Firehouse Restaurant

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1975

220 N.L.R.B. 818 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Firehouse Restaurant and Sacramento Local Joint sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bartenders said recommended Order.
and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-CIO. Case
20-CA-9469
September 26, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On May 23, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Irv-
ing Rogosin issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and
the Respondent filed an opposition to the General
Counsel's 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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Firehouse Restaurant,
Sacramento, California, its officers, agents, succes-
i In agreeing with the Administrative Law Judge that the three alleged
discnminatees , Tolley, Vereschzagin , and Horn , were responsible for the
newspaper articles which disparaged the Respondent 's restaurant for the
purpose of harming Respondent 's business, we find it unnecessary to adopt
his conclusion that such adverse publicity was placed in the newspapers at
the instigation of Tolley and the other waiters . It is clear from the record
that the publicity was the result of their attorney 's plan to coerce the Re-
spondent into settling alleged grievances which were pending , and that such
action was condoned , encouraged, and approved by Tolley and the other
waiters . We further find that the depositions given to Attorney Hiroshima
regarding a private lawsuit , involving an individual not known to the wait-
ers, and not directly concerned with the merits of his claim against the
Respondent about which they admitted they did not have any personal
knowledge , had the same purpose: attempting to coerce the Respondent
into settling the alleged grievances. In reaching this conclusion , we rely on
record evidence which fully supports the Administrative Law Judge 's find-
ings that a major purpose of the waiters ' retaining Attorney Hiroshima was
to harm the Respondent's restaurant, apart from their desire to enforce
certain provisions of the collective -bargaining contract.
2 In his "Remedy" the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently found
that Tolley and Vereschzagin gave their depositions disparaging the
Respondent's business on December 18, 1974. However , the record shows
that the correct date was October 18, 1974 , and the inadvertence is hereby
corrected . Moreover, this means that these employees are entitled to be
made whole only up to October 18, 1974 , instead of December 18, 1974, as
found by the Administrative Law Judge.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRVING RoGOSIN, Administrative Law Judge: The com-
plaint, issued October 31, 1974, as amended at the hearing
upon prior notice , alleges that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Specifically, the complaint, as amended, alleges that Re-
spondent (1) on May 20 and 23, 1974, threatened to dis-
charge William R. Tolley because he had engaged in union
or other concerted activities; (2) on various dates between
April 17 and May 15, 1974, engaged in various acts of
discrimination against said Tolley because of his union or
other concerted activities; and (3) on or about May 31,
1974, discharged said Tolley and Peter Vereschzagin and,
on or about October 8, 1974, discharged or refused to
reemploy Guisto Horn, and refused to reinstate any of said
employees because of their union or other protected con-
certed activities, thereby discriminating in regard to their
hire and tenure of employment, in violation of Section
8(a)(3), and interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7,
thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act.'
Respondent's answer admits the procedural and jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint but denies generally and
specifically the substantive allegations and the commission
of any unfair labor practices. The allegations of the amend-
ment to the complaint, made at the outset of the hearing,
have been deemed to be denied.
Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held before me on
January 29, 30, and 31, and February 5, 6, and 7, 1975, at
Sacramento , California. All parties were represented by
counsel, were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce oral and
documentary evidence relevant and material to the issues,
to argue orally, and to file briefs and proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law. The parties waived oral argu-
ment but, pursuant to leave duly granted, filed briefs on
March 7, 1975. No proposed findings of fact or conclusions
of law have been filed by any of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case and, based upon the
appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs
' Designations herein are as follows- The General Counsel, unless other-
wise stated or required by the context, his representative at the hearing:
Newton Cope, Lawrence "Larry" Cope, and Carl E. Cope, copartners
d/b/a Firehouse Restaurant , herein collectively , Respondent or the Em-
ployer; Sacramento Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers, Bar-
tenders and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-CIO, the Charging Party or the
Union; the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 73
Stat. 519 , 29 U.S C. Sec. 151, el seq ), the Act ; the National Labor Relations
Board , the Board. The original charge was filed and served on August 19,
1974; the first amended charge , on November 21, 1974 Unless otherwise
stated, all events occurred in 1974
220 NLRB No. 135
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT
of the parties, which have been carefully considered, I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges , Respondent 's answer admits, and
it is hereby found that, at all times material herein, Newton
Cope, Larry Cope, and Carl Cope, copartners d/b/a Fire-
house Restaurant , with its place of business in Sacramento,
California, have been engaged in the operation of a restau-
rant selling food, liquors, and wines, and rendering services
at retail to the general public.
During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, in
the conduct of its business , Respondent has sold such
products and rendered services valued in excess of
$500,000 . During the same period , Respondent has pur-
chased and received such products valued in excess of
$5,000 directly or indirectly from suppliers located outside
the State of California.
The complaint further alleges , Respondent's answer ad-
mits, and it is hereby found that , at all times material here-
in, Respondent has been an employer engaged in com-
merce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Sacramento Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary
Workers , Bartenders and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-
CIO, the Union herein , is, and at all times material herein
has been , a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
Since about 1960, when Respondent opened its restau-
rant to the public, it has voluntarily recognized and been a
party to a collective -bargaining agreement with the Union,
covering employees of Respondent . The current union-se-
curity contract covers the term from June 1, 1970, to May
31, 1975, automatically renewable in the absence of speci-
fied notice , and subject to wage reopenings . This contro-
versy arises out of the application of the following provi-
sions of the contract:
Section 8 . MEALS:
r s ► s
(b) Any employee working a six (6) hour shift shall
receive two (2 ) hot or cold meals of food comparable
to that served to the customers.
(c) Any employee working a shorter shift shall receive
one (1) hot or cold meal of food comparable to that
served to the customers.
(d) Where one or more hot or cold meals are required
to be furnished , pursuant to this Section , and the Em-
819
ployer fails to furnish such meal, or meals, he shall pay
the employee eighty-five cents (85¢) for each meal not
furnished.
(e) An employee working a full shift shall be given an
opportunity to eat his second meal within not less than
three (3) or more than five (5) hours from the com-
mencement of the shift.
The minimum wage scales and working conditions relat-
ing to waiters contained in the contract provide:
Any shift over 6 hours shall receive the 8 hour scale.
Any shift over 4 hours shall receive the 6 hour scale.
The General Counsel contends that the efforts of the
waiters, primarily William Tolley and, to a lesser extent,
Peter Vereschzagin and Guisto "Gus" Horn, to enforce the
meal provisions, provoked Respondent to retaliate against
Tolley, and subsequently discharge all three employees.
B. Discrimination in Regard to Hire and Tenure of
Employment; Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
1. The discharges of Tolley and Vereschzagin
Early in March, waiters at Respondent's restaurant com-
plained to the Union that they had not been consistently
served the second meal required under the contract. The
first meal , a "sit-down" meal, was usually served the wait-
ers sometime between 5 p.m. and the commencement of
their shift at 6 o'clock. The second meal was due to be
served toward the close of the shift, sometime between
10:30 p.m. and midnight, depending on when the waiters
had finished serving their last customer. According to Re-
spondent, food was always available to the waiters on their
shift, and employees helped themselves whenever they
wished. Whether or not this constituted compliance with
the second meal requirement of the contract, it is evident
that food was supplied to the waiters in addition to the
regular first meal. Tolley, himself, conceded that the chef
served him a slice of prime rib of beef about once a week,
and the broiler cook testified, without contradiction, that
he served Tolley a prime rib sandwich about 10:30 p.m.
three or four times a week. Nevertheless, when the union
representatives complained to Larry Cope, he agreed that
the waiters would be served a second meal, and this was
done commencing March 11.
Early in April, the waiters again complained to the
Union, this time about the poor quality of the meals and
the lack of variety, claiming that they were being served the
same meal twice a day. Secretary-Treasurer Ralph Blay-
lock discussed the complaints with Larry Cope. According
to the Union's minutes of a grievance meeting, subsequent-
ly held on May 23, later mentioned, Respondent took steps
to remedy the situation.
On or about April 18, Larry Cope assigned Tolley to
work a 4-hour shift, from 7 p.m. to 11 p .m., instead of the
regular 6-hour shift, at the 6-hour wage scale, and compen-
sated him 85 cents in lieu of the meal, ostensibly because of
Tolley's dissatisfaction with the food. It may be reasonably
inferred that the reduction of Tolley's hours of work would
probably have resulted in a corresponding loss of tips. Ac-
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cording to Tolley, he was informed that the change had
been made because business was slow . Newton Cope testi-
fied that the change was made because Tolley appeared
tired and the change was made for his benefit . Larry Cope,
however, testified that he assumed that the change was
made because of Tolley's dissatisfaction with the second
meal, and so that Respondent could pay him in cash in lieu
of the meal . Between March and May , Tolley was the only
waiter who worked the 4-hour shift and was paid cash in
lieu of meals . On Friday, April 19, Tolley complained to
the Union about the change in his work shift . Tolley told
Blaylock that Larry Cope had advised him to take the mat-
ter up with the Union. Blaylock agreed to look into it.
That night, April 19, while Tolley was on the 4-hour
shift, Larry Cope assigned Horn to take over one of
Tolley's tables . Presumably , this incident was offered as an
example of Respondent's reprisals against Tolley because
of his protests concerning the second meal issue . The rec-
ord discloses , however, that a party had been seated at one
of the tables at Tolley 's station shortly after 10 o'clock and
that Larry Cope had asked the hostess why she had seated
a party at Tolley's station at that late hour since he would
not have been able to finish serving the guests by 11,
Tolley's quitting time . The evidence does not support a
finding that Cope assigned Horn to wait on one of Tolley's
tables on this occasion as an act of retaliation.
When Tolley arrived at work on April 23, he discovered
that Greg Hernandez , another waiter, had taken over his
station , which was considered more desirable . Tolley ques-
tioned Larry Cope about this in Vereschzagin 's presence.
Cope told Tolley that he and Hernandez were to exchange
stations . Although there is no seniority provision in the
collective-bargaining agreement , as a matter of policy,
waiters were assigned to stations according to their prefer-
ence based on seniority . Larry Cope later told Vereschza-
gin that, in view of his seniority , he should have been of-
fered Tolley's station before it was offered to Hernandez,
and asked him if he wanted to be assigned to that station.
Vereschzagin asked Cope why, he was making this change,
and Cope said that Tolley would be quitting in the very
near future . Vereschzagin declined the station.
Following the discussion , Cope told Tolley that he hated
to "eat crow ," but that , beginning next day , Tolley would
be restored to his 6-hour shift , and served one meal and
paid for the other. During the conversation , Cope asked
Tolley why he did not quit if he was dissatisfied . Tolley
told him that he needed the job, was satisfied with it, and
had no intention of quitting . Cope instructed Tolley to per-
form certain chores after he had finished serving the last of
his guests , including "set[ting] up the whole dining -room,"
and when he had finished that , folding napkins in the
backroom until quitting time at midnight . Cope also told
Tolley that he would prefer not to have him in his employ
because he feared that Tolley would "sabotage his busi-
ness ." Tolley replied that he would only be hurting himself
since he depended on tips for his income rather than his
wages . In contrast to the other waiters , who were permitted
to take their second meal when they had finished serving
their guests, and were permitted to leave work after 4
hours, if they had no more guests to serve , Tolley was re-
quired to remain until midnight , performing side duties,
such as setting tables , folding napkins , and similar chores.
Larry Cope testified that he changed Tolley's station, as
well as his hours of work , on the recommendation of
Union Representative Blaylock because Respondent was
unable to satisfy Tolley's demands regarding the second
meal. Cope further explained that Tolley's regular station
had been at the entrance to the main dining room. Since
Tolley would now be commencing his shift at 7 p.m., the
tables at his former station would be unoccupied between 6
o'clock , when the restaurant opened for dinner, and 7
o'clock , Tolley's starting time . This, according to Cope,
would create a bad impression upon customers observing
the empty tables when they first arrived . He therefore re-
moved Tolley from the front of the dining room , replacing
him with another waiter , and assigned Tolley to the middle
of the dining room. Tolley was restored to his full 6-hour
shift and provided with two meals as of May 1.
In Newton Cope's view , since Tolley was insistent upon
following the union contract , it was decided to adhere to
the letter of the contract with regard to the length of the
shift and the second meal. Larry Cope, however, main-
tained that , since Tolley had been restored to the 6-hour
shift upon the Union 's recommendation , the Employer felt
justified in requiring him to remain for the full length of
the shift . After he was restored to the 6-hour shift , Tolley
continued to work at Hernandez' former station , but was
permitted to leave work after serving his last party instead
of being required to remain on the premises until midnight.
No explanation was offered as to why Tolley was not re-
turned to his former station.
During this same period , in a conversation with Carl and
Larry Cope concerning the second meal problem, Carl
asked Vereschzagin why he did not quit if he was dissatis-
fied. Larry accused Vereschzagin of creating problems
where none existed. Several days later , Vereschzagin noti-
fied Larry Cope that he was giving him a week 's notice of
his intention to quit. In the next few days, however, Carl
Cope told Vereschzagin that he did not want him to leave.
Vereschzagin indicated that, if the problem concerning the
second meal could be resolved , he might be willing to stay.
Soon afterward , Vereschzagin told the chef that the em-
ployees did not enjoy their late meal and that some would
prefer to prepare their own sandwiches if the chef would
leave the necessary fixings in the refrigerator . The chef
agreed.
Next day , which would have presumably been
Vereschzagin's last day of his notice to quit , Larry Cope,
referring to the notice , told Vereschzagin that he thought
the two of them had always gotten along well, and re-
marked that he had never treated him unfairly . Vereschza-
gin told Cope that he disapproved of the way Tolley had
been treated, and said that he felt that he, Vereschzagin,
had been as much involved as Tolley . Cope replied that
Tolley was "the man out front-that he was easier to see."
Cope asked Vereschzagin whether he actually intended to
leave . Vereschzagin said he wanted to stay , and told Cope
of the suggestion he had made to the chef regarding the
sandwich meal. Cope consented to the arrangement.
About a week after Tolley had returned to his full 6-hour
shift, Tolley was having a sandwich and soft drink in the
kitchen at about 11 :15 p.m. Larry Cope came into the
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT
kitchen, and asked Tolley if the parties he had been serving
had left. When Tolley answered that they had, Cope asked
him whether he had clocked out. Tolley replied that he had
not, and Cope told him to do so because he did-not want
him eating on the Employer's time . Tolley clocked out and
left.
Several days later , while both men were in the kitchen,
Vereschzagin told Tolley that Carl and Larry Cope had
agreed to Vereschzagin 's suggestion of sandwiches for the
waiters' second meal, so that they could have their meal
after work before leaving for home . A few nights later,
Larry Cope came upon Tolley in the kitchen while he was
having a sandwich. Again, Cope asked Tolley whether he
had clocked out first . Tolley told him that he had not, and
asked Cope whether he could go home. Cope told him to
clock out and leave . As Tolley clocked out and prepared to
leave, Cope turned to him and asked, "Why do you keep
trying to [obscenity deleted] me?" Tolley replied, "Well,
Mr. Cope, you have been [obscenity deleted] me for
years!" With that, Cope retorted, "Well, maybe I can get
you back on that six-hour shift," implying that Tolley
would be required to remain on duty for the entire dura-
tion of the shift. Cope told him that he was going on a trip,
but was leaving a note with the hostess that Tolley was to
go back to work on the full 6-hour shift. Next day, Tolley
confirmed this with the hostess, who told him that Larry
Cope had also left instructions that, after Tolley finished
with his customers , he was to polish glasses and silver and
fold napkins until it was time for him to clock out at mid-
night.
About this time , five waiters , including the three alleged
discriminatees , decided to retain Attorney Phil Hiroshima
to file a lawsuit to collect for the second meal which they
claimed they had not been receiving, as well as to seek
improvement in the quality of the second meal. On or
about May 8 , each of the five waiters contributed $ 100, for
a total of $500 , towards Hiroshima's fee.
On the night of May 20, after working until midnight,
Tolley clocked out and went to look for his meal. When he
found nothing, Tolley went to the bar and told Carl Cope
that he had clocked out but had been unable to find any-
thing to eat. With that, Cope remarked that he was "getting
tired of this [obscenity deleted]". Tolley replied in kind.
Thereupon, Cope told Tolley, "Take a hike-or get lost.
Take a vacation ." Tolley bade Cope goodnight and said
that he would see him next day. To the extent that this is
alleged to constitute a threat of discharge , it is evident that
Cope did not so intend it but rather that it was a manifesta-
tion of his momentary irritation. Moreover, in view of
Tolley's response, it is obvious that he did not take the
remark seriously.
When Tolley reported for work on May 22, the hostess
informed him that two union officials were in the office.
Tolley asked the hostess where she had been the day be-
fore. She told him that she had been ill and that her doctor
had diagnosed her condition as food poisoning, which she
believed she had contracted at the restaurant.
Tolley went into the office where he found Union Repre-
sentatives Blaylock and Dulaney with Carl and Larry
Cope. Tolley asked whether there were any complaints
about his service to patrons. Carl Cope said, "No-but we
821
have complaints." Asked the nature of the complaints, Carl
Cope told him that "under the circumstances, they didn't
want me working in the Firehouse anymore. That they
wanted me either to take a leave of absence, or to take a
vacation; or, he says, `What I would really like to do, is to
get nd of you . . . I would like to fire you, right now.' "
Tolley suggested that since he and his wife had a vacation
due, he would like to take a vacation. Larry Cope told him
that he did not want him working at the restaurant because
he feared that Tolley might do something to hurt business.
Blaylock, however, told Carl Cope that he could not dis-
charge Tolley because he had done nothing to warrant
such action.
Although the union contract contained no provision for
a grievance or arbitration procedure, Blaylock proposed
that a grievance meeting be held, and a meeting was sched-
uled for the following afternoon, May 23, at the union hall.
Attending this meeting, in addition to the three alleged dis-
cnminatees , were Carl and Larry Cope, the bookkeeper,
the union officials, and some dozen representatives of the
Local Joint Executive Board. After the formalities, Tolley
voiced his protest against the Restaurant for failing to fur-
nish the waiters their second meal in the past, and demand-
ed compensation. Reading from a statement he had pre-
pared, he complained about the poor quality of the second
meal, which had been served since March 1974, citing spe-
cific instances of the type of food that had been served,
and characterizing the food by a vulgar epithet, a step from
garbage and a source of food poisoning. Contrary to
Tolley's testimony, it is improbable that Larry Cope con-
ceded that what Tolley had said was basically true, consid-
ering Cope's contention that the food served the waiters, as
well as the customers, was generally of superior, if not
gourmet, quality. Tolley admitted, on the other hand, that
Cope had stated that it was virtually impossible to please
Tolley. Cope expressed understandable resentment at the
mention of food poisoning in connection with the food at
the Firehouse Restaurant.
Larry Cope told Tolley that he had learned from a for-
mer hostess at the Restaurant that Tolley had attempted to
persuade her to testify on his behalf in a suit against the
restaurant. Tolley responded by asking Cope whether he
had been served with any formal papers, and Cope ac-
knowledged that he had not. With that, Carl Cope inter-
jected, "We want this man out. I would like to fire him
right now." Larry Cope then asked Tolley why he did not
quit if he did not like his job. Tolley said that he was happy
in his job and had no intention of quitting. Vereschzagin
and Horn, as well as another employee who had joined in
retaining the attorney, also protested the previous lack of a
second meal and the inferior quality of the second meal
after Respondent began to supply it. During this meeting,
according to Vereschzagin's uncontradicted testimony,
Carl Cope stated that he understood that the purpose of
the meeting had been to authorize management to dis-
charge Tolley, that he wanted to "fire Tolley so bad, he
could taste it," and that he would do so sooner or later.
Failing to resolve the meal controversy, it was agreed,
despite the absence of such procedure in the union con-
tract, to refer the matter to binding arbitration.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Late in May,2 Attorney Hiroshima telephoned Larry
Cope and notified him that the waiters, specifically naming
Tolley and Vereschzagin, were making a claim against the
Firehouse for failing to provide second meals to the waiters
in the past, and were complaining about the quality of the
second meal which was then being served. When Hiroshi-
ma threatened to file a lawsuit against the restaurant, Cope
made no response but referred the matter to his attorney.
The Cope brothers thereupon decided to terminate the em-
ployment of Tolley and Vereschzagin.
On May 31, Tolley arrived at work shortly after 5
o'clock and performed his usual chores before having his
dinner. About 6 o'clock, while he was in the backroom
folding napkins, Larry Cope informed Tolley that he
would be taking care of a special banquet in the patio
courtyard for a party of 20 about 8 o'clock that night. Tol-
ley made the necessary preparations, complying with Larry
Cope's instructions concerning the setting of the table.
While waiting for the arrival of the party, Cope directed
Tolley to carry some hot plates to Wine Cellar Room No.
2, and then asked him to assist in the serving of the dinner.
Tolley said that if he were to assist in serving in the wine
cellar he would expect to share in the tips. Cope told him
that that was the waiters' concern with which management
was not involved. Afterwards, Larry Cope told Tolley to
return to his station in the courtyard.
About 10 o'clock, Cope notified Tolley that the party
had been canceled and directed him to clear the table. It
was by then nearly 11 o'clock and Larry ordered Tolley to
finish his shift folding napkins. While Tolley was perform-
ing this task, Larry asked him, "Well, how does it feel?-
You are going to be going home without any money in
your pocket, at all." Tolley disagreed, mentioning that
since he had helped wait on the party downstairs in Wine
Cellar No. 2, he was entitled to a tip. Cope reiterated that
that was not his concern. Asked at the hearing whether he
had made the remark attributed to him by Tolley, Cope
said he did not recall making such a remark. Since this
does not constitute a denial, and it is unlikely that Cope
would have forgotten such a remark, it is found that he
made the statement substantially as testified to by Tolley.
This remark , however, is not, in itself, sufficient to support
the apparent contention that the "phantom" banquet party
had been a sham, deliberately conceived to victimize Tol-
ley. Although Tolley testified that he learned from the
hostess that no printed menu for the party had been placed
in the reservation book, and from the chef, that he had
been unaware of any menu for that party,3 entries in the
original reservation book, which appeared to be completely
authentic , showing the name of the person making the res-
ervation , the time , the entree and dessert , support
Respondent's contention that a bona fide reservation had
been made for the banquet party, which was subsequently
canceled because of an illness of a member of that party.
2 There is some confusion in the record as to whether this occurred on or
about May 21 or May 31. According to an affidavit of Larry Cope, prepared
with the assistance of his attorney , the incident occurred on May 21. Other
testimony indicates that it occurred on May 31.
3 According to Larry Cope, the menu for a party of this size comprised a
single entree, usually prime nb of beef , which was customarily kept on hand
in abundant quantities , so that no special menu would have been prepared
or been necessary.
The preponderance of the credible evidence does not sup-
port a finding that Respondent conceived and executed
such an elaborate scheme to retaliate against Tolley for his
concerted activity in attempting to enforce the meal provi-
sions of the union contract.
Later the same evening, while Vereschzagin and Cope
were smoking, Tolley asked Cope if he, too, could smoke.
Cope refused him permission. Tolley asked whether this
policy merely applied to him or whether it was applicable
to the entire crew, in which case, he suggested that a notice
should be posted on the bulletin board. Cope expressed
indignation at Tolley for telling him how to run his busi-
ness.
That night, as Vereschzagin was leaving the Restaurant,
Larry Cope stopped him, and asked him whether-he was
happy in his job. Vereschzagin replied that generally speak-
ing he was. Cope remarked, "Well, either you are happy, or
you are not!" Vereschzagin replied that, while he liked
working there, he thought conditions could be improved.
Cope retorted, "Then you're not happy . . . why don't you
quit?" "Well, why don't you get out the door, and go on?"
According to Vereschzagin, Cope told him that he felt
"harassed" (probably resentful might be more apt) because
his employees had retained an attorney to file suit against
him; that he could not have anyone in his employ who was
suing him, but that if the waiters lost the lawsuit he could
return to his job. On the other hand, if they prevailed, he
told Vereschzagin, he assumed that he would not wish to
work at the Restaurant. Vereschzagin was thereupon termi-
nated on May 31, 1974.
About midnight, the same night, after Tolley completed
his shift, Larry Cope asked him why he did not quit if he
was unhappy with his job. Tolley said that he was not un-
happy, and had no intention of quitting. Cope then told
him that he was laying him off because he could not have
anyone working for him that was suing him. Cope further
stated to Tolley that he felt harassed by the mere fact that
Tolley showed up for work but that, when the suit was
resolved, Tolley could return to work. Tolley was there-
upon terminated.
On June 7, pursuant to the understanding reached at the
grievance meeting on May 23, the parties executed a sub-
mission agreement for arbitration . When the parties met
before the arbitrator on August 15, the Union insisted that
the discharges of Tolley and Vereschzagin be decided in
the same proceeding. Respondent demurred on the ground
that the discharges were not covered in the submission
agreement, and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide
the issue of the discharges. The arbitrator apparently
agreed with Respondent, and the arbitration was aban-
doned.
2. Conclusions Regarding the Discharges of Tolley and
Vereschzagin and the alleged acts of interference,
restraint, and coercion
It can scarcely be doubted that Tolley, Vereschzagin,
and Horn were engaged in protected concerted activities in
attempting to enforce the meal provisions of the collective-
bargaining agreement . Although Respondent contends
that, in protesting Respondent 's failure to provide a second
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT
meal, as well as the quality of the food after it began to
provide that meal, Tolley was acting merely on his own
behalf, and solely out of self-interest , the record clearly
establishes that he was seeking enforcement of the contract
provision on behalf of his fellow -employees , as well as him-
self, and that they all made common cause over this issue.
Moreover , the events which transpired at the grievance
meeting on May 23, at which all three employees expressed
their views on the meal issue, clearly establish that they
were engaged in protected activity for the purpose of mutu-
al aid and protection . The fact that this group of employees
had retained counsel to vindicate their position does not
detract from this conclusion. In so doing, the employees
were acting, not in derogation of their exclusive representa-
tive, but to enforce the meal provision of the contract,
thereby supporting the Union. Moreover, the absence of a
grievance and arbitration procedure in the contract ren-
dered it all the more feasible for these employees to engage
an attorney to vindicate their rights. To this extent, this
action was in reality an extension of their right to engage in
protected concerted activities . Their action in retaining an
attorney did not justify or permit Respondent to discharge
these employees on the ground that a threatened lawsuit
rendered it untenable for Respondent to retain these em-
ployees while the controversy remained unresolved. Since
these employees were engaged in protected concerted ac-
tivities , it was impermissible for Respondent to discharge
them for that reason . This conclusion is unaffected by
whether the claim of these employees was meritorious or
was lacking in merit.
It may be argued that Respondent discharged these em-
ployees because of the defamatory and disparaging man-
ner in which they described the food at the grievance meet-
ing rather than because of their . attempt to enforce the
meal provision of the contract. Respondent made it abun-
dantly clear, however , both at the time of the discharges
and at the hearing, that the reason for the discharges was
that the employees had retained an attorney to file a law-
suit against it.
The conduct in which Respondent engaged toward Tol-
ley, after he embarked on his campaign to enforce the meal
provision of the contract, gives every indication of retalia-
tion. Except in the instances in which it has been found
that the conduct did not amount to reprisals , the record
justifies the conclusion that Respondent reduced his hours
of work from a 6-hour shift to 4 hours, compensating him
in cash , in lieu of a second meal ; changed his work station;
after acceding to the Union's demand that he be restored
to the regular 6-hour shift, required him to remain for the
duration of the entire shift contrary to the prevailing prac-
tice of permitting other waiters to leave after 4 hours, if
they had finished serving their customers ; required him to
clock out before eating his second meal, and to perform
side tasks, such as setting tables and folding napkins, after
he had completed his regular tasks , until the end of the
6-hour shift at midnight.
As to the allegations that Respondent threatened to dis-
charge Tolley, apart from the evidence of implied threats,
there is abundant evidence that both Carl and Larry Cope
urged Tolley, as well as Vereschzagin , to quit and, particu-
823
larly during the May 23 grievance meeting, expressed a
desire to be rid of Tolley.
The reasons advanced by the Copes for the action taken
against Tolley are wholly unconvincing , if not spurious.
There is no doubt that the Copes were annoyed and irritat-
ed with Tolley. Newton Cope regarded him as unstable,
constantly complaining, and never satisfied. This, accord-
ing to Newton Cope, was attributable only in part to
Tolley's dissatisfaction regarding the meal issue. In any
event, it is evident that Respondent's dissatisfaction with
Tolley surfaced coincidentally with his protests regarding
the meal issue.
It is found that, by the acts of retaliation against Tolley,
previously found, and by the threats, actual or implied, to
discharge him, Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a((1) of the Act.
As for Vereschzagin, his activity in attempting to secure
compliance with the meal provisions contained in the con-
tract was only slightly less than Tolley's. Moreover, he
openly supported Tolley's efforts, and expressed his disap-
proval to Larry Cope of the way in which Tolley had been
treated, asserting that he had been as much involved in the
meal controversy as Tolley. In addition, Vereschzagin had
actively promoted the idea for providing the waiters with
sandwiches as their second meal. The record leaves no
doubt that Respondent identified Vereschzagin with Tolley
in the meal controversy, and resented the activity of both
men in the attempted enforcement of the meal privileges.
The fact that Respondent endeavored to satisfy the de-
mands of these employees, and even agreed to a grievance
meeting and arbitration, does not establish the absence of
hostility toward these two men. The discharge of these em-
ployees on the very same night, about a week after the
grievance meeting, ostensibly because they had retained an
attorney to prosecute their rights, in furtherance of their
concerted activities, constituted discrimination in regard to
their hire and tenure of employment for engaging in pro-
tected concerted activities for their mutual aid and protec-
tion.
Despite the long and amicable history of collective bar-
gaining between Respondent and the Union, the lack of
union animus , Respondent's willingness to participate in a
grievance meeting and binding arbitration to resolve the
meal issue , even though the collective-bargaining agree-
ment made no provision for such procedure, and finally,
the existence of a presumptively valid union-security provi-
sion, which would tend to negate a finding that
Respondent's acts discouraged or encouraged or had the
foreseeable effect of discouraging or encouraging member-
ship in a labor organization, it is evident here that the ac-
tions in which Respondent engaged are inherently discrim-
inatory-or destructive of the employees' right to engage in
concerted activities.
It is , therefore, found that, by the conduct previously
detailed, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
N L R B v Erie Resistor Corp, 373 U.S. 221 (1963 ), N L R B v. Great
Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U S 26 (1967).
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The discharge of Gus Horn
Guisto "Gus" Horn, a 69-year-old waiter, had been
highly regarded by the Copes. In fact, he had been deemed
to lend an aura of distinction to the restaurant. Although
he had joined with the other two waiters who had retained
the attorney, and had attended and participated in the
grievance meeting of May 23 , he was not discharged with
the others. In fact, Respondent took no action against him
until after he returned from what Respondent considered
an unauthorized extended vacation.
Under the terms of the union contract, employees were
entitled to I week's paid vacation after a year of employ-
ment ; 2 weeks after 2 years ; and 3 weeks after 10 years.
Employees were also entitled to an additional week 's vaca-
tion, without pay, immediately following the paid vacation,
provided arrangements were made with the Employer in
advance . It was the policy at the restaurant for employees
to sign up about 4 months in advance of their intended
vacations. Horn put in his bid for the period from August
3 to October 8, informing Ann Preston, the hostess who,
according to Horn, had authority to approve the vacation
schedule, that he was taking a trip to Europe after 41 years
to visit his family and relatives. She approved enthusiasti-
cally. In addition, both Carl and Larry Cope were in-
formed that Horn was taking the trip to Europe and
wished him a pleasant vacation . Larry Cope himself testi-
fied that he told Horn he would be happy to take him back
when he returned. Although Horn testified that he had al-
ways taken a vacation of a month to 5 weeks , payroll rec-
ords established that between 1968 and 1973, Horn's long-
est vacation was I month in 1973.
Horn returned from his trip on September 25 and called
the Restaurant to notify the hostess that he was ready to
return to work. She told him that Larry Cope wanted to
talk to him, and would call him when he had an opening
because he would have to rearrange the schedule. Horn did
not hear from Cope and on or about October 9 called the
Restaurant and again talked to the hostess. She repeated
that Larry Cope would call him when there was an open-
ing. Eventually, Horn reached Larry Cope who told him
that there was no opening at the time and that he would
call Horn when one became available. Horn then told
Cope that he would apply for unemployment compensa-
tion. When he did so, he was refused compensation alleg-
edly on the ground that the Employer had reported that he
had not proceeded through proper channels to obtain his
extended vacation.
Horn then accepted employment at another restaurant
and, on or about December 5, received a telephone call
from Larry Cope, who told him that he wanted him to
report for work the following evening at 6 o'clock. Horn
explained that he was working and would have to give no-
tice to his employer but that he could report for work the
following Monday. Cope told him that if he did not report
the following night he would notify the Union that Horn
had refused to return to work. Next day, Cope called Horn
and told him that he could report for work the following
Monday at 6 p.m. When Horn reported for work, as direct-
ed, he was assigned a station nearest the kitchen , generally
regarded as the least desirable station in the Restaurant.
According to Carl Cope, the reason he did not rehire
Horn sooner was that he had been obliged to hire a waiter
to replace Horn during his extended vacation, and there
was no opening when Horn returned. The record suggests
that Respondent intended to keep his job open for him,
using a substitute in his absence . Apparently, Respondent
decided against dismissing Horn 's replacement and, rely-
ing on the position that there was no vacancy, declined to
reinstate Horn until a vacancy occurred. Respondent's rec-
ords, however, reveal that three waiters were terminated
during the month of October, thereby creating openings
which Horn could have filled.
With regard to the station assigned to Horn upon his
return , Larry Cope claimed that the assignment was made
out of consideration for Horn, because the station was
closer to the kitchen, and he would not have been obliged
to carry his trays as far. Horn had previously been offered
more desirable stations, which were further away from the
kitchen, but had declined them because it would have ren-
dered his job more strenuous.
On December 18, 1974, Horn was discharged, under cir-
cumstances presently discussed.
In November 1973, Hiroshima, the attorney whom the
three waiters had retained, had dinner at the Restaurant
with two guests, one of whom was V. R. Wiggins. The
following May, presumably after the waiters retained Hiro-
shima, they informed him that the waiters had been served
contaminated or adulterated food, unfit for human con-
sumption. Tolley and Vereschzagin informed Hiroshima
that they had seen Larry Cope retrieving meat and bones
from garbage receptacles, and depositing them in the stock
pot from which gravies and sauces were concocted. Tolley
admitted on cross-examination that he had no way of
knowing whether the food served Hiroshima and his party
had been contaminated.
On August 6, Hiroshima telephoned one of the owners,5
and demanded $10,000 in settlement of Wiggins' claim that
he had been served contaminated or adulterated food. On
August 19, a civil action was filed on Wiggins' behalf
claiming damages of $500,000. At the instigation of the
waiters, Tolley, in particular, the suit was publicized in the
Sacramento and San Francisco newspapers with attendant
adverse publicity to the Restaurant.
On December 18, the three waiters gave a deposition
before trial in the action instituted by Attorney Hiroshima
on behalf of Wiggins. The Copes were present during the
taking of these depositions , and heard the waiters give
grossly disparaging testimony against the Restaurant con-
cerning the serving of contaminated or adulterated food.
Although these employees corroborated each other on this
subject, Respondent and its witnesses vehemently denied
these accusations at the hearing in the instant proceeding.
It is unnecessary for the purpose of this proceeding to de-
cide whether these charges had any factual basis. The evi-
dence is relevant solely for the purpose of deciding
Respondent's actual motivation in terminating Horn, and
for such bearing as it may have on the issue of reinstate-
ment of the others. Following the deposition, Larry Cope
5 There is some confusion as to whether the call was made to Larry or
Carl Cope
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT 825
called Horn and told him , "Of course, you know you're
fired ." Horn responded, "I know."
It came as no surprise to Horn that he was terminated
after giving his deposition in the Wiggins ' case . Horn testi-
fied that he had expected to be fired , though he placed his
discharge on the ground that the Employer had rehired
him'upon return from his vacation reluctantly and only
under pressure. In his deposition in the Wiggins' case,
Horn testified disparagingly regarding the quality of the
food served in the restaurant, with frequent allusions to the
food as adulterated or contaminated and a cause of food
poisoning . He admitted personal dislike of Larry Cope as
an employer. As for himself, he stated in his deposition
that he intended to get what was coming to him, even
though he had admittedly taken no meals at the Restaurant
for 3 years , preferring to have his dinner meal with his wife
at home . Nevertheless , he claimed that the quality of the
food was bad and that he was tired of it . He conceded that
he was unhappy about not having been recalled on his
return from vacation , as well as with his working condi-
tions and change of station when he was eventually re-
hired.
The issue, however, remains whether Respondent dis-
charged Horn on December 18 because he had engaged in
protected concerted activities with his fellow employees or
because of the disparaging testimony he had given against
his employer in the deposition. Although Horn had made
common cause with Tolley and Vereschzagin in attempting
to obtain compliance with the meal provisions of the union
contract,,he was the least aggressive of the group . Never-
theless, Respondent was aware of his participation in the
concerted activity , at least as of the May 23 grievance
meeting, and was aware that he had joined with the others
in retaining an attorney . That Respondent made no effort
to discharge Horn on May 31, as it had the other two wait-
ers, may be some indication of lack of unlawful motivation
with regard to him. Conceivably, Respondent may have
regarded Horn as the least militant of the group , hence no
threat to Respondent.
Respondent 's failure to restore Horn , upon his return
from vacation , to his former position until December 9,
despite three intervening terminations , seriously impugns
Respondent's motives . This action , however , is insufficient
to establish that Horn 's discharge on December 18 was
discriminatorily motivated . Horn's testimony , as well as
that of his two fellow employees , at the deposition that day
manifested an attitude of flagrant disloyalty, wholly in-
commensurate with their grievances against their employ-
er, culminating in blatant disparagement of the food served
Respondent 's cusomers , publicized in the press at the insti-
gation of Tolley and the other waiters for the avowed pur-
pose of doing harm to Respondent 's business . We are not
concerned with whether the charges made by these em-
ployees regarding the quality of the food being served pa-
trons were true or false . The right to engage in union or
concerted activities does not justify an employee in mali-
ciously disparaging his employer's product or undermining
his reputation.
It is, therefore , found that Respondent discharged Horn
on December 18 for disparaging the food served in
Respondent 's Restaurant and defaming its reputation with
the avowed purpose of causing harm to Respondent's busi-
ness , and not to discriminate in regard to the hire and ten-
ure of Horn's employment because he had engaged in pro-
tected concerted activities. By its failure, however, to
restore Horn to the job previously held by him, from about
October 8, when he applied to return to work after his
vacation, until December 9, Respondent has discriminated
in regard to his hire and tenure of employment, thereby
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of Re-
spondent, described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been
found that Respondent has engaged in certain retaliatory
conduct against William R. Tolley, including changes in
his work schedule, and work stations, threats of discharge,
and other changes in his working conditions, because he
had engaged in protected concerted activities. It has also
been found that Respondent discharged, and thereafter
failed and refused to reinstate, said Tolley and Peter Veres-
chzagin, on May 31, 1974, because they had engaged in
protected concerted activities. Ordinarily, it would be rec-
ommended that they be reinstated to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions with backpay. Since, howev-
er, all three employees engaged in egregious conduct
toward their employer by disparaging the quality of the
food served in Respondent's Restaurant, and aiding and
abetting in publicizing this information in the press, it will
not be recommended that they be reinstated to their for-
mer or substantially equivalent positions .6 It will, however,
be recommended that Respondent make said Tolley and
Vereschzagin whole for any loss of earnings they may have
sustained by payment to each of them of the sum of money
they would have earned from May 31, the date of the dis-
crimination against them, to December 18, 1974, less their
net earnings during such period, together with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum, in accordance
with the formula established in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962). It will further be recommended that
Respondent also make Tolley whole for any loss of earn-
ings he may have sustained during the period between
April 18 and May 1, 1974, while he was assigned to work
6 Cf. N LR.B v. Local Union No 1229, IBEW [Jefferson Standard Broad-
casting Company], 346 U.S. 464 (1953).
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only 4 hours of the regular 6-hour shift. As to Horn, it will
be recommended that he be made whole for any loss of
earnings he may have sustained by payment to him of the
sum of money he would have earned from October 8, the
date on which he notified Respondent he was available for
work, after returning from vacation, until December 9,
1974, when he was restored to his job , less his net earnings
during such period, together with interest as above provid-
ed, and in accordance with the Board's usual formula.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Newton Cope, Lawrence Cope, and Carl Cope, co-
partners doing business as Firehouse Restaurant , Respon-
dent herein, is, and at all times material herein has been, an
employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
2. Sacramento Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary
Workers, Bartenders and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-
CIO, the Union herein, is, and at all times material herein
has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the acts of retaliation against Tolley, previously
found, and by the threats, actual or implied, to discharge
him because he had engaged in concerted activities, Re-
spondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7,
thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. By discharging William Tolley and Peter Vereschza-
gin on May 31, 1974, and by failing and refusing to rein-
state Guisto Horn from October 8 to December 9, 1974,
because said employees had engaged in concerted activities
for their mutual aid and protection, thereby discriminating
in regard to their hire and tenure of employment to dis-
courage membership in a labor organization, Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(3), thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER7
Respondent , Newton Cope, Lawrence Cope, and Carl
7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions , and Order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
Cope, copartners doing business as Firehouse Restaurant,
Sacramento , California, its agents , successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Reducing the hours of work, changing the work sta-
tions or work shifts of employees or requiring them to per-
form work tasks not normally or regularly performed by
employees, requiring them to clock out before eating their
second meal , or engaging in any other acts of reprisal or
retaliation because they have engaged in concerted activi-
ties for their mutual aid or protection.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating in regard to
the hire and tenure of employees for engaging in protected
concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
(c) In any manner interfering with , restraining, or coerc-
ing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-orga-
nization , to form labor organizations , to joint or assist Sac-
ramento Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers,
Bartenders and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
other protected concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any
and all such activities, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment, as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make William Tolley, Peter Vereschzagin, and Guis-
to Horn whole for any loss of earnings each may have
suffered by reason of Respondent's unfair labor practices
in the manner set forth in the section entitled, "The Reme-
dy."
(b) Preserve and, upon 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 neces-
sary to analyze and determine the amount of backpay due
the employees under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Sacramento, Califor-
nia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." s
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Re-
spondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
8In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations not found to
have been sustained , be dismissed.
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 Sacramento
Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers,
Bartenders and Hotel Service Workers, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of our employees , by dis-
charging or otherwise discriminating in regard to the
hire or tenure or terms or conditions of employment of
our employees because they have engaged in protected
concerted activities , except to the extent authorized by
the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT change the work schedules and work
stations of our employees , threaten them with dis-
charge, or change their working conditions because
they have engaged in protected and concerted activi-
ties.
827
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce our employees in the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join, or assist Sac-
ramento Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary
Workers, Bartenders and Hotel Service Workers,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, to engage in concerted activities for the pur-
pose of mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from
any and all such activities, except to the extent that
said right may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization, as provided in
the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL make William R. Tolley, Peter Vereschza-
gin, and Giusto Horn whole for any loss of earnings
they may have sustained by reason of the discrimina-
tion against them in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of the Decision entitled "The Remedy."
All our employees are free to become and remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named labor organization or any other labor organi-
zation.
FIREHOUSE RESTAURANT