Bea Morley's Mousetrap

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Mousetrap of Miami , Inc., d / b/a Bea Morley's
Mousetrap and Club , Restaurant and Bartenders
Union Local 133, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-4220
March 6, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On December 2, 1968, Trial Examiner Benjamin
K Blackburn issued his Decision in the
above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial
Examiner's Decision The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices and
recommended dismissal of these allegations
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed a
reply brief
Pursant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and the briefs,
and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner
Mousetrap of Miami, Inc , d/b/ a Bea Morley's
Mousetrap, referred to herein as Respondent. On the basis
of that charge, and an amended charge subsequently filed
by the Charging Party on July 30, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional
Director for Region 12 (Tampa, Florida), issued a
complaint against Respondent on August 1 in which he
alleged that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the National Labor Relations Act by words spoken to
employees by various supervisors and agents on various
dates in May and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by discharging
an employee named Jesus Novo on May 7.
On August 6 Respondent filed a Motion for More
Definite Statement in which it asked whether the General
Counsel was proceeding on an alternative theory that
Novo was a supervisor and the circumstances under which
he was discharged constituted a violation of Section
8(a)(1) because of its interference with the Section 7 rights
of employees On the assurance of counsel for the General
Counsel that he had informally informed counsel for
Respondent no such allegation was intended, Trial
Examiner Charles W Schneider, on August 16, denied
Respondent's Motion. At the beginning and again at the
end of the hearing, counsel for the General Counsel
repeated this position, i e , if Jesus Novo was a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act on May 7, his discharge at
that time under the circumstances alleged by the General
Counsel did not violate the Act Respondent's answer
denied the commission of any unfair labor practices and
alleged, as an affirmative defense, that Novo was a
supervisor Consequently, the issues litigated before me
were (1) the supervisory status of Novo, (2) Respondent's
motive for discharging Novo, and (3) independent 8(a)(I)
allegations incidental to the discharge of Novo
All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full
opportunity to participate, to adduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and
to file briefs
Upon the entire record, including briefs filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent, and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while
testifying under oath, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Mousetrap
of Miami, Inc., d/b/a Bea Morley's Mousetrap,
Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BENJAMIN K BLACKBURN , Trial Examiner This case
was heard before me , pursuant to due notice, in Miami,
Florida , on October 3 and 4, 1968 ' It arose on May 8
when Club, Restaurant and Bartenders Union Local 133,
AFL-CIO, referred to herein as the Charging Party or the
Union , filed an unfair labor practice charge against The
1 THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Florida corporation, operates a
restaurant in Miami Its annual gross volume of business
exceeds $500,000 Its annual indirect inflow exceeds
$50,000 On the basis of these admitted facts, the
complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits , and I find
that the Charging Party is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Supervisory Issue
By far the greater part of the hearing was devoted to
All dates are 1968, unless otherwise specified
174 NLRB No. 158
BEA MORLEY'S MOUSETRAP
this question, with much testimony, pro and con, on
Novo's duties, responsibility, and authority as night chef
at Bea Morley's Mousetrap. The Mousetrap is open from
11 a.m to I a m, 7 days a week The kitchen, sometimes
referred to as the back of the house to distinguish it from
the serving of customers in the various dining rooms, the
front of the house, is under the direction of Chef Henri
Murphy It is a two-shift operation. With Chef Henry on
the day shift is Assistant (or "Sous") Chef Milton
Cramer. The parties agree that both Murphy and Cramer
are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. "In charge
or" the night shift, at all times relevant, was Jesus (also
known as Jay) Novo The night shift consisted of three
cooks, including Novo, a salad man, and three dish, or
pot, washers
Novo regularly reported for work between 2 and 2 30
p.m Chef Henry and his assistant regularly left for the
day at 3 p m Thus, each day, Novo received from Chef
Henry whatever instructions, if any, were necessary for
the running of the kitchen that night. On occasions, when
Novo had questions about the menu or about supplies, he
called Chef Henry at home during the evening.
Reduced to its simplest form, it is the General
Counsel's position that Novo was not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act because the operations of the
kitchen on the night shift were so routine and each
employee, once broken in, went about his duties so
automatically that Novo was not required to exercise any
independent judgment in carrying out his duty of being
"in charge." He cites Poultry Enterprises, Inc v
N L R B , 216 F.2d 798 (C A. 5), "Although the statute
in Section 2(11)] states various sorts of supervisory
authority coupled by the disjunctive (or), it states the
requirement of independence of judgment in the
conjunctive (i e., in connection) with what goes before... ,"
in support of his argument that all of the testimony on
the various aspects of Novo's authority and responsibility
must be weighed against the statutory requirement that
supervisors exercise independent judgment and Novo's
authority and responsibility must be found wanting in that
respect
The General Counsel has cited many cases in support
of his argument.' And many of the indicia of supervisory
authority about which he argues do present serious
problems if the question of Novo's status had to be
resolved on the basis of them For instance, without
detailing the conflicting testimony on each point or my
reason for each finding since to do so is unnecessary to
the conclusion I reach, I find that Novo could and did tell
dishwashers to peel potatoes or to clean shrimp if the
occasion arose; that Novo did regularly sign for food
delivered to the kitchen when Chef Henri and his assistant
were not present (although, once in a while, other cooks
on the night shift did the same thing), that Novo
sometimes initialed entries on the timecards of other
night-shift employees (although he himself, like all kitchen
employees other than Chef Henri, punched the clock), that
Novo approved petty cash vouchers for night-shift
employees so that they could obtain small advances on
their wages, and that Novo reported to Chef Henri any
derelictions of duty on the part of night-shift employees.
If these and other items in the record were all the facts I
had about Novo's job, I would be inclined to find that he
'The parties also agree that this phrase properly describes Novo's
activities although , as indicated , they disagree on the legal results that flow
therefrom
1061
was not a supervisor since, in each instance, there is much
merit to the General Counsel's position, based on the
precedents he cites, that Novo really exercised no
independent judgment. However, whether Novo had and
exercised the authority to hire and discharge employees
was also hotly contested Since I consider those indicia of
supervisory authority, without more, dispositive of the
issue, a thorough analysis of the testimony in these areas
is necessary
Novo testified, in summary, that he never hired or fired
anyone for any job and that, in each of the specific
instances brought up, Chef Henri either had hired an
applicant Novo had referred to him, had fired an
employee after independently investigating Novo's
complaints, or, after an independent investigation, had
instructed Novo to fire an employee if he repeated such
heinous conduct as showing up for work drunk With
respect to cooks and salad men there is no conflict
between Novo and his boss Chef Henri testified that he
hired the cooks, that, since they were hard to come by,
Novo had no authority to discharge them out of hand,
and that, in those cases where Novo had sent a drunken
cook on his way, he did so only after Chef Henri had
given the man a second chance and instructed Novo to tell
him he was fired if he showed up drunk again. Where
dishwashers were concerned, however, the picture is
completely different. Chef Henri testified that he did not
concern himself with that menial chore and that Novo had
complete authority to hire and fire them as needed. Both
Novo and Chef Henri agreed that cooks and, especially,
dishwashers too numerous to remember passed through
the back of Bea Morley's Mousetrap during the period
that Novo was night chef
Here, once again, if this were all the evidence contained
in the record, I would be inclined to find Novo not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act since I found
him a generally credible witness and would credit his
testimony over that of Chef Henri and other managerial
witnesses presented by Respondent on this point
However, Respondent also called to the stand two
dishwashers who testified explicitly about their experiences
in getting hired and fired Alberto Torrez testified that he
entered the kitchen one evening in the course of going
from place to place in seeking work, approached the first
person he saw, was referred to Novo, asked Novo for a
job as a dishwasher, was told that the restaurant needed a
dishwasher and to come back the next evening to begin
work, came back as instructed without talking to any
other official of Respondent in the interim, and was put to
work. Novo agreed with Torrez' story in all particulars
except that Novo said he told Torrez to talk to Chef
Henri the second day before presenting himself to begin
work the second evening and he did not know whether
Torrez had carried out his instructions Chef Henri
testified that Torrez never spoke to him before beginning
work Similarly, Joe Sanchez testified that, after 3 weeks
of employment, Novo came up to him one evening and
said, "You are [obscemtying] off on the job Go on and
punch your card " Novo could not remember the incident.
On the basis of the testimony of Alberto Torrez and
Joe Sanchez I find that Jesus Novo, as night chef, had
authority to hire and discharge dishwasher, and exercised
'Canada Dry Corp, 154 NLRB 1763, Security Guard Service, 154
NLRB 8, Cosby-Hodges Milling Company , 170 NLRB No 50; Precision
Fabricators , Inc, 101 NLRB 1537, Southern Bleachery & Print Works,
Inc, 118 NLRB 299, Griggs Equipment , Inc, 125 NLRB 1152, Clinton
Construction Company , 107 NLRB 946
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that authority in their cases as well as others With
respect to hiring, Torrez' statement that he began work
after discussing the matter only with Novo is
uncontradicted Since applicants were placed on the
payroll in the manner exemplified by Torrez, Novo clearly
had authority to hire dishwashers without first checking
with Chef Henri Even if Novo did tell Torrez to see Chef
Henri first, a point on which I do not credit Novo, the
fact that Torrez went to work without doing so makes
Novo's authority crystal clear Similarly, there is no
testimony, not even from Novo, that he first checked with
Chef Henri before letting Sanchez go Consequently, I am
persuaded, from the manner in which he handled Sanchez,
that Novo also could and did fire dishwashers While I
agree with the General Counsel's reading of Section 2(11)
that the exercise of independent judgment must be read
conjunctively with " . authority, in the interest of the
employer, to hire . discharge " I am aware of no
case in which the Board has held that one who regularly
hires and discharges others is not a supervisor, nor can I
imagine a situation where one who hired and discharged
others without first checking with higher authority could
reasonably be said not be using his independent judgment.
I find, therefore, that Night Chef Jesus Novo was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Carl B King
Drilling Co, 164 NLRB No. 68, Cf Willis Shaw Frozen
Food Express, Inc, 173 NLRB No 77
B The Other Issues
1 The Facts'
Bea Morley's Mousetrap opened in Miami in May
1966. Novo first began working there in the latter part of
1966 as a cook. In December 1967 Carmen Jantonto,
Respondent's general manager, caught him taking four
bottles of beer out of a cooler for his personal use The
beer was worth 23 cents a bottle wholesale, 75 cents a
bottle retail Novo quit 5 However, a few days later he
received word that the chef, Murphy's predecessor, wanted
him back When he applied for a job he was immediately
reinstated Because he was an excellent cook and a
reliable employee, he was promoted to night chef in April
1967.
'Most of the facts are undisputed , the only major exceptions being what
words were spoken by Chef Henri Murphy on May 6 and by Assistant
Chef Milton Cramer and by Owner Bea Morley on May 7 There were no
other witnesses to the Murphy-Novo and Cramer- Novo conversations
Murphy and Cramer each denied that any such conversation took place
The Morley-Novo conversation took place in a crowd Witnesses presented
by the General Counsel all testified that Miss Morley reminded Novo she
had loaned hi-i the money so that he could buy a house and accused him
of betraying her by bringing the Union into her restaurant Witnesses
presented by Respondent all testified that Miss Morley reminded Novo she
had loaned him money so that he could buy a house and accused him of
betraying her by stealing from her , a reference to the long-distance
telephone calls I credit General Counsel ' s witnesses I rely principally on
Miss Morley ' s demeanor on the stand At one point she burst into tears
and a brief recess had to be taken to give her a chance to compose herself
All witnesses agree that the scene between Miss Morley and Novo in the
Mousetrap ' s kitchen on the afternoon of May 7 was highly emotional
From my observation of Miss Morley , I do not believe that $24 50 worth
of telephone bills which Novo had already repaid would have aroused so
much emotion I believe that an effort to organize her employees would In
addition , I rely on the testimony of Mary Wilson, one of the General
Counsel's witnesses , that Cramer , during the Morley-Novo confrontation,
said to Novo , " I told you , Jay, you can never win this case," as
corroborating Novo ' s testimony of his earlier conversation with Cramer in
reaching the general conclusion that , where their testimony differs, General
Counsel ' s witnesses are worthy of belief, Respondent's not
During the week of April 14, 1968, at a time when
Miss Morley and Chef Henry were both away, Florence
Murphy, Respondent's bookkeeper, discovered that Novo
had made a series of long-distance telephone calls to his
parents in Spokane, Washington, on Respondent's
telephone. Because she knew of Jantonio's animosity
toward Novo, she did not tell Jantonio of her discovery
Instead, when Chef Henri returned on Monday, April 22,
she told him Chef Henri talked to Novo Novo admitted
the calls and agreed to pay for them. The bookkeeper
deducted $24 50 from the wages due Novo that day 6
Alfredo Balido , a cook on the day shift, obtained
authorization cards from the Charging Party in early
May He gave some to Novo. Novo obtained the
signatures of approximately 16 employees, including
himself, and returned the signed cards to Balido Among
the employees approached by Novo about signing a card
was James Grady, at that time a cook on the day shift
and Novo's successor as night chef Grady refused Grady
and Alberto Torrez each told Chef Henri that an attempt
was underway to organize the Kitchen. Chef Henri told
Cramer
On Monday, May 6, Jantonto returned from an
absence caused by a death in his family That same day,
as he was giving Novo his paycheck, Chef Henri told
Novo that he had heard Novo was organizing the
employees, "we don' t want no union here so you had
better forget all about it " Novo explained to Chef Henri
why he thought the Union would be a good thing for
everybody. Chef Henri told Novo that he had better
forget all about the Union "because you are going to get
yourself in trouble You see Bea Morley don't know about
this, but when she finds out she is going to fire you."
On Monday evening, May 6, Novo left work
approximately half an hour early without obtaining
permission. Jantonio saw him go
On Tuesday, May 7, shortly after Novo arrived for
work, Cramer told Novo, "Jay, I hear that you want to
bring the union here You are going to get yourself in
trouble You just bought a house, you are in debt, and
you are my friend So the best thing you can do right now
is drop it or you are going to get yourself in trouble."
Novo explained to Cramer why he thought the Union was
a good idea.
When Cramer and Novo parted, Cramer spoke to
Jantonio. A few minutes later Jantonio appeared in the
kitchen with a check. He called Novo aside and asked him
about the long-distance telephone calls to Spokane Novo
explained that he had already taken care of the matter,
Jantonio replied, "Well, I am fed up with you and I am
going to let you go" and handed the check to Novo. After
Jantonio left other employees gathered around Novo. He
told them what had happened.'
'Jantonio testified that he fired Novo However , Respondent 's payroll
records confirm Novo 's testimony that he quit
'Telephone bills introduced into evidence by Respondent show nine calls
to Spokane between July 1967 and March 1968 with total charges of $20
However, the January bill is missing I assume there were $4 50 worth of
calls in that month Otherwise, Respondent overcharged Novo by that
amount when he paid his bill , since Respondent ' s records show $24 50
received from Novo out of the wages due him on April 22
'Many, although not all, of Respondent's kitchen employees are
Spanish-speaking Cubans Their English ranges from Novo's fluency to
none at all Novo, in addition to his other duties, frequently acted as
interpreter and go-between for non-English speaking employees The
conversation which broke out in the kitchen immediately after Jantonto left
was conducted in excited Spanish
BEA MORLEY'S MOUSETRAP 1063
Bea Morley returned to the Mousetrap after an absence
of several weeks sometime after noon on May 7 8 Shortly
after 3 p m Henri Kolsch, her nephew and Respondent's
parking lot attendant, ran into her office and told her
there was trouble in the kitchen She hurried to the
kitchen and joined the group around Novo She told Novo
that she had been good to him, reminding him that she
had loaned him $300 so that he could buy a house, and
accused him of paying her back by bringing a union into
her restaurant Novo tried to explain why he was for the
Union. Miss Morley told him he was fired and to get the
hell out of her restaurant Cramer said, "I told you, Jay,
you can never win this case " Novo left Balido, Mary
Wilson, the day-shift salad girl and Novo's sister-in-law,
and one or two other day-shift employees went with him
although their shifts were not quite over A few minutes
later Miss Morley returned to the kitchen and asked
Frank Fluellen, a night-shift cook, whether he had signed
a card for the Union. Fluellen replied that he had Miss
Morley turned to Al Frost, the night salad man, and
asked him the same question
Chef Henri was not present when Novo was discharged,
having already left for the day. He learned of the incident
the next morning when the day-shift employees who had
walked out with Novo waited for him to arrive before
going to work and asked him whether they still had jobs.
He told them they did and put them to work
2. Conclusions
Respondent's explanation for the discharge of Novo is
as follows
When Jantonio met with Miss Morley in the office on
the afternoon of May 7, he told her about Novo's leaving
early the night before He indicated that he was displeased
with Novo to the point where he was ready to fire him
His animosity toward Novo was a longstanding thing,
dating back to the beer incident in December 1967 and
feeding on many things, including Novo's propensity for
kissing waitresses When Miss Murphy heard Jantonio's
anger she decided that she had better tell him and Miss
Morley about the telephone calls to Spokane She told all,
including the fact that Novo had paid for the calls.
Jantonio decided to discharge Novo for dishonesty since
the telephone calls confirmed Jantonio's opinion that
Novo was a thief He warned Miss Morley not to
interfere with his decision, had Novo's final check
prepared, and discharged him forthwith. Neither Jantonio
nor Miss Morley knew anything about Novo's union
activity at the time Their first knowledge of any union
activity came from a telephone call from a representative
of the Charging Party shortly after the discharge The
caller accused them of discharging Novo for his union
activities.
I do not credit Respondent's explanation I find, rather,
that the telephone calls, as well as Novo's other alleged
shortcomings dating all the way back to the four beers,
were a pretext masking Respondent's true motive, the fact
that Novo was engaged in organization of Respondent's
employees I rely for this finding, as well as for the
subsidiary finding that Jantonio and Miss Morley had
knowledge of Novo's union activities prior to his
discharge, on the words spoken by Miss Morley to Novo
just after Jantonio fired him. The pretextual nature of
Respondent's defense is revealed by the admission of Chef
'Miss Morley, a golfer of note, is frequently away for long periods while
playing in tournaments
Henri that Novo was a capable, reliable employee, by the
fact that he was immediately rehired after quitting in a
squabble over 92 cents worth of beer, by the fact that
Respondent managed to put up with Novo, with all his
alleged faults, in spite of Jantonio's smouldering hatred
until he engaged in union activities, and by the fact that
Novo had reimbursed Respondent for the telephone calls
more than 2 weeks before Respondent seized on them as
an excuse to justify discharging him. However, I have also
found that Novo was a supervisor. Since the protection of
the Act runs only to employees and not to supervisors
who engage in organizational activities, I finally find that,
by discharging Jesus Novo for engaging in such activities,
Respondent did not violate either Section 8(a)(3) or
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act National Freight, Inc , 154
NLRB 621, Boyer Bros, Inc, 170 NLRB No 119
The General Counsel has also alleged in his complaint
that the warnings which Chef Henri, on May 6, and
Cramer, on May 7, addressed to Novo constitute
independent violations of Section 8(a)(1). The finding that
Novo was a supervisor is fatal to both Since only a
supervisor was present to hear the words which Chef
Henri and Cramer spoke, even though they are clearly
threats to discharge for union activity, they did not
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their Section 7 rights. I find, therefore, that
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) in those two
incidents.
Finally, the complaint alleges an independent violation
of Section 8(a)(1) in that . Bea Morley , on or
about May 7, 1968, ask[ed] employees if they had signed
union cards " On the basis of Frank Fluellen's credited
testimony that Miss Morley asked him and Frost that
precise question a few minutes after the mob scene in the
kitchen, I find that Respondent interrogated its employees
about their union activities, thereby violating Section
8(a)(1) Moreover, the issue of what words Miss Morley
spoke to Novo during the mob scene, in the presence of a
number of employees, was thoroughly litigated during the
hearing. They clearly conveyed to those employees the
intended meaning that the price of bringing a union into
Miss Morley's restaurant was discharge, be the bringer
supervisor or employee Therefore, I also find, despite the
absence of any specific allegation in the complaint to that
effect, that Respondent, by Bea Morley on May 7,
threatened its employees with discharge if they engage in
union activities, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1). Granada
Mill's, Inc, 143 NLRB 957, Monroe Feed Store, 112
NLRB 1336
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I The Mousetrap of Miami, Inc , d/b/ a Bea Morley's
Mousetrap, is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2 Club, Restaurant and Bartenders Union Local 133,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interrogating its employees about their union
activities and by threatening them with discharge if they
engaged in such activities, Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
5 The allegations of the complaint that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by words spoken by
Henri Murphy on May 6, 1968, and by Milton Cramer on
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
May 7, 1968, have not been sustained
6 The allegations of the complaint that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging
Jesus Novo on May 7, 1968, and thereafter refusing to
reinstate him because he engaged in union activities have
not been sustained
THE REMEDY
If the only violation found were the interrogation of
Fluellen and Flood, I would recommend dismissal of the
complaint on the ground that the interrogations were one
isolated incident too insignificant to require a remedy
Converters Gravure Service, 164 NLRB No 53, Howell
Refining Co , 163 NLRB No. 3 However, I consider the
words which Bea Morley spoke to Jesus Novo in the
presence of a large number of employees a serious
violation of the Act requiring a remedy I also conclude
that those words demonstrate Respondent's disdain for the
rights of its employees and a likelihood that the violations
will be repeated in the future Consequently, I will
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist not only from interrogating and threatening its
employees but also from interfering with their Section 7
rights in any manner
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this
Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith 10
I FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be
dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent has
committed unfair labor practices by discharging Jesus
Novo on May 7, 1968, and thereafter refusing to reinstate
him, by Henri Murphy's telling an employee on or about
May 6, 1968, to forget the Union or he would be fired,
and by Milton Cramer's telling an employee on or about
May 7, 1968, that he should drop the Union or he would
be in trouble
employees that" in the notice In the further event that the Board ' s Order
is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words
"this notice is posted by Order of the United States Court of Appeals"
shall be substituted for "this notice is posted by order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read, "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 12, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following
The Mousetrap of Miami, Inc , d/b/a Bea Morley's
Mousetrap, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall.
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interrogating its employees about their union
activities
(b) Threatening its employees with discharge if they
engage in union activities
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at its restaurant in Miami, Florida, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix " Copies of such
notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 12, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily placed Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
'In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "This notice is posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board after a Trial at which all sides had the chance to give evidence, the
National Labor Relations Board found that we , The Mousetrap of Miami,
Inc , d/b / a Bea Morley's Mousetrap , violated the National Labor
Relations Act , and ordered us to post this notice ," shall be substituted for
"Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the
National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of
the National Labor Relations Act , as amended , we hereby notify our
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their
union activities
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge our employees if
they engage in union activities.
The Act gives all employees these rights
To engage in self-organization,
To form, join, or help unions,
To bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choosing,
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection; and
To refrain from any or all of these things
WE WILL NOT do anything to interfere with these
rights.
Dated By
THE MOUSETRAP OF
MIAMI, INC., D/B/A BEA
MORLEY'S MOUSETRAP
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
If employees have any question concerning this Notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Resident Office, Room 826,
Federal Office Building, 51 SW First Avenue , Miami,
Florida 33130, Telephone 228-7257