Holiday Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 20, 1969

176 N.L.R.B. 903 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

OLNEY MOTELS, INC.
Olney Motels , Inc., d/b / a Holiday 1 and
Bartenders, Hotel , Motel , Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees Local No. 573, affiliated with Hotel,
Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International
Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-4809 and
14-RC-6035
June 20, 1969
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On March 19, 1969, Trial Examiner Alba B.
Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He further
found that certain conduct by the Respondent
interfered with and affected the results of the
election in Case 14-RC-6035 and recommended that
the election be set aside and that a new one be
directed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions and supporting
briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings ,' conclusions,2 and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein.
The Trial Examiner specified the number of hours
of work per week for which Respondent's backpay
responsibility to Hammond shall be computed. The
General Counsel excepts contending that the issue
was not fully litigated herein. We find merit in this
position , and, accordingly , we shall issue the usual
reinstatement and backpay order, leaving for the
compliance stage the determination of the extent of
Respondent ' s backpay responsibility.3
'These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon credibility
determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has
excepted . After a careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial
Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance
of all the relevant evidence . Accordingly , we find no basis for disturbing
these findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
In adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings that Respondent violated
Section 8 (aX3) and ( 1) by discriminatorily dischargin employees Reta
Jackson and Barbara Hammond we disavow any reliance on (1)
Respondent 's previous discharge of a waitress for stealing, (2)
Respondent 's observation of the discharged employees with a union
903
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and orders that Respondent, Olney
Motels, Inc., d/b/a/ Holiday Inn, Olney, Illinois,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as herein modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1(i) and reletter the following
paragraphs consecutively.
2. Insert in paragraph 2(a) the words, "as
modified in the Board's Decision," before the words
"for any loss...."
3. Delete from the third indented paragraph of the
Notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision
that part thereof which reads "in accordance with
the recommendation of the Trial Examiner's
Decision."
4. Delete the thirteenth indented paragraph of the
Notice attacked to the Trial Examiner's Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be
dismissed insofar and it alleges unfair lab'
practices not specifically found.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORRITERED that the election
held on October 18,1968, among the Respondent's
employees in the appropriate unit, be, and it hereby
is, set aside.
[Direction of Second Election' omitted from
publication.]
representative after they were discharged , and (3) Respondent 's refusal
after the discharges to see the union representative unless Respondent was
accompanied by its lawyer and by a representative from the Holiday Inn
Organization.
,in adopting the Trial Examiner 's findings that Respondent vielatad
Section 8(axl) of the Act, we do not agree that Respondent's statements
denigrating the Union by referring to Union organizers as gangsters and
hoodlums and as just taking employees' money were unlawful.
'Respondent shall be required to make Hammond whole for any loss of
pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by paying her a sum of money
equivalent to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from
the date of the discharge, September 2, 1968, to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period. The baokpay shall
be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6
percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co, 138 NLRB 716.
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right ,to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 within 7
days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the
Regional Director . The Regional Director shall make the list available to
all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING
ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This consolidated
176 NLRB No. 111
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proceeding , with all parties represented by counsel, was
heard before me, in Olney , Illinois on January 9 and 10,
1969.' The proceeding involves WTCeged violations of
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended , 29 U.S . C. Sec . 151, et seq . (herein
called the Act ), during September and October 1968, and
also objections to alleged conduct affecting the results of
an election held October 18 pursuant to a stipulation for
certification upon consent election . The issues in the CA
case and RC case overlap considerably . After the hearing
the General Counsel and Respondent filed helpful briefs,
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record and my observation of the
witnesses I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Olney Motels, Inc., an Illinois corporation which runs a
motel and restaurant at Olney, Illinois, as "Holiday Inn,"
during the year prior to October 1, 1968, a representative
period, derived in excess of $500,000 from the retail sales
of lodging , food, beverages , and other related products,
and during said period purchased goods and services
directly front outside of Illinois valued in excess of $5,000.
I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Bartenders , Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees, Local 573, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND INTERFERENCE
WITH THE ELECTION
A. Background and Introduction : Self-Organization
of the Employees, Discharges , and the Election
Respondent is the proprietorship of Ralph Beal, who
identified himself on the witness stand as "the franchise
holder and Innkeeper of the Holiday Inn, Olney, Illinois."
He has operated it since April 1964. Beal has been in the
restaurant business since 1934 and never before has had
any dealings with unions . Beal's relations with his
restaurant and kitchen employees, herein involved, were
informal and sometimes difficult . From time to time he
held meetings of employees , at which he and they aired
their grievances rather freely . Beal announced one such
meeting for August 26, 1968,2 with a notice on the bulletin
board that anyone who was not present would be
terminated . At this meeting some of the waitresses
complained to Beal that they should have a raise. Beal
suggested $ 1.40 per hour and "no tipping" signs on the
tables, but the waitresses' reaction to this was negative.
Beal complained about the swearing in the kitchen and
said it must be stopped . He threatened to put in a tape
recorder and play it back in order to stop it. He
complained against the tardiness of waitresses and the
lying of some of them . He testified he told them "this was
a happy Holiday Inn family and it is going to return to
this if I have to fire everyone and put in new faces."
Prior to this, on August 15 , waitress Barbara
Hammond had made the original contact with the Union
'The original charge was filed by the Union on September 6, 1968. The
amended charge was filed by the Union on October 14, 1968.
'All events herein occurred in August, September, and October, 1968.
by letter, and had received a reply by telephone from the
Union on August 24.
On August 30 several waitresses, including Hammond
and Reta Jackson, met at Jackson's home with Leo
Ketchum, acting secretary and treasurer of the Union,
who left them cards to have signed. In the next few days
and nights Hammond and Jackson and a third waitress
called on employees at their homes and, after talking to
them, signed up about 29 of Respondent's employees.
They talked with a few employees on Saturday night,
August 31, with about 12 or 13 on Sunday late afternoon
and night, and a like number on Monday. Hammond
credibly testified that they signed up 26 employees before
2 p.m. on Labor Day.
The names of Jackson and Hammond were stricken
from the waitresses' work schedule on the morning of
Labor Day, September 2. That afternoon Beal discharged
Jackson. The following morning over the telephone Beal
told Hammond he did not need her any more and that he
had written a letter saying she was no longer employed by
Respondent.
The alleged 8(a)(1) conduct occurred at various times
between September 2 and the election, which was held
October 18. Of the approximately 61 eligible voters, 10
votes were cast for the Union, 34 against the Union. Thus
44 valid votes were counted. There were 13 challenged
ballots. The valid votes counted plus the challenges came
to 57. The challenges were not sufficient in number to
affect the results of the election. A majority of the valid
votes counted plus challenged ballots were not cast for the
Union. The Union filed timely objections, which are
before me in this proceeding.
B. Violations of Section 8(aX 1) and Conduct
Affecting Results of Election
1. By her demeanor, her forthrightness, and the
immediacy of her answers, waitress Pauline Shehorn
appeared to me to be a very credible witness. According
to her credible and credited testimony, at about the time
on Labor Day afternoon that Reta Jackson was in Beal's
office being discharged, the manager of the waitresses,
kitchen, and bar, Paul DeFore, called her over to him in
the kitchen and, in a confidential manner, asked her what
she knew about the Union. When she denied any
knowledge he replied not to "give me that ... you know
what I am talking about." Within the hour Manager
DeFore approached Shehorn again and told Shehorn, as
she testified on direct and cross-examination, not to tell
anyone, but that "Mr. Beal told me this morning he
scratched two names off the schedule" and that he would
never put them back on again . Later that day Shehorn
checked the work schedule and noted that the names of
Jackson and Hammond had been crossed out.'
Later that afternoon, according to Shehorn's credited
testimony, Proprietor Beal asked her if she had signed a
union card and she replied yes. Beal had a green book
Shehorn testified that there was friction in the air that afternoon and
evening, that all the waitresses were talking about Jackson 's discharge, that
a waitress told her Beal had instructed Jane Walker to strike the names of
Jackson and Hammond from the work schedule . It appears to me that, as
was to be expected under the circumstances , the rumor mill was grinding.
Shehorn testified also that DeFore told her he was instructed to strike off
"the names." Although this was inconsistent with her testimony above, I
attribute the inconsistency not to unrealiability as a witness but to the
confusion and rumors interspersed with the facts surrounding Jackson's
discharge which Shehorn was trying to recall and relate . DeFore did not
deny Shehorn 's testimony , but testified it occurred the following day.
OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 905
about unions and rights, which he read to her. Among
other things Beal talked to her about what the Union
could not do for her and how the Union would just take
her money. He told her he could discharge her for pouring
coffee or walking across the floor the wrong way.
One afternoon in early September shortly before
Shehorn was to start working, she asked an employee,
Goldie Reid, if she was going to the union meeting. Reid
"went right directly to Beal" and told him, according to
the latter, that Shehorn had just propositioned her to join
the Union. Beal went immediately to Shehorn, shook his
finger at her, and told her not ever to talk about this
Union on his premises on his time. He threatened to fire
her if he ever heard her talking union on his time. In fact
Goldie had come in on her own time to get her check, and
Shehorn was not due to start working for some 15
minutes, although she had clocked in. Beal stuck his
pencil in Shehorn's hair to see if she was wearing a hair
net as required by the rules and law.4 He told her that he
could fire her for wearing earrings . During this
conversation Beal said Reta Jackson was a troublemaker
and he would never rehire her.' Shehorn replied that Reta
was not a troublemaker. During a conversation in early
September, possibly this one, Shehorn asked Beal why he
fired Reta Jackson. Beal replied , "Because she was late on
Sunday." Shehorn replied that Reta was not late on
Sunday. Beal replied, "Maybe it was on Monday. That is
when I found out about the Union." I do not find these
remarks by Beal improbable as urged by Respondent. As
the record showed, Beal talked about the Union to
employees rather openly and with very little restraint.
In a conversation in very early September when Beal
was talking about the Union with Shehorn, Beal asked her
what the Union could do for the emplo ees, and said that
he would 'not join the Union even if he had a chance. Beal
said that he would buy the waitresses uniforms if they
would put down a deposit of $20 and when they quit he
would return the deposit. He said if Shehorn would get in
writing and bring to the office a list of the employees'
complaints , he would see that the complaints were
satisfied; except that he would not hire back Reta Jackson
and Barbara Hammond . Beal did not deny this
conversation.
On about Friday, September 6, Shehorn at first agreed
to relieve the bartender, Pat Terry, who was slightly
indisposed , and then decided she would rather go to the
union meeting that night. Beal approached her and asked
her why she did not want to go to the bar. Shehorn
replied that she had another engagement, something more
important to do . Beal ordered her into the bar or to go
home, adding that the union meeting wouldn't do her any
good.
Under all the circumstances of this proceeding, Beal's
and DeFore' s interrogations of Shehorn concerning the
Union reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and
coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act , Respondent thereby violating
Section 8(a)(1). In the context in which they were made,
Beal's statements that he could discharge Shehorn for
pouring coffee or walking the wrong way or wearing
earrings were implied threats of discharge because of her
'It was habitual with Beal to test hair nets by thrusting his pencil into
waitresses ' hair. This seems to me a considerable invasion of their privacy.
'Waitress Annette Murphy testified she overheard Beal telling Shehorn
that Rota was a troublemaker and she would not get her job back , in early
October. This may have been a different conversation than Shehorn
related , or the same one , with Murphy in error as to the month.
union activities and were further violations by Respondent
of Section 8(a)(l). Upon the entire record it is clear that
Beal's offer to buy the uniforms and to satisfy the
employees' complaints was on the implied condition that
the employees abandon the Union, and were promises of
benefits to discourage union activity, Respondent thereby
further violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. By telling
Shehorn the union meeting would do her no good when
the union meeting had not been mentioned, Beal gave the
impression of surveillance of union activities, Respondent
thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l).
2. Equally credible, and credited, is the testimony of
Linda Kay Knapp, that in early September, her best
recollection being Labor Day,' in Beal's office, Beal told
her that he knew that she had signed a union card and
that some others had, naming two or three employees;
Respondent thereby further creating the impression of
surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(l). Beal
interrogated her as to why she had signed and what she
thought the Union could do for her, thereby reasonably
tending to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7,
Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l). Beal
added that he did not consider her a loyal employee for
signing the union card, that he thought he could do as
much for her as the Union, and that "if you want me to
buy your uniforms, I will do that." Beal did not deny the
substance of this conversation with Knapp; he testified it
occurred on Wednesday or Thursday, September 3 or 4.
Upon the entire record I credit Knapp's testimony. By
this promise of benefit to Knapp, to cause the
abandonment of the Union and upon that implied
condition, Respondent further violated Section 8(axl).
3. According to the credible and uncontradicted
testimony of Rosemary McCleave, she signed a union
card in about the first week in September and Beal spoke
to her about the Union within a week or two after that.
Beal asked her what she had against him. She replied
"nothing, that I liked him and I liked working for him
and the Holiday Inn. Then he said what could the Union
give me that I didn't have already here, and I said, well,
more wages. He said that he could give that too, and take
away the tips." McCleave replied that she didn't like that
idea. During the conversation Beal observed that since
McCleave was pregnant she shouldn't be working there
because his insurance did not cover her while pregnant.
Beal also told her that it was he who gave her the job and
not the Union. Under all the circumstances these remarks
amounted to an implied threat to suspend her while she
was pregnant, because of her union sympathy and activity,
a further violation of Section 8(a)(l). Upon the
preponderance of the testimony in the entire record, it is'
clear that Beal's interrogation of McCleave as to what the
Union could give her that she didn't already have
reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce
employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, Respondent
thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
4. According to the credited testimony of waitresses
Mason and Shehorn,? at a long meeting of employees on
company time on October 7, 11 days before the election,
'Although Knapp was not completely certain the date was Labor Day
and her pretrial affidavit placed the date at "around the 5th of
September," her demeanor impressed me as that of a credible witness. She
credibly testified on cross -examination by Respondent's attorney that "I
am pretty sure it was Labor Day. I think it was the evening that Reta left .
. I really didn't think about the date until I talked to you last night, but I
am relatively sure that[Labor Day) is the date."
'In her affidavit dated November 7, concerning this October 7 meeting,
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Proprietor Beal pointed out that at present the waitresses
could go back and have a cigarette or a sip of coffee
whenever they wanted to, and threatened that if the place
became unionized there might be or there would be only
two breaks . Beal denied the threat . Beal admitted he read
to them a clause from a contract between a union and
another Holiday Inn which provided for two rest periods
per 8-hour shift . On the entire record I credit the
testimony of Shehorn and Mason and find here an
additional threat in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act..
Shehorn also credibly testified , Beal denying, that at this
meeting Beal said that the kitchen help would get a raise
when "everything is over with ," - a clear promise of
benefit if and when the Union was defeated at the
upcoming election, and a further violation of Section
8(ax l ).
5. Also participating in Respondent ' s violations was his
manager over employees in the restaurant , kitchen, and
bar, Paul DeFore, who had authority to fire and was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. DeFore
admitted having talked to Pauline Shehorn four or five
times about the Union . He admitted asking several
waitresses why they wanted the Union, which , under all
the circumstances of this proceeding , were interrogations
in further violation of Section 8(a)(1). Shehorn credibly
testified that in September in the presence of several
waitresses, Manager DeFore said that the Union `just
takes your money ' and that organizers were "gangsters."
Annette Murphy credibly testified that once in September
DeFore said the union organizers were "hoodlums." On
all the facts this denigrating of the Union went beyond
view, argument , or opinion and was a further intrusion of
Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(l).
6. Also participating in Respondent's interrogations and
threats was Jane Walker, hostess and cashier on one shift.
She made out the weekly schedules late the previous week
and was responsible to see that sufficient waitresses were
on hand to handle the work. She decided how many days
each girl would work , and which days . If a waitress
wanted off or didn't show up on her scheduled workday,
the hostess obtained a replacement by calling in someone
who was having a day off, and placed her at the
appropriate work station . The hostess checked to see that
the waitresses were properly uniformed . She assigned
waitresses to their work stations , although they usually
knew at which station they worked because they had a
rotation system . When a new waitress appeared , Walker
assigned one older waitress to train her . "If anything
came up we would go to Jane." On most of the work
schedules Walker wrote, "this schedule is subject to
chan ge ," followed by her initials . Upon all this evidence I
conclude that Walker had the authority to assign work
days and work stations to waitresses and the authority to
assign waitresses to train new waitresses ; and that the
exercise of this authority required the use of independent
judgment . It follows and I find that Walker was a
supervisor as defined in the Act, for whose activities
heho that she did not recall anything being said about breaks
during this meeting . On cross-examination she cmdi ly testified that she
could remember more as a witness than she could when she gave the
affidavit . She testified.... I am sitting right up here , I can remember a
whole lot of things when I look at Mr . Beal, and when I look at you
[Respondent's attorney was at the October 7 meeting ] and when I don't
have my children around to interrupt me. . . I had a 15-month old
daughter that was sitting on my lap every time I made this statement. I
had an awful lot of interruptions . So now I am thinking and I can recall it
quite a bit .... Without my daughter jumping on my lap , yes, sir, I can.
Respondent was responsible.
Waitress Annette Murphy credibly testified, and
without contradiction , that in about the middle of
September Jane Walker interrogated her as to whether
she had been approached by any of the union organizers
or the union people . During the conversation , Walker said
that Bea] "could close his doors , he could just close down
the restaurant; he could afford to do this." Walker also
threatened that Beal "could put no tipping signs up if the
Union came in." Upon the entire record I conclude that
this interrogation and this threat of possible economic loss
to a waitress if the Union came in amounted to further
8(aXl) violations by Respondent.
7. Two waitresses were raised from 57-1/2 cents an
hour to 75 cents an hour in September 1968, Marilyn
Mason , sister -in-law of Mrs. Beal , on about September
20, and Linda Kay Knapp about a week later. Mason had
worked for Respondent for some 5 months and Knapp for
some 8 months. The General Counsel contended these
increases were granted in order to discourage the
employees ' union activities and that the granting of them
tended to interfere with the free exercise of the employees'
Section 7 rights. Respondent contended they were granted
in accordance with established company policy of giving
such raise after a waitress worked for Respondent for 3
months.
First to be raised was Mason. She testified Respondent
found out about her pay status because one day she was
talking with Mrs. Beal about how much she was paid.
Thereafter Beal told her she was being increased to 75
cents, that the former 6 months to qualify for the raise
had been changed to 3 months, that Mason should have
gotten her raise in July, and that it was due to a
secretary ' s oversight that Mason had not been raised
before. This was the first Mason had heard of employees'
getting a raise after 90 days.
In about late September Knapp pointed out to Beal one
Friday night that her check was in error. Beal referred her
to his secretary. On Monday in the presence of Beal the
secretary said she had overlooked paying Knapp 75 cents
after she had been there 6 months. Beal then said that the
rules have been changed and that Knapp was to have
received her raise after 3 months. Knapp testified she was
given her backpay. Knapp had begun working for
Respondent in late January 1968. She evidently received
backpay for the period beginning in late April. Up to late
September when she had this conversation with Beal and
his secretary, the only thing she had heard about the
change from 6 months to 3 months to qualify for a first
raise had been from Marilyn Mason after she received her
raise on about September 20.
Beal testified Respondent's policy changed from 6
months to 90 days to qualify for a first increase, in June
1968, when he received a new rule book from the Holiday
Inn organization . Supervisor Jane Walker testified the
policy was changed and announced at the August 26
meeting of employees. Several employees testified
concerning this meeting and none of them said anything
about Beal's announcing a change of such policy or rule at
that meeting . Pauline Shehorn credibly testified Beal
announced the change at the October 7 meeting of
employees and that she had not heard about the change
until then. This was 11 days before the election and 11
days after the signing of the stipulation for the election on
September 26.
Had Beal in fact announced the change in policy in
June, it seems probable to me that the new policy, which
OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 907
was of considerable importance to low -paid employees,
would have been well known to the waitresses . That the
waitresses did not know of the change until shortly before
the election and that two waitresses were individually
informed of the change by Beal during the preelection
campaign prior to the general announcement October 7 is
strong evidence to me that the change was made and
announced as an antiunion device and for the purpose of
defeating the Union at the election . I note further that
even Beal's secretary apparently did not know of the
change until Beal told her of it in the presence of Knapp.
Upon these facts and considerations and in the light of the
credible evidence in the entire record considered as a
whole, I find and hold that raises were granted to Mason
and Knapp in late September and the new policy was
announced to assembled employees on October 7 during
the preelection campaign , with the intent and reasonable
tendency to discourage sympathy and activity for the
Union and to defeat the Union at the election,
Respondent thereby further violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the
Act. Cf. American Freightways Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146
at 147; Hermann Equipment Manufacturing Company,
Inc., 156 NLRB 716.
8. I take official notice from the Board 's files that the
Union filed the petition in Case 14- RC-6035 on
September 9, 1968 . The unfair labor practices found
above in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7 occurred between the
filing of the petition and the election on October 18, 1968.
It is clear upon all the facts that this conduct also
interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled
choice in the election . I so find and recommend that the
election of October 18 be set aside and a new election be
conducted by the Regional Director . See Dal-Tex Optical
Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786.
C. The Discharge of Reta Jackson and Barbara
Hammond
1. Proprietor Ralph Beal, whose hostility to the
self-organization of his employees has been amply
demonstrated above, discharged Jackson and Hammond,
the two waitresses who signed up some 29 employees for
the Union, within a day or so after they exercised their
statutory rights in this manner. Jackson and Hammond
and a third waitress traveled together. They telephoned
employees before calling on them, and then, with
permission, called at employees' homes. They visited a few
employees on Saturday night, August 31. They visited
about 12 or 13 employees on Sunday, September 1, and a
like number on Labor Day, Monday, September 2 before
2 p.m.
2. The names of Jackson and Hammond were on the
restaurant employees' work schedule to work during the
week beginning Sunday, September 1. Supervisor Jane
Walker had made out the schedule late the previous week,
and had scheduled Jackson to work Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday ahd be off Friday and
Saturday. She had scheduled Hammond, a part-time
waitress, to work on Thursday. The names of Jackson and
Hammond, and only these two, were stricken from the
schedule on Labor Day. As has been seen above, that
afternoon shortly after Jackson was discharged by Beal,
Manager DeFore, who shortly before asked Shehorn what
she knew about the Union, told Shehorn that Beal had
told him that morning that he had scratched the two
names from the schedule and would never put them back
on again. Beal had been in the restaurant that morning for
"coffee." Shehorn looked at the schedule that evening and
saw that the two names had been scratched out. Jane
Walker testified she did not know who struck the names.
Neither Beal nor DeFore testified as to who struck the
names . On all the evidence I hold that Beal struck them
Monday morning . His striking them simultaneously and
his refusal to put both back show that in his mind Beal
somehow connected Jackson and Hammond together.
Their only connecting link shown by the record was their
joint organizing effort the previous 2 days.
3. At her severance interview on Labor Day a few
moments after she reported for work at 4 p.m., with a
tape recorder on, Proprietor Beal told Reta Jackson,
according to her credible and credited testimony, that she
was not a loyal employee , that he hoped she knew her
rights, and that he knew his . He showed her a green book
relating to union organizing and read her the title of it.
He accused her of being out getting signatures , or getting
signatures for the Union . He ordered her to clock out and
never to return to the Holiday Inn as an employee or as a
guest . He said her check would be ready for her the
following day, Tuesday or Wednesday . Although Beal
denied that the word "union" was mentioned during this
interview , and denied accusing Jackson of getting union
signatures or union organizing , the record does not
contain Beal's version of this interview . Beal did not deny
saying she was not a loyal employee and did not deny
saying he hoped she knew her rights and that he knew his.
The record suggests nothing but the Union that Beal was
referring to in these remarks . Beal testified he obtained
the book about union matters a few days later . As both
Jackson and Pauline Shehorn testified he had a green
book on Labor Day, and as they were more credible
witnesses than he concerning the timing of the events, I
credit Jackson ' s testimony concerning the severance
interview.
4. After discharging Jackson , Beal escorted her to the
timeclock , to the front of the dining room to get her
apron , elsewhere to get her sweater , and then out the front
door . Respondent' s defense offered no reason why Beal
went to such extreme lengths as to escort her out, and the
record showed no other dischargee who was ever escorted
out by Beal. Shehorn , a long-time employee , testified she
has been in the restaurant when Beal has made discharges,
and she has never seen him escort out any such person.
5. Russell Hammond , 15-year-old son of Barbara
Hammond , credibly testified that on that Sunday or
Monday , on Labor Day or the day before , while his
mother was out soliciting for the Union , he received a
telephone call from a person he recognized as Mr. Beal.
He testified that he went to the Holiday Inn "about every
week or so ," that he ate there quite a bit, that he had
talked to Mr. Beal a few times, and that he recognized his
voice over the telephone . When the voice asked for
Barbara, Russell replied that she wasn ' t home, that she
"went out to get some signatures ." At this point Russell's
sister , who was in the same room, shouted "shut up." The
voice over the telephone replied "uhuh." Russell said that
he didn ' t know when she would be back , that she had just
gone out. The voice said he would call back later.
On the witness stand Beal denied hearing Mrs.
Hammond' s son say his mother was out signing up
people . He admitted calling the Hammond home several
times and once talking to what sounded like a little girl; a
'In its brief Respondent moved to change the transcript I reading of
"uhuh" to "huh," thereby converting the word of affirmative awareness to
a word of questioning. I believe the court reporter correctly transcribed the
testimony and so I deny the motion.
908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
few moments later he testified he could not tell if it was
her son or her daughter.
As upon the entire record I do not think Beal was
telling the truth concerning when he learned about the
union movement , and as he did not appear to me to be a
witness who was telling the whole truth , I do not credit his
denial that he heard Mrs. Hammond 's son say his mother
was out signing up people . Upon the entire record I credit
Russell Hammond 's testimony , find "the voice" was
Beal's, find that Beal heard Russell say his mother was
out to get some signatures . Beal was out flying his
airplane on Labor Day between "coffee" in the restaurant
in the early morning , and that afternoon shortly before he
discharged Jackson. Under all the circumstances of this
case , I believe and find that it was on Sunday night before
Labor Day when this telephone conversation occurred,
and that this telephone conversation with Ressell
Hammond reasonably tended to raise a suspicion in Beal's
mind as to what Barbara was getting signatures for.
6. Barbara Hammond was a long-time employee of
Respondent, but after February 1, 1968, she was, at her
own reggest , a part-time employee . On August 26, when
she attended Beal's meeting of employees,, Beal asked her,
"Fatso , when are you coming back to work full time?" He
added , in fun, that she needed to work a little more
because she was "getting a little hippy." She replied she
might return to working full time in the winter. Beal
testified he told her he needed her.
From this testimony I conclude that as of August 26
Beal had no intent to eliminate Barbara Hammond from
his list of employees.
7. Having been informed by the hostess that her name
was no longer on the work schedule , Barbara Hammond
asked Beal "why?" over the telephone on Tuesday
morning , September 3. Beal responded that the summer
rush season was over, that Hammond did not work very
much, that "we don't need you any more,"' and that,
besides , he had received a letter from a bank in Chicago
that Hammond owed it some money and he had replied
that she no longer worked for Respondent."
Beal admitted that he had received the letter from the
bank about the middle of August , which was well before
August 26, when he , in effect, invited Hammond back full
time and, according to Beal's testimony , told her he
needed her. Beal testified the summer season was over on
Sunday night , the day before Labor Day, which fact he
surely knew a few days before, on August 26, when he
invited Hammond back full time. Further, Respondent
advertised for two evening waitresses in the local
newspaper on August 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28, which
runs counter to any professed lack of need for Hammond
from Labor Day on. On all of this evidence I conclude
that Hammond 's indebtedness to the Chicago bank, the
alleged lack of need for her , and the end of the summer
season , were but pretexts and not the real reason for
Hammond 's severance; and I find further that Hammond
'Beal did not deny this September 3 conversation with Hammond, which
amounted to a severance interview, and Respondent 's brief gave
Respondent 's contention as to "the reason Hammond has not been called
to work since September 1, 1968." Under these circumstances, and as
Respondent did not rely on DeFore 's testimony , I do not credit the
testimony of DeFore on cross-examination that he continued calling
Hammond and asking her to come to work some six or seven times after
Jackson's discharge.
"Although Beal testified as to a different version of his letter to the
bank , Respondent did not produce a copy of the letter, which it was,
presumably , in its power to do . Under all the circumstances I credit
Hammond's testimony.
was discharged as of the time of the striking of her name
from the work schedule on September 2.
8. Late Tuesday afternoon, September 3, Reta Jackson
and Barbara Hammond returned to the motel with Leo
Ketchum, acting secretary and treasurer of the Union, and
tried, but futilely, to talk with Beal. As Ketchum was
asking the day clerk if he could talk with Beal, the latter
came out of his office. Ketchum asked Beal if he could
speak to him. Beal replied he was tired, he had put in his
18 hours, and he would like to go home. Ketchum said it
would take only a few minutes. Beal replied he was ready
to go home. Ketchum asked if he could see him the next
day. Beal replied that he would talk with him if he could
catch him, but that Beal would not talk with Ketchum
without his attorney and a representative from the
Holiday Inn organization. It is clear from this testimony
that Beal knew Ketchum was with the Union and
connected Jackson and Hammond with him and the
Union within hours after he discharged Jackson and
Hammond allegedly for reasons other than their union
activities.
9. Proprietor Beal admitted that he knew by Tuesday
that it was Jackson and Hammond who had been talking
to the employees about the Union, and that on that day
he called the Holiday Inn headquarters for guidance
concerning his union problem.
10. On Thursday, September 5, when Hammond and
Jackson were having lunch in the restaurant, Beal put a
chair at the end of their small table and sat on it for a
half hour or more, thereby intruding himself into their
conversation. The three of them had some small talk. Beal
testified he sat with them to prevent them from talking
with the employees about the Union - "because I wasn't
going to let them come in my place and talk to my
employees on this." He testified the Holiday Inn public
relations man had told him that if they came back into
the restaurant they would come in to "proposition" the
other waitresses, that Beal could sit at the same table with
them as long as he did not bother them. Beal added "after
all it was my place."
11. A few days later Jackson, Hammond, and another
waitress had lunch in the restaurant. Hammond walked
through the waitress station, a small passageway between
the large dining room and the small dining room, to talk
to a painter who was working in the other room. Upon
her return Beal came to their table and told them that the
waitress station was off limits, and that if they ever went
in there again he would have them arrested.
12. As has been seen above, in early September Beal
told Shehorn that he would not rehire Jackson and
Hammond . On Labor Day morning Beal told DeFore that
he would never put them back on the work schedule.
13. In early September, as has been seen above, Beal
told Shehorn he discharged Jackson because she was late
on Sunday, or maybe it was Monday. Beal testified he
discharged Jackson because she would not obey any rules.
The record yields no reason favorable to Respondent why
Beal gave different reasons at different times for the
discharge of Jackson. Rather, this fact tends to show that
both alleged reasons were pretexts.
14. Respondent's principal defense to the discharge of
Hammond was that too often when she would be asked to
work as a substitute in the restaurant or as a waitress at a
party, she would decline, always having some excuse, and
that Respondent decided to stop asking her. But this
scarcely explains why her name was stricken from the
work schedule on September 2 after she was already
OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 909
scheduled to work that week and , insofar as the record
showed , had not declined to work that week . Nor does
this explain why Respondent changed its mind between
.when Hammond ' s name was put on the work schedule a
few days before and when it was crossed out on Labor
Day morning.
Respondent contended that because she had not worked
very much or very regularly lately Hammond was not an
employee within the meaning of the Act, but was a
"casual" worker . During the payroll periods for the
payroll ending April 15 until the payroll ending August
31, Hammond worked 78-3/4 hours ; she worked some
during each payroll period except two . In addition she
worked at least three banquets . The term "employee"
under the Act has always been interpreted broadly, and
includes extra men , temporary employees , and "casual"
workers . See Tamphon Trading Company, Inc., 88 NLRB
597; Mushroom Transportation Co., Inc., 142 NLRB
1150; G.P.D., Inc., 163 NLRB No. 114; Bird Trucking
and Cartage Co., Inc., 167 NLRB No. 82 . I hold that
Hammond was an employee within the meaning of
Section 2(3) of the Act.
15. Respondent 's principal defense to the discharge of
Reta Jackson was that she was a difficult employee who
used profane and sometimes vulgar language in the
kitchen , disobeyed the rules, talked back to supervisors,
made scenes in front of customers , and was a
troublemaker . Jackson and Beal both testified there was a
"clash of personality" between them.
Whatever was wrong with Jackson and her behavior
was not new and was well known to Beal. She had been
that way from the beginning of her employment . He had'
put up with it and her for about t year and 10 months
because , as far as customers were concerned , she was one
of his best waitresses . She "took pride in her work."
Respondent used her to train new waitresses . She was
thorough , fast , and sought to bring the customers ' food in
sufficient quantity and tastefully placed on the plate. In
fact a principal source of dispute in the kitchen was her
frequent demand , accompanied with some swearing, that
the cooks prepare her plates more carefully, and the
cooks' resentment of her pressure . The waitresses
understood from Beal that they had the right to reject
plates from the cooks , and Jackson exercised the right.
Then Beal complained to Jackson that she was too much
of a perfectionist.
Beal and DeFore , who had authority to fire, passed up
several opportunities in August to discharge Jackson for
cause . After a scene in front of customers on August 21,
Beal had a long talk with Jackson and let her continue
working , although Respondent contended it had decided
on about August 7 to discharge her at the conclusion of
the busy summer season . In the record Beal and DeFore
described their difficulties with her in some detail.
However they never could quite bring themselves to the
final act of discharge , although they had good
justification . Beal and DeFore testified they hesitated
because it was the busy summer season and they could not
find a replacement. DeFore testified that at one point in
early June he tried to find a replacement for her without
success; however the record does not contain the extent of
their efforts to find a replacement at any time. Beal
testified they advertised in the local newspaper and got
some "help" from the ads. The record is unconvincing
that the reason they didn ' t discharge her earlier was
because it was impossible to find a replacement for her;
rather the record shows that there was a hesitancy to
discharge her because she was a good waitress and
because Beal thought "possibly things would correct
themselves" - as DeFore quoted Beal in a June
conversation . Beal testified that usually after he spoke to
her she would improve for awhile. Upon these facts and
considerations and the fact that DeFore and Beal did not
impress me as fully credible witnesses, I do not credit
Beal's wordy and unclear testimony , uncorroborated by
DeFore, which Respondent contended proves that the
decision to discharge Jackson on the Labor Day weekend
was made on about August 7.
Jackson was not Beal 's only problem . DeFore testified
a majority of the waitresses swore . Shehorn put the figure
at three quarters of them. As has been seen at the
beginning of this Decision , at his August 26 meeting with
employees Beal complained about the swearing and
threatened to put in a tape recorder to stop it;" he
complained about tardiness and lying . Others violated
various rules . On August 21 he discharged a hostess
allegedly for drinking on the job - irrespective of any
problem of finding a replacement in the tight labor
market . Apparently during the summer of 1958 a waitress
was discharged for stealing . Uncpr these circumstances the
failure to discharge Jackson during the summer was
significant.
At the conclusion of their long talk on August 21 Beal
told Jackson she could continue working if, according to
Jackson 's testimony, she would keep her mouth shut and
not cause any commotion in the kitchen . According to
Beal's version she was to keep her mouth shut, not sass
him, and stop using vulgar language . There was no
showing that thereafter Jackson ever violated any of these
injunctions . Respondent contended that Jackson reported
to work a half hour late after Beal's August 26 meeting of
employees . Jackson and Shehorn credibly refuted this
testimony . Jackson served Beal's family at noon time in
the restaurant on the Sunday before Labor Day. Beal
testified his wife took exception to Jackson' s telling their
4-year-old son they were out of cokes and that if he were
her child he wouldn 't get any gum until he finished his
chicken and potatoes . Upon the preponderance of the
evidence I find that this incident was but another pretext
and not the real reason for Jackson's discharge.
Respondent's witnesses testified that at about 2:30 Sunday
afternoon Beal told DeFore and a desk clerk that he was
going to discharge Jackson.
16. As Beal's hostility towards the self-organization of
the employees was well demonstrated; as Beal struck the
names of Jackson and Hammond from the work schedule
at the same time shortly after they engaged in an intensive
effort to organize Respondent's employees, and discharged
them shortly after that; as Respondent's knowledge on
Labor Day of their union activities was shown by
DeFore 's interrogation of and statement to Shehorn that
day, by Beal's admission to Shehorn that he learned about
the Union on Monday, by Beal's possession on that day
of a "green book" concerning union organizing, and by
Beal's statements to Jackson at her severance interview
and to Shehorn thereafter; as Beal indulged in the unusual
behavior of escorting Jackson from his property; as Beal
admittedly connected the two dischargees with the Union
shortly after their discharge and refused to see the union
representative without his lawyer and a representative
from the Holiday Inn organization ; as Beal gave different
and pretextual reasons for the discharges and
"After DeFore and Jackson had testified to the large number who
swore. Beal unbelievably in his testimony referred to putting in a tape
recorder and playing it back to the "person" who did the swearing.
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent 's defense was generally unconvincing , I find,
upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire
record considered as a whole , that Beal discharged
Jackson and Hammond because of their union activities
and to discourage membership and activity of employees
in the Union, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
As provided in the Woolworth case , I recommend
further that Respondent make available to the Board,
upon request, payroll and other records in order to
facilitate the checking of the amounts of backpay due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above , occuring in connection with Respondent's
operations described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
I recommend the customary broad cease-and -desist
order and the affirmative relief conventionally ordered in
cases of this nature , where Respondent' s unfair labor
practices were of a character which struck at the roots of
employee rights safeguarded by the Act.
To remedy its discriminatory discharge of Reta
Jackson , Respondent will be required to offer her
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the discrimination by paying her a
sum of money equivalent to the amount she normally
would have earned as wages from the date of her
discharge, September 2, 1968 , to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period.
The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6
percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
To remedy Respondent ' s discriminatory discharge of
Barbara Hammond , Respondent will be required to offer
her reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges . She will be reinstated to the list of
employees Respondent calls for extra help in the
restaurant and for banquets, and receive invitations to
work in the same frequency as before her discharge. Her
union activities will not be held against her if in the future
she wishes to return to work full time and Respondent has
a vacancy.
As Hammond worked 78-3/4 hours in the 22 weeks
between April 1 and August 31, an average of about 3-1/2
hours per week , it is a fair inference that but for her
discharge she would have continued working about that
number of hours per week . To remedy its discriminatory
discharge of Hammond , Respondent will be further
required to make her whole for any loss of pay suffered
by reason of the discrimination by paying to her a sum of
money equal to what she would have earned as wages for
3-1/2 hours per week from the date of her discharge,
September 2, 1968, to the date of the offer of
reinstatement , less her net earnings during such period.
The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6
1. Olney Motels , Inc., of Olney, Illinois , is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
2. Bartenders , Hotel, Motel , Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees Local No. 573, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening to close down the restaurant rather than deal
with the Union.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by
threatening to put up "no tipping " signs if the Union
came in.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by
threatening to discharge and suspend employees because
of their union activities.
6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
threatening that if the Union came in waitresses would
have only two breaks per shift.
7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies
and activities.
8. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
giving the employees the impression that Respondent was
keeping their union activities under surveillance.
9. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the the Act by
making promises of benefits to discourage union activities
among the employees and to cause the employees to
abandon the Union.
10. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)of the Act by
promising a wage increase to employees if and when the
Union was defeated at the election.
11. Respondent violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by
denigrating the Union by referring to union organizers as
gangsters and hoodlums and as just taking employees'
money.
12. Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by
announcing a new wage policy and raising waitresses to-
discourage sympathy and activity in the Union and to
defeat the Union at the election.
13. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the preponderance of the
evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, I
recommend that Olney Motels, Inc., of Olney , Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening to close down its restaurant rather than
deal with the Union.
(b) Threatening to put up "No Tipping" signs if the
Union comes in.
OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 911
(c) Threatening to discharge and suspend employees
because of their union activities.
(d) Threatening that if the Union comes in waitresses
will have only two breaks per shift.
(e) Interrogating employees concerning their union
sympathies and activities.
(f) Giving the employees the impression that
Respondent is keeping their union activities under
surveillance.
(g) Making promises of benefits to discourage union
activity among employees and to cause employees to
abandon the Union.
(h) Promising a wage increase to employees if and when
the Union is defeated at the election.
(i) Denigrating the Union by referring to union
organizers as gansters and hoodlums and as just taking
employees ' money.
(j) Announcing a new wage policy and raising
waitresses to discourage sympathy and activity in the
Union and to defeat the Union at the election.
(k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to
self-organization , to form labor organizations , to join or
assist Bartenders , Hotel , Motel , Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees Local No. 573, or any other labor
organization, to engage in concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity,
except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization
as a condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges , and make them whole in the manner
prescribed in the portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision
entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the discrimination against them.
(b) Notify Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon application
in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.\
(c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports , and all other
records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its restaurant and kitchen in Olney , Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."':
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), after being
duly signed by Respondent ' s authorized representative,
shall be posted by it 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 customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith."
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE
REPRESENTATION CASE
As I have found above that Respondent's conduct
interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled
choice by the employees at the election, I recommend that
the election of October 18, 1968, be set aside and that the
Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as,
in his judgment, the effects of the unfair labor practices
have been dissipated.
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent
has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL offer to Reta Jackson and Barbara
Hammond immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without
prejudice to their seniority and other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
WE WILL notify the above- named employees if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act
and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
WE WILL make whole Reta Jackson and Barbara
Hammond for any loss of pay suffered by them by
reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision.
WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other way
discriminate against any employee because of his union
membership or activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the restaurant
rather than deal with Bartenders, Hotel, Motel,
Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or
any other labor organization of our employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to put up "No Tipping" signs
if the above-named Union comes in.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge and suspend
employees because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten that if the Union comes in
waitresses will have only two breaks per shift.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their
sympathies and activities.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT give employees the impression that we
are keeping their union activities under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT make promises of benefits to
discourage union activity among our employees and to
cause the employees to abandon the Union.
WE WILL NOT promise a wage increase to employees
if and when the Union is defeated at an election.
WE WILL NOT refer to union organizers as
"gangsters, hoodlums, and as just being interested in
taking employees' money."
WE WILL NOT announce a new wage policy and raise
wages to discourage sympathy and activity in the Union
and to defeat the Union at the election.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization , to form labor organizations,
to join or assist Bartenders, Hotel , Motel , Cafeteria &
Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or any other
labor organization , to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection or to
refrain from any and all such activities , except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a
condition of employment as authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining , members of
Bartenders, Hotel , Motel , Cafeteria & Restaurant
Employees Local No . 573, or of any other labor
organization.
Dated By
OLNEY MOTELS, INC.,
DJB/A HOLIDAY INN
(Employer)
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 1040 Boatmen's
Bank Building , 314 North Broadway , St. Louis, Missouri
63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.