Parkway Center Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 192 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Paul Kossman d/b/a Parkway Center Inn and Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant, and
Bartenders Union, Local 57, AFL-CIO. Cases 6-
CA-10761 and 6RC-8017
January 25, 1979
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS. MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE
On September 21, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Alvin Lieberman issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, 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 Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, Paul Kossman d/b/a
Parkway Center Inn, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, its of-
ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, ex-
cept that the attached notice is substituted for that of
the Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election held on
December 15, 1977, in Case 6-RC-8017 be, and it
hereby is, set aside, and that Case 6-RC-8017 be,
and the same hereby is, remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 6 for the purpose of conducting
a new election pursuant to the following direction:
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
Respondent has excepted to certain credihility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Sltandard Dry Wall Products, Inc.. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d (ir. 1951). We have carefull
examined the record and find no basis for resersing his findings.
240 NLRB No. 5
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT question you about anything
connected with Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant,
and Bartenders Union, Local 57, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT fire you, and WE WILL NOT threat-
en to fire you, for voting or not voting at any
National Labor Relations Board election.
WE WILL NOT give you and we will not promise
to give you an increase in wages, or give you or
promise to give you any other benefits to per-
suade you not to join, support, or help Hotel,
Club, Motel, Restaurant, and Bartenders Union,
Local 57, or any other union.
WE WILL NOT say or do anything to make you
believe that it would be useless for you to join,
support, or help Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant,
and Bartenders Union, Local 57, or any other
union, or to make you believe that it would be
useless for you to select Hotel, Club, Motel, Res-
taurant, and Bartenders Union, Local 57, or any
other union as your collective-bargaining repre-
sentative.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL respect your right to form, support,
or help any union, and to deal with us through
any union. WE WILL also respect your right not
to do any of these things, except as required by
law.
All our employees are free, without any objection
from us, to become or remain members of any union,
or not to become or remain members of any union,
except as required by law.
PAUL KOSSMAN d/b/a PARKWAY CENTER INN
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN. Administrative Law Judge: Pursuant
to a petition filed in Case 6-RC-8017 by Hotel and Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant, and Bartenders Union,
Local 57, AFL-CIO (herein called the Union) on October
31, 1977.' and a Stipulation for Certification Upon Con-
All dates subsequently mentioned without stating a year fall within
1977.
PARKWAY CENTER INN 193
sent Election approved by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 6 of the National Labor Relations Board (herein
called the Board), a representation election was held on
December 15, among certain employees of Respondent.
There were 13 ballots cast for the Union, 15 against the
Union, and 3 were challenged.
On December 19, the Union filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. Thereafter, on January
30, 1978, a complaint issued in Case 6-CA-10761 alleging
unfair labor practices by Respondent.
In the Report on Challenges and Report on Objections,2
made by the Regional Director on February 28, 1978, he
sustained the challenges and overruled two of the Union's
objections. Concerning the remaining objections, the Re-
gional Director stated that they "appeared] to . . . raise
substantial and material issues with respect to the election
which . . . can best be resolved on the basis of record testi-
mony developed at a formal hearing."
In his report the Regional Director noted that the com-
plaint in Case 6-CA-10761 "includes allegations involving
certain of the same issues" raised in the Union's objec-
tions.' Accordingly, the Regional Director ordered 4 that
Cases 6-CA-10761 and 6-RC-8017 "be ... consolidated
for the purposes of hearing, ruling and decision by an Ad-
ministrative Law Judge and that thereafter Case 6-RC-
8017 be transferred to and continued before the Board."
The hearing in this consolidated proceeding, with all
parties represented, was held before me in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, on July 25, 1978. In general, the issues liti-
gated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)( ) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein
called the Act),5 and whether Respondent engaged in con-
duct warranting the setting aside of the election. More par-
ticularly, the questions for decision are as follows:
I. Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
interrogating and threatening employees, by promising
them benefits to induce them to refrain from supporting
the Union, and by creating the impression that it would be
futile for employees to select the Union as their collective-
bargaining representative?
2. Should the election be set aside?
Upon the entire record, upon my observation of the wit-
nesses and their demeanor while testifying, and having tak-
en into account the arguments made and the briefs submit-
ted,6 I make the following:
2G.C. Exh I(f)
Among the Union's objections is one dealing with speeches to emplos-
ees made be Respondent and his manager seseral days before the election
Although this objection was not overruled h the Regional Director. its
substance is not attacked in the complaint
G.C. Exh. Ilg).
Sec. 8(a )(N of the Act is as follows
Sec. 8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7
Insofar as pertinent, Sec. 7 provides:
Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization. to form.
Join. or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such
activltles.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
Respondent operates a hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylva-
nia. During the 12 months preceding the issuance of the
complaint, a representative period, Respondent's revenue
exceeded $500,000. During the same period. Respondent
purchased from vendors located outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania goods valued at more than $5,000.
No evidence having been adduced to establish that Re-
spondent's facility falls within the definition of a residen-
tial hotel set forth in Spink Arms Hotel Corporation. d/b/a
Continental Hotel, 133 NLRB 1694, 1695 (1961). and Re-
spondent having raised no issue in this regard, I find that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and that the assertion of jurisdiction over this mat-
ter by the Board is warranted.
11 THE LABOR ORG(ANIZATION ItNVOLVED.)
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.
II. INTRODUCTION
Two related but separate matters are involved in this
proceeding. One is concerned with the validity of objec-
tions filed by the Union to conduct affecting the results of
a representation election, lost by the Union, held on De-
cember 15, 1977, among employees of Respondent. The
other facet of this case deals with unfair labor practices
assertedly committed by Respondent following the filing of
the petition pursuant to which the election was conducted.
IV THE ALLEGED t NFAIR LABOR PRAC(TICES
At all material times, the Union has been engaged in an
attempt to organize Respondent's employees. During this
period, the complaint alleges, Respondent committed sev-
eral unfair labor practices, the nature of which appear
above in my statement of the questions for decision. These
allegations, denied in the answer, will be separately consid-
ered.
A. The Interrogation
In November 1977, without complying with any of the
safeguards enumerated in Struksnes Construction Co., Inc..
165 NLRB 1062, 1063 (1967), employees of Respondent
were interrogated about the Union by Peter Adania and
Betty Weir, Respondent's manager and housekeeper, re-
spectively. The employees were asked why they and others
wanted a union, what they thought about a union, and
what benefits they hoped to obtain through unionization.7
Altholugh all the arguments of the parties nd the authorities cited hb
them. whether appeanng in their briefs or made orally at the hearing. ma,
not be discussed. each has been carefully weighed and considered.
The emploees interrogated and the persons conducting the nterroga-
(Con tnued)
PARKWAY CENTER INN 193
. . .
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Sruksnes the Board set lorth five criteria for de-
termining the lawfulness of interrogation of employees
concerning a union. One of them, not complied with here.8
is that "assurances against reprisal are given." This being
the case, I find that the questioning of Respondent's em-
ployees was coercive and, therefore, in derogation of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In this regard, Respondent argues, on brief, that because
Weir was "on friendly terms" with Sunderland and Conley
their interrogation by Weir was not coercive. However, as
the Board stated in Isaacson-Carrico Manufacturing Com-
pany, 200 NLRB 788 (1972), "Interrogation is no less coer-
cive merely because it comes from a friend." See also, to
the same effect, Erie Technological Products, Inc., 218
NLRB 878 (1975).
Accordingly, I conclude that by coercively interrogating
employees concerning the Union Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(I) of the Act.
B. The Threat
As noted above, the representation election pursuant to
the Union's petition and the Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election was held on December 15, 1977. In
November, Mary Hoffman, then employed by Respondent
as a lifeguard and health room assistant,9 informed Peter
Adania, Respondent's manager, that she would be unable
to vote because on the day of the election she expected to
be en route to a distant State for the purpose of attending
a friend's wedding. In view of this, she asked Adania
whether she would have a job upon her return. Adania
replied that he "could not guarantee [her] job when [she]
came back [if she] did not vote in the election."
Section 7 of the Act guarantees to employees "the right
. . . to engage in . . . activities for the purpose of . . .
mutual aid or protection, and . . . also . . . the right to
refrain from . . . such activities." Clearly, participating in
a representation election by casting a ballot is among the
rights guaranteed to employees in Section 7. This being so,
Section 7 also guarantees to employees the "right to re-
frain" from voting.
ion were Lorraine Martinet, questioned b Adlana: Janice Sunderland. bh
Weir: and Elizabeth ('onley also b, Weir Neither Adania nor Weir denied
the interrogation attrihuled to them bi the emnplboees concerned Lp 1n
whose testimons m findindings re based
M discussion or onl, one of the S'lrAmtsnes standards should sotI be
construed as an indication that I am atisfied that the other four were niet
L Hoffman was no longer n Respondent's employ when this proceeding
came to hearing.
'I he findings in this par are based n. and the quiotatioln a.ppearing in
the text is taken from. testimony given b lhiffnlan. whose demeanor its
witness impressed me favorably. Adania denied. as he put it, making ans
threats to I Hoffmanl that she might lose her job if she didn't vote in [thej
election." I d not believe Adania's denial. Not nlh did Hoffman demean
herself well on the witness stand, but I have also taken Into a.lcounl il
crediting her testimony. which was not in itself improbable. the facl that at
the time of hearing she was not employed by Respondent: she ha;d resigned
to accept a position as a high school swimming coach She wal, thus, unlike
Adania. a completely disinterested witness hasi Ing nothing to gain r lose b\
her testimony or b) the outcome of the hearing See, in this rega;rd. Il/,oArtI
Readc-,Air (Conrete. In(.. nd Irinitr P,,orlnd (cenient Diai/ilTn. (i;lnral
Portland Cenmen (C'mpunl. 161 NLRB 1492. 1500 119661. For these reasiion
I have credited lTilffman's testilmon} In this and in all ,other respects in
which it conflicts with that given by Adanila
Adania's statement to Hoffman here under consider-
ation was, I find, a threat to discharge her unless she voted
in the soon to be held election. In this manner I further
find that Adania interfered with Hoffman's right, guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, to refrain from voting.
Accordingly, I conclude that by threatening to discharge
Hoffman unless she voted in the representation election
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
C. The Promise of Benefits
The complaint alleges that Respondent promised em-
ployees benefits to "dissuade [them] from joining, assisting
or otherwise supporting the Union." It further alleges that
Peter Adania, Respondent's manager, sought to accom-
plish this by "promising an employee additional working
hours to qualify her for existing benefits," and by "promis-
ing an employee increased hourly wages."
1. The promise of additional working time
Among the benefits provided for employees by Respon-
dent is Blue Cross insurance. However, employees working
fewer than 30 hours a week are ineligible for this insurance
coverage.
Lorraine Martinez, who is employed as the supervisor of
a health club operated by Respondent as an adjunct to his
hotel,'' worked at the time in question 25 hours a week.
Being desirous of acquiring eligibility for Blue Cross insur-
ance benefits, Martinez asked Adania, Respondent's man-
ager, to allow her to work an additional 5 hours a week as
a maid.'2 Adania granted Martinez' request.
The General Counsel asserts that Adania did this to
wean Martinez away from the Union. However, the evi-
dence does not support this position.
It was at her request that Adania agreed to permit Marti-
nez to work an additional 5 hours a week so that she could
qualify for benefits under Respondent's Blue Cross insur-
ance. Furthermore, Adania did not in any way condition
his compliance with Martinez' request upon her abjuring
the Union. As Martinez testified in this regard, the "Union
[did not] come up in [the] conversation during [which Ada-
nia granted her request for permission to work] more
hours."
I conclude, therefore, that Section 8(a)( I1 ) of the Act was
not violated by Adania's so-called "promise" to allow Mar-
tinez to supplement her health club duties by working as a
maid. Accordingly, my Order will provide for the dismissal
of paragraph 6(d) of the complaint.
2. The promise to increase wages
In November 1977, Adania told Mary Hoffman 13 that
she would be paid "twenty five cents more an hour if [she]
did not join the Union [and] voted no, against the Union."
I IAlthough her job title contains the word "supervisor,- Martinez is nt
a supers isor ithin the meaning of the Aci.
2 This request was made some weeks before the election was held, as
noted, ei )ecember 15, 1977.
it As already found at the time in question. Hoffman was in Respondent's
emlprlo
PARKWAY CENTER INN 195
Adania also stated to Hoffman at this time that "ev-
erybody would be getting a raise .. if the Union did not
go through." 4
In N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409
(1964), the Supreme Court held that Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act proscribes an employer's promise of benefits to his
employees to influence them to refrain from supporting a
union. More need not be said insofar as this phase of the
case is concerned.
Accordingly, I conclude tt Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by promising to raise Hoffman's
wages to induce her to forsake the Union and by telling
Hoffman that all employees would receive wage increases
under the same circumstances.
D. Creating the Impression of Futility in Selectin the
Union as the Employees' Bargaining Agent
The evidence concerning the allegation of the complaint
here under consideration establishes that in November
1977 Peter Adania, Respondent's manager, informed Mary
Hoffman and another employee, Nancy Bookmeyer. that if
the employees "voted for the Union [Respondent would]
not have to sit down and bargain [and that] the Union
would be worthless because it would . . . cause nothing
but . . . havoc . .. in the hotel." Apparently disturbed by
Adania's remarks, Hoffman said that it was her under-
standing that Respondent "had to bargain in good faith."
Taking issue with Hoffman. Adania stated that this was
not so, and that Respondent "didn't have to bargain in
good faith." 6
In Sea Life, Incorporated, 175 NLRB 982. 983 (1969), the
Board ruled that an employer's attempt "to create the im-
pression that support for a] union would be futile" vio-
lated Section 8(a)( ) of the Act. I find that Adania attempt-
ed to, and probably did, as the election results disclose.
create such an impression.'? The information imparted by
Adania to Hoffman and Bookmeyer concerning Respon-
14 My findings in this par. are based on. and the quotations appearing in
the text are taken from, testimony given h Hoffman. Adania denied mak-
ing the statements she attributed to him. For the reasons set forth in fn. 10
above, I do not credit Adania's denial.
15 In this regard. the complaint alleges that Respondent gave his emplos-
ees the impression that it would be futile to select the Union as heir collec-
tive-bargaining representative by stating that [he] would not bargain In good
faith with the Union."
16 The findings in this par. are based on, and the quotations appearing In
the text are taken from, testimon? given bh Hoffman and Bookmeer. Aho.
like Hoffman. was no longer working for Respondent at the time of the
hearing; he had left Respondent's employ to return to) school Adlnla de-
nied telling Hoffman and Bookmeyer that Respondent ould not hase to
bargain in good faith with the Union For the reasons set forlh in fn IO
above. Adania's denial is discredited
| That Adanma spoke only to two emploxees concerning the futlhts of
their supporting the Union does not detract from the impact of his v.nords
upon the entire electorate. As the Board recentl held in this regard. n S,
Henkind, an Indnidual d h a Greenpar, (lnre (enter fr,,er/ li Ann at H d-
loughbi Health Related lFacilil. 236 NIRB 683 1978). "the restraining ef-
fect of . . coercive conduct is not limited to the emplosee direcill in-
volved, for the Board has previously emphasized that statements made
during an election campaign are the subject of repetition and discussion
among the voters." This principle also applies tii Adania', statemelt to
Hoffman regarding the wage increase she and other emplh.ees ould re-
ceive. as found above
dent's not having to bargain in good faith, was, in my opin-
ion, designed to cause them to believe that it would be
useless to support the Union by voting for it in the forth-
coming election because such a vote would accomplish
nothing advantageous to them.
Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression that it
would be futile for employees to select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
In sum, Respondent's several violations of Section
8(a( I) of the Act consisted of coercively interrogating em-
ployees, threatening to discharge an employee unless she
voted in a representation election, promising employees
benefits to induce them to refrain from supporting the
Union, and creating the impression among employees that
it would be futile for them to select the Union as their
collective-bargaining representative.
V THE OBJECTIONS TO THE ELECTION 8
The Board has held that the "critical period" within
which objectionable conduct will be deemed to affect the
results of an election starts on the date on which the repre-
sentation petition is filed. Goodear Tire and Ruhher Com-
pant,v 138 NLRB 453, 454 (1962). It has also been held that
"Conduct violative of Section 8(a)( 1) is, a fortiori, conduct
which interferes with the exercise of a free and untram-
meled choice in an election." Dal-Tex Optical Company,
Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786 (1962).
The "critical period" in this proceeding began October
31. 1977, the date on which the Union filed its representa-
tion petition. I have found that Respondent's violations of
Section 8(a)( 1) occurred in the following month. Therefore,
as Dal-Tex, supra, dictates, the election held on December
15 must be set aside.' 9
Accordingly, my Order will provide that that election be
set aside, and that a new election be conducted.
VI THE EFFECT OF RESPONDENT'S UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES PON
COMMERCE
Respondent's unfair labor practices occurring in connec-
tion with his operations set forth in section I above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
Vt lTHE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
my Order will require Respondent to cease and desist
Is As noted at the outset. the Regional Director consolidated for the
purpose of hearing, ruling and decilol. hb an Adminlstratle l as Judge"
the nion's objectlons to the representation election conducted on Decem-
her 15s 1977, with the complaint issued In this proceeding
Implicit n this hilding ire rulings su.taining the I nmon ohections to
the election nsofar as thes track the llegaltion, if the complaint found to
ha.e been sustained hs the cl idence In x ics of hi,. it i unneces,,ar to rule
on the noln' other objection, See fn 3 .aho.e tri l.itli (h Aer lr .
In . 231 Nl.RB 4'8 1977
PARKWAY CENTER NN
196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefrom and to take such affirmative action as will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
3. By the following conduct Respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning the
Union.
(b) Threatening to discharge an employee unless she
voted in the representation election conducted herein.
(c) Promising employees benefits to induce them to re-
frain from supporting the Union.
(d) Creating the impression that it would be futile for
employees to select the Union as their collective-bargain-
ing representative.
4. The unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent,
as set forth in conclusion of law 3 above, affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following:
ORDER 20
The Respondent, Paul Kossman d/b/a Parkway Center
Inn, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, his agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
attitude toward, relationship to, knowledge of, activities on
behalf of, or regarding any other matter relating to, Hotel
and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant, and Bartenders
Union, Local 57, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza-
tion.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or any other
form of reprisal, or effectuating any such threats, for voting
or not voting in an election conducted by the National
Labor Relations Board.
20 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in Sec. 102.46 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.
(c) Promising or granting benefits to employees to dis-
suade them from joining, assisting, or in any manner sup-
porting Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union. Hotel, Club, Motel, Restaurant, and
Bartenders Union, Local 57, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization.
(d) Creating the impression that it would be futile for
employees to support, or select as their collective-bargain-
ing representative, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, Hotel, Club, Motel, Res-
taurant, and Bartenders Union, Local 57, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
(e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing. or to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National La-
bor Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or
all such activities, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a
labor organization as a condition of employment in con-
formity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is
found, will effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended:
(a) Post at its premises copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix." 2 Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 6, after
being duly signed by Respondent or his representative,
shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 6, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the representation election
conducted on December 15, 1977, in Case 6-RC 8017 be,
and the same hereby is, set aside, and that Case 6-RC-
8017 be, and the same hereby is, remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 6 for the purpose of conducting a new
election.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that paragraph 6(d) of the com-
plaint be, and the same hereby is, dismissed.
:1 In the event that this Order is enforced b a judgment of a United
States 'ourt of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted b Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States ('Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."