Pioneer Hotel And Gambling Hall, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1985

276 N.L.R.B. 694 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pioneer Hotel and Gambling Hall, Inc . and Ronald
Lee Neal and Culinary , Workers Union, Local
226, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employ-
ees International Union , AFL-CIO and Debo-
rah Lynn Cook . Cases 31-CA-11967-1, 31-
CA-11967-2, 31-CA-12271, and 31 -CA-12089
26 September 1985 -
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND JOHANSEN
On 28 April, 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Richard D. _Taplitz issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel. , .
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,1 findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Pioneer
Hotel and Gambling Hall, Inc., Laughlin, Nevada,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order.
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting in part.
I do not agree with my colleagues' adoption of
the judge's finding that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(3) by discharging Deborah Lynn
Cook.
The Respondent hired Cook as a line cook in
November 1981. Cook signed a union card on 25
February 1982 and became a strong union activist.
i Contrary to our dissenting colleague, we agree with the judge, for
the reasons he set forth, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(3) by dis-
charging Deborah Lynn Cook. We would not disturb the judge's credi-
bility resolutions, which we find are based on demeanor and are support-
ed by the record Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd.
188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We note that the judge specifically discredit-
ed the testimony of head chef Van Mullen Thus, even assuming Cook's
testimony not to be credible, the Respondent failed to rebut the General
Counsel's prima facie case Cook was a strong union activist, the Re-
spondent had knowledge of her activity, and the Respondent possessed
union animus We particularly note statements by company officials that
employee Neal had been terminated for handing out union cards, and that
any employee who distributed or signed a union card would be dis-
charged We also agree with the judge, for the reasons set forth in his
decision,-that Supervisor Newman's comments to Whalen on 26 February
1982, Manager Surabian's remarks to Neaves in late February 1982, and
Van Mullen's comments to Finney on 2 April 1982 violated Sec 8( a)(1).
We note that the Supreme Court decided NLRB v Transportation
Management Corp, 462 U S 393 (1983), and the Board issued Rossmore
House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), after the judge issued his decision
The Respondent was aware of Cook's union activi-
ty. - -
In March 19821 Cook complained to company
consultant Alan Zaas that she was receiving a
lower wage rate than a recently hired male em-
ployee. Zaas offered Cook a 50-cent-per-hour in-
crease and asked her to keep quiet about the
matter. Cook accepted the raise and `assured Zaas
she would be quiet. The Respondent recorded this
wage adjustment as a "merit increase."2
Later in March, head, chef Larry Van Mullen
spoke to Cook about her disagreements with the
waitresses. Cook testified that -Van Mullen gave
her an oral warning on one occasion in March fol-
lowing an argument with waitress Honor Palmer.
Palmer was Van Mullen's girlfriend. Van Mullen
testified that he spoke to Cook on two occasions in
March. He recalled an incident in the first half of
March in which Cook had an argument with some
waitresses and screamed at them. Van Mullen told
Cook he did not want any screaming matches with
the waitresses and instructed her to bring any prob-
lems to the sous chef. Van -Mullen testified that
about a -week and a half later the host informed
him that Cook had been in a very heated argument
with a waitress. Van Mullen again. spoke to Cook
and repeated his instruction to avoid disruptions
and take problems to the sous chef. Van Mullen
told Cook they would leave it at that but not to let
it happen again . Van Mullen also testified that
Palmer later told him that Cook tried to get tip
money from waitresses and treated waitresses
poorly. The judge credited Van Mullen's assertion
that he spoke to Cook twice in March for arguing
with the waitresses. -
Cook was discharged by Van Mullen on 6 April.
The judge credited Cook's testimony that Van
Mullen stated there were no complaints with
Cook's work but that she was fired because she
was talking union and was going to file a sex dis-
crimination charge against the Respondent. Cook
testified that Van Mullen said, "You don't walk
into a man's business and distribute union cards."
,Van Mullen testified that he told Cook she was dis-
charged because of the constant trouble and tur-
moil she was causing. He denied that he said - he
was firing her because of the Union.
In finding that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Cook, the judge found that Cook was ter-
minated without warning during the organizing
campaign and that Van Mullen admitted union ac-
tivity was a reason . The judge found that after
i All dates hereafter are in 1982.
2 Contrary to the judge 's suggestions otherwise , this 5 March increase
was the only raise received by Cook.
276 NLRB No. 72
PIONEER HOTEL
speaking to Cook the second time in March, Van
Mullen "[a]pparently . . . did not consider the ar-
guments with the waitresses to be sufficient"
grounds for discharge." The judge also noted
Cook's merit increase and Van Mullen's remark
that there were no complaints with her work.
I disagree with the judge's reasoning on several
counts. Initially, I cannot agree that Cook was dis-
charged without warning in light of Van Mullen's
credited testimony that following the second wait-
ress incident in March he told Cook "not to let it
happen again." I find Van Mullen effectively put
Cook on notice that further problems with the
waitresses would not be tolerated.
In discussing Cook's arguments with waitresses
in March, the judge briefly mentioned that Palmer
informed Van Mullen of Cook's mistreatment of
waitresses. Van Mullen's testimony reveals that
after the second waitress incident Palmer told Van
Mullen that Cook harassed waitresses about sharing
tips and caused commotion in the kitchen.3 Upon
receiving this information, Van Mullen, near the
end of March, began reviewing job applications to
find a replacement for Cook. The record shows
that a replacement for Cook appeared in the kitch-
en a few hours after her discharge on 6 April.
Given the above testimony,. which is related to tes-
timony by Van Mullen that was specifically cred-
ited by the judge, I fail to see how any weight can
be given to the judge's speculation that in late
March Van Mullen did not consider Cook's argu-
ments with waitresses to, be sufficient grounds for
discharge. I also would place no probative value
on Cook's 5 March "merit increase." Given the cir-
cumstances of the wage adjustment, I do not find it
to be a genuine merit increase and would not con-
sider it a favorable comment on Cook's work. In
any event, the 5 March increase preceded Cook's
arguments with the waitresses.
Finally, I cannot rely on Cook's testimony con-
cerning Van Mullen's comments during the 6 April
discharge conversation. Cook testified that Van
Mullen said he had had no complaints with her
work. Van Mullen's credited testimony clearly es-
tablishes the contrary. Van Mullen spoke to Cook
about work problems on two occasions during the
previous month. Cook also testified that Van
Mullen linked her discharge with her intention to
file a sex discrimination charge against the Re-
spondent. The record shows that in early March
Cook accepted Zaas' offer, of a 50-cent-per-hour
9 Waitress Pam Whalen testified that Cook placed a "tip cup at her
work station each day and pressured waitresses to share their tips "
Whalen testified that one other cook used a "tip cup" but merely placed
it at his work station and did not agresstvely solicit tips Whalen further
testified that Cook was abrasive and had several confrontations with
waitress Palmer
695
wage increase in return for her silence about the
matter. Cook had kept her end of the bargain and
there is no evidence that she was planning to file a
discrimination charge. It thus appears that the
matter had been settled, making it very unlikely
that Van Mullen would have mentioned it on 6
April. .I further find Cook's failure to recall her
second conversation with Van Mullen in March to
be particularly noteworthy, as well as the judge's
comment in footnote 8 that "Cook was not always
a fully candid witness." In view of the-,fudge's fail-
ure to rely on demeanor in crediting Cook's ver-
sion of the discharge conversation, I find the
review of the record set forth above compels the
conclusion that Cook's testimony, including the ad-
mission of unlawful motive attributed to Van
Mullen, is not worthy of belief. I further find that
the 8(a)(3) allegation regarding Cook's discharge is
not supported by a preponderance of the credible
evidence.4 I would therefore dismiss the allegation
of the complaint.
I also disagree with several of the judge's 8(a)(i)
findings. I find that low-level supervisor Newman's
comments'to waitress Whalen on 26 February were
not coercive. In addition, I find Supervisor Sura-
bian's remarks to Neaves in late February to be
merely the former's personal opinion, and Van
Mullen's comments to line cook Finney on 2 April
to be related to Finney's union activity while he
was a supervisor.
4 While I agree with the judge that in February Van Mullen un lawful-
ly threatened to terminate any employee who distributed union cards, the
Respondent retained its prerogative to discharge employees , whether
union adherents or not, for unsatisfactory work performance
Eugene L. Kusion, Esq., of Los Angeles, California, for
the General Counsel
David L. Cohen, Esq. (Kirshman, Rich & Cohen), of
Marina Del Rey, California, and Steven B. Cohen, Esq.,
of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RICHARD D. TAPLITZ, Administrative Law Judge.
This case was tried in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February
1, 2, and 3, 1983. The original charge in Case 31-CA-
11967-1 was filed on March 10, 1982, by Ronald Lee
Neal, an individual. The charge in Case 31-CA-11967-2
was filed on March 22, 1982, by Culinary Workers
Union, Local 226, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO (the Union). A
complaint issued based on Case 31-CA-11967-2 on April
28, 1982. By order dated April 29, 1982, the two charges
were consolidated The charge in Case 31-CA-12089
was filed on April 26, 1982, by Deborah Lynn Cook, an
individual. An order consolidating all of the cases and a
consolidated amended complaint issued on June 15, 1982.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The charge in Case 31-CA-12271 was filed on June 23,
1982, by the Union. An order consolidating all of the
cases and a second consolidated amended complaint
issued on August 20, 1982. An order consolidating cases
and a third consolidated amended complaint issued on
January 6, 1983. The complaint was further amended at
the hearing. As finally -amended, the complaint alleges
that Pioneer Hotel and Gambling Hall, Inc . (Respond-
ent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
Issues
The primary issues are:
1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act by discharging employees Ronald Lee
Neal and Deborah Lynn Cook because of their activities
on behalf of the Union:
2. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act through various supervisors by coercively interro-
gating employees, threatening to discharge employees,
creating the impression of surveillance, and by engaging
in•similar acts that interfered with the rights of employ-
ees that were protected under Section 7 of the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate,
to introduce relevant evidence , to examine and cross-ex-
maine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file briefs. Briefs,
which have been carefully considered, were filed on
behalf of the General Counsel and Respondent. `
On the entire record of the case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, a Nevada corporation with an office and
principal place of business in Laughlin, Nevada, is en-
gaged in the operation of a hotel and casino. On a pro-
jected basis, in the course of its business operations, Re-
spondent annually purchases and receives goods or serv-
ices valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers,
located outside of Nevada. On the same basis, Respond-
ent annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in
a business affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Ronald Lee Neal
1. Background and the sequence of events
Respondent is one of seven nonunion gambling casinos
in Laughlin, Nevada. In early January 1982 Lawrence
Neaves, who later became an organizer for the Union,
spoke to union officials about organizing the gambling
industry in Laughlin. By mid-February 1982 Neaves was
distributing union authorization cards to employees.
Ronald Lee Neal was one of the people who helped
Neaves with the organizational drive.
Neal was hired by Respondent as a broiler cook on
January 1, 1982. He was discharged on February 27,
1982. During his employment he never received a writ-
ten or oral reprimand, he was never suspended or sent
home for poor work, and he was often complimented by
his supervisor for doing a good job. The day before his
discharge his supervisor Gilbert Surabian' told him that
he was doing a good job and to keep up the good work.
, On February '14 or 15, Neal began passing out union
authorization cards to employees of Respondent. He con-
tinued to distribute cards and to discuss the Union with
employees until his discharge. In all he distributed about
40 cards. The cards were distributed in the kitchen, in
parking lots at other premises, and at Respondent's bar.
He himself signed one of the union authorization cards
on February 14, 1982. Of the 40 cards he distributed, 39
were returned to him. The one that was not returned
was one that he gave to Tom Newman' s sister . As found
below Newman was a supervisor. He gave the card to
Newman's sister 2 days before his discharge.
On February 26, 1982, Pamela Whalen, a waitress who
was still working for Respondent at the time she gave
her testimony, had a conversation with Respondent's
lieutenant of security, Tom Newman.2 The conversation
took place in the hallway between' the employee dining
room and the casino while Whalen was working.
Newman said that Tom Elardi, an owner of the casino,
knew that someone in the kitchen named Ron was pass-
ing out union cards. Newman asked her whether she had
heard or seen anything and whether she could find out
who was passing out the cards. She -asked him if he
meant Ron Neal and said that Neal was the only kitchen
cook she knew named Ron: Newman told Whalen that
Tom Elardi had told him that if it was Ron Neal passing
out union cards Neal would be fired. In the course of the
conversation Newman asked Whalen if she saw anyone
passing out cards or if she knew of anyone that signed
one. Whalen denied knowing anything. He asked her
whether she had signed a card and she denied that she
had. Newman said that anyone signing a card would be
fired and that ' Elardi could obtain knowledge of the
people who signed the cards.3
i The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits, and I find that
Gilbert Surabian, Respondent's food and beverage manager,, was a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act
2 The parties stipulated that Newman was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act on and after March 25, 1982 It was further stipulated
that he was a lieutenant of security between January 2 and March 25,
1982 There was a dispute concerning whether a lieutenant of security
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act That matter is discussed
below
' These findings are based on the credited testimony of Whalen
Newman'did not testify There is presently outstanding a civil complaint
and a criminal charge that raise the issue of whether Newman embez-
zeled funds from Respondent I am making no adverse inferences against
Respondent from Respondent's failure to call Newman However, Wha-
len's testimony was fully credible and it stands on its own
PIONEER HOTEL
There is one chief of security who is in overall charge
of the security department. Under the chief of security
are three lieutenants of security, each of whom is in
charge of one shift of Respondent's three-shift operation.
Under each lieutenant of security is one sergeant and
four or five guards. Newman was hired as a guard in
November 1981 and he was later promoted to lieutenant,
a position which he held at the time of the incident in
question. As a lieutenant he was in charge of the ser-
geant and five guards on the swing shift from 4 p.m. to
midnight. The chief of security was only physically
present on that shift for about 2. hours a night. When
Newman was promoted to a lieutenant, he was told by
then chief of security George Deitrich that he, Newman,
was in charge of the sergeant and the five guards and
that he was to make sure they carried out their duties.
Newman had authority to schedule guards to cover a
shift when the chief of security was not present. He had
authority to reschedule the work of the guards when one
was out sick and to grant sick leave when the chief
could not be reached. He exercise both of those powers.
He had authority to give overtime work without con-
tacting the chief of security and he exercised that power
about three times. He had authority to tell employees to
go home early when the chief of security was not there.
He exercised that power three of four times. He had au-
thonty to reprimand a guard orally and he did that at
least two times. Newman recommended the hire of all
five of the guards who worked on his shift and all five
were hired. On four occasions Newman recommended
the discharge of a guard. Two of the guards were dis-
charged and the other two recommendations were still
pending at the time Newman left. In general Newman's
job was to see that the sergeant and the guards did their
jobs properly. Sometimes Newman followed routine
policy but at other times he had to use his own inde-
pendent judgment in directing the work of others.
Newman was clearly a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act.4
After Neal finished working his shift at 11 p.m. on
February 27, 1982, he received a message that Supervi-
sor Surabian wanted to see him in Surabian's office.
When he went into the office, Surabian asked him what
the hell he had done to the Elardis (the owners of Re-
spondent). Neal said that he had done nothing. Surabian
Sec 2( 11) of the Act defines "supervisor" as follows
The term . "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in
the interest of the employer , to hire, transfer , suspend, lay off, recall,
promote, discharge , assign, reward , or discipline other employees, or
responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances , or effective-
ly to recommend such action , if in connection with the foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judgment
The supervisory indicia set forth in that section are listed disjunctively
and a person must be found to be a supervisor if he possesses any one of
the described forms of authority If that person possesses authority to ex-
ercise any one of the enumerated functions listed in Sec 2(11), he is a
supervisor whether or not those powers are actually exercised NLRB v
Edward G. Budd Mfg Co., 169 F 2d 571 (6th Cir 1948), Big Rivers Elec-
tric Corp., 266 NLRB 380 (1983 ), Giant Foods , 252 NLRB 1308 (1980);
Readi-Serve Foods, 266 NLRB 636 ( 1976) Newman used his independent
judgment in responsibly directing employees under him and in making ef-
fective recommendations with regard to hire and discharge He also used
such judgment in assigning employees their work He met a number of
the supervisory indicia set forth in Sec 2 ( 11) of the Act
697
told Neal that Neal's termination slip was ready. When
Neal asked why he was being terminated, Surabian said
that the Elardis had not given a reason. Neal said that he
was going to need a reason and Surabian answered by
asking Neal why Neal 'thought he was fired Neal said,
"Probably because of union activity" and Surabian re-
plied, "That's probably why." Surabian then asked how
things were going with the Union and Neal replied that
things were fine, that he had talked to people, and that
some had signed. Surabian said that he himself was in
favor of the Union and he was sorry that he had to fire
Neal. Surabian also said that if Neal returned in the next
few days he would try to get Neal's job back for him.5
A few days after Neal's February 27, 1982 discharge,
head chef Larry Van Mullen6 had a conversation with
Larry Jones (who at that time was either a sous chef or a
prep cook) about Neal's discharge. In the course of that
conversation Jones asked Van Mullen why Neal was ter-
minated and Van Mullen replied that Neal was terminat-
ed because he was handing out union cards.'
A day or. two after Neal was fired, Van Mullen spoke
to Deborah Lynn Cook about the discharge. He told her
and other employees who were present that Neal was
fired because he was distributing union cards in another
man's business. Van Mullen also said that if he caught
anyone else doing that, that person would be terminated
just as Neal was.8
A day or two after Neal was discharged he was re-
placed by another employee. Respondent has adduced no
evidence to indicate the reason for Neal's discharge.
8 These findings are based on the testimony of Neal, which was fully
credible Surabian did not testify
6 The complaint alleges, the answer as amended admits and I find that
Van Mullen was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
7 Respondent contends that at the time of this alleged conversation
Jones was a supervisory sous chef That matter is discussed below in con-
nection with allegations of independent violations of Sec 8 (a)(1) Wheth-
er or not Jones was a supervisor or an employee, Van Mullen's admission
to him that Neal was fired for union activity was the strongest type of
evidence of Respondent 's motivation in discharging Neal
The above findings are based on the testimony of Jones Van Mullen in
his testimony denied that he ever discussed the union activities of Neal
with Jones Van Mullen denied that he told Jones that Neal was termi-
nated because'of the Union Though I do not believe that Jones was
always completely accurate with - regard to dates, he convinced me that
he was a candid and reliable witness His testimony was consistent with
that of Neal who credibly testified that Surabian told him that Neal was
discharged "probably because of union activity " It was also consistent
with the testimony of Cook with regard to remarks about Neal's dis-
charge that Van Mullen made to her Van Mullen's testimony was some-
times evasive , particularly with regard to the reasons he attributed to the
discharge of Cook His demeanor did not inspire confidence in his veraci-
ty I credit Jones and I do not credit Van Mullen
8 These findings are based on the testimony of Cook Van Mullen testi-
fied that he did tell his crews that they would probably be fired if they
had their cards on the premises He denied, however, that he told Cook
that Neal was fired because he distributed cards Cook was not always a
fully candid witness She appeared to be hedging when she at first testi-
fied that she had not conferred with the General Counsel in preparation
for trial and later admitted that she had She also appeared to be hedging
when she filed a charge with the Board claiming that she was fired for
union activity and then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission claiming that she was discriminated against be-
cause of her sex However, the substance of her testimony was collateral-
ly corroborated by similar credible testimony of Neal and Jones. As be-
tween Cook and Van Mullen, I believe that Cook was the more reliable
witness and I therefore credit her
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Analysis and conclusions
As is set forth in detail above, Neal was 'active on
behalf of the Union; he was discharged; Supervisor Sura-
bian admitted to Neal that he was probably fired because
of his union activity; and Supervisor Van Mullen admit-
ted to Jones and Cook that Neal was fired for handing
out union cards. Respondent did not adduce any evi-
dence with regard to the reasons for the discharge and it
certainly did not show that there was a valid nondiscrim-
inatory reason for that discharge. The legal analysis with
regard to the discharge of Neal could well end at this
point. The admissions by Respondent's supervisors estab-
lish that Respondent knew of Neal's union activity and
harbored the type of antiunion animus that would moti-
vate it to discharge him. Those admissions also establish
the causal connection between the union activity and the
discharge. There was no credible defense raised by Re-
spondent and the conclusion is warranted that Neal was
discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. Advanced Installations, 257 NLRB 845, 848 (198-1).
The additional matters set forth below merely add
weight to that conclusion.
The controlling law is set forth in Wright Line, 251
NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981),
cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), in which the Board ap-
plied the "test of causation" that had been articulated by
the United States Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City
School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274
(1977). The Board held that to establish a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act which turns on employer moti-
vation, the General Counsel was required to make a
prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected activity was "a motivating factor" in the
employer's decision The Board further held that once
the prima facie case was established, the burden shifted
to the employer to demonstrate that the same action
would have taken place even in the absence of the pro-
tected conduct.9
Neal was a good worker. He was praised by his super-
visor Gilbert Surabian as late as a day before his dis-
charge. Respondent does not contend that he was dis-
charged because of poor work or for any business
reason. Instead, Respondent is silent with regard to the
reason for the discharge.
Neal was a key activist for the Union. He passed out
about 40 union authorization cards. He began that activi-
ty on February 14 or 15 and he was discharged on Feb-
ruary 27, 1982, less than 2 weeks after the distribution
began.
Respondent learned of Neal's union activity. On Feb-
ruary 26, 1982, Supervisor Tom Newman told waitress
Pamela Whalen that the owner of Respondent knew that
someone in the kitchen named Ron was passing out
union cards. Whalen told Newman that Neal was the
B The circuit courts are in disagreement with regard to whether a re-
spondent has the burden of going forward to meet a puma facie case or
the burden of persuasion on the ultimate issue of the existence of a viola-
tion Reno Sparks Cab Co, 266 NLRB 171, 174 (1983) In the instant case
that distinction is academic Respondent has failed to meet either of those
burdens
only kitchen cook she knew named Ron. Neal was dis-
charged the following day. -
Respondent harbored the type of antiunion animus that
would make it reasonable to believe that it was motivat-
ed to discharge employees who engaged in union activi-
ty. Newman's conversation with employee Whalen on
February 26 demonstrated that animus in a number of
ways. His statement to her that Tom Elardi, the owner
of the casino, knew that someone in the kitchen named
Ron was passing out union cards violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by creating the impression that the union ac-
tivity of the employees was under surveillance 10 In the
course of that conversation Newman inquired into her
union activity and her knowledge-of the union activity
of other employees That constituted coercive interroga-
tion concerning the union activities of Whalen and other
employees and therefore was in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. t 1 Also in the conversation Newman
told Whalen that the owner of Respondent had said that
if Neal was passing out cards Neal would be fired. That
threat to fire Neal for union activity was made the day
before the actual discharge. A threat to discharge an em-
ployee for union activity is a clear violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act In addition the threat to discharge
Neal for union activity constituted an implied threat
made to Whalen to discharge Whalen if she also engaged
in union activity. That threat also violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.12 Newman's remark that anyone sign-
ing cards would be fired constituted an additional threat
to discharge employees for union actvities in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. His statement that owner
Elardi could obtain knowledge of the people who signed
the cards constituted a further violation by creating the
impression of surveillance. Respondent's antiunion
animus was also evidenced by Supervisor Van Mullen's
conversation with employee Cook a short time after
Neal was discharged. Van Mullen told Cook and other
employees who were with her that Neal was fired be-
cause he was distributing union cards. That constituted
an implied threat to discharge other employees if they
engaged in union activity and therefore constituted a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Van Mullen went
further and made the implied threats specific by telling
the employees that if he caught anyone doing the things
that Neal was doing, that person would be terminated.
That constituted a threat to discharge employees if they
engaged in union activity and violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
The General Counsel has established the causal con-
nection between Neal's union activity and his discharge
through the mouths of Respondent's own supervisors.
10 Fashiontime, Ltd, 256 NLRB 403, 407 (1981), Maxwell's Plum, 256
NLRB 211, 216 (1981) Neal had not been open in his union activity and
Newman did not say anything about where Respondent obtained the in-
formation Whalen could have reasonably assumed from Newman's re-
marks that the union activities of the employees had been placed under
surveillance
11 See Marines'- Memorial Club, 261 NLRB 1357, 1362 ( 1982), and
cases cited therein The interrogation was a part of a general pattern of
unlawful conduct and was coercive
12 Kranco, Inc, 228 NLRB 319 fn 1 (1977), Reno Cab Co, 266 NLRB
171 (1983)
'PIONEER HOTEL 699
When Supervisor Surabian discharged Neal, Surabian ad-
mitted to Neal that the discharge was probably caused
by Neal's union activity. A few days later Supervisor
Van Mullen acknowledged to Larry Jones that Neal was
terminated because he was handing out union cards.
About the same time Van Mullen told employee Cook
and others that Neal was fired because he was distribut-
ing union cards.
In"-the face of the General Counsel's powerful prima
facie case, Respondent has not even offered an explana-
tion for the discharge of Neal. Respondent has not pro-
duced evidence to balance, much less to outweigh, the
prima facie case presented by the General Counsel. I
therefore find that by discharging-Neal, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In addition, I
find independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
as set forth above. " -
B. The Discharge of Deborah Lynn Cook
1. Factual findings
Deborah Lynn Cook was hired as a line cook by Re-
spondent on November 20, 1981. On March 5, 1982, she
was given a wage increase from $5.50 to $6 an hour. Re-
spondent's payroll rate change records show that it was
a merit increase. On February 25, 1982, she signed a
union authorization card- that had been given her by
Ronald Neal. She became a strong union activist and
from that time until 'her discharge on April 6, 1982, she
spoke to employees about the Union three or four times
a week. That took place in the kitchen, the bar, the
casino, and the employees' dining room. She often spoke
to Lawrence Neaves, the union organizer.
As described in section A above, on February 28,
1982, which was the day after Neal's discharge, Supervi-
sor Van Mullen told Cook and other employees that
Neal was fired because he was distributing union cards in
another man's business. Van Mullen also said that if he
caught anyone else doing that, that person-would be ter-
minated just as Neal was.
About the end of March 1982 Cook complained to
company consultant Alan Zaas that a recently hired male
employee was making more than she was. She said it
was not fair. He offered -her a 50-cent- an-hour increase
and asked if she would be quiet. She said she would.
Cook was summarily discharged by Supervisor Van
Mullen on April 6, 1982. Van Mullen called her into his
office and told her that he hated to do it but that he had
no choice in having to fire her. She asked whether. it had
anything to do with her work performance. He replied
that her work was fine and there were no 'complaints
with her work. but ".that she was fired because she was
talking union, and because she was going to file a dis-
crimination charge against them for equal rights. He told
her he really did not care if she signed a card, for the
Union or not and that it did not matter to him at all. He
also said , "You don't walk into a man 's business and dis-
tribute union cards." 1 a -
13 These findings are based on the testimony of Cook Van Mullen ac-
knowledged in his testimony that at the time of the discharge he knew
that Cook had signed a union card He averred that he had been told
On the day of discharge Van Mullen filled out a termi-
nation slip which gave as a reason for, the termination
"poor bad attitude."
Van Mullen testified that he discharged Cook because
of two specific incidents and because in general she had
an arrogant attitude and used foul language.
He testified as is set forth in the remainder of,this
paragraph: In the first half of March 1982 it was report-
ed to him that Cook had had an argument with some
waitresses in which she screamed at the waitresses. He
spoke to her and told her that he did not want any
screaming match with the waitresses and that she was to
call the' sous` chef and let him handle it. She agreed and
said she would check with the sous chef. The second in-
cident occurred about a week and a half later. The host
reported to him that the night before, Cook had been in
a very heated argument with a waitress. Again he spoke
to her, saying that he had told her before to check with
the sous chef and not to make a big disruption by argu-
ing and 'screaming . She agreed and said it would not
happen again. He told her that they would leave it at
that but not to let it happen again . There were no par-
ticular problems after that but Cook had an arrogant atti-
tude and used foul language. On one occasion he called
her into the office and told her not to pass out union
cards in the kitchen. Another employee had told him
that she had signed a card while she was working. His
girl friend, who had been a waitress for Respondent, told
him that Cook tried to get tips from the waitresses and
that Cook did not treat the waitresses well. He did not
talk to Cook about those matters. With regard to Cook's
language ' and arrogant attitude, he did not notice any
change from the time she was hired to the time she was
fired.
Cook testified that she recalled only one incident in
which Van Mullen gave her an oral warning . Cook had
never received a written warning, but at that time Re-
spondent's policy • was not to use written warnings for
any purpose She averred that sometime in March she
got into an argument with-one of the waitresses. That
waitress was Van Mullen's girl friend. According to
Cook the waitress raised a finger in an obscene gesture
and Cook grabbed the finger and directed some obsceni-
ties toward her. She averred that Van Mullen spoke to
both the waitress and herself and told them both-to let
the matter ride and leave each other alone. According to
Cook the matter was not brought up again.
Though. Cook only recalled one-such conversation, I
credit Van Mullen's assertion that- he spoke to Cook
twice for having arguments,with waitresses.
about Cook signing a card by another employee and that he told the em-
ployee not to worry about it because Cook was a problem anyway He
averred that by that statement he meant that he was planning to get nd
of her anyway, because she caused a turmoil everywhere she worked He
testified that at the termination interview he simply told Cook that he
was going to have to terminate her because of the constant turmoil and
trouble she was causing He denied the substance of Cook's testimony
and specifically denied that he said that he was firing her because of the
Union However he did acknowledge in his testimony that in mid-Febru-
ary he told his crew that they would probably be fired if they had their
cards on the premises . As indicated above I believe that Cook was a
more credible witness than Van Mullen and where their testimony is in
conflict, I credit Cook
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Analysis and conclusions
The General Counsel has established that Cook was
active on behalf of the Union (she signed a union card
and spoke to other employees about the Union); that Re-_
spondent knew that she supported the Union (Supervisor
Van Mullen acknowledged that an employee told him
that Cook had signed a card); that Respondent harbored
the type of antiunion animus that would make it reasona-
ble to believe that it was motivated to discharge employ-
ees because they engaged .in union activity (Respondent
discharged Neal because of his union activities and en-
gaged in a number of independent violations of Section
8(a)(1)-of the Act, including a threat to discharge em-
ployees if they engaged in union activity); that Cook was
discharged without warning during the course of the
Union' s organizational drive; and that Supervisor Van
Mullen admitted to. Cook that the union activitry was a
reason for the discharge (he told her that she was fired
because she was talking union and because she was going
to file an equal-rights discrimination charge): In proving
the above facts, the General Counsel has established an
extremely strong prima facie case that Cook was dis-
charged for union activity in violation of-Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.14 Respondent has introduced evi-
dence to indicate that on two occasions Cook got into
arguments with waitresses and that in general she had an
arrogant attitude and used foul language. However, Van
Mullen himself acknowledged that after her second argu-
ment with a waitress, he told her that they would leave
it at that and not to let it happen again. He also acknowl-
edged that there were no particular problems after that
incident. Apparently, at that time he did not consider the
arguments, with the waitresses to be sufficient grounds
for discharge. With, regard to the allegedly arrogant atti-
tude and the foul language, Van Mullen acknowledged
that he did not notice any difference in Cook's language
or attitude from the time she was hired to the time she
was fired. Yet she received a merit increase 3 months
after she was hired. On the day of her discharge Van
Mullen told her that there were no complaints with her
work. Certainly his admission to her that she was fired
for talking union and because of a possible equal rights
charge was inconsistent with Respondent's claim that she
was discharged because of the arguments with the wait-
resses, bad attitude, and foul language. I find that Re-
spondent has raised those matters simply as pretexts to
mask the real reason for the discharge, and that the real
reason was Cook's union activity. In sum, I find that Re-
spondent has not produced evidence to balance, much
less to outweigh, the puma facie case presented by the
General Counsel and that by discharging Cook, Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
14 Indeed even without Van Mullen's admission , the prima facie case
would have been established As the Board held in Associated Milk Pro-
ducers, 259 NLRB 1033, 1035 (1982)
The elements of protected activity on the part of the discharged em-
ployee, employer knowledge of the protected activity , and employer
animus toward the Union , taken together , are sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of unlawful discharge -
C. Additional Allegations of 8(a)(1) Violations
1. The employment applications
Between December 24, 1981 , and July 13 , 1982, Re-
spondent used two different application forms. One of
them asked the applicant whether he was , a union
member and , if so the name of the union . The other did
not contain that question . The parties stipulated that
company supervisors distributed the application form
containing the question concerning the union affiliation
to some of the employee applicants . It was also stipulat-
ed that no such applications were distributed after July
13, 1982 . 15 A number of employees answered the ques-
tions concerning union affiliation and returned the forms
to Respondent.
Particularly in view of the - findings above that Re-
spondent discharged two employees because of their
union activity , the questions on the application form con-
cerning union affiliation constituted coercive interroga-
tion in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. - Trans-
States Lines, 256 NLRB 648, 649 ( 1981); Central Trans-
port ; 244 NLRB 656, 657 (1979): '
2. Neave 's.conversation with Surabian
Lawrence Neaves was the person who originally inter-
ested the Union in organizing the Laughlin, Nevada casi-
nos. His first contact with the Union was about January,
4, 1982. Since,June 1, 1982, he was has been a paid union
organizer.
Toward the end of February 1982 Neaves asked Re-
spondent's supervisor Surabian whether it was possible
for him (Neaves) to get a job as- a meatcutter with Re-
spondent. Surabian replied that he' did not believe so be-
cause Neaves was union active. Surabian also said that
he would see, what he could do-about getting him the
job.16 Neaves was an applicant for employment with Re-
spondent. As such he was entitled to the protections of
Section 7 of the Act. I find that Respondent; through Su-
pervisor Surabian, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
telling prospective employee Neaves that he did not be-
lieve Neaves could be hired because Neaves was active
on behalf of the Union. Daily Transit Mix Corp., 238
NLRB 879 (1978), enfd. 614 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1980). 17
15 That date was well after the issuance of the original complaint
16 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Neaves Sura-
bian did not testify
17 With regard to this incident the complaint at par 9 alleges that Re-
spondent, through Surabian , violated Sec. 8 (a)(1) of the Act by telling an
individual he would not be hired because of his union activity At the
commencement of the trial the General Counsel moved to amend the
complaint to allege that Neaves was discnminatonly refused employment
in violation of Sec 8 (a)(3) of the Act Respondent opposed the motion on
the ground that ' Neaves had filed a charge in Case 31-CA-12036 on
March 20, 1982 , alleging that he had been denied employment because of
his union activity in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act, that Neaves had
requested withdrawal of the charge , that the withdrawal request was ap-
proved by the Regional Director for Region 31 on April 30, 1982, and
that that allegation was not time -barred by Sec 10(b) of the Act The
General Counsel's motion to amend was denied on the basis of the
Board 's holding in Winer Motors, Inc, 265 NLRB 1457 (1982) Counsel
for Respondent then moved to strike par 9 of the complaint on the
ground.that the 8(a)(1) allegation was also time -barred and was not based
on any proper and timely charge I ruled, in substance, and for the rea-
Continued
PIONEER HOTEL 701
3. The conversation between Finney and- Van
Mullen
Donald A. Finney was hired as a sous chef by Re-
spondent. The parties are in disagreement as to whether
a sous chef is a supervisory or nonsupervisory position.
On April 4, 1982, he was demoted to the position of line
cook at his own request.-The date of April 4, 1982, was
established by Respondent's records and the credible tes-
timony of Respondent's custodian of records, Benita
Hightower. Finney, in his testimony, was .not certain,
about the date. He averred that he believed he changed
positions in early March 1982. I believe that he was inac-
curate in his recollection of that and other dates. A line
chef is a nonsupervisory employee position. Finney
worked on the graveyard shift when he was sous chef
and on the day shift when he was a line cook.
Finney testified that on April 2, 1982, while he was -
working on the day shift as a line cook he had a conver-
sation with Van Mullen. To resolve the apparent incon-
sistency in his testimony, he then averred that he was not
sure of the April 2 date. He did recall, however, that at
the time of the conversation he was working on the day
shift and therefore he knew that he was a line chef at
that time. I believe that Finney was a credible witness
even though he did have diffculty remembering specific
dates. I find that he was a line cook and an employee at
the time of the conversation with Van Mullen.
Van Mullen told Finney that someone upstairs thought
that he (Finney) was involved in union activity and that
Finney would have been discharged if Van Mullen had
not vouched for him. Van Mullen asked Finney whether
Finney was involved in union activities and Finney gave
an evasive answer. Van Mullen then told him to be care-
ful whom he talked to about the union. i 8
I find that Respondent through Van Mullen violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in the following ways: By tell-
ing Finney that someone upstairs thought he' was, in-
volved in union activities, Van Mullen created the im-
pression that Respondent was engaging in surveillance of
the employees' union activities; by telling Finney that
Finney would have been fired if Van Mullen had not
vouched for him and by telling him to be careful whom
he talked to about the union, Van Mullen was impliedly
threatening to discharge Finney because of his union ac-
tivities; and by asking Finney whether he was involved
in union activities, Van Mullen was coercively interro-
gating Finney about his union activities.
4. The conversation between Jones and Van Mullen
Larry Jones was hired as a prep cook employee, on
January 14, 1982. He was promoted to the position of
sons more fully set forth on the record , that the 8(a)(1) allegation was so.
closely related to the outstanding timely filed charges that the motion to
strike had to be denied In his brief, counsel for Respondent argued that
par 9 should be dismissed That argument is in effect a request that I
reconsider my ruling For the reasons set forth on the record , I reaffirm
my ruling in that regard See Marines ' Memorial Club, 261 NLRB 1357
(1982)
18 These- findings are based on the testimony of Finney Van Mullen,
in his testimony , denied that the conversation took place I credit Finney
over Van Mullen
sous chef on March 1, 1982.19 Jones had a conversation
with Van Mullen a few days after Neal's February 27,
1982- discharge. He also testified that he had a second
conversation with Van Mullen about a week later.- He
avered that at the time of both of those conversations he
was a prep cook and that he became a sous chef thereaf-
ter. I am unable to credit Jones in that regard. The first
conversation had to occur after the February 27 dis-
charge of Neal because that discharge was discussed in
the conversation. February .28 was the last day that
Jones was a -prep cook. He became a sous chef on March
1, 1982. Though Jones testified the: conversation took
place.a few days after Neal's discharge, it is possible that
he was mistaken on his dates and the conversation took
place the day after the discharge. However, the second
conversation took place a week later and at that time
Jones i was a sous chef. Based on Jones' testimony that
the first conversation occurred a few days after the dis-
charge! and the second conversation about a week later, I
conclude that Jones was a sous chef at the time of both
conversations.
Respondent employs a head chef who is in charge of
the entire kitchen operation. Under the head chef are
three sous chefs. Each is in charge of one shift. There
are about eight employees in the kitchen under the sous
chef on each shift. The sous chef oversees the duties of
the line cooks, prep cooks, dishwashers, and stewards in
the absence of the • head chef. As there are three shifts
and only one head chef, the sous chef is in charge most
of the time. The sous chef, unlike the people under him,
is not docked pay when,he does not show up for work.
The sous chefs have and have used authority to send em-
ployees home and to grant overtime. They reprimand
employees under them if the employees do not do their
work properly and they have authority to grant people
time off to go home early. With regard to the sous chefs'
authority to direct the work force, Finney credibly testi-
fied that when he was sous chef he was in charge of the
employees and it was his duty to make sure the work
was done. Benita Hightower, who observed the oper-
ation, credibly testified the sous chefs used independent
judgment in directing the employees under-them and that
the direction was not a routine function. Van Mullen
credibly testified that the sous chefs' job was in part to
make sure 'everyone in the kitchen did their job. Using
the criteria set forth above with regard to the superviso-
ry status of Newman, I find that sous chefs employed by
Respondent are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act. -
A few days after Neal's February 27, 1982 discharge
head chef Larry Van Mullen told sous chef Larry Jones
that Neal was terminated because he was handing out
union cards. Van Mullen's statement to Jones was used
as evidence with regard to ascertaining Respondent's
motive in dischargiiig Neal. The General Counsel con-
tends that the statement also constitutes an independent
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
19 That date was established by the Company records and the credible
testimony of Hightower Jones testified that he became a sous chef some-
time betweeh March 15 and 28, 1982 1 believe that Jones was inaccurate
with regard to the dates
702 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In; the. same conversation Van Mullen told Jones that
the owners did not want anyone in the casino handing
out union cards on' the premises, that Jones was in-
volved, and that Jones should watch himself because he
was walking on very thin ice .20,
About a week later Van Mullen had a second conver-
sation with Jones. In that conversation Van Mullen told
Jones that anyone caught talking to Larry Neaves or
passing out union cards was subject to termination.
When Jones responded that what he did on his own time
was his own business, Van Mullen replied that that was
not so if it had anything to-.do.with union business and
that he could still be terminated for that. In the course of
that conversation, Van Mullen said that Neaves would
not, be hired any place on the river because. they knew
about his union activities.2 i The remarks of Supervisor
Van Mullen to Supervisor Jones set forth above can
properly be considered in evaluating Respondent's an-
tiunion animus. However, none of those remarks consti-
tute independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
There is no indication that any employee heard the re-
marks or that they were repeated to any employee. Jones
was a supervisor and not an' employee within the mean-
ing of Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the Act. In order to vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, an employer must inter-
fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the-exercise'of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7. Statements made !be-
tween supervisors' which are` not conveyed- to employees
may well be evidence that is relevant in evaluating other
actions of supervisors, but those intramanagement state-
ments do not in themselves interfere with, restrain, or
coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.22
Paragraphs 6(a)(1) and (2) of the complaint, which
allege 8(a)(1) violations based on Van Mullen's remarks
to Jones must therefore be' dismissed.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section II
above, occurring in connection with the operations of
Respondent. described in section I above; have `a close,
common, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade,
traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
Having found that Respondent discharged Neal and
Cook in violation of Section 8(a)(3y and (1) of the Act, I
recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate and
to make them whole for any loss of earnings resulting
from their discharges by payment to each of them of a
sum of money equal to the amount he or she normally
would have earned as wages, tips, and other benefits
from the date of his or her discharge to the date upon
which reinstatement is offered, less net earnings during
that period. The amount of backpay shall be computed in
the manner set forth in F W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB, 651
(1977).23
It is further recommended that Respondent be ordered
to' preserve, and upon request, make available, to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, - time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records necessary to analyze the amoung of 'backpay
due.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the -meaning of Section 2(6). and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3).and (1) of the
Act by discharging Neal and Cook because of their
union activities.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, by
threatening to discharge employees because of their
union activities; by coercively interrogating employees
about their own and other employees' union activities;
by coercively interrogating applicants for employment
about their union affiliation through questions on an ap-
plication form; by telling an applicant for employment
that he would not be hired because of his union activi-
ties; and by creating the impression that the union activi-
ty of its employees was under surveillance -
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed24
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged -in certain
unfair labor practices, I recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom, and to take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
20 This finding is based on the testimony of Jones Van Mullen denied
making such statements I credit Jones
21 These findings are based on the credited testimony of Jones Van
Mullen's testimony to the contrary is not credited.
22 Cf Parker-Robb Chevrolet Inc, 262 NLRB 402 (1982), Sorrento
Hotel, 266 NLRB 350 (1983) The General Counsel cites Dependable
Lists, 239 NLRB 1304 (1979), and Campbell Soup Co, 225 NLRB 222
(1976) Those cases are inapposite They both deal with situations where
an employer' questions an employee who the employer mistakenly -be-
lieves is a supervisor
ORDER,
The Respondent, Pioneer Hotel and Gambling. Hall,
Inc., Langhlin, Nevada, it`s officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) discharging or otherwise discriminating against any
employee for engaging in activity on behalf of Culinary
Workers Union, Local 226, Hotel Employees and Res-
23 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).,
24 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
PIONEER HOTEL
taurant Employees International Union AFL-CIO, or
any other union.
(b) Threatening to discharge employees because of
their union activities; coercively interrogating employees
about their own or other employees' union activities; co-
ercively interrogating applicants for employment about
their union affiliation through questions on an application
form; telling applicants for employment that they will
not be hired because of their union activities; or creating
the impression that it is engaging in surveillance of'its
employees' union activities
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Ronald Lee Neal and Deborah Lynn Cook
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or,
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and make
them whole for any loss earnings and other benefits suf-
fered as a result of the discrimination against them, in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Remove from its files any reference to the Febru-
ary 27, 1982 discharge of Neal and the APril 6, 1982 dis-
charge of Cook, and notify them in writing that this has
been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
(d) Post at its Laughlin, Nevada place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "25
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 31 , after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the' Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
703
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations in the
complaint as to which no violations have been found are
dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or othewise discriminate
against any employee for engaging in union activity on
behalf of Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, Hotel Em-
ployees and Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO, or any other union.
WE WILL, NOT threaten to discharge employees be-
cause of their union activities; coercively interrogate em-
ployees.about their own or other employees' union ac-
tivities;, coercively interrogate applicants, for employment
about their union affiliation through questions on an ap-
plication form; tell applicants for employment that they
will not be hired because of their union activities; or
create the impression that we are engaging in surveil-
lance of our employees' union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer full reinstatement to Ronald Lee Neal
and Deborah Lynn Cook with backpay plus interest.
WE WILL expunge from our files any reference to the
discharge of Neal and Cook and notify them in writing
that that has been done and that evidence of those un-
lawful discharges will not be used as a basis for future
personnel action against them.
PIONEER HOTEL AND GAMBLING HALL,
INC.
25 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " -