Missoula Motel Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1477 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1477
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 881 U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street , Chicago , Illinois,
Telephone No. 828 -7572, if they have any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Missoula Motel Association ; Bel Aire Motel ; Big Chief Motel ;
Canyon Motel ; Circle M Motel ; City Center Motel ; Down-
town Motel ; Lodge Motel; Missoula Motel ; Parkway Motel;
Royal Motel ; Shady Grove Motel ; Sleepy Inn Motel ; Sweet
Rest Motel ; and Westerner Motel and Hotel , Motel & Res-
taurant Employees Union , Local No. 427, AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 19-CA-2677, 19-CA-2707, and 19-CA-92738. September 30,
1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 3, 1964, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that Respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exami-
ner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondents and the Charging Party
each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
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, the briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the modifications 1
stated below.
The Trial Examiner found that Respondents had violated Section
8 (a) (5), (3) and (1) of the Act. Respondents have not excepted to
the findings of 8(a) (5), and independent 8(a) (1) violations. Nor
have they excepted to the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent
Lodge Motel refused to reemploy Louise Stroud in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act. We accordingly adopt these findings pro
forma.
1 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Sea-Way Distributing, Inc., 143
NLRB 460, 461-462, Member Brown would affirm the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
Respondent Bel Aire Motel unlawfully discharged its striking employees. Member Brown
would also approve the Trial Examiner 's resolution of Christine Spadt's discharge He
therefore dissents on both matters.
148 NLRB No. 146.
1478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The only issues raised by Respondents' exceptions and brief relate
to the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondents discriminatorily
locked out their employees on July 16, 1963; that Respondent Bel
Aire Motel unlawfully discharged its striking employees; and that
Respondent Circle M Motel discriminatorily discharged employee
Christine Spadt.
1. The lockout
The Union is the certified bargaining representative of the em-
ployees of Respondents in a multiemployer unit. After unsuccessful
protracted bargaining negotiations the Union established a picket
line at the Big Chief Motel, a member of the multiemployer unit.
Thereupon other employer members of the unit locked out their em-
ployees. However, the Employers engaging in the lockout continued
to operate, utilizing relatives of the owners as substitutes for the
locked-out employees. On the basis of the Board's decision in John
Brown, Irvin L. Gossett and J. C. West, Jr., d/b/a Brown Food
Store,2 the Trial Examiner found that the lockout violated Section
8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act. Respondents contend that, inasmuch
as the court of appeals refused to enforce the Board decision in the
cited case, the Trial Examiner's reliance on that decision was erro-
neous. The Board has not acquiesced in the court decision in Brown
Food Store. On January 6, 1964, the Supreme Court granted the
Board's petition for certiorari in that case 3 With all due respect for
the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Board
has determined to adhere to its decision in Brown Food Store pend-
ing final resolution of the issue by the Supreme Court 4 Accordingly,
we affirm the Trial Examiner's finding that those Respondents who
locked out their employees on July 16 violated Section 8(a) (3) and
(1) of the Act.
2. Termination of striking employees
On July 16, 1963, Bel Aire locked out its employees, but on July
29 terminated the lockout. On the latter date Harry Harkins of
Bel Aire notified the locked-out employees to return to work. They
did not respond. A week later Harkins again notified the employees
to return to work. He also told them on this occasion that if they
did not report for work by the following day, they would be termi-
nated. The employees again did not return as requested, thus en-
gaging in an economic strike. Thereafter, Bel Aire replaced all the
striking.employees. The Trial Examiner found that Bel Aire dis-
charged its striking employees on August 6 because they would not
2137 NLRB 73, enforcement denied 319 F. 2d 7 (CA 10)
8 375 U S 962
4 Bagdad fow llnq Alleys, 147 NLRB 851
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1479
abandon the strike, thereby violating Section 8(a) (3) and (1). We
disagree with this interpretation of Bel Aire's conduct.
Although the Act prohibits an employer from taking reprisal
action against employees who engage in protected activity such as
an economic strike, it also recognizes that an employer has the right
to continue operating his business by hiring replacements for striking
employees. Whether an employer has discharged strikers or has
merely notified them that it intends to replace them depends on sub-
stance rather than on the form of words used by the employer. As
the Board said in Redwing Carriers :
... where it is clear from the record that the employer acted
only to preserve efficient operation ,of his business, and termi-
nated the services of the employees only so it could immediately
or within a short period thereafter replace them with others will-
ing to perform the scheduled .work, we can see no reason for
reaching different results solely on the basis of the precise words,
i.e., replacement or discharge, used by the employer, or the
chronological order in which the employer terminated and re-
placed the ' employees in question.
Although, on the occasion of his second request to striking employees
that they return to work, Harkins said that unless they did return by
the following day they would- be terminated, it seems plain to us in
the circumstances of this case that he was actually doing no more
than warning them that if they refused,to work he would hire re-
placements so that he could continue his business. If, instead of the
word "terminate," Harkins had used the word "replace," there would
be no question of the legality of Harkins' conduct. A different legal
result is not called for because he failed to use the proper formula
word. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that the employees
were in any way influenced in their conduct by Harkins' inexact
terminology. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the Trial Examiner,
that Respondent Bel Aire' Motel did not discriminatorily terminate
ifs striking employees.
3. Discharge of Spadt
Christine Spadt had been employed by the'Circle M Motel on a
part-time basis prior to June 1963. In that month she was hired as
a full-time maid. Shortly thereafter she asked Mrs. Mullin, the
owner of the motel, for permission to take time off in July so that
she could go on vacation with her husband. Mrs. Mullin said this
could be arranged provided Spadt secured a replacement for the time
during which she would be away. Spadt thereafter named a woman
5 Reducinq Carriers, Inc, 137 NLRB 1545, 1547 (Member Leedom concurring in result).
1480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who, she said, could act in her place. However, several days before
the start of her scheduled vacation, Spadt told Mrs. Mullin that her
proposed substitute probably could not work because of an illness in
her family. Spadt started her vacation on July 16 without obtaining
the services of another substitute; she simply left at the motel office
the name and telephone number of the individual who, she previously
had said, could not serve as a substitute because of family illness.
When Spadt returned from her vacation 2 weeks later she found in
her mail a letter from Mrs. Mullin which informed her that she had
been discharged because of her failure to supply a relief maid,
padding her timecards, and inability to get along with other maids.
The Trial Examiner found that the assigned reasons for Spadt's
discharge were pretexts and the real reason was Spadt's activity in
behalf of the Union. However, there is no evidence of any particu-
lar union activity by Spadt.e Although Mrs. Mullin knew that Spadt
was favorably inclined towards the Union, this fact has no signifi-
cance because she knew this when she hired Spadt. Moreover, Mrs.
Mullin also knew, without apparent objection, that her two other
maids were union supporters. Finally, there is no evidence of union
animus on the part of Mrs. Mullin. On the basis of all the evidence
we are not convinced that the General Counsel has established by a
preponderance of evidence that Mrs. Mullin discharged Christine
Spadt for union reasons rather than the reasons assigned in the let-
ters of discharge.
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the complaint allegations that Re-
spondent Bel Aire Motel discriminatorily discharged its striking em-
ployees, and that Respondent Circle M Motel discriminatorily dis-
charged Christine Spadt.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, the Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recom-
mended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondents Missoula
Motel Association, Bel Aire Motel, Big Chief Motel, Canyon Motel,
Circle M Motel, City Center Motel, Downtown Motel, Lodge Motel,
Missoula Motel, Parkway Motel, Royal Motel, Shady Grove Motel,
Sleepy Inn Motel, Sweet Rest Motel, and Westerner Mote], their offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order as modified herein :
1. Delete paragraph 1 (a) in its entirety, and reletter paragraphs
1(b) and (c) as 1(a) and (b), respectively.
6 Some doubt about Mrs. Spadt' s union sentiments is evidenced by the fact that she
started her vacation on the day of the lockout and did not return until after it termi-
nated . Although she could not know of the prospective lockout on arranging her vacation,
she testified she became aware of trouble when she saw pickets at the Big Chief Motel on
her way out of town op the lfith. She did not turn back.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1481
2. Delete the names Bel Aire Motel and Circle M Motel from the
relettered paragraph 1(b).
3. Delete paragraph 2(b) in its entirety, and reletter paragraphs
2(c), (d), (e), and (f) as 2(b), (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
4. Delete the following language from relettered paragraph 2(b) :
"in the case of Bel Aire Motel, to Ila Brokow, Freda Engstrom,
Frances Lade, Ursula Lehtola, Bonnie Rusk, and Marjorie Wagner;
in the case of Circle M Motel, to Christine Spadt; and".
5. Delete Appendix A in its entirety.
6. In Appendix C, delete the first and third indented paragraphs in
their entirety, and substitute the following for the fourth indented
paragraph: -
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the- above-named Union or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through rep-
resentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or 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 amended.
7. In Appendix E, delete the first indented paragraph, and the
words "by means of unlawful lockout or discharge or in any other
manner" from the third indented paragraph.
8. In Appendix F, delete from the first indented paragraph the
words "unlawful lockout of July 16, 1963, and her subsequent" ; and
delete from the third indented paragraph the words "unlawful lock-
out or".
9. In Appendixes G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and P, delete the second
indented paragraphs in their entirety ; and delete from the third in-
dented paragraphs the words "by means of unlawful lockout or in
any other manner".
10. In Appendix 0, delete the first indented paragraph in its en-
tirety, and delete from the second indented paragraph the words "by
means of lockout, or in any other manner".
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter was tried before Trial Examiner Wallace E Royster in Missoula, Mon-
tana, on January 13, 14, 15, and 16, 1964. The complaint alleges that the motels
listed in the caption , through Missoula Motel Association , herein called the Associa-
tion , unlawfully refused to bargain with Hotel , Motel & Restaurant Employees Union,
Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union ; that all of the motels unlawfully
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
locked out their employees on July 16, 1963; 1 and that some of them, by discharging
employees and by threatening and questioning them in reference to their activity in
behalf of the Union, committed further violations of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, herein called the Act.
Briefs have been received from counsel for the General Counsel and from counsel
for the Respondents. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of
the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENTS
The Respondent Members of the Association and other members of that organiza-
tion , during the fiscal year preceding the issuance of the complaint, performed services
having a value in excess of $500,000 During the same period, the Respondents and
other employer members of the Association purchased supplies of a recurring nature,
including soap, towels, and blankets, having a value in excess of $5,000, directly or
indirectly from suppliers located outside the State of Montana. Less than 75 percent
of the guests using the facilities offered by the Respondents have remained in any
particular motel for a period of 1 month. Respondents concede, and I find, that they
are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
On October 11, 1962, the Union was certified by the National Labor Relations
Board as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondents' employees in the
following unit:
All maids, laundry employees, janitors, yardmen, and all other housekeeping serv-
ice employees, excluding office clerical employees, desk clerks, confidential employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
Respondents concede, and I find, that the unit described is one appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the Act's meaning. I also find that the Union
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain; the lockout
Following the certification Union Representatives Sally Doull and Len Loring met
on a number of occasions with Thomas Murray, the Association's secretary, and with
other individuals representing the Respondents, in an attempt to negotiate a bargain-
ing agreement. From the time that it was first proposed until the parties' last meeting,
the representatives of the Respondents consistently refused to agree to any form of
union security. On June 25, the parties were in disagreement on that question, on
wage rates, and perhaps upon a minimum guarantee of 4 hours' pay for any employee
who had been called to work. On July 10, at a bargaining meeting, the Union
dropped its wage demand from $1.50 to $1.35 an hour. According to Sally Doull,
Secretary Murray commented that the Union would have to strike; that because the
busy season was upon the operators, they had no time "to waste" on further negotia-
tions. The Union then, still according to Doull, offered to cut the wage rate to $1.30
an hour. Murray answered that there wasn't much point in discussing wages because
there was still no agreement on union security and that the Respondents would give
nothing in that area. Murray said that many of the employees did not want to belong
to the Union. Doull suggested that if these individuals were named, perhaps the
Union could propose something to solve that problem. Murray said that the Re-
spondents would not take that trouble but that he knew that the election was won by
a close margin and that he had reason to believe that many of the employees did not
favor the Union. Murray added that the Association did not want an agreement .2
Doull and Loring suggested that perhaps the individual members of the Association
were not fully informed about the progress of bargaining or lack of it, and asked
Murray to arrange a meeting of the entire membership so that the union negotiators
could make their suggestions directly. Murray said that he would try to arrange this.
A few days later, Murray told Doull that the position of the Association remained
unchanged and that there was no point in a meeting.
' Unless otherwise shown, all dates mentioned are in 1963.
2 This last attribution to Murray stands undenied.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1483
In the earlier negotiations, sometime in March, the Association submitted to the
Union a form of agreement providing for an hourly rate of $1.30 and for a minimum
of 4 hours' work for any employee required to report. On July 13, Doull and Loring
inserted in this earlier offer a union-security clause, and, on that day and the next,
distributed copies of what thus became the offer of the Union to individual members
of the Association. Although Doull and Loring testified that they delivered this
proposal to the employers only to inform them as to what the Union was willing to
accept in the way of a contract, and denied that they were seeking signatures, one of
the motel operators 3 signed the agreement. Others testified that Doull and Loring
threatened them with picketing if they did not do so. I find no reason to resolve the
credibility conflict on this point.
On the morning of July 16, the Union established pickets at the Big Chief Motel,
one of the Association members. That morning, the motel-operator Respondents
locked out all employees in the bargaining unit and continued the lockout for varying
periods until July 31. Each of the motels continued to operate using, for the most
part, if not entirely, family members and relatives to perform the work theretofore
done by the locked-out employees. After the lockout had ended, some of the em-
ployees at some of the motels refused to return to work and engaged in a strike.
On October 2, the Respondents and the Union met again. Attorney Jeremy G.
Thane was the spokesman for the Association .4 The parties agreed that they were
still apart on union security, wages, and minimum hours. At a later meeting on
October 16, Thane told the Union that because of their strike action the Respondents
felt that they could withdraw from any tentative agreements that may have existed.
At a final meeting on November 4, according to Doull's credited and undenied testi-
mony, Thane said that the Respondents would not agree to union security or mmi-
mum hourly guarantee. Thane commented that the Association did not want a con-
tract. There have been no meetings of the parties since.
Lester Greene, a national officer of the Union, testified that he attended the meeting
on November 4 in an attempt to bring about agreement. Greene testified that he
spoke at length about various types of union-security clauses but that Thane said that
the Association was unanimous in its refusal to consider any form of union security or
minimum hours and that the Association would be satisfied not to have a contract.
Greene said that there was not a chance in a hundred that the Union would reach
agreement with the Association without some kind of union security.
Thomas Murray, the chairman of the Association's bargaining committee testified
that at the first meeting of the Association on the matter of bargaining, the member-
ship decided that they would not agree to a union-security clause and that the Associa-
tion's position never changed. Murray conceded that on some occasion he told Doull
that the Association had nothing further to offer and if the Union chose to strike
"that is what it would have to be." As to the November 4 meeting, Murray testified
that the Association just would not have "any part" of union security and that this
position was made plain to the Union every time the question was raised. Murray
testified that union security was the only thing that the Association would not agree
to under any circumstances.
James Hall, the operator of the Shady Grove Motel, one of the negotiators for
the Association, testified that in October the Association decided that because of the
Union's strike, the Association was no longer obliged to abide by positions previously
taken.
David Hubbard, the operator of Big Chief Motel and another of the Association's
negotiators, testified that the position of the Association was to have nothing to do
with union security but that it would be glad to have a contract without such a
provision.
The complaint does not challenge the bona fides of the Respondents in respect to
bargaining prior to the meetings in October. It is obvious, however, that from the
outset the Respondents set union security apart as an item on which no agreement
was possible. That this fixed determination to remove union security from the
agenda inhibited bargaining and exacerbated the relationship between the parties is
patent. It is admittedly true that the Respondents upon occasion listened to the
Union's proposals concerning this matter but they did not do so as persons willing to
examine the question on its merits. The Respondents in effect acted as if union secur-
ity was somehow unlawful or at least morally offensive. In assuming this attitude
(no matter how sincerely held) they were depriving their employees of bargaining
rights. Union security relates to terms or conditions of employment. The Union was
8 A Mr. Rose at the Thunderbird.
4 Other than Sleepy Inn Motel.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAIIONS BOARD
empowered by reason of certification to press its views on the question upon the
Respondents. The Respondents were and are required to listen to the Union's argu-
ments and proposals in this area no less so than for example in respect to wages. In
no real sense did the Respondents provide an audience for the union proposals. True
they sat in the same room with the Union's representatives and sound waves carrying
the pleas for union security reached Respondents' ears. But they did not penetrate.
Respondents' minds were closed to their reception. No concessions on union security
was Respondents' policy and it was followed. Arguments, pleas, and offers to explore
alternative arrangements were unheeded. The Union has never been afforded by the
Respondents a meaningful opportunity to bargain about union security. I find that
this attitude on the part of the Respondents caused a deterioration of the bargaining
relationship so that Respondents said on July 10 and later that they had no real
purpose to reach agreement at all.
In March the Respondents offered a form of contract containing a wage rate and a
provision for minimum pay which the Union some months later was willing to accept.
However, on October 16 the Respondents announced that they no longer were willing
to abide by earlier concessions and that, in effect, the long months of bargaining had
produced nothing. About the same time, Attorney Thane remarked that the Re-
spondents didn't want a contract at all. No doubt he expressed the attitude of his
clients. The end of the certification year had passed and in November the Respond-
ents filed a representation petition with the Board seeking a test of the Union' s status.
It seems clear enough to me that the Respondents at least as early as July 10 had
refused to bargain with the Union. On that date they reiterated their adamantine
stand against any form of union security and said that it was thus useless to bargain
on other matters. The Union's offer to modify its wage demands evoked no other
response . Within the confines of the issues presented in this case I find no significance
in the fact that the Union then approached the Association members individually even
if it be the fact that it was thereby seeking to obtain as many signed agreements as
possible. The union negotiators could hardly have believed that the Association was
bargaining with any view to reaching agreement. By approaching the individuals it
may have hoped to force the Association to perform its duty.
It remains the fact, however, that the Respondents are charged with a refusal to
bargain only after some date in October and that in consequence the occurrences at
earlier bargaining meetings are of importance on the issue of bargaining only as they
give meaning to the October meetings . Although the facts speak eloquently for a
finding of unlawful refusal to bargain no later than July 10, I regard the pleadings to
limit that issue to the later date. I find therefore that in and since October 1963 the
Respondents have failed and refused to bargain with the Union and that they have
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and
(5) of the Act.
The fact of the lockout is admitted. Respondents explain that by agreement among
themselves they refused employment to all employees in the bargaining unit as soon
as pickets appeared at the Big Chief. The defense to this manifest discrimination is a
claim that the Respondents were permitted by law to embrace this tactic in order to
protect the integrity of the associationwide bargaining unit . I find no merit in this
defense. All of the motels remained open for business and the work theretofore per-
formed by the locked-out workers was done by the owners and their families and
relatives. Upon the rationale of Brown Food Store,5 I find that the lockout was an
unlawful discrimination against the employees affected 6 within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act.
After the lockout ended employees at some of the motels remained away from
work and engaged in a strike. The record does not establish with any degree of cer-
tainty that such strike action was directed at any of the Respondents other than Circle
M, Bel Aire, and, of course, Big Chief where the picketing began. The complaint
alleges that the strike at Bel Aire was a protest against "unfair labor practices of Re-
spondents." The character of the unfair labor practices thus referred to is not ex-
plained . The testimony of the Bel Aire employees involved is in sum that they did
not return to work upon invitation to do so because the Union desired that they not.
The brief of counsel for the General Counsel asserts that the strike at Bel Aire was
caused by "an economic dispute between the Union and the Association" and that
the employees involved occupied the status of economic strikers Recalling that the
complaint does not allege an unlawful refusal to bargain prior to the strike, mindful
5 John Brown, et al., d/b/a Brown Food Store, 137 NLRB 73, enforcement denied
319 F. 2d 7 (C.A. 10).
0 They are named in attached Appendix A.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1485
that the Bel Aire strike began after the lockout had ended and that the picketing at
Big Chief preceded the lockout, I concluded that a caus'al connection between the
strike and the unfair labor practices has not been established and perhaps is not now
asserted. That the bargaining attitude of the Respondents before July 16 was such as
to warrant an unfair labor practice finding if the pleadings permitted and that the
strike may well have been caused by Respondents' conduct in this area does not
without more supply the nexus between the Respondents conduct and the strike. I do
not find that the strike was caused by Respondents' unfair labor practices.
B. Interference, restraint, and coercion
Nina Popham and Norma Barnhart, both then employed at Big Chief, testified
that in early July David Hubbard, the owner, manager, or operator of Big Chief, told
them in separate conversations that he was paying $1 an hour because the Union
would not permit him to pay more. Hubbard, one of the negotiators for the Associa-
tion, testified that he did not recall making such statements; that he did not recall
saying that to Barnhart and believed that he did not do so; and that he did not make
the remark to Popham. Averments of lack of recollection do not serve as convincing
denials and when a flat denial from such a witness is finally elicited it may be viewed
with some skepticism. It is unlikely that Popham or Barnhart was drawing upon
imagination in giving this testimony. I credit them. Of course Hubbard's statements
were outrageously untrue and he knew it. The Union was still at that time trying to
negotiate a wage rate of $1.50 an hour. Hubbard was trying to persuade employees
in this fashion that the Union was not only of no value to them but was indeed ob-
structing his desire to raise wages. Hubbard thus depreciated the value of union
representation and thus coerced employees in-the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act. Big Chief thereby engaged in unfair labor practices violative of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Freda Engstrom, Marjorie Wagner, Frances Lade, and Bonnie Rusk, all then em-
ployed at Bel Aire, testified that on July 13 the owner of the motel, Harry Harkins,
asked them if a decision to strike had been made at the union meeting the previous
evening. They refused this information. Harkins said that he would fire any of them
who failed to come to work without advance notice when he had a "full house."
Harkins conceded in his testimony that he had such a conversation with his employees
explaining that he feared a "sneak" strike that would leave him without help to care
for his guests. He denied that he threatened to discharge any of them. Considering
Harkins' expressed fears in this area, the testimony of the employes is plausible. I
credit them. Oddly enough, on July 16 Harkins had a "full house" but nonetheless
locked out his employees. By questioning his employees about happenings at a union
meeting, accompanied by a threat of discharge should they engage in a strike without
advance notice, Harkins interfered with, restrained, and coerced his employees in the
exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
Hertha Pastian, an employee at the Parkway, testified that her employer, Richard
Betts, on the morning of the lockout told her that the maids should stick together and
fight the Union. I find no violation of the Act in this remark.
C. The discharges
Christine Spadt, after working occasionally for several months at the Circle M
Motel, was hired as a full-time maid in June. Sometime that month she told her em-
ployer, Doris Mullin, that she wished to take a vacation in July. Mullin commented
that she would need a replacement for Spadt at that time. On July 12 Mullin, the
Association's president, asked Spadt if the Union had voted to strike. Spadt worked
July 14 and, when she finished the day, left the name of a replacement maid where
Mullin would see it. In the morning of July 16 Spadt went to the motel, collected
the pay due her, and departed on her vacation. Upon her return, July 31, she found
in her mail a letter from Mrs. Mullin reading-
This letter dated July 15th, is to inform you that because of the following
unfortunate events your services are terminated
1-Your failure to provide a relief maid in your absence while taking a
personal vacation.
2-Padding the time card which we definitely have evidence of.
3-Inability to get along with the other maids.
Your W2 form will be mailed to you at the proper time.
Counsel for the General Counsel contends that this letter of discharge was actually
written or. July 16, after Mullin had learned of the strike at Big Chief, and that
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spadt was discharged because she was to the knowledge of her employer a strong
supporter of the Union.
Mullin testified that she first employed Spadt in September 1962 for about a week
at the end of the season. In February 1963 Spadt began to work again at the Circle M,
substituting for another employee one Sunday each month. She worked with more
frequency in May and became a full-time worker in June. From that time forward,
until the discharge, Circle M employed three maids with only two working on any
given day. They were Spadt, Louise Welch, and Leah Johnson. At the beginning
of her regular employment Spadt told Mullin that she wished to take a vacation in
July. Mullin said that she supposed such an arrangement could be made but that
Spadt would have to supply a substitute to work for the vacation period. In a very
short time, according to Mullin, Spadt complained about the other maids, saying that
they were slow workers and that she did not enjoy working with them. Mullin called
the maids together and said that she desired them to bring all complaints to her so
that they might be talked out and settled. Sometime before Spadt was discharged,
Mullin testified, one of the maids mentioned that Spadt had claimed pay for more
time than she had worked. Mullin then checked the timecards and discovered what
she thought to be improper entries. The timecards show that on June 14 and 15
Spadt claimed 1 hour less each day than her coworker Louise Welch; on June 17 and
19 Spadt claimed 1 hour and one-half hour, respectively, more than Welch; on July 4
Spadt claimed pay for 41/2 hours although another maid, Leah Johnson, claimed only
4 hours for the same date; and on July 13 Spadt claimed to have worked 7 hours and
Johnson 6i/2 hours.
On Thursday, July 11, Mullin testified, Spadt said that her proposed replacement,
Leona Howerton, might not be able to work because of an injury to her daughter.
Mullin said that Spadt would have to find someone and Spadt said that she would
keep trying. The subject did not come up again between them.
Mullin left the city at noon, Saturday, the 13th, and did not return until about
11 o'clock the following Monday morning. Sometime on the latter date, according
to Mullin, she wrote to Spadt discharging her. Mullin testified that she mentioned
the date in the body of the letter to be sure that Spadt understood just when it was
that the discharge was effective. Mullin said that she had intended to enclose Spadt's
final check in the letter but before the letter was mailed Spadt came to the office and
was given her pay. Mullin explained that she said nothing then about a discharge
because she wished to avoid any unpleasantness. Mullin did not attempt to telephone
Howerton, although Spadt had left the telephone number at which she could be
reached, explaining that she had no reason to believe that Howerton would be avail-
able for work.
Mullin testified that Spadt telephoned her when the latter returned from vacation
and upbraided her for the discharge. When Spadt asked why Mullin did not make
the discharge verbally rather than by letter, Mullin answered that she wanted to
avoid an unpleasant confrontation and wanted to have a "record" of the discharge.
Mullin asked if Spadt would return to work if an opportunity was offered and Spadt
replied that because of the strike she could not do so.
I am convinced and find that the discharge letter was not written on July 15 as
Mullin testified. I am led to this conclusion in part because the July 15 date appears
to overstrike July 16 but also, in part, because Mullin by reiterating the date in the
body of the letter accentuated the date and gave it import. Why on July 15 would
Mullin have been so concerned that Spadt would note the date of discharge9 I
think that had the letter actually been written on the asserted date no such emphasis
would have appeared. There would have been no reason for it. Also, no mention
is made in the letter of enclosing a final check. Mullin testified that she had in-
tended to send the check along with the letter and did not do so only because Spadt
happened to claim it in person before the letter was mailed. But on July 16 pickets
appeared at Big Chief and Mullin (and the other Respondents) locked out their
employees.? Mullin testified that she wrote Spadt's final check on the occasion
when Spadt called at the motel for it. Spadt and her husband testified that this
was on July 16 and I accept that date as accurate. Were it not Mullin could have
produced the canceled check to show otherwise. In a pretrial statement given to an
agent of the Board, Mullin said that on the occasion when the final check was de-
livered, "I didn't say anything to her about her being discharged but I hadn't actu-
ally made up my mind yet." In her testimony Mullin claimed that she must have
been confused at the time she gave the statement and went on to say, When I wrote
that letter, I definitely had made up my mind to discharge her, not because of union
4 Mullin admittedly locked out Welch and apparently Johnson received the same treat-
ment. The complaint, however, does not allege a lockout in respect to Johnson.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1487
activities, but because of her poor quality of work." There can hardly be doubt but
that Mullin had decided upon the discharge when she wrote the letter but, as the
letter was not written before July 16, was she motivated in this action, as the com-
plaint alleges, because Spadt "was engaging in a strike"? No question was raised
at the hearing concerning the phrasing of the allegation but it is unclear to me just
how Spadt was a striker. She had not at any time prior to her discharge refused to
perform services for her employer. As the case was developed, however, it became
evident that the General Counsel claimed Spadt was discharged because she was a
union adherent and that Respondent's counsel asserted she was let go because she
was an unsatisfactory employee.
Mullin listed the reasons for discharge in the letter and mentioned them again
in her testimony but she emphasized at the hearing that Spadt's work was of poor
quality. When, on July 16, Spadt came for her check, Mullin did not mention that
Spadt had not provided a replacement and, of course, did not telephone Howerton
to learn if she was available. With the lockout in effect the matter of a replace-
ment had become unimportant. On no earlier date did Mullin make any mention of
"padding the time card" although Mullin claimed that Spadt had overcharged for
hours in mid-June. At no time did Mullin tell Spadt that she was unable to get
along with the other maids or that her work performance was unsatisfactory.
In June, Spadt had worked occasionally for Mullin over a period of several
months. Surely Mullin had formed an opinion that Spadt was capable of giving
satisfaction before giving her full-time employment. About a month later Spadt was
discharged The reasons advanced for the discharge are, after the test given them
at the hearing, unpersuasive. The failure, if it was such, to provide a substitute was
of no importance for Mullin as it developed didn't want a substitute or any maid at
all as long as the lockout was in effect. "Padding the time card" I am sure would
have been of concern to Mullin had she been convinced that it happened. Before
the discharge Mullin knew that Spadt had on a few occasions claimed to have
worked longer than her coworker but Mullin raised no question about it. On two
occasions Spadt claimed less hours than the one working with her and this too evoked
no inquiry from Mullin. I do not believe that Mullin attached any sinister impor-
tance to these incidents. It may be that Spadt did not always get along in complete
harmony with the other maids but there is no evidence of any genuine difficulty
arising in that area. In her testimony Mullin may have abandoned all of the rea-
sons for discharge so carefully set forth in her letter by saying that she was motivated
really by the poor quality of Spadt's work. There is no clear-cut testimony by any-
one that Mullin ever told Spadt that her work was less than satisfactory in any
particular.
On July 16 Mullin locked out her maids and, as I have found, thus engaged in an
unfair labor practice. On that day or the next 8 she discharged Spadt. But Spadt
was not just a maid who happened to be represented by the Union; she was to the
knowledge of Mullin one who "had union dealings." I interpret this comment by
Mullin to evidence an awareness that Spadt was active in her support of the Union.
I find that the discharge was in response to the same stimulus as the lockout. Mullin
was aware that the discharge might be unlawful and sought to mask the correlation
between the discharge and the picketing by predating the letter.
I find that by discharging Spadt, Circle M Motel discriminated against her to dis-
courage membership in, and activity in behalf of, the Union and that Circle M
Motel has thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) of the Act.
On July 29 and again on August 5, Harry Harkins of the Bel Aire Motel told the
six maids whom he had locked out on July 16 that he wanted them to return to
work. On the latter occasion, according to the credited and substantially undenied
testimony of Freda Engstrom, Marjorie Wagner, and Frances Lade, Harkins said
that if they did not report for work on August 6 they would be terminated. Harkins
testified that on August 5 he told the maids that they should report for work. He
explained that if they failed to do so "without formal notification of any kind they
were terminated. It was understood." In August and September, but after August 6,
replacements for the striking employees at Bel Aire were hired.
I find that Harry Harkins discharged his maids, Ila Brokow, Freda Engstrom,
Frances Lade, Ursula Lehtola, Bonnie Rusk, and Marjorie Wagner, on August 6
because they would not abandon the strike and return to work. I credit the testimony
of Engstrom, Wagner. and Lade to that effect and find that Harkins admitted this
much in his testimony. This was a discrimination directed against employees who
chose to exercise their right to engage in collective action in support of the Union.
s The letter was postmarked July 17.
1488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That Harkins may lawfully have replaced them as economic strikers is irrelevant.
He first discharged them and thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
When she was locked out of her employment at the Lodge Motel on July 16, Louise
Stroud obtained a temporary job at the Thunderbird Motel. The management at
Thunderbird had on July 13 signed the Union's proffered contract. L. K. Anderson,
the owner of Lodge Motel, about July 23 invited all of his locked-out employees
but Stroud to return to work. Learning of this Stroud telephoned Anderson and
asked why she had not been recalled. Anderson answered, according to Stroud, that
the Thunderbird was a "traitor" to the Association and that he would not hire anyone
who worked for a traitor.
Anderson testified that he knew that the Thunderbird had signed a contract with
the Union and that he verified Stroud's employment there. When Stroud telephoned
on July 24 or 25 to say that she wanted to return to work, Anderson told her, he
testified, "Louise, I think you were aware at the time you were sent home that you
were not fired. You didn't see fit to determine if we were going back to work. In
other words you didn't contact me. For all you knew, we may have gone back to
work the day you went to the [Thunderbird]. You didn't see fit to contact me and
you were in a matter of my employ. I considered you one of my- girls." On cross-
examination Anderson conceded that in speaking to Stroud, he referred to the
Thunderbird as a traitor.
It is unnecessary to dwell upon Anderson's curious concept of the duty owed an
employer who has unlawfully locked out his employees. Stroud's employment was
unlawfully interrupted on July 16, as I have found, and she was not recalled to report
back on July 24 because she had found interim work with an employer
who had signed a contract with the Union. I find that by refusing to permit Stroud
to return to work on July 24, Lodge Motel discriminated against her to discourage
membership in, or activity on behalf of, the Union and the Lodge Motel thus en-
gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of
the Act.
Because one of the Respondents, Sleepy Inn Motel, failed to answer the amended
complaint, counsel for the General Counsel asks that all allegations with respect to
Sleepy Inn Motel be found to be admitted and that an appropriate remedy be
recommended.
The original complaint was issued November 1. All Respondents including Sleepy
Inn Motel by answer dated November 5 admitted the fact of the lockout but denied
the commission of unfair labor practices. The amended complaint issued Decem-
ber 20 It restated the allegations of the original complaint but added an assertion
that the Respondents had refused unlawfully to bargain with the Union. Sleepy Inn
Motel did not answer the amended complaint and was not represented at the hear-
ing. It appears that in August or September Sleepy Inn Motel signed a bargaining
contract with the Union. It may be noted that this occurred prior to October when,
I have found as alleged, the refusal to bargain took place. I find no individual
refusal to bargain on the part of Sleepy Inn Motel.9
I find as the complaint alleges and as Sleepy Inn Motel has either admitted (in
respect to the original complaint) or failed to deny, that Sleepy Inn Motel locked
out employees Alice Hunter, Lydia Kallis, and Eve Sillier on July 16 and did not
give them an opportunity to return to work until July 25. I find that the lockout
was occasioned by the fact that the Union had placed pickets at Big Chief Motel
and that Sleepy Inn Motel continued to operate using members of the family, rela-
tives, friends, or other temporary employees. Upon the same considerations that I
have found operative in connection with the same allegation concerning the other
Respondents I find that Sleepy Inn Motel thus engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The complaint alleges that the Association is responsible along with the several
Employer Respondents for the unlawful lockout and the unlawful discharges. Al-
though it appears that the Association approved a lockout policy there is no evidence
that it implemented it. The fact that many Association members did not lock out
their employees suggests that this action was left to individual decision. There is
no evidence that the Association as an entity participated in the discharges. In con-
sequence I do not find in respect to the lockout or the discharges that the Associa-
tion committed unfair labor practices.
9It is my understanding of this case that the obligation to bargain runs between the
Association (not the individual members) and the Union To order Sleepy Inn Motel to
bargain, under this concept, would not be appropriate
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1489
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con-
nection with their operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation 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 .
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As to Missoula Motel Association, it will be recommended that upon request it
bargain with the Union in good faith in respect to union security, rates of pay,
wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment. As to all of the Em-
ployer Respondents other than Big Chief, it will be recommended that each make
whole those of its employees who were subjected to the lockout by payment to each
the amount of wages normally to have been earned for the period of the lockout as
shown on attached Appendix A. As to Bel Aire Motel, it will be recommended
that immediate and full reinstatement be offered to Ila Brokow, Freda Engstrom,
Frances Lade, Ursula Lehtola, Bonnie Rusk, and Marjorie Wagner, and that each
be made whole for any loss of earnings attributable to the discharges of August 6.10
As to Circle M, it will be recommended that immediate and full reinstatement be
offered to Christine Spadt and that she be made whole for any loss of earnings
attributable to her unlawful discharge on July 16. As in the case of Bel Aire, it is
possible that Spadt is still a striker and liability for backpay as to her will be gov-
erned by the same considerations as I have outlined for Bel Aire. As to Lodge
Motel, it will be recommended that immediate and full reinstatement be offered to
Louise Stroud and that she be made whole for any loss of earnings attributable to
the refusal of Lodge Motel to take her back as an employee on or about July 24.
Backpay in all of the above situations shall be computed in the manner set forth
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear interest at the rate of
6 percent per annum as provided in Isis Plumbing and Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716.
As all of the locked-out employees, other than at Bel Aire Motel and Lodge Motel,
appear to have been reinstated, no further requirement of reinstatement will be
recommended. -
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF, LAW
1. Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. By locking out employees, the Respondents, other than the Association and
Big Chief, have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By discharging employees to discourage membership in, and activity on behalf
of, the Union, Bel Aire Motel, Circle M Motel, and Lodge Motel have engaged in
further unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain in good faith with the Union the Association has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
5. By the lockout, by the discharges, by the refusal to bargain, by telling employees
that the Union would not permit an increase in wage rates, and by threatening em-
ployees with discharge should they strike without notice, the Respondents jointly or
10 Some complication may arise here for the reason that it is unclear how long these
discharged individuals remained on strike. It is certain that they began to strike against
their employer about July 31 and refused to return to work on August 6 because of that
circumstance Their discharge on this latter date obviously was more than a tactical
maneuver designed to bring the strike to a halt as I have found Although these in-
dividuals are entitled to backpay for the period following their discharge until they are
offered reinstatement, backpay will not accumulate for whatever period they have re-
mained on strike. There is evidence that replacements have been hired for them and
should any one or all of them accept reinstatement, Respondent Bel Aire must discharge
any or all replacements as necessary in order to provide employment for them.
760-577-65-vol. 148-95
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
severally, as found herein, have interfered with , restrained , and coerced employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and have thereby engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce 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 entire record in the case, I recommend that the Respondents , Missoula Motel
Association , Bel Aire Motel , Big Chief Motel, Canyon Motel, Circle M Motel, City
Center Motel , Downtown Motel , Lodge Motel , Missoula Motel , Parkway Motel,
Roy Motel, Shady Grove Motel, Sleepy Inn Motel, Sweet Rest Motel , and Westerner
Motel, and officers , agents, successors , and assigns of each, shall.
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in, or activity on behalf of , the Union by locking
out their employees to improve their bargaining position while continuing to operate
their establishments.11
(b) Through Missoula Motel Association , refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union in respect to union security or other terms or conditions of employment 12
(c) In the case of Bel Aire Motel, Circle M Motel, and Lodge Motel, discharging
employees to discourage membership in, or activity on behalf of, the Union or to
discourage engagement in a lawful strike.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of
the Act:
(a) Through Missoula Motel Association , upon request of the Union, bargain in
good faith on union security and other terms and conditions of employment and, if
agreement is reached , reduce it to writing and sign it.
(b) Each Respondent make whole its own employees as listed in Appendix A for
any loss of earnings during the period of the lockout.
(c) Offer immediate and full reinstatement, in the case of Bel Aire Motel, to Ila
Brokow, Freda Engstrom , Frances Lade, Ursula Lehtola, Bonnie Rusk, and Mar-
jorie Wagner; in the case of Circle M Motel , to Christine Spadt; and in the case of
Lodge Motel , to Louise Stroud; each to her former or substantially equivalent posi-
tion, and make each whole for any loss of earnings in the manner and to the extent
set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for
examination and copying , all payroll records, social security records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other such data convenient for a calculation for
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Decision.
(e) Each Respondent shall post at its establishment in Missoula , Montana, a
copy of the attached appropriate notice.13 Copies of said notices, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for Region 19, shall , after being duly signed by the Re-
spondent to which it applies, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places , including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted . 14 Reasonable steps shall
be taken to ensure that said notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(f) Each Respondent shall notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision , what steps it has taken in compliance.15
11 This subparagraph does not apply to the Association or to Big Chief Motel
12 This subparagraph does not apply to Sleepy Inn Motel.
11 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , 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 be enforced
by a decree of a 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 Deci-
sion and Order"
11 It does not appear that the Association has an office. It is required to post its notice
at the prenuses of each Association member
z; In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision
shall he modified to read " Notify said Regional Director, in writink , within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1491
It is further recommended that unless on or before 20 days from *the date of
receipt of this Decision the several Respondents notify the said Regional Director,
in writing, of intention to comply with the foregoing Recommended Order, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring such Respondents to take
that action.
APPENDIX A
Motel Employees locked out Period of lockout
Bel Aire-------------------------- IlaIla Brokow-- ---------------------------------- July 16-31.
Freda Engstrom________________________________ July 16-31.
Francis Lade------------------------------------ July 16-31.
Ursula Lehtola__________________________________ July 16-31.
Bonnie Rusk ------------------------------------ July 16-31.
Tvlarjorie Wagnei-------------------------------- July 16-31.
Canyon--------------------------- Olivia Rymal----------------------------------- July 16-31.
Circle M-------------------------- Louise W Welch-------------------------------- July 16-26.
City Center----------------------- Irene Grier-------------------------------------- July 16-27.
Doris 4 aillant___________________________________ July 16-28.
Mary La Roque--------------------------------- July 16-28.
Rose Herman ----------------------------------- July 16-28.
Downtown -------______________ _ _ _ Lucille Rishel----------------------------------- July 16-30.
Lodge-------- -------------------- Louise Stroud----------------------------------- July 16.
Missoula--- ----------------------- Judith Charles__________________________________ July 16-31.
Vicki Charles ----------------------------------- July 16-31.
Robert Charles__________________________________ July 16-31.
Evelyn Willig----------------------------------- July 16-31.
Parkway-------------------------- Hertha Pastian_________________________________ July 16-26
Margretha Meyer_______________________________ July 16-26
Royal----------------------------- Helen Potter ------------------------------------ July 16-25.
Margretha Meyer_______________________________ July 16-25.
Shady Grove______________________ Margaret M. Wood_____________________________ July 16-31.
Sleepy Inn------------------------ Alice Hunter ____________________________________ July 16-25.
Lydia Kallis------------------------------------ July 16-25.
Eve Suher-------------------------------------- July 16-25.
_______________________Sweet Rest------------------------ Margaret Lehman_______________________________ July 16-26.
Frances Motsehenbacker________________________ July 16-26.
Westerner------------------------- Dorothy Galwas________________________________ July 16-27.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF MEMBERS OF
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL bargain, upon request, with Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees.
Union , Local No. 427, AFL-CIO , as the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment , union security, and other terms and conditions.
of employment, and if an understanding is reached reduce it to writing and.
sign it.
The bargaining unit is:
All maids, laundry employees, janitors, yardmen, and all other house-
keeping service employees employed by the employer members of Missoula
Motel Association, excluding office clerical employees, desk clerks, confi-
dential employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT by refusing to bargain in good faith with purpose to reach
agreement or in any like or similar manner interfere with , restrain, or coerce
employees of members of Missoula Motel Association in the exercise of their
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX C
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge should they engage in lawful
strike without prior notification to us.
WE WILL through Missoula Motel Association, upon request, bargain with
Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, in good
faith on rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , union security , and other
terms and conditions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining
unit.
WE WILL make whole Ila Brokow, Freda Engstrom, Frances Lade, Ursula
Lehtola, Bonnie Rusk, and Marjorie Wagner for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the lockout from July 16 to 31, 1963 We will offer to the same
individuals immediate and full reinstatement , each to her former or substantially
equivalent position, and make each whole for any loss of earnings by reason of
the unlawful discharge of August 6, 1963, from that date to the date of the offer
or reinstatement. ` -"-
WE WILL NOT by means of threats to discharge, or unlawful lockout or dis-
charges, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in
the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist the above -named Union or any other labor organization , to bargain col-
lectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , or to refrain from any or 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.
BEL AmE MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days trom the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300; if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX D
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL through Missoula Motel Association , upon request, bargain col-
lectively' with Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees- Union, Local No. 472,
AFL-CIO, on rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , union security, and
other terms and conditions of employment , in respect to the associationwide
bargaining unit.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1493
WE WILL NOT by untruthfully saying that the above-named Union will not
permit an increase in wage rates, or in any other manner interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and 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 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.
BIG CHIEF MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX E
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL make whole Louise W. Welch for any loss of earnings caused by
reason of her unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 26, 1963, and offer im-
mediate and full reinstatement to Christine Spadt to her former or substantially
equivalent position and make her whole for any loss of earnings attributable to
her unlawful discharge on July 16, 1963.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees
Union, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, through Missoula Motel Association, on rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout or discharge or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a con-
dition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act.
CIRCLE M MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX F
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL offer to Louise Stroud immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or substantially equivalent position and make her whole for any loss
of earnings attributable to the unlawful lockout of July 16, 1963, and her sub-
sequent discharge on July 24, 1963.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL, upon request, bargain with Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees
Union, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, through Missoula Motel Association, on rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout or discharge, or in any other
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right
to self organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-
named Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concernted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re-
frain from any or 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.
LODGE MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX G
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and conditions
of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL make whole Olivia Rymal for any loss of earnings incurred by reason
of her unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 31, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout or in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and 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
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.
CANYON MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------- ------ By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX H
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and conditions
of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
, MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC.' 1495
WE WILL make whole Lucille Rishel for any loss of earnings incurred by
reason of her unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 30, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout or in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and 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
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.
DOWNTOWN MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX I
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: .
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and conditions of
employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL make whole Judith Charles, Vicki Charles, Robert Charles, and
Evelyn Willig, for any loss of earnings incurred by reason of the unlawful lock-
out from July 16 to 31, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout, or in any other manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing, and 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
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.
MISSOULA MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX J
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel , Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , union security , and other terms and conditions
of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
1496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole Hertha Pastian and Margretha Meyer for any loss of
earnings incurred by reason of their unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to
26, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout , or in any other manner, interfere
with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named
Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or 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.
PARKWAY MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street , Seattle, Washington , Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX K
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union,
Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates
of pay, wages , hours of employment , union security , and other terms and con-
ditions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL make whole Helen Potter and Margretha Meyer for any loss of
earnings incurred by reason for their unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to
25, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout , or in any other manner , inter-
fere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-
organization , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above-named
Union or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and 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 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.
ROYAL MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX L
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , union security , and other terms and conditions
of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
MISSOULA MOTEL ASSOCIATION, ETC. 1497
WE WILL make whole Margaret M. Wood for any loss of earnings incurred by
reason of her unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 31, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout, or in any other manner , interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and 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
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.
SHADY GROVE MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered byany other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office , 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX M
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that,
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, union security, and other terms and conditions
of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
WE WILL make whole Margaret Lehman and Frances Motschenbacker for
any loss of earnings incurred by reason of their unlawful lockout for the period
July 16 to 26, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout , or in any other manner, interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choosing , and 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
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.
SWEET REST MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered byany other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX N
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO , bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment, union security, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargain unit.
1498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL make whole Dorothy Galwas for any loss of earnings incurred by
reason of her unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 27, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout , or in any other manner, interfere
with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion , to form labor organizations , to join or assist the above -named Union or
any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing , and 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 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.
WESTERNER MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(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.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street , Seattle, Washington , Telephone No. 682-3300 , if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX 0
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL make whole Alice Hunter, Lydia Kallis, and Eve Sulier for any loss
of earnings incurred by reason of the unlawful lockout from July 16 to 25, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of lockout, or in any other manner, interfere with,
restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self -organiza-
tion , to form labor organizations , to join or assist Hotel , Motel & Restaurant
Employees Union, Local No. 427, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and 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 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.
SLEEPY INN MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered byany other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
APPENDIX P
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 Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request of Hotel , Motel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local
No. 427, AFL-CIO, bargain through Missoula Motel Association on rates of
pay, wages , hours of employment , union security, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment in respect to the associationwide bargaining unit.
THE GARIN COMPANY 1499
WE WILL make whole Irene Grier for any loss of earnings incurred by reason
of the unlawful lockout for the period July 16 to 27, 1963, and Doris Vaillant,
Mary La Roque and Rose Herman for the period July 16 to 28, 1963.
WE WILL NOT by means of unlawful lockout, or in any other manner, interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own cohosing, and 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 activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
CITY CENTER MOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By---------------------- --------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting;
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered byany other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 327 Logan
Building, 500 Union Street, Seattle, Washington, Telephone No. 682-3300, if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Garin Company and United Packinghouse, Food and Allied
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 78-A, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-
5915. September 30, 19641
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before a Hearing Officer of
the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Gonzales, California, asparagus pack-
148 NLRB No. 138.