C. Boone, Cecelia L. Fanelli, David Sherwyn, P. Wagner
{"title":"切尔西大球场案例:卡牌检查中立性、管理合同以及所有者和经营者的义务","authors":"C. Boone, Cecelia L. Fanelli, David Sherwyn, P. Wagner","doi":"10.1177/19389655211040816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the dispute between a hotel owner, operator, and union, and the subsequent litigation. The dispute centered on whether the hotel owner was bound by agreements made between its operator and the union, and whether the operator had a fiduciary duty to the owner. Courts found that the operator was a joint employer of the owner’s employees, and as a result, the owner was bound to agreements that the operator had made with the union. The owner, who did not want to be bound to the union agreement, subsequently sued its operator for alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility. The courts ruled that the hotel management agreement between the owner and operator created no agency relationship and thus no fiduciary duty on the part of the operator. We discuss the potential implications of these findings for union-management relations as well as owner-operator relations, with a specific focus on the implications for hotel owners in the labor context.","PeriodicalId":47888,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly","volume":"64 1","pages":"122 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case of the Chelsea Grand: Card-Check Neutrality, Management Contracts, and The Duties of Owners and Operators\",\"authors\":\"C. Boone, Cecelia L. Fanelli, David Sherwyn, P. Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19389655211040816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the dispute between a hotel owner, operator, and union, and the subsequent litigation. The dispute centered on whether the hotel owner was bound by agreements made between its operator and the union, and whether the operator had a fiduciary duty to the owner. Courts found that the operator was a joint employer of the owner’s employees, and as a result, the owner was bound to agreements that the operator had made with the union. The owner, who did not want to be bound to the union agreement, subsequently sued its operator for alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility. The courts ruled that the hotel management agreement between the owner and operator created no agency relationship and thus no fiduciary duty on the part of the operator. We discuss the potential implications of these findings for union-management relations as well as owner-operator relations, with a specific focus on the implications for hotel owners in the labor context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"122 - 133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655211040816\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Hospitality Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655211040816","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Case of the Chelsea Grand: Card-Check Neutrality, Management Contracts, and The Duties of Owners and Operators
This article examines the dispute between a hotel owner, operator, and union, and the subsequent litigation. The dispute centered on whether the hotel owner was bound by agreements made between its operator and the union, and whether the operator had a fiduciary duty to the owner. Courts found that the operator was a joint employer of the owner’s employees, and as a result, the owner was bound to agreements that the operator had made with the union. The owner, who did not want to be bound to the union agreement, subsequently sued its operator for alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility. The courts ruled that the hotel management agreement between the owner and operator created no agency relationship and thus no fiduciary duty on the part of the operator. We discuss the potential implications of these findings for union-management relations as well as owner-operator relations, with a specific focus on the implications for hotel owners in the labor context.
期刊介绍:
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly (CQ) publishes research in all business disciplines that contribute to management practice in the hospitality and tourism industries. Like the hospitality industry itself, the editorial content of CQ is broad, including topics in strategic management, consumer behavior, marketing, financial management, real-estate, accounting, operations management, planning and design, human resources management, applied economics, information technology, international development, communications, travel and tourism, and more general management. The audience is academics, hospitality managers, developers, consultants, investors, and students.