Dino's Lounge

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ringside Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Dino's Lounge and Cas-
sell & Freidman, Inc. d/b/a King of Clubs and Lo-
cal Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary
Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders Union
Local 165, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union, AFL-CIO and Las
Vegas Tavern Owners Association, Party to the
Contract. Case 31-CA-6689
July 20, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO. MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
On January 11, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
William J. Pannier I11 issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondents filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the Charging
Party filed an answer to Respondents' exceptions.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order as modified herein.2
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, as modified
below; and hereby orders that the Respondents,
Ringside Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Dino's Lounge and
Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of Clubs, Las
Vegas, Nevada, their officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said rec-
ommended Order, as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph l(a) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Honor and abide by the collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated on August 11, 1976, on behalf
of the multiemployer bargaining group designated as
the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Association."
3. Delete footnote 17.
4. Substitute the attached notices for those of the
Administrative Law Judge.
Respondents have excepted to certain credibility fIndings made hs the
Administrative Las Judge. It is the Board's established polics not to ,iser-
rule an Administrative I aw Judge's resolutions with respect toi iredibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr) Wall Products. Inr. 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. We have
further considered the Respondents' contention that the Administrative
Lasw Judge has demonstrated bias, or at least an appearance of bias. in this
proceeding. We have carefull) reviewed the record and attached Decision
and reject this contention as unsupported.
2 In adopting the Decision of the Administrative Law Judge. we do not
rely on his Conclusion of Law 6 insofar as it finds that Respondents vio-
lated Sec. 8(a)(5) and ( I ) "[bly unilaterally attempting to withdraw from the
multiemployer bargaining group designated as Las Vegas Tavern Owners
Association" and find such violation only b) Respondents' refusal to honor
and abide by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated
between that Association and the Union Although the Administrative Law
Judge correctly noted that the withdrawal was untimely, that would not. in
and of itself, be a violation of Sec. 8(aX5). Rather, the Respondents' refusal
to adhere to the negotiated contract following the untimely withdrawal
constitutes the 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain. Accordingly. we shall amend the
recommended Order by deleting par. I(a), and that portion of par. 2(a)
requiring that Respondents remain members of the multiemploser bargain-
ing group, and we shall conform our notices to the revised Order
Additionalls we find it unnecessary toi pass on In. 17 to the Ndministra-
tive Law Judge's recommended Order inasmuch as that issue is not before
us in this proceeding. Accordingl., we shall delete In 17 to the rccom-
mended Order.
APPENDIX A
NolicE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NAtIIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves;
To form, join, or support unions;
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose;
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection;
To refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WII. NOT refuse to honor and abide by the
terms and conditions of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement negotiated on August 11, 1976,
on behalf of the multiemployer group known as
the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Association.
WE WILl. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with any of your rights set forth above
which are guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act.
WtE WILL NOT honor and abide by the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement negotiated on behalf
of the group known as the Las Vegas Tavern
Owners Association on August 11, 1976, with
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culi-
nary Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders
Union Local 165, Hotel & Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-
CIO. as the collective-bargaining representative
of:
30
DINO'S LOUNGE AND CASSELL & FREIDMAN. INC
All captains, hostesses. waiters, waitresses.
porters, bartenders, and barboys employed by
Las Vegas, Nevada, taverns included in the
multiemployer bargaining group, designated
as the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Association;
excluding professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL bargain with Local Joint Board of
Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union Local 226,
and Bartenders Union Local 165, Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above-de-
scribed appropriate unit respecting rates of pas.
wages, hours or other terms and conditions of
employment; and, should any understanding he
reached, WE WILL embody such understandings
in a signed agreement.
WE WILL make you whole for any loss of pay
or benefits which would have accrued to you
under the collective-bargaining agreement with
Local Joint Executive Board of las Vegas, Culi-
nary Workers Union Local 226. and Bartenders
Union Local 165, Hotel & Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union. AFL
CIO, described above. which we have refused to
honor.
RINGSIDE LIQUORS, IN(-. d/b a DIo) s
LOUNGE
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYFES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act. as amended,
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILt. NOT refuse to honor and abide bv the
terms and conditions of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement negotiated on August 11. 1976,
on behalf of the multiemployer group known as
the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Association.
WE WIi L NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with any of your rights set forth above
which are guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act.
Wt wlllI N0o honor and abide by the collec-
tive-bargaining negotiated on behalf of the
group known as the Las Vegas Tavern Owners
Association on August 11, 1976, with Local
Joint Execuitise Board of Las Vegas, Culinary
Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders
Union Local 165. Hotel & Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union, AFL
CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative
of:
All captains. hostesses. waiters, waitresses,
porters, bartenders, and barboys employed by
Las Vegas, Nevada, taverns included in the
multiemployer bargaining group, designated
as the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Association:
excluding professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Wi ms.i. bargain with Local Joint Board of
Las Vegas, Culinary Workers Union Local 226,
and Bartenders Union Local 165, Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the above-de-
scribed appropriate unit respecting rates of pay.,
wages, hours or other terms and conditions of
employment: and, should any understanding be
reached, wL wll I. embody such understandings
in a signed agreement.
WE: wll. make you whole for any loss of pay
or benefits which would have accrued to you
under the collective-bargaining agreement with
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culi-
nary Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders
Union Local 165. Hotel & Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-
CIO. described above, which we have refused to
honor.
CAssFi I & FRFII)MAN, INC d/b/a KING OF
Clit BS
DECISION
STATEMFNT 01 IHF CASE
WII.llAM J PANNIER Ill, Administrative Law Judge: This
matter was heard by me in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Septem-
ber 29 and 30, 1977. On Mav 17, 1977, the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued a complaint and notice of hearing, based upon an
unfair labor practice charge filed on December 20, 19 76 ,1
niles, oherut.e 'tated, all dates occurred in 1976
31
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleging violations of Section 8(a)( ) and (5) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C., Sec.
151, eI seq., herein called the Act.
All parties have been afforded full opportunity to ap-
pear, to introduce evidence, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to file briefs. Based upon the entire record.2
upon the briefs filed on behalf of the parties, and upon my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses. I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
As the principal allegations of the complaint have been
denied, most of the issues in this matter jurisdiction, ap-
propriateness of the bargaining unit, existence of the obli-
gation to honor the contract executed on August 24----turn
on a single question: Had a multiemployer bargaining
group been formed during the 1976 negotiations between
Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Work-
ers Union Local 226, and Bartenders Union Local 165,
Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union,3 and a
number of Las Vegas, Nevada, area taverns, including
Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Dino's Lounge, herein called
Respondent Dino's, and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a
King of Clubs, herein called Respondent King of Clubs,
and herein collectively referred to as Respondents?
At all times material, Respondent Dino's has been a Ne-
vada corporation, with a tavern in Las Vegas, operated by
coproprietors Dean Bartolo, Clyde House, and Albert Spi-
no. During the last calendar year, Respondent Dino's, in
the course and conduct of its business operations, derived
gross revenue in excess of $125,000. At all times material,
Respondent King of Clubs has been a Nevada corporation,
with a tavern in Las Vegas, operated by coproprietors Wil-
liam Renek and Richard F. Ferrara. During the last fiscal
year, Respondent King of Clubs, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, derived gross revenue in excess
of $100,000; additionally, Respondent King of Clubs an-
nually purchases and receives goods valued in excess of
$15,000 from sellers or suppliers located within the State of
Nevada, which sellers or suppliers received such goods in
substantially the same form directly from outside the State
of Nevada.4
The background facts in this matter are relatively
straightforward and undisputed. Thus, for a number of
years prior to 1976, the Union had negotiated individual
collective-bargaining contracts with a number of Las Vegas
2 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected
3 Respondents denied that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. The record discloses that the Union is
composed of delegates from its constituent local unions which it represents
in negotiations for collective-bargaining agreements with employers. Re-
spondents, as well as other tavern owners involved in this proceeding, have
been parties to past contracts with the Union and the Utnion is also signato-
ry to the August 24 contract involved in the instant proceeding. Conse-
quently. I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Sec. 2(5) of the Act. See Los Angeles Typographical Union No 174. ei al
(White Front Store. Inc.), 181 NLRB 384, 385 11970), and cases cited therein.
4The following gross revenue figures were provsided for other taverns
involved in the alleged multiemployer group: $150,(X)0 for the Rice Paddy:
$225.000 for the Moby Grape: and, $300.00) for t)anny's Bar.
area taverns. The most recent contract expired in mid-
1976. Both the Union and the individual tavern owners,
including Respondents, mailed reopening letters in April.5
However, a number of the tavern owners felt that they
should be represented by an experienced negotiator. To
achieve that goal, they contacted Federated Employers of
Nevada, Inc., herein called Federated, by whom consultant
Jacqueline Glasby has been employed. Each of the tavern
owners who elected to be represented by Federated execu-
ted a power of attorney, delegating "full authority to repre-
sent the undersigned in all collective bargaining negotia-
tions," and
full authority to negotiate such terms of agreement as
our said attorney(s) in fact, and in its (theirs) sole dis-
cretion shall deem proper. in our names, places and
steads to make and enter into and to execute a collec-
tive bargaining agreement . . . which shall be fully as
binding upon us as though executed by the under-
signed in their proper persons.
Both Respondents executed such a document. 6
Between June 24 and 30, Glasby sent three letters to the
Union, advising that the tavern owners named therein had
signed powers of attorney authorizing Federated to repre-
sent them. Respondents' names were included in the list
transmitted on June 24. Neither in these letters nor, so far
as the record discloses, at any other time did Glasby state
to the Union that there was any restriction on her authority
to consummate a contract on behalf of the taverns which
she represented. There is no evidence that either she or the
tavern owners ever advised the Union that the tavern own-
ers were reserving the right to accept or reject any agree-
ments reached before those agreements became binding.
Once negotiations commenced, Glasby sought to have
the taverns recognized as a multiemployer bargaining
group.7 However, the Union declined to do so until such
In his letter of April 29 to the Union, Bartolo asserted a "good faith
belief that ai majority of our employees no longer wish to be represented by
[the L.nionl in collective-bargaining negotiations." However. so far as the
record discloses. this subject was never again raised by Respondent Dino's
Moreover. it has not been asserted as a defense to the General Counsel's
refusal to bargain allegation. Consequently, it will not be considered any
further
6 Although Rice Paddy owner Dave Rice testified that Bartolo had execu-
ted the power of attorney only upon the assurance that Glasby needed it to
establish her right to negotiate on behalf of Respondent Dino's, and that it
v.ould only pertain to the negotiations, having 'nothing to do with the sign-
ing of the contract . . "Bartolo was never called to corroborate Rice in
this respect. Moreover. there has been no showing that this purported reser-
valtion had ever been communicated to the Union prior to August 25 and.
accordingly, this asserted reservation cannot be accorded controlling weight
in light of Respondent Dino's outward manifestations of intent. "An em-
ployer who, through a course of conduct or otherwise, signifies that it has
authorized the group to act in its behalf will be bound by that apparent
creation of authority" Jorsiph Mc Daniel, an Individual Proprietorship d/hba
(itiiom ( olors ( ontractors. 226 NLRB 851. 853 (1976). In any event, even
had such a reservation been voiced by Bartolo. reservation of the right to
execute a separate contract is not inconsistent with multiemployer bargain-
in. Id, at 854.
Mouse Trap owner Clark Schmutz testified that Glasby had ceased re-
questing group bargaining after the Union's rejection of her request and, at
oine point. Glasby testified that after the Union's initial rejection of this
request, recognition on a group basis "was no longer a bargaining demand."
ilHowever. (Glasby's testimony at this point appeared to be an effort to frus-
tra;te cross-examination. rather than to testify accurately regarding the prog-
ress of negotiations. On direct examination, she testified as to numerous
32
DINO'S LOUNGE AN[) CASSELI. & FREIDMAN. INC
time as agreement was reached upon the terms of a con-
tract.8 Consequently, Glasby continued to represent the
tavern owners on an individual basis. Howeer, as the ne-
gotiations proceeded. she conferred with all of the tavern
owners, directly or through the steering committee, regard-
ing the union's proposals, and her counterproposals and
agreements were voiced only after she had secured the con-
sensus of all whom she was representing.
By August 11. only economic matters remained for ne-
gotiations. Prior to that meeting. the Union had presented
Glasby with a new wage proposal which formed the basis
for discussion on that date. The meeting resulted in
changes in the Union's wage proposal. These changes were
written on that document and Glasbv then initialed the
changes and signed the proposal at the bottom. However.
she testified that she had told the Union's representatives
that her agreement on wage rates was only tentative and
that she would have to confer with the tavern owners be-
fore agreement could become final. Conversely, nion
Representative Jack Stafford testified that the meeting had
terminated with the agreement "on the wage proposal, the
health and welfare, the pension and all the other matters
pertaining to the contract, including recognition and ,a
partnership clause." 9
Glasby did not deny that agreement had been reached
on health and welfare, pension, group recognition and the
partnership clause. Moreover, Stafford's account that
agreement was reached at this meeting is supported by the
undisputed testimony that following the meeting, the par-
ties had met with a television crew, announcing their 'com-
plete agreement in principle on all parts of the contract and
that we would sign the contract possibly that afternoon, if
we could retype those pages." Indeed. Bramlet's adminis-
trative assistant, Jeff McColl, had then undertaken respon-
sibility for final preparation and typing of the contract,
which then had been transmitted to Glashb. She did not
rejections of her requests for recognition on a group basis. "cihi tinme I.lat
we met." Consequently. there must have been renewal itf Ihcse requclss \s
Rice testified, recognition on such a basis "was one of the things v.c ,ere
fighting for." Indeed. at another point in his testimony. Schmultz conceded
that Glasby had renewed this demand subsequently Accordingls. I find
that the tavern owners' demand for group recognilion remained viahle
throughout the negotiations.
8Glasby testified that then Secretar)-Treasurer Al Bramlet had told her
that he would give her recognition on a group basis only "when youl sign the
contract." However, when she testified. (ilasby appeared Io be attempting
to take advantage of the fact that Bramlet's death presenrted his appea.ralce
to controvert statements attributed to him. Thus, she appeared to he malking
a deliberate effort to attribute statements to him that were damaging to the
union's position. Moreover, as discussed infra. (Glasbh drew no distinction
between the act of reaching agreement and the act of executing aI cintracl
incorporating an agreement. In view of her lack of apprecilation oft hal
distinction, there can be no reliance upon the accuracy of her tesiimton, as
it pertains to discussions where actions. such as group recognition. were
conditioned upon one or the other. Accordingly. I do not credit her ltetl
mony as to what she assertedly had been told by Bramlet regalrding the
point at which group recognition would be accrorded
9A separate memorandum of understanding had been agreed upon
whereby husbands and wives listed on liquor licenses would be exempted
from coverage by the agreement when performing unit vwork Although Re-
spondents argue that such "special treatment for certain employers" is in
consistent with multiemployer bargaining, "'sleparate agreement between
union and individual employers as to limited matters is not inconslsienl
with multiemployer bargaining." Cusrom Colors (onnracirtrr. rulprar. 226
NLRB at 854. fn. 16. and cases cited therein
dispute McColl's testimonv that he had twice spoken with
her after the August II meeting. explaining the format of
the contract; and that while he had referred specifically to
the memorandum of understanding reciting group recogni-
tion, to which was appended a list of tavern owners cov-
ered by the agreement, at no point had she voiced any
reservations concerning those to be included in the group. f°
Scheduling conflicts prevented a meeting to execute the
contract and It was not until August 24 that the meeting
was conducted. In the interim, GlasbN had encountered op-
position from the tavern owners to one of the wage figures
agreed upon on August II. Thus, the August 24 meeting
opened with a proposal to revise the agreement on that
figure. Both Stafford and McColl testified that they had
left the conference room, where the meeting was in prog-
ress, to confer with Bramlet about the change:" and that
Bramlet. in an effort to achieve execution, had consented.'2
McColl had then taken the contract to his secretary, Louise
Vassallo, for retyping of the page listing the wage rates.
after which the contract had been reassembled and re-
turned to the conference room.
Both Stafford and McColl testified that Glasby had exe-
cuted the contract and memoranda upon their return to the
conference room. 3 Although Stafford testified that Glasby
'(;ilssh testified ti.hat .I thc ALsUisl I I meeting. she had adsised Bramnlei
th.,t srire of "thesc people" did IiOl iilrned Iii he Included In the agreement.
anid th:t BrillCt hald merelN asked ho r mans such "peoiple" there were
.ntd sithoiult s1 mucii.h as inquilrilg ;s to their idenitites had said onls that
[he ui uld "gi after them IndiidualI .s' and "take them on one on one." In
sle, iof lie directI cointrars action shich the t nmon has since taken to file
rand spUplJ-1 st the Ltilrge iI tire inslanlt case. the absence tof ans evidence that
the I riuon exer .pproached Respondents indisidualls after August 24 Io
obhlln a. conlract. the inherent unrealitsv of a scenario which portra)s Bramn
let a. disll.ls\ itg n L) oncern oxer the identities of the tavern owners iho did
noil intend lo be b, uound bx an agreement just negotiated on their behalf. and
(.lash\ ' general lick of candor w he she testified (discussed infral. I do not
credit her decriplionit of this aserted cin'sersation w ith Bramlet
(la.isbs testificd that Staffotrd had respuonded it the prloposed change hs
sasing "Oh. hell. I don't esen ha.e IOt see Al about this I can sign this
: In theni brief. Respontidents conlenid Ith.l the ta',ern ouners had agreed
to pas he.llh Land ielfare relroactixleN it this meeting; and. based upion this
contention. argue tha.t on August 24. the t'nlon "in fact negotiated a new
agreement wheretl it realped the additional benefit of retroactive welfare
pasments." Schniuz did testifl that at this meeting. Rice "had made the
montion tiii gie us that extra sOc loff and. in lieu of that. we ss ouldn'lt fihii
any retroactivit '" tloweser. this tesiimon\ appears tio reflect no mtire th.iii
Schmutz' limited comprehension of the bargaining process. for Glasbh
made no mentioin "of ans agreement to make benefits retroactive at this
meeting nor. ahile she described the negotiations pertaining to the 50-cent
reduction. did she tesnlfs that agreement on retroactislt) had been the qudl
proi qruo for the wage rate change Further. although Rice described his
coimments regatrding the 50-cent reduction. he made no mention of having
adanced atgreement ,tn retroactivits, as the price for the Unilon's conces
sion. While Srnafford testified that the tavern owners who had been present
at this meeting did agree to rceroacts itw. such a proislon had alreads been
included I1n the contrlact and Schmulz. himself. did not list this as an Item
open for negotHiatilon oi August 24 In these circumstances, there is no basls
for finding th.ai on August 24. there were negotlations regarding retroactlsl-
tvs hich resulted in "the .dditional benefits of retroactive welfare pay-
ments." Rather. the mosst that the record will support Is a finding that the
matter was dlscUussed but not nlegotiated and that the tavern owners whio
were present concurred in the agreement already reached concerning re-
troLaclil It 1 o find toL the conltrary on the basis of the record in this instant
case. would set a precedent thai agreements can be abrogated and reopened
merels because the parties subsequently review and discuss the terms tof
those agreements. esen thiough no change in those terms was intended or
effected during those disiussi.lons
ihe Iclerli.orandutil f Itunderstinding recited that "''l.s egal lIavern
(( 'rnitlnurel
33
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had mentioned that she had been unable to contact some
of the tavern owners, both he and McColl denied that she
had said anything about any of the taverns, whose names
were listed on the attachment appended to the memoran-
dum of understanding reciting group recognition, not
agreeing to the terms of the contract or not being included
by its coverage. Both also denied having seen Glasby strike
any names from the list appended to the memorandum.
Glasby, however, testified that at the meeting, she had
announced that three of the tavern owners had not agreed
to the terms of the agreement, naming them in response to
the Union's request for their identities; but had added that
she would prefer to contact them to confirm her under-
standing in this regard. At McColl's invitation, testified
Glasby, she had done so, using the telephone in McColl's
office. She testified that her phone calls had confirmed her
earlier announcement and that she then had returned to
the conference room; had announced that Night Gallery
and Respondents would not be parties to the agreement:
and had stricken their names from the list, writing the leg-
end "Will not sign" (with the added word "verified" after
the legend opposite Respondent King of Clubs). Then, ac-
cording to Glasby, she had executed the contract.
The record discloses two objective factors which tend to
corroborate Glasby's account of the statements which ac-
companied execution of the contract. First, she had, in
fact, made telephone calls from McColl's office that day
and these calls had pertained to taverns listed in the attach-
ment to the memorandum of understanding. Second, the
names of Night Gallery and Respondents have been strick-
en from the list which accompanied the contract executed
on August 24 and there is no contention that this occurred
on any other date. Nevertheless, there are a number of
other factors which warrant a contrary conclusion.
Most prominent is the confusion and contradiction aris-
ing from comparison of the testimonies of Respondents'
witnesses Glasby, Schmutz, and Rice. While Glasby
claimed that she had stricken the names immediately prior
to executing the contract, Rice and Schmutz both of
whom had testified prior to Glasby and, thus, neither of
whom had had the benefit of hearing the account which
she was to give of the sequence of events on August 24-
testified that they had not seen her strike the three names.
Consequently, there is no corroboration for Glasby's reci-
tation of this purported event. Further, asked what the
Union's response had been to her asserted announcement
that the three taverns would not be parties to the contract,
Glasby waffled, avoiding a direct answer by testifying:
"My testimony today is that I don't recall exactly any con-
versation except that I do recall there was no negative re-
Owners Association" has been recognized as the tavern owners' representa-
tive. Due to confusion regarding this entity, it should be noted that prior to
commencement of negotiations in the instant case, there had been a trade
association, consisting of a much larger number of employers than (Glashb
came to represent, with that name. However, after the April reopening let-
ters had been mailed, this larger group had been authorized to change its
name to Las Vegas Restaurant and Tavern Owners Association. Glasbs
testified that, in effect, she had adopted the then abandoned name as a
designation for the smaller group of tavern owners for whom she ",as bar-
gaining.
sponse, because I didn't have to deal with it." Yet, she
conceded that in her pretrial affidavit, she had stated flatly
that neither Stafford nor McColl had "made any comment
whatsoever either to agree or disagree." Since the latter
statement tends to support Respondent's argument that the
Union's failure to object demonstrated acquiescence in the
withdrawals, Glasby's answer when testifying seems most
strange.
The solution to the puzzle created by Glasby's vagueness
when testifying on this point appears to lie in the earlier
testimony given by Rice and Schmutz concerning this same
subject. Asked if the Union's agents had responded to
Glasby, Schmutz had testified: "I didn't hear anything but
concurrence that they agreed, you know, we all going to
sign the contract." In answer to a similar question, Rice
had answered: "To my knowledge, Mr. Staffor [sic] and
Mr. McColl both said--i don't know what they said ex-
actly but the)' didn't indicate that they were against it, as
far as I know, and they indicated that was fine, because at
the time they really wanted to get a contract signed." Con-
sequently, by the time that Glasby took the stand, there
was testimony by these two witnesses on behalf of Respon-
dents that contradicted the account in her pretrial affida-
vit. Thus, her equivocation when questioned concerning
the matter.
Before departing from the subject of the testimonies of
Respondent's witnesses, one final point should be noted
with respect to Rice. On cross-examination, an effort was
made to pin down what purportedly had been said to Glas-
by in response to her asserted preexecution announcement.
Not only did he make no apparent effort to try to recall
and recount what had been said, but he appeared to be
making an effort to avoid committing himself to an ac-
count. Moreover, he conceded ultimately that he could not
swear that he had even seen Glasby sign the contract. This
concession was not pursued on redirect examination and,
accordingly, the record was left with testimony by a wit-
ness about an event which had assertedly preceded execu-
tion of a contract that he could not swear having seen.
A second factor tending to refute Glasby's account of
the manner in which these names came to be stricken stems
from secretary Vassallo's description of Glasby's conduct
after having made telephone calls from McColl's office. As
set forth above, Vassallo had retyped the wage rate page
and that page was inserted into the contract, with the reas-
sembled contract then being returned to the conference
room for execution. Accordingly, during the retyping pro-
cess, the contract had been on Vassallo's desk. It was ap-
parently during this hiatus-when no activity was in prog-
ress in the conference room while the parties awaited
return of the retyped contract-that Glasby had made her
calls. Vassallo testified that following two of these calls,
Glasby had stricken and initialed a total of three names
from a list of taverns on her desk.l4 Glasby denied having
stricken the names in Vassallo's presence. Yet, she was un-
able to recall whether she had asked Vassallo for the list;
14 Vassallo made no reference to Glasby having written "Will not sign"
bh the names. However. she testified that since she had been busy typing.
she "really didn't pa, any attention to what IGlasbyl was doing." Conse-
quently, it is quite possible that Glasby's insertion of the legends would hase
escaped Vassallo's attention,
34
DINO'S LOUNGE AND CASSEI.L & FREIDMAN. INC.
and as she advanced no other reason for having requested
the list, her uncertainty as to whether she had requested it
from Vassallo is significant. Vassallo appeared to be a sin-
cere witness and, accordingly. I credit her description of
this incident.
As there were several copies of the list on her desk, Vas-
sallo was unable to testify whether the copy on which Glas-
by had stricken the names had been the one that had been
included in the reassembled contract. However, it is unlike-
ly that Glasby would have used any other copy. Certainly,
she gained nothing by striking names from just any list.
There had to be a purpose for her action and there is no
evidence that any other purpose would be served by strik-
ing names from a copy of the list. Moreover, there would
be no purpose for Glasby to initial the deletions if the list
were not the one to be included in the contract. In these
circumstances, the inference is warranted that the list used
by Glasby, in Vassallo's presence, was the one that was
included in the reassembled contract. Accordingly. there is
a plausible alternative explanation to Glasby's testimony
as to how these names came to be stricken. That this
change would not have been noticed by the Union's agents
at the time of execution is explained by the testimony that
due to their familiarity with the contract, it had not been
reviewed, page by page, at the time of execution.
A third factor tending to indicate that the names were
not stricken in the manner described by Glasby arises from
her conception of when a binding agreement is formed.
She testified that in her view, no agreement existed until
the contract had been executed. L Given this conception, it
is likely that she would not have felt it necessary to an-
nounce the deletion specifically, but rather would have be-
lieved it sufficient to accomplish her purpose if she simply
struck the names from the contract prior to its execution.
In other words, since there had been no execution, she
would not feel it significant that the names were stricken
and would likely have handled it as a mere detail, without
feeling any need for fanfare.
Finally, in contrast to Stafford and McColl, Glasby was
not a credible witness. She was argumentative and haughty
when testifying. Her answers to questions in areas poten-
tially adverse to Respondents' interests tended to be eva-
sive and nonresponsive. She appeared to be attempting to
tailor her testimony in a manner that would extricate Re-
spondents from any obligation under the contract. In so
doing, she contradicted her own pretrial affidavit and gave
testimony at odds with that of the tavern owners whom she
had been representing. I do not credit Glasby.
Therefore, I find that on August 24, Glasby struck Re-
spondents' names from the list appended to the memoran-
dum of understanding regarding recognition, but that this
was done without the knowledge and consent of the Union.
' This. of course, is clearlv at odds v ith Sec. 8id) of the Act, vhhch
differentiates between reaching agreement and "the execution of a written
contract incorporating any agreement reached . "A contract i, formed
"[olnce final agreement on the substantive terms swas reached. and regard-
less of the status of any w'ritten instrument Incorporating that agreement
. . orth Bros,. Ford Inc. 220 Nl RB 1021 1022 1975). and caes cited
theretin see also -he .4naconda (onparn. 224 NlRB 1041 1051 (1976):
Estate of Edward Brian Mlorit d h ia B Mo,rot: bfundrL 22() NI RB
1247. 1248 (1976)
In its brief. Respondents make two factual arguments
best treated at this point. First, Glasby testified that in
July. she had returned the powers of attorney to Respon-
dents. However. this was never documented and in view of
my finding concerning Glasby's credibility. I do not credit
her testimony on this point. In any event, no evidence was
adduced to show that the Union had been notified of re-
turn of the powers of attorney executed by Respondents.
Rather, Glasby continued to exercise the apparent authori-
tN to represent them. Furthermore, while Respondents' wit-
nesses disputed Stafford's testimony that Bartolo of Re-
spondent [)ino's and Renek of Respondent King of Clubs
had attended the negotiating sessions throughout the sum-
mer. neither of these officials of Respondents was ever
called to personally dispute Stafford's testimony. Nor was
the failure to call them explained. For that matter, Respon-
dents never produced the roster of attendance, showing the
identities of the tavern owners who had attended, although
its evidentiary significance was underscored during argu-
ment at the trial. In these circumstances, I find that the
failure to produce these witnesses and evidence warrants
the inference that, if produced, they would not have sup-
ported the testimony of the witnesses that Respondents
chose to produce. Colorflo Decorator Products, Inc., 228
NLRB 408 (1977): Packer Industries, Inc., 228 NLRB 182
(1977).
Accordingly, I find that Bartolo and Renek did attend
these meetings: and that their continued presence belies
any assertion that they had withdrawn Glasby's authority
to negotiate on their behalf. Indeed, had they done so, one
wonders wh, Glasby would have been telephoning them
on August 24 to discuss the acceptability of the agreement.
The second factual argument pertains to Respondent's
contention that by allowing another tavern owner to with-
draw from the group. the Union opened the door for Re-
spondents to do likewise. While Glasby testified that in
July, Stafford had indicated knowledge that some tavern
owners would not go along with the group's contract, her
testimony on this point is quite sketchy. It is not at all clear
that this comment, if made, referred to those in the group
that Glasby represented. as opposed to tavern owners who
were members of Las Vegas Restaurant and Tavern Own-
ers Association. but who had chosen not to grant Glasby
authority to negotiate for them. Beyond this, there is testi-
mony by Stafford that Night Gallery signed a contract,
although he was unable to recall when it had done so.
Again, the evidence regarding this matter is indefinite-for
example. it is not clear whether by "signing" a contract,
Stafford meant that Night Gallery had agreed simply to
honor the contract negotiated by Glasby or had actually
signed the same contract as that negotiated by Glasby. Nor
was it shown that in doing so. Night Gallery had been
acting independently of the multiemployer group. Indeed,
Respondents chose not to call any officials of Night Gal-
lery to clarify the vagueness of the evidence that was ad-
duced. Yet, since this was an issue raised as a defense, it
was Respondents' burden to go forward with supporting
evidence. Quite clearly it failed to do so.
In any event, even had Night Gallery been permitted to
withdraw from the group. there is no showing that it did so
after August I . when the Union agreed to recognize the
35
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tavern owners on a multiemployer basis; or that its with-
drawal was instigated by the Union, or that it changed the
essential character of the group. In short, it has not been
shown that Night Gallery's situation constituted any more
than a mere fluctuation in membership that does not serve
to affect multiemployer status. Quality Limestone Products,
Inc., 143 NLRB 589, 591 (1963), and cases cited therein.
Rather, what is significant is that the Union steadfastly has
insisted that Respondents honor the agreement.
I ANALYSIS
Once bargaining is commenced on a multiemployer ba-
sis, withdrawal is permitted only where there is mutual
consent or if unusual circumstances are presented. The
Carvel Company and C and D Plumbing and Heating Com-
pany, 226 NLRB 111, 112 (1976); Retail Associates, Inc.,
120 NLRB 388 (1958). However, a multiemployer bargain-
ing group cannot be formed simply because the affected
employers decide upon such a basis for bargaining. Rather,
"multiemployer bargaining is a voluntary arrangement, de-
pendent upon the real consent of the participants to bind
themselves to each other for bargaining purposes." Van
Eerden Company, 154 NLRB 496, 499 (1965). In the instant
case, the Union rejected bargaining on a multiemployer
basis until such time as an agreement was reached. Accord-
ingly, prior to agreement, the tavern owners bargained on
an individual basis, albeit through a common agent and in
common bargaining sessions. The Union's actions during
negotiations showed that it understood this to be the basis
upon which bargaining was proceeding.
However, it is clear that agreement had been reached on
August 11; and I do not credit Glasby's testimony to the
contrary. The powers of attorney by which Federated-
and, therefore, Glasby-had been designated the tavern
owners' representative are phrased in the broadest and
most absolute terms. At no point in the negotiations had
Glasby or the tavern owners made any mention of having
to secure the latter's approval for bargains which she struck
on their behalf. See Anaconda Company, 224 NLRB at
1051, and cases cited therein. She did not dispute the testi-
mony concerning the meeting with the television crew at
which the parties had announced having reached agree-
ment. Moreover, it hardly seems likely that the Union
would have chosen this particular point in time to have
prepared the contract unless it were clear that final agree-
ment had been reached. Accordingly, the circumstances
corroborate the credible testimony of Stafford and McColl
that final agreement had been reached at the August 11
negotiating meeting. This being so, the hiatus before exe-
cution of the written document incorporating that agree-
ment is irrelevant. North Bros. Ford, supra; Utility Tree Ser-
vice, Inc., 215 NLRB 806 (1974), 218 NLRB 784 (1975).
Throughout the negotiations, the Union had conditioned
extending multiemployer recognition upon reaching an
agreement. As found above, this condition had been satis-
fied on August 11. Stafford's testimony that this matter
had been one of the items specifically mentioned on that
date as being a point of agreement was not controverted.
Further, at the time that the contract had been prepared, so
also had a memorandum of understanding been prepared
regarding recognition on a multiemployer basis. That
memorandum clearly makes such recognition effective as
of the current agreement. Consequently, I find that the
agreement reached on August II included immediate rec-
ognition of the taverns on a multiemployer basis.
It is, of course, accurate that on August 24, the Union
did agree to the proposed change in one of the previously
negotiated wage rates. However, there is no evidence that
the proposed change had been intended to abrogate the
entire prior agreement nor is there evidence that the Union
so considered that proposal. So far as the record discloses,
the proposed change "did not signify the absence of an
existing agreement, but rather was an . . . effort to achieve
its modification .... " E. B. Moritz, supra. It had no logi-
cal relationship to the other terms of the agreement. There
has been no showing that it had been proposed with intent
to reopen all other items for negotiation. Indeed, there has
been no showing that the tavern owners had taken the firm
position that no agreement existed without the modifica-
tion-that is, that the tavern owners had felt that no overall
agreement existed and that the contract would not have
been executed but for the Union's agreement to modify
this single item. In short, so far as the record discloses, the
proposed change was no more than an effort by the tavern
owners to improve upon a prior agreement. That proposed
change of one item had no greater effect upon the overall
agreement than do wage reopeners which not infrequently
appear in collective-bargaining contracts. Consequently, I
find that the August 24 agreement to change one of the
wage rates has not been shown to be more than a modifica-
tion of an existing agreement. It did not serve to abrogate
that existing agreement and did not affect the Union's
prior agreement to recognize the tavern owners of a mul-
tiemployer basis. Had the Union rejected the proposal, the
tavern owners would have been obliged to execute the con-
tract prepared by the Union on the basis of the August 11
agreement. That obligation, and the agreement upon which
it was based, were not altered by the Union's consent to
modify one wage rate 13 days later.
One final point should be noted. Respondents argue that
the Union made no objection to the deletion of Respon-
dents' names from the contract prior to execution. As
found above, I have not credited the testimony upon which
this argument is based. However, even had this occurred
and had the Union been silent in the face of these dele-
tions, this would not have been sufficient, of itself, to show
consent to withdrawals from multiemployer bargaining.
"The Union's failure to immediately object to the with-
drawal, standing alone, is insufficient to establish acquies-
cence." Carvel Company, 226 NLRB at 112, footnote 8.
Had there been conduct, beyond mere silence, such a con-
clusion might have followed. See Fairmont Foods Company
v. N.L.R.B., 471 F.2d 1170, 1173-74 (C.A. 8, 1972). How-
ever, Respondents have failed to show the existence of any
such added conduct. To the contrary, the Union has pro-
tested vigorously Respondents' unwillingness to honor the
terms of the agreement and has made no effort to deal with
them separately, on an individual basis. Consequently, Re-
spondents' argument in this respect lacks both factual and
legal support.
Therefore, I find that on August 11, the parties reached
36
DINO'S LOUNGE AND CASSELL & FREIDMAN. IN(3
final binding agreement on the terms of a collective-bar-
gaining contract. One term of that agreement was recogni-
tion of the taverns on a multiemployer basis. From that
date, a final and binding contract existed, which included
that recognition as one of its terms. Regardless of what had
transpired prior to that date, none of the taverns were free
to withdraw from the multiemployer group after August
11, when all of them became bound to the terms of the
agreement negotiated on their behalf. As Respondents had
not previously withdrawn from the bargaining-in which
their own agent had sought recognition on this basis-- they
were a part of that group and were obliged to honor the
terms of the agreement negotiated on their behalf. Their
failure to do so violates Section 8(a)(5) and ( I ) of the Act.
The finding that there was agreement to contractual
multiemployer bargaining disposes of several other allega-
tions which Respondents have denied. "By virtue of the
existence of the contract, the Union was entitled to exclu-
sive recognition for at least the term of the contract."
Shamrock Dairy, Inc., 124 NLRB 494. 496 (1959). enfd. sub
nom. 280 F.2d 665 (C.A.D.C. 1960). cert. denied 364 U.S.
892 (1960). Consequently. appropriateness of the contrac-
tual bargaining unit and the majority representative status
of the Union have been established. Moreover, jurisdiction
will be asserted over the members of multiemployer bar-
gaining groups on the basis of the combined operations of
all members of the group. Marble Polishers, Machine Oper-
alors and Helpers, Local No. 121. AFL-CIO (Mianmi Marble
& Tile Company), 132 NLRB 844, 845, fn. 1 (1961). Inas-
much as the gross revenues from the combined operations
of Respondents, Rice Paddy, Moby Grape, and Danny's
Bar exceed $500,000 and as Respondent King of Clubs
purchases more than a de minimis amount of goods which
originate outside the State of Nevada, I find that Respon-
dents are an employer engaged in commerce and in opera-
tions affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Consequently, the fact that they are
engaged in "purely local business," as is argued in their
brief, hardly serves to exempt them from the reach of the
Board's jurisdiction. N. L.R.B. v. Inglewood Park Cemeteri
Association (First Congregational Church of Los ,4ngeles).
355 F.2d 448, 450 (C.A. 9, 1966).
1I. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES U PON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents, set forth above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the tavern owners in
the multiemployer group described above, have a close.
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead, and
have led, to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
CONCI. USIONS OF LAW
I. Ringside Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Dino's Lounge is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, en-
gaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Cassell & Freidman. Inc. d b a King of Clubs is an
emploer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act,
engaged in commerce and in a business affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act,
3. L1ocal Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary
Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders Union Local
165, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. A unit appropriate for collective bargaining is:
All captains. hostesses. waiters. waitresses, porters,
bartenders. and barboys employed by Las Vegas, Ne-
vada, taverns included in the multiemployer bargain-
ing group, designated as Las Vegas Tavern Owners
Association: excluding professional employees.
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. At all times material since August II11. 1976, Local
Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas, Culinary Workers
Union Local 226. and Bartenders Union Local 165, Hotel
& Restaurant Enploxees and Bartenders International
Union. AFL CIO. has been the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the above-de-
scribed unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
6. BN unilaterally attempting to withdraw from the mul-
tiemplover bargaining group designated as Las Vegas Tav-
ern Owners Association: and by refusing to honor and
abide by the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement
negotiated on August 11. 1976. Ringside Liquors, Inc.
d, b a Dino's Lounge. and Cassell & Freidman. Inc..
d, ba King of Clubs, violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( I) of the
Act.
IHE REMEDY
Having found that Ringside Liquors. Inc., d/b/a Dino's
Lounge, and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of
Clubs, engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that theN be ordered to cease and desist there-
from and that they take certain affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Ringside Liquors, Inc., d.b/a Dino's
Lounge. and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of
Clubs, have failed to honor and abide by terms of a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, I shall recommend that they
reimburse employees in the above-described appropriate
bargaining unit for any losses of pay or benefits which
would have accrued to them under that agreement. with
interest to be paid on the amounts owing and to be com-
puted in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Com-
pan,'. 90 NLRB 289 (1950). and Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). enforcement denied on
different grounds 322 F.2d 913 (C.A. 9, 1963).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
37
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER 16
Respondents Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Dino's
Lounge, and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of
Clubs, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to remain members of the multiemployer
bargaining group designated as Las Vegas Tavern Owners
Association, until such time as they can legally withdraw
from that group.
(b) Refusing to honor and abide by the terms and con-
ditions of the collective-bargaining agreement negotiated
on their behalf on August 11, 1976.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of any right
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the purposes of the Act:
(a) Remain a member of the multiemployer bargaining
group designated as the Las Vegas Tavern Owners Associ-
ation and honor and abide by the collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated on behalf of the group on August I1,
1976.
(b) Bargain with Local Joint Executive Board of Las Ve-
gas, Culinary Workers Union Local 226, and Bartenders
Union Local 165, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union, AFL-CIO, as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the above-
described appropriate unit respecting rates of pay, wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment; and,
should any understandings be reached, embody such un-
derstandings in a signed agreement.
16 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided bh Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted h) the Board and become
its findings. conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
17 Thus, Respondents are obliged to bargain on a multiemployer basis
until at least such time as they are free under the Act to withdraw legally
from group bargaining. Should either or both of them then do so. a continu-
(c) Make whole all employees in the above-described
appropriate bargaining unit for any loss of pay or benefits
which would have accrued to them under the collective-
bargaining agreement which Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a
Dino's Lounge, and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King
of Clubs, have refused to honor, with interest to be paid
thereon, in the manner prescribed in The Remedy section
of this Decision.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents all payroll and other records necessary
to compute the backpay rights set forth in The Remedy
section of this Decision.
(e) Post at their Las Vegas, Nevada, taverns, appropriate
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 18 Cop-
ies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc-
tor for Region 31, after being duly signed by Ringside Li-
quors, Inc., d/b/a Dino's Lounge, and Cassell &
Freidman, Inc.. d/b/a King of Clubs, authorized represen-
tatives, shall be posted by Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a
Dino's Lounge, and Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King
of Clubs, immediately upon receipt thereof and be main-
tained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Dino's Lounge, and
Cassell & Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of Clubs, to ensure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Ringside Liquors, Inc., d/b/a Dino's Lounge, and Cassell
& Freidman, Inc., d/b/a King of Clubs, have taken to
comply herewith.
ing obligation to recognize and bargain with the Union on a single employer
basis remains See Tahoe Nuggett, Inc. dh a'a Jim Kellet's Tahoe Nuggett.
227 NLRB 357 (1976).
is In the event that 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 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."
38