Holiday Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 687 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

HOLIDAY INN
Ozark Properties, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn and
Teamsters Local Union No. 245, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America
Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn
and Teamsters Local Union No. 245, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Cases 17-CA-11747 and 17-CA-
11798
28 February 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 21 June 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision.
Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.'
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, 2 and
conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
i The Respondents' request for oral argument is denied as the record,
the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties
2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility
findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of
all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard
Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir
1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re-
versing the findings
Additionally, the Respondents contend that some of the judge's find-
ings are the result of bias We reject this contention as unsupported by
the record
In sec II of his decision, the judge found that Shipman, Respondents'
owner, told employees during the Friday, 22 July 1983, meeting to go
back to work "and/or" attend the meeting on Saturday morning, or be
terminated However, it is clear from the record, as later found by the
judge based on credited testimony, that Shipman told employees to
return to work or they would be terminated Additionally, in sec 11 of
his decision, the judge found that employees Parsons and Anderson were
terminated by Shipman in accordance with the terms of Shipman's state-
ment to the employees at the 22 July meeting that those employees who
were not scheduled to work on Friday, 22 July, would be terminated if
they did not return to work on Saturday, 23 July, "and/or" attend a
meeting scheduled for the same day However, as is clear from the
record, and as the judge earlier found based on credited testimony, Ship-
man told employees at the 22 July meeting that the employees who were
not scheduled to work on 22 July could either come to work in the
morning or pick up their checks Finally, in sec II of his decision, the
judge found that the attendance records of both Gateway and Holiday
Inn employees contained the notations, "In Walkout of 7/22/83-Termi-
nate (d)," and found this to be consistent with the employees' contentions
that they had been terminated However, it is clear from the record that
these notations only appeared on the attendance records of Holiday Inn
employees Furthermore, the judge found the wording of these notations
to be, "Terminate (d)," whereas, except for those notations on the
records of employees Gloria Brown, Jones, Schreve, and Underwood, it
is clear from the record that the notations read, "Terminate " These
errors are insufficient to affect the results of our decision
3 The Respondents except to the judge's conclusion that Peggy Collins
was unlawfully discharged for engaging in the economic strike, and con-
tend that Collins engaged in abusive conduct towards Shipman and was
687
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondents, Ozark
Properties, Inc, d/b/a Holiday Inn and Gateway
Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn, Branson,
Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
thus removed from the protection of the Act According to undisputed
testimony not mentioned by the judge in his decision, Collins approached
Shipman outside the banquet hall, pointed her finger in his face, and re-
peatedly inquired in an agitated manner whether she and her fellow em-
ployees were fired Assuming arguendo that Collins engaged in such con-
duct, we nevertheless find such actions and statements insufficient to
remove Collins from the protection of the Act
Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter do not find that the employees
engaged in protected activity to the extent that certain of them protested
the Respondents' decision to terminate Supervisor Remy They agree,
however, that the Respondents terminated the employees because they
engaged in a protected economic strike and thus violated Sec 8(a)(1) of
the Act In doing so, they find it clear from the record that the focus of
the strike for which the employees were discharged was the employees'
protest over working conditions Cf Mr Steak, Inc, 267 NLRB 553 In 3
(1983)
Member Dennis agrees that protesting a decision to terminate a super-
visor is not protected activity, but that here the focus of the strike for
which employees were discharged was working conditions
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAWRENCE W CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was heard before me on October 19 and 20,
1983,1 and February 7, 1984, at Branson, Missouri, pur-
suant to an order issued by the Regional Director for
Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board (the
Board) on October 5 consolidating the complaints in
Cases 17-CA-11747 and 17-CA-11798. The complaint in
Case 17-CA-11747 is based on an amended charge filed
September 6 by Teamsters Local No. 245, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union or
the Charging Party) and alleges that Respondent Ozark
Properties, Inc d/b/a Holiday Inn (Holiday) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act) by terminating its employees Betty Eisley, Rhonda
McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whittington, Peggy Je-
linek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown,
Ellen Parsons, Peggy Collins, Juanita Fischer, Cindy
Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston,
Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson,
and Julie Jones because of their engagement in protected
concerted activity under the Act, and by the entry of no-
tations on the attendance records of its employees Shir-
ley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood be-
cause of their engagement in protected concerted activi-
ties under the Act. The complaint in Case 17-CA-11798
is based on an amended charge filed on October 4 by the
Union and alleges that Respondent Gateway Motel of
I All dates are in 1983 unless otherwise stated
274 NLRB No. 96
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn (Gateway) violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating its employees
Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela
Anderson because of their engagement in protected con-
certed activities under the Act The complaints are
joined by the answers of Respondents. Respondents have
also filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the
ground that Gateway does not meet the jurisdictional re-
quirements of the Act, and that the General Counsel has
failed to prove the alleged violations of the Act
On the entire record in this case. including my obser-
vations of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due
consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel
and the Respondents, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS2
1. JURISDICTION
The Business of Respondents
The complaint alleges, Respondent Holiday admitted
at the hearing, and I find that Respondent Holiday is a
corporation engaged in the operation of a motel at Bran-
son, Missouri, with an annual gross volume of business at
said facility in excess of $500,000 and that it annually in
the course and conduct of its business operations within
the State of Missouri purchases goods and services
valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources which
are located outside the State of Missouri and that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that Gateway is an employ-
er engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
At the hearing the Respondent moved to amend its
answer to the complaint to deny that Gateway meets the
jurisdictional requirements of the Act which motion was
granted The evidence as adduced at the hearing showed
that Gateway is a sole proprietorship which operates a
motel in Branson, Missouri, of which George Shipman is
the sole owner. George Shipman is also the sole share-
holder and the president of Holiday. Thus, Shipman
holds the highest management position in each of these
two businesses. These two businesses as well as several
other businesses owned by Shipman are operated by
Shipman and his managerial staff from his office in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. Shipman has the overall responsibility
for the operations of Holiday and Gateway and report-
ing to him is Paula Sizim , the general manager, and then
Mickey Grau, a supervisor, who has responsibility for
various motel properties owned by Shipman including
Holiday and Gateway. Grau serves as a liaison between
Shipman and Sizim and the managers of the individual
motels. Holiday and Gateway and Shipman's other busi-
ness enterprises are centrally operated from the Tulsa of-
fices through the use of a common computer system,
payroll account, and bookkeeping department. In addi-
tion Shipman sets general wage rates and performance
standards for all of these businesses. There has also been
interchange of employees and supplies between Holiday
and Gateway Under these circumstancesa I find that
Gateway and Holiday are a single employer and that
Gateway is an employer within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Consolidated Dress Carriers,
259 NLRB 627 (1981)
I also find that Holiday and Gateway have been prop-
erly served and made parties to this proceeding and that
the cases were properly consolidated I reject Respond-
ent's contentions that they were not properly served be-
cause of a misnomer in the names of the Respondents
NLRB v. Process & Pollution Control Co., 588 F 2d 786
fn. 1 at 788 and 789 (10th Cir. 1978); Peterson Construc-
tion Co., 106 NLRB 850 (1953). In accordance with the
motion of the General Counsel and the stipulation of the
Respondents at the hearing, the complaints were amend-
ed to reflect the correct legal name of Holiday to Ozark
Properties, Inc, and of Gateway to Gateway Motel of
the Ozarks
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Facts
On July 22, 1983, the maids and laundry employees of
Holiday commenced work at the Holiday Inn Shortly
thereafter some of the maids who are employed to clean
the motel rooms found shortages of linens and other sup-
plies required to clean the rooms. Maid Betty Eisley tele-
phoned Tanya Remy, the housekeeper who was the im-
mediate supervisor of the maids and laundry employees
and told her that the employees should strike. Remy told
Eisley she was in favor of this as she had been unable to
persuade management to improve working conditions.
Other maids and laundry employees were notified by the
maids and met in Remy's office to list various problems
with wages, hours, and working conditions, and made up
picket signs. They then went to the front of the motel
property and picketed with signs stating , "Holiday Inn
Unfair to Maids," "On Strike," and "Maids not Slaves "
At that time Remy and Minnie Lewis, one of the maids
at Holiday, drove to Gateway and brought to the Holi-
day three of the Gateway maids, Argie, Martha, and
Billie Johnson who were the daughter and granddaugh-
ters of Minnie Lewis. These three employees then joined
in the walkout at Holiday.
Shortly thereafter, Holiday Innkeeper Alice Elrich ar-
rived and asked the employees to come into the motel
banquet room to discuss the problems and listened to the
employees' complaints concerning their wages, hours,
and working conditions and Elrich told the employees to
tell Shipman when he arrived.
Shipman arrived at 3 p.m. having previously been noti-
fied by Grau of the call from the Holiday Inn informing
her of the situation He also had telephoned Remy in the
interim and asked her to ask the employees to return to
work and he would meet with them in the morning. She
3 On the basis of the undisputed testimony of Shipman, Alice Elrich,
innkeeper of Holiday, and Mickey Grau, the supervisor of Holiday and
2 The following includes a composite of the testimony of the witnesses, Gateway, I find that each were at all times relevant herein supervisors
which testimony is credited except as specific credibility resolutions are and/or agents, acting on behalf of Respondents within the meaning of
hereinafter made Sec 2(11) and (13) of the Act
HOLIDAY INN
refused to do so. When Shipman arrived at Holiday, he
met with Remy and discharged her. Shortly thereafter
Remy entered the banquet room and informed the em-
ployees that she had been discharged At the time of this
meeting, 19 of the 20 employees of Holiday who are
named as discrimmatees in the complaint and 3 of the 4
employees of Gateway named in the complaint were
present as were various other employees, principally
laundry workers as well as Shipman and Elrich. Grau
was present during only part of the meeting . Shipman
commenced the meeting. Shipman asked the employees
to return to work and clean the rooms Shipman had al-
ready arranged for maids to be flown from Tulsa, Okla-
homa, and for members of his family and relatives and
others to assist in the cleanup of the rooms. He had also
brought along blank paychecks.
According to the testimony of employees Eisley,
McIntosh, Lewis, and Billie Johnson, Shipman asked the
employees to go to work and told them he would meet
with them in the morning to discuss their problems and
Shipman ultimately told them to go back to work and/or
to attend the meeting on Saturday morning or they
would be terminated and held up the paychecks that
they could pick up if they did not choose to return to
work Angela Boucher, a maid at the time of the hear-
ing, did not hear Shipman use the word terminate except
with respect to laundry employee John Cosolo who was
terminated by Shipman at the meeting for the use of foul
language toward him. There was no designated spokes-
man for the employees although several of them spoke at
the meeting (i.e., Eisley and McIntosh) It is undisputed
that the employees urged Shipman to rescind the dis-
charge of Remy although the employees presented by
the General Counsel contended that they did not refuse
to return to work because of Remy's discharge but
rather because of working conditions Certain of the em-
ployees, principally the laundry workers, returned to
work during or after the meeting and refused their pay-
checks Paychecks were then issued to the employees
who did not return to work (except the three Gateway
employees) who were subsequently issued checks. Two
other employees who were not at work that date, Ellen
Parsons of the Holiday and Lela Anderson of Gateway
subsequently did not return to work and later picked up
their paychecks The meeting was held by Shipman the
following morning and attended by certain of the em-
ployees at which wages and terms and conditions of em-
ployment were discussed and changes were made by Re-
spondent to correct the problems (i.e., repair of vacuum
cleaners, ordering of additional linens, a pay raise an-
nounced the following week) Certain of the alleged dis-
criminatees picketed for approximately a week and there-
after ceased to picket.
Shipman testified that he discharged Remy for failing
to do her job and Cosolo for his abusive language at the
meeting toward Shipman but did not discharge any other
employees It is undisputed that Cosolo either called
Shipman a "fucker" or referred to him as "fucking "
Shipman contended at the hearing that he had hired
temporary maids as he needed to have the rooms cleaned
and could not rely on the return to work of the maids in
time to clean the rooms and had brought blank pay-
689
checks in the anticipation that some of the employees
might request them He testified that he was given an ul-
timatum that the employees stood with Remy and would
not return to work unless she were reinstated and that he
at no time terminated or discharged the other employees
except Cosolo . He acknowledges that he asked the em-
ployees to attend the meeting on Saturday morning and
that he later instructed Elrich and Grau that he wanted
to talk personally to any employees who wanted to
return to work . He denies that he was aware of the pres-
ence at the meeting of any of the employees from the
Gateway and contends he did not know the vast majori-
ty of the employees at the meeting . His testimony was
essentially corroborated by Grau and Elrich who testi-
fied that Shipman spoke to certain of the employees who
were allowed to return , but that one employee was of-
fered employment at another motel but refused One
other employee (Jelinek) telephoned on behalf of herself
and another employee to the new housekeeper , Brenda
Stacey, who replaced Remy and requested reinstatement
but was told that Shipman was not there and Holiday
would call her back . Jelinek , one of the Holiday maids
engaged in the strike , testified she has never been called
back and that neither she nor the other employee had
moved or changed their phone number Stacey testified
she attempted to call the employees but was unable to
reach them It is undisputed that the addresses of the em-
ployees were in the possession of Respondent Holiday
Employee McIntosh testified that she called the atten-
tion of Shipman at the meeting of July 22, 1983, to the
presence of the three employees from Gateway and that
Shipman looked to Elrich who nodded in the affirmative
that they were present.
The records of the alleged discriminatees of both
Gateway and Holiday contain the caption , "In walkout
of 7/22/83-Terminate [d]." Although the charge in Case
17-CA-11747 was initially filed on July 27, 1983, none
of the alleged discriminatees were called back to work or
offered reinstatement. Additionally , employee Ellen Par-
sons who was not at work on July 22 testified she joined
the strike and walked the picket line on July 23, a sched-
uled workday for her, and received her check from a
lady behind the desk at Holiday on either July 24 or 25
and told another lady called from the office that she was
there to pick up her check as she agreed with the maids
Her attendance record also bears the notation , "In walk-
out of 7/23/83-Terminate ." Lela Anderson of Gateway
who was not working on July 22, also joined the em-
ployees on the picket line on July 23.
B. Analysis
The General Counsel contends that the employees of
Gateway and Holiday were terminated for engaging in a
strike over their wages, hours, and terms and conditions
of employment and that Respondents thus violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the notation on the at-
tendance records of employees Shirley Collins, Christy
Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood of the caption "In
walkout of 7/22/83-Terminate[d]" was also violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel con-
tends that the evidence shows there was no central
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spokesperson, that the strike was initially protected and
that even if some but not all of the employees asserted
the reinstatement of Remy, a supervisor, as a condition
of their return, this does not remove them from the pro-
tection of the Act. The General Counsel contends also
that, assuming arguendo , there was a misunderstanding
as to what Respondents intended, Respondents created
the ambiguity and are responsible if their words were
reasonably perceived by the alleged discriminatees as ter-
minations and further that Cosolo was discharged for his
engagement in protected activities.
Respondents contend that the central theme of the
walkout of the discriminatees was in support of Remy,
an acknowledged supervisor, and that such conduct was
unprotected and further that Respondents did not termi-
nate the employees but rather asked them to attend a
meeting and that Shipman asked the employees seeking
to return to work to talk to him personally as he wanted
to discuss the problems with them. Respondents further
contend that the alleged discriminatees abandoned or
quit their jobs and that it was not required to refrain in-
definitely from replacing them and that Cosolo was dis-
charged for cause for using abusive language toward
Shipman in the presence of other employees.
I find that Respondents did terminate the 24 named
discriminatees because of their engagement in concerted
activities concerning their terms and conditions of em-
ployment. I further find that Respondents violated the
Act by the notation "In walkout of 7/22/83-
Terminate[d]" attached to the attendance records of em-
ployees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Un-
derwood.
In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the like-
lihood of the versions presented by the parties It appears
from all accounts that the meeting was disorganized with
various employees speaking out and asserting various
complaints to Shipman including assertions that Remy
should be reinstated. However, I credit the testimony of
employees Eisley, McIntosh, and Lewis that Remy's re-
instatement was but one of many items discussed at the
meeting as the strike had initially been called to protest
wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment,
which had also been discussed with Remy, and then
Elrich and Shipman, and which remained the focus of
the meeting on the next day I also credit the testimony
of these employees that Shipman demanded that they
return to work and/or attend the meeting the following
morning and offered them their checks if they refused to
return. Remy testified that the normal practice was to
give employees their final paycheck when they were ter-
minated Moreover, the attendance records of the em-
ployees which were filled out shortly after the termina-
tions bore the designation "In walkout of 7/22/83 -
Terminate[d]" rather than "Quit" which is consistent
with the versions of the alleged discriminatees who con-
tended they were terminated. It may be that Shipman
viewed the refusal of the employees to discontinue their
strike and return to work as a voluntary quit, but such
was clearly not the case. As the General Counsel con-
tends, an employer is not free to order employees to ter-
minate a strike and to return to work or to attend a
meeting or face discharge. Nor is he entitled to treat
striking employees as having voluntarily quit or terminat-
ed the employment relationship
I thus find that the named alleged discriminatees in the
complaint engaged in a protected concerted work stop-
page commencing on July 22 and/or 23, 1983, and were
insulated by the Act from discharge for their engage-
ment in the strike. The credited testimony of the General
Counsel 's witnesses as set out above was that Shipman
told the employees at the meeting to return to work or
be terminated and that when they chose to remain on
strike, they were terminated I thus find that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging those
employees because they engaged in a strike to protest
wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment.
However, assuming arguendo, that Shipman viewed the
employees ' refusal to terminate their strike and return to
work as a voluntary quit from their jobs, I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act under this
set of circumstances also as Respondents' lack of under-
standing of the status of the employees as strikers rather
than having voluntarily quit their jobs could not extin-
guish their rights as strikers to return to work. By their
actions Respondents conveyed to the striking employees
that they were or would be terminated as a result of
their engagement in the strike. Seyforth Roofing Co., 263
NLRB 368 (1982). I further find that the assertion of
some employees that they would not discontinue their
economic strike until Remy was reinstated did not oper-
ate to remove the strikers from the protection of the
Act See Dobbs Houses, Inc., 135 NLRB 885, 888 (1962).
I cannot credit Elrich's testimony that she was un-
aware that the three Gateway maids were present at the
meeting. I find rather that Respondent had notice that
these three employees were in attendance at the meeting
and credit the testimony of McIntosh that she called
Shipman's attention to this. Moreover, the notations on
the attendance records of these three employees "In
Walkout of July 22, 1983--Terminate[d]" are identical to
those on the attendance records of the discharged Holi-
day employees. I thus find that Respondent had knowl-
edge of their participation in the walkout and terminated
them as well as the Holiday employees.
With respect to the terminations of Ellen Parsons and
Lela Anderson, I credit the testimony of McIntosh that
Shipman told the employees at the meeting that the em-
ployees who were not scheduled to work on July 22,
1983, could either pick up their check or go back to
work in the morning. According to the unrebutted testi-
mony of Parsons which I credit, she joined the other em-
ployees on the picket line on July 23, 1983, in support of
the strike by the other employees. According to the un-
rebutted testimony of Lewis, which I also credit, her
granddaughter Lela Anderson also joined the other em-
ployees on the picket line on July 23, 1983, in support of
the strike by the other employees. The attendance record
of Parsons bears the caption "In walkout of 7/23/83-
Terminate." Under these circumstances, I find that these
employees joined the strike on July 23, 1983, and were
also terminated by the Respondent in accordance with
the terms of Shipman's statement to the employees at the
meeting that those employees who were not scheduled
HOLIDAY INN
to work on Friday, July 22, 1983, would be terminated if
they did not return to work on Saturday, July 23, 1983,
and/or attend the meeting.
Although employees Parsons and Anderson were not
present when Shipman told the employees at the meeting
of July 22 that those employees who were not scheduled
to work on Friday July 22 would be terminated if they
failed to report and/or attend the meeting on Saturday,
July 23, I find that the record evidence is sufficient to
warrant the inference that these two employees were
made aware of Shipman's remarks in this regard prior to
their joining the other employees on the picket line.
Highland Plastics, 256 NLRB 146 (1981).
With respect to the termination of John Cosolo, I find
that he was terminated by Respondent in retaliation for
his participation in concerted activity of engaging in a
strike as were the other employees and that his words of
vulgarity addressed to Shipman during the heat of a ne-
gotiation meeting during the strike did not remove him
from the protection of the Act. Kay Fries, Inc., 265
NLRB 1077 (1982) It is well established that employees
who engage in abusive language towards employers and
their representatives during negotiation meetings do not
lose the protection of the Act because of their engage-
ment in such language during the heat of the moment, in
the absence of aggravated conduct (i.e , threats of vio-
lence). I thus find that Cosolo's conduct, while distaste-
ful and regrettable, was not so opprobrious so as to
remove him from the protection of the Act.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The unfair labor practices of Respondents as found in
section II, above, in connection with Respondents' oper-
ations as found in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing the flow of com-
merce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday
Inn is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act
2. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc, d/b/a Holiday
Inn and Respondent Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a
Gateway Inn are a single employer and accordingly Re-
spondent Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway
Inn is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
3. On July 22, 1983, Respondent Ozark Properties,
Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn and Respondent Gateway Motel
of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully terminating employees
Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy
Whittington, Peggy Jelinek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie
Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Collins, Jua-
nita Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie
Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown,
John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie Jones, Argie Johnson,
Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson be-
691
cause they ceased work and concertedly engaged in an
economic strike commencing on that date.
4. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday
Inn and Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway
Inn violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by entering nota-
tions on the attendance records of its employees Shirley
Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood that
said employees had been terminated as they had been "In
walkout of July 22, 1983 "
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in-
timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the
posting of the appropriate notice
Having found that Respondents discharged the named
discriminatees as set out above in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act and discriminated against the other
named discriminatees by the entry of notations on their
attendance records as set out above in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, it shall be ordered that Respond-
ents offer immediate reinstatement to said unlawfully dis-
charged employees and make them whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits they may have sustained by reason
of the unlawful discharges and expunge from their files
any references to the termination of all employees listed
as discriminatees in the complaint and notify them in
writing thereof. All loss of earnings and benefits incurred
by the aforesaid unlawfully discharged employees as a
result of Respondents' acts, as set out above, shall be
computed with interest in the manner prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).'
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed5
ORDER
The Respondents Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holi-
day Inn and Gateway Motel of the Ozarks, d/b/a Gate-
way Inn, Branson, Missouri, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging its employees because of their engage-
ment in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of
the Act.
(b) Entering notations on the attendance records of its
employees that they have been terminated because of
their engagement in concerted activities protected under
Section 7 of the Act.
4 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
5 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
692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to employees Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIn-
tosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whittington, Peggy Jelinek,
Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen
Parsons, Peggy Collins, Juanita Fischer, Cindy Casteel,
Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary
Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie
Jones, Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson,
and Lela Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions or if their former positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the termina-
tion of any of the named discriminatees in the complaint
as amended at the hearing and notify them in writing of
this, and that said terminations and/or notations thereof
on their files shall not be used as a basis for future per-
sonnel actions concerning them.
(c) Make the unlawfully discharged discriminatees
whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits they may
have sustained by reason of the discrimination against
them in the manner set forth in this decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this recommended Order.
(e) Post at its Branson, Missouri facilities copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 17, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
6 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 "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join , or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging
in concerted activity protected under Section 7 of the
Act
WE WILL NOT make notations on our employees' at-
tendance records that our employees have been terminat-
ed because of their engagement in concerted activities
protected under Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to Betty
Eisley, Rhonda McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whit-
tington, Peggy Jelinek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis,
Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Colins, Juanita
Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty,
Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John
Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie Jones, Argie Johnson, Billie
Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson to their
former positions at the time of their discharge, or to sub-
stantially equivalent positions if their former positions no
longer exist.
WE WILL make said employees whole for any loss of
earnings or other benefits they may have sustained by
reason of our discharge of them with interest upon
moneys due
WE WILL expunge from our files all references to the
termination of the aforesaid employees and also of em-
ployees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Un-
derwood and will send each of them a notice in writing
thereof.
OZARK PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A HOLIDAY
INN
GATEWAY MOTEL OF THE OZARKS, D/B/A
GATEWAY INN