Conley Detlefson Restaurant

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1984

272 N.L.R.B. 993 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

CONLEY DETLEFSON RESTAURANT 993
Conley Detlefson Restaurant and Shirlene E Keifer
and Alberdale S Hovey Cases 17-CA-11972
and 17-CA-12006
30 October 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 17 May 1984 Administrative Law Judge Ber
nard Ries issued the attached decision The Re
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief
to the Respondent s exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings 1 and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Conley Detlefson Restau
rant North Platte Nebraska its officers agents
successors and assigns shall take the action set
forth in the Order
' No exceptions were taken to the judge s 8(a)(1) findings
DECISION
BERNARD RIES Administrative Law Judge The COM
plaint in this matter as amended at the hearing alleges
that about October 5 1983 Respondent violated the Act
by virtue of statements made to two employees and by
reducing the hours of work assigned to one of them 1
' As for this latter portion of the complaint the original allegation was
that [o]n or about October 11 1983 Respondent reduced the hours of
work assigned to its employee Keifer At the hearing the General Coun
sel moved to amend the date to October 6 and also when questioned by
me made clear his position that there was a double discrimination in this
case not only involving the loss of a workday but also a cut in the hours
of the workdays that remained Thus It was made clear that the corn
plaint comprehended both the transfer of one of Keifer s weekly work
days to another employee beginning on October 6 and also the reduction
almost in half of the work assigned to her on her remaining retained
workdays thereafter
On brief Respondent made the following statement
Subsequent to the issuance of the complaint in this proceeding the
Regional Director notified the Respondent by letter dated February
22 1984 that Insofar as any allegations regarding a violation of the
Act based on further reduction in Keifer s hours subsequent to Octo
ber 11 and her subsequent layoff on December 14 1983 had been
withdrawn [sic]
Although there appears to be some words missing from the foregoing
sentence the thrust seems to be that Respondent believes based on a
communication from the Regional Director that the complaint does not
extend to reduction in Keifer s hours subsequent to October 11 While I
certainly have no doubt that counsel received a letter from the Regional
Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and Re
spondent Having carefully considered the entire record
the briefs and my recollection of the demeanor of the
parties I make the following findings of fact 2 conclu
mons of law and recommendations
I THE BASIC FACTS
Respondent operates a restaurant in North Platte Ne
braska where it employs around 40 workers during the
season One such employee was Shirlene E Keifer who
went to work for Respondent as a janitor in August
1982
Keifer was scheduled to work 5 days each week per
forming the heavy duty cleaning from around 3 to
about 11 a m Monday through Friday 3 On Saturday
and Sunday the cleaning work was done by Alberdale
Hovey who usually worked 4 or 5 hours on each of
those mornings and could only accomplish light clean
ing 4
The Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union Local
264 AFL-CIO had attempted to organize Respondent
but had lost an election held in January 1983 Keifer was
the union observer at the election Thereafter Keifer and
other employees thought to form their own union They
elected officers naming Keifer as president they met
monthly at a local union hall and they held four coffee
klatches for the other employees at various times in Sep
tember 1983 and thereafter Beginning around the end of
September Keifer began to wear a union button to
work wherever I went
On October 5 as Keifer was preparing to leave work
Roger Petska the owner of Respondent asked to speak
to her Keifer testified that he began the conversation by
asking if she was interested in a recently developed in
surance program when Keifer pronounced the price to
be too steep Petska said he would like to see the union
match that Keifer said she thought the Union could
Petska went on to say that he knew she was involved
with the Union which Keifer conceded and asserted to
be her own business Petska pointed to her union button
and told Keifer that as of that date we would not be
allowed to wear them any more because it was consid
ered soliciting for the union Keifer said 0 K Petska
then told her that he hated [her] F—ing guts and he
said his wife does too When Keifer inquired as to the
Director bearing upon the subject the position stated by the General
Counsel at the hearing was quite clear and counsel for Respondent did
not question it In these circumstances I feel obliged to consider both the
removal of the workday from Keifer on October 6 and the decrease in
her remaining workdays beginning on October 13
2 Certain errors in the transcript of this proceeding are corrected for
purposes of clarity
3 The evidence shows that Keifer s hours were not fixed on some days
she worked as few as 5 hours on some as many as 9 hours The modal
number of daily hours based on an unscientific review of the June De
cember 1983 records in evidence was probably 7 hours at least until Oc
tober 13
4 Hovey had worked for Respondent prior to Keifer s employment and
had been laid off He returned to part time work at the restaurant in Feb
ruary 1983 (see G C Exh 2) At the same time however he continued
to hold a full time janitorial job at Vo Tech College working from 7
am to 4 p m 6 days a week
272 NLRB No 150
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
wife s interest Petska retorted that Keifer was trying to
destroy our means of making a living
Petska went on to speak of problems Keifer was creat
ing explaining that she had a lot of influence over the
people which he further explained as meaning that if
[she] told them to do something they re just liable to
do it He followed this tribute by saying I m going to
have to get you out of here When Keifer responded by
telling Petska that a lot of the restaurant s problems
could be resolved by his getting to know [his] employ
ees and get[ting] involved with them he asked if she
had heard the rumors abroad for a couple of days that
Petska was having an affair with the cashier Keifer re
plied that she had heard but said that the rumor had
been going around for 2 or 3 months
Petska became quite upset banged his hand on the
table and threatened to beat the crap out of Keifer She
replied that if he tried to do so he should pack a lunch
because it s going to take a while He told her not to
get smart with him because she already had two bad re
ports in her record one because she had talked union to
a waitress and the other because she had been using the
telephone for union business When Keifer asked for a
further explanation he demurred Petska went on to say
that he had had a meeting with our soon to be new
manager and they were going to cut the hours for the
janitors that we wasn t needed around there as much
any more Keifer concluded her description of the con
versation at that point since she also testified that the
meeting lasted nearly an hour her summary is obviously
an abbreviated one Although she did not so testify on
direct examination it was brought out on cross (evident
ly from her affidavit) that Petska had also told Keifer
that she would never again work in North Platte
The following week about October 11 Petska talked
to Keifer as she was leaving saying that he was going to
cut her hours to 4 hours a day on her remaining 4 days a
week Although Keifer did not testify on the point the
timecards in evidence show that beginning on Thursday
October 6 the day after her first conversation with
Petska Hovey worked instead of Keifer and continued
to work that extra day each week thereafter until both
employees were laid off on December 14 In addition
the timecards also show that beginning on October 13
Keifer worked only 4 hours per day on the 4 remaining
weekly workdays then left to her 5
Petska s version of the first conversation with Keifer
was markedly different from hers While Petska testified
when examined as an adverse witness by the General
Counsel that he had received from employees some indi
cations that a renewed organizational effort had begun
he did not necessarily seek out Keifer to talk about
that subject but he just wanted to sit down and vist
with her on a friendly basis over a cup of coffee about
her work He agreed however that he made some
mention of the Union to the effect that the previous
election had caused a lot of turmoil and that he hoped
5 The timecards in evidence obviously contain some errors although
neither brief mentions that fact For the most part however the cards
present no problems and clear patterns of work are discernible as set out
above
she would carry on the next campaign so that it did not
disturb our customers and our sales volume Although
he said as shown above that he had wanted to visit with
Keifer about her work Petska could not recall that he
actually made any mention of her work in the discussion
And he ultimately make clear on subsequent examina
tion by Respondent s counsel that since there obviously
was a resurgence of union activity my purpose was to
talk with Keifer and see if we could run this smooth
Petska also said he did not believe that there was any
mention of reduction of Keifer s hours at the meeting
He denied having threatened her with discharge or
having said that he was aware of her association with
union activities He further denied that he had threatened
Keifer with violence although he did say to her that
while he had no problems with her he was not so sure
about my wife I think she hates your guts but I ve got
no problems with you Petska further acknowledged
that he asked Keifer not to wear her union button any
more
Keifer made an excellent impression at the hearing 6
Petska as the foregoing recapitulation of his testimony
may indicate did not Petska s reliability was further put
in question by the testimony of Alberdale Hovey a most
believable person who said that in early October Petska
came to see him at the Vo Tech campus to ask if Hovey
wanted to perform more full time work Apparently al
though Hovey s testimony on the point is slightly ob
scure Petska asked about Hovey taking on a few more
days When Hovey pointed out that he was already put
ting in more than 40 hours per week at the school it was
agreed that Hovey would just work one extra morning
in place of Keifer
Petska testified that he made this trip to the college
because he had noticed that Hovey has substituted for
Keifer on several occasions during the summer of 1983 7
that Keifer had appeared preoccupied with personal
problems during that period and that her work perform
ance was not what it had been through the beginning of
her employment He further stated that Hovey had said
to him at different times that he would work an addition
al day if I had additional hours
Hovey testified however that he had never asked
Petska for additional work and I believed him Hovey
further testified that when Petska came to the college he
also asked what I thought about the union you know
6 I have considered the testimony of Eva Hunt who became manager
of Respondent on October 12 that she did not speak to Petska about
working for him until she left her former employment on October 8
The testimony is Intended to indicate that Petska could not have made
reference on October 5 to a conversation with our soon to be new
manger as Keifer testified Although Hunt made a better impression
than Petska I find it hard to believe that as she said she did not begin to
look for a job until she was discharged on October 8 even though she
had known since June that the question of her leaving her former job
was not whether but when In any event her testimony would not be
dispositive Petska could have hired and then lost a new manager other
than Hunt about whom we have not been informed but to whom Petska
could have been referring when he spoke to Keifer
7 Petska also testified to the fact that Keifer s son in law had done her
work on a few occasions Apparently the references were meant to sug
gest that Petska was displeased by these occasional substitutions but I do
not understand the source of the displeasure there was no testimony that
the work was left undone
CONLEY DETLEFSON RESTAURANT 995
and he come out and told me he didn t think the restau
rant was large enough to support a union Petska con
ceded that he had mentioned to Hovey about union ac
tivities going on at the restaurant but he professed to
have said to Hovey I certainly am not interested in
how you stand and I don t want to know Petska did
not explain why if he did not want to know Hovey s
views he had brought the subject up in the first place I
prefer Hovey s testimony
II THE 8( A )( 1) ALLEGATIONS
The complaint alleges that Petska violated Section
8(a)(1) in six different ways when he spoke to Keifer and
Hovey around October 5 8
I concluded with the complaint that Petska s interro
gation of Hovey was coercive and violative of Section
8(a)(1) Asking Hovey what he thought about the Union
while at the same time volunteering that the restaurant
was not large enough to support a union and conjoining
the foregoing with an offer to Increase Hovey s employ
ment would reasonably have led Hovey to believe that
his best interests called for a profession predictably dis
comfiting of neutrality about unionism 9 See Rossmore
House 269 NLRB 1176 1178 fn 20 (1984)
2 The complaint alleges that Petska create[d] an im
pression it its employee that the employee s union activi
ties were under surveillance by Respondent This claim
is based on Petska s statement to Keifer that he knew she
was involved with the Union I do not see however
how it can be said that Keifer would have reasonably in
ferred from this that she was under surveillance of some
sort She had been the union observer in the previous
election and she had taken to wearing a union button in
the week or so prior to the conversation Given these
facts there was no particular reason for Keifer to have
construed Petska s statement to mean that she was the
object of surveillance I would dismiss this allegation
, 3 By saying to Keifer that he hated [her] f—ing
guts and that he was going to have to get [her] out of
here Petska reasonably conveyed to Keifer the notion
that he Intended to discharge her or force her to quit
and the context of the conversation leaves no doubt that
the motivating factor was Keifer s union activity I find
that the complaint allegation of an unlawful threat of dis
charge is substantiated
4 The next allegation is that Petska threatened Keifer
with physical violence because of her support of the
Union The reference here is to Petska s threat to beat
the crap out of Keifer However Keifer testified that
Petska was manifestly responding to her remark about
his rumored liaison with the cashier having been the sub
ject of speculation for 2 months There is no reason to
relate the threat of violence to her union adherence I
would dismiss this allegation
5 The penultimate 8(a)(1) allegation is that Petska
threatened an employee with reduction in hours because
8 The record does not show the chronological order of the two con
versations Guesswork and nothing more leads me to think that Petska
spoke to Keifer first
9 Hovey s reply to the question was that he really didn t give It any
thought
of her union affiliation Keifer did not testify that Petska
gave voice to any such direct connection between reduc
non of hours and union activity indeed he supplied an
ostensibly legitimate reason applicable not only to
Keifer but also to Hovey [the two were not] needed
around there as much any more I cannot say that the
statement in this context itself constituted a threat to
reduce Keifer s hours because of her protected activity
despite my finding below that the subsequent reduction
was unlawful
6 Finally Petska s instruction to Keifer to desist from
wearing her union button while at work is attacked in
the complaint Petska testified in a most unconvincing
way that a lot of employees [had been] wearing differ
ent pins and badges on their uniforms to the point where
it was getting cluttered looking you know—different
things that I didn t think were tasteful He also said that
he had spoken to other employees about wearing such
insignia but he could not recall their identity Petska
said that he had no objection however to the wearing
of hearts and stuff on Valentine s Day
It is settled law that employees are entitled to wear
union insignia while at work unless there are special cir
cumstances warranting their prohibition Compare
NLRB v Floridan Hotel of Tampa 318 F 2d 545 (5th Cir
1963) holding invalid an employer s rule prohibiting the
wearing of emblems despite the fact the employees were
in frequent contact with customers The are no special
circumstances in this case The button was unobtrusive
and not inflammatory Keifer undoubtedly spent much of
her time in the kitchen away from customers
In addition it is obvious that the ban was promulgated
by Petska in a fit of anger at Keifer and what she repre
sented I do not believe Petska s unspecific testimony
that he had ordered other employees to remove badges
which he considered to be tasteless In any event there
is nothing about the union button in question that might
be considered objectively offensive its offense obviously
lay in what it stood for Accordingly I conclude that
Respondent violated the Act by instructing Keifer not to
wear the union button
III THE 8( A ) ( 3 ) ALLEGATION
It is quite reasonable to infer as I do that the transfer
of one of Keifer s workdays to Hovey beginning on Oc
tober 6 was the product of Petska s irritation at the re
newal of union activity and as such a down payment on
his threat to get [her] out here In so concluding I
rely among other things on the intense personal animos
ity expressed by Petska toward Keifer in their October 5
conversation and on the inference to be drawn from the
fact that Petska lied at the hearing about Hovey s prior
request for additional hours Concomitantly I reject
Petska s claim that he made the transfer because he had
noticed that Keifer s work performance had declined in
the summer of 1983 if that had been so he presumably
would have said something about the subject to Keifer
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on October 5 (or earlier) but as he testified the subject
of her work did not arise at that meeting 10
The remaining issue relates to the fact that in addition
to reassigning to Hovey 1 day of Keifer s work effective
October 6 Petska soon cut Keifer s remaining workdays
back to 4 hours per day beginning October 13 Since
Hovey continued to work only three 4 hour days each
week thereafter this arguably affected a substantial
modification of the amount of maintenance being per
formed by the janitors The General Counsel as indicat
ed alleges that this reduction was also unlawfully dis
criminatory
The first questions presented by the testimony are who
made the decision to reduce Keifer s daily hours and
when that decision was made A certain amount of con
fusion has crept into the record as a result of a line of
testimony by Manager Hunt concerning an evaluation
she made of the operational needs of the restaurant and
her introduction of a program to eliminate the mamte
nance positions all of which occurred after she entered
employment on October 12 Other relevant testimony
however makes it clear that these endeavors played no
role in the original decision to reduce Keifer s work
from around 7 to 4 hours daily Thus Petska testified
that he had not discussed with Hunt prior to the com
mencement of her employment any plans for reducing
the hours of work for any of the employees and Hunt
testified that at the time she came on board Keifer and
Hovey had been assigned 4 hours each 11
It thus appears that Petska himself decided to reduce
Keifer s daily hours beginning as the records show on
October 13 And since this is so the balance of Hunt s
testimony relating to her newly instituted program of
gradual assimilation of the janitorial tasks into the jobs of
the other employees ultimately leading to the layoff of
Keifer and Hovey on December 14 is irrelevant The
next question then is why Petska decided to reduce
Keifer s remaining hours
Petska s testimony about the economy measures nor
mally taken during the inhospitable winter months when
the tourists stay away from North Platte in multitudes is
not all clear In the same breath he spoke both of having
had in 1983 plans for making his normal fall cutbacks
and of not knowing as of October 12 in what area and
just exactly how the so called normal reductions would
be made Later he said that every fall Respondent has
an automatic reduction in hours when college student
employees return to school He noted that in the fall of
1982 there wasn t a lot of reduction in hours because of
some of the activities that we were going through with
the union situation and also because he had had no
manager at the time He seemed however if very vague
ly to be implying that it was routine to reduce the hours
of at least some employees for the winter months But in
answering a question about the reduction of other posi
° In addition Petska could hardly have assumed that the quality of
the work would improve by taking 7 hours away from Keifer reducing
that unit of work to 4 hours and assigning those 4 hours to Hovey who
only performed light cleaning at the restaurant
" Also Q It would be your testimony that you had nothing to do
with the reduction of hours of Shirlene Keifer at the time that you came
on board is that correct? A That s correct
lions in October 1983 Petska s response seemed to be de
scribing a general past practice which had not resulted in
the reduction or termination of maintenance employees
in prior years
Normally one of the only reductions that we have
is maybe a cutback in a few hours in the waitresses
and then we try to eliminate the busboys altogether
and have the waitresses pick up the bussing at the
tables It s hard to cut the cooks and it s hard to cut
cashiers
If Respondent was attempting to show that Petska was
acting in October 1983 in accordance with a historical
practice of an autumnal decrease in the hours of the
maintenance employees it failed utterly to do so No
payroll records were introduced to show that in past
years the hours of the janitors had been reduced once
the tourist business had declined Even if that had been
the case certain sales charts put in evidence by Respond
ent would suggest that October 13 1983 would not have
seemed the sensible time to effect such a change
The charts show that in 1981 August sales reached a
peak for the year of $79 000 and fell in September to
$66 000 and in October to $67 000 in 1982 the July peak
of $76 000 declined to $67 000 in both September and
October in 1983 the July peak of $76 000 dropped to
$74 000 in August to $71 000 in September and then re
bounded to $75 000 in October Obviously both Septem
ber and October in 1983 were unusually good for those
months and it seems improbable that Respondent would
have adhered to a practice of reducing maintenance
hours in this particular October even if such a practice
had otherwise existed
Aside from Respondent s failure to prove such a past
practice the testimony of Hovey which is not very pre
cise as to questions of timing sheds some limited light
Hovey had worked for Respondent for a 2 1/2 year
period prior to his latest employment which began
around mid February 1983 He testified that he had last
been laid off in October 1982 This seems to conflict
with Petska s testimony quoted above that Respondent
did not attempt to reduce hours in the winter of 1982 be
cause of possible recriminations arising from the penden
cy of the union campaign On the other hand Hovey tes
tilled that he had not been reduced in hours or laid off in
October 1981 when he was working for Respondent 6
days a week and there is nothing to contradict that testi
mony which cuts against the suggestion that the mainte
nance work is normally reduced in the winter months
From the foregoing I reach the following conclusions
(I) Petska himself decided to reduce Keifer s daily hours
prior to the time that Hunt came to work (and gradually
formulated a program which by December eliminated
the maintenance jobs altogether) (2) Petska reduced the
hours in business circumstances which one would rea
sonably suppose would not suggest that the end of the
busy season had come (3) Respondent produced neither
specific testimony nor records to demonstrate that it was
customary to accomplish an overall reduction in janiton
al hours in the fall of the year and the testimony of
Hovey at least suggests that no such reduction had oc
CONLEY DETLEFSON RESTAURANT 997
curred in 1981 (4) Keifer was informed of the proposed
reduction in the October 5 conversation in which Petska
unburdened himself of his considerable hostility to
Keifer s support of the union campaign and threatened to
get rid of her
These factors make appropriate I think an inference
that Keifer s assignment would not have been reduced to
4 daily hours beginning on October 13 had It not been
for her known partisanship The question naturally arises
as to what happened to the work that Keifer use to do in
the extra 15 weekly hours all told for which she was no
longer scheduled after October 12 12 There is no clear
answer to that question
Given the October revenue figure shown above it
would seem that at least as much maintenance was
needed in October as there had been in July Perhaps
Keifer simply worked harder after October 12 she testi
fled that when Petska had advised her of the change on
October 11 and she had protested that she could not do
the heavy cleaning in the shorter time `Petska had simply
declared that she could get it done and there would
be plenty of time for me to do it Perhaps the work was
simply not done as often or as vigorously after October
12 Apparently at some point (the record does not say
when) Manager Hunt began putting into effect her plan
for parceling out the maintenance duties to the other em
ployees and that redistribution may have taken up some
of the slack as it was put into effect By November
when monthly sales fell to $63 000 ,there may have been
a somewhat diminished need for cleaning
Whatever the explanation however I believe that the
General Counsel has successfully established by a pre
ponderance of the evidence the requisite intent Pnce
proof was made of Petska s avowed dislike of Keifer s
guts of his statement of intention to get [her] out of
here and of the inimediate shift of a working day from
Keifer to Hovey the subsequent further reduction of
Keifer s working hours could properly be viewed as part
and parcel of Petska s desire to drive her away Re
spondent s failure to demonstrate that the reduction was
in conformity with past practice or otherwise inspired by
a legitimate objective leaves the inference unimpaired
and controlling
I conclude accordingly that by removing a workday
from Keifer on October 6 and thereafter and by reduc
ing Keifer s hours on October 13 and thereafter Re
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Conley Detlefson Restaurant is an employer en
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2)
(6) and (7) of the Act
2 Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union Local 264
AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act
3 By about October 5 1983 coercively interrogating
an employee threatening to discharge an employee or to
force her to resign because of her union activities and
12 Prior to that date Keifer and Hovey were working a weekly total
of roughly around 43 hours After that date the figure was approximate
ly 28 hours
prohibiting an employee from wearing a union emblem
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
4 By on and after October 6 1983 -discriminating
against Shirlene E Keifer because of her union activity
by reducing the number of working hours assigned to
her Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act
5 Except as set out above Respondent has not violat
ed the Act as otherwise alleged in the complaint
THE REMEDY
It is appropriate to recommend that Respondent be re
quired to take certain affirmative action to remedy the
unfair labor practices found
The backpay period relevant to the discrimination
against Keifer is October 6 to December 14 1983 at
which time she was terminated As a remedial matter it
is clear that she should be compensated for the one full
day of each week during that period which was discn
minatonly reassigned to Hovey Somewhat less certain is
the backpay due for the difference between her regular
day of around 7 hours and the adjusted 4 hour days
which she began to work on October 13 on the remain
ing four weekly workdays left to her It could be argued
in view of the program being developed by Manager
Hunt though October and November which resulted in
the December 14 terminations of Keifer and Hovey that
Keifer s hours would have been reduced prior to the
latter datet in any event Doubts of this kind however
must be resolved against the wrongdoer NLRB v Miami
Coca Cola Bottling Co 360 F 2d 569 572-573 (5th Cir
1966) ( r
Accordingly I recommend that Keifer be made whole
by payment to her of a sum of money equal to that
which she would have earned on the fifth working day
of which she was deprived starting on October 6 1983
plus the difference between 7 hours of work and the time
she actually worked on her remaining workdays during
the backpay period The backpay provided here shall be
computed in accordance with F W Woolworth Co 90
NLRB 289 (1950) with interest as prescribed in Isis
Plumbing Co 138 NLRB 716 (1962) and Florida Steel
Corp 231 NLRB 651 (1977)
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record I issue the following recommend
ed' 3
ORDER
.,
Respondent Conley Detlefson Restaurant North
Platte Nebraska its officers agents successors and as
signs shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in or activity on behalf
of Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union Local 264
3 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AFL-CIO or any other labor organization by discnmi
nating against employees who engage in such activity
(b) Coercively interrogating employees about their
union sentiments and activities threatening to discharge
or force employees to resign because of their union ac
twities and prohibiting employees from wearing union
insignia when not authorized by law to impose such a
prohibition
(c) In any other manner interfering with restraining
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which is
deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Make Shirlene E Keifer whole for the loss of pay
she suffered by reason of Respondent s unlawful con
duct in the manner set forth in the section of this deci
mon entitled The Remedy
(b) Preserve and on request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay
roll records social security payment records timecards
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(c) Post at its North Platte Nebraska location copies
of the attached notice marked Appendix 14 Copies of
the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 17 after being signed by the Respondent s
authorized representative shall be posted by the Re
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Na
ttonal Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or
covered by any other material
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in or activity
on behalf of Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union
Local 264 AFL-CIO or any other labor organization
by discriminating against employees who engage in such
activity
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees about
their union sentiments and activities WE WILL NOT
threaten to discharge employees or to force employees to
resign because they engage in union activities and WE
WILL NOT unlawfully prohibit the wearing of union in
sigma
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with re
strain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaran
teed you by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL make whole Shirlene E Keifer for the loss
of pay she suffered by reason of our unlawful discnmina
tion against her with interest
CONLEY DETLEFSON RESTAURANT