Parkside Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of MAURICE EANET AND BEN RICH, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS , DOING BUSINESS AS PARKSIDE HOTEL, AND PARKSIDE
HOTEL, INC., A CORPORATION,' and HOTEL SERVICE WORKERS, LOCAL
80, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 5-C-2052.-Decided July 31,1947
Mr. Eugene Purver, for the Board.
Mr. William, H. Collins, of Washington, D. C., for the respondents.
Levine & Schlesinger, by Messrs. Samuel Levine and Charles S. Hill,
of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Ben Law, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 18, 1946, Trial Examiner Isadore Greenberg issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondents
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the respondents' exceptions and brief, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner with the following additions,
modifications, and exceptions :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondents 2 violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act by Housekeeper Annie Taylor's threat in
' Names of parties as amended at the hearing
2 In our discussion herein of events occurring before July 1, 1946, the term "respondents"
refers to Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich , individually and as co-partners , doing business as
Parkside Hotel. In our discussion herein of events occurring after July 1, 1946, the term
"respondents" includes, in addition to the foregoing , Parkside Hotel, Inc , a corporation,
74 N. L. R. B.. No 132
809
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February or March 1946, to James Jackson, a bellboy, that, if the
maids under her supervision joined the Union, she would discharge
them. The respondents contend that they are not responsible for
Taylor's threat, on the ground that it was a spontaneous and isolated
statement which they neither authorized nor ratified. We find no
merit in this contention. Jackson, like the maids, was a service em-
ployee who was eligible for membership in the Union. Taylor was
a supervisor who had authority to hire and discharge maids. As such,
she was clearly, in the eyes of the employees, a spokesman for man-
agement. The respondents had no announced policy of non-inter-
ference in the union affairs of their employees. Under these circum-
stances, the respondents are responsible for Taylor's threat, regardless
of whether they authorized it or ratified it.3 Moreover, we find, as
did the Trial Examiner, that Taylor's statement reflected the respond-
ents' attitude that an employee's affiliation with the Union was incom-
patible with his continued employment by the respondents. Such an
attitude was shown by Hotel Manager Gray when, in March 1946, he
replied to the Union's initial claim of majority representation by ask-
ing the Union representatives, "Well, if they [the employees] belong
to the Union why are they working here ?" 4
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondents violated
Section 8 (1) of the Act by Hotel Manager Gray's instruction to the
employees, late in April 1946, to conduct a vote as to whether they
desired to be represented by the Union, and to report the'results to
him.5 This vote was conducted in part by means of cards which Gray
which on that date succeeded to all the assets and liabilities of the co-partnership and.
thereafter operated the hotel enterprise involved in this proceeding Maurice Eanet and
Ben Rich are the owners of the controlling interest in that corporation and are, respectively,
its president and secretary
3 H J. Heinz Company v. N. L R B, 311 U S 514
4 While we agree with the Trial Examiner that Gray's question demonstrated an anti-
union animus as set forth above, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's finding that Gray's
question was in itself a violation by the respondents of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Unlike
the threat of Housekeeper Taylor discussed above, Gray's question was not addressed or
communicated to any employee whom the Union sought to represent ; nor is there any
showing that Gray intended that his question should be communicated to such employees.
It was directed instead to professional agents of the Union, who were not in the re-
spondent's employ Under such circumstances, Gray's question did not interfere with,
restrain, or coerce the respondents' employees in the exercise of their rights under the
Act Cf. Matter of H Paul Prigq, an individual, doing business under the name and style
of Prigg Boat works, 69 N L R B 97
5 Gray testified that a Field Examiner for the Board told him that the respondents were
entitled to conduct a poll of employee wishes as to representation by the Union pursuant
to an Agreement for Cross-Check signed on April 11, 1946, by a representative of the
Union and by Gray on behalf of the respondents We do not credit this testimony by
Gray, although Gray may have honestly inisundei"tood an explanation by the Field Exam-
iner of the Board's cross-check and secret-ballot techniques as alternative method, of
settling a question concerning representation. The Agreement for Cross-Check which
Gray read and signed does not in terms provide for an election. Even if Gray honestly
understood that the respondents were entitled to conduct an election, the Field Examiner
did not explain to Gray, as he admits, how the asserted election was to be conducted , and
PARKSIDE HOTEL ' 811
gave to the employees upon which to record their position as to the
Union.,, The completed cards were then returned to Gray. Such an
employer-directed poll of the employees' choice of representative is in
itself an illegal interference by the Employer in what is exclusively a
concern of the employees. It is coercive because it requires the indi-
vidual employee to declare himself and thus risk exposure to employer
reprisal. In addition, the poll in the instant case was particularly
coercive in view of Housekeeper Taylor's threat to discharge employees
who joined the Union."
3. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the respondents refused
to bargain with the Union on and after April 11, 1946, in violation of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
The respondents contend that there is no valid proof that the Union
ever had majority status. We do not agree. The Trial Examiner
found, as do we, that authorization cards in evidence, which were
authenticated by the undenied and credible testimony of Charles Hill,
a business agent of the Union, establish that a majority of the respond-
ents' employees in the appropriate union designated the Union as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining in Feb-
ruary 1946.$ Moreover, the cross-check of union authorization cards
against the respondents' pay roll conducted by the Board's Field
Examiner on April 11, 1946, even if it is not given the same legal
effect as a Board certification following an election,' at least establishes
the fact that on that date the Union was the freely chosen representa-
tive of the employees in. the appropriate unit. The poll of employees
conducted later in April at Gray's direction, upon which the respond-
ents rely as negativing the Union's majority status, was itself a coer-
cive interference by the respondents with the rights of their employees
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. It did not give the employees an
opportunity to express their choice freely, and it provided no reason-
able basis for doubting the employees' previously expressed designa-
the method adopted by Gray was particularly coercive in that it required each employee
to record his wishes on a card for delivery to the respondents
G Gray credibly testified that, in addition to returning the completed cards to him,
various employees reported orally to him their wishes with respect to representation by
the Union
7Matter of Industrial Metal Fabricators , Inc, 63 N L R B 46, enf 'd in N L R. B. v.
Industrial Metal Fabricators, Inc, 158 F (2d) 14 (C C A. 7)
8 Hill testified that the authorization cards were signed by the respondents' employees
in his presence during February 1946.
9 The respondents contend that the cross-check should be given no weight, not because
it was in any way inaccurate but because Gray, their hotel manager, was without authority
to sign the Agreement for Cross-Check We are convinced, although it is unnecessary for
our decision, that Gray, in view of the position he occupied, the instructions lie received
from the respondent Eanet, and his representations to our Field Examiner, had not only
apparent but also actual authority to enter into the Agreement for Cross-Check on behalf
of the respondents, authority which was not repudiated until after the results of the
cross-check had been announced to Gray and Eanet.
812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the Union as their bargaining representative. The respond-
ents' refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union was therefore
a refusal to bargain collectively within the meaning of Section 8 (5)
of the Act.
THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner found that, on July 1, 1946, the respondents
Eanet and Rich, as individuals and co-partners doing business as
Parkside Hotel, were succeeded by the respondent, Parkside Hotel,
Inc., as the employer of the employees herein involved. He therefore
recommended that only Parkside Hotel, Inc., should be ordered to
bargain collectively with the Union and to cease and desist from ref us-
ing to bargain. No exception was filed to this finding and recom-
mendation. We hereby adopt them. However, because Eanet and
Rich, individually and as co-partners, were responsible for the unfair
labor practices committed before July 1, 1946, and because they now
own the controlling interest in Parkside Hotel, Inc., and are its presi-
dent and secretary, respectively, we shall, in order to effectuate the
purposes of the Act, order them, as well as Parkside Hotel, Inc., to
cease and desist from engaging in any violation of Section 8 (1) of
the Act. We shall also order Eanet, Rich, and Parkside Hotel, Inc.,
to post appropriate notices.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondents, Maurice Eanet and Ben
Rich, Washington, D. C., as individuals and co-partners doing busi-
ness as Parkside Hotel, and their agents, successors. and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner warning the employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc.,
to refrain from membership in or from giving assistance to any labor
organization, threatening to discharge such employees because of their
affiliation with or activities on behalf of any labor organization, ques-
tioning such employees concerning their membership in and activities
on behalf of any labor organization, or ordering such employees to
take vote as to whether they desire to be represented by Hotel Service
Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., or any other labor organization;
(b) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Hotel
Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., to negotiate for or represent
the employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc., in the unit we have found
to be appropriate as their exclusive bargaining representative, or inter-
fering with, restraining, or coercing such employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 813
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post at the hotel now operated by Parkside Hotel, Inc., in
Washington, D. C., known as the Parkside Hotel, copies of the notice
attached hereto and marked "Appendix A." 10 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the said respondents or their representa-
tive, be posted by the said respondents immediately upon receipt there-
of and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the said
respondents to insure that said notices are not altered-, defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the re-
spondents have taken to comply herewith.
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby further orders that the respondent, Parkside Hotel,
Inc., Washington, D. C., and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner warning its employees to refrain from member-
ship in or from giving assistance to any labor organization, threatening
to discharge its employees because of their affiliation with or activities
on behalf of any labor organization, -questioning such employees con-
cerning their inembership in and activities on behalf of any labor
organization, or ordering its employees to take a vote as to whether
they desire to be represented by Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F.
of L., or any other labor organization ;
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Hotel Service Workers,
Local 80, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all bellmen,
inaids, elevator operators, janitors, housemen, and cleaners, at the
Parkside Hotel, excluding the housekeeper, room clerk, and all super-
visory employees, with respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(c) In any other manner interfering with the efforts of Hotel Serv-
ice Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., to negotiate for or represent the
employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit as their exclusive bargain-
11 In the event that this order is enforced by decree of the Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia or a Circuit Court of Appeals , the notice shall be amended by inserting, betore
the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words , "A DECREE OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ENFORCING . ," of "A DECREE
OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING . . ," as may
be appropriate.
814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing representative, or interfering with, restraining, or coercing such
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, as guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Hotel Service Workers,
Local 80, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representative of all its employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, with respect to grievances, labor
disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions
of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Post at its Parkside Hotel in Washington, D. C., copies of the.
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix B." 11 Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Parkside
Hotel, Inc., be posted by the said respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (G0) consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the said respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps Parkside
Hotel, Inc., has taken to comply herewith.
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to an Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and
in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act,
we hereby notify the employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc., that:
WE WILL NOT
(a) warn the employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc., to refrain from
membership in, or giving assistance to, any labor organization;
(b) threaten to discharge such employees because of their affili-
ation with or activities on behalf of any labor organization;
(c) question such employees concerning their membership in
and activities on behalf of any labor organization or order them to
vote as to whether they desire to be represented by any labor or-
ganization ; -
In the event that this order is enforced by decree of the Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia or a Circuit Court of Appeals, this notice shall be amended by insert-
ing, before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER," the words, "A DECREE OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ENFORCING . or
"A DECREE OF THE-UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORC-
ING . ," as may be appropriate.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 815
(d) engage in any other act in any manner interfering with the
efforts of Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., to negotiate
for or represent as their exclusive bargaining representative the
employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc., in the unit described herein, or
interfere with, restrain, or coerce such employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization as guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
The bargaining unit is all bellmen, maids, elevator operators,
janitors, housemen and cleaners employed at the Parkside Hotel,
Washington, D. C., excluding the housekeeper, room clerk, and
all supervisory employees.
MAURICE EANET, President,
Parkside Hotel, Inc.
BEN RICH, Secretary,
Parkside Hotel, Inc.
Dated ----- --------------- By --------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 clays from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
"APPENDIX B"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to an Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and
in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT
(a) warn our employees to refrain from membership in, or
giving assistance to, any labor organization;
(b) threaten to discharge our employees because of their af-
filiation with or activities on behalf of any labor organization;
(c) question our employees concerning their membership in
and activities on behalf of any labor organization, or order them
to vote as to whether they desire to be represented by any labor
organization ;
(d) engage in any other act in any manner interfering with
the efforts of Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., to
negotiate for or represent as their exclusive bargaining represent-
ative our employees in the unit described herein, or interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of
Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., or any other labor
organization.
755420-48-vol. 74-53
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request, with Hotel Serv-
ice Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., as the exclusive representa-
tive of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with
respect to grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wages, hours
of employment, or other conditions of employment. The bar-
gaining unit is: All bellmen, maids, elevator operators, janitors,
housemen and cleaners employed at the Piirkside Hotel, Wash-
ington, D. C., excluding the housekeper, room clerk, and all
supervisory employees.
PARKSIDE HOTEL, 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.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Eugene Purver, for the Board.
Mr William II Collins, of Washington, D. C., for the respondents.
Levine & Schlesinger, of Washington, D. C, by Messrs. Samuel Levine 'and
Charles S Hill, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a third amended charge filed on July 10, 1946, by Hotel Service Workers,
Local 80, A. F. of L, herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland), issued its complaint, dated July 13, 1946, against Maurice
Eanet and Ben Rich, individually and as co-partners, doing business as Patkside
Hotel. Together with the additional corporate party added to the complaint as a
party respondent, as is hereinafter set forth, the aforesaid Eanet and Rich, as
individuals, and as a co-partnership doing business as Parkside Hotel, are herein
called the respondents: The complaint alleges that the respondents had engaged,
and were engaging in, unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint,
the third amended charge and the notice of hearing were duly served upon the
respondents Eanet, Rich, individually, and as co-partners doing business as Pik-
side Hotel, and upon the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance:
(1) that in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act the respondents therein named
have, since March 2, 1946, urged, persuaded and warned their employees to refrain
from joining the Union, questioned their employees concerning their union activi-
ties, and threatened their employees with discharge if they joined or assisted
the Union; (2) that in violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the Act such respond-
ents, on or about March 7, 1946, discharged James Pearson because be joined the
Union; and (3) that in violation of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the Act, the said
respondents, on and since March 2, 1946, have refused to bargain collectively with
the Union although the Union represented a majority of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 817
The respondents filed no answer to the complaint.
Upon due notice, a hearing was held on August 6, 8, and 9, 1946, at Washington,
D. C., before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondents, and the Union were repre-
sented by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, was afforded to
all the parties
At the hearing it was stated by the respondents' counsel that on July 1,
1946, the respondents Eanet and Rich, co-partners doing business as Parkside
Hotel, had sold the said business to a Delaware corporation, Parkside Hotel,
Inc., in which Eanet and Rich own the controlling interest, and that the said
corporation, Parkside Hotel, Inc., had succeeded to all of the liabilities resting
upon the co-partnership, Parkside Hotel. The undersigned granted a motion
by counsel for the Board, to which there was no objection, to amend the charge,
complaint, and notice of hearing herein, so as to add as a party respondent, the
successor corporation, Parkside Hotel, Inc. The parties stipulated to the fore-
going amendment, to waive service of the amended papers upon Parkside Hotel,
Inc, and consented to Parkside Hotel, Inc., being made a party to the proceedings
as if originally served.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the undersigned granted a motion made
by counsel for the Board, in which counsel for the respondents joined, to dismiss
the complaint insofar as it alleged that the discharge of James Pearson con-
stituted an unf,ui labor practice. At the close of the Board's case, the under-
signed denied a motion of counsel for the respondents to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, and at the conclusion of the hearing, reserved ruling on a renewal
of the said motion Such motion is disposed of as hereinafter set forth.
At the conclusion of the hearing, also, a motion of counsel for the Board to
conform the pleadings to the proof as to minor variances such as dates, names,
and spelling, was granted without objection.
Opportunity was afforded the parties to argue orally before, and file briefs
with, the undersigned. No oral argument was made, and the undersigned has
received no briefs
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich were at all times material herein, up to on
or about July 1, 1946, co-partners, doing business as Parkside Hotel. On or
about July 1, 1946, the aforesaid co-partnership sold the said business, Parkside
Hotel, to a Delaware corporation, Parkside Hotel, Inc., which succeeded to all
the liabilities of the co-partnership Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich, formerly
co-partners doing business as Parkside Hotel, are now, respectively, president
and secretary of the successor corporation, Parkside Hotel, Inc , and own a
controlling interest in the said corporation The aforesaid co-partnership
formerly operated, and since July 1, 1946, the successor corporation has operated,
an apartment hotel business in Washington, District of Columbia During the
calendar year 1945, the gross income of the Parkside Hotel exceeded $75,000,
and its purchases exceeded $25,000.
The respondents concede that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board.
818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
respondents.
III. ' THE UNFAIR LA13OR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain; interference, coercion, and restraint
1. The appropriate unit
At the hearing it was stipulated that all bellmen, maids, elevator operators,
janitors, housemen and cleaners, excluding housekeeper, room clerk, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge or
,otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively to recommend
such action, at the respondents' hotel in Washington, D. C., constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
.Section 9 (b) of the Act1
The undersigned finds that the above-described unit at all times material
herein constituted and now constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
2. Representation by the Union of a majority of employees
in the appropriate unit
On April 11, 1946, representatives of the Union, and the Board, and Maurice
Eanet and Ben Rich, doing business as Paikside Hotel "by John B. Gray,
Manager," executed an instrument known as Agreement For Gross-Check,
pursuant to which, on the same date, the Board representative checked signed
authorization cards, by which employees in the above-described appropriate
unit had authorized the Union to represent them for purposes of collective
bargaining, against the pay-roll of the Parkside Hotel for April 1, 1946. which
was made available to the Board by Manager John Gray. The cross-check
established that the Union had been designated as their collective bargaining
representative by 6 of the 10 employees 2 in the appropriate unit. Subsequently,
a copy of the Agreement For Cross-Check, and an attached notice, to the effect
that the Union had been designated by a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit, were posted in the Parkside Hotel for a period of 5 days.
This notice also contained the following paragraph :
PLEASE TARE NOTICE that unless cause to the contrary is shown to the
undersigned Regional Director on or before five (5) days from the date
hereof, he will issue a Report on Cross-Check finding that the Union has been
'The complaint did not include janitors in the categories of employees listed as consti-
tuting an appropriate unit, but janitors were included in the unit stipulated as appropriate
at the hearing. The undersigned therefore finds that janitors are included within the
unit appiopiiate for the purposes of collective bargaining
2 The Board's Report on Cross-Clieck, dated April 30, 1946, which is in evidence, states
that there were 10 employees in the agreed unit :Manager Gray testified that the pay-
roll of April 1, 1946, which he supplied to the Board's agent for use in the cross-check,
contained 19 names, of which 9 were those of employees in the appropriate unit. Since
the undisputed evidence establishes that 6 of the employees then in the appropriate unit
had designated the Union as their collective bargaining representative, the undersigned
finds that the Union represented it iiia,lority of employees in the unit, whether that unit
consisted of 9 or 10 employees.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 819
designated and selected as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the Unit, which will constitute complete and final disposition of the question
concerning representation.
On April 30, 1946, the Regional Director of the Board issued his Report on
Cross-Check, copies of which were received by the Union and by Eanet and
Manager Gray of the Parkside Hotel. In the said report, it was "found and de-
termined" that the Union was the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the above-described appropriate unit.
The undersigned finds that on April 11, 1946, and at all times thereafter, the
Union was, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
above-described appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other conditions of employment?
3. The demands of the Union to bargain, and the refusals
Following the cross-check, the Union, through Attorney Levine, made a number
of demands for meetings for the purpose of commencing collective bargaining.'
Thus, on May 2, 1946, identical letters were addressed to the Parkside Hotel,
attention of Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich, respectively, in which Levine, stating
that the Union had been "certified" by the Board as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative of the service employees of the hotel, requested that
the respondents advise the Union "as soon as possible of a time and place con-
venient to you for commencement of negotiations." No answer to these letters
was ever received by the Union's attorney.' On May 9, 1946, Levine spoke to
Mr. Rich on the telephone, and asked him several times to set a date for collec-
tive bargaining These demands were refused.' Subsequently, the Union's at-
torney was notified by the attorney for the respondents that it was "the present
contention of the company that [the Union] did not have a representation,
regardless of the cross-check "
4 The respondents' contentions, and concluding findings with respect thereto
The respondents take the position that Manager Gray, who admittedly signed
the Agreement For a Cross-Check, had no authority to do so, that the results
of the cross-check are therefore invalid, and that, consequently, there is no evi-
dence to support the Board's contention that the Union represents a majority of
the respondents' employees. In support of this contention, the respondents ad-
duced testimony by Eanet and Gray to the effect that though Gray was in charge
3 The complaint alleges that the Union 's majority status dates back to February 20,
1946 ( par VIII ), which is the last date appearing on 8 union authorization cards which
are in evidence . There is nothing in the record to indicate that the number of employees
in the appropriate unit, which was found to be 10 on April 11, the date when the cross-
check was conducted, had changed from February 20 to Apul 11 However, since the rec-
ord shows definitely only the number of employees in the unit on April 11, the undersigned
will draw no inference as to the situation on the earlier date , and therefore bases his find=
ing with'espect to the Union's majority as of April 11, 1946.
4 Since , for the reason hereinabove indicated, the undersigned has not made any finding
with respect to the majority status of the Union prior to Apiil 11, 1946, the requests of the
Union for collective bargaining conferences made prior to that date are not herein
discussed.
5 The above findings are based on the undenied testimony of the Union 's attorney, which
the undersigned credits.
° The above findings are based on the undenied , credited testimony of the Union's
attorney.
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the hotel, with the title of Manager, with the right to hire and discharge em-
ployees, and generally to manage the business, and though he was authorized
to and did, meet with the Union and discuss its demands with- it, he had no au-
thority to "sign any paper" unless he consulted "the owners" in advance. Gray
and Eanet also testified that Gray did not consult Eanet or Rich before he signed
the Agreement For a Cross-Check.
The record discloses that throughout the period when the Union was seeking to
obtain a collective bargaining conference with the respondents, Gray, as manager
of the hotel, and at the direction of Eanet and Rich, met with representatives of
the Union, which at no time was informed of any limitation on Gray's authority
to represent the respondents.? On the occasion that Gray signed the Agreement
For A Cross-Check, moreover, he was asked by the Board agent whether he had
authority to sign the said agreement on behalf of Eanet and Rich, and he answered
in the affirmative.8 In view of the facts that Gray was manager of the hotel, had
previously represented the respondents in dealing with the Union, that the re-
spondents had never made known any limitations on Gray's authority to handle
the union negotiations, and that Gray himself affirmatively stated to the Board
agent that he had authority to sign the agreement on behalf of Eanet and Rich,
the undersigned concludes and finds that the respondents had held out Gray as
possessing authority to sign the cross -check agreement on their behalf , and that
the Board agent acted reasonably in relying on Gray's apparent authority in
accepting his signature to the said agreement.'
The undersigned further finds that the cross-check subsequently conducted by
the Board agent conclusively established that a majority of the respondents'
employees in an appropriate unit had designated the Union as their collective
bargaining representative . That being so, and the cross-check agreement being
binding on the respondents because it was within their agent's apparent authority
to sign, the respondents , having refused to bargain with the majority representa-
tive of their employees as established by the cross-check, have committed a viola-
tion of the Act.
Regardless of Gray's authority to sign the cross-check agreement, the under-
signed notes that when an employer , because of asserted doubts as to the union's
majority status, refuses to bargain with a union which claims, and offers to prove,
that it represents a majority of his employees in an appropriate unit, the employer
takes "the risk of refusal, if the claim [turns] out to be well founded" (Art Metals
7 Thus, Hill and Barclay , business agents of the Union , both of whom , on a number
of occasions , discussed with Gray , the Union ' s claim to represent the employees of the
hotel, testified without contradiction that Gray had never told them that he had no
authority to "act for the company " Levine, the Union's attorney, testified to the same
effect, and further , that Gray had never referred him to "any other person with more
authority than he had in relation to dealings with the Union ." The undersigned credits
this undenied testimony of Hill, Barclay , and Levine The record contains no evidence
that Eanet or Rich had at any time prior to the cross -check notified either the Union
or any Board representative of any limitation on Gray ' s authority to represent them.
"Both Hill and Barclay, who were present, testified to this effect and Gray made no
denial of this testimony. The undersigned therefore finds that Gray, on the occasion
when he signed the cross -check agreement , affirmed that he was authorized to do so on
behalf of Eanet and Rich.
0 By appointing and holding out Gray as the general manager of the hotel , and author-
izing him to meet and discuss with the Union , Eanet and Rich furnished third persons
with reasonable ground to infer that Gray ' s authority included authority to sign agree-
ments incidental to the negotiations with the Union , and necessary to accomplish the
purpose of the negotiations . See Restatement of the Law of Agency , Sect. 50.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 821
Construction Co. v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 148, 150 (C. C. A. 2).10 An impartial
check of authorization cards against a company pay-roll, such as was conducted
herein by a Board agent, has uniformly been held to constitute a reasonable mode
of proof of the union 's majority status, such as the employer may not reject when
confronted by a demand to bargain with the union and an offer by the union so
to prove its majority status. N. L. R. B. v. Bradford Dyeing Association, 310 U S.
318, 339; International Association of Machinists v. N. L. R. B., 110 F. (2d) 29,
38 (71 App. D. C. 175), aff'd, 311 U. S. 72; N. L. R. B. v. Hobbs Co., 132 F. (2d) 249,
251 (C. C. A. 1). It follows that, even if we were to assume that Manager Gray
exceeded his authority in agreeing to the cross-check, that fact in itself would not
vitiate the probative value of the procedure in establishing the majority status
of the Union. Moreover, the record contains evidence independent of the cross-
check which establishes that the Union was designated as their collective bargain-
ing representative by a majority of employees in the appropriate unit 11
The following facts, which have not hereinbefore been alluded to, rebut the
respondents' contention that their refusal to bargain with the Union was based
on a good faith doubt that the Union represented a majority of the employees :
Some time between February and March 16, 1946, Housekeeper Annie Taylor,
supervisor of maid service in the respondents' hotel, who has power to hire and
discharge the maids under her supervision, told employee Jackson that "if the
maids joined [the Union she] would fire them.""
The undersigned is convinced and finds that Taylor's threat to discharge any
of her subordinates who joined the Union was not a mere isolated statement,
but that it reflected the attitude of the management of the hotel. In support of
this conclusion, the record shows, and the undersigned finds, that Manager Gray
himself, on at least one occasion, asked representatives of the Union who were
calling on him to request that he bargain collectively with them, why, if the
employees had joined the Union, the latter were working in the respondents'
hotel " This question clearly demonstrates that the management considered
"See also Lebanon Steel Foundry v N L R B., 130 F (2d) 404, 409 (76 App
D C. 100), cert. denied, 317 U S. 659; N. L. R B. v. Hobbs Co , 132 F. (2d) 249, 251
(C C A 1)
11 Thus, the pay roll of the hotel as of April 1, 1946, shows that the following employees
were at that time members of the appropriate unit Colleen Hill (maid) , Lucy Simpkins
(maid) , Mattie Williams (maid) , Lena Moore (maid) ; May Cartright (maid) ; Joseph
Hill (houseman) , Gabriel Scott (bell boy) ; Edward Jenkins (bell boy) ; Edward Allen
(bell boy) Of the foregoing 9 employees in the appropriate unit, 6 had signed authoriza-
tion cards for the Union, which cards were introduced in evidence at the hearing.
12 Taylor testified that she made the above-quoted statement to Jackson while the latter
was still employed in the hotel. From the context of the conversation, it is clear that it
took place after union activities among the employees had begun. Since such activities
commenced in February of 1946, and Jackson was discharged about March 16, 1946, the
conversation must have taken place between these two dates.
13 The above finding is based on the undenied, credited testimony of Business Agents Hill
and Barclay of the Union, who testified that on or about March 5, 1946, they visited Giay
at the hotel to request that he bargain with them as representatives of the employees
Hill and Barclay both testified that on this occasion Gray asked them, "Well, if they belong
to the Union why are they working here" In making the above finding, the undersigned
is not basing it on the remarks of Gray's wife, who was, according to Hill and Barclay,
present on this and other occasions, when they spoke to Gray, and' who also made similar
statements on such occasionp. The testimony of Hill and Barclay establishes that they
visited Gray again on or about March 16, 1946, and that on that date they were also asked
why the employees were working "there" if they belonged to the Union. However, since
the testimony as to this second discussion is in conflict as to whether it was Mr. or Mrs
Grav who asked the question on the latter occasion, the undersigned makes no finding with
respect thereto.
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affiliation with the Union incompatible with continuance in its employ. More-
over, on or about April 16, 1946, 5 days after the cross-check was conducted by a
Board agent, Manager Gray directed the employees in the appropriate unit to
"take a vote" to "decide whether you want [the Union] or not, and let me know."
According to Gray, the employees thereafter informed him that they "didn't want
the Union any more " The respondents apparently take the position 14 that the
aforesaid election did not constitute an unfair labor practice because (1) They
contend there is no evidence to show that it was held at the direction or order
of Manager Gray, and (2) because Gray was not actually present at the vote,
but allowed the employees to conduct it themselves, and did not "mix up in it."
As to the first contention, Gray's testimony was clear that he had "told them
[the employees]" to "decide whether you want it [the Union] or not and let me
know"'s As to the second contention, the principle is well established that a poll
of employee opinion as to whether or not they desire to be represented by a Union,
by means of an employer-sponsored election, held under circumstances similar
to those herein, interferes with the free expression of the employees as to their
choice of a collective bargaining representative, even where the "election proce-
dure . . . shows no sign of the cruder form of unfairness" (Titan Metal Mtg.
Co. v. N L. R. B., 106 F. (2d) 254, 260 (C. C. A 3), cert denied, 308 U S. 615).'.
The vice in such employer-ordered polls lies in the fact that, the employer having
demonstrated his opposition to the Union, the employees are necessarily inhibited
from a free expression of their choice in any vote sponsored by the employer,
because they may reasonably doubt the secrecy of such in election, and their
immunity from economic reprisals if their vote on behalf of the union should
become known to the employer17 In the circumstances of this case, the employees
had ample grounds for such fears, as is evidenced by the explicit threat of dis-
charge voiced by Taylor against union adherents, and the statement by Manager
Gray which implied that he looked upon union membership as inconsistent with
employment by the respondents. Such threats take on additional force from the
tact that the number of employees in the unit herein involved was only 9 or 10,
and that the employees worked in close proximity with their supervisors, thus
increasing the likelihood that any given employee's attitude towards the Union
would become known to his superiors.
On the basis of the foregoing, the undersigned concludes and finds:
1. That by the threat of Taylor to discharge any maids who joined the Union,
Gray's statement to the effect that membership in the Union was incompatible
with continued employment in the hotel, and Gray's instructions to the employees
14 Since the respondents did not argue orally before the undersigned , and did not submit
a biief, the undersigned infers that the above is the respondents ' position from the testi-
mony adduced at the hearing
15 After testifying twice that he had told the employees to vote for or against the Union,
Gray , upon hearing respondent 's counsel object to a question of Board ' s counsel upon the
ground that "there is no evidence that he [Gray] ordered anything of the kind ," volun-
teered , " No, I did not." The undersigned does not credit this denial , which was obviously
suggested by counsel 's objection, and finds , on the basis of Gray ' s earlier testimony , that he
of dei ed the employees to take a vote as to whether or not they desired to be represented by
the Union.
10 In the Titan Metal case, supra, the Court noted that the election in question was con-
ducted under the "supervision of three reputable members of the community ( one an Episco-
palian priest) . . ." (106 F. (2d) at 260). Cf N. L. R B. v. Texas Mining 4t Smelting
Co., 117 F (2d) 86, 88 (C C A. 5), in which the Court held such an election to be an
unfair labor practice even though conducted outside the plant gate , by a Judge and other
public officials.
17 Cf. Matter of Industrial Metal Fabricators , Inc., 63 N. L. R . B. 46, 56.
PARKSIDE HOTEL 823
to conduct a vote as to whether they desired to be represented by the Union, and
to report the results to him, the respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act ; and
2. That at all times material herein, on and after April 11, 1946, the respond-
ents have failed and refused to bargain collectively with the duly designated
representative of a majority of their employees within an appropriate unit,
thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
The complaint alleges that the respondents interfered with, restrained, and
coerced their employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act by, inter alla,
"questioning their employees concerning their membership in and activities on
behalf of the Union" (par. IV). To attach the credibility of Manager Gray, who
in his testimony denied having so questioned the employees, the Board intro-
duced into evidence a written statement, admittedly signed by Gray before a
Board agent, which purports to be a reduction to writing of statements made to
the Board agent by Gray. This document includes the following : "After hearing
from the Union, I questioned each employee as to whether they wanted the
Union or not and I am of the impression that they do not want the Union " At
the hearing, Gray, at one point, testified that he had read the statement before
signing it, and at the time was satisfied that it was true, but at another point
testified in effect that the Board agent had "written in" the foregoing without
Gray having made such a statement to him. On re-direct examination, Gray
testified that it was his present recollection that he had not questioned the em-
ployees as was described in the statement.
While the signed statement, in the opinion of the undersigned, discredits Gray's
denial that he had questioned the employees concerning their attitude towards
the Union, the record is devoid of credible evidence that he did so. The under.-
signed is unwilling to base findings on Gray's confused and contradictory testi-
mony'on this point, and, consequently, finds that though the circumstances create
a strong suspicion that Gray did interrogate the employees, the allegation of the
complaint to this effect is not sustained by the record.
The record contains no support for the allegation in the complaint that the
respondents have "urged, persuaded and warned" their employees to refrain
from joining the Union. The undersigned will therefore recommend the dis-
missal of that allegation of the complaint.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondents set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondents described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
within the District of Columbia, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing such commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, it
will be recommended that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate 'the policies of the Act.
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since it appears that the respondents Eanet and Rich, as individuals and as
co-partners, doing business as Parkside Hotel, are no longer operating the said
business, but have been succeeded by the corporate respondent, Parkside Hotel,
Inc., and that the latter has been since July 1, 1946, and now is, the sole em-
ployer of the employees herein involved, it would serve no purpose to require
Eanet and Rich as individuals or as a co-partnership doing business as Parkside
Hotel, to bargain with the Union. The undersigned will therefore not recom-
mend that those respondents cease and desist from refusing to bargain, or in the
affirmative, that they bargain with the Union, but will frame the recommended
order hereiirso as to make such provisions of said order apply only to the present
employer, Parkside Hotel, Inc.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All bellmen, maids, elevator operators, janitors, housemen, and cleaners,
excluding housekeeper, room clerk, and all supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively to recommend such action, at the respond-
ents' hotel in Washington, D C., constitute a unit appropriate for the put poses
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
3. Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F of L, was on April 11, 1946, and at
all times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with Hotel Service Workers, Local 80,
A. F. of L, as the exclusive representative of their employees in the appropriate
unit, the respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 t;5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing their employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section S (1)
of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2. (6) and (7) of the Act
7. The respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices by questioning
their employees concerning their membership in and activities on behalf of the
Union, nor by urging, persuading, and warning their employees to refrain from
joining the Union.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is rec-
ommended that the respondents, Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich, as co-partners
doing business as Parkside Hotel, Maurice Eanet and Ben Rich as individuals,
and- Parkside Hotel, Inc., a corporation, all of Washington, D C., and their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner threatening to discharge the employees of Parkside Hotel,
Inc., because of their affiliation with or activities on behalf of Hotel Service
PARKSIDE HOTEL 825
Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L, or any other labor organization, or directing or
ordering such employees to take a vote as to whether or not they desire to be
represented by Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L, or any other labor
organization ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Hotel Service Workers, Local
80, A F. of L, to negotiate for or represent such employees as the exclusive
bargaining agent in the aforesaid bargaining unit;
2 Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at the hotel now operated by Parkside Hotel, Inc, in Washington,
D C , known as the Parkside Hotel, copies of the notice attached to the Inter-
mediate Report herein marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, shall, after being duly
signed' by the respondents' representative, be posted by the respondents imme-
diately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the re-
spondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or,covered by any
other material;
(b) File with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, on or before ten (10)
days from the (late of the receipt of this Intermediate Report. a report in writing
setting forth in detail the mariner and form in which the respondents have com-
plied with the recommendations herein made.
It is further recommended that the respondent, Parkside Hotel, Inc , its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns shall in addition cease and desist from refusing
to bargain collectively with Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A F. of L, as the
exclusive representative of all bellmen, maids, elevator operators, janitors, house-
men and cleaners, excluding housekeeper, room clerk, and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively to recommend such action, at
the hotel in Washington, D C , operated by Parkside Hotel, Inc., and take the
following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
Upon request bargain collectively with Hotel Service Workers, Local 80,
A. F. of I4, as the exclusive bargaining representative of, all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employ-
ment or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached on
any such matters, embody such understanding in a signed contract.
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges
that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices by questioning their em-
ployees about their union affiliations or activities, and by urging, persuading, and
.warning them to refrain from joining the Union
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of the Intermediate Report the respondents notify said Regional Director
in writing that they have complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondents to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel,for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of
the order transferring the case to the Board , pursuant to Section 203 38, of said
Rules and Regulations , file with the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
25, D. C., an original and four copies of a statenient in writing setting forth such
exceptions to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or pro-
ceeding (including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon,
together with the original and four copies of a brief in support thereof; and
any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file an original
and four copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Immediately
upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the party or coun-
sel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the
other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. Proof of service
on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly made
as required by Section 203.65. As further provided in said Section 203.39, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of
service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
ISADORE GREENBERG,
Trial Exammer.
Dated October 18, 1946.
"APPENDIX A"
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 National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify the employees of Parkside Hotel, Inc. that:
WE WILL NOT engage in. any acts in any manner interfering with the
efforts of Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., to negotiate for or
represent the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any manner threaten to discharge any of the employees
of Parkside Hotel, Inc., because of their affiliation with or activities on
behalf of Hotel Service Workers, Local 80, A. F. of L., or any other
labor organization, or direct or order said employees to take a vote as to
whether they desire to be represented by Hotel Service Workers, Local 80,
A. F. of L, or any other labor organization.
PARKSIDE HOTEL, INC, notifies its employees as follows :
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or
other conditions of employment. The bargaining unit is: All bellmen, maids,
elevator operators, janitors, housemen and cleaners, excluding housekeeper,
room clerk, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discipline, discharge or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively to recommend such action, at our hotel in Washington, D. C.
PARKSIDE HOTEL, INC.,
MAURICE EANET
BEN RICH
PARKSIDE HOTEL
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.