Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Little Rock, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1962

135 N.L.R.B. 1327 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1327
organizations , to join or assist International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and to refrain from any and all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agree-
ment requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employ-
ment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL restore to all employees all privileges withdrawn from them in
May 1961-such as smoking other than at regular smoke breaks, trading
shifts, making up for lost hours, and starting shifts earlier on Saturdays.
All our employees are free to become, remain , or refrain from becoming members
of the above-named Union or any other labor organization.
HOFFMAN-TAFF, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------- By-------------------------------------------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office (120l
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri ; Telephone Number,
BAltimore 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions.
Morrison Cafeteria Company of Little Rock, Inc. and Hotel-
Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders International Union , AFL-CIO. Case No. t6-CA-1049.
February 28, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 17, 1961, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his
Intermediate Report herein, finding that the Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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 Rodgers and
Leedom].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the.exceptions
and brief, and the entire record. The Board affirms the Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings and adopts his findings and conclusions except as
modified herein.
The Trial Examiner concluded that the Respondent unlawfully
discharged employee Adams. We disagree. The facts are that on
April 17, 1961, Autry, the dining room manager, assigned Adams; a
waiter, to washing dishes during the noon meal, and pots and pans
during the evening meal. When Adams failed to perform his evening
135 NLRB No. 136.
1328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
task properly, Moore, the kitchen supervisor, discharged him, justi-
fiably according to the Trial Examiner. However, the Trial Ex-
aminer found that the assignment was discriminatory, Adams should
not be penalized for doing it improperly, and the discharge was thus
discriminatory. Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we cannot conclude
that the assignment was discriminatory. The Respondent needed
someone to fill in on the washing job. The record shows that it was
not unusual for waiters to be assigned to such fill-in jobs. The Gen-
eral Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof that in this instance
the selection of Adams rather than some other waiter was discrim-
inatory. As to Adams, therefore, the Trial Examiner's conclusion is
reversed, and the complaint is dismissed.
ORDER
The Board adopts the Recommendations of the Trial Examiner
except as to Earnest Adams, as to whom the complaint is dismissed.
The Recommendations are hereby modified so that provision 2(c)
will read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to
comply herewith," and by the addition of the following to provision
2: "(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay, if
any, that may be due under the terms of this Order." i
' In the notice attached to the Intermediate Report marked "Appendix ," the words
"A Decision and Order" are hereby substituted for the words "The Recommendations of
a Trial Examiner," and the words "Earnest Adams" are hereby deleted In the event that
this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "Pur-
suant to a Decrde of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order " shall be
substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order " The following is to be
added to the -notice, "Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional
Office ( 7th Floor, Falls Building , 22 North Front Street, Memphis , Tennessee ; Telephone
Number, Jackson 7-5451 ) if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions."
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
The complaint herein alleges that the Company has violated Section 8(a)(3) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , 73 Stat. 519, by assigning Cololsees
Bowers to less agreeable tasks and discharging Bowers , Lavelle Handy, Alfred
Russ, Jr., Leonard Montgomery , and Earnest Adams, all because of their union
activity; and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by said alleged acts , by interrogation and
threats of discharge in connection with union activities , and by removing a union
card from an employee 's person and reading it over protest . The answer denies
the allegations of violation.
A hearing was held before Lloyd Buchanan , the duly designated Trial Examiner,
at Little Rock , Arkansas, on July 25 and 26, 1961, and at the close the General
Counsel and the Respondent were heard in brief oral argument . Pursuant to leave
granted to all parties, briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent , the time to do so having been extended.
Upon the entire record in the case , and from my observation of the witnesses, I
make the following:
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1329
FINDINGS OF FACT (WITH REASONS THEREFOR)
1. THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It was admitted or stipulated and I find that the Company , an Arkansas corpora-
tion, operates a cafeteria at Little Rock, Arkansas, where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of preparing and serving food to the public; that it is a subsidiary corporation
of and an integral part of Morrison Cafeterias Consolidated, Inc., a Florida corpo-
ration with general offices in Tampa, Florida, which, through subsidiaries, operates
cafeterias and restaurants in various States; that the Company has been engaged in
business in Little Rock since February 13, 1961, and that in a 1-year period it will
derive gross revenues of more than $500,000 and will purchase and receive from
points outside the State of Arkansas goods and supplies valued at more than
$50,000 ; and that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It was stipulated and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Supervisors
It was stipulated that headwaiter No. 2, Paxton, like headwaiter No. 1, Simmons,
and others named in the complaint or at the hearing, are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act. While the Company denied that Vaught, headwaiter No. 3, is
a supervisor, it was testified that two of the three headwaiters are on duty every
day, each being off 2 days a week, and that in March, Autry, the dining room
manager, informed the waiters that he was appointing Vaught a headwaiter with
the same powers as the other headwaiters. It was also testified that, as headwaiter,
Vaught exercises the same authority as do the other two headwaiters. I find that
Vaught is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The fact that Vaught signed a union authorization card does not here reflect on
his status as a supervisor. His own and Bowers' possible failure to recognize that a
supervisor could not be included in an appropriate bargaining unit does not deter-
mine the issue before us. Bowers also asked Paxton, admittedly a supervisor, to
sign a card.
B. Credibility
Without comment on Autry's alleged Procrustean ideas concerning discipline,
the questions before us are mainly of credibility. Did the Company early have
knowledge of union activities? Were the employees assigned and discharged for
such activities or for cause? Did the alleged interrogation, threats, and other inter-
ference take place?
Part of the difficulty in resolving credibility questions in this case may stem from
my reluctance to believe that some of the testimony was entirely fabricated out of
whole cloth. Yet various inconsistencies and contradictions, taken with my observa-
tion of the witnesses, indicate just that. Compelled to rely on the evidence received
and the demeanor of the witnesses, I can claim no certainty in resolving direct con-
flicts in testimony.' Nor is it here necessary to cite every element which has led
me to credit the testimony of various employees rather than the supervisors. Suffice
it to say that in the main the former were consistent even where the cross-
examination was rigorous. True, there were discrepancies, as when a former waiter
who had quit testified that, despite his prior statement that of the waiters employed
four had been headwaiters at other Morrison cafeterias, he did not know whether
all of these had been headwaiters (it appears from Simmons' testimony that at least
two who had been headwaiters elsewhere were brought in); and that, although he
had said that the four had been flown in, he did not know whether all had in fact
been so transported. I am not relying on his too pat testimony concerning Manager
Strickland's knowledge of union activities. Other instances will be noted infra, as
in connection with Bowers' attitude after he was discharged.
On the other hand, gross inconsistencies in the testimony of company witnesses
were frequent and unexplained, as were elements which appear unworthy of belief.
Several of these will be noted infra. While the truth may rest in the testimony of
one side in a given respect and of the other side in another, the overall impression
of credibility with respect to each witness does not allow for such distinctions
where, as here, virtually every fact has been placed in issue by contradictory testi-
mony. Thus as in elections where the majority carries all, the findings in favor of
? 1 Samuel 16: 7.
634449-62-vol. 135-85
1330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Counsel may conceivably carry along items of credibility on which he
should not prevail. Of course, if I recognized any such items, I would pro tanto
find differently. But despite the problem and the possibilities, the eviednce is suffi-
cient to warrant findings that the General Counsel's burden of proof has been met
and the facts established by a preponderance of the testimony even if witnesses
whose testimony is credited did at times themselves stray from the truth.
C. Company knowledge of union activities
Not considering Simmons at the moment, but on the question of company knowl-
edge obtained through Paxton and Vaught, it appears that Paxton discussed union
matters with Bowers and assisted him in getting other employees to support the
Union: he "covered up" for Bowers when the latter solicited cards at work; he
planned how to get employees to attend a party which would in fact be a union
meeting; and he said that he was on Bowers' side and himself asked Bowers to keep
confidential what Paxton was saying and doing.
It may be, of course, that Paxton turned against Bowers and reported the latter's
activities to top management. But I am unwilling to assume this in the face of
Bowers' impression and testimony that Paxton assisted him. Nor can we assume
that Vaught, who signed a union card himself, told the Company about the union
activities. That these two headwaiters were not called is not to be the basis of a
finding against the Company. Whatever their status, their sympathy appears to have
been with the Union, and under the circumstances here I am unwilling to impute
their knowledge to the Company.
Simmons, on the other hand, was opposed to the Union, this fact being indicated
not only by the remarks charged to him but also by the fact that he left Crutcher
after he took and read her union card when he had sat down beside her, considered
infra, and further by his statement to various employees in a hotel room on the
evening of April 13 that he did not see why the employees wanted a union and
that Morrison would not stand for it. That he shared his superiors' concern with
respect to a union and that he opposed these waiters is borne out by his many
exaggerations and demonstrated unreliability on the stand, as noted infra.
With relatively few employees involved, their union activities were limited; and
since most of the waiters, at least (there were some 17 in all), met after hours,
there was not a great deal of such activity at the cafeteria. Bowers appears to have
first suggested the need for or the advisability of organizing the employees. After
some discussion with Paxton at the end of March, he complained to Simmons about
working conditions and spoke of getting in touch with union representatives whom
he knew. According to Bowers, Simmons stated that he would forget about it but
threatened Bowers with loss of his job if he mentioned the Union again . (We shall
consider, infra, Simmons' testimony that not until April 13 did he hear anything
about union activity.) Bowers was thereafter careful not to let Simmons see him
engage in union activities. The union business agent called at Bowers' home on
April 2, and at that time Bowers received union authorization cards. On April 4 he
got three employees to sign union cards; there is no evidence that the Company
had knowledge of this. That morning, he spoke to various employees about joining,
some signing cards, others not.
There is no proved connection between those activities and the next episode; but
about 9:30 that evening, when the cafeteria was closed, Autry charged Bowers
with working too slowly. There ensued a conversation during which Bowers
allegedly said, "We need a union out here." (Limiting ourselves at the moment to
the issue of company knowledge, we leave for later consideration other aspects of
this incident.) Bowers was thereafter assigned to other tasks.
'One may wonder about Bowers' penchant for mentioning to management the need
for a union. Such testimony is sometimes no more than a witness' attempt to provide
"evidence" of company knowledge where direct proof is not available. But on this
latter occasion he was provoked. and I place no stock in Autry's version.
Some of Bowers' contacts or talks with other employees took place during working
hours. While he was working in the kitchen on the afternoon of April 6, he solicited
and obtained a card from a kitchen employee. Autry charged Bowers with talking,
and put him to work elsewhere. It is beyond comprehension that Autry or any rea-
sonable person would keep a waiter from his regular duties and assign him to ever
more arduous tasks merely because he was observed talking to an employee in the
kitchen. This incident supports the testimony that Bowers had spoken of a union
to Autry, and the finding that Autry had knowledge of union activity. (The dis-
criminatory aspect of these assignments is considered infra.) Nor, except by refer-
ence to knowledge of Bowers' union activities, can we explain Autry' s badgering of
Bowers even on the daily inspection line. The Autry somehow received reports con-
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1331
cerning discussion among the employees is evidenced by his question to Bowers,
shortly before the latter was discharged, about a party which Bowers was planning
for conversion into a union meeting.
Handy had learned about the Union about April 1, but "to be sure of signing the
right thing," did not sign a card until April 11. On that day he got some 5 others
to sign in the cafeteria dressing room, not in the presence of supervisors, and that
evening attended a union meeting , at which approximately 30 employees were present.
He transported some from the cafeteria to the meeting. Handy further testified that
after his discharge, when he asked Autry for the reason, the latter replied, "I think
you know." In response to Handy's denials, Autry continued to challenge him with,
"You don't know anything about what is going on around here," and "You don't
know anything about a union here."
As for Russ' activities and company knowledge, he signed a union card about
April 4 and, between April 9 and 11, distributed cards to other employees, getting
approximately seven to sign . Aside from urging Vaught to persuade Handy to sign,
Russ also arranged for transportation of employees to the union meeting on April 11.
Whatever conclusions might be drawn or guessed at from Strickland's remark, "Oh,
so you are Russ," after he had asked and Russ told him his name, I draw none except
that Strickland had apparently heard something about Russ; what, we do not know.
This brief meeting occurred about 20 minutes before Russ learned that Handy had
been fired. Quite different, and relevant to the issue of company knowledge, was
Autry's question to Russ shortly after Handy's discharge, whether he knew anything
about the union talk. (This is considered, infra, in connection with the alleged inter-
rogation.) Whatever the Company's knowledge of Russ' activities, this interrogation
and the subsequent discharge (of which more, infra) indicated the Company's im-
pression or belief concerning such activities.
Adams' union activity was limited to signing a union card in the dressing room at
Bowers' request early in April. Adams testified that 2 or 3 days before his discharge
on April 17 Autry assigned to him the cleaning of restrooms when Proctor, the
waiter who performed that work regularly, was off. Adams testified also that he did
not know who had taken Proctor's place before, or why Autry now designated him.
Nor did Autry or anyone else explain this belated selection of Adams for that relief
job. When Adams had finished (or thought he had) cleaning the restrooms, Autry
inspected them and told him that "people who signed union cards ought to do a better
job.. ." Autry's union animus and his knowledge or impression concerning union
activities were here again manifest.
The somewhat more extensive union activities engaged in by Montgomery are
themselves slight when compared with the more definite evidence of company
knowledge and of the otherwise inexplicable action taken against him . Montgomery
signed a union card on the evening of April 8 and thereafter asked eight or nine other
employees to sign and asked Paxton and Vaught whether they had signed. On April
14, his last day of employment, when Montgomery asked why other waiters were not
assigned to take turns with him on dishwashing, Autry allegedly replied that "the
union wasn't running the business and . (that Montgomery) would wash dishes
for waiter's pay." Autry denied this. From the testimony in this connection and
with respect to Montgomery's discharge, it is clear that the idea of union activities
was prominent in Autry's mind.
With respect to all, the testimony shows that those who supported the Union tried
to conceal their activities in its behalf. But even though there is no direct evidence
that Autry or Strickland acquired such knowledge by overhearing conversations
among employees or seeing them solicit, sign, or receive union cards, the record
indicates that the Company did have knowledge of or believed that there was union
activity. This element of belief is determinative even if incorrect, i.e., even if an
employee who the Company thought was active in behalf of the Union was in fact
not. Simmons , who met with the other waiters socially after work every night,
formed his own impressions in this respect. We do not know to what extent, if any,
he transmitted these to his superiors. But aside from any general imputation of
knowledge, the latter would be guilty of unlawful discrimination even if they took
measures against nonactive employees if such measures, otherwise insufficiently ex-
plained, were taken under a mistaken belief or to discourage union activities generally.
In this connection, and also on the issue of credibility, Headwaiter Simmons testi-
fied that he first learned of union activity on April 13 from. Strickland, who, having
just returned from out of town, said that someone had spoken to him about such
activities; and Strickland now asked Simmons whether he knew about it. To this
Simmons allegedly replied in the negative, and Strickland did not pursue it further
with him. Strickland did not tell Simmons who his informant was. nor did Simmons
ask. But Russ testified credibly that in the hotel on April 13 Simmons declared
that "he had been called in on the carpet and asked . . . if he knew anything about
1332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the union and he told the people no." Besides the impression that Strickland was
not the only one who thus questioned him, this indicates that the questioning, accord-
ing to Simmons, had been neither as brief nor as casual as Simmons described it on
the stand. As far as Simmons' knowledge is concerned, I do not credit his alleged
denial to Strickland of knowledge of union activity . My overall impression of Sim-
mons' credibility is supported by his recklessly incorrect testimony concerning the
time when Handy was to pick up mail and get to work , and his complete confusion
with respect to time as he testified that Autry warned Bowers about a week before the
latter was discharged and discharged him the same or the following day!
Further, according to Simmons , when the men got together in a hotel room on the
day of Russ' and Handy's termination, which in fact was April 13, the very evening of
the day when Strickland had questioned him, Walker, a cook who had spoken to
Autry about the employees' union activities, reported that someone was trying to get
a union going and to persuade him to join. Although Strickland had spoken to him
about this that morning, Simmons testified that he knew nothing about it and acted
as if he had not heard of such a thing: he asked merely whether they had a union,
and-what union . He did not mention his conversation with Strickland that morning,
and now apparently did not pursue his own inquiry concerning the Union. , Simmons
testified that Strickland had spoken to him on April 13, but that the conversation in
the hotel room took place 2 or 3 days later, when Russ and Handy left. But it is
clear that Russ and Handy last worked on April 13 . Once again , Simmons was not
reliable.
One can understand Autry's alarm as he informed Strickland immediately on the
latter's return to Little Rock on the evening of April 12 that a cook had told him of
union activities. That Strickland, who indicated his own concern the following
morning by calling the president of the Company in Mobile, did not press Autry for
details is difficult to believe unless and even if Strickland had prior knowledge of
such activities. Nor in view of Autry's concern and his prompt report of union
activities to Strickland on April 12, do I believe that he had not earlier mentioned
to Strickland the information concerning union activities which had prompted his
interrogation and threats to employees, infra. We have already seen that Simmons'
version of various events was unreliable . One of the few credible items in the
Company's testimony is Strickland's inability to explain why he called Simmons out-
side to ask about the Union if, despite the importance of the matter, he was not
concerned lest he be overheard inside. I do not credit Strickland's attempt to
spread a gloss of casualness over his reaction when he spoke with Autry and with
Simmons.
If Strickland, before April 12, had knowledge of union activities, we need not
speculate why it was not until the morning of April 13 that, as he testified, he
telephoned company headquarters about it. At least one simple explanation which
is quite consonant with the facts adduced suggests that his taking action on April 13
does not mean that he had not had prior knowledge. Waiters and dishwashers are
relatively easy to replace; if the former need to be trained briefly, the cafeteria can
operate with a smaller complement. But on April 12 the news which Strickland re-
ceived was that a cook was now affected. What appears to be a serious difference,
since cooks are more highly skilled and not so readily replaceable, might certainly
explain a different reaction by Strickland . But such speculation is not our function
and plays no part in the findings here. Were we to seek a reason for Strickland's
call to headquarters, we should want to know about the managers' meeting which
he had just attended, what instructions he had received at that time, etc. The
pleasure which some may derive from such speculation is proportional to its in-
nocuousness; it is equally unprofitable. All of it serves but to show that the dis-
cussion between Strickland and Autry on April 12 and Strickland's acts the following
day do not bar a finding that they had prior knowledge of the union activities, as
indicated by the other circumstances portrayed on the record Aside from any
reliance on the small plant rule,2 the finding of such knowledge, particularly by
Autry, is well supported and stands. As for Strickland's knowledge, whether before
April 12 or not, the only one of these terminations in which he was directly in-
volved was Handy's; and that occurred later on April 13.
D. The alleged independent violation of Section 8(a) (1)
Having indicated the basis for my credibility determinations, I find that:
1. On April 1, Simmons told Bowers that the Company would fire everybody
and import workers from Shreveport before it would allow a union to come into the
cafeteria; and if Bowers mentioned the Union again he would lose his job.
2 W%eee Plow Welding Co, inc., 123 NLRB 616.
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1333
2. On April 12 Simmons put his hand into Crutcher 's uniform pocket and
fortuitously found a union card which she had just signed and placed there.
Whatever the impropriety , it was aggravated by the fact that what Simmons came
up with was a union card ; for it indicated a "danger" in signing and carrying such a
card on one 's person . Crutcher testified that she did not "protest"; she "asked him
for it back , but he didn 't give it to" her until he had finished reading the card. I
credit Crutcher, and reject Simmons ' denials.
3. About April 15, Simmons asked Horner , one of the maids , whether she had
signed a union card.
4. On April 4, Autry threatened Bowers: "Boy, if you mention union again you
are fired."
5. On April 13, when Handy asked Autry why he had fired him, Autry chal-
lenged with , "You don 't know anything about a union here."
6. A few minutes later , Autry asked Russ whether he knew anything about "this
hush-hush talk that was going on" about the Union.
7. A couple of days after April 12, when she signed a union card , Autry asked
Anderson and the other maids in a group whether they knew anything about the
Union.
Such interrogation and threats and the action with respect to Crutcher are violative
of the Act.
E. The alleged violation of Section 8(a)(3)
We have already alluded to some of the testimony which bears on the dis-
crimination alleged . With respect to three of the employees , Bowers, Handy, and
Adams, the Company allegedly had , for a considerable time, justification for dis-
charging them . While the failure to take such action did not create in them an im-
munization against discharge, I find that these discharges were in fact triggered by
the union activities and the Company 's knowledge or impression of such activities,
supra. - -
1. Bowers
Bowers had come to work at 6 a.m. on April 4. According to Autry, at approxi-
mately 8 p.m., when the cafeteria closed but with some patrons still at a table close
by, Bowers started to clean a rug with a vacuum cleaner, disturbing the customers.
Autry testified uncertainly that this had happened "about" twice before, and that he
had spoken to Bowers about it. (Autry was similarly uncertain when , with respect
to Handy, infra, he testified that he had discussed Handy's work with Simmons,
also on two occasions .) I credit Bowers ' version that Autry, about 9:30 p .m., long
after all patrons had left, told him that he was working too slowly . Bowers re-
marked that he was tired (it had been a long day), and there ensued the conversa-
tion concerning the Union . A few minutes later, Autry told Bowers that he was
not to wait on tables the next day but would bus dishes , i.e., clean the tables, so
that he would lose virtually all tips, the major part of his remuneration , for the
day. At about 9 p.m. that following day, April 5, Autry told Bowers that he had
seen him pick up a quarter tip; he did not want him to get any tips, and would put
him in the kitchen, where he would not get -any tips, washing dishes all of April 6.
When Bowers protested , Autry told him to do as he was told or leave. Since they
receive no tips, dishwashers receive higher pay from the Company than do waiters;
but Bowers was not paid any more for working in the kitchen, where he washed
dishes, walls, and floors.
While working in the kitchen , Bowers solicited a union card from another em-
ployee. Autry saw him talking, said that he would put him where he would not be
able to talk, and assigned him to work alone at a large dishwashing machine, doing
work which had previously been performed by two men. Autry's version is this:
"Since I had warned him about it (using a vacuum cleaner near customers) pre-
viously, I told him that I had some work to do whereby I thought he would remem-
ber it the next time, where it wouldn't happen the next time, work to do in the
kitchen , cleaning up and also bussing dishes." But he did not carry out that
alleged plan ; he did not assign Bowers to work in the kitchen the next day, but
did have him bussing . Not until he saw Bowers get a cup of coffee for a patron,
did he tell him that he would work in the kitchen on April 6. (According to Autry,
when requested by a customer to get a cup of coffee, Bowers, although in a waiter's
uniform and wearing his badge , should have transmitted the request to another
waiter. His offense consisted of getting the coffee himself when he had been told to
clean tables. ) On April 6, after Autry had told Bowers to clean a wall and "get it
done as fast as he could without any interruption by anyone else," he found him talk-
ing to one of the maids, and said that he "was going to put him some place where
he could not talk."
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I do not believe that this series of punishments was visited on Bowers because
he had said that he was tired on April 4, because of alleged improper use of a
vacum cleaner, because Autry had seen him receive one tip during an entire day, and
because he spoke once to another employee in the kitchen (unless Autry was con-
cerned over discussion about the Union). Reason is to be found in Bowers' state-
ment that the employees needed a union, his union activities, and Autry's opposition
thereto. Bowers' apparently docile acceptance of such treatment may be noted
as hardly in line with the violent threats which Autry claimed Bowers later made,
infra.
I find that these assignments were made to Bowers because of his union sympathy
and activity. Those assignments are not explained by Autry's references to Bowers'
alleged transgressions. There is no evidence of any rule against talking, and the
imposition of such a restriction against him under the circumstances might itself
be deemed provocative. If all waiters bussed dishes as punishment, there is no
evidence that any were compelled to bus and wash for several days. I find that the
assignments given to Bowers on April 5 and 6 were discriminatory as alleged.
Bowers returned to his work as a waiter on April 7. We can pass Autry's re-
marks that day that he was watching Bowers and would fire him if he even dropped
a teaspoon. Such remarks would appear to the General Counsel to show a dis-
criminatory intent to discharge Bowers; to counsel for the Company, they would
be no more than additional warning to Bowers concerning further transgression.
At the evening meal on April 8, according to Bowers, Autry saw him taking a
glass of orange juice to a customer, and asked whether he was going to serve it
"like that." Bowers said that he was, and did although Autry "hollered at (him) a
little more." Bowers testified that the juice had settled in the bottom of the glass
with the melted ice at the top; that the drink would regain its color as soon as it was
stirred; and that the checker had told him that it was all right to be served. Autry
then told him to go into the backroom, and when Autry pushed him, Bowers told
him not to, and Autry discharged him.
According to Autry, he had merely asked Bowers whether he was going to serve
the juice that way, when the latter called him a vile name. He told Bowers to go
into the back, and although he but placed his hand on Bowers' shoulder, the latter
swore at him. Once in the backroom, Autry discharged Bowers.
Although service of the orange juice was not declared to be the reason or justifi-
cation for the discharge, one might be justified in assuming that the waiter should
have stirred the juice before serving it although this is nowhere stated. Since Autry
permitted Bowers to serve the juice, it was hardly so serious an offense as to warrant
discharge. Bearing in mind Autry's indicated attitude toward the Union, his inter-
rogation, threats, and reassignments of Bowers, I find that this incident was but a
pretext availed of to discriminate against that employee.
Further according to Autry, Bowers was a satisfactory employee for the first
week or 10 days of his employment, but thereafter became poor indeed. Autry
spoke to him many times but explained that he had not discharged him because he
"believe[s] in giving everyone the maximum amount of chances before you might
say let the ax fall." (This appears to be in sharp contrast to his treatment of
Montgomery and his refusals to intercede for Adams when the latter was discharged
and subsequently.) 'According to Simmons, on the other hand, Bowers had been
a poor worker through his employment. Simmons first reported those shortcomings
to Autry a week or two before Bowers was discharged, and Autry only then started
to watch Bowers. These shifting and conflicting explanations as both Autry and
Simmons attempted so assiduously to portray Bowers' shortcomings themselves make
suspect the alleged reason or reasons for the latter's discharge. Nor does it appear
from either Autry's or Simmons' testimony that Bowers' alleged prior shortcomings
prompted or contributed to his discharge on April 8.
Neither can we adopt the suggestion that Bowers' tips reflected the poor quality
of his service. While different witnesses testified to various earnings, some higher
than Bowers', Autry's estimate of average earnings was lower than Bowers' figures.
Simmons' amounts were, quite typically, considerably higher than the others."
For its bearing on the remedy, we must consider the testimony concerning what
occurred immediately after Autry told Bowers that he was discharged. According
to the former, Bowers picked up an empty soft drink bottle and threatened to kill
Autry or cut him up, and then, cursing, threatened to get Autry. Bowers denied
all of this. Another waiter, Williams, called by the Company, testified that Rowers
drew his fist back to hit Autry, but that there was nothing in his hand. Williams
had followed Autry and Bowers into the backroom after he heard Bowers use
Profanity. The time sequence here and whether Williams may have missed an
incident are hardly clear; and Williams' denial that Bowers had anything in his
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1335
hand may well be of a piece with his next denial , that he heard Autry or Bowers
say anything in -the back . He indicated the falsity of the latter as he then testified
that Bowers used nasty words in the back , Autry told him that he no longer had a
job, and Bowers was still talking when Williams left . I do not feel justified in
discrediting the testimony of both Williams and Bowers in their denial of the threats
as described by Autry. Assistant Manager Bishop , who according to Autry, was
present part of the time, was not questioned concerning the incident . In the light
of the quality of the testimony from both sides on this point , and despite the
impression left by the testimony that Bowers did offer to fight Autry, I do not find
that Bowers lifted a bottle or threatened to kill Autry. If Bowers threatened Autry,
Williams who was presumably called to corroborate Autry's testimony , indicated that
there was in fact no threat on Autry's life : Williams indicated that Bowers was
combative , but under the circumstances , including provocation for several days
before, not to an extent which warrants denial of remedy to him.
2. Handy
Handy was employed as a waiter from the beginning of March until April 13.
Indicating that Handy was potentially a fine waiter, Autry testified that he caught
on fast but was merely "average." Yet Autry seriously criticized his work, albeit
in vague and general terms. Thus Handy was allegedly "a little smart acting and
smart talking"; he was guilty of a great deal of backtalk to Autry, although the latter
could think of no specific incident; three or four customers had complained about
Handy, beginning about a week after he started to work, and all of the complaints
falling within a period of about 2 weeks. Apparently there were no complaints
during the last half of Handy's employment. Just how much confidence, and in what
respects, Autry placed in the various waiters he did not explain. But he testified
that he did not place "complete confidence" in Handy. Confronted with the fact
that Handy was entrusted with the combination to the Company's post office box,
Autry at first stated that most employees knew that. Pressed on this, he named only
two of the headwaiters.
According to Autry, Handy had never prior to April 13 dropped a full load of
silverware ; he had dropped one or two trays as he was putting them on the shelf.
This minimal dereliction was quite different from the version submitted by Simmons;
not only did Handy drop silverware, but he dropped dishes "like it was a continuous
thing," about three times a week . It will suffice to mention without detailing other
alleged shortcomings, apparently known only to Simmons, such as the fact that
Handy was late with the mail, when in fact he was not late. If Autry discussed
Handy's shortcomings with Simmons only twice , the latter appears to have dis-
cussed these with Autry many more times.
Simmons was playing it strictly by ear when he emphasized "dependability," mean-
ing arriving to work on time, and , charging that Handy was deficient in this respect,
said that the Company would go along with a poor worker if he were dependable
and looked as if he were trying . Aside from the general meaninglessness of this,
like other alleged shortcomings it was not even mentioned by Autry, who effected
--the discharges. Indicating that Handy was dependable and a good worker is the
fact that the mail pickup was assigned to him as recently as 2 or 3 weeks before he
was discharged . Simmons also , and he alone , complained at the hearing that Handy
was supposed to pick up the mail at 9 a .m. but did not . But it developed that he was
to get the mail on the way to work, he was due at the cafeteria at 10 a.m., and it
- took not more than 10 or 15 minutes to go from the post office to the cafeteria: so
that Handy was on time if he picked the mail up as late as 9:45. Further. Handy's
discharge is not based on any such facts; there is no testimony that Strickland or
Autry knew of them. Nor do I believe that Handy, as Simmons testified, frequently
slipped into line ahead of the other waiters. I do not believe that the latter would
have permitted one of their number to do this and to continue it during the month
and a half of his employment . Simmons' injection of such items serves further to
reflect on his credibility and on the defense submitted to justify Handy's discharge.
With that background of a mass of testimony which would be irrelevant but for the
light which it casts on the explanation offered by the Company, we come to the
actual discharge of Handy by Strickland on April 13. The latter testified that
about the noon opening hour he was sitting near the end of the line in the dining
-room when he heard someone shill a tray of silverware. He did not see who it was,
and without looking around said to Autry, who was standing beside him. "let that
-bov out of here." Later, after Autrv had effected the discharge, Strickland allegedly
asked who it was, and Autry replied. "Handy."
This version suggests that whether or not Strickland knew of union activities and
of Handy 's specifically , the discharge was "impersonal ." But according to Autry,
1336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Strickland could recognize Handy 's voice from the latter 's comments , asked, "Was
that Handy?" and after Autry replied in the affirmative, said, "Let that boy go." I
cannot rely on either witness, and do not credit the explanation that Handy was
fired because he spilled some silverware. In fact, whether Handy was carrying
the silverware improperly , was attempting to handle too many trays at once, and
was going too fast, all of which Autry emphasized and clarified , is irrelevant.
Strickland , who allegedly directed his discharge , knew none of this at the time as,
from either version, he promptly directed the discharge. Autry's detailed expla-
nation of the facts which warranted Handy's discharge belies the simple if incredible
story offered by Autry himself and by Strickland: some trays were dropped, Fire that
man! Nor, beyond a single complaint from -a customer , which Strickland men-
tioned, does it appear that the latter had knowledge of Handy 's various short-
comings as Simmons was led to testify concerning them.
Before we leave the stories of Handy's alleged shortcomings , it should be noted
that he asked for extra pay for the time lost in getting the mail , and it stands uncon-
tradicted that on the morning of his discharge Autry told him that he "was working
on" Strickland to get Handy some more money. While we cannot trace the con-
volutions behind the scenes, the Company 's testimony is inconsistent and un-
reliable. (Strickland and Autry differed again in their versions of what the former
said to his supervisors at a meeting which he called on the morning of April 13.)
Aside from the question whether Strickland knowingly discharged Handy or
only some unidentified employee , the commotion or disturbance which allegedly
warranted such drastic action did not prompt Strickland even to turn to see it. If a
partition barred the view , he could by standing up see the awful scene even as
Autry did. None of this rings true. It is noted that Strickland's version might be
considered an "improvement" on Autry's, which had Strickland ask who it was
before he directed Handy's discharge. But with the system of supervisors pitching in
on various tasks as needed, Strickland from his own testimony might have been
ordering the discharge of one of his headwaiters or even of Bishop , his assistant
head manager!
3. Adams
We recall that Autry had not been satisfied with Adams' cleaning of the restrooms
2 or 3 days before April 17. In fact Autry had him do it a second and a third time.
This was not, however , cited as a reason for Adams ' discharge. During the noon
meal on April 17 Autry,assigned Adams to washing dishes. Later that afternoon he
told him to wash pots and pans. For the latter work, Adams received $3 additional
pay; but both jobs meant loss of opportunity to receive tips.
Adams testified that about 8 p.m. he told Autry that he wanted to go into the
dressing room to change his shoes, which were expensive and were stained by grease
from the pots; and that when he came out of the dressing room, Autry fired him.
In contrast to Adams' oversimplified account, Autry told an involved story about
Adams mumbling that he was now off or through for the day; he referred to the
latter's expensive shoes; Autry then allegedly went into the kitchen a second time and
found Moore, the kitchen foreman, doing the washing; and on Autry's third visit to
the kitchen Adams told him that Moore had fired him, Autry replying, "Well, what-
ever Mr. Moore says goes with me." Moore testified merely that Adams did not
seem to want to wash the pots; Moore told him to wash or go home; Adams went
into the dressing room and returned after 20 minutes, Moore washing in the mean-
time; and Moore then told Adams to go. Moore did not recall any of Autry's in-
volvements; in fact, he did not recall seeing Autry or talking with him! The contra-
dictions between Autry and Moore are too marked to be ignored.
From all of this testimony, there appeared to be justification for someone, whether
Autry or Moore, to discharge Adams. Although it may have been necessary for
Adams to change his shoes (Montgomery testified that he changed his clothes when
he was told to wash dishes), Adams was gone from the kitchen longer than was
necessary (I do not credit his testimony that he was gone not more than 4 or 5
minutes ) and failed to perform his assigned task. But Autry 's assignment of
Adams first to washing dishes and then to washing pots and pans was provocative
and discriminatory and set the later events in motion, so that the Company would
be liable even if Moore had discharged Adams.
Whereas in Bowers' case the long assignment to other duties was allegedly dis-
ciplinary, in Adams' case the Company's position is that it was but an instance of
the teamwork which was "necessary at times." Here Adams' reply is significant:
such filling in is necessary "sometimes , yes, but not constantly ." Teamwork and
pitching in to help may at times be necessary . But there is no other evidence of
extended or repeated assignments as in the case of Adams and of Montgomery,
infra. In fact, Bowers testified that except for April 5 and 6, when the Company
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC . 1337
was punishing him, he never was assigned to bussing dishes exclusively or to wash-
ing dishes . If it be argued that the extent of the need for additional help was un-
usual on April 17 (the Company 's position at the hearing was that a need to fill
in for others is not unusual ), that argument is minimized by the fact that the
Company itself now aggravated that alleged need.
It is clear that Adams considered his assignments to washing dishes during the
noon meal and to washing pots during the evening meal were not a "sometimes"
matter . In the absence of company explanation for these assignments or for his
assignment to clean the restrooms , I find that these assignments were discriminatory
and provocative , and that to the extent that insubordination might be found (and
aside from any indication that it would normally be condoned ; Simmons' attempt
to arrange that indicates that Adams was a good worker ), such insubordination
stemmed from and was prompted by the Company 's acts; and I would therefore
not penalize the employee in this instance . Adams was discriminatorily discharged.
4. Russ
As for Russ and Montgomery, Autry according to his own testimony virtually
challenged the one to quit and rewarded the other with a lesser-paying job although
both were admittedly fine waiters . Russ testified that he met Autry outside the
lockerroom soon after Handy was discharged (Handy confirmed the time element)
and, when he replied in the negative to Autry's question whether he knew anything
about the union talk , was told that he was fired : "You can catch your partner."
Russ and Autry agree that the latter did not in haec verbe say that Russ was dis-
charged ; but the meaning of Autry's words was clear to Russ , and the former did
not attempt to explain them otherwise . He testified that after Handy told Russ
that he had been discharged , he himself asked Russ , "Are you going to leave with
your buddy?" Autry did not recall Russ' reply, but testified that he (Autry) "merely
shrugged [his] shoulders and went on ." According to Autry's version, he was
here again provocative to say the least , there being no basis in the record for any
expectation, much less a suggestion , that Russ would quit. If, as Autry testified
to show that Russ later quit voluntarily, the latter continued to work for a while
at least after Handy's discharge and this conversation , the Company failed to pro-
duce Russ' timecard to support that testimony . Nor did Autry identify any of
the waiters who told him that Russ was gone when he asked at the evening meal,
"Where is Russ?"
The friendship between Handy and Russ no more indicates that the other
quit , as the Company claims, than that the Company connected them in its im-
pression of union activities and therefore discharged the second immediately after
discharging his friend . I rely, not on an equivocal conclusion which might be
drawn from this friendship , but on Russ' testimony that he was discharged.
5. Montgomery
On the afternoon of April 14 Autry found himself short of dishwashers, and
assigned Montgomery to that work . Montgomery protested that he had been
hired as a waiter , not a dishwasher , and as Autry worked on the dishes with him,
asked why he would not be receiving pay as a dishwasher . There is little dispute
about what was said except that Autry denied Montgomery 's testimony , supra,
concerning his remark that the Union was not running the business . Autry was
admittedly so "very pleased" and "very impressed" with Montgomery's work that
evening that he offered , nay insisted , that Montgomery become a dishwasher at
$30 per week ! It is of little moment whether Montgomery said , "Well, if I don't
do this that assumes that I have quit," Autry replying, "Yes, I guess so"; or whether
Autry said that Montgomery could wash or turn in his badge: the new conditions
were clear. There is sufficient basis for the findings and conclusions ; as in Adams'
case , we need not consider the testimony concerning postdischarge events.
There is no question but that a dishwasher was needed the night of April 14.
But the assignment of Montgomery , whom even Autry described as an excellent
worker as a waiter and wherever he was assigned , as a dishwasher at the nominal
wage paid waiters , and then to be a dishwasher permanently is inexplicable except
as provocation . The shortage of help was now , as when Adams was discharged,
aggravated by Autry. From the speed with which , according to Bishop , the dish-
washer's job was then filled , there was no need or valid reason for insisting that
Montgomery, a trained and able waiter , transfer to washing dishes. Clearly, the
attempt to assign Montgomery permanently to washing dishes was not based on
a need to relieve a temporarily "tight" situation . Whether it be considered as a dis-
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION S BOARD
charge from his work as waiter or a transfer but without the opportunity to earn
tips, the action taken against Montgomery was a termination of his employment as
waiter, and discriminatory.
As regards all employees, not only Montgomery, it may be accepted as fact that
there is often need for employees to fill in for others who are absent, as Strickland
testified. Such assignments could be discriminatory or not, depending on the cir-
cumstances. The Company could not help but realize that waiters assigned to
other duties thereby lost the opportunity to receive tips from guests, upon which
they mainly relied, and were in any event to be compensated for extra work done.
That the Company did in fact realize this is clear from the uncontradicted testimony
that when Bowers was early assigned to unloading a truck three mornings each
week, he was paid extra therefor. Not only in Montgomery's case, but with respect
to all who were assigned to cleaning or kitchen work for extended periods, the
question before us has been whether such assignments were themselves discrimi-
natory. Under the circumstances here I find that those assignments led to the dis-
charges and were discriminatory?
The Company's state of mind and its motives must be inferred from its conduct
under the given circumstances. That circumstances alter cases Strickland readily
agreed as he testified that employees sometimes were discharged, sometimes not,
when they spilled things. Whatever determined the Company's action in those
cases, we have here one basis: its concern with union activities. As in N.L.R.B. v.
WTVJ, Inc.,4 the reasons assigned for the discharges were mere pretexts; the dis-
charges were due to union activities even if good cause might have existed and'
been shown. In the case of Russ and Montgomery, where reasons were not as-
signed, it being claimed that they quit, I find that they were discharged, also because
of union activities. The Company was consistent in its discrimination with respect
to all five. The preponderance of the evidence warrants these findings although, as
I have indicated, there are elements in some of the testimony offered by the General
Counsel on which I do not rely.
M. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Company set forth in section II, above, occurring in con-
nection with the 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.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair-
'labor practices affecting commerce, I shall recommend that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It has been found that the Company, by assigning Bowers to less agreeable tasks
and by discharging Bowers, Handy, Russ, Montgomery, and Adams, discriminated
against them in respect to their hire and tenure of employment in violation of'
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and from infringing in any other manner upon the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act. I shall further recommend that the Company offer to Bowers,
Handy, Russ, Montgomery, and Adams immediate reinstatement to their former,
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other-
rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings sustained by
each of them by reason of the discrimination against them, computation to be made-
in the customary manner .5 I shall further recommend that the Board order the
3 "In each case it must be established whether the legal or the illegal reason for dis-
charge was the actually motivating one, and if evidence of both is present we must'
ascertain whether the evidence is at least as reasonably susceptible of the inference of
illegal discharge drawn by the Board as it is of the inference of legal discharge . . In
doing so we must keep in mind that while proof that a discriminatoiy purpose was the
motivating one is rarely direct , and it may therefore be established from all the circum-
stances, the burden is throughout upon the Board to establish that it was , and this
may not lightly be inferred N L R B v. McGahey, 5 Cir, 233 F 2d 406 " N L R B v.
West Point Mfg. Co, 245 P 2d 783 , 786 (C .A 5), cited in N.L R.B v Atlanta Coca-Cola-
Bottling Company , Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, 293 F. 2d 300 (CA 5)
4 268 F. 2d 346 , 348 (CA 5)
e The Chase National Bank of the City of New York , San Juan, Puerto Rico , Branch,
65 NLRB 827 ; Crossett Lumber Company, 8 NLRB 440; Republic Steel Corporation v.
N L R B., 311 U S. 7; F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, 291-294
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC. 1339
Company to preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board, payroll and
other records to facilitate the checking of the amount of backpay due.
It has been further found that the Company, by interrogation, threats, and taking
a union card from an employee, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend
that the Company cease and desist therefrom.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire, tenure, and conditions of employment
of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, the
Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By such discrimination, by interrogation and threats of discharge in connection
with union activities, and by removing a union card from an employee and reading
it over her protest, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Company has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) ( 1 ) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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 Company, Morrison Cafe-
teria Company of Little Rock, Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas, its officers , agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor
organization, by discriminatorily assigning to less agreeable tasks or discharging any
of its employees or discriminating in any other manner in respect to their hire and
tenure of employment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating and threatening employees in connection with union activities,
and taking union cards from employees.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join
or assist Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,
or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Offer to Cololsees Bowers, Lavelle Handy, Alfred Russ, Jr., Leonard Mont-
gomery, and Earnest Adams immediate and full reinstatement to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings, including tips, they
may have suffered by reason of the interference, restraint, coercion, and discrimina-
tion against them, in the manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Post at its cafeteria in Little Rock, Arkansas, copies of the notice attached
hereto marked "Appendix " Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Com-
pany's representative, be posted by the Company immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by the Company to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-sixth Region, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Intermediat Report and Recommended Order, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless the Company shall within 20 days from
the receipt of this Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, notify said Re-
1 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gional Director, in writing, that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the Board issue an order requiring said Company to take the action aforesaid.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Management
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel &
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other labor organization, by discriminatorily assigning to less agreeable tasks
or discharging any of our employees or discriminating in any other manner in
respect to their hire and tenure of employment, or any other term or condition
of employment.
WE WILL NOT interrogate or threaten employees in connection with union
activities, or take union cards from them.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor or-
ganizations, to join or assist Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all
of such activities.
WE WILL offer to Cololsees Bowers, Lavelle Handy, Alfred Russ, Jr., Leonard
Montgomery, and Earnest Adams immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of earnings
suffered as a result of the interference, restraint, coercion, and discrimination
against them.
All of our employees are free to become, remain, or to refrain from becoming or
remaining members in good standing of Hotel-Motel Local 200, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posited for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
St. Joe Paper Company and James Rotolo
Local 118, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and James Rotolo
Local 118, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America [Goetzman and New-
man, Inc ] and James Rotolo. Cases Nos. 3-CA-1538,3-CB-4198,
and 3-CB-468. February 08, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 10, 1961, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
135 NLRB No. 134.