Ramada InnDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 26, 1973201 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1973) Copy Citation RAMADA INN 431 American United Inns , Inc. d/b/a Ramada Inn and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local 868, AFL-CIO. Cases 8-CA-6730 and 8-CA-6884 January 26, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 13, 1972, Administrative Law Judge 1 John P. von Rohr issued the attached Decision in this proceeding . Thereafter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and briefs , and Respondent filed an answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings ,2 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 Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, American United Inns, Inc., d/b/a Ramada Inn, Perrysburg, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED3 that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations not found herein. CHAIRMAN MILLER, dissenting in part: 1 The title of "Trial Examiner" was changed to "Administrative Law Judge" effective August 19, 1972 2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge . It is the Board's established policy not to overrule 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 were incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. 3 Our dissenting colleague has chosen to emphasize all of the minor deficiencies of employee Wilson and conclude that her discharge was not in violation of the Act While we agree that the abbreviated facts relied on by our dissenting colleague have some support in the record , we do not agree with him that these are the facts on which the Administrative Law Judge relied in finding Wilson's discharge to be in violation of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act The Administrative Law Judge found, and we agree, that Wilson's discharge was effectuated by Respondent as an object lesson, i.e, that it "was intended to discourage the union activity which was then taking place I would reverse the Administrative Law Judge's findings that cocktail waitress Wilson was terminated in violation of 8(a)(3). In the period immediately preceding Wilson's discharge, Respondent was con- cerned with the manner in which its waitresses presented themselves to the public. A week or two prior to the discharge a meeting of all cocktail waitresses was held concerning their appearance, service, fraternizing with customers , lateness, and general work deficiencies. Wilson, in the past, had reported to work with holes in her stockings, wore slippers rather than waitress boots, and had also failed to comply with management instructions concerning the wearing of long hair. She was discharged following a report to management that in the presence of customers, Wilson had made state- ments critical of the management. The above facts are supported in the record. The Administrative Law Judge found Respondent's reliance on them in effectuating her discharge to be "exaggerated" and "unbelievable," and found in- stead that she was discharged discriminatorily. Yet Wilson's only union activity was the wearing of a union button-conduct which did not set her apart from other employees who also openly wore like buttons and suffered no ill at Respondent's hands.4 Furthermore, though the organizational drive commenced about 8 months prior to Wilson's discharge, Respondent's only misconduct during that period consisted of two isolated 8(a)(1) violations which were minimal and hardly indicative of that degree of animus which may cause us to view with skepticism the discharge of any union supporter. Upon this record, I am unable to find that the General Counsel has sustained the burden of proving that it was anything other than the proven deficien- cies in Wilson's work performance which caused her discharge. I would therefore dismiss the 8(a)(3) allegation grounded upon her discharge. I would, however, sustain the 8(a)(3) violation involving Abbott. After the strike, Respondent among the employees ." Accordingly , for the reasons set forth in his Decision, we find Wilson's discharge was violative of Sec . 8(a)(3) of the Act 4 I confess to not understanding the "object lesson" reasoning of my colleagues on this issue . True this is a characterization of the Administrative Law Judge's own imaginative explanation for this discharge But what evidence is there to support this theory? Wouldn't every discharge effected by the Respondent during this lengthy organization drive be covered by the same blanket? Since Wilson's only activity was the wearing of the button, the only possible "object lesson" to other employees would be that if they engaged in like activity-i.e buttonweanng-they too would be discharged. Yet if other employees wore buttons and were not discharged , I am at a loss to comprehend what lesson it was the other employees were supposed to have learned-unless perhaps it was that they had best not wear a union button if their name happened to be was that they had best not wear a union button if their name happened to be Wilson! The only other object lesson I can discern is one which I hope and trust my colleagues would reject out of hand : namely, don't discharge unsatisfactory employees unless you are certain that members of this Board, faced with similar work derelictions , would have imposed like discipline. 201 NLRB No. 56 432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refused to reinstate Abbott, a striker, on grounds that her job had been filled by a permanent replacement, hired after the Union had made an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of all strikers, but before Abbott had personally sought reinstatement. Prior to this case the law has been unclear as to whether an employer has a right permanently to replace economic strikers in the interim between an unconditional offer to return to work made on behalf of all strikers and the individual striker's application to return to work . Indeed , New Orleans Roosevelt Corp., 132 NLRB 248, left this issue in doubt, and could well be read as intimating that permanent replacements could continue to be hired during such an interval. I would , however , agree with the majority that Abbott is entitled to reinstatement. In my opinion, an unconditional offer to return to work made on behalf of all strikers removes an employer's legiti- mate interest in continuing to hire nonstrikers as permanent employees , and hence there is no business justification for according permanent status to replacements subsequently hired . Accordingly, a replacement hired after such an unconditional offer should not be regarded as having rights superior to a replaced striker's recall rights. It is emphasized , however , that this 8(a)(3) viola- tion may properly be, and is here found without need for specific evidence of antiunion animus, and as noted above , it has been unclear until the instant decision as to whether an employee in Abbott's position had rights superior to a replacement hired under the circumstances here present . Those consid- erations must be borne in mind in the course of our assessment of whether a Gissel bargaining order is appropriate here. I am of the opinion that the narrowly based 8(a)(3) violation involving Abbott plus the two isolated 8(a)(1) violations , do not, in total, reach that level of misconduct which , as outlined in my dissent in General Stencils, 195 NLRB No. 173, I believe must be shown to justify a Gissel bargaining order. I therefore also dissent from the entry of such an order here. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JOHN P. VON ROHR , Trial Examiner: Upon charges, duly filed, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , for the Regional Director of Region 8, Cleveland, Ohio, issued a consolidated complaint against American United Inns, Inc ., d/b/a Ramada Inn, herein called the Respondent or the Company , alleging that it had engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. The Respondent filed an answer denying the allegations of unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner John P . von Rohr in Toledo, Ohio, on May 10, 11, and 12 , 1972. Briefs were received from the General Counsel and the Respondent on June 27 , 1972, and they have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case , and from my observation of the witnesses , I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Tennessee corporation, is engaged in the operation of motels and restaurants . The only facility involved in this proceeding is Respondent 's motel and restaurant known as Ramada Inn, located in Perrysburg, Ohio. Respondent annually receives gross income from the operation of the said motel and restaurant in excess of $500,000. It annually receives at said facilities goods shipped directly from points outside the State of Ohio valued in the excess of $50,000. Respondent concedes, and I find , that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local 868, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Issues In March 1971 , the Union began an organizing cam- paign among Respondent 's food and beverage employees. Although only one employee signed a card in March and few signed during the months of April, July, and September , the record reflects that the campaign reached its height in November 1971, at which time 29 employees signed union authorization cards . On November 10, 1971, the Union demanded recognition. The request was refused. Thereafter , on November 18, 1972, the Union filed a representation petition in Case 8 -RC-8417. This petition was subsequently withdrawn due to the alleged unfair labor practices herein . The complaint alleges that Respon- dent discharged the following employees , on the dates indicated , in violation of Section 8(aX3) of the Act: Cynthia Wilson November 17, 1971 Angeline Abbott December 10, 1971 Frances King February 19, 1972 In addition , on the basis that Union had obtained the union authorization cards from a majority of the employ- ees, it is alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(aX5) of the Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union on and after November 10, 1971. Because of the various other alleged unlawful conduct at issue herein, the General Counsel seeks a bargaining order under the RAMADA INN 433 principle enunciated in N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575. Finally, the complaint was amended at the hearing to allege various independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Discharges 1. Cynthia Wilson Cynthia Wilson was hired as a cocktail waitress when Respondent Ramada Inn first opened on December 26, 1970. She worked full time in this capacity until about the middle of October 1971, at which time she requested that she work only 3 or 4 days per week due to a family emergency. This request was granted by Terry Bell, the bar manager, who was made aware of the circumstances and who assured her that her full-time job would be held open until she again became available for it. However, when she advised Food and Beverage Manager Colby Mace about 2 weeks later that she wished to return to full time, Mace advised that she could not do so because another cocktail waitress had been hired during the interim.' She then continued to work as a cocktail waitress for 3 or 4 nights a week until she was discharged on November 17, 1971. At the times material hereto, Madeline Grindle was the night dining room supervisor.2 As such, she was Wilson's immediate supervisor. Wilson testified that, in the latter part of October 1971 (or about 2 weeks before she signed a union card), Grindle came up to her in the lounge , stated that there was some talk about a union going on, and asked "if I heard anyone talking about it would I please tell her." Wilson replied that she would do so. Grindle denied that she requested Wilson to give her any report concerning union talk or employee union activity. From my observa- tion of the witnesses, and upon the entire record in this case, I credit Wilson over Grindle. Wilson impressed me as a truthful witness and I do not believe that she fabricated this testimony. Accordingly, I credit her testimony as aforesaid. Wilson signed a union authorization card on November 6, 1971. From that date to the time of her discharge she wore a union button at all times while working. Grindle conceded that she was aware of this, although she observed other waitresses also wear union buttons. Although Respondent asserts that Wilson's discharge was precipitated by a remark which she allegedly made to Grindle during a conversation on the evening of November 17, 1971, the date of her discharge, Respondent contends that she also "demonstrated a series of improprieties as an employee . . . she had been cautioned about [sic] it on numerous occasions"3 and that all this also was taken into account at the time of her discharge. I shall consider first the evidence pertaining to these asserted deficiencies. John H. West was the general manager and top supervisor at Respondent Inn from May 1971 to December 20, 1971. Called as a witness by Respondent, the only complaints which West could recall about Wilson consist- ed of the following: In highly vague and confusing testimony, West said he received complaints from customers about cocktail wait- resses wearing their hair too long . Identifying one of these waitresses as Jackie Couture , he said he "talked to her for a moment at the bar about it ." He said the other girl was Cindy Wilson . He said he spoke to her about it one day when she came to work, stating that he "mentioned the hair" and that "we would like to have a little more attention about grooming ." West conceded that this was the only time he spoke to Wilson in any critical manner. Indeed , concerning this incident, Wilson recalled West calling her in and asking that she tie her hair back. She credibly testified that thereafter, "I started to tie my hair back and no other girls did, so I stopped tying my hair back ." Nothing further was said to her about the matter. In further vague testimony , West said he observed Wilson wearing slippers, rather than standard waitress boots or shoes , and also that "we had problems with the stockings with holes or runs." Concerning this he testified that he told Grindle "please talk to Cindy about the shoes and have her in the standard uniform ." The foregoing, then , were the only "deficiencies" which the then incum- bent innkeeper could name with respect to Wilson. Colby Mace , the food and beverage director, gave similar vague testimony about Wilson 's appearance. However, although stating that he discussed this with West and Grindle, Mace did not claim to have discussed it with Wilson . As for Grindle , this witness testified that West and Mace advised her that Wilson 's appearance was "not good" and that they particularly mentioned "the grooming of her hair , her shoes , her hose , there were holes in her nylons." Apart from the foregoing, it is undisputed that Mace and Grindle held a meeting with the four or five cocktail waitresses , including Wilson , about 2 weeks prior to Wilson's discharge . Concerning this meeting Mace testified as follows: We were trying to correct some of the problems that we were having and in some of the areas we felt we needed improvement , such as service , appearance of the employees, show them what they could do to give better service . We also showed them what things to do to correct problems as far as neatness and so forth .. . I remember stating that it was against the policy of the company . . . to pick up customers at the bar. Concerning the same meeting Grindle testified : "It was about appearance , service , picking up customers , drinking on the job , being late , laying off because of baby sitter problems and not doing their work right." Cynthia Wilson recalled , as she credibly testified , that when the subject of hose was raised at the meeting she remarked "Every time we came in here we ran into a chair and we get a run in our hose, it cannot be helped ." She said to this Mace merely responded that she should "just bring an extra pair of hose with you." I Wilson started to wear a union button during the period when she during the hearing. Accordingly , I do not pass upon any such contention. started to work part-time and before she spoke to Mace. Although the 2 Grindle was hired first by Respondent on August 25, 1971, as cashier General Counsel now appears to contend that Wilson was denied and hostess . She was promoted to the above position about a month later. reinstatement to full-time employment because of her prounion sympathy , 3 Statement of Respondent at the hearing, in substance again stated in there is no such allegation in the complaint nor was Respondent so charged Respondent 's brief. 434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon all the foregoing, and having considered the entire testimony on the subject, I am convinced and find that Respondent has grossly exaggerated and distorted any alleged deficiencies or improprieties which it now seeks to attribute to Wilson. As indicated above, although Respon- dent witnesses testified that they spoke to each other about Wilson's appearance, the only time any personal mention of this was made to Wilson was West's brief comment that she tie her hair back. The only other instance of any critical nature was the open discussion which Mace and Grindle had with all the cocktail waitresses, as related above, and it is clear that at this time Wilson was not singled out for any particular deficiency. I think it also relevant to note that Cynthia Wilson was an unusually attractive girl. In this respect alone, it would appear that she was eminently qualified for the position of cocktail waitress. I turn now to the evening of November 17, 1971, the night of Wilson's discharge. Wilson testified that shortly after she reported to work another employee came up to her in the lounge and handed her a piece of paper which contained directions to the site of a union meeting that was to be held the next day, November 18. There is, however, no evidence that this came to Respondent's attention. About 10 p.m. Connie Gingrich, another cocktail waitress, advised Wilson that Grindle wanted to see her in the office. I relate first Wilson's version of what then transpired. According to Wilson, Gnndle told her as soon as she entered the office "I will have to let you go." Continuing, Wilson testified that when she asked for the reason, Grindle replied that West told her that he had received telephone calls at home concerning her service and that before leaving that night he told her [Gnndle] to let her [Wilson] go. Wilson said that Grindle thereupon proceeded to bring up other matters. She stated that someone overheard two waitresses talk about "how bad the management was," and that she [Wilson] was one of the waitresses who made the statement. Wilson said she advised Grindle that she did not recall making any such statement but that she was sorry if she had. Grindle next accused her of picking up customers. Wilson denied picking up customers and said that she had only gone out for coffee after work with customers who were her friends. According to Wilson, before the conversation ended Grindle again said, "Mr. West has got a phone call and he just called me and told me to let you go." The conversation terminated, she said, with Gnndle asking if she wished to finish out the night, to which she replied that she did not. Grindle denied that West had given her instructions to discharge Wilson. West, who somewhat hedged on the subject, gave testimony which I shall also construe as a denial of having instructed Grindle to discharge Wilson.4 However, Grindle, who at the time of Wilson's discharge was still a recently hired supervisor who had not previously discharged any employees, did testify that one time West "advised" her that she should discharge Wilson if she was not happy with Wilson's work record and appearance. Concerning the events of November 17, Grindle testified that earlier in the evening a customer told her that he overheard a conversation between two cocktail waitresses in which one of them said that Respondent 's place of business was a poor place to work and that it had poor management . She said that around 9 p .m. she sat at a table in the lounge with waitress Connie Gingrich and spoke to her about this complaint. Grindle testified that Gingrich conceded making the remark whereupon she told Gingrich "if you did, see to it you keep your voice down and keep your opinions to yourself." She testified that about an hour later Gingrich came up to her and told her that she should tell Wilson, "to come and do some work." Wilson said that she also observed Wilson standing around , and therefore she asked Gingrich to tell Wilson to come to the office. Grindle testified that the following occurred when Wilson reported to her: Then I told Cindy in there, we sat down and I told Cindy about her appearance. About the fact that the girls did not want to work with her because she wasn't doing her job. I told her about her sloppy shoes-we had customers complaints that Mr. West had gotten. I told her about her runs in her nylons and I also told her about the night she picked up a man in the lounge, that she was picking up customers in the lounge . . . . And I told her that I had known she had picked this customer up because I had been sitting in the back. And she told this customer to go out and meet her, that she was leaving now. And I watched and he got up and got in her car . So then in the meantime Cindy started to cry and she says; "Well, I don't care if I serve a drink in this damn place or not anymore ." I said , "You are fired." Then she told me I was firing her for wearing a union button. And I said, "No, Cindy, I am not." She was very upset. As a matter of fact, I even told her not to cry at one point. As previously indicated, Wilson impressed me as a more credible witness than Grindle. I credit her version of the discharge conversation and find that at the outset of this conversation Grindle told Wilson that she was being discharged because of instructions she received from West. As will be indicated below, I do not credit the additional reasons asserted by Respondent for the discharge of Wilson. I should state here, however, that assuming arguendo Grindle did give a correct version of the discharge conversation , I still would not credit her testimony that she discharged Wilson because of any statement that Wilson made to the effect that she "didn't care if she ever served a drink in the damn place again." Thus, even according to Grindle, Wilson did not make any such statement until the conversation reached a point where she was in tears. If this indeed occurred, I would consider it, as I do the other reasons advanced by Respondent , to be a pretext for the discharge. From the facts set forth above, I think it clear that the reason or reasons asserted by Respondent for Wilson's discharge do not stand up under scrutiny. As I have previously found, the testimony given by Respondent 4 Thus, when asked on direct examination if he gave instructions to dog She [Gnndle ] did come to me and ask me what would you do and I said discharge Wilson, West testified "Specifically Cindy Wilson, no But in generally a dismissal but that isjust in general . not specifically discharge handling a particular type of problem that Cindy Wilson had , yes Specific Cindy Wilson " remarks to the warnings and no reaction to the warnings What would you RAMADA INN 435 witnesses concerning Wilson's alleged deficient appearance is, at best, a gross exaggeration of whatever trivia they could recall. Aside from the comment which West made to Wilson about her hair, and the open discussion which West and Grindle had with all the cocktail waitresses, it is indeed peculiar that Respondent did not otherwise warn or talk to this employee, employed since the opening of the inn, if her alleged deficiencies were as serious as Respon- dent would now contend. As has been indicated, during the discharge conversation Grindle accused Wilson of having picked up a customer in the lounge. In this connection, Grindle testified that this referred to an occurrence which she observed subsequent to the meeting which she and West held with all the cocktail waitresses about 2 weeks before, in which, it will be recalled, the employees were told that this was against company policy. Wilson, however, credibly testified that she did not go out with any customers after the meeting with Grindle and West. Significantly, Grindle testified that she called Wilson into her office because waitress Connie Gingrich com- plained that Wilson was not doing her share of the work. Yet, according to Grindle's own testimony, she did not mention this fact when Wilson entered the office but instead began the conversation by talking to Wilson about her appearance . . . and as for Wilson's appearance, it may be noted, Grindle did not even contend at the hearing that there was anything wrong about it on the evening in question. Upon the entire record in this case, I am convinced and find that Wilson's discharge was intended to discourage the union activity which was then taking place among the employees. It was only about I month earlier that Grindle requested Wilson to report back to her any union activity which she observed among the employees. While there is in this case little further evidence of overt union hostility by the Respondent, I must regard this clearly unlawful demonstration of union animus by Grindle as a significant indication of the motive behind Wilson's discharge. Not only did Wilson's discharge occur at the height of the organizational campaign, but further evidence of Respon- dent's motives will become apparent when considered in the context of Respondent's unlawful termination of employee Angeline Abbott, discussed below. It is found, therefore, that Respondent's discharge of Cynthia Wilson was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.5 I also find that Respondent independently violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by asking Wilson to report to her any employee discussion of union activity. 2. Angeline Abbott other employees . Respondent conceded , as reflected in the evidence , that it became aware of a union leaflet signed by Abbott reflecting that she was a member of the union committee . Respondent also concedes having observed Abbott wearing a union button while at work .6 As will be discussed later in this Decision , the Union had obtained majority status by November 10, 1971, at which time it requested , but Respondent refused , recognition as bargaining agent . Thereafter, a petition was filed on November 18, 1971; by letter of the same date Respondent again advised the Union that it would decline recognition, although the letter stated that Respondent felt a Board- conducted election would be appropriate. In the late afternoon of December 9, 1971, Union Representative William Parson , Herman Warren, and a third unidentified business agent came to Respondent's motel where they assembled in the lobby with a group of approximately 35 employees . Within a few minutes, in the presence of the employees , the union representatives held a conference with General Manager West and Food and Beverage Director Mace . It is undisputed that the union representatives again demanded recognition and that West refused , stating that the matter was in the hands of the Labor Board. Parsons credibly testified that he also asked that Cynthia Wilson (who was present in the group) be reinstated , but that West responded that her case also was in the hands of the Labor Board.7 When the company officials thereupon left the lobby, the union representatives met privately with the group of assembled employees in a corner of the lobby. There reiterating that the Company had declined recognition and refused to reinstate Wilson, Parsons asked what they wanted to do about it. At this point Angeline Abbott spoke up to say that she did not think they should wait any longer and that all those who wanted to strike should raise their hands. It appears that a majority of them did so, whereupon most of the assembled employees went outside where they immediately estab- lished a picket line. The picketing began about 5 p.m., this particular evening being the occasion of a large banquet (about 350 people) being held in the dining rooms of the Respondent facility. About 9 p.m. Parson left the picket line and sent a telegram to West which stated as follows: We herein offer the return to work of all members of Local 868 in your [sic] employee on an unconditional basis. We have instructed said members to return to work on their regular shift 12-10-71. Abbott reported to work at her regular starting time of 4 p.m. the next day, December 10, but found that her timecard was missing . Upon encountering West a short while later , West handed her a letter which stated as follows: Angeline Abbott, hired on September 3, 1971, was employed by Respondent in the capacity of salad girl. She signed a union card on November 5, 1971, and thereafter became a member of the Union's organizing committee. She also obtained authorization cards from about five 5 1 do not hold that Wilson was discharged for wearing a union button. as Respondent in part appears to view the General Counsel's case However , Wilson 's wearing of the button is significant in that it demonstrated her being a prounion employee As further pointed out by Respondent. Wilson was not the only employee to open wear a union button However , the fact that Respondent did not Dear Mrs. Abbott, All though you have applied for reinstatement for your former position with us , during the period in which you discriminate against all those in favor of the Union does not exculpate it for the discrimination herein found . N LR.B. v. W C Nabors, 196 F.2d 272, 276 (C A 5). 6 Resp. br. 7 The original charge in Case 8-CA-6730 naming Wilson as an alleged discriminatee was filed by the Union on November 22, 1971. 436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD were absent from your job a full time replacement for you was hired. This means, unfortunately, that we no longer have a position for you. In the event that the individual hired to replace you is not proved to be satisfactory, we will be in touch with you regarding employment if you should be interested. Very truly yours, /S/ JOHN H. WEST Although some further conversation took place between Abbott and West, suffice it to note that Abbott was thereupon not permitted to return to work and since has not been reinstated. In the meantime, one Elizabeth Lavigne reported to the Respondent about 5:30 p.m. on December 9 to help out as salad cook. Although she held a regularjob with a different employer which began at 11 p.m., Lavigne, who had been called by Respondent earlier in the day, agreed to come and work until 10 p.m. Lavigne testified that Mace came up to her about 8 p.m. and asked if she would be interested in a job. Lavigne responded that she would. About 9 or 9:30 p.m. Lavigne and several other employees were summoned to a conference room where they were given something to eat. They were then asked by Mace to sign their names so they could be paid. At about this time Mace introduced Lavigne to West. Lavigne testified that at this point either Mace or West again asked if she would be interested in a job and she again responded in the affirmative. As she was then about to leave, Lavigne testified, "Mr. Mace told me that he had to talk to the lawyers or something. I did not understand that." Lavigne thereupon went to work at her regular job at the Wyandotte Plaza on the Turnpike. Shortly after arriving she received a call from her husband that Mace had called and asked that she call him. According to Lavigne, she called Mace about 11:20 p.m. at which time Mace again asked if she wanted the job. Upon answering that she would, Mace responded, "Well, you are hired as of tonight. Come on in tomorrow at 4 o'clock. Lavigne credibly testified that when she reported the next morning she was asked to go to the kitchen office. There she met Mace who first explained that she was not causing anyone to lose her job, but that Respondent was letting the employee she replaced (Abbott) go because she was "unclean and uncouth." Mace thereupon gave her a timecard and proceeded to explain the job procedures, such as breaktimes and the like. Turning to Respondent's defense, West conceded that he received the Union's telegram on behalf of the striking employees, containing the unconditional offer to return to work, between 9:30 and 10 p.m. on December 9. It is Respondent's contention that it had replaced Abbott with Lavigne before receipt of the said telegram and that it 8 Thus, after first testifying that he discussed a transportation problem with Lavigne , Mace 's testimony was as follows. Q (By Lash) Trying to work out something on what? A Her [Lavigne) schedule so that she could come in with Sally. Q. Was there anything you felt that in her mind she knew she was hired' MR. KOLLAR Objection to what was in her mind MR LASH: I will rephrase the question. Q. (By Mr Lash) Mr Mace , did you specifically tell her that she was hired? therefore was under no obligation to take this employee back to work. I find the credible evidence not to support Respondent's contention in this regard. While there is no question but that Mace and West spoke to Lavigne about the prospects of hiring her as salad cook before she went to her II p.m. regular job, neither Mace nor West testified to any conversation wherein they specifically engaged her as an employee before she left Respondent's premises that evening. Indeed, West merely testified that Mace told him that he had hired Lavigne. As for Mace, without being at all specific, his testimony to the effect that he hired Lavigne before 10 p.m. was highly generalized and only came in response to leading questions .8 Mace conceded that he called Lavigne later that evening and that after II p.m. she returned his call. Concerning this call, Mace testified that he had "changed her schedule" to correspond with that of another employee, Sally Daily, so that she could ride to work the next day with Daily rather than have her husband bring her in. I do not credit this testimony. Rather, I credit the testimony of Lavigne, as above set forth, that it was at this time that she was told she was hired and that she was to report at 4 p.m. the next day. Aside from it being my impression that Lavigne was a credible witness, I note here another peculiar aspect of Respondent's testimony. Thus, West testified that his legal counsel came to the motel after he received the Union's telegram . He said it was at this point that a decision was reached that Lavigne be hired and that it was also then that the letter advising Abbott that she had been replaced was prepared. If West received the telegram between 9:30 and 10, as he testified, it is manifestly unlikely that counsel could have arrived at the motel by 10 p.m., which was the time that Lavigne left the motel to go to her other job. All of which lends more plausibility to the testimony of the Lavigne, previously set forth, of having been told by Mace, when asked if she would be interested in the job, that "he had to talk to the lawyers." Finally, Mace testified that he did not put Lavigne to work when she reported the next day and that he did not recall having any conversation with her at that time . When queried if he put her to work at that time Mace responded, "No. When she clocked in she automatically would have gone to work because she was shown the night before what her job was." In view of Lavigne's unfamiliarity with Respondent's working condi- tions, clearly it is much more likely that Mace did discuss job procedure with her when she came to work, as she testified. In view of all the foregoing, and particularly upon the credited testimony of Lavigne, I find that Respondent did not advise Lavigne that in fact she was being hired (beginning at 4 p.m. the following day) until Mace so notified her by telephone at 11:20 p.m. To put it otherwise, I find that Respondent did not so advise Lavigne until A. Yes Because this was brought in, the fact that she was going to have to come in with Sally. TRIAL EXAMINER What did you say to her again" THE WITNESS I do not know my exact words. Then is when she was hired and this when the subject was brought up about her transporta- tion. whether she would come in with Sally or whether her husband had to bring her in Q. (By Mr Lash ) You had no doubt that she was hired" A. No, because I told Mr . West about it RAMADA INN after it received the Union's telegram that the strikers were returning to work unconditionally. It is well settled that economic strikers are entitled to reinstatement unless they have been permanently replaced or have engaged in misconduct that could disqualify them for reinstatement .9 Accordingly, since it has been found that Angeline Abbott was not replaced prior to the unconditional offer to return to work, I find that Respondent discriminated against her in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.10 I also reject Respondent's further contention that even if it did not in fact engage Lavigne until 11:20 p.m., it nevertheless was lawfully entitled to replace her up until the time she reported to work at her regular starting hour of 4 p.m. the next day and at that time personally applied for her job. To the contrary, unless Respondent had reason to believe that the unconditional offer on behalf of the employees to return to work the next day, as stated in the telegram, was not made in good faith (which clearly was not the case here), it is my view that Respondent's right to replace Abbott, absent unusual circumstances not present here, was tolled upon receipt by it of the Union's telegram which contained the said unconditional offer." 3. Frances King Frances King, hired as a dining room waitress on December 26, 1970, was also an active and known union adherent. She signed a union card on November 1, 1971, thereafter always wore a union button and became active in signing up a number of employees for the Union. She also was a member of the Union's organizing committee and participated in the strike of December 9, 1971. Discharged on February 19, 1972, she solicited union membership cards from five employees earlier that month, including one from Rocky Grindle, a nephew of her supervisor, Mattie Grindle. In considering the merits of King's case, I have also taken into account that she attended a union meeting in the afternoon prior to her discharge and also that on February 18 the Union sent a letter to Respondent in which it again demanded recogni- tion and bargaining. The essential facts surrounding the discharge of King on the late evening of February 19, a Saturday, are not in dispute. Thus, at about 12 p.m. King was told by another dining room waitress that Grindle wanted her to help out in the cocktail lounge. (Her regular hours that night were from 6 to 1 p.m.) According to Grindle, King came to the cocktail lounge and in the presence of customers stated, "God Damn you, I do not have to come down here and 9 N L R B v Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co, 304 U.S 333. 10 In view of my finding that Respondent unlawfully replaced Abbott, I need not pass upon the General Counsel's alternative contention that the strike of December 9 was unfair labor practice strike The General Counsel also contends that , in any event, Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act when it did not recall Abbott when Lavigne quit her job in January In view of the finding above , a resolution of this contention is also unnecessary . However, recalling that Respondent 's letter to Abbott indicated that she would be recalled if Lavigne did not work out, I deem Respondent 's failure to recall Abbott at this time to be further evidence of Respondent 's bad faith in seeking to replace Abbott after it received the Union's telegram on the evening of December 9. 11 Respondent appears to misconstrue the Board 's Decision in New Orleans Roosevelt Corporation, 132 NLRB 248 , cited by it I also am mindful of the testimony of Union Representative Parson to the effect that the 437 work and I am not going to." Grindle said she thereupon asked King to step out of the lounge and go to the back of the dining room . There the verbal altercation between the two women continued , this time in the presence of West and Joseph Storino, the latter having been made manager of the motel on about December 15, 1971. Grindle testified that at this point she explained to King why it was necessary to have her work . She also told King, she said, never to stick her finger out and swear at her face again. At this point , she said , King called her a liar and again stated that she would refuse to work in the cocktail lounge. Grindle thereupon told King "to go punch your timecard." King left , whereupon Grindle consulted with West and Storino, both of whom affirmed that King 's conduct was such that she be discharged." Concerning the above events , King conceded that she was "upset" when she approached Grindle in the cocktail lounge . Her version of what then occurred is as follows: I went downstairs and I said , "Mattie , what is this that I have to serve cocktails, my work is all finished, my customers are all gone." And she said, "These girls came in early." And I said, "I can 't help that." And she said , "You listen to me , you are not going to talk back to me and I want to talk to you." Continuing , King testified that she then accompanied Grindle to the table where West and Storino were seated. There the argument continued , she said , with Grindle calling her a liar, to which she replied , "It takes one to know one." She testified that it was at this point that Grindle testified she should "ring out." Although King denied swearing, she did admit broach- ing Grindle in the cocktail lounge in the presence of customers and that she "realized customers were there." She also conceded that when she spoke to Grindle her voice was "probably not too calm." Accordingly, and upon the entire testimony concerning the incident, I am pursuaded that King did accost Grindle in a loud manner in the presence of customers and that her entire conduct at this point was clearly abusive and adverse to the interests of her employer. Furthermore , I find that this insubordi- nate conduct continued when she accompanied Grindle to the table where West and Storino were seated , much in the manner as testified to by Grindle . Upon the entire record, I am convinced and find that at this point King was spontaneously discharged , not because of her union activities, but because of the altercation which she had with her supervisor. Accordingly, having failed to establish by a employees were still picketing when he left the motel to send the telegram The record does not reflect just when the picketing finally ceased. However, there is no contention by Respondent that Abbott was replaced because she was still picketing, nor is there any evidence that such was the case . Indeed, Respondent presented its case on the premise that the picketing had ceased by about 9 p in. Thus, when Respondent's counsel queried West about the events of that evening , the following colloquy took place: Q. During the course of the meeting with the employees at 9 o'clock in the Perrysburg Room was there a conversation about fact that there had been a strike while you were thanking them ? [ Emphasis supplied.] A. Yes. iz Grindle's version of what transpired at this point was largely corrob- orated by Storino. 438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD preponderance of the evidence that King was discharged in violation of Section 8(aXI) and (3) of the Act, it is recommended that the complaint's allegation as to her be dismissed.13 The complaint further alleges that, in December 1971, and January 1712, Respondent discriminated against King with respect to assignment of work in the dining room. In support of this allegation, King testified that on December 3, Grindle, who was responsible for seating guests, took only 7 people to her work station whereas she took 23 people to the station of waitress Marlene McCray. She testified that McCray had the work station next to hers and that McCray was not active in the Union. She testified that on the next evening, December 4, Grindle seated 23 or 24 people in McCray's work area, while seating only 12 in hers. Additionally, Grindle testified that on the evening of December 10, the day after the strike, she was given no customers until 9 p.m. at which time Grindle required her to share 16 customers with two other waitresses. The latter waitresses, it may be noted, had also participated in the strike on the evening before. Grindle denied that she made any discriminatory assignment in the seating of guests.14 She also testified that if she had another waitress share in the serving of 16 guests with Grindle, this was because of a house rule that no waitress was permitted to take over a group of 10 or more above. Upon consideration of all the foregoing, I am unable to conclude that Grindle, in these unrelated instances, discriminated against King , as alleged in the complaint. While King's testimony gives rise to some suspicion that this could have occurred, I do not believe this to have been established by a preponderance of the evidence. Accord- ingly, it is recommended that the allegation be dismissed. Finally, King testified that following a 1971 Christmas party, she and a group of employees accompanied Grindle and Bernice Maynard, the latter a supervisor of waitresses, for a late night snack. King testified without contradiction that at this time Maynard asked why they wanted a union. When the employees gave their reasons, she said, Gnndle replied, "Well, we are going to let you have an election." While standing alone this conversation would appear innocuous, in view of the other labor practices herein found, I find, as alleged in the complaint, that Maynard's questioning employees as to why they wanted a union was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. C. The Refusal To Bargain The Respondent concedes , and I find, that the appropri- ate unit at Respondent 's facility consists of the following: All full-time and regular part-time food and beverage department employees employed at the Employer's Ramada Inn in Perrysburg , Ohio, including cooks, salad help , dishwashers , porters , restaurant waitresses, banquet waitresses , cocktail waitresses , bartenders, bus help, and cashier-hostesses , but excluding casual employees , desk clerks , maintenance employees , house- men, maids , managers, assistant managers , dining room supervisor , kitchen manager , office clerical employees and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act , and all other employees. The first request for recognition and bargaining occurred on November 10, 1971, at which time Union Representa- tives Parson and Dale Storm personally went to Respon- dent's facility and handed Manager West a letter which contained the bargaining request . At this time they also advised West orally that they represented a majority and that they wished to negotiate a contract . With the letter, the union representatives also sought to hand West another envelope which contained photostatic copies of member- ship applications signed by Respondent 's employees. West accepted the letter , but refused to accept the envelope containing the membership applications , stating that he knew what was in it . At this time he also stated that he knew the Union had been organizing , but that his instructions were that he only accept the letter which was addressed to him . At the hearing West conceded that he had "an idea" that the envelope proffered to him by the union representatives contained signature cards from the employees . It is undisputed that on this occasion , and at all times thereafter, Respondent refused to recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining agent.15 Although Respondent 's answer denies that the Union held a majority at the times material hereto , this issue was not further raised in Respondent 's brief. In any event, Respondent 's payroll reflects that on November 10, 1971, the critical date , there were 59 employees in the appropri- ate unit . 16 On that date the Union represented 38 of these employees, these including three employees who were dues-paying members of the Union ,17 and 34 who had 14 In reaching the conclusion found above, I recognize that there were other waitresses with less seniority than King who could have been asked to work in the cocktail lounge that evening Thus, while there may have been some justification for King to become upset, this cannot , as far as the Respondent is concerned, excuse her insubordinate conduct Further, from the evidence presented I see no basis for finding that King's termination was premeditated or that it resulted from a trap deliberately baited by the Respondent i4 Grindle testified that on one occasion King complained to her about showing partiality in the seating of guests . She told King. she said, that she was not unfair in seating customers , that she tried to distribute them equally 15 Although on several occasions subsequent to November 10, 1971. the Union made further requests for recognition and bargaining , in view of the findings herein I see no need to set forth the details of these request One of them occurred on December 9, 1971, as previously related is This includes the exclusion of supervisors Madeline Gnndle , Bernice Maynard . Thomas E Wright, and Charles T Rohrs i7 Leslie Kanfield , Tony Szendersky , and James R Quigg RAMADA INN signed valid authorization cards which at this time were in the Union's possession.18 Accordingly, it is found that on November 10, 1971, the Union represented an uncoerced majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.19 As previously found, Respondent here engaged in serious violations of the Act, especially by its discriminato- ry discharges of two employees, which were calculated to defeat the Union's organizational effort and to undermine its representation status among the employees. I am persuaded that these unfair labor practices were so severe and pervasive that a bargaining order, as sought by the General Counsel, is warranted. N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described in section I. above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged Cynthia Wilson and Angeline Abbott, I shall recommend that Respondent offer them immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former or substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, by payment to them of a sum equal to that which they normally would have earned froi}} the date of the discrimination to the date of reinstatement , less net earnings during said period, if any. The backpay provided herein shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum computed in a manner described in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. In view of the nature and extent of the unfair labor practices found herein, I deem it necessary and appropriate to recommend a broad cease-and-desist order. i" These employees are Lewis R Lipp Esther Rosenbrook Albert Williams Corrine H Rakebrand Vena M Carson Roger Bloomfield Christine R Gingrich Angeline Abbott Michael Rosenbrook Tanya S Dusseau Ruthanne Mason Sally Dailey Joan Ryan Patrick Bellner Cynthia Wilson Ken Kopp Ronald Dusseau Fay Ann Everhard Carlos M Vasquez Mike Skadeland Marilyn Sloyer Mary Bobash Barbara J Rodriquez Lila Lee Frances A King Mary Lou Durbin CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 439 1. American United Inns , Inc., d/b/a Ramada Inn, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local 868, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following employees constitute a unit appropri- ate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time food and beverage department employees employed at the Employer's Ramada Inn in Perrysburg, Ohio, including cooks, salad help , dishwashers , porters, restaurant waitresses, banquet waitresses , cocktail waitresses , bartenders, bus help, and cashier-hostesses, but excluding casual employees, desk clerks , maintenance employees, house- men, maids , managers , assistant managers , dining room supervisor, kitchen manager, office clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. 4. At all times since November 10, 1971, the Union has been the duly designated bargaining representative of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit. 5. By refusing on and after November 10, 1971, to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Cynthia Wilson and Angeline Abbott, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. By the foregoing conduct, and by interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Respondent has not violated the Act by its termina- tion of Frances King. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, William H . Orner Malone Bevier Maria J Huffman Evelyn Perry Mary E Wright Johnnie Blevins Maybell Obenour Joyce Hahn William J . Ferguson 19 As General Counsel points out in his brief, Tony Szendersky and Vera Carson are cooks and do not appear to be supervisors within the meaning of the Act Since Respondent did not object to the receipt in evidence of their cards. 1 have counted them as valid . However, it should be noted that the Union would have a majority even if these cards were not counted Further, the record reflects that the Union continued to possess enough cards to establish a majority at the time of its subsequent requests for recognition and bargaining . However , in view of the majority status found above, 1 see no need to set forth this additional data herein 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby make the following recommended: 20 ORDER Respondent, American United Inns , Inc., d/b/a Rama- da Inn, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Asking employees to report to it their observance of any union activities among the employees, or asking employees about their union sympathies. (b) Discouraging membership in Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local 868, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, by discharging employees or otherwise discriminating with respect to the hire or tenure of employment. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self- organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. (d) Refusing to recognize or bargain collectively with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local 868, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit set forth in the conclusions of law, above. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is deemed necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the above-named Union as the exclusive bargaining representatives of all its employees in the appropriate unit set forth above, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other terms of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree- ment. (b) Offer to Cynthia Wilson and Angeline Abbott immediate and full reinstatement to their former job or, if these jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against them, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify the said employees, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examining and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to ascertain any backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at its facilities in Perrysburg, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 21 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found herein. 20 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions , recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, 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 21 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by 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 " 22 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify the Regional Director for Region 8 . in writing , within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report back to us any union activity they may observe at our facilities. WE WILL NOT question our employees about their union sympathies. WE WILL NOT discharge any employees because of their union activities. WE WILL offer Cynthia Wilson and Angeline Abbott immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or, if these jobs no longer exist , to substantial- ly equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. WE WILL, upon request , bargain with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union Local Union 868 , AFL-CIO , as the exclusive bargaining representative of our employees in the unit found appropriate concerning rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other terms and conditions of employment. If we reach agreement , we will sign a contract with the above-named Union covering the terms of such agreement . The appropriate unit is: All full-time and regular part -time food and beverage department employees employed at our Ramada Inn in Perrysburg , Ohio, including cooks, salad help, dishwashers, porters, restaurant waitresses, banquet waitresses, cocktail waitress- es, bartenders, bus help , and cashier-hostesses, but excluding casual employees , desk clerks, maintenance employees , housemen , maids, man- RAMADA INN agers , assistant managers , dining room supervi- sor, kitchen manager, office clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, as amended. AMERICAN UNITED INNS, INC., D/B/A RAMADA INN (Employer) Dated By 441 (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material . Any questions concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, 1695 Federal Office Building , 1240 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-522-3715. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation