such that the change did not affect the housekeeper’s overall workload. Resp’t Opp’n at 73-74. As an initial matter, Respondents’ assertion that the increase in rooms did not affect housekeeper workloads is not supported by the evidence— although Minicola generally asserts that the number of rooms housekeepers were required to clean fluctuated, the more specific and objective evidence (ie., Recaido’s testimony and logs), establishes that she was consistently assigned to clean rooms based on the higher room requirement. Further, the room assignment requirement was not de minimis — it materially and significantly affected the terms and conditions of employment of the housekeepers by increasing the number of rooms they may need to clean on a given day. See HTH, 2011 WL 2414720, at *6 (<HOLDING>); see also EAD Motors E. Air Devices, Inc., 346
holding that a transfer of work was a mandatory subject of bargaining because the motivation for the shift was to cut labor costs holding that the number of rooms that housekeepers must clean is a mandatory subject of bargaining holding that respondents violated  8a1 and 5 of the act uni laterally changing the housekeepers workloads by adding two additional rooms to clean per day holding that a fiveminute change in employee starting time is a mandatory subject of bargaining holding that the statute is mandatory