Ramada Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1973

201 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

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.