Mr. F'S Beef and Bourbon

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 462 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richard T. Furtney and Naomi P . Furtney , a Co-part-
nership d /b/a Mr . F'S Beef and Bourbon and De-
troit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union , AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-10562
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FINDINGS OF FACT
July 16, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On March 15, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr, issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings,' findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Richard T. Furtney and
Naomi P. Furtney, a Co-partnership d/b/a Mr. F's
Beef and Bourbon, Sterling Heights, Michigan, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
'In its exceptions , Respondent contends that the Administrative Law
Judge discriminatorily refused to accept Respondent's brief and thereby
Respondent was denied due process of law, We note that Respondent had
requested and had been granted two extensions of time for filing its brief by
the Chief Administrative Law Judge Nevertheless , according to Respondent.
its brief was not mailed until February 11, 1973. which was the date that it
was due to be received by the Administrative Law Judge See Sec 102 114(b)
of the Board 's Rules and Regulations Because Respondent 's brief was not
received by the Administrative Law Judge until February 19, 1974, he ruled
that it was not timely filed, in addition , the Administrative Law Judge
rejected Respondent 's brief because Respondent failed to serve the other
parties 'o this proceeding with a copy of Respondent 's brief as required by
Sec 102 42 of the Board's Rules and Regulations We find that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge correctly rejected Respondent's brief since the brief was
not timely filed and since copies of the brief were not served upon the other
parties as required by the Board ' s Rules and Regulations
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR. Administrative Law Judge This
case came on for hearing before me upon an unfair labor
practice complaint issued by the Regional Director of the
Board's Region 7, and amended at the hearing, alleging that
the Respondent Richard T. Furtney and Naomi Furtney,
Co-partners d/b/a Mr. F's Beef and Bourbon (herein called
Respondent or Mr F's), violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the Act.' The complaint specifically alleges that the Re-
spondent 2 unlawfully withdrew recognition from a recog-
nized bargaining agent at the end of a contract term and
unlawfully refuses to negotiate a new contract; that it
threatened employees with more ornerous working condi-
tions and made promises of employee benefits if they would
forsake their support of the bargaining agent; that it unlaw-
fully supported efforts to obtain an employee showing of
interest which was filed to accompany the decertification
petition filed in Case 7-RD-1114, that it discriminatorily
transferred employee Evelyn Erbert to a less desirable posi-
tion and disparately applied to her a company rule regard-
ing the furnishing of medical releases to return from sick
status in reprisal for her union activity, and that
Respondent's attorney, Michael C. Kovaleski, unlawfully
interrogated employees concerning their prospective testi-
mony at a forthcoming Board hearing and interfered with
the Section 7 rights of employees by telling them that they
did not have to appear at a Board hearing in response to
Board subpenas. As to the refusal to continue to recognize
the Joint Board and to negotiate a new contract, Respon-
dent asserts that it has entertained a reasonably based good-
faith doubt of the Union's continued majority status. Re-
spondent maintains that its activities in interrogating
prospective employee witnesses and to discussing their obli-
gations respecting Board subpenas were within the bounds
of the law. It denies the sponsorship of a decertification
petition and the other unlawful acts ascribed to it by the
complaint Upon these contentions the issues herein were
joined.
1 The principal docket entries in this case are as follows Charge filed on
August 24, 1973. by Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel and Restau-
rant Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO (herein
called the Union or Joint Board), and amended on October 9, 1973, com-
plaint issued on October 30, 1973, Respondent's answer filed November 5,
1973, Hearing held in Detroit, Michigan, on December 5, 6, 7, and 14, 1973
No briefs were timely filed in this case by any party
2 1 find that , at all times material hereto , the Respondent is and has been
a partnership which operates a bar and restaurant in Sterling Heights , Michi-
gan. a suburb of Detroit During the calendar year 1972 , a representative
period , the Respondent derived gross revenues in its business in excess of
$500,000 from its restaurant and bar operations and purchased in excess of
$71,000 of supplies from various Michigan suppliers including the Michigan
Liquor Control Commission Of the aforesaid purchases of supplies , $50,000
or more were received by the Respondent from suppliers directly from
points and places outside the State of Michigan Accordingly . it is an em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act The Joint
Board , and its constituent members , including Hotel , Motel, and Restaurant
Employees Union Local 705 (herein called Local 705) are, respectively, la-
bor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act
212 NLRB No. 63
MR F'S BEEF AND BOURBON
A The General Counsel's Positrial Motion to Strike
During the course of the hearing, the following documen-
tary exhibits were proffered by the Respondent and were
formally admitted into evidence-
Resp. Exh. 2, medical release of employee Sheila Kir-
choff, dated 5/30/72; Resp Exh. 3, medical release of em-
ployee Judy Rutherford, dated 8/24/72; Resp. Exh. 4,
medical release of employee Steve Kiwicz, dated 12/27/72,
Resp Exh 5a thru 5d, medical releases of employees Elaine
Palazzola (dated 1/5/73, Sharon Bloink (dated 2/25/73),
Gloria Lesniak (dated 4/20/73), and Jean Miller (dated
7/17/73); Resp. Exh 6a thru 6ag, individual slips signed by
various employees in January 1973, and submitted to Mich-
igan Employment Relations Commission in support of a
state decertification petition; Resp Exh. 7, contract of em-
ployment between employee Helen Rossi and Attorney
Raymond Glime, Resp. Exh. 8a thru 8at, individual slips
signed by various employees in July 1973, and submitted to
NLRB, Region 7, in support of decertification petition (7-
RD-I 114); and Resp. Exh 10, medical release of employee
Margo Prainito, dated 3/24/73.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the General Counsel noted
for the record that the Respondent had not yet complied
with Section 102.38 because it had not submitted the prof-
fered documents for the record in duplicate. After the hear-
ing adjourned, Respondent's counsel borrowed the original
exhibits which had been admitted for the purpose of prepar-
ing a duplicate set. Leave was not granted to withdraw the
original exhibits permanently As yet, the original set of
exhibits which were borrowed have not been returned. The
folder of original exhibits supplied by the reporter to me
does not contain these exhibits.
On February 8, 1974, the General Counsel filed with me
a posttrial motion to strike these exhibits from the record
and to strike also from the record all testimony relating to
them. Respondent's attorney submitted a response to the
motion, including an affidavit from his secretary to the
effect that, on January 7, 1974, she mailed to Allied Court
Reporters a letter enclosing duplicates.3 In a reply response
dated February 25, 1974, the General Counsel states that
the reporting service did receive one set of duplicates men-
tioned in the affidavit of Mr. Kovaleski's secretary but the
originals of the exhibits have never been returned He re-
news his motion to strike.
At my request, the General Counsel furnished me a com-
plete set of what was mailed to the court reporter by Mr.
Kovaleski The General Counsel has not noted any dele-
tions or variances between the original exhibits and the
xeroxed set which was ultimately furnished by
Respondent's attorney, and I am unable to find any. While
the action of Respondent's counsel in regard to duplicating
and returning only one set of exhibits was improper, it does
not appear that such actions have prejudiced the prosecu-
tion of the complaint. Accordingly, the General Counsel's
motion to strike the above-designated exhibits and related
3 The letter from Attorney Michael C Kovaleski to Allied Court Reporters
states
Please find enclosed herewith duplicates of Respondent's Exhibits (men-
tioning those above)
testimony is hereby denied.
463
B. The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged
Mr F's operates a large suburban bar and restaurant in
the outskirts of Detroit. Since a time shortly after the restau-
rant opened 10 years ago, Mr. F's has maintained a collec-
tive-bargaining relationship with the Detroit Joint Board
and has been party to successive contracts covering the bulk
of its workers. The Joint Board is actually composed of four
closely affiliated local unions which traditionally represent
employees in the restaurant industry. Mr. F's employees
who are chefs, cooks, stewards, and assistants belong to
Local 234, Its employees who are bartenders belong to Lo-
cal 562. Its hostesses, waitresses, porters, and busboys-
who constitute the bulk of its employees-belong to Local
705 ° Negotiations covering all of these employees are con-
ducted jointly with Mr. F's through the Joint Board. The
most recent contract was concluded in 1970 and expired on
November 1, 1973 It is a single document containing provi-
sions common to employees who are members of all three
locals The only difference among employees covered by the
contract are that wage rates are separately stated for each
of the classifications represented by each local union.
Waitress Hellen Rossi has been one of the most active
employees involved in the dispute which has taken shape at
Mr. F's in 1971 she mentioned to Thomas Furtney, son of
the owners and manager of the establishment, that she
wanted to eliminate union representation at the restaurant.
Furtney's advice to her was to see an attorney. However,
Furtney was not so disinterested a bystander as this reply
might indicate. Furtney attended a meeting that took place
early to January 1973, at the premises of the restaurant
which was attended by both employees and by Union Rep-
resentatives Eugene Yarmi and Frank Marie. The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss the signing of checkoff author-
izations by Respondent's employees. In the presence of 20
or 25 employees, Furtney advanced the opinion that "any
who takes money from a woman is either a pimp or a
pauper." He reiterated these sentiments on the stand at the
hearing, indicating that he had acquired this philosophy
from his father, a coowner of the establishment During this
same month, Rossi and another waitress, Joyce Scalzo, cir-
culated petition forms which, when signed, would support
the filing of a decertification petition. The forms were indi-
vidual slips of paper and were prepared for them by their
Attorney Raymond G Glime They requested that an elec-
tion be held to determine the representative status of the
Joint Board.5 Rossi, who from time to time purported to act
as the union shop steward, called a meeting of employees
late in January. It took place in the backroom of the restau-
rant during off-duty hours. Thomas Furtney was present
during a portion of this meeting. The general subject of the
Local 880. the fourth member of the Joint Board has no members em-
ployed by Mr F's
5 Rossi testified that Ghme was a personal friend of hers and that she had
made no fee arrangement with him She testified that he was willing to
represent her without fee Glime testified that, upon the dismissal of the RD
petition. he billed Rossi in due course She came to his office and paid him
a fee of $500 for representing her, presenting him with a personal check in
that amount drawn by some other person whose name he does not remember
I credit Ghme
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting was a discussion of waitresses' complaints about
inadequate wages and benefits and an exploration of the
possibility of establishing a collective-bargaining arrange-
ment directly between Mr F's and a committee of employ-
ees, all of which would eliminate the existence of the Joint
Board as a bargaining agent. Among the complaints was
one voiced to Furtney by waitress Elaine Palazzola to the
effect that wages were too low. Furtney's response was that
he was not at liberty to discuss a possible raise. Requests for
a plan of dental benefits and optometric benefits were made
to Furtney. Waitress Mildred Van Hulle requested that the
employer institute Blue Cross-Blue Shield benefits in place
of the Union's health insurance plan. Waitress Eleanor Lo-
packi also complained about the lack of Blue Cross-Blue
Shield benefits and about the Union's retirement fund. To
these complaints, Furtney was generally noncommittal. He
did say that he could not provide employees with Blue
Cross-Blue Shield benefits because the Union was still in at
the restaurant. By contract, the Respondent must provide
luncheon-shift waitresses with a noon meal On this occa-
sion, Furtney told waitresses Sheila Kirchoff, Mildred Tall-
man, and Toni Herman that, if the Union were not in at Mr.
F's, they would get a better balanced meal and better hospi-
talization benefits.
On February 2, 1973, Attorney Glime filed a decertifica-
tion petition with the Michigan Employment Relations
Commission. At a conference held at the Commission on
February 12, Glime told an attorney named Freeman, who
represented Mr. F's at the conference, that he was submit-
ting 34 cards or slips in support of the petition At that time,
the entire unit, including bartenders and others, comprised
approximately 55 persons. Glime told Freeman that "we
represent the employees." The petition was dismissed by the
State Commission because the Commission ascertained that
the dollar volume of business done by the Respondent was
sufficient to place it under the jurisdiction of the NLRB.
Glime was further informed that the petition was not timely
filed, either under Board law or under the Michigan statute.
On June 6, 1973, Furtney held a meeting of all waitresses
at the restaurant . The meeting took place at 2 p.m. The
meeting was also attended by his father and mother, who
visit the premises only occasionally, and the night maitre
d'hotel, George Shrake. A number of matters were dis-
cussed at this meeting. Several witnesses credibly provided
a composite account of this meeting. Furtney told the as-
sembled employees that he had received a number of com-
plaints from customers concerning the quality of service He
also noted that the restaurant was having difficulty in re-
taining busboys because the waitresses were not sharing a
sufficient amount of their tips with the busboys who assisted
them 6 Furtney also told the assembled employees that he
could not live with the union contract and that it would not
be a good thing for anyone if the Union stayed. He stated
that, if the Union remained the bargaining agent for
6 There existed at Mr F's a custom which arose entirely outside the terms
of the collective -bargaining agreement to the effect that each waitress was
expected ( though not required ) to leave a specified amount each day at the
desk to be used by Mr F's to supplement the stated hourly rate of busboys
In addition , on busy evenings , waitresses were expected to give busboys a
direct donation as part of a tip-sharing practice
Respondent's employees, he would cut the number of tables
assigned to each waitress and would eliminate the assistance
provided for them by busboys. He also stated that wait-
resses would have to stand inspection, they would not re-
ceive tips for parties in excess of 10 customers, and he would
change the waitresses' hours and assigned table stations
within the restaurant.? He also said that the luncheon wait-
resses would get nothing but hamburgers for their noon
meal until this union business was settled During this dis-
cussion , Furtney indicated that, if the Union ceased to be
the bargaining agent, he would set up vaguely described
board of arbitrators who would resolve any disputes that
might arise between the employees and management. Furt-
ney also suggested that, without the Union, he would pro-
vide the employees with Blue Cross insurance and a
cost-free program of dental insurance.
At the end of the meeting, Mrs Furtney suggested to
several of the waitresses that, if they didn't like the Union,
they should write them a letter downtown to that effect In
a personal conversation with waitress Sheila Kirchoff,
Thomas Furtney made reference to the Smidt House, an-
other restaurant located about 2 miles from Mr. F's. He told
her that the employees at the Smidt House had broken with
the Union, and asked why the employees at Mr. F's couldn't
also vote the Union out. A few weeks later, at the time a
second decertification petition was being circulated by Ros-
si and Scalzo, Furtney engaged waitress Sharon Bloink in
conversation just before the commencement of the noon
shift. He asked her if she had signed a petition in support
of decertifying the incumbent union. Bloink said that she
had not done so, whereupon Furtney told her that the girls
"had better sign the decertification or else " Later in the
shift, Bloink went to Rossi, asked to see a decertification
authorization slip, and, after reading it, signed it.8
Sometime in July, Rossi obtained new decertification
slips from Glime and began to solicit signatures throughout
the restaurant She was assisted in this effort by Scalzo.
Indeed, it was Scalzo who obtained the bulk of the signa-
tures, inasmuch as Rossi was on vacation during a part of
this time. Between the two of them, they collected 36 decer-
tification authorization cards or slips On August 9, Glime,
on behalf of Rossi, filed with the Regional Office a decertifi-
cation petition (Case 7-RD-1114) At this time, Mr. F's had
between 60 and 65 employees 9
t In his testimony, Furtney testified that he might have said that, if the
Union stayed he would eliminate tips on checks for banquets and parties of
10 or more customers He denied that his other statements relative to reduc-
ing the number of tables assigned to waitresses and eliminating busboys had
no connection with any union consideration Furtney was a most unimpres-
sive witness, whose testimony was in part self-contradictory, and I discredit
his denial
8 This conversation between Bloink and Furtney is uncontradicted in the
record
9 The slips in question supported a decertification petition but did not
purport to authorize any alternative bargaining agent to speak on behalf of
the signer At no time did Glime ever seek to bargain on behalf of any of
his clients While the introduction of these cards was contested at the hearing,
at no time did the General Counsel or the Charging Party contend that any
of the signers were not employees in the overall bargaining unit, or dispute
the assertion that the overall unit contained 60-65 employees The bulk of
the petition signers were waitresses and were thus members (or at least were
represented by) Local 705 Some kitchen employees and busboys were
among the signers The record is somewhat unclear as to what percentage of
Mr F's employees were then waitresses and others within the jurisdiction of
MR. F'S BEEF AND BOURBON
In the middle of June, employee Evelyn Erbert became
involved in a dispute with Furtney. Mrs. Erbert is one of the
senior waitresses in point of service at the Respondent's
establishment. On two occasions, Erbert phoned to inform
the restaurant management that she could not arrive for
work as scheduled because of stalling or breakdown of her
automobile. Furtney became angry on the second occasion
because Erbert refused either to come to work as soon as the
car trouble could be taken care of or to accept a ride to work
which he proffered As a result of this incident, she was
transferred from her regular location in front of the restau-
rant to a location in the backroom where her opportunity
for earning tips was materially reduced She testified that
the difference in tips could amount to as much as $50 or $55
per month. At this same time, Erbert was absent I day with
diarrhea When she returned, Furtney refused to permit her
to return to work without presenting a doctor's release She
left work, went to her physician's office, and obtained a slip
When she presented the slip the following day, Furtney
refused to accept it, saying that it was not an actual release
from the doctor in proper form. Erbert went to her doctor's
office a second time, procured a release in proper form and
presented it to the hostess, Delores Czarnik, who is author-
ized to accept such documents on behalf of the manage-
ment. Erbert complained to Local 705 about her treatment
in being switched to a location in the backroom. It appears
that Myra Wolfgang, secretary of Local 705, contacted
Furtney about this matter. When no adjustment was forth-
coming, Erbert herself spoke with Furtney. Furtney's reply
to Erbert's direct complaint was that he had planned to keep
her in the backroom for only a day, but that when the union
agent intervened, "well, let her get your section back for
you." After the filing of the charge in the instant case,
Erbert was ultimately reassigned to her original location,
but not until after working several weeks at a less desirable,
and according to her, a financially less rewarding location
On August 23, Robert G. Corrigan, business manager of
the Detroit Joint Board, sent a standard letter to the Re-
spondent by registered mail seeking to open negotiations
leading to a new contract On October 3, 1973, Corrigan
sent a second letter to this effect On October 5, Attorney
Kovaleski replied in writing to Corrigan's letter, noting his
appearance on behalf of the Respondent and refusing to
bargain with the Union. Kovaleski stated in his letter to
Corrigan that "we have a good faith doubt as to your actual-
ly representing the majority of our employees As you know
the National Labor Relations Board has recently decided
that the pending decertification petition will he held in
abeyance pending notice posting at Mr. F's. When the post-
ing period expires, the R.D will accordingly be proceeded
and the election will be held If you are victorious in this
election, we will be more than happy to sit down and begin
negotiations on a new contract " At or about this same
period of time, Kovaleski had a telephone conversation with
Glime in which Kovaleski told Glime that the Respondent
found itself in a dilemma as to whether it should await the
results of a decertification election During this conversa-
Local 705 Estimates ranged from 25 to 35 Furtney testified that there are
currently about 45 employees in the overall unit
465
tion Glime told Kovaleski that the petition was supported
by more than 50 percent of the employees in the bargaining
unit The Union's response in this situation was to file the
amended charge herein on October 9. On Octover 30, the
Regional Director dismissed the pending RD petition, stat-
ing that it appeared that, because of the issuance of the
instant complaint, no question concerning representation
existed.
On November 2. 1973, Respondent held a morning meet-
ing of its employees which was attended on behalf of man-
agement by Thomas Furtney and Kovaleski. During the
course of the meeting, Kovaleski addressed the assembled
employees for a period of 15 or 20 minutes Kovaleski in-
formed the group that there would be a hearing before the
NLRB and that many of the employees would be subpe-
naed to testify. He further stated that they did not have to
honor the subpenas, and that it was up to them whether or
not they went to the hearing. Kovaleski read to them an
excerpt from a Michigan statute (which was later posted on
the bulletin board) to the effect that, while employees were
entitled to strike and to picket, they could not legally picket
in such a manner as to block the driveways leading to the
restaurant parking lot. Kovaleski further stated that he had
been in contact with the Sterling Heights Township police
chief and informed the employees that any one who might
picket in contravention to the state statute would be prose-
cuted. He also stated that, while employees might lawfully
picket, their placards could not bear legends which were
libelous toward Mr F's.
The Board hearing in this case commenced on Wednes-
day, December 5. On the preceding Friday, Furtney told
the hostess, Delores Czarnik, to call a meeting of employees
for the following Monday afternoon. Czarnik posted a no-
tice on the employee bulletin board which read- "All girls.
Union meeting. Monday 2:00, Dec. 3." The meeting was
held in the backroom of the restaurant. On Monday, Furt-
ney individually asked some employees to be present at the
meeting. Kovaleski was present at the meeting place, sitting
at a table. No formal business or discussion was conducted.
The meeting was rather an assembling of employees in one
place to permit Kovaleski to interview them. Kovaleski pro-
ceeded to interview employees individually. He sat at a
location within the room which would normally not permit
other employees to listen to the discussion, although there
is evidence that some employees heard snatches of conver-
sations between Kovaleski and other employees. Those not
being interviewed sat and waited their turn. Furtney was
personally present in the room during the interviews.
The interviews were brief. As Kovaleski did not take the
stand, evidence concerning the substance of the interviews
comes exclusively from the waitresses who testified. Kovale-
ski asked each waitress who testified whether she had been
subpenaed to testify at the hearing on the following Wed-
nesday. Some replied in the affirmative and some replied in
the negative. Kovaleski told some of the waitresses that the
purpose of asking whether employees had been subpenaed
was to permit the restaurant management to prepare a
working schedule of waitresses on Wednesday. To others,
he made no such statement.10 There is no evidence that
10 One waitress, Mildred Tallman. had, previous to the meeting, told Fort-
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kovaleski told any employee that there would be no reprisal
taken against her for answering his questions, nor is there
any evidence that Kovaleski told any employee that she was
free to answer his questions or not as she might choose
Kovaleski asked Mildred Tallman whether she received a
subpena and whether she was going to go to the hearing. He
also asked her if she had signed a decertification petition.
Kovaleski asked employees, Phyllis Wlyrwicz, Sandra Kir-
chen, Toni Herman, and Mary Feil i whether they had
signed a decertification petition. He also asked Toni Her-
man if she was going to attend the hearing in response to
the subpena she had received from the Board.
C. Analysis and Discussion
1. The violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
a The acts of attorney misconduct
As Congress had never invested the Board or its examin-
ers with contempt powers, a notion occasionally arises in
the minds of some that subpenas issued by this Agency to
compel the attendance of witnesses at formal hearings do
not impose upon the recipient an obligation to comply,
unless and until the subpena is enforced by an order issued
by a United States district fudge. The Board long ago laid
this notion to rest in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, 128 NLRB
574, when it issued an admonition not to confuse the legal
obligation to honor a Board subpena with the procedure
spelled out by Congress for enforcing that obligation.
Hence, when an employer informs an employee that he does
not have to comply with a Board subpoena, or when it tells
him that he is free to suit himself in deciding whether to go
or not to go to a Board hearing in response to the commands
of a subpoena, such statements constitute unlawful interfer-
ence with Section 7 rights and are a violation of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act, Amalgamated Clothing Workers, AFL-
CIO v. N.L R.B [Block-Southland Sportswear, Inc.,] 420
F.2d 1296 (C.A.D.C., 1969). When an attorney who practic-
es before the Board makes such a statement to employees
in the presence of and on behalf of an employer, such con-
duct constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(l) and is also
unprofessional conduct. In this case, Kovaleski appeared at
a meeting of the Respondent's employees on November 2,
was introduced to them by Respondent's manager, and
spoke to the assembled group on the Respondent's behalf.
Every witness who testified on this point, including witness-
es called by the Respondent, recited that Kovaleski told
them that they would (or might) receive subpenas from the
Board and that it was up to them whether or not they
attended the hearing in response to the subpenas. By this
statement on the part of Kovaleski, Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
In Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770, the Board dis-
cussed at some length the competing requirements of the
observance by attorneys of the rights of employees guaran-
teed by Section 7 of the Act, and the necessities imposed by
ne' that she was going to attend the Board hearing
t Mary Feil normally works the evening shift Most of the waitresses
named above regularly work a luncheon shift
litigation of adequately preparing a client's case for trial.
The Board concluded that an employer's attorney might
properly interview his client's employees in preparation for
trial if the interviews were conducted in an atmospheie free
of union animus, if the interviewed employees were in-
formed of the purpose of the interview and were given assur-
ances that they would be free of reprisal for answering
questions put to them; if they were informed that they did
not have to answer any questions at all; and if the substance
of the questions did not probe into the private views and
sentiments of the employees respecting unionization. When
Kovaleski interviewed Mr. F's waitresses on December 3,
his actions fell short of the Board's requirements in almost
every particular Prior to this occasion, Kovaleski had, as
noted above, already violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act in
plain view of the entire bargaining unit by suggesting to
employees that they did not have to honor Board subpenas.
The question he posed to employees during the December
3 interrogation did not relate to events and transactions
drawn into scrutiny by the outstanding complaint, and
about which the employees might be expected to give evi-
dence. His questions related in large part to whether or not
the employees had received subpenas. The pretext stated by
Kovaleski to some, though not all, of the waitresses with
whom he spoke was that the employer wanted to find out
who had been subpenaed in order to be able to cover their
duty stations on the first day of the hearing While absence
of employees to attend a Board hearing is a legitimate con-
cern of any employer, it is hardly a concern which need be
advanced through a general meeting and a series of inter-
views conducted by its attorney, who has no responsibility
for the scheduling of waitresses. Kovaleski's responsibility
was to prepare for trial, not to prepare for Wednesday lun-
cheon customers. It is plain from this consideration, as well
as from the nature of his questions and his earlier statement
of November 2, that what Kovaleski was really probing into
was how many employees were going to take him up on his
previous invitation not to honor Board subpenas, as well as
using this occasion to remind employees obliquely of his
earlier suggestion. To ascertain Mildred Tallman's pros-
pective whereabouts on the following Wednesday, it was
not necessary for Kovaleski to ask her if she had been
subpenaed. She had already told Furtney that she was going
to the hearing. Mary Feil normally worked evenings, so her
appearance at the hearing during the day could hardly dis-
rupt the employer's work scheduling. Kovaleski not only
asked Dorothy Hostedler and Mildred Tallman if they were
subpenaed but also asked them whether they were going to
the hearing.
In the course of his relatively brief interviews, Kovaleski
failed to tell any of the employees who testified that they
were free not to answer his questions He also asked some
employees whether or not they had signed one or more
decertification petitions, the answers to which would openly
reflect their prounion or antiunion sentiments. In light of
these acts and omissions, it is clear that the interviews of
prospective witnesses which Kovaleski conducted on De-
cember 3 violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. I so find and
conclude. Tamper, Inc, 207 NLRB No. 142.
MR F'S BEEF AND BOURBON 467
b Furtney's statements to employees that she had no union activities . Accordingly, it cannot be
As noted before, there is credited evidence that, at an
employee meeting on June 6, Restaurant Manager Thomas
Furtney told employees that, if the Union remained as the
bargaining agent for restaurant employees, he would cut the
number of tables assigned to each waitress (thereby reduc-
ing their opportunities for earning tips), and would elimi-
nate the assistance provided to them by busboys (thereby
making their chores more onerous) He threatened that
waitresses would have to stand inspection, that he would
eliminate the existing practice of permitting them to have
tips when serving banquets and parties of 10 or more cus-
tomers, and that their hours and work stations would be
shifted. He also said he would strictly limit the selection of
free noon meals made available to luncheon-shift waitresses
pursuant to the contract On the other hand, Furtney prom-
ised to institute Blue Cross and a cost-free program of den-
tal insurance if the employees removed the Union as the
bargaining agent. These threats and promises of benefits
constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so
find and conclude. It is undenied on the record that, in June
or July 1973, Furtney told waitress Sharon Bloink that she
had better sign a decertification petition then being circulat-
ed "or else " I find that this statement constitutes a violation
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
2. The violations alleged respecting Evelyn Erbert
For a long time, the Respondent has sought to prevent the
abuse of sick excuses by waitresses whose lightly taken or
last-minute decisions to be absent for illness would sudden-
ly leave him short-handed. It had been a standing policy
that any waitress who is ill must, upon returning to work,
present either to Furtney or one of his designees a release
from a doctor, indicating not only why the employee was
absent but also that she is now physically fit to return to
work. It is equally clear from the record that the enforce-
ment of this rule has been sporadic and haphazard Some
employees have presented sick excuses or releases upon
returning from an illness and some have not; the employer
has requested such documentation from waitresses on some
occasions and sometimes it has not. The complaint alleges
the enforcement of this rule against Evelyn Erbert on Au-
gust 20 on a disparate and discriminatory basis. In my esti-
mation, the evidence on this point is confused and unclear,
and falls short of making out a violation.
After Evelyn Erbert failed to report to work on two occa-
sions in 2 successive months because of car breakdowns,
Furtney transferred her from a more desirable station where
she had been working for a number of years to the back-
room of the restaurant She places the time of the transfer
on a Friday sometime in mid-July, immediately following
her second absence for car trouble. From Erbert's own testi-
mony, it appears that the initial relocation was occasioned
by her second absence and her refusal, on the occasion of
the second breakdown, to accept Furtney's suggestion that
he send someone to pick her up and bring her to work.
There is no evidence that, before this time, Erbert had ex-
hibited any prounion sentiments or had engaged in any
noticeable union activity. Indeed, she stated on the stand
said that the initial transfer of duty stations was discrimina-
torily motivated or was an attempt on the part of the Re-
spondent to take reprisal against Erbert for engaging in
union activities . Rather , it appears from her own testimony
that the Respondent ' s initial action was prompted by
Furtney's irritation at her repeated failure to show up for
work
From Erbert 's stream -of-consciousness recitation of
events, it appears that, while she was working as a waitress
in this less desirable duty station , she also missed a Saturday
evening assignment because she was suffering with diar-
rhea . When she returned to work the following Monday,
Furtney required her to present a doctor 's excuse. She left
work , went to the doctor 's office, obtained an excuse, and
presented it on Tuesday when she reported to work. The
excuse said that she had stomach flu . Furtney said that the
excuse was inadequate because it was not an actual medical
release to return to work. Erbert became angry, but, at the
suggestion of another employee, returned to the doctor's
office and obtained a release in proper form which she
presented to the Respondent Her second effort at obtaining
a release apparently satisfied his requirements , and she re-
sumed working. Again, there is no evidence that the strict
application to Erbert of the sick release requirement on this
occasion was prompted by union considerations . The tim-
ing of this situation suggests rather that Furtney was again
displeased by Erbert' s repeated , though perhaps excusable,
absenteeism , and that he was taking a disciplinary measure
aimed at encouraging more regular attendance on her part.
Moreover , Furtney can hardly be faulted for requiring that
a food handler who was absent from work because of stom-
ach flu obtain actual clearance from a physician before
permitting her to resume her duties.
At some point in time shortly after being transferred to
the backroom , Erbert lodged a grievance with the Union.
Erbert's recollection is that she did not go to the Union until
after being required to go home to get a sick excuse. In
response to her complaint , Myra Wolfgang, a union officer,
went to Mr. F's to speak with Furtney for the purpose of
pressing the grievance . About 10 days after Erbert's initial
transfer-at a point in time when she was contemplating a
second complaint to the Union-Erbert spoke directly with
Furtney. It was then that Furtney told her that he had
planned to keep her in the backroom for only a day, but,
in effect, he had changed his mind and decided to keep her
longer at this station after she had sought the intervention
of the Union His reported statement to this effect is unde-
nied. Erbert was eventually restored to her original duty
station after the filing of the first charge in this case . Howev-
er, this adjustment did not result in a settlement agreement
which was formally approved by the Regional Director.
Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is governed by the
rule that the discontinuance of an unfair labor practice is no
defense to the prosecution of a complaint or the issuance of
a remedial order Southern Tours, Inc, 167 NLRB 364
(1967); Interstate Equipment Co. Inc , d/b/a Allen Motors,
172 NLRB 1320, 179 NLRB 622 (1969 ); N L.R.B v. Clinton
E Hobbs Company, 132 F.2d 249 (C.A. 1, 1942), N.L R B.
v Draper Corporation, 159 F.2d 294 (C.A 1, 1947).
In light of the foregoing evidence, I conclude that the
468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as
alleged in the complaint, by disparately and discriminatori-
ly applying to Evelyn Erbert a company rule or policy re-
garding the production of medical releases, so I will
recommend that this portion of the complaint be dismissed.
While the Respondent did not initially transfer Erbert to a
less desirable and less remunerative location for union-re-
lated considerations , it is clear from Furtney's admission
that he extended the period of Erbert's relocation from her
regular and more desirable station in reprisal for her action
in seeking union assistance to redress her initial grievance.
Accordingly, I find and conclude that the extension of her
transfer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
3. Employer's refusal to bargain at the end of the con-
tract term
Since its decision in Celanese Corporation of America, 95
NLRB 644 , the Board has held in a consistent line of cases
that a long-standing contractual relationship between an
employer and a collective -bargaining agent gives rise to a
presumption of continued majority status on the part of the
Union, even after the end of the certification year or the
expiration of the term of a collective -bargaining agreement.
Laystrom Manufacturing Co, 151 NLRB 1482 (1965); Ter-
rell Machine Company, 173 NLRB 1480 (1960) enf. 427 F 2d
1088 (C.A. 4, 1970) cert. denied 398 U.S. 929 (1970), Davis
& Hemphill, Inc, 177 NLRB 282 (1969); Barrington Plaza
and Tragniew, 185 NLRB 962 (1970); Emerson Manufactur-
ing Company, Inc., 200 NLRB 148 (1972). To avoid an obli-
gation to bargain in such a circumstance , an employer must
be able to establish that he had a good-faith doubt of the
Union's continued support status. This doubt must be rea-
sonably based and factually supported, and may not be
asserted in the context of employer unfair labor practices
aimed at causing employee disaffection from the Union
King Radio Corporation, 208 NLRB 578 (1974); Harpeth
Steel, Inc., 208 NLRB 545 (1974). The filing by employees
of a decertification petition does not, in and of itself, pro-
vide an employer with a sufficient factual basis for avoiding
a bargaining obligation based upon the assertion of a good-
faith doubt. Southwest Chevrolet Corp, 194 NLRB 975
(1972); Dayton Town and Country Furniture Shop, Inc., 172
NLRB 955 (1968); Universal Gear Service Corporation, 157
NLRB 1169, enfd. 394 F.2d 396 (C.A. 6, 1968); Allied Indus-
trial Workers, Local 289 v. N L. R. B, 476 F.2d 868 (C.A.D.
C., 1973). In some circumstances, the filing of a decertifica-
tion petition , coupled with evidence that the petition is
supported by over 50 percent of the employees in the bar-
gaining unit, has been held to provide an employer with a
reasonable basis upon which to predicate a good-faith
doubt of an incumbent union 's continued majority status.
GAF Corporation, 195 NLRB 169 (1972); Newhouse Broad-
casting Corporation, d/b/a WA PI-TV, 197 NLRB 885
(1972). However, as with any other factual circumstance,
such a contention will not be honored even in the face of
a decertification petition supported by a majority of em-
ployees in the bargaining unit, if at the same time 'the em-
ployer is attempting unlawfully to use its influence to cause
employees to repudiate the union. Boren Clay'Products
Company, 174 NLRB 895 (1969), enfd. 419 F 2d 387 (C.A.
4, 1970), Fremont Newspapers, Inc, 179 NLRB 390 (1969);
Firestone Synthetic Rubber and Latex Company, 173 NLRB
1179 (1969), Texas Electric Coop., Inc, 197 NLRB 10
(1972); The Rogers Manufacturing Company, 197 NLRB
1264 (1972).
Since no briefs or oral arguments were presented in this
case, we are left to speculate as to the basis for, the
Respondent's assertion of a good-faith doubt of the Union's
continued majority status in October 1973, and thereafter.
Also left to conjecture is the meaning and effect which
should be attached to record evidence which might fairly
detract from the Respondent's assertion of good faith. The
slips signed by 36 employees in July and filed with the
Board on August 9 in support of the decertification petition
state, as to each signatory, that he or she asserts "that the
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, the certified or currently recog-
nized bargaining representative for the waitresses , cooks,
bartenders, busboys, and restaurant employees of Mr. F's
Beef and Bourbon , Warren , Michigan , is no longer the rep-
resentative designated or selected for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining by the majority of the employees in said
bargaining unit." The assertion of fact as to the feeling of
the majority of the employees makes no mention of the
signer's own personal feeling in the matter . It is undenied
that most of the waitresses were still dues-paying members
in good standing of Local 705 until the conclusion of the
contract term on November 1. The record is silent as to the
dues-paying status of employees within the jurisdiction of
two locals who comprise the balance of the bargaining unit.
There is no evidence that waitresses or any other employees
sought to withdraw their membership during the contract.
To the contrary, there is evidence that the Local 705 sought
to enforce the union-security provisions of the outstanding
contract , and that it made known its intentions in this re-
gard to the entire membership who where employed at Mr.
F's
Regardless of these considerations, it is clear from the
precedents cited above that the signing of authorization
slips for decertification in mid-July and their presentation
to the Board in August in support of a decertification peti-,
tion are wholly insufficient to form the basis of a good-faith '
doubt on the part of this Respondent of the Union 's contin-
ued majority status. The circulation of these slips was ac-
complished in the context of .egregious unfair labor
practices on the part of this employer aimed specifically at
eliminating from its establishment an organization which it
publicly proclaimed to. be, made up of "pimps or paupers "
While the Respondent may not have initiated or sponsored
the decertification effort in a technical sense, Furtney lent-
the full weight of his influence to the efforts of two employ-
ees who were circulating the authorization slips. In his state-
ments at the June 6 meeting , recounted above , Furtney
promised numerous benefits to employees to reward them
for getting rid of the Union , and threatened various kinds
of punishment and unpleasantries if they did not . His state-
ment to Bloink that she had better sign the petition "or else"
lent further impetus to the decertification movement. As
there is no other basis in this record upon which the Respon-
dent, as of October 5 and thereafter could have predicated
a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status, I con- .
MR F'S BEEF AND BOURBON
dude that it had none . I further conclude that the Union's
presumed majority status as an incumbent bargaining
agent , functioning with the support of a union -shop con-
tract , constitutes a sufficient basis upon which to establish
a continued bargaining obligation Accordingly, when, on
October 5, Kovaleski informed Corrigan that the Respon-
dent would not bargain with him respecting a new contract,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The
violation continues to date.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon
the entire record herein considered as a whole, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Richard R. Furtney and Naomi Furtney,
co-partners d/b/a Mr . F's Beef and Bourbon, is an employ-
er engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce , within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Detroit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All restaurant employees , including waitresses, cooks,
bartenders, and busboys , who are employed by the Respon-
dent at its Sterling Heights, Michigan , restaurant , and ex-
cluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein , the Detroit Local Joint
Executive Board , Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, has been the
exclusive representative of all employees in the unit found
appropriate in Conclusion of Law 3, for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act.
5. By refusing to recognize and to bargain collectively in
good faith with the Detroit Local Joint Executive Board,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union , AFL-CIO, as the duly designated collective-
bargaining representative of its employees in the bargaining
unit found appropriate in Conclusion of Law 3 herein, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By discriminatorily extending a disciplinary transfer
of employee Evelyn Erbert to a less desirable and less re-
munerative station because she had requested the Union
herein to represent her in pressing a grievance , the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
7. By the aforementioned acts and conduct ; by telling
employees that they did not have to appear at a Board
hearing in response to a Board subpena ; by interrogating
employees as to whether they received Board subpenas and
whether they had signed decertification authorizations; by
threatening employees with restricted meal selection,
change of work location and duty hours, loss of tips for
serving banquets and large parties, reduction of the number
of tables served causing a loss of prospective tips, and elimi-
nation of the assistance of busboys , by promising to insti-
tute programs of medical and dental insurance benefits;
and by telling an employee to sign a decertification petition
469
"or else," in order to induce or persuade employees to take
action to remove the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative in the unit found appropriate in Conclusion
of Law No. 3, the Respondent herein violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
8. The aforementioned unfair labor practices have a
close, intimate, and substantial effect on the free flow of
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the
Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent herein has engaged in
unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be required
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act. The interference with the Section 7 rights of em-
ployees by the Respondent was repeated over a long period
of time and struck deeply at the root of the whole collective-
bargaining relationship. It also seriously interfered with the
administration of the Act. Accordingly, I will recommend
that the Board issue a broad order prohibiting all conduct
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I will recommend
that discriminatee Evelyn Erbert be made whole for the loss
of tips and any other remuneration during the period in
which her transfer was extended for discriminatory reasons,
together with interest thereon computed at 6 percent per
annum . I will further recommend that the Respondent be
required to recognize and bargain with the Detroit Joint
Board as the collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate herein.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and con-
clusions of law, and upon the entire record considered as a
whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the
following recommended: 12
ORDER
Respondent Richard T. Furtney and Naomi Furtney, co-
partners doing business as Mr. F's Beef and Bourbon, and
its attorneys ,, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with reprisals in order to in-
duce them to abandon their support for a union.
(b) Promising benefits to employees in order to induce
them to abandon their support for a union.
(c) Telling employees that they do not have to honor
Board subpenas.
(d) Interrogating employees as to whether they have re-
ceived Board subpenas and whether they have signed decer-
tification authorizations.
(e) Discouraging membership in the Detroit Local Joint
Executive Board , Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, any labor orga-
12 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nization affiliated with the said Detroit Local Joint Execu-
tive Board , or any other labor organization , by discrimina-
tion in the hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment of any employee , except as such
may be lawfully affected by an agreement containing a
union security clause as a condition of employment as au-
thorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(f) Refusing to recognize and to bargain , upon request,
with the Detroit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and
Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union , AFL-CIO, as the collective -bargaining representa-
tive of its restaurant employees , including waitresses, bar-
tenders , cooks, and busboys, employed by the Respondent
at its Sterling Heights, Michigan , restaurant , excluding su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
(g) By any means or in any manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Make whole Evelyn Erbert, in the manner set forth in
the section hereof entitled " Remedy," for any loss of earn-
ings suffered by reason of the discriminatory extension of
her transfer from her regular duty station to another duty
station.
(b) Recognize and, upon request , bargain collectively
with Detroit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, as the collective -bargaining representative of its
restaurant employees , including waitresses , bartenders,
cooks, and busboys, employed by the Respondent at its
Sterling Heights , Michigan , restaurant , excluding supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all records
necessary to analyze and compute the amount of reimburse-
ment to employees , if any , which may be due under the
terms of this Order
(d) Post at its Sterling Heights, Michigan , restaurant,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" 13 Copies
of said notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative , shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for a
period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced , or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of the Decision what steps
it has taken to comply herewith
Insofar as the complaint alleges matters not specifically
found herein , the complaint is hereby dismissed.
13 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
We are posting this notice to comply with the recommended
order issued by an Administrative Law Judge. The recom-
mended Order was issued after a hearing in which we were
found to have violated certain provisions of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees or promise benefits
to employees to induce them to abandon their support
for Detroit Local Joint Board, Hotel and Restaurant
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT advise employees that they are free to
disregard subpenas issued by the National Labor Re-
lations Board.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning
whether they have received subpenas from the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board or whether they have signed
authorization cards for a decertification election.
WE WILL NOT by any means or in any manner inter-
fere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL pay to Evelyn Erbert any money she may
have lost by virtue of a discriminatory extension of a
transfer to a less desirable station, with interest there-
on at 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with De-
troit Local Joint Board, Hotel and Restaurant and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
collective-bargaining representative of all of our res-
taurant employees, including waitresses , cooks, bar-
tenders, and busboys, and excluding supervisors as de-
fined in the National Labor Relations Act.
MR F's BEEF AND BOURBON
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
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. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washing-
ton Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone
313-226-3200.