Burger King

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chart House, Inc. d/b/a Burger King and Naomi Jo
Hippie and Gale Moreland . Cases 38-CA-2322-1
and 38-CA-2322-2
March 18, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On December 5, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Herzel H. E. Plaine issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and General Coun-
sel submitted his brief to the Administrative Law
Judge as an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Chart House, Inc. d/b/a
Burger King, Peoria, Illinois, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the said recommended Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (CA. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In the absence of exceptions thereto, Members Fanning and Penello
adopt, pro forma the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent
did not violate Sec . 8(aXI) by Assistant Store Manager Button 's repeatedly
calling employee Hippie a "Commie." Chairman Murphy would affirm the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Button 's remarks , like other forms
of name calling which do not contain any implied threat of reprisals, are not
unlawful under Sec. 8 (axl). Union Screw Products, a Partnership, 78 NLRB
1107, 1108 (1948), finding that Shultis' remarks , at 1120, that the CIO was
Communist was not a violation of Sec . 8(axl). Cf. FWG Corporation and
Dyson-Kissner Corporation v. N.LRB., 433 F.2d 450 (C.A. 8, 1970).
DECISION
HERZEL H. E. PLAINS, Administrative Law Judge: The
question in these cases is whether Respondent, an operator
of a chain of fast food restaurants or stores, engaged in
violations of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act (the Act), in March and April 1975 at one of
its newer stores in Peoria, allegedly to discourage union
organization of the store by coercive interrogation of em-
ployees, threats of discharge and adverse changes in work-
ing conditions, advising of a wage increase to discourage
unionization, and discriminatory discharges of the two
Charging Parties, employees Naomi Jo Hipple and Gale
Moreland.'
Respondent has denied any wrongdoing and contends
that it discharged the two employees because each failed to
work on an allegedly scheduled Saturday.
The cases were heard on July 11-12, 1975. General
Counsel and the Respondent have filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in the cases, including my obser-
vation of the witnesses and consideration of the briefs, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a Louisiana corporation, with offices lo-
cated in Oak Brook, Illinois . Respondent operates a chain
of over two hundred fast food Burger King restaurants or
stores in different States of the United States, including
several stores in and about Peoria, Illinois, one of which is
the Western Avenue store principally involved in these
cases.
In the 12 months prior to issuance of the complaint, a
representative period, Respondent purchased and caused
to be delivered to its Illinois stores goods valued in excess
$50,000 transported directly from points outside Illinois;
and did a gross volume of business at the Illinois stores in
excess of $500,000.
Respondent is, as the parties concede, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Employees Lo-
cal Union 327 (the Union) is, as the parties also concede, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent's Business Operations
Employees
Respondent has a number of its Burger King fast food
restaurants or stores in the Peoria area, the newest of
which, the Western Avenue store, opened for business on
March 8, 1975.2 The store, typically, specializes in ham-
' The complaint, issued May 30, 1975, and amended at the hearing, was
founded on a charge by Mrs . Hipple filed April 16 , 1975, and a charge by
Mr. Moreland filed May 7, 1975.
2 The times specified herein are all in the year 1975 unless otherwise
indicated.
223 NLRB No. 20
BURGER KING 101
burger and fish sandwiches along with a limited menu of
other prepared foods and beverages that may either be car-
ried out or consumed on the premises by the store patrons.
At the front of the store is an order counter with several
cash registers where customers order , receive , and pay for
their food, which is prepared in the kitchen area occupying
the rear of the store behind the counter and cash registers.
To one side of the store is the dining area with seating
accommodations , called the patio, and on the other side is
the store or unit manager's office from which the unit man-
ager has a fairly complete view of the store.
The nonsupervisory jobs fall into two general catego-
ries-the counter work , taking and bagging the orders and
operating the cash registers , and the kitchen work, prepar-
ing the food in a well -defined operational mode. While
some of the payrolls indicate a porter or two, keeping the
premises clean was apparently also the work of some of the
kitchen help and subject to assignment among them by the
manager or assistant manager from time to time.
The employees in the nonsupervisory jobs are mainly
young people , in their late teens or early twenties, frequent-
ly attending high school or local college ; and Respondent's
advertisements in March and April for help for the West-
ern Avenue store stressed that there were part-time as well
as full-time positions and welcomed students to work be-
tween or after classes and homemakers to work "while the
kids are in school and be home before they are ." (G.C.
Exhs . 7 and 8.) 3
Supervisors
The immediate Western Avenue store supervisors, start-
ing from the top, were as follows : Ken Smith was the area
supervisor in charge of several of the Peoria area stores
including the Western Avenue store which he opened on
March 8 . Because it was a new store he worked every day
in March at the Western Avenue store and gave it a great
deal of his attention in the weeks that followed . He inter-
viewed many of the initial and subsequent applicants for
employment and claimed that he made all of the hiring
decisions , including those affecting applicants interviewed
by the unit or store manager, Mike Moser , and others.
Directly responsible to Area Supervisor Smith, and in
charge of the store , was the unit or store manager, Mike
Moser. The store manager's duties, in addition to his being
physically in charge of the store, included daily reporting
on sales , making up weekly schedules for employees, and
adjusting the schedules on a daily basis if it appeared (in
relation to sales) that he was overstaffed or understaffed.
From the employee's standpoint, according to Area Super-
visor Smith , these adjustments could mean daily reduction
in work . In the early weeks of the new store's operation,
Smith participated with Moser in the scheduling of em-
ployees, according to both of them.
While the stores regularly have an assistant or night
manager and a relief manager, according to Area Supervi-
3 The number of nonsupervisory employees apparently fluctuated in the
neighborhood of 50-60 employees . The charges (G.C. Exh. 1-a and 1-c.)
indicated 60 employees ; payroll G.C. Exhibit 16 for week ending April 12,
showed 48 nonsupervisory employees.
sor Smith, due to a shortage of managerial help, the West-
ern Avenue store had several assistant or relief managers in
its early months, either borrowed temporarily from other
stores or directly hired. It is necessary to note only two
such assistant or relief managers for our purposes, both
directly hired.
Charles Bowles was the assistant manager in charge of
the store evenings and nights, from 4 p.m. to 12 p.m. or I
a.m. closing from mid-March to mid-April (when he was
transferred to be assistant manager at the Pekin store on
April 15). Bowles had no previous restaurant experience,
was hired as an assistant manager in February, given 5
weeks of on the job training at a Decatur store, and then
assigned to the Western Avenue store as night manager
commencing in the second week of the store's operation.
George Button was hired by Respondent for the Western
Avenue store on March 20. He was hired, following an
interview by Store Manager Moser, as a nonsupervisory
employee at the then $2 per hour rate, but immediately,
because Button had had 6 years management experience at
another fast food chain (Steak 'n Shake), Area Supervisor
Smith discussed his working in management for Respon-
dent on the very first day of work. Button indicated that he
had a prospect of a management job with. another restau-
rant chain (Lum's) and if that came through his stay with
Respondent would be temporary. Nonetheless, being short
on managerial help and impressed with Button's perfor-
mance and record, Smith persisted, and as of March 23
(the beginning of the pay period for week ending March
.30), promoted Button to temporary assistant manager and
used him as such until Button left for Lum's 5 weeks later
at the end of April (G.C. Exh. 19). Smith's plan to pay
Button the starting salary for assistant manager, $25 per
day, was altered by Smith's superior, the district manager
for operations, who converted the daily rate to an hourly
rate equivalent to $2.50 per hour, allegedly because Button
did not plan to stay permanently with Respondent, but
nevertheless ratified Smith's action and authorized
Button's continued employment in a managerial capacity.
While Respondent admits that Area Supervisor Smith,
Store Manager Moser, and Assistant Manager Bowles were
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, it contends that
temporary Assistant Manager Button was not. Respondent
claims that Area Supervisor Smith's plan to use and his
action in using Button as temporary assistant manager
were repudiated by his superior, the district manager for
operations. The evidence, the testimony of Smith and But-
ton, and the promotion document itself (G.C. Exh. 19, su-
pra), contradict the claim and demonstrate that the district
manager for operations approved Smith's plan and action
and only modified the method of increasing the new tem-
porary assistant manager's pay by making it an hourly rate
rather than a daily rate. Moreover, the testimony of the
management witnesses (Smith , Bowles , Button) and nonsu-
pervisory witnesses (employees Hipple, Moreland, King,
and Funderburk) on the subject of Button's work and con-
duct established that Button regularly performed the assis-
tant manager 's or manager 's functions , assigned work to
employees and issued orders and instructions to them, took
sole charge of the store on occasions when the manager
and other assistants were absent, discharged two employ-
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ees to enforce discipline ,4 wore the distinctive managerial
garb as contrasted with the employee's uniform , and was
universally regarded by the staff and management of the
store as a part of the store 's management . In this latter
connection, see Keener Rubber, Inc. v. N.LR.B., 326 F.2d
968, 970 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 377 U.S. 934.
Accordingly, I find that Assistant Manager Button was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
B. Union Organizing and Respondent's Counteractions
John Martin, financial secretary-treasurer of the Union,
testified that two of Respondent 's four stores in Peoria are
not unionized . These are the two most recently opened, the
Sterling Avenue store which opened in February, and the
Western Avenue store (involved in these cases) which
opened in March.
Respondent's collective-bargaining contract with the
Union that covers Respondent 's two older Peoria stores-
the Burger Kings on Knoxville Avenue and University Av-
enue-is a multiemployer contract for the Peoria area re-
lating to restaurant operations . Union Secretary-Treasurer
Martin testified that Respondent's agreement had origi-
nally been negotiated as an addendum to the existing mas-
ter contract and contained a clause that purported to give
the Union automatic coverage of new stores . The agree-
ment expired January 31, 1975, and was replaced after
prior negotiations in December 1974 and January 1975 by
the existing contract effective February 1, 1975, that did
not cover the two new stores (Sterling Avenue and Western
Avenue).
Union Secretary-Treasurer Martin testified that when he
commenced the contract renewal negotiations with
Respondent 's Vice President Glass in early December
1974, being cognizant that the two new stores were to open
soon, he told Glass that the Union claimed jurisdiction
over both new stores as an expansion of or accretions to
the bargaining unit but would wait and waive 6 months
before covering in the two new stores . According to Mar-
tin, Glass responded he was not sure of the Company's
position on whether it wanted the two stores to be union at
any time, that clearly a 6-month postponement would not
be enough and at least a year was needed , and that even if
the two of them agreed on a year's postponement he would
have to get an answer on the whole question from the
Company. Martin suggested that they wait and see how
they came out on the rest of the negotiations and then he
would give his answer to Glass.
As Union Secretary-Treasurer Martin further testified,
the other terms of the renewal contract were satisfactorily
negotiated before the old contract expired, and he told
Vice President Glass that the Union would agree to a 1-
year postdating of the new contract for the two new stores.
Glass answered he would ask his home office , but Martin
said Respondent turned down the proposal for any cover-
4 Respondent claimed that Assistant Manager Button only had discipli-
nary authority to send the employees home . Nevertheless , Respondent rat-
ified the disciplinary actions, however described , by issuing termination of
employment notices to the two affected employees , Lutes and Wileman
(Area Supervisor Smith's testimony).
age of the two new stores.
Respondent wrote Martin a letter on the matter, dated
January 29, saying that it accepted the new contract cover-
ing the Knoxville Avenue and University Avenue stores
and would put the contract into effect February 1. The
letter concluded:
Regarding the other two stores opening in the near
future in the Peoria market, our Company feels at the
present time we do not wish to have these stores
unionized.
Two February applicants for jobs, who were accepted
for the as yet unopened Western Avenue store, Naomi Jo
Hippie and Gale Moreland, were started at work at the
Sterling Avenue store that opened in February and were
then transferred to the Western Avenue store when it
opened in early March.
Employee Hippie, a young married woman, age 21,
worked as a cashier at the counter . Employee Moreland, a
young man about the same age or younger, did various
kitchen jobs.
After working several weeks and talking about working
conditions with her mother, employee Hippie apparently
felt there was a need for a union at the store and at the end
of March, she said, talked to other employees about it. She
testified that while talking in the store with other girls
about the benefits of a union , Assistant Manager Bowles
interrupted to ask, what do you need a union for, whereup-
on the discussion ended and the girls went back to work.
Employee Hippie testified that she got in touch with
Business Representative Roy Berg of the Union and he
provided her with information in the form of union pam-
phlets (G.C. Exhs. 3 and 4) and about 60 union member-
ship application cards . Starting on the evening of Tuesday,
April 8 (she worked on the night shift), employee Hippie
began distribution of the union pamphlets and union mem-
bership cards among employees in the store. She had given
a batch of the material to a day-shift employee for distribu-
tion on the day shift. She continued the distribution of
material she said , usually on breaktimes , which the em-
ployees generally took on the premises in the patio (dining
area) in the next several nights through Friday night, April
11 (her last night of work before being fired over the week-
end on Sunday, April 13).
Employee Hippie signed a union membership card on
April 9 (G.C. Exh . 5), and that same night, after handing a
union card to an employee and being observed by Assis-
tant Manager Bowles , she said Bowles asked her into the
office and inquired about her interest in the Union . Bowles
told Hippie that the Union was never there when it was
needed and the employees would have to pay a lot of mon-
ey to it for dues. Hippie replied that full-time employees
would pay the Union $6.50 per month for dues, and part-
time employees like herself would pay $4.50 per month,
which she said was not much . The Union meant job securi-
ty, she said. Bowles answered there is no job security with
a Union. Employee Hippie said with the Union in the shop
the employer had to give three warning notices before it
could discharge an employee. Bowles retorted that he
could fill out three warning notices or just about anything
BURGER KING
and fire her for just about nothing.5
Employee Hipple testified that she continued to pass
union cards to employees following this conversation with
Assistant Manager Bowles. The next evening, April 10, she
sat during breaktime with employees Gale Moreland and
Tim Brown at a table in the restaurant patio or dining area
and talking with them about the Union. Assistant Manager
Bowles saw them and came over. He intervened in the con-
versation on the benefits of the Union, according to Hipple
and Moreland, saying that the Union would not do them
any good, most of the kids couldn't afford it anyway, and
that if the employees went union maybe the Union could
get them a pay raise, but Burger King would cut their
hours.
Employee Brown, who had a union membership card in
front of him, said he needed the job and the hours, and
notwithstanding Moreland's attempt to persuade him
otherwise, tore up the card. Moreland who had been given
a card for signing and several others for distribution by
Hipple on April 8, signed his card (G.C. Exh. 12) at the
table and handed it to Hipple saying job security was more
important to him. According to Hipple, Bowles again said
he could use a trivial excuse to fire an employee forthwith.
In his testimony, Bowles acknowledged his presence
throughout the occurrence and his participation in it .6
Employee Hipple testified that on the following night,
Friday, April 11, while she was on duty shortly before clos-
ing time, Assistant Manager George Button came into the
store with two male companions, asked for Charlie (Assis-
tant Manager Charles Bowles), and then glared at her and
called her a "Commie." The three men sat down at a table
in the patio, and were joined by Assistant Manager Bowles.
Shortly thereafter, as employee Hipple was leaving the
store for home, Assistant Manager Button called her again,
"hey, Commie," whereupon she walked over to where the
four men sat, and said to Button, "I'm not a Commie, why
did you call me that." According to Hipple, Button turned
to his companions and said, "She's the one that's trying to
get the union here." 7
On April 11, employee Diana King, who had obtained a
union card from employee Hipple, had a conversation with
Store Manager Moser about the Union. According to
King, Moser said he couldn't see why she and the other
employees would want the Union since it meant paying
dues that was money out of their checks; besides, he add-
ed, he had given them a 10-cent raise after being there a
month to keep them "from going union or ... from going
to other stores ." Store Manager Moser testified that he was
pointing out to employee King that since the store was on
the same pay scale as the unionized stores, the employees
5 Assistant Manager Bowles did not deny, and affirmatively recalled, the
substance of the foregoing conversation , but said that he couldn 't recall it
taking place in the office.
6 Assistant Manager Bowles euphemistically described his utterance, that
employee hours would be cut if the Union came in , as, "we would probably
have to rearrange the schedules so we could meet payroll ." In view of
Bowles' shaky memory , noted infra, I credit the testimony of the employees
and not Bowles ' variance.
r In his testimony, Assistant Manager Button acknowledged the incident,
said he didn ' t remember calling employee Hipple a Commie, but was aware
of her union activities and had referred to her as the person trying to get the
Union into the store . He sought to explain this as his way of introducing her
to his companions , but I do not credit the explanation.
wouldn't need the Union.
103
C. Discharge of EmployeesHipple and Moreland
Two days after the Friday, April 11, encounter with As-
sistant Managers Button and Bowles, on Sunday, April 13,
employee Hipple was notified of her discharge by Store
Manager Moser.
On the following Saturday, April 19, employee More-
land was notified of his discharge by Store Manager Mos-
er.
In employee Hipple's case she was allegedly fired for not
working on Saturday, April 12, a supposedly scheduled
workday for her.
In employee Moreland's case, he was allegedly fired for
not working on Saturday, April 19, a supposedly scheduled
workday for him.
In both cases, at the time of discharge, the employee was
a part time worker with an arrangement not to work on
Saturdays or Sundays.
1. Hipple's discharge
Employee Hipple applied to Respondent for employ-
ment on February 12, seeking part-time employment, day-
time or nighttime , but exluding weekends and full-time em-
ployment (see job application, G.C. Exh. 2). She was
interviewed and hired by Area Supervisor Ken Smith and,
in addition to what she put in her job application, told him
specifically that she could not work Saturdays and Sun-
days for home reasons and for religious reasons . He told
her that was okay.8 She started work as a trainee on Febru-
ary 15 at the newly opened Sterling Avenue store, and
transferred to the Western Avenue store when it opened in
early March.
According to Area Supervisor Smith , who spent a large
part of his time at the Western Avenue store in the weeks
that followed its opening and personally observed employ-
ee Hipple, she was a very good employee. As Smith
phrased it, she was pleasant with customers and handled
money accurately, she was a good employee and a good
cashier , which made her worth two good employees. She
worked on the night shift, putting in 6 to 8 hours per night,
Tuesday through Friday. In the period beginning in April,
her work pattern was Tuesday through Friday from 5 p.m.
to 1 a.m.
8 Area Supervisor Smith , in his testimony, acknowledged the discussion,
indeed conceded that he asked employee Hipple for her preference of hours.
He said he made "an exception" for her regarding Sundays because of her
religious beliefs, and claimed he told her he could not guarantee no-Satur-
days but would attempt to schedule her without Saturdays after sales were
established and the store settled down . I do not believe that any alleged
exception or qualification for Hipple regarding no-Saturdays was made in
light of the clear contrary record evidence , including Respondent's adver-
tised inducement to homemakers and students (discussed supra) to apply for
hours of work suited to their needs and convenience , Hippie 's job applica-
tion excluding weekend work , the shortage of good cashiers according to
Smith , and Smith's admitted highly favorable impression of Hippie's ap-
pearance and qualifications to be a good cashier (an impression that she
confirmed as an excellent employee , said Smith), the fact that other employ-
ees were contemporaneously hired without requirement of working week-
ends (e.g., employee Diana King ), and the fact that Hipple did not work
Saturdays or Sundays in the period of her employment from February 15 to
April 13 of which Smith had to be aware as a participant with Manager
Moser in scheduling the employees.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employee Hipple did not miss any work and responded
willingly to requests for some extra hours on the days she
worked. It is therefore not surprising that Respondent
sought to push her for more hours of her time by schedul-
ing her for Saturdays and even one Sunday . Hipple testi-
fied that each time she became aware that she was sched-
uled for Saturday she would remind Store Manager Moser
that she could not work on Saturdays and that it had been
so arranged with Area Supervisor Smith ; and on the morn-
ing of the Saturday she would call in to Moser to repeat
that she would not be in. Moser made no objection, did not
reprimand her, and gave her no advance warning that she
was subject to discharge or layoff for not working week-
ends . When she was scheduled for Sunday , April 6, she
passed the word to Moser through Assistant Manager
Bowles that she did not work on Sundays , and Moser testi-
fied that he apologized to her thereafter for making a mis-
take in so scheduling her. Moreover , said Hipple , she was
never told that she was on call at all times for extra hours
of work or under any penalty for refusing extra hours .9
As usual, employee Hipple did not work Saturday, April
12. Store Manager Moser originally said she was scheduled
for that day but his final revised testimony indicated that
she was actually not so scheduled (from his marking with a
dash for the day on the time sheet for week ending April
12, G.C. Exh. 16b). In any event, Hipple testified that be-
cause of the tension aroused in the several days before
Saturday and the reactions of Assistant Managers Bowles
and Button to her union activities she had intended to al-
leviate the tension by going in Saturday , but woke up sick
Saturday morning and called in that she couldn 't come in;
and, since she didn't reach Moser personally, had her sister
call later to make sure that Moser had received her mes-
sage. Moser, testifying, said he told the sister that he had
the message, he was shorthanded , but it was okay.
The next day, Sunday, April 13, employee Hipple tele-
phoned Store Manager Moser for her schedule for the
week (week ending April 19). Moser told her she had no
schedule . She asked if she was fired, and he replied that she
had done good work for him , but that she had to work
weekends or he had to lay her off. He told her she had to
come in the next day (Monday , April 14) to sign a paper.
She complied . The paper turned out to be a termination
slip that Moser had already filled out (G.C. Exh. 6) includ-
ing the indication that this was a resignation. Moser told
Hipple she had to sign and she did in order to get her
paycheck , she said . She appended a note to her signature,
saying, she enjoyed working as cashier but still thought
Respondent needed a union.
Moser told Hipple he would call her back if he had the
weekday hours or if she could work weekends , but she was
not recalled.
9 In his testimony on the daily adjusting of weekly scheduled work to
meet fluctuations in sales demand , Area Supervisor Smith was careful to
claim only that employees might lose hours of scheduled work in a down-
ward adjustment, but made no claim that employees were subject to penalty
for refusing a request to work nonscheduled hours . There was also evidence,
including testimony by employee Diana King, a cashier who like Hipple did
not work Saturdays or Sundays, that employees were not penalized when
they refused to come in for extra unscheduled days or hours.
On June 18, having apparently enrolled in the local col-
lege (Illinois Central College), Hipple made a second appli-
cation for employment with Respondent. The application
(G.C. Exh. 9) indicated she was available for part-time
work, nights and weekends. She was rehired but testified
she has been given work ranging only from 5 to 13 hours
per week, whereas she formerly worked from 24 to 35
hours per week.
2. The defense re Hipple's discharge
Store Manager Moser put the onus for the discharge of
employee Hipple on Area Supervisor Smith who he said
directed, after employee Hipple did not work Saturday
night April 12, that Moser inform Hipple that she no lon-
ger had a work schedule because Respondent could not
tolerate her not working Saturdays . Saturdays and Sundays
were the second and third busiest days after Fridays, and
Respondent contends (in its brief) that it had in effect
made it a condition of employment that it would require
Saturday-Sunday work of its nonsupervisory hourly em-
ployees whenever the business needs demanded it, however
inconvenient or undesirable it might be to the affected em-
ployee.
However , even Area Supervisor Smith in his testimony
concerning the general session with the employees just be-
fore opening the Western Avenue store, where he said he
discussed, among other things , the importance of employ-
ees meeting their schedules, made no such claim . And the
record in the case does not support Respondent 's conten-
tion. Not only did Respondent advertise (both before and
after Hipple's discharge ) to its prospective employees, par-
ticularly homemakers and students, that it would arrange
working hours to suit their needs and convenience, but it
made and kept such arrangements with employees other
than Hipple. Thus, cashier Diana King, who began work at
the Western Avenue store 2 days after cashier Hipple be-
gan there , asked , as Hipple did, for part-time evening and
night work with no weekend work , was given such a sched-
ule, worked only an occasional Saturday on request, de-
clined other proffered Saturday and weekday work, missed
several days of scheduled work without reprimand, and
was still employed at the time of the hearing . Respondent's
record of employment from the end of March through July
5 (compiled in Appendix to General Counsel's brief) shows
other employees not scheduled for weekend work over a
period of weeks. Moreover, Respondent's record for the
week ending April 12 (G.C. Exh. 16a and b), when employ-
ee Hipple was purportedly scheduled for Saturday, April
12, shows nine other employees who were scheduled for
work that day but did not work. They were not fired, as
was Hipple. Store Manager Moser conceded that there
were between 15 and 20 employees still employed at the
store who missed more work than employees Hipple and
Moreland. Actually, Hipple and Moreland had exemplary
attendance records.
Both Area Supervisor Smith and Store Manager Moser
testified to awareness of employee Hipple 's interest in the
Union, indicating that they acquired this knowledge by or
before April 1 and that it came to them casually from an
employee. What they neglected to reveal was that they
BURGER KING
learned of her union organizing activities of April 8-11, as
Assistant Manager Bowles reluctantly revealed, on Sun-
day, April 13, when Bowles informed Moser. Bowles at
first maintained, in a statement before the hearing and in
testimony during the hearing, that he had not discussed
employee Hippie's union activities with Moser or Smith
until April 17, several days after her discharge. However,
toward the close of his testimony Bowles finally admitted
that he informed Moser on Sunday, April 13. Bowles
claimed he told Moser "she was Union" and that he saved
telling the details until April 17. Bowles also sought to
make it appear, following a leading question by
Respondent's counsel making the suggestion, that he
(Bowles) did not provide Moser with the information until
after Moser told him on April 13 that he had fired Hippie.
I find neither qualification by Bowles worthy of belief and
am of the view that there was a direct relationship between
Bowles informing his superiors of employee Hippie's union
activities on April 13 and their decision to discharge and
her discharge on the same day.
3. Moreland's discharge
Like employee Hippie, employee Gale Moreland was
hired for the Western Avenue store in February, trained at
the Sterling Avenue store, and moved to the Western Ave-
nue store when it opened in early March. Store Manager
Moser interviewed him and hired him, said Moreland, and
he worked whatever hours he was scheduled, including a
few weekend days, without missing work. He was a kitchen
employee mostly working on the steam table and broiler,
and apparently a satisfactory worker. There were no com-
plaints about his work.
Employee Moreland testified that he had understood he
was to be getting full-time work, 40 hours per week, but by
the latter part of March, when this did not materialize,
having decided to look for an 8 a.m.- to -5 p.m. job else-
where, he went to Store Manager Moser and asked to be
put on a schedule of five nights per week, 4 hours per night,
Monday through Friday, 6-10 p.m. He told Moser that
was all he could work, and Moser agreed to the change.
While Store Manager Moser claimed that he had agreed to
only I week of the Monday through Friday, 6-10 p.m.
schedule, Respondent's records would appear to contradict
him. The time sheets for the last 4 weeks of Moreland's
employment, weeks ending March 29 through April 19
(G.C. Exh. 11 a through d), show that Moreland worked
for the approximate 20 hours per week from 6 to 10 p.m.
on the Monday-Friday weeknights,1° and put in 3 extra
10 There was one exception . In the week ending April 12 (G.C. Exh. I Ic),
employee Moreland worked Sunday night April 6, without scheduling, he
testified, from 5 p.m. to 9 :20 p.m., on a call from Assistant Manager Bowles
who said he needed help badly and Moreland agreed to come in . Later in
that week Moreland 's toe was smashed in an accident on the store premises,
Thursday night, April 10, and he left for home at 9 p.m. (which accounts for
only 3 hours work that night ); and, by Respondent's arrangement, he re-
ceived hospital medical treatment on Friday, April II (see G.C. Exh. 13),
and accordingly did not work that night. He was back for work the follow-
ing Monday night , April 14 (G.C. Exh. I Id, week ending April 19) and at
Bowles' request worked an extra hour on Thursday night, April 17, hours 5
to 10 p.m., and an extra 2 hours on Friday night, April 18, hours 5 to I I
p.m.
105
unscheduled hours (at Assistant Manager Bowles' request,
said Moreland) on the Thursday and Friday nights, April
17 and 18. The next day, April 19, employee Moreland was
fired.
According to the testimony of employee Brad Funder-
burk, on Saturday morning, April 19, Store Manager Mos-
er gave Funderburk the names of four employees, includ-
ing Moreland, to call to tell them the store was short of
help and to ask if they would come in. After calling three,
two of whom said they could not come in, Funderburk
testified that he reached Moreland and gave him the same
message . Moreland told him, said Funderburk, that he had
an agreement with Moser not to work on weekends, that he
already had other plans, and could not come in. According
to Moreland, Funderburk replied okay. Funderburk testi-
fied that when he gave Moser his report of the results of the
phone calls, Moser told him tocross off Moreland's name,
that he was fired, but gave no similar instruction or com-
ment regarding the other two employees who said they
could not come in."
About 3:30 p.m. of the same day, employee Moreland
came into Store Manager Moser's office for his pay. Moser
asked why he had not come in to work and Moreland re-
plied they had an arrangement that he would not work
weekends and he made other plans. Moser said, you were
scheduled, and Moreland answered, he had seen no such
schedule but that anyway they had an arrangement. In this
connection, Respondent provided no evidence that More-
land was scheduled for Saturday, April 19.12 Moser then
told Moreland that since he could not work weekends he
was discharged.
Respondent took no steps to recall employee Moreland
though it needed help and advertised for help. On June 18
(along with employee Hippie), Moreland filed another ap-
plication for employment with Respondent, indicating that
he would work any hours of any day. (Respondent said at
the hearing that it had lost and could not produce the ap-
plication.) Moreland saw Area Supervisor Smith and an-
other supervisor named Kaufman. They told him, said
Moreland, that they had made up their minds about him
and would not rehire him because of the Saturday (April
19) when he was called to come in and didn't come in.
Moreland told Smith he had had an agreement with Store
Manager Moser concerning his hours, and Smith answered
that they didn't make agreements for certain hours.
Moreland's testimony was not contradicted.
Employee Moreland was neither reinstated nor rehired.
11 The testimony of employee Moreland and Store Manager Moser was
corroborative of employee Funderburk 's testimony , except that Moser said
he didn't tell Funderburk to strike Moreland 's name from any list . In view
of the fact that Moser was not a wholly reliable witness, see discussion
supra, and the disinterest of employee Funderburk in the outcome of the
case, I am inclined to accept Funderburk's version as accurate.
12 Employee Moreland testified that before he had his Monday-Friday
arrangement with Store Manager Moser and worked whatever hours were
assigned , he knew to look for a schedule to determine his scheduled hours;
but since his arrangement starting the last week in March for Monday-
Friday, 6-10 p.m., there was no need for him to look for a schedule except
if he were curious to know who was working with him.
106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The defense re Moreland 's discharge
Area Supervisor Smith testified that he told Store Man-
ager Moser to fire employee Moreland when Moser report-
ed that Moreland had refused to work on the allegedly
scheduled Saturday, April 19. There was no probative evi-
dence that Moreland was so scheduled , indeed the evi-
dence was to the contrary , and Respondent falls back on
its ultimate contention , as in employee Hippie 's case, that
the employee violated an alleged condition of employment
that he was obliged to come in to work whenever called
upon by Respondent.
As the evidence reviewed in Hippie's case indicated, Re-
spondent arrives at its position by attempting to ignore or
repudiate the specific arrangement respecting hours for
employee Moreland (and like arrangements for other em-
ployees) and ignoring the fact that many employees with
less exemplary attendance records than Moreland and
Hipple have not been discharged.
Area Supervisor Smith claimed that employee
Moreland's name was not mentioned to him as being in
union activities, Store Manager Moser was silent on the
subject, and Assistant Manager Bowles claimed that when
he reported to Moser on employee Hippie 's involvement in
union activities he did not mention Moreland 's involve-
ment . As already noted, Moser concealed the fact that
Bowles reported to him on employee union activities, and
Bowles sought to make it appear , and then only reluctant-
ly, that he gave Moser a brief report on the union activities
of employee Hippie on Sunday , April 13, the day Hippie
was fired, and then gave Moser the complete details con-
cerning the organizing incidents on Thursday, April 17.
Whether Bowles gave a complete report to Moser on April
13 or April 17, it had to include employee Moreland be-
cause Moreland was immediately involved and was
Hipple's main if not only support in the organizing inci-
dents of which Bowles had direct cognizance . Moreland
voiced his union support , signed the union card for Hippie,
and sought to encourage employee Brown to do likewise,
all in Bowles' presence . The firing of Moreland followed on
April 19.
D. Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Findings
Respondent's supervisors of the Western Avenue store
were obviously aware of Respondent 's opposition to
unionizing the store, and made the opposition known in
individual encounters with employees .'; In their zeal, the
supervisors overstepped the bounds of legality by words
and actions designed to create fear of employer retaliation
in the minds of employees engaging in or contemplating
support of the Union.
As summarized in sections B and C, above, Assistant
13 Respondent's opposition, expressed orally and in writing by Vice Presi-
dent Glass to Union Representative Martin, was of course not illegal in
itself, but neither was it in defense of the employees' right to freedom of
choice in representation, as Respondent suggests. There was nothing in the
communications of Respondent that indicated any interest in the employees
holding an election or in any other method for providing employees with a
choice of a representative or no representative. Respondent expressed only
its choice as the employer, no union at this time.
Manager Bowles engaged in coercive interrogation of em-
ployees concerning their interest in the Union when he in-
terrupted two of their private discussions with his inquiries
accompanied by derogatory comments concerning the
ability or effectiveness of the Union to help them, and
made similar inquiry and comments in an office interview
of employee Hippie.
In the discussion with employees Hippie , Moreland, and
Brown , Assistant Manager Bowles threatened that if the
Union got into the shop Respondent would negate any
possible pay raise the Union might achieve by cutting the
hours of the employees; and that, even with the Union in
the shop, he would get around any supposed job security
by inventing a pretext for discharge.[ Bowles had made
the latter threat earlier to employee Hippie in the office
interview involving his inquiry about her interest in the
Union.
These threats of reprisal against , and coercive interroga-
tion of, employees by Assistant Manager Bowles constitute
violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, clearly not protect-
ed by Section 8(c) which, in its proviso, condemns speech
that contains "threat of reprisal or force or promise of ben-
efit."
Assistant Manager Button's public labeling of employee
Hippie as a Commie (Communist) because she was trying
to bring the Union into the store , done in the store in the
presence of (among others) Assistant Manager Bowles and
other employees , was additional evidence of management
hostility to the union organizing and indicated a desire to
harass the employee in the exercise of her Section 7 rights.
However name-calling by itself falls short of condemnation
by the (above quoted) proviso to Section 8(c) of the Act,
N.L.R.B. v. Globe Wireless, Ltd., 193 F.2d 748, 751 (C.A. 9,
1951), and while a good argument can be made that, in the
context of other threats of retaliation , the name-calling
here might imply a threat to the employee 's further reten-
tion unless she desisted from her union activities (compare,
Everest and Jennings, Inc., 158 NLRB 1150, 1151, in. 2,
1160 (1966), enfd. 384 F.2d 999 (C.A. 9, 1967) ), I am in-
clined to the view that supervisor Button 's act was not a
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
On the other hand , in the context of the union organiz-
ing in progress , Store Manager Moser's statement to em-
ployee King that the 10 cent raise to the employees was
given to keep them from "going union," is unmistakably a
violation of Section 8(a)(1), condemned by the proviso to
Section 8(c). It is illustrative that the choice of the employ-
ees in deciding that they do not want a collective-bargain-
ing agent "may be induced by favors bestowed by the em-
ployer as well as by his threats or domination" and
conveyed to the employees the message of such a favor
"that the source of benefits now conferred is also the
source from which future benefits must flow and which
u While it is not legally necessary to show that threats of retaliation
against employees actually had a coercive result in order to find a violation
of Sec . 8(a)(l) of the Act, it is not inappropriate to point out that in the
course of this discussion , as a result of Bowles ' threat concerning the cut in
hours , employee Brown tore up the union membership card he was filling or
had filled out and refused to hear further arguments by employees More-
land or Hippie to reconsider his action . And, several days later employees
Hippie and Moreland were the victims of pretext discharges , as found infra,
because they tried to bring the Union into the shop.
BURGER KING
may dry up," if the employees do not continue to oblige
the employer, N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Company, 375
U.S. 405, 409 (1964).
The discharges of employees Hippie and Moreland vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. They were the two
employees of the store active in attempting to organize the
employees for the Union. They did their organizational ac-
tivity openly at the store beginning April 8 in sight of the
store management and some of it in the presence of Assis-
tant Manager Bowles . Bowles reported their union activity
to Store Manager Moser, clearly regarding Hippie on April
13 and regarding Moreland no later than April 17. Respon-
dent fired employee Hippie forthwith on April 13, and
fired employee Moreland on April 19.
Both Hippie and Moreland were good employees, Hip-
pie being exceptionally good in the opinion of Area Super-
visor Smith, who took responsibility for the discharges.
Both employees had excellent attendance records and had
complied with occasional requests to put in extra hours,
without complaint on their part. Both were acknowledged
part-time employees, Hippie from the beginning of her em-
ployment and Moreland in the last 4 weeks of his employ-
ment. As part-time employees, each had an arrangement
not to work Saturdays or Sundays. Such arrangements
were not unusual for the store, indeed Respondent adver-
tised to prospective employees both before and after the
two discharges that it would arrange hours to suit personal
needs and convenience, and other employees, in addition
to Hippie and Moreland, had similar arrangements that
excluded responsibility for weekend work.
Pursuant to their personal arrangements with manage-
ment, employee Hippie had not worked any Saturday since
her employment began and employee Moreland had not
worked any Saturday since his part-time arrangement be-
gan on March 22.
Nonetheless , Respondent used a pretext for discharge in
each case, telling employee Hippie on April 13 that she was
fired because she had not come in to work on Saturday,
April 12, and telling employee Moreland on Saturday,
April 19, that he was fired because he had not come in to
work when called to do so that day. Contrary to the fact,
Respondent claimed that each was scheduled for the Satur-
day work. Also, contrary to the fact, Respondent claimed
that it had no arrangements with these or other employees
that excluded Saturday-Sunday work. Again, contrary to
the fact, Respondent claimed that it had made it a condi-
tion of employment that even part-time employees must
report for unscheduled workdays or hours when requested
to do so by Respondent.ls
Thus, Respondent's alleged justification for the two dis-
charges was a tissue of pretense which strengthens the con-
clusion that Respondent's true aim was to quickly discour-
15 Respondent suggested , in its brief, that employee Moreland 's state un-
employment compensation claim made before he filed the unfair labor
practice charge in this case , denigrated the bona fides of the unfair labor
practice charge , because his unemployment compensation claim listed as
the cause for discharge , that he could not work weekends (Resp. Exh. 1). 1
do not agree, because, as Moreland testified , he simply put on the unem-
ployment compensation claim form the reason for discharge ascribed by the
employer, which , as is evident , has required this litigation to demonstrate its
falsity.
107
age and terminate the union organizing of the store em-
ployees by getting rid of the only two activists before they
made any headway with their campaign, N.L.R.B. v. Ul-
brich Stainless Steels, 393 F.2d 871, 872 (C.A. 2, 1968). The
timing and the speed of the discharges and the absence of
any prior warning to the two affected employees under-
scores the unlawful purpose of Respondent's actions. That
Respondent ignored the absences or refusals to report by
other employees on the two Saturdays involved, that it has
retained employees with attendance records that do not
measure up to the exemplary records of the two discharged
employees, and that it has retained other employees with
no Saturday-Sunday scheduling, emphasizes the discrimi-
natory nature of the treatment Respondent administered to
employees Hippie and Moreland.
Respondent failed to reinstate employees Hippie and
Moreland though it needed help and advertised for help
after their discharges. When both filed applications for
reemployment on June 18, Moreland was refused employ-
ment even though he indicated availability for any hours.
Hippie, who indicated availability for nights and week-
ends, was rehired but given work that represented approxi-
mately one-fourth of the total hours per week she formerly
worked, or a cut of about 75 percent in hours.
Respondent contended that this substantially reduced
reemployment was full reinstatement of employee Hippie,
as of June 18, on a claim that business at the store had
settled down to a lower scale than the peak period of the
opening of the store.
Area Supervisor Smith testified that while the peak sales
period had been the first week when the store opened, sales
gradually stabilized thereafter, but the store continued to
be busy and sales had continued at between 40 percent to
50 percent higher than anticipated for the first 3 months
(March, April, May), that May was a little less than April,
and that there was a drop of sales in June from May of
about 22 percent or 23 percent.
While the May to June drop was substantial, it still left
sales at a level above what was anticipated. Assuming a
drop of roughly one-fourth in sales, it hardly accounts for
cutting Hippie's hours by three-fourths. There was no evi-
dence of other such enormous cuts and, more significantly,
Hippie's fellow-cashier, also a part-time employee, Diana
King, who worked, and at the time of the hearing was
working, approximately the same'hours (Monday through
Friday, 3-10 p.m. without weekend work) as had employee
Hippie, had suffered no reduction in hours.
In remedying the unfair labor practice that deprived em-
ployee Hippie of her total employment for more than 2
months and only partially restored her to her former status
thereafter, Respondent may not profit by its wrongdoing.
In my view, at the time of the hearing, Respondent had not
yet fully reinstated employee Hippie to her former job or
the equivalent and she, as well as employee Moreland, is
entitled to an appropriate order for full reinstatement with
backpay.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By coercively interrogating employees concerning
their interest in the Union, by threatening to cut employee
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours if the Union came into the store, by threatening dis-
charges if support for the Union continued , and by advis-
ing employees that a wage increase was given to discourage
their support of the Union , Respondent has committed un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(aXl) of
the Act.
2. By discharging employees Hippie and Moreland be-
cause they engaged in organizing for the Union and in
order to discourage employee activity and support for the
Union, Respondent has committed unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (aX3) and (1) of the Act.
3. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
It will be recommended that the Respondent cease and
desist from its unfair labor practices ; offer to reinstate em-
ployees Hippie and Moreland with backpay from the time
of discharge of each , backpay to be computed on a quar-
terly basis as set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), approved in N.LR.B. v. Seven-Up Bottling Co.,
344 U.S. 344 ( 1953), with interest at 6 percent per annum
as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), approved in Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. N. L R. B., 331
F.2d 720 (C.A. 6, 1964), cert. denied 379 U .S. 888 ; post the
notices provided for herein ; and because the Respondent
violated fundamental employee rights guaranteed by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and because there appears from the man-
ner of the commission of this conduct an attitude of oppo-
sition to the purposes of the Act and a proclivity to commit
other unfair labor practices, it will be further recommend-
ed that the Respondent cease and desist from in any man-
ner infringing upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act. N.LR.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536
(C.A. 4, 1941); P.R. Mallory and Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
N.LR.B. v. The Bama Co., 353 F.2d 323-324 (C.A. 5,
1965).
Upon the forgoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 16
Respondent , Chart House, Inc., d/b/a Burger King,
Peoria, Illinois , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
their interest in the Union.
(b) Threatening to reduce employee hours of work if the
Union comes into the store.
(c) Threatening to discharge employees if they support
the Union.
(d) Advising employees that their wage increase was giv-
en to discourage their support of the Union.
(e) Discharging employees because they engage in union
activities or support the Union.
(f) Discouraging employees from support of or member-
ship in the Union or other labor organization by discharge
or other discrimination affecting their tenure or conditions
of employment.
(g) In any other manner interfering with , restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make employees Naomi Jo Hippie and Gale More-
land whole, in the manner set forth in the section of the
decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings
incurred by them as a result of their discharges on April 13
and April 19, 1975, respectively.
(b) Offer to employees Hippie and Moreland immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if the jobs no
longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to the seniority or other rights and privileges of
each.
(c) Preserve , and, upon request, make available to the
Board and its agents , for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to ascertain the backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(d) Post in the Western Avenue store in Peoria, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 17 Im-
mediately upon receipt of said notice , on forms to be pro-
vided by the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38 (Peoria,
Illinois), the Respondent shall cause the copies to be signed
by one of its authorized representatives and posted, the
posted copies to be maintained for a period of 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Officer-in-Charge for Subregion 38, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , recommendations, and Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
17 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a
hearing, that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act:
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate you concerning
BURGER KING 109
your interest in the Union.
WE WILL NOT threaten to reduce your hours of work
if the Union comes into the store.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge you if you sup-
port the Union.
WE WILL NOT advise you that your wage increase is
given to discourage your support of the Union.
WE WILL NOT discharge you because you engage in
union activities or support the Union.
WE WILL NOT discourage you from support of or
membership in the Union or other labor organization
by discharge or other discrimination affecting your
tenure or conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights to
belong to or be active for a labor union or to engage in
concerted activities, or to refrain therefrom.
Because the Board found that we unlawfully dis-
charged employees Naomi Jo Hipple and Gale More-
land, WE WILL offer them their former or like jobs, and
WE WILL give each backpay with interest from the time
of their discharges on April 13 and April 19, 1975,
respectively.
CHART HOUSE, INC. d/b/a BURGER KING