Murrieta Hot Springs

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 902 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Murrieta Hot Springs and Culinary Workers, Barten-
ders & Hotel Service Employees , Local 535,
AFL-CIO. Case 21-CA-10267
August 14, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On May 23, 1972, Trial Examiner George Christen-
sen issued the attached Decision in this proceeding.
Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an
answering brief to the Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
s'ithority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the Trial
Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs' and has decided to affirm the Trial Examin-
er's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt
his recommended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders
that Respondent, Murrieta Hot Springs, Murrieta,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs , shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
i The Respondent in its answer to the complaint issued herein sought to
raise issues that were previously raised and disposed of in the prior
representation proceeding which resulted in the certification of the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative of Respondent 's employees The
Trial Examiner in striking such averments did so in accord with well-
established Board law . It has long been held by the Board that in the
absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence , or special
circumstances requiring reexamination of the determination in a representa-
tion case , issues which were or could have been raised in a representation
case ' may, not be relitigated in a related unfair labor practice case
(Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, 163 NLRB 549, and cases there cited).
2 We agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent violated
Sec. 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act and that the initial year of certification should
be extended in order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit
will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the
period provided for by law, we therefore order that the initial year of
certification begin on the date the Respondent commences to bargain in
good faith with the Union as the recognized representative of its employees
in the appropriate unit ( Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785, Commerce
Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 , enfd 328 F .2d 600 (C.A
5), Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 , enfd . 350 F .2d 57 (C A.
10), Crest Leather Manufacturing Co., 167 NLRB 1085, 1087.)
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE CHRISTENSEN , Trial Examiner: On January 11,
1972, the Trial Examiner conducted a hearing at Riverside,
California , to try issues raised by a complaint issued
November 12, 1971,1 based upon a charge filed on
September 7. The complaint alleges that Murrietta Hot
Springs2 violated Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (hereafter the Act), by
refusing through its agent , Determan, to bargain in good
faith with Culinary Workers, Bartenders & Hotel Service
Employees, Local 535, AFL-CIO,3 as the duly certified
representative of a majority of its employees in an
appropriate unit concerning the rates of pay, wages, and
working conditions of the unit employees. The Company
denies that Determan was its agent for collective -bargain-
ing purposes and any bad-faith bargaining.
Based on his review of the entire record, observation of
the witnesses, perusal of the briefs and research, the Trial
Examiner enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION
The commerce facts and the qualification at all pertinent
times of the Company as an employer engaged in
commerce in a business affecting commerce and the Union
as a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(5), (6), and (7) of the Act are conceded by the parties and
the Trial Examiner so finds.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Unit and Majority Status
On September 25, 1970, the Board certified the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
Company's employees in a unit consisting of all the
Company's employees employed at its facility in Murrietta,
California , excluding office clerical employees , guards,
professional employees , and supervisors, following a May
22, 1970, Board-conducted election.4
On the basis of the foregoing , the Trial Examiner finds
and concludes that the unit described above is appropriate
for collective-bargaining purposes under Section 9 of the
Act and that since September 25, 1970, the Union has been
i Read 1971 hereafter if the year is omitted.
2 Hereafter called the Company
9 Hereafter called the Union
4 Case 21-RC-11747.
198 NLRB No. 118
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS 903
the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of
a majority of the Company's employees therein.
B. Bargaining
The Company and the Union had their first meeting on
July 16, 1970, at the San Diego offices of the Kahn
organization.5 The meeting was held in Mr. Kahn's office.
Initially Kahn and Company Comptroller Curtis represent-
ed the Company. The Union was represented by its
secretary-treasurer, Jones, and its president, Bajusz. Jones
presented Kahn with a copy of the current San Bernardi-
no-Riverside Hotel Employers Association-Union agree-
ment, one of the Union's standard agreements, a supple-
ment listing wage scales, and trust agreements for
employee medical and dental protection. Kahn glanced at
the wage scales and commented that the Company was
losing money and was paying its employees considerably
less than the Union's wage scales. He further stated that
the Company's attorney, Determan,6 would handle negoti-
ations and Curtis would assist Determan and make the
necessary wage and cost studies and surveys. Jones asked if
Determan would be able to negotiate and consummate a
contract. Kahn replied that he would. Kahn then called in
Determan and performed the introductions.7
The parties next met in Determan's office in the Kahn
organization's facilities in San Diego on August 20, 1970.
Determan, Curtis, Jones, and Bajusz were present. They
went over the union contract and Determan pointed out
that article 18 was inapplicable to an individual company-
union situation, objected to the language of article 19, the
arbitration procedure, and stated that article 20, the
duration provision, was too long (5 years). The parties
agreed to a 3-year rather than 5-year term, agreed that
Determan would prepare a revised arbitration provision to
his satisfaction, and agreed that the contract would be
individual. They also agreed to a 48- rather than 40-hour
workweek, and discussed the union wage scales. It was
proposed that San Diego rates be placed into effect on
contract-signing and increased in 6-month increments to
the Riverside-San Bernardino wage scales where the latter
exceeded the San Diego rates, so by March 15, 1972, the
company rates would match the Riverside-San Bernardino
scales. This was labeled a "major area gained" in Curtis'
August 24, 1970, report to Kahn (Company Exh. 1). The
meeting broke up with a promise by Determan, to contact
Jones for a further meeting when Curtis completed his
study of the cost impact of the wage proposal .8
On September 1, 1970, Jones telephoned Determan for a
8 Irvin J Kahn was the controlling stockholder of the Company at all
pertinent times
6 Determan is a salaried employee of the Kahn organization (Determan
so testified)
7 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the mutually
corroborative and uncontradicted testimony of Jones and BaJusz (neither
Kahn or Curtis testified) The testimony of Determan that after entering the
room he informed Jones and Bajusz that he would not have power to
negotiate an agreement is discredited Jones' and Bajusz' testimony that
Determan made such statement for the first time at a September 21, 1971,
meeting under the auspices of FMCS Commissioner Taylor is credited,
inasmuch as it seems illogical that Determan would volunteer such a
statement at a meeting where he was briefly introduced as the meeting
ended as the person the Union was to contact in the future, and would
contradict the previous statement of his superior, Kahn, as to his status The
date for renewed negotiations. Determan stated that the
Company had a new comptroller and the cost analysis had
not been completed. He promised to contact Jones within a
week .9
On September 11, 1970, not having heard from Deter-
man, Jones telephoned him. Determan repeated his
remarks of September 1, 1970.
On September 22, 1970, not having heard from Deter-
man, - Jones again telephoned him. Determan acted
irritated and stated he would not negotiate with the Union
until it was certified.
On September 25, 1970, the Board certified the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of an
appropriate unit of the Company's employees.
On October 2, 1970, Jones telephoned Determan's office
but was unable to reach him. He left a message for
Determan to call him.
On October 9, 1970, not having heard from Determan,
Jones repeated the same procedure, with the same result.
On October 16, 1970, not having heard from Determan,
Jones telephoned him. Determan advised Jones that he had
been and was very busy and would contact him later.
On October 22, 1970, and November 6, 1970, not having
heard further from Determan, Jones telephoned him.
Unable to reach him, he left word to return his call.
On November 13, 1970, Jones reached Determan in
another call, at which time Determan promised to have his
proposed contract language ready and to the Union by
December 5, 1970.
On December 1, 1970, Jones telephoned Determan's
office, but was unable to reach him. He left a message
asking Determan to call.
Neither a call or the promised contract language was
received by the Union by December 5, 1970. The Union
filed a charge with the Regional Office of the Board
alleging company violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
On December 9, 1970, Jones telephoned Determan's
office, but did not reach him. Jones again left a request
that Determan return his call. Determan called Jones
shortly thereafter and a meeting was agreed to for January
8 at Murrtetta Hot Springs.
Bajusz and Jones attended the January 8 conference for
the Union; Determan and various local managerial
employees attended for the Company. Determan had with
him a wage analysis prepared by Comptroller Curtis. The
analysis and the Union's wage schedule was reviewed in
detail, as well as the balance of the contract language.
Determan did not state any opposition to the wage plan
testimony of Jones and Bajusz also impressed the Trial Examiner as more
forthright and credible The Trial Examiner therefore finds that between
July 16, 1970, and September 21, 1971, Determan was an agent of the
Company acting on its behalf within the meaning of Sec 2(2) and (13) of
the Act
8 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the mutually
corroborative and uncontradicted testimony of Jones and BaJusz, as further
corroborated by Curtis' August 24, 1970. memo.
9 With rare exceptions this and subsequent telephone calls are corrobo-
rated by the Union's telephone records as to date (most of the calls were
station-to-station ), the findings with regard to the verbal exchanges when
conversations took place are based upon the testimony of Jones, which was
uncontradicted for the most part and is credited over Determan's
disconnected and rambling denials where any conflict occurred
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(see details of the plan in the findings concerning the
August 20, 1970, meeting and Curtis August 24, 1970,
memorandum recited heretofore) or the balance of the
union contract language, but indicated a desire to confer
with a new comptroller, who would soon be arriving,
before any contract finalization. The Union agreed. Jones
informed Determan that the Union was going to withdraw
its bad-faith bargaining charge, in view of Determan's
apparent willingness to bargain seriously for a contract.io
On January 14, Determan telephoned Jones and ar-
ranged a meeting for January 20 at Murrietta Hot Springs,
with the new comptroller in attendance.
On January 20, Bajusz, Jones, Determan, and Comptrol-
ler Thompson met as scheduled. Thompson had the
current wage scales paid the Murrietta employees docu-
mented, as well as the schedule of charges for room and
board, etc. The Company objected to the union minumum
wage scale for cooks of $2.75 on the ground their cooks
lived-in and received all meals, suggesting a minimum rate
of $2.50 for live-in cooks. The Union counterproposed a
minimum wage scale for all cooks of $2.50, which the
Company accepted. Determan noted that the Company
was building a golf course and asked if the Union would
represent the groundskeepers, etc. who would be hired to
maintain it. The Union stated that its certification covered
all employees except certain excluded categories, that
groundskeepers and the like were not excluded, so it would
represent them. The Union accepted company proposals
regarding short-hour shifts and temporary employees.
Jones offered to prepare a contract for signature. Deter-
man objected, stating he still wanted to reword the
arbitration provision, and would prepare the contract and
have it ready by February 1.11
Not having received the promised contract, on February
I Jones telephoned Determan, but was unable to reach
him. He left a request that Determan telephone him. On
February 8, 21, and 23, Jones telephoned Determan
without reaching him. During the afternoon of the latter
date, Determan returned Jones' call. Determan informed
Jones that the Company had still another comptroller and
that he would have to review the contract with him. He
asked Jones "to stay off his back" until about the middle of
March and he would have the contract ready by then.
Not having received a contract by mid-March, on March
15 Jones telephoned Determan. Determan informed Jones
that the contract was not ready yet, but would be in about
a week.
Not having received the contract, on March 24 Jones
again telephoned Determan, but was unable to reach him.
Jones requested that Determan return his call. Jones
telephoned Determan on April 1, 16, 19, and April 26 with
the same result.
On his May 5 call, Determan came on the telephone and
stated the contract still was not ready and suggested that
the parties have another meeting with the new comptroller
10 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the mutually
corroborative testimony of Jones and Bajusz.
It The findings in this paragraph. with one exception (the findings
concerning the reduction in the minimum cook rate) are based on the
mutually corroborative testimony of Jones and Bajusz Bajusz testified the
discussion concerning the minimum cook rate took place at the May 14
and finalize everything. Jones agreed. A meeting was set
for May 14.
The May 14 meeting took place at Determan's office in
San Diego. Bajusz, Jones, and Determan were present.
Determan stated that the comptroller could not make it.
According to Bajusz, the new minimum rate for cooks of
$2.50 was agreed to by the parties at this meeting, as well
as a minimum rate for maintenance employees. Determan
did not suggest any other changes and stated he would
have the contract typed within one to 2 weeks. Jones again
offered to draw up the contract. Determan again declined
the offer, stating he wanted to prepare it.12
Jones telephoned Determan on May 20, without success.
He next telephoned on June 2, at which time Determan
stated he still had not completed the contract draft, that he
had been busy, and that he still had not reviewed the
contract with the new comptroller, who would have to
work within a new budget. Jones asked Determan if he
thought there would be any objections. Determan replied
that he did not think so, but he would have to await
completion of the comptroller's review, after which he
would contact Jones.
Jones next telephoned Determan on June 10. Determan
stated he had been busy and had not conferred with the
comptroller yet. He suggested that Jones contact him
about June 21.
On June 22, Jones again telephoned Determan. Deter-
man again stated he had been busy and had not yet
conferred with the comptroller.
On June 23, Jones telephoned Determan, did not reach
him, and left word asking that Determan call him. On June
24, Determan returned his call, stated that he was meeting
with the comptroller on June 25, and would telephone
Jones after the meeting.
On June 25, Jones telephoned Determan. Determan
stated he had not been able to contact the comptroller.
Jones asked Determan if the contract was acceptable.
Determan responded that it appeared so, but he would
have to review the figures with the new comptroller, and
would confer with the comptroller and call Jones there-
after.
On June 29, Determan telephoned Jones and advised
Jones he was meeting with the comptroller on July 6 and
would contact Jones on July 8.
Not hearing from Determan, Jones telephoned him on
July 8. Determan stated that he had met with the
comptroller and the comptroller did not have any basic
objections to the contract but wanted to make some
computations. Determan asked Jones to call back about
July 11 or 12 to arrange a meeting between Jones,
Determan, and the comptroller.
Jones called Determan About July 18. Determan suggest-
ed a meeting. Jones accused Determan of stalling.
Determan said the delays were caused by comptroller
turnover.13
Jones, Bajusz, Determan, and Comptroller St. Germaine
meeting of the parties With regard to this issue, the Trial Examiner finds
the discussion took place at either the January 20 or May 14 meeting, but in
any event did take place
12 The findings in this paragraph are based on the mutually corrobora-
tive testimony of Jones and Bajusz
i i In the course of his testimony, however, Determan conceded that
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS 905
met at Determan's office as scheduled. They again went
over the contract language; the current wage schedules,14
and the wage increase schedule heretofore discussed. St.
Germaine said the Company could live with the arrange-
ment. Determan stated all that was left was to draft the
contract, that he would prepare it and have it ready by
August 1.15
The telephone marathon began again in early August,
culminating in a conversation initiated by Jones on August
18. Jones asked if the contract was ready. Determan
replied that it was not, he was having secretarial problems.
Jones asked if there were any problems. Determan replied
there were not, he just hadn't been able to get the contract
written up. Jones lost patience and stated that he wanted
the contract ready by the end of the month or he would
take "appropriate action." Determan apologized for the
delay, stated he had been very busy, and would have the
contract ready by the end of the month.16
No contract was received by the Union by August 31.
Jones instructed the union attorney to file the charge which
initiated this proceeding.
The parties had two more meetings, on September 21
and November 17, under the auspices of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service at its offices in San
Diego. Commissioner Taylor was present at both meetings,
as were Bajusz, Jones, and Determan. At the first meeting,
Jones recited the Union's belief that it had an agreement
which should have been executed but for the many delays
attributable to Determan. Determan responded that there
was no agreement, that he had no authority to negotiate, to
agree to anything, or to sign a contract on the Company's
behalf. Jones accused Determan in heated terms of bad
faith. Taylor suggested another meeting at a later date.
Jones asked Determan if he had the authority to agree to
another meeting. Determan responded that he did not, that
he would have to ask Kahn. Jones suggested that Kahn
attend a later meeting. Taylor asked Determan to check
with Kahn and advise. Jones noted that the certification
year would expire September 25 and asked Determan to
extend the period. Determan replied that he did not have
any authority. He stated he would communicate Kahn's
position at a later date. The same persons attended the
second meeting. Jones asked Determan if he had any
authority. Determan replied that he did not. Jones asserted
that the parties had reached agreement the previous May.
Determan denied this. Jones asked Determan what had not
been agreed upon. Determan quickly scanned the contract
and stated that they had not agreed on holidays. At that,
the meeting broke up. The parties have not met since that
time.17
C. Concluding Findings
The facts recited in section II,B, above, clearly support a
finding of bad-faith bargaining. After Determan's initial
designation as the company negotiator on July 16, 1970,
and encouraging progress in reaching agreement at the first
serious discussion of contract terms on August 20, 1970,
Determan began his stalling tactics-with his first use of
the comptroller ploy on September 1, 1970, followed by a
refusal to meet until certification, then continued failure to
return calls following certification (on September 25, 1970)
through to January 1971, when, faced with charges of bad-
faith bargaining, he resumed meeting and working out
agreements with the Union. After lulling the Union into a
belief that negotiations were moving again by his conduct
at the January 8, January 20, and May 14, 1971 meetings,
he added some new delaying tactics to the comptroller
ploy-alleged secretarial problems, schedule conflicts, etc.,
until the certification year expired. He then denied
possessing any authority at any time over the preceding
year to negotiate or agree to anything on behalf of the
Company, meanwhile conceding that the Company had
been adjusting wages upward during the entire period.
The Trial Examiner finds and concludes that this pattern
of bargaining on Determan's part constituted surface and
bad-faith bargaining in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act, particularly to bargain with the Union, make
apparent concessions, and then after the end of the
certification year disclaim authority to make such conces-
sions, meanwhile undermining the Union by a program of
steady upward wage adjustments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Company at all times pertinent was an employer
engaged in commerce in a business affecting commerce
and the Union was a labor organization as those terms are
defined in Section 2(2), (5), (6), and (7) of the Act,
2. All the Company's employees employed at its facility
in Murrietta, California, excluding office clerical, guard,
professionals, and supervisory employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes under Sec-
tion 9 of the Act.
3. At all times since September 25, 1970, the Union has
been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a
majority of the Company's employees within the unit just
specified.
4. Over the period July 16, 1970, to September 21, 1971,
Determan was the duly authorized collective-bargaining
agent and representative of the Company vis-a-vis the
Union.
Curtis, the comptroller who attended the initial July 16, 1970, meeting
between the parties at Kahn's office, had been continuously employed
throughout the period discussed herein by the Kahn interests
i; Determan testified the Company was making constant upward
adjustments in wages during the period negotiations were in progress
15 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the mutually
corroborative testimony of Jones and Bajusz Determan's testimony that he
never agreed to anything is not credited, as it appears incredible that
experienced negotiators would meet over such an extended period without
any agreements on any issues, as well as reasons cited heretofore for
crediting Bajusz and Jones over Determan where their testimony conflicts
is The Company cited Bajusz' testimony that during this period Jones
advised him that Determan had stated in one of the telephone conversations
that the contract was on Kahn 's desk awaiting his signature as proof of the
Union's awareness that Determan was not empowered to negotiate any
agreements The Trial Examiner rejects the inference , an agent oftentimes
negotiates an agreement on behalf of his principal and has the principal's
signature affixed to the formal document or documents embodying the
agreement reached on his behalf by his agent
i7 The findings in this paragraph are based upon the mutually
corroborative testimony of Bajusz and Jones Determan corroborated their
testimony as to what transpired at the two FMC meeting, except for their
testimony that this was the first time he claimed a lack of authority to
negotiate an agreement with the Union Determan 's disclaimer is not
credited and the testimony of Jones and Bajusz that this was their first
notice of such disclaimer is credited , for reasons heretofore noted
906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. By the course and conduct of its agent andl
representative, Determan, in negotiations with the Union
extending from August 20, 1970, through September 21,
1971, and more particularly by Determan's September 21,
1971, disclaimer of any authority to negotiate with, make
agreements with, and consummate any agreement with the
Union after conducting such negotiations and making such
agreements over the period above-stated, and by the
Company's policy of making upward adjustments in unit
employees' wages over the same period, the Company,
engaged in bad-faith and surface bargaining in violation oil
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning oil
'Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company engaged in unfair labor
practices, it shall be recommended that it cease and desist
therefrom and take affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the purposes of the Act; The Union's certification shall
be extended for 1 year from the date of compliance with
(this Order to give the parties sufficient opportunity to erase
'the effects of the unfair practices found.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, the Trial Examiner issues the
,following recommended: 18
ORDER
Murrietta Hot Springs, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing or refusing to bargain in good faith through
a representative or agent duly authorized to negotiate and
,make agreements with Culinary Workers, Bartenders and
Hotel Service Employees Local 535, AFL-CIO, concerning
the wages, rates of pay, hours, and working conditions of
those of its employees within a unit consisting of all its
employees at Mumetta, California, excluding office cleri-
cal, guard, professionals, and supervisory employees;
(b) Effecting changes in rates of pay, wages, hours or
working conditions of its employees in the unit hereina-
lbove specified without prior notice to and bargaining with
the aforesaid local union.19
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Meet and bargain by a duly authorized agent and
representative with the aforesaid local union at its request
concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours and working
,conditions of its employees within the aforesaid unit and,
when and if agreement or agreements are reached
concerning those subjects, reduce such agreement or
,,agreements to writing and sign it or them;
(b) Post on its premises at places where notices to
employees are customarily posted copies of the notice,
attached hereto and marked "Appendix," 20 Copies of such
notice on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
'Region 21 shall be signed by an authorized representative'
of Murrietta Hot Springs and posted immediately upon
,receipt thereof and maintained continuously for a period
of 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that the notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what
steps Murrietta Hot Springs has taken to comply here-
with.21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the certification year shall;
be extended to I calendar year after the date Mumetta Hot
Springs commences to comply with this Order.
18 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings
conclusions , recommendations and recommended Order herein shall, ash
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
19 This recommended Order shall not require a rollback of such,
increases in rates of pay, wages , hours, and working conditions as have been]
effected since the Union's original certification, September 25, 1970
20 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a;
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted byi
Order of the National Labor Relations Board," shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals , enforcing an Order ofi
the National Labor Relations Board" '
21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writing, within 20 days
from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply'
herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to bargain in good faith
through a representative or agent fully authorized to
negotiate and make agreements with Culinary Workers,
Bartenders and Hotel Service Employees, Local 535,
AFL-CIO, concerning the rates of pay, wages, hours,
and conditions of employment of all our employees at
Murnetta, California, excluding office clerical, guard,
professionals, and supervisory employees.
WE WILL NOT make any changes in the rates of pay,,
wages, hours, or working conditions of our employees
within the unit just specified without prior notice to
and bargaining with Culinary Workers, Bartenders and
Hotel Service Employees, Local 535, AFL-CIO,
concerning such changes.
WE WILL meet and bargain by a duly authorized
agent and representative with Culinary Workers,
Bartenders and Hotel Service Employees, Local 535,
AFL-CIO, at its request concerning the rates of pay,
wages hours, and working conditions of our employees
within the unit specified above and, when and if
agreement or agreements are reached concerning those
subjects, we will reduce such agreement or agreements
to writing and sign it or them.
MURIETTA HOT SPRINGS
(Employer)
MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS 907
Dated By Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
anyone. Eastern Columbia Building , 849 South Broadway, Los
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Angeles , California 90014, Telephone 215-688-5229.
from the date of posting and must not be altered , defaced,
or covered by any other material.