Continental Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1 060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spink Arms Hotel Corporation , d/b/a Continental Hotel and
Bartenders and Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local Union
No. 58, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 25-CA-
1365. December 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon charges duly filed by the Union and served upon the parties
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Re-
gion, issued a complaint dated May 11, 1961, against Spink Arms
Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Continental Hotel, herein called the Re-
spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended. The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on
the grounds that the Board lacked jurisdiction, and it also filed an
answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices.
On June 19, 1961, all parties entered into a "Stipulation of Facts
and of the Record," waving a hearing before a Trial Examiner and
the issuance of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order.
They further agreed to submit the case directly to the Board for find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law, and order based upon the stipulated
record herein. By an order of the Board dated June 26, 1961, the
stipulation was approved by the Board and made part of the record
herein, and this proceeding was transferred to the Board. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has considered the stipulation of the parties and the
entire record in this case and hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent operates its sole establishment, the Continental
Hotel, in Indianapolis, Indiana. During 1960, the Respondent had a
gross income of over $900,000 and received goods, supplies, and mate-
rials value in excess of $50,000 directly from outside the State of
Indiana. In this period, some 32 percent of Respondent's gross in-
come was derived from the rental of approximately 35 percent of its
' Hereinafter referred to as the Union.
134 NLRB No. 87.
CONTINENTAL HOTEL 1061
rental units to transient guests. In these circumstances , and for the
reasons set forth in Spinlc Arms Hotel Corporation , d/b/a Conti-
nental Hotel, 133 NLRB 1694, we find , contrary to Respondent's
contentions , that the Respondent operates a transient hotel, that Re-
spondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and
that assertion of jurisdiction will effectuate the purposes of the Act.'
We therefore deny Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint on
jurisdictional grounds.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and we find, that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
In January 1961,3 the Union announced an organizational drive
among the Respondent's employees with the distribution of a handbill
and authorization cards. On or about February 21, the Union re-
quested that the Respondent recognize and bargain with it as the
exclusive representative of its employees. The Respondent refused
the request. On March 20, the Union issued another handbill to all
employees which set forth reasons for joining the Union and requested
the employees to sign and return an attached authorization card. On
March 21, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board
(Case No. 25-RC-2008).
Three days later (March 24) the Respondent's supervisors delivered
to each employee a letter advising the employees of Respondent's
opposition to the Union. Enclosed with the letter was a self-addressed
postcard. The last paragraph of the letter stated :
We have attached to this letter a self-addressed postcard. If you
agree with us please sign your name and address, and drop it in
mail box.
Thank you.
The reverse side of the attached postcard read as follows :
MARCH ,1961.
GENTLEMEN : I agree that I was not shown how I would be
better off by joining the Union. I have, therefore, decided not
to join.
Name
Address
2 Floridan Hotel of Tampa, Inc ., 124 NLRB 261, 264 ; Spink Arms Hotel, etc., supra.
$ All dates herein are for the year 1961.
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Approximately one-half of the employees returned the postcard.
Of this group, one indicated no choice, and the remainder expressed
agreement with the Respondent's antiunion position.
The General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a) (1) by distributing the aforementioned letter and postcard. The
Respondent claims that its sole reason for the distribution was to
"challenge the union's contention that the employees needed a union in
order to be fairly treated," and that, under the principles enunciated
in Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591, the complaint, must be
dismissed.
The Board has recently had occasion to pass upon similar employer
conduct. See Murray Envelope Corporation of Mississippi, 130
NLRB 1574. As in that case, the cards here in question were similarly
designed to ascertain which particular employees were union adher-
ents 4 and to obtain express reaffirmation of opposition to the Union
and "agreement" with the Respondent that the employees would be
"better off" by rejecting it. Here, too, the cards were distributed dur-
ing the pendency of a representation proceeding and in circumstances
in which the Respondent had clearly demonstrated its hostility to the
Union and to its employees' support of it. This form of interrogation
in this context hardly fits Blue Flash situation.5 We conclude that
by distributing the cards here in issue, and requesting the employees to
sign and return them, the Respondent unlawfully interrogated its
employees, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and consti-
tuting unfair labor practices within Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth above have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
' This could be accomplished by the process of elimination , that is, those employees who
return the postcard would be assumed to be proemployer and antiunion , and those who did
not return it would be assumed to be union adherents.
5 Cf. The Chas . V. Weise Co ., 133 NLRB 765.
CONTINENTAL HOTEL
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1063
1. Spink Arms Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Continental Hotel is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. Bartenders and Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local Union
No. 58, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Spink Arms
Hotel Corporation, d/b/a Continental Hotel, Indianapolis, Indiana,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Coercively polling or interrogating employees concerning their
membership, sympathies, or activities in behalf of the Bartenders and
Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local Union No. 58, affiliated with
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at its establishment in Indianapolis, Indiana, copies of the
notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." 6 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region,
shall, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-fifth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
0In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that :
WE WILL NOT coercively poll or interrogate our employees con-
cerning their membership or sympathies or activities in behalf of
the Bartenders and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union, AFL-CIO, nor will we interrogate
our employees in any manner concerning their membership in or
other activities on behalf of that or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of any labor organization.
SPINK ARMS HOTEL CORPORATION,
d/b/a CONTINENTAL HOTEL,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Offner Electronics , Inc. and Local 1031 , International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 13-CA-
3464, 13-CA-3464-2, and 13-CA-3464-3. December 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 13, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices, and also rec-
ommended that Gertrude Bojan, who he found had been discrimina-
torily discharged, should nevertheless not be reinstated. Thereafter,
the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Party filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
134 NLRB No. 89.