerald, an organizer with HERE Local 2850. “It’s retaliation, it’s really nasty.” 

The original NLRB complaint was issued at the end of March and found evidence to support a claim by Fikre-Sellasie and Fairbanks that the Claremont had violated their free speech rights last December. The complaint will now go to a hearing in front of an administrative law judge, who will decide whether to uphold or dismiss the complaint. 

Fairbanks filed the charge because she was suspended for a day after she complained to a manager and fellow worker about another manager. She said the suspension was a violation of her free speech because just days earlier, the union had challenged—and won—a rule issued by the Claremont that said workers could not speak negatively about their bosses at work.  

Fikre-Sellasie filed her part of the charge because she was written up for talking with another employee about the union, a protected right during a union organizing drive. She said the Claremont accused her of harassing the employee. 

A week after the NLRB ruling was issued, both Fikre-Sellasie and Fairbanks were suspended again for separate incidents. Fairbanks was suspended until Monday when she was called in and fired. Fikre-Sellasi was suspended until Tuesday when she was called in and fired. 

On Monday, before Fairbanks was fired, HERE Local 2850 led a delegation of community members, religious leaders and elected officials including Councilmember Kriss Worthington to meet with the Claremont management and demand charges be dropped against both workers.  

Both Fikre-Sellasie and Fairbanks say the most recent suspensions were based on ludicrous charges that support their claim of retaliation. Fairbanks said she showed up to a training meeting five minutes late along with several other employees. She was the only one suspended. 

Fikre-Sellasie was suspended for missing a client. She said the spa added the client in the middle of day, after she had checked her schedule, and failed to let her know.  

The charges against the workers were not the first for either one, but both said they had clean records before they started organizing for the union. Since they’ve been known as union supporters, both said they’ve been constantly targeted for minor infractions that management frequently lets other employees get away with. 

“They’re doing this to me because of the labor board case that we have taken to the Claremont about the violation of our speech,” said Fikre-Sellasie. “This termination does not justify the minor infraction.” 

“They are retaliating against our very strong position. I have no regrets for my union activity, I would do it again,” she said. 

The current complaint filed by the NLRB is not the first the Claremont has faced. According to Michael Leong, the assistant regional director for the Oakland office of the NLRB, the Claremont has had 22 charges filed against it. Of those 22, nine are currently in front of an administrative law judge because the NLRB issued a complaint. Other complaints by the NLRB might have also been filed but those cases have already been adjudicated and NLRB records could not be accessed by press time.