Frederick's Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 165 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

FREDERICK'S INN
Wesnam, Inc., t/a Frederick's Inn and Local 945,
a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 22-CA-11325
15 March 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 26 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Julius Cohn issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended
Order. 3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Wesnam,
Inc., t/a Frederick's Inn, Pinebrook, New Jersey,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.
I In finding that the record supported the inference that the Respond-
ent knew of employee Grau's union activity, the judge pointed to the
small size of the workplace. While we agree that the General Counsel
has established that the Respondent knew of Grau's activity, we find it
unnecessary to rely on the "small plant doctrine" to support the infer-
ence.
s In finding that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated employee
Mary Taggart, Chairman Dotson applies the test set forth by the Second
Circuit in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47 (1964).
a The Respondent has requested oral argument. The request is denied
as the record, exceptions, and brief adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JULIUS COHN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard on April 7, 1983, in Newark, New Jersey.
Local 945, a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
herein called the Union, filed charges in Case 22-CA-
11325 on which the Regional Director for Region 22
issued a complaint on January 21, 1982. The complaint
alleges that Wesnam, Inc., t/a Frederick's Inn, herein
called the Company or the Respondent, violated Section
8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act by terminating one of its em-
ployees because of her union activities. Additionally, the
complaint alleges that the Company independently vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees, through
its general manager, about their membership in, activities
269 NLRB No. 28
on behalf of, and sympathy for the Union. The Respond-
ent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices.
All the parties were given an opportunity to partici-
pate, to produce relevant evidence, to argue orally, and
to file briefs. Both the Respondent and the General
Counsel have filed briefs which have been carefully con-
sidered.
On the record of the case' and from observation of
the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, a New Jersey corporation, operates a
restaurant herein called Frederick's Inn, located in Pine-
brook, New Jersey. Currently and at all times material
herein the Respondent has been engaged in the retail sale
of food and alcoholic beverages, which during the 12
months preceding the issuance of the complaint pro-
duced gross revenues in excess of $500,000. During the
same time period the Respondent received goods and
materials in excess of $10,000 directly from enterprises
located outside the State of New Jersey and from suppli-
ers located in the State of New Jersey which have re-
ceived the items from interstate commerce. I find that
the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Ill. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. Background
The Respondent operates a restaurant and bar which,
at all times material herein, employed approximately 22
people including bartenders, waitresses, and kitchen staff.
Fred Simmons, the majority shareholder in Frederick's
Inn, is responsible for the overall direction and operation
of the business. Lee Roy Hirth, the general manager, su-
pervises all the employees at the restaurant and Kathy
Glaab is the hostess. The Union began its organizational
campaign in November 1981, having been contacted by
employee Vicki Grau.
B. The Facts
1. The termination of Vicki Grau
Vicki Grau worked as a bartender at Frederick's Inn
from October 1979 until December 4, 1981, on weekdays
from 11 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. In September 1981 she was
promoted to head bartender and she was the most senior
employee on the staff. Grau's responsibilities included
serving customers their drinks and food, making sure the
After the close of hearing, the General Counsel moved to correct the
record with respect to certain typographical and minor errors of tran-
scription. There being no opposition, the motion is granted.
165
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bar was supplied with essential equipment, and tapping
kegs of beer.
As of November 1981 Grau was the principal organiz-
er and activist on behalf of the Union. Through a cus-
tomer, she contacted Robert Fusco, a business agent for
Local 945. Grau subsequently signed an authorization
card and began soliciting support for the Union among
her coworkers during working time.
Three meetings between Vicki Grau and union repre-
sentatives were conducted on the premises of Frederick's
Inn. The first meeting, which was held about the evening
of November 13, 1981, at the bar, was attended by
Robert Fusco, Vicki Grau, waitress Mary Taggart, and
bartender Brigid Bott. 2 None of the employees present
were on duty at the time. Union benefits was the pri-
mary topic at the meeting which lasted somewhere be-
tween 25 minutes to an hour. Vicki Grau gave uncontra-
dicted testimony that Lee Hirth was on the premises at
the time.
A second meeting took place several days later while
Vicki Grau and Brigid Bott were on duty at opposite
ends of the bar. Robert Fusco, his immediate supervisor
Anthony Rizzo, and Joseph Abbate, the administrator of
the welfare and pension system, congregated at Grau's
end of the counter about 2:30 in the afternoon. Mary
Taggart, who was waiting on tables, joined the meeting
intermittently as she served her customers. Grau testified
that during this second meeting Kathy Glaab, the hos-
tess, was standing approximately 15 or 20 feet away.
Bott reported that at this second meeting Kathy Glaab
asked Bott about the identity of the men with Vicki
Grau. The bartender denied any knowledge as to whom
Grau was talking with. 3
After a brief conversation with Vicki Grau, Anthony
Rizzo asked her to point out Fred Simmons, which she
did as soon as she spotted him at the other side of the
bar. Rizzo, accompanied by Abbate and Fusco, then ap-
proached Simmons as the latter was about to exit the res-
taurant through the front door. According to Fusco's un-
contradicted testimony, Rizzo informed Simmons that
the Union was in the process of organizing and that it
had enough cards to obtain an election. 4 In addition,
Rizzo warned Simmons not to discharge or discipline
any employee during the organization drive. Immediate-
ly after this encounter, Rizzo, Fusco, and Abbate re-
turned to the end of the bar which Vicki Grau was serv-
icing and Fred Simmons continued out the door of the
2 Mary Taggart was terminated in March 1982. Brigid Bott was still
employed at Frederick's Inn at the time of the hearing. However, be-
tween Grau's discharge and the hearing, Bott changed her name to
O'Connell by marriage. For the sake of convenience she will be referred
to as Brigid Bott herein.
3 Grau testified she saw that Kathy Glaab looked over in her direction
and spoke to Bott during the third meeting rather than the second. I find
Bott accurately testified that the incident occurred during the second
meeting. Since Bott was herself involved in the conversation with Glaab
she would have the more accurate recollection. Moreover, there is no
evidence in the record that Bott even observed the third meeting be-
tween Grau and the Union. Finally, both Grau and Bott agreed that
Glaab was in the immediate vicinity at the time of the second meeting.
4 The Respondent disputes the veracity of Rizzo's claim that he had
enough cards to force an election. The Union's strength in the bargaining
unit, however, is irrelevant to both allegations raised by the complaint.
restaurant. The union officials were at the restaurant for
about 20 minutes.
Several days later Rizzo returned to the bar while
Vicki Grau was on duty to pick up a list he had asked
her to prepare of employees who had not yet signed au-
thorization cards. He remained at the bar for about 10
minutes.
On November 30, 1981, Lee Hirth terminated Vicki
Grau, although she continued to work at the restaurant
until December 4, 1981. According to Grau, Hirth told
her she was discharged because a man would be better
equipped to lift heavy kegs of beer and to get ice. Hirth
did not recall giving Grau any specific reason for her
dismissal.
2. The interrogation of Mary Taggart
Lee Hirth allegedly interrogated Mary Taggart about
the Union immediately after Anthony Rizzo's brief con-
versation with Fred Simmons. Taggart testified that,
after Rizzo, Abbate, and Fusco had returned to Vicki
Grau's end of the bar, Hirth approached her at the wait-
ress station. Taggart reported that Hirth, after showing
her Rizzo's business card, asked, "Did you see this?" and
then "Do you know who joined the Union?" When Tag-
gart replied that she did not know who joined the
Union, Hirth laughed, and said, "I would like to join too.
Can I be shop steward?"
Robert Fusco, who was seated on a bar stool right
next to the waitress station, saw Hirth approach Taggart
and speak to her. The business agent heard Hirth say
something about a shop steward at which point Fusco
turned to Taggart and laughed as Hirth walked away.
Taggart, who was also laughing, did not seem upset or
concerned as a result of the incident.
Hirth denied that the incident ever took place. On the
stand, when asked when he first learned of the Union,
the general manager replied that he never knew anything
about it. When pressed, however, he admitted that Fred
Simmons had informed him of the Union's organizational
efforts.
The Respondent attempted to show that, since Sim-
mons left the restaurant immediately after his conversa-
tion with the Union, he could not have communicated
with Hirth and the latter, consequently, could not possi-
bly have known about the Union, or been in possession
of Rizzo's card at the time Mary Taggart was allegedly
interrogated. I find that Simmons and Hirth met after the
owner's conversation with Rizzo and that Hirth, several
minutes later, showed Taggart the union representative's
business card and interrogated her. The record clearly
shows that Hirth and Simmons could have met in the
parking lot where Fred Simmons keeps his car and
which is accessible to the kitchen. Alternatively, Sim-
mons could have simply left the restaurant through the
front door and reentered through the kitchen, meeting
Lee Hirth there.
Having found that the incident between Hirth and
Taggart could have happened the way the waitress de-
scribed it, I find that it did happen that way. Mary Tag-
gart gave forthright testimony and withstood a detailed
cross-examination. In addition, both Robert Fusco and
166
FREDERICK'S INN
Vicki Grau corroborated Taggart's account. Finally,
Hirth seriously undermined his own credibility when he
at first glibly denied having any knowledge of the Union
prior to Grau's termination. The statement was so obvi-
ously untrue that he was forced to retract it almost im-
mediately on cross-examination.
C. Discussion and Analysis
1. The discharge of Vicki Grau
The evidence in the record strongly supports the con-
clusion that Vicki Grau was discharged because of her
union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act. Grau's active role in union organizing is undis-
puted. Moreover, the Employer's protestation that man-
agement was unaware of her activities is unpersuasive.
The Respondent was clearly aware that the Union was
conducting an organizing drive at Frederick's Inn once
the union officials spoke to Fred Simmons. Furthermore,
circumstantial evidence suggests that the Respondent
knew through at least one of its supervisors, Simmons,
Lee Hirth, or Kathy Glaab, that Vicki Grau was at the
center of the organizational activity. 5
The Respondent disputes Glaab's supervisory status. I
find that Kathy Glaab as hostess at Frederick's Inn was a
supervisor at all times material herein. Glaab's responsi-
bilities included greeting customers, designating work
areas for waitresses, and telling the staff when to pick up
food and when to clean tables. Lee Hirth admitted on
the stand that Glaab interviewed applicants for waitress
positions and that at least two waitresses were hired by
the hostess with Hirth's subsequent approval. Hirth also
acknowledged on the stand that Glaab had the authority
to recommend the dismissal of waitresses. Mary Taggart
credibly testified as to a staff meeting conducted by
Hirth at which the general manager instructed the assem-
bled waitresses that Kathy Glaab was in charge and that
her directives were to be followed.
Finally, Hirth's contention that the hostess was not a
supervisor is contradicted by the affidavit he gave to a
Board agent in which he characterized Glaab as a "su-
pervisor [with] the power to hire and fire." In light of
Glaab's broad power to direct the waitress staff and to
make effective recommendations as to hiring and firing, I
find she is a supervisor within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act.6
The likelihood that either Kathy Glaab, Lee Hirth, or
Fred Simmons observed Vicki Grau's union activity is
overwhelming. Three times Vicki Grau was visited by
union officials during business hours. At least as to the
first two instances, there is clear, uncontradicted evi-
dence that one of the three was in the immediate vicini-
ty.
Grau gave uncontradicted testimony that during the
first meeting she observed Lee Hirth on the restaurant
premises. At the second meeting all three supervisors
were present. It was during this second meeting that
s See Famet, Inc., 202 NLRB 409 (1973), enfd. 490 F.2d 293 (9th Cir.
1973), for the well-settled principle that knowledge of union activity can
be inferred from the circumstances.
a Howard Johnson Co., 236 NLRB 1206 (1978); Ogden Food Service
Corp., 234 NLRB 303 (1978); Sheraton Motor Inn, 210 NLRH 790 (1974).
Rizzo and his colleagues left Grau's station at the bar in
order to approach Fred Simmons. Immediately after
their conversation with Simmons the union officials re-
turned to the section of the bar where Vicki Grau was
on duty. At the very moment that the union officials
were engaged in conversation with Grau, Lee Hirth was
several feet away, at the waitress station, questioning
Mary Taggart about the Union. Also, during this second
union meeting at Frederick's Inn Kathy Glaab, at the
other end of the bar, betrayed her interest in Vicki
Grau's activities by questioning Brigid Bott about Grau's
companions.
In addition to receiving the three union visits at Fred-
erick's Inn, Vicki Grau made her union activities obvious
by openly soliciting on the Local's behalf among her co-
workers during working hours. Grau's highly visible or-
ganizational efforts combined with the small size of the
workplace and the constant interaction between manage-
ment and staff provide a sound basis for the inference
that the Respondent was indeed aware of her activities. 7
Having established that the Respondent was aware of
Vicki Grau's organizational activities, I find that this
knowledge motivated her dismissal on November 30.
The short period of time between the onset of Grau's ac-
tivities, sometime in mid-November, and her termination
is itself evidence that the Respondent acted with a dis-
criminatory motive."
The smorgasbord of contradictory reasons offered by
the Respondent are clearly pretextual. On the stand Lee
Hirth at first indicated that Grau was terminated because
her work was not up to par and because she had grown
complacent and unenthusiastic. When pressed on cross-
examination Hirth admitted that other bartenders with
less seniority and similar problems were not terminated.
Hirth also testified that Grau had been warned several
times about her sloppy appearance, that her pants were
too tight and had holes in them and that her blouse was
too big. Grau contended that she herself had complained
to the restaurant about the uniforms it supplied. In any
case, it is clear that the uniform problem was corrected
well before Grau was terminated and was not a motivat-
ing factor in the Respondent's decision.
The Respondent also cites figures ostensibly demon-
strating that Grau's sales were lower than those of the
other bartenders and her ultimate replacement. The fig-
ures, which were not 9ffered or received into evidence,
are inherently suspect because their precise origin was
never made clear in the record. Furthermore, uncontra-
' Florida Cities Water Ca, 247 NLRB 755 (1980); Weise Plow Welding
Cao, 123 NLRB 616 (1959).
The parties are in dispute as to whether an intercom system connecting
the bar and the office enabled the Respondent to overhear conversations
between Vicki Grau and the union officials; I find the evidence surround-
ing this controversy insubstantial and unnecessary. In introducing the
intercom evidence, the General Counsel made no showing as to who
used the office or how often it was in use, thus making the likelihood that
management actually engaged in eavesdropping impossible to determine.
Furthermore, credible testimony indicated that conversations at the bar
were generally inaudible in the office because of noise in the restaurant.
Finally, in light of other persuasive evidence supporting an inference of
knowledge, testimony as to the intercom is, at best, merely cumulative.
8 Marsden Electric Co., 226 NLRB 1097, 1099 (1976), enfd. 586 F.2d 8
(6th Cir. 1978).
167
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dicted evidence demonstrates that bartenders do not nec-
essarily ring up their sales at the register at their respec-
tive stations. It is therefore impossible to accurately de-
termine the sales per bartender. More to the point, how-
ever, there is no evidence that sales figures were ever
tabulated prior to Grau's discharge. Any study done
after her termination is obviously irrelevant on the ques-
tion of motive.
In an affidavit to a Board agent and according to Grau
in the termination interview, Hirth indicated that he had
wanted to replace the barmaid with a male bartender,
who was better able to do heavy lifting. Hirth's un-
abashed admission of sex discrimination aside, this excuse
for terminating Vicki Grau is simply unpersuasive. In the
first place, both Grau and Brigid Bott testified that the
job requires very little lifting. Kegs of beer are put into
place by delivery people. Occasionally the kegs have to
be shifted in order to hook up the tap, but no lifting is
involved. Ice is obtained from a barrel on wheels and
travels on a dumbwaiter. The barrel is lifted by the bar-
tender and a coworker and dumped into the sinks. In
short, at no time have the female bartenders been incapa-
ble of performing any part of the job.
Hirth admitted on the stand that Grau was a compe-
tent, dependable employee, a fact which is underscored
by the bartender's promotion just 2 months before her
termination and prior to the onset of her union activity.
The general manager undermined his own credibility
frequently by retracting statements as soon as he was
pressed about their meaning. For example, Hirth charac-
terized Grau as a good dependable worker "when she
was there." When asked on cross-examination to explain
this qualification, he retracted it. Similarly, in an affidavit
given to a Board agent Hirth explained that he let Vicki
Grau go while he kept less senior employees in order to
weed problems out at the top. When questioned on
cross-examination as to the logic behind this policy,
Hirth admitted making the statement, but denied that it
accurately explained his decision to fire Grau.
The Respondent's approach in offering a plethora of
inconsistent, illogical, and unsubstantiated reasons for
Grau's termination buttresses the conclusion that the Re-
spondent's attempts to explain its decision are mere pre-
text. 9
2. The interrogation
Lee Hirth's encounter with Mary Taggart at the wait-
ress station was an unlawful interrogation within the
8(a)(l) prohibition. The test is whether the questioning
reasonably tends to restrain or interfere with employees
in the exercise of their Section 7 rights in light of all of
the surrounding circumstances.' ° Hirth's confrontation
of Taggart with Rizzo's business card and questioning
"Did you see this?" and "Do you know who joined the
Union?" clearly had this tendency, particularly in light
9 Because I find that the Employer's purported reasons for terminating
Grau are merely pretextual, designed to mask a discriminatory motive, an
analysis under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899
(Ist Cir. 1981), is unnecessary. See NLRB v. Transportation Management
Corp., 103 S.Ct. 2469 (1983).
10 Florida Ambulance Service, 255 NLRB 286 fn. 1 (1981).
of the Respondent's subsequent unlawful termination of
Grau.
The fact that Hirth softened his question with a joke
about being shop steward and that Taggard did not
appear upset by the encounter is not controlling. It is
well settled that the correct inquiry is not whether the
employee is in fact coerced, but whether the employer's
conduct tends to have that effect. 1
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily dis-
charged Vicki Grau as set forth above, I shall recom-
mend that the Respondent be ordered to offer her imme-
diate and full reinstatement to her former position or to a
substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges, and to make her
whole for any loss of earnings or other monetary loss
she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her, less interim earnings, if any, plus interest to
be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp.,
231 NLRB 651 (1977).12
I shall also recommend that the Respondent expunge
from its records any reference to the unlawful discharge
of Grau and inform her that this will not be used as a
basis for further personnel actions concerning her. 1
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Vicki Grau, the Re-
spondent engaged in an unfair labor practice in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By coercively interrogating Mary Taggart concern-
ing the Union, the Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(l) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed14
iI Hedison Mfg. Co., 260 NLRB 1037, 1038 (1982).
12 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
L3 Sterling Sugars, 261 NLRB 472 (1982).
14 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
168
FREDERICK'S INN
ORDER
The Respondent, Wesnam, Inc., t/a Frederick's Inn,
Pinebrook, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
i. Cease and desist from
(a) Discouraging membership in or activities on behalf
of Local 945, a/w International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, or any other labor organization, by discharging em-
ployees or otherwise discriminating against them in any
manner with regard to their hire or tenure of employ-
ment or any terms and conditions of employment be-
cause of their union activities.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their knowledge of union activities or their union sympa-
thies.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Vicki Grau immediate and full reinstatement
to her former position or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make her whole for any loss of pay due to
the violation against her, in the manner set forth in the
section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the dis-
charge of Vicki Grau and notify her in writing that this
has been done and that evidence of this unlawful dis-
charge will not be used as a basis for future personnel
actions against her.
(d) Post at Frederick's Inn in Pinebrook, New Jersey,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 22, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
1 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board."
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
knowledge of union activities or their union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they have
engaged in activities on behalf of Teamsters Local 945,
or any other union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Vicki Grau immediate and full rein-
statement to her former position or, if such position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privi-
leges.
WE WILL make her whole for any loss of pay or bene-
fits she may have suffered by reason of our discrimina-
tion against her, with interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the
discharge of Vicki Grau on November 30, 1981,
WE WILL notify her that this has been done, and that
evidence of this unlawful discharge will not be used as a
basis for future personnel action against her.
WESNAM, INC., T/A FREDERICK'S INN
169