Laurels Hotel and Country Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 705 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LAURELS HOTEL AND COLNTRY CLUB 705
L. C. C. Resort, Inc., d /b/a Laurels Hotel and
Country Club and Local 343, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Union , AFL-CIO.
Cases 3-CA-2950, 2950-2. 2950-3, 2950-4, 2950-6,
2950-7, 2950-8, 2950-9, 2950-10, 2950-11,
2950-12, 2950-15, 2950-16, and 2950-17
September 29, 1969
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
ORDER
B1 CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On April 8, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding ,' finding that Respondent
had committed violations of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1), (3). and ( 5), and ordering that
Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action. Thereafter , upon its own
motion , the Board ' decided to reconsider its finding
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
and its order requiring Respondent to bargain upon
request with the Union , in light of the Supreme
Court 's decision in N.L. R.B. v. Gissel Packing
Company, 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly, the Board
issued a Notice3 to the parties, including the General
Counsel . on August 5, 1969, that statements of
position with respect to the above issue would be
accepted by the Board for consideration on or
before August 19, 1969 . The Union filed a
Statement of Position.
The Board has again reviewed the entire record
including the Union ' s Statement of Position, and
having reconsidered the matter , affirms its original
finding and order for the reasons stated below.
In its original decision the Board found, in
agreement with the Trial Examiner, that
Respondent had engaged in numerous violations of
the Act within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) at various times material hereto, in that
Respondent discharged seven employees because of
their union ox concerted activities ; discharged a
supervisor because of his refusal to interfere with the
union activities of Respondent ' s employees;
threatened employees with loss of their ;obs in
retaliation for union activities ; engaged in
surveillance of union meetings ; interrogated
employees with respect to their union activities;
promised benefits in return for abandonment of
union activities ; threatened that the hotel would
close in the event the Union prevailed ; stated that
the Respondent would not bargain in good faith
with the Union ; and posted a notice calling for a
vote against the Union and asked employees to sign
the notice.
With respect to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation, the
Board found that on April 19, 1966. the day on
which the Union made its demand for recognition,
the Union , by virtue of authorization cards,
represented 108 employees out of the 199 employees
in the unit.
Having carefully reconsidered this matter, we are
of the opinion that Respondent ' s unfair labor
practices , as set forth above. are of such a
substantial nature as clearly to preclude the holding
of a fair and free election and require a bargaining
order to repair their unlawful effects . We have,
therefore, concluded that the desires of Respondent's
employees, as expressed by the valid authorization
cards signed by a majority of the employees in the
unit, can be protected , and statutory policies
effectuated , only by affirming the Board ' s previous
finding of Section 8(a)(5) and its order that
Respondent bargain , upon request with the Union
involved herein . ,'VV.L.R B v. Gissel Packing
Company, 395 U.S. 575.
Accordingly , we hereby reaffirm the Decision and
Order heretofore issued in this case
'170 NLRB No 113.
'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
'Not published in NLRB volumes.
178 NLRB No. 11 1