Pacific Beach Workers Struggle for Justice Victory Report-- Seeking a new international solidarity
Hirohiko Takasu	  	
 Project Director
Research and Education Center for Fair Labor
Graduate School of Social Sciences
Hitotsubashi University
This paper appeared in No. 1792 (May 25, 2013) and No. 1794 (June 25, 2013) of the Japanese
language labor law journal Rodo Horitsu Junpo. It is the complete translation of Hirohiko
Takasu's Pashifikku Biichi Hoteru Sogi Shori Kaiketsu Hokoku -- Aratana Kokusai Rentai-no
Mosaku. The author hereby authorizes reproduction and distribution of this paper for educationaland non-profit purposes only.
Translated by Louis Carlet, Zenkoku Ippan Tokyo General Union.

Table of Contents
Introduction 1
I The Players 1
II Union Recruiting and Dispute at PBH 2
III Achievements and Remaining Challenges of PBH Fight 9Conclusion 13
Dispute Chronology: With Focus on Support from Japan 14
PBH Dispute Support Group 17
Video 18

Protest rally in front of Pacific Beach Hotel (December 1, 2008) ©ILWU Local 142

Introduction
The labor dispute at Pacific Beach Hotel (PBH) in Waikiki, Hawaii, over the December 2007 firingof 32 workers and core activists as well as union busting spanning more than a decade was completely
resolved on January 14, 2013. Management in January 2013 outsourced the running of the hotel andtransferred all their employees over to another firm. This was part of the company’s reversal of longstanding anti-union policy. As a result of negotiations with the new employer, the International
Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 142 managed to win a collective labor-managementagreement stipulating working conditions and basic union rights, including terms for a union shop and acheck-off automatic dues deduction system.
Some 80% of guests at the hotel are Japanese, so at the behest of the AFL-CIO and the ILWU, theTokyo office of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), Japanese Council of Transport
Workers’ Unions (Koun-Rokyo; ITF-JC), All Japan Dockworkers’ Union (Zenkowan), National
Federation of Dockworkers Union of Japan (Zenkoku-Kowan), Japanese Trade Union Confederation(JTUC; Rengo), Japan Coordinating Council of International Union of Food, Agriculture, Hotel,
Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF-JCC), Japan Federation of Service& Tourism Industry Workers’ Unions (Service Rengo), Labor Now and others held a “consultationcommittee” meeting to support the union in its dispute. They mutually supported each other in a mannertranscending the limits of industrial unions and national trade union centers. At the same time, Japan
Association of Travel Agents (JATA), a business federation of travel agents that send guests to the hotel
played an important role for PBH and agreed in many ways to help resolve the dispute. What determined
victory more than anything was the relentless struggle of the workers themselves.
This dispute involved corporate reorganization techniques. The company outsourced the running of
the hotel to a management firm, transferred the employees, then suddenly terminated the outsourcing
contract and rehired the employees who had been transferred to the management firm. It was during thisrehiring process that the hotel discriminated against the core union activists, in essence firing them andinitiating the dispute. As stated at the beginning of this paper, the hotel in the end halted direct
management, re-outsourced the running of the hotel, and switched hotel management, thereby resolving
the dispute.
I was asked by ILWU to be the ILWU contact person in Japan to help coordinate collaboration
between ILWU and Japanese labor unions, to organize a framework for Japanese support for the union
fight and to coordinate the boycott. I participated as a supporter of the union in its fight. It is from thatperspective that this paper will introduce the dispute and attempt to articulate the achievements andremaining challenges for this international solidarity movement. Below I will enumerate the players in thedispute, the development of the dispute, the movement of support in Japan, and the struggle’sachievements.

I The Players
1

Pacific Beach Hotel

Located on Waikiki Beach in Honolulu, on Hawaii’s Oahu Island,1 PBH is a large hotel with 837
rooms and about 400 employees.
It is owned by HTH Corp., which was established by Herbert T. Hayashi, a Japanese-American
entrepreneur.2 HTH also owns several business properties on Oahu including retail stores and apartments.
PBH is wholly owned by HTH and is not part of a large corporation or hotel chain.
Hayashi died in 2005. His daughter Corine Watanabe took over as CEO of HTH and is now
chairwoman and CEO. Her cousin John Hayashi became president on June 21, 2009. The actual humanresources management of PBH was handled by Vice President Robert Minicola (who resigned after1

resolution of the dispute).
A January 2008 ILWU study estimated that between 75% and 80% of PBH’s guests were from Japan,
with the large majority coming as part of package tours.
2

ILWU

ILWU is a labor union that organizes a wide range of industries along the west coasts of the U.S. andCanada as well as Hawaii, including port and harbor, distribution, transport, agriculture, cement, tourism
and hotel industries. ILWU’s Local 142 has 20,000 members in Hawaii, including PBH workers. ILWU
belongs to the AFL-CIO, the largest national trade union center, as well as the global union federation ITF.
It is also a sister union to Zenkowan with which it signed a mutual aid agreement when the dispute began.

II Union Recruiting and Dispute at PBH
1 The Fight for Unionization and Certification
In January 2002, PBH workers were approached by ILWU and began unionizing. HTH hired several
guards to intimidate workers, set up group and one-on-one meetings with middle managers and tried toisolate union supporters with a carrot-and-stick policy of financial incentives and threats.
The certification vote for union representation was scheduled to take place on July 31, 2002.
Management held a meeting at the last stage of the voting process and pressured employees not to vote tosupport the union. The union petitioned the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal
government agency similar to Japan’s Rodo Iinkai Labor Commission, and its San Francisco Regional
Office (similar to Japan’s prefectural Rodo Iinkai Labor Commission), for a revote, claiming the vote was
unfair due to management unfair labor practices. In February 2003, the San Francisco Regional Officerecognized the petition and ordered the company to redo the vote for union representation. HTH appealed,
but the NLRB Board in Washington (equivalent to the Chuo Rodo Iinkai Central Labor Commission in
Japan), rejected the appeal in June 2004, again ordering a revote.
The second certification vote took place in August 2004 with a majority voting to support the ILWU.
HTH lodged several voter eligibility protests and refused to recognize the vote results. In August 2005,
the NLRB recognized that a majority of employees by a margin of one had voted to support the union,
thereby establishing ILWU’s representation rights3.
2

The Dispute Begins
Outsourcing Running of PBH, Transfer Then End to Outsourcing, Discriminatory Hiring

Negotiations began in November 2005, but HTH refused demands for union security and for “checkoff” automatic deduction of dues from wages, leading to a stalemate. “Union security” means a union
shop arrangement obliging all hotel workers to join the union and pay dues. Such a clause is included inall hotel labor management agreements in the state. Workers held rallies, demos and pickets during 2006
and 2007 to support fair collective agreements. Three-fourths of the workers at PBH signed a petition
urging a quick resolution to contract negotiations.
In January 2007, HTH outsourced management of PBH to Pacific Beach Hotel Management(PBHM), a company owned by Outrigger Resorts. HTH remained the owner of the hotel and transferred
all the employees to PBHM. This company carried on contract talks. In March 2007, a majority ofworkers signed a second petition demanding a fair contract.
In August 2007, HTH suddenly announced that the outsourcing contract with PBHM would be2

cancelled effective December 1, 2007, and that all employees would be rehired by HTH.4 HTH thenannounced that since it was legally a new employer, that all employees would have to “apply” for theirjobs. Application documents included a clause saying the worker was applying as an “at-will”5 employee.
Employees also were asked to sign a promise not to say negative things about the company.
On December 1, 2007, HTH refused to hire 32 of the some 400 PBH employees, thereby in effectfiring them. The company also changed the work hours, position and many other working conditions of
the newly hired employees. The fired workers included two-thirds of the negotiating committee and theinternal organizing committee. The company also announced the same day that it would not recognize
the union and that it would stop collective bargaining.
Beginning December 1, without negotiating with the union, HTH management unilaterally worsened
many working conditions, including increasing the number of rooms that room cleaners had to clean each
day from 16 to 18 and from 15 to 17.
3Workers Fight, Union Fight – Support Spreads

ILWU and PBH workers charged that the hiring refusals were unfair dismissals, that is union-busting
unfair labor practices and began the fight to reinstate the fired workers, force management to recognize theunion and to negotiate in good faith. In February 2008, the union petitioned the NLRB for relief from
unfair labor practices, including the dismissals, the change in working conditions and the refusal ofcollective bargaining.
A support campaign developed, as unions under the umbrella of the Hawaii State AFL-CIO andlocal community organizations formed Justice at the Beach in order to support the fight and theorganizing drive. In early December 2007, a boycott of PBH was called. Justice at the Beach included
more than 40 local social movement organizations, Filipino organizations (many PBH workers are
Filipino), 13 members of the state legislature, and U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (retired from the Senate inJanuary 2013).
ILWU and Justice at the Beach organized protests and leafletings in front of the hotel as well as a
boycott. On February 15, 2008, the headquarters of the AFL-CIO (the largest national labor union centerin the U.S., with 10 million members) announced it would support a nationwide boycott.6
4

Request for Support from Japan; Launch of the Support Movement

On January 12, 2008, I received an email from Gordon Lafer (who at the time worked as the PBH
dispute support coordinator for ILWU in Hawaii and was with the Oregon University Labor Center). In
the email he asked me to help build a network in Japan to support the dispute.7 Lafer and ILWU discussed
in what capacity I would be involved in support for the dispute, and the result of that discussion was that I
would be the contact person for ILWU in Japan. My main job was to coordinate collaboration between
ILWU and Japanese support organizations, to draft and coordinate specific campaigns to support the fightfrom Japan and to implement these actions.
I contacted the Tokyo office of ITF, Koun-Rokyo, Zenkowan, Zenkoku Kowan, Rengo's Department
of International Affairs, IUF-JCC, and Service Rengo, then discussed and coordinated support from Japan.
As a result, these groups held meetings to hash out our next moves, without creating a permanent support
organization per se, in order to provide pragmatic alliances and support that could adapt as needed. On
March 10, 2008, we held our first meeting. After that case officers from each of the above-mentioned
groups attended these meetings and we went ahead with the support campaign.
On March 15, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney made a request for support for the PBH fight toRengo President Tsuyoshi Takagi. On April 17, Rengo's Central Executive Committee decided to support3

the dispute and to refrain from using PBH. Around that time, IUF-JCC, Zenkoku Kowan, Zenkowan,
Koun-Rokyo, and Service Rengo, which organizes workers at Japan's main travel agencies and hotels,
decided to support the PBH fight. They launched the support by sending a letter of protest to HTH. On
April 17, the Tokyo office of ITF, Koun-Rokyo and other groups held a demonstration in front of the
Yurakucho Marion Building in central Tokyo.
As originally envisioned, the dispute support strategy entailed reducing as much as possible thenumber of Japanese guests staying at PBH in order to put the economic screws on the hotel that had
committed unfair labor practices and provoked the labor dispute. To that end, we repeatedly asked travel
agent federation JATA and major travel agencies to help resolve the dispute. JATA conveyed to JATA's
Outbound Travel Committee the fact that Japanese labor unions had provided information about the PBH
dispute, and on April 14 JATA's deputy section chief in charge of Hawaii, who was attending the Japan
Hawaii Tourism Council in Honolulu, met with an ILWU representative, Guy Fujimura, to gather
information about the dispute.
Between May 5 and May 10, Emiko Aono (video producer for Labor Now) and I visited Honolulu,
discussed dispute strategy with ILWU and took footage for a video about the dispute. On June 29, we
uploaded the video Watch This Before Staying in Hawaii!!! (Part 1)(4 min., 35 sec.). It became a hit withsome 90,000 views as of the time of this writing.
From July 6 through July 10, 2008, ILWU sent a delegation (ILWU Local 142 Secretary-Treasurer
Guy Fujimura and Virginia Recaido, who had been fired by PBH) to Japan, worked with Japanese support
groups and labor unions to hold rallies and protest actions, and sent requests to JATA and major travel
agencies and held press conferences.
A delegation of five – Shigeru Wada from the Tokyo office of ITF, Shigeru Fujiki of Zenkoku
Kowan and an ITF inspector, Akinobu Ito of Zenkowan, Videographer Aono and I – visited Hawaii fromJapan, carrying a petition to resolve the dispute with 65,000 signatures that had been gathered by KounRokyo. We participated in a demonstration in front of the hotel on December 1, 2008, precisely a year
after the dismissals. We attempted to submit the petition to HTH but were rebuffed (later ILWU mailedit).
In this way, supporters right from the start and in the space of a short time managed to create aframework for solidarity centered on meetings, each group sending protest letters, collecting signatures fora petition to resolve the dispute, sending delegations, and creating publicity videos. Despite all this, it
took four more years to reach a resolution.
5	  New Development in Dispute(1) Sun Life; Support Spreads to Canada and the Philippines
Toronto life insurer Sun Life underwrote a 25-year mortgage on HTH property worth 38 million
dollars, according to an ILWU study. ILWU contacted the Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario
Federation of Labour and conducted an action at Sun Life’s general shareholders’ meeting on May 21,
2009. The union entered the meeting and asked about the company’s position on the PBH dispute.
Through the AFL-CIO, ILWU also asked union-affiliated pension funds to send request letters andrequested support from the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines and the Federation of Free Workers
since Sun Life has a branch office in Manila. Both these groups resolved to participate in a boycott of thehotel and demonstrated in front of Sun Life’s Manila office. These efforts raised concerns at and led to an
investigation by Sun Life into HTH’s earnings.

4

(2) Investigation Commission Report
In October 2009, the independent Investigation Commission on Labor and Management Practices at
Pacific Beach Hotel, made up of ministers from local Christian churches and University of Hawaii
professors, investigated and reported on industrial relations at PBH. The commission heard testimony
from 38 employees, both union and non-union. The board found that management had harassed,
threatened and discriminated against pro-union employees, resulting in reduced quality of service tocustomers. The commission proposed that for the good of society in Hawaii overall, the local community
should think of a way to resolve the dispute and work towards a dispute as soon as possible.
(3) NLRB San Francisco Regional Office Orders Relief from Unfair Labor Practices
On August 29, 2008, in response to the union’s charge of unfair labor practices in February 2008, theregional director (akin to a prosecutor) of the NLRB’s subregional office in Honolulu found cause for thepetition. A complaint was issued and proceedings began. Hearings were held in November 2008 andFebruary 2009. After the hearings, the NLRB issued an advisory for reconciliation. On September 30,
2009, NLRB’s San Francisco Regional Office’s administrative law judge found in favor of all the union’s
claims and issued an order for relief from unfair labor practices.
Details of Unfair Labor Practices (ULP)【Employer ULP Facts】
・Bad faith negotiations with no intention of signing a collective agreement.
・Forceful investigation of employees regarding union support, interrogation regarding union activities
and union support.
・Retraction of recognition of the union as employees’ exclusive bargaining representative and refusal ofcollective bargaining.
・Dismissal of 7 union negotiators due to union activity.
・Unilateral change of working conditions without negotiating with the union.
・Refusal to provide information needed for negotiations.
・Threats to employees, such as dismissal of and arbitrary disciplinary action against union supporters.
【Details of Order】
・Cease and desist from above unfair labor practices.
・Reinstate the seven negotiators and pay all lost wages going back to day of dismissal.
・Pay union costs associated with negotiations.
・Immediately recognize the union as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative and negotiatewith the union in good faith.
・Retract changes to working conditions introduced unilaterally without union consent, return to previous
conditions and compensate for losses.
・Provide information sought by union.
・Post a notice announcing the hotel will no longer commit unfair labor practices and will comply with
the NLRB’s orders.
HTH appealed the ruling to the NLRB Board in Washington, D.C.
(4) Federal District Court in Honolulu Issues Injunction
On January 7, 2010, the NLRB sued in Honolulu District Court for an injunction against PBH to5

comply with its order. During the proceedings an advisory was issued for reconciliation, but since thecompany refused, Honolulu District Court on March 29, 2010, handed down a preliminary injunction tocomply with the NLRB’s orders. This meant that the NLRB’s orders would remain in force until the
NLRB’s Board handed down its order and that failure to comply would be deemed contempt of court.
Main Details of Honolulu District Court’s Injunction (and state of compliance)
・Company recognize union and negotiate in good faith.
・Return to contract talks, respect contracts concluded provisionally.
・Reinstate five employees to former positions by April 5. (They were reinstated, but one was fired again
for a different reason.).
・Retract all unilateral changes to working conditions made on or after December 1, 2007（Working
conditions were returned to what they had been, but were changed again for the worse.）.
・Cease all actions that obstruct and repress the execution of rights protected by labor laws.
・Post copy of the NLRB order (It was posted, but the details listed were inaccurate.).
・By April 8, gather all the employees together on company premises and, in front of a NLRB employee,read aloud the order (Vice President Robert Minicola did the reading.).
HTH appealed the order of the Honolulu District Court, but on July 13, 2011, the United States Courtof Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s order and rejected the appeal. The company
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that court rejected the appeal on March 26, 2012. Honolulu
District Court also ruled on November 29, 2011, that violating the injunction would constitute contempt of
court and ordered the company to pay restitution to the employee who had been fired a second time.
	 (5) NLRB Board Orders Relief from Unfair Labor Practices
On June 14, 2011, NLRB’s Board rejected the company’s appeal, certified the affiliated companies
as a single employer and handed down a relief order that was even more beneficial to labor than the
NLRB Regional Office’s order.
Highlights of the NLRB Board’s Order・12-point order to cease unfair labor practices.
・Undertake the following actions needed to enforce the National Labor Relations Act.
・Reinstate to former positions the seven negotiators without any degradation; pay restitution; and remove
dismissals from their files.
・Reinstate without any degradation the employee dismissed through the 90-day probation period rulethat was unilaterally instituted; pay restitution; and remove dismissal from the personal file.
・When agreement is reached with the union that has exclusive bargaining representative rights, create asigned agreement that specifies the agreement’s details. Union certification will extend to twelve months
after the company complies with the order.
・Reinstate all provisional collective agreements reached between the start of talks and December 1, 2007,
in order to achieve good faith negotiations.
・Reinstate without degradation all employees dismissed without negotiation with the union on December
1, 2007, pay restitution and erase dismissals from files.
・Abolish the changes in working conditions introduced unilaterally between October and December
2007 and pay restitution.
・Provide the information the union request in 2007 and 2008.
・Pay the union the costs incurred from collective bargaining between the start of talks and the December6

1, 2007.
・Submit records needed to calculate back wages.
・Post notice (including details of the order).
・A company executive read aloud the order in front of employees.
・Report on compliance with the order.
On the following June 15, the NLRB sued at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
for injunctive relief. On July 13, HTH sued to overturn the relief order, but on September 6, 2012, thecourt upheld the NLRB Board’s relief order. HTH failed to appeal to the Supreme Court by the deadline,
meaning the order had become final.
(6) NLRB San Francisco Regional Office Relief Order (for additional claims)
On September 13, 2011, the NLRB San Francisco Regional Office administrative law judge’s relief
order was handed down for the additional claims made by the union. The details included reinstating theemployee who had been dismissed anew after reinstatement, permitting union organizers access tocompany facilities and retraction of the unilateral increase in the number of guest rooms that needed to becleaned per day.
On November 21, 2011, Honolulu District Court handed down a provisional injunction to comply
with the September 13 order.
	 (7) Support movement emerges in JapanThe support movement in Japan then began holding meetings about once every one or two months,
each organization and subsidiary organization/branch sending simultaneous petitions to resolve the disputeand conveying information within their organizations as well. A PBH dispute support meeting and rally
was held on December 15, 2008, to hear the report from the delegation sent to Hawaii; a PBH dispute
report rally was held on October 16, 2009; another PBH dispute report rally was held on May 31, 2010
(Atty. Kunio Miyazato explained the unfair labor practices system in the U.S.); a rally to report the NLRB
ruling against PBH was held on September 9, 2011 (including Atty. Miyazato who analyzed the ULP
system in the U.S. and the order, ILWU International Vice President Wesley Furtado, and ILWU Local
142 Secretary-Treasurer Guy Fujimura, both of whom made speeches); and on March 7, 2012, a rally tohear reports from the delegation from Japan was held. These were timed in accordance with the orders
and verdicts being handed down. In March 2010, Service Rengo beefed up its publicity campaign,
printing 20,000 leaflets to distribute to all the members of the unions it had organized at travel agencies.
Between February 13 and 19, 2012, a delegation of 11 (Katsushige Mashima, six delegates from
Zenkowan, Akito Taguchi of ITF’s Tokyo office, Shigeru Fujiki, Taichi Hirano of Labor Now and I) went
to Hawaii, participated in a protest rally on site and requested support to resolve the dispute from Hawaii
Lodging and Tourism Association, Hawaii Tourism Authority, Hawaii’s lieutenant governor, and
Democratic Party members of the state legislature.
They also continued sending requests to travel agencies and JATA. As a result, JATA in May 2012sent a written request to HTH to resolve the dispute. Around the same time, a local subsidiary of aJapanese travel agency also requested HTH to resolve the dispute. These actions had a powerful impact
on HTH and were likely a key factor in the eventual resolution of the dispute.
(8) Dispute Resolution and Concluding Collective Agreements
In autumn 2012, HTH reinstated the workers who had been dismissed, in line with the preliminary
7

injunction issued by the court. The company was also under pressure to agree to collective bargaining.
On September 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a verdict
upholding the relief order given by the NLRB Board. HTH failed to appeal, making the verdict final.
On November 5, 2012, HTH notified PBH employees that “PBH management will be outsourced toHighgate Hotels LP (Highgate) on January 8, 2013, and that employees will all be transferred to thatcompany.” This notification was in line with the 60 days prior notification required when closing
workplaces or laying workers off according to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Afterwards, ILWU continued negotiations now with Highgate and on December 29, came to terms
on a collective agreement. The contract included a 13% wage hike over 3 years as well as terms for union
shop and check-off automatic deduction of dues from wages. On January 9 and 10, 2013, PBH union
members voted in favor of the contract. ILWU announced on January 14 the resolution of the dispute andthe halting of the boycott. On January 28, the contract was signed, meaning the complete resolution of the
dispute.
On March 4, ILWU held a Pacific Beach Get-Together in Honolulu. Over 60 PBH workers, ILWU
executives, and other bargaining unit representatives, Filipino community members, investigationcommissioners, the mayor of Honolulu, several members of the state legislature, PBH’s general manager,
the head of human resources and the vice president of Highgate all joined to celebrate the dispute’s
resolution.
From April 24 to 28, an ILWU delegation (ILWU Local 142 Secretary-Treasurer Guy Fujimura,ILWU Oahu Business Agent Karl Lindo, ILWU/PBH Bargaining Unit Representative and PBH worker
Kapena Kanaiaupuni) were in Japan and visited JATA and supporting organizations. On April 26, thedelegation came as guests to a rally to report on the dispute resolution. This concluded the support
movement in Japan.

Union member vote on collective agreement (January 2013) ©ILWU Local 142

8

III	
  Achievements and Remaining Challenges of PBH Fight
1

What were the points of contention in this dispute?

The points of contention of this dispute were: whether ILWU was to be recognized as therepresentative union of the workers at Pacific Beach Hotel; and whether the 32 dismissed activists andworkers were to be reinstated. These points of dispute were resolved through the NLRB’s relief order and
Honolulu District Court’s preliminary injunction, which forced compliance on HTH in the spring of 2010
despite the company’s appeal. After that, an important point of contention for ILWU was whether theunion could win a collective agreement that included a union shop. Even with the NLRB order becoming
final and HTH complying, a decertification vote a year hence was a possibility. If management renewed
its offensive and used carrot and stick tactics against employees, the union might fail to gain the necessary
majority support to keep the union. When I discussed strategy with ILWU executives and workers in
February 2012, they made clear to me that winning a collective agreement was a crucial objective thatwould decide the outcome of the dispute.8
This dispute took 11 years from the start of recruiting and more than five years from the time ofdismissal, but they managed to win union recognition, reinstatement of fired workers and a contract that
included union shop – a complete victory.
2

Corporate Reorganization Incites and Resolves Dispute

Management used corporate reorganization in this dispute. Hotel management was outsourced fromthe company that owned the hotel to a hotel management firm and the employees were likewisetransferred over. Then, the company suddenly terminated the outsourcing contract and then re-“hired”
them, discriminating against core activists during the process, in effect dismissing them. This set off the
dispute. As stated above, in the end they stopped directly managing the hotel, again outsourcing themanagement, thereby resolving the dispute.
Both the incitement and the resolution of the dispute took place through major transformations ofcorporate management. Employees were subjected to the insecurity of repeated “dismissals” and“hirings.” HTH used this process to in effect dismiss some employees by not “rehiring” them. Although
the format is a bit different, the process is analogous to how Japan National Railways (JNR) discriminatedagainst union activists in National Railway Workers' Union (Kokuro) through discriminatory hiring by thecompanies newly created after JNR was split up and privatized. The owners and managing firms of hotels
often differ, so what HTH did could happen in Japan.
3

Envisioned Support Strategy and Main Points that Resolved the Dispute(1) Envisioned Dispute Support Strategy and Achievements
About 80% of PBH guests are from Japan, so the support strategy initially envisioned was to squeeze
the hotel economically by reducing as much as possible the number of guests coming from Japan to stay at
PBH, which had committed unfair labor practices and had started the labor dispute. What we did was: (1)Send information about the PBH dispute to the Service Rengo union members working at travel agencies,
even if a PBH boycott by Service Rengo was impossible, and request that the union inform managementof the travel agencies about the dispute; (2) convey information about the dispute to JATA and major
travel agencies, as well as ask them to demand that HTH resolve the dispute and say they would reduce
guests and stop doing business with them if the dispute was not settled; (3) ask Rengo and industrial
unions to convey information about the dispute within their organizations and to put into effect a PBH
boycott as much as possible; and (4) make videos of the dispute and distribute it broadly to the general9public.
For (1), Service Rengo printed out 20,000 flyers, distributed them to union members, and gatheredsignatures for a petition demanding HTH resolve the dispute. For (2), JATA disseminated information
about the dispute through its overseas travel commission, and in May 2012 sent a letter to HTH requestingthat the dispute be resolved. One U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese travel agency also requested that HTH
resolve the dispute. For (3), Rengo and various industrial unions posted information about the dispute on
their websites and newsletters. For (4), a video documentary of the dispute received about 90,000 views.
In this way, we provided over the past five years just about as much support as possible. This fit wellwith the fight in Hawaii and led to a complete resolution. ILWU Local 142 Secretary-Treasurer Fujimurastated that it was not one single aspect of the fight that led to resolution but the relentless series of attacks
that exhausted HTH management and forced a resolution.9	
  I agree with this analysis.
(2) Building a Framework to Provide Support from JapanOne concern I had when ILWU asked me to be the Japan contact person for ILWU was whether it
would be possible to get Zenkowan, which is a non-Rengo union and has a mutual aid agreement with
ILWU, and Rengo in the same room for support meetings. I spoke with many parties and we decided not
to make a permanent support organization. Rather, we had the Tokyo office of ITF, IUF-JCC serve aslinks, held “consultative committee” meetings once every one or two months, consulted about how toprovide support, and moved forward with each organization. The report rallies were hosted by fourgroups – ITF Tokyo Office, Koun-Rokyo, IUF-JCC and Rengo, making it easier to support. In effect,
Zenkowan and the industrial unions under Koun-Rokyo handled the mobilization for the rallies.
As Japan contact person for ILWU, I coordinated things and handled secretariat functions as well as
coordinating with ILWU in Japan. This functioned well, enabling an effective and sustainable dispute
support campaign.
In the U.S., the staff at university labor centers, such as Gordon Lafer from the Oregon University
Labor Center, often handles support for disputes, union organization and coordination, but this is unusual
in Japan, particularly recently. This is very very important for making practical use of university labor
research and education in actual labor movements.
(3) JATA and Travel Agencies
This dispute erupted in Hawaii, but some 80% of guests at the hotel are from Japan, so it was clearthat Japanese travel agencies, having the power to reduce or stem the flow of guests, held the key tovictory or defeat.
JATA and major travel agencies finally came to understand the dispute, after repeated requests, andhelped us disseminate information to relevant parties. But without strikes and protests, without sustained
major impact to the point where services could no longer be provided, these agencies would not havestopped sending customers.
We appealed to the companies’ corporate social responsibility, asking them if they could do businesswith a company that had been found guilty by a federal government agency of unfair labor practices inviolation of the National Labor Relations Act. We were late getting it going, but we held a seminar on
corporate social responsibility (UN Global Compact, IS 26,000, multinational corporate guidelines, etc.)
within the consultative committee. With this seminar we armed ourselves with the required logic andtheory.
Meanwhile, we actively made proposals to Service Rengo, which accepted them and helped us
disseminate information, by distributing leaflets to all the union members in the travel agencies in their10organization. The result of these accumulated actions was that in spring 2012 JATA sent a letter to HTH
urging the company to settle the dispute and a U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese travel agency also requested
that HTH resolve the dispute.
(4) NLRBIn the U.S. labor movement, it has long been argued that “the NLRB does not function,” or “even if
an order for relief from unfair labor practices is handed down many years after the fact, the movement at
the workplace is finished so it has no meaning.” In fact, organizing drives and disputes are increasingly
happening outside the confines of the NLRB, outside the framework of the National Labor Relations Act
and outside the domain of the existing labor union system. For union organizing, there is increasing useof a system called “card check,” in which a majority of employees sign an authorization card to ratify aunion.10 Also on the rise are labor consultations and union organizing through NGOs called “worker
centers.”
This union, however, mounted a comeback through use of the NLRB, winning a relief order, forcing
compliance with the order and reinstating fired workers. Workers maintained an axis of solidarity among
those inside and outside the hotel, continued fighting relentlessly, and prevailed. Potential use of the
NLRB expands when workers maintain solidarity, receive local community support, and create conditions
to have impact on the company’s business clients and customers,(5) Workers’ Tenacious Fight and Community Support
The core activists were targeted for dismissal, but workers endured this fear and persecution frommanagement, linked those inside and outside the hotel, maintained solidarity and fought through to the end
without capitulating. Many of the workers are Filipino immigrants with long years of service at the hotel,
and this fact helped to bolster their solidarity. They have strong ties to the Filipino immigrant communityand support from this community was effective.
Because the district court in spring 2010 gave the company a provisional injunction to comply with
the NLRB order, for two years and four months after the dismissal, HTH reinstated the dismissed workers,
and was put into a position where it had no recourse but to continue carrying on collective bargaining with
the ILWU. This provided an advantage to the union in its subsequent fight against the company. As
before, the company continued its terror tactics. However, the workers maintained solidarity with eachother and were able to mount a counter-offensive at the workplace.
Hawaii is a heavily Democratic state. The workers received support for their struggle from the prounion governor, the majority of the state legislature, and the mayor of Honolulu. The President of the
Hawaii Lodging and Tourism Association was also the former ILWU-friendly mayor of Honolulu, while
the President of the Hawaii Tourism Authority was a teachers’ union veteran. The President of the Hawaii
Tourism Authority, for example, set up a meeting between the ILWU and the local office of a Japanese
travel agency, in response to the requests from the ILWU and visiting delegations from Japan. A thirdparty “Investigation Commission” made up of local clergymen and professors from the University of
Hawaii system carried out an investigation of PBH industrial relations, while the local community cameup with a plan to resolve the dispute. The commission then released an official report proposing theprompt resolution of the dispute. HTH was of course left politically isolated.
4

Seeking a New International Solidarity

This is the fourth case of full-fledged support from Japan for a labor struggle against a company in
the U.S., going back to the mid-1990s. The three cases before this one were the fight against

11

Bridgestone/Firestone, the struggle against Hotel New Otani, and the fight against Oyster Bar in 2004.
Compared with earlier cases, support this time lasted longer and came in waves. In this way, we should
applaud this case as a breakthrough example of international support. Forty-one consultative committee
meetings were held while a petition with 65,000 signatures, protests and requests for resolution were sent
in waves. Requests were sent to JATA and travel agencies. Two delegations were sent from Japan, andthree ILWU delegations came to Japan.
I became the ILWU contact person in Japan. Becoming the contact person in Japan for a U.S. unionis highly unusual even for international solidarity movements. Seeing the internal workings and liaising
between Japanese and U.S. unions proved to be a precious experience.
How to bring a sense of reality to a labor struggle far across the sea in a way conducive to being able
to support that struggle? Deciding that video was the only way to go, we went to Honolulu, conductedinterviews, created a documentary of the dispute, and uploaded it to YouTube. The title Watch This
Before Staying in Hawaii!!! may have helped, but in any case, it has received 90,000 views as of the timeof this writing. As the title says, this documentary indeed became a must-see for those traveling to Hawaii
or planning to stay at PBH. I believe it was effective. Video will be a must for future cases ofinternational solidarity.
In our support for this labor struggle at PBH, we sought some way to serve as a model forinternational support in the future. We implemented that method.

Petition to resolve dispute with 65,000 signatures from Japan, and Rhandy Villanueva
who had been dismissed (December 2008)	
  ©ILWU Local 142

12

Conclusion
Five years was a very very long time even for us on the supporting side. The members of theconsultative committee meetings changed as the personnel and executives of the organizations to which
they belonged changed. But we continued our efforts relentlessly, in waves while building a mutual
relationship of trust. ILWU applied pressure on HTH with the struggle of the workers as the foundation,
while the workers themselves fought to the end while receiving encouragement from Japan. The result
was a victorious resolution and a collective agreement that will sustain industrial relations into the future.
This was truly a delightful victory. I urge all readers to stay at Pacific Beach Hotel, which is now a union
hotel.
Today as globalization and multinationalization of corporations advances, we will continue to see
disputes erupt at various companies, meaning international support and solidarity will be essential. Let’s
advance the international solidarity movement by making use of the lessons and the experience of thisdispute.
Notes
1 The address is 2490 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96815, USA
2 The company purchased PBH in 1970.
3 This means ILWU was recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative innegotiations with PBH.
4 April 26, 2013 hearing with Guy Fujimura, secretary-treasurer of ILWU Local 142, towhom the company suddenly announced the termination of the outsourcing contract just as
contract talks had begun to make progress.
5 Employment-at-will is a job that can be terminated at any time.

Just as the employee canresign at will, the employer may dismiss the employee freely.
6 The account thus far was based on the February 16, 2008, and March 20, 2008, PacificBeach Hotel Boycott: Background and Factsheet by Gordon Lafer.
7 Lafer says he was advised by UCLA Labor Center’s Kent Wong to contact me.
8 When visiting as part of a delegation from Japan in February 2012, we discussed dispute

strategy with ILWU case officers and PBH activists. They stated that they had resolved the
problems of union certification and reinstatement through orders by the NLRB so thebiggest current problem was to obtain a collective agreement that included union shopclauses.
9 Statements during a hearing on April 24, 2013, and a meeting on April 26, 2013.
10 The NLRB will, under current law, certify a union if the employer recognizes therepresentative rights of a union that collects authorization cards from a majority of
employees (“card-check”). If the employer refuses, then the certification election proceeds as
usual under NLRB oversight. The Employee Free Choice Act is a bill would make the cardcheck method obligatory in the event that a union seeks representative rights via thatmethod. The Congress raised the bill, but it failed to pass due to Republican Party
opposition.

13

Dispute Chronology: With Focus on Support from Japan
January 2002
August 2005
January 2007
December 1, 2007
Early December 2007
January 12, 2008

February 2008
February 15, 2008
February 26, 2008
March 10, 2008
March 15, 2008
March 28, 2008
March 31, 2008
April 10-11, 2008
April 14, 2008
April 17, 2008

April 21, 2008
April 22, 2008
May 5-10, 2008
May 17, 2008

Union organizing drive begins at Pacific Beach Hotel (PBH).
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) certifies ILWU Local 142 as the solebargaining unit for PBH.
HTH outsources PBH management and transfers all PBH employees to PBHManagement, a subsidiary of Outrigger Resorts.
HTH terminates the outsourcing contract, reverts to direct management of PBH,
selectively "hires" back the transferred employees, rejecting 32, including union
activists, effectively firing them.
Justice at the Beach, a Hawaiian support group, launches a campaign to boycott
the hotel.
Gordon Lafer, the coordinator for support of the PBH dispute, asks Hirohiko
Takasu, Research Education Center for Fair Labor at Hitotsubashi University, tohelp build a framework of support in Japan. Thereafter, Takasu becomes theJapan contact person for the ILWU in Japan in charge of coordinating support
for the fight in Japan.
ILWU petitions the NLRB for relief from unfair labor practices.
AFL-CIO decides to support the PBH boycott.
International Affairs Department of the AFL-CIO requests its counterpart inRengo for support.
First PBH dispute support meeting, attended by Tokyo office of ITF, Rengo'sDepartment of International Affairs, Koun-Rokyo, IUF-JCC, Zenkoku Kowan,
Zenkowan, ILWU contact person, Labor Now.
Rengo President Takagi receives a request for support by fax from AFL-CIO
President Sweeney.
Request to Japan Association of Travel Agents (JATA).
Second PBH dispute support meeting, with Service Rengo joining attendees
from the first meeting. Meetings continue with the same participants.
IUF-HRCT subcommittee adopts a declaration of solidarity.
In Honolulu, ILWU Local 142 representative meets JATA deputy section chieffor Hawaii who had attended the Japan-Hawaii Tourism Council held that day
and the next day.
Demonstration in front of Yurakucho Marion Building (Tokyo office of ITF,
Koun-Rokyo and others). The same day, Rengo decides to support the PBH
fight and to boycott the hotel. Around the same time, Japanese Council ofTransport Workers' Unions (Koun-Rokyo), Japan Coordinating Council ofInternational Union of Food, Agriculture, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco
and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF-JCC), Japan Federation of Service &Tourism Industry Workers' Unions (Service Rengo), All Japan Dockworkers'
Union (Zenkowan), and National Federation of Dockworker Unions of Japan(Zenkoku Kowan) also decided on support.
Koun-Rokyo and its subsidiary organization send protests simultaneously to
HTH. Other organizations that have decided to support the fight also send
protests around the same time.
ILWU sends fax news to major travel agencies in Japan.
Takasu and Aono visit Honolulu, discuss strategy of dispute support with ILWU
and produce video about dispute.
Email protest campaign begins at Labor Start.

14

May 19, 2008
May 20, 2008
June 23, 2008
July 6-10, 2008
July 7, 2008
July 9, 2008
July 25, 2008
August 25, 2008
August 27, 2008
October 3, 2008
November 10, 2008
November 27 to
December 4, 2008
December 1, 2008
December 15, 2008
February 2, 2009
March 30, 2009
April 30 to May 1, 2009
May 21, 2009

June 5, 2009
July 30, 2009
August 20, 2009
August 31, 2009
September 30, 2009
October 2, 2009
October 15, 2009
October 16, 2009
October 29, 2009
November 10, 2009
December 1, 2009
December 17, 2009
February 15, 2010
March 2010

Third PBH dispute support meeting.
Request to JATA.
Fourth PBH dispute support meeting.
ILWU delegation (Local 142 Secretary-Treasurer Guy Fujimura and PBH
dismissee Virginia Recaido) visits JATA, Japan Travel Bureau (JTB), Nippon
Travel Agency, Kinki Nippon Tourist, and organizations supporting the fight.
Fifth PBH dispute support meeting, about 100 participate in rally of those
supporting PBH workers held by ITF Tokyo office, Koun-Rokyo, IUF-JCC, andRengo.
Labor Now holds networking event for PBH workers.
Koun-Rokyo launches dispute resolution petition drive.
Sixth PBH dispute support meeting.
Takasu receives a protest and warning addressed personally to him from HTH's
lawyer.
Seventh PBH dispute support meeting.
Eighth PBH dispute support meeting.
Delegation (Wada, Fujiki, Ito, Aono and Takasu) goes to Hawaii.
Protest rally in front of PBH; demonstrators attempted to hand the dispute
resolution petition with the 65,403 signatures collected by Koun-Rokyo to hotelmanagement but PBH refused. It was mailed by post later.
Ninth PBH dispute support meeting, rally held to hear the report from the Japandelegation to Hawaii (29 participated).
Tenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Eleventh PBH dispute support meeting.
Rengo and AFL-CIO regular talks in Washington, DC.
Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario Federation of Labour take action in
front of the general shareholders meeting of Sun Life, the Toronto life insurance
firm that underwrote HTH properties, and asked the company to help resolve
the dispute.
Twelfth PBH dispute support meeting.
Thirteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), Federation of Free Workers(FFW), and Alliance of Independent Hotel and Restaurant Workers Unions(AIHRWU) hold an action in front of Sun Life's Manila branch.
Fourteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
NLRB San Francisco Regional Office hands down order in favor of the union,
HTH appeals.
Fifteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Third-party Investigation Commission on Labor and Management Practices at
Pacific Beach Hotel releases report on PBH.
Forty-five participate in rally to hear report on PBH dispute.
Request to JATA and JTB.
Sixteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Koun-Rokyo and subsidiary organizations send fax requests to HTH to marktwo years since dismissals.
Seventeenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Eighteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Service Rengo distributes 20,000 leaflets to all the members of its individual
member unions.
15March 29, 2010
April 15, 2010
April 28, 2010
May 31, 2010
May 31, 2010
July 28, 2010
July 29, 2010
September 27, 2010
November 15, 2010
December 7, 2010
February 8, 2011
May 16, 2011
June 14, 2011
June 15, 2011
July 25, 2011
August 31, 2011
September 9, 2011

September 13, 2011
October 13, 2011
October 2011
November 21, 2011
November 29, 2011
December 12, 2011
January 30, 2012
February 13-19, 2012

March 7, 2012
March 26, 2012
April 11, 2012
May 15, 2012
May 15, 2012
Around the same time

Federal District Court in Honolulu orders HTH to comply with NLRB order(including reinstating five members) until a final ruling, HTH complies but
appeals.
Nineteenth PBH dispute support meeting.
Request to JATA, twentieth PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-first PBH dispute support meeting.
Fifty-three attend rally to hear report on PBH dispute (Atty. Kunio Miyazato
speaks).
One member who had been reinstated by NLRB order is fired anew.
Twenty-second PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-third PBH dispute support meeting.
Date of protest letters simultaneously sent by 24 support organizations to HTH.
Twenty-fourth PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-fifth PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-sixth PBH dispute support meeting.
NLRB Board hands down order. HTH asks US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to overturn the order.
NLRB asks US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold the order for
relief.
Twenty-seventh PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-eighth PBH dispute support meeting.
Twenty-ninth PBH dispute support meeting, 96 join a rally to hear report on the
NLRB ruling against PBH (including Atty. Miyazato who analyzes the order,
ILWU International Vice President Wesley Furtado, and ILWU Local 142
Secretary-Treasurer Guy Fujimura).
NLRB San Francisco Regional Office hands down ruling favoring the union on
additional petitions.
Thirtieth PBH dispute support meeting.
A total of 78 organizations send letters requesting resolution of the dispute.
Federal District Court in Honolulu hands down a preliminary injunction dated
September 13 to comply with NLRB Regional Office order.
Federal District Court in Honolulu finds violation of March 29, 2010,preliminary injunction to be contempt of court.
Thirty-first PBH dispute support meeting.
Thirty-second PBH dispute support meeting.
Eleven-member delegation from Japan to Hawaii (Katsushige Majima and fiveothers from Zenkowan, Akito Taguchi, Shigeru Fujiki, Labor Now
videographer Taichi Hirano, and Hirohiko Takasu) participate in demonstrationin front of PBH and in request for help to Hawaii Lodging and Tourism
Association, Hawaii Tourism Authority, the state's lieutenant governor, and
Democratic Party members of the state legislature.
Thirty-third PBH dispute support meeting, fifty-four attend a rally to hear reportof the delegation from Japan.
U.S. Supreme Court rejects HTH’s appeal to overturn Honolulu District Court’s
preliminary injunction.
Thirty-fourth PBH dispute support meeting, JATA request.
Thirty-fifth PBH dispute support meeting.
JATA sends message urging HTH to resolve dispute.
Local subsidiaries of Japanese travel agencies urge HTH to resolve the dispute.

16

July 4, 2012
September 6, 2012
September 6, 2012
November 5, 2012
November 6, 2012
November 26, 2012
December 29, 2012

Thirty-sixth PBH dispute support meeting, study session on corporate social
responsibility.
Thirty-seventh PBH dispute support meeting.
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit support the district court’s verdict
and upholds the NLRB Board’s relief order. Since HTH does not appeal to the
US Supreme Court, the verdict becomes final.
HTH announces to PBH employees that “PBH management will be outsourced
to Highgate Hotels on January 8, 2013, and that employees will all betransferred to that company.”
ITF tourism subcommittee general meeting decides to support the union in its
dispute.

January 9 and 10, 2013
January 14, 2013
January 28, 2013

Thirty-eighth PBH dispute support meeting
Highgate and ILWU agree to terms for a collective agreement (including unionshop).
PBH union members vote to ratify the collective agreement.
Announcement of dispute resolution and end of boycott.
Collective agreement signed.

February 18, 2013
March 4, 2013

Thirty-ninth PBH dispute support meeting.
Pacific Beach Get-Together held in Honolulu to report resolution.

March 7, 2013

Rengo reports to its central executive committee on the resolution and to end theboycott.
Fortieth PBH dispute support meeting.
ILWU delegation (ILWU Local 142 Secretary-Treasurer Guy Fujimura, ILWU
Oahu Division Business Agent Karl Lindo, and ILWU/PBH bargaining unit
representative Kapena Kanaiaupuni) visits JATA and supporting organizationsin Japan.

April 3, 2013
April 24 – 28, 2013

April 26, 2013

Forty-first PBH dispute support meeting, 43 join a rally to hear report on
dispute resolution.

PBH Dispute Support GroupITF Tokyo Office: Katsuji Taki, Akito Taguchi (predecessors were Yuji Iijima, Shigeru Wada, Eiko
Furukawa, and Junko Honma)
IUF-JCC: Nobuhiro Nakata (predecessor was Tomoji Misato)
Rengo's Department of International Affairs: Koji Suzuki, Hiroshi Takizawa (predecessors were Masayuki
Shiota and Takahito Katayama)Service Rengo: Junji Mise (predecessors were Tetsuya Oki and Yuichi Sugisaki)
Zenkoku Kowan: ITF Inspector Shigeru Fujiki
Zenkowan: Akinobu Ito, Katsushige Mashima (predecessor was Shosaku Machida)
ILWU Japan Contact Person: Hirohiko Takasu (Labor Now; Research and Education Center for Fair Labor,
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hitotsubashi University)17Video・Emiko Aono (Labor Now) – videotaping, editing. She produced the video documentary Watch This
Before Staying in Hawaii!!! (Part 1) (4 min., 35 sec.), which as of June 29, 2008, had received about
90,000 views. http://youtu.be/aagzO4EAxvc
・Emiko Aono (Labor Now) – videotaping, editing. She produced the video documentary Watch This
Before Staying in Hawaii!!! (Part 2) (7 min., 51 sec.), which as of January 25, 2009, had received about
10,000 views. 	
  http://youtu.be/dD-ccOa0Tnk
・ILWU production, Japanese language version of Pacific Beach Hotel Ordered to Reinstated Fired
Workers (7 min., 24 sec.) , which as of May 29, 2012, had received about 2,000 views. 	
 http://youtu.be/Vg_3c5mZtTw
・Taichi Hirano (Labor Now) produced and edited the video entitled After Ten Years of Fighting PacificBeach Hotel (10 min., 39 sec.), which as of March 31, 2012, had received about 400 views.
http://youtu.be/bvBckEOS4BU(Currently, all the above videos can be seen on YouTube.)Japanese site for boycott campaign: http://supportPBHworkers.blogspot.jp/18