Scoler's Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 248 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scoler's Incorporated and, Local 59, Hotel and Restau-
rant Employees ' and Bartenders International Un-
ion, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-7270
July 27, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
On April 28, 1971," Trial Examiner Frederick U.
Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found
that Respondent had not engaged in certain other
unfair labor practices and recommended that the
allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereaf-
ter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with
briefs in support thereof. Respondent also filed an
answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
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 Trial Examiner and hereby orders that
the Respondent, Scoler's Incorporated, Hartford,
Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
I We have affirmed the Trial Examiner's finding of 8(a)(1) and (5)
violations and his recommendation that a bargaining order be issued on
the basis of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, Inc., 395 U.S. 575.
Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel's
contention that Respondent also violated 8(a)(5) under the Snow & Sons
(134 NLRB 709, enfd. 308 F.2d 687 (C.A. 9)) line of cases, nor do we adopt
the Trial Examiner's conclusion with respect thereto.
2 The Trial Examiner, while "lean[mgI in favor of counting" employee
Albertine Cyr's authorization card, found it unnecessary to pass on the
validity of the card. The record shows that, although Cyr testified that she
had no intention of joining the Union when she signed the card, employee
Watson credibly testified that, when she gave the card to Cyr, she
explained that by signing the 7card Cyr was agreeing to have the Union
represent her. Because of the Trial Exam iter's credibility resolution in
favor of Watson's testimony as well as the fact that Cyr admitted reading
the title of the card, "Application for Membership," we conclude that Cyr's
authorization card is valid and, .,therefore, the Union had valid
authorization cards from 11 employees in the 'unit.'
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT . OF THE CASE-
FREDERICK U. REEL, Trial Examiner: This case, heard at
Hartford, Connecticut, on February 25" and 26, .1971,
pursuant to a charge filed the preceding September 8, and
a complaint issued December] 1, presents questions. arising
out of, the organizing campaign conducted by the Charging
Party (herein called the Union) at Respondent's restaurant,
and Respondent's reaction thereto, including its refusal to
bargain with the Union. Upon the entire record,2 including
my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration
of the briefs filed by General Counsel and by Respondent, I
make the following:
FINDINGS of FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE
LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent, herein sometimes called the Company, a
Connecticut corporation operating a restaurant in Hart-
ford, has annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000,
annually receives supplies and materials valued in excess of
$25,000, directly from points outside the State, and is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Summary of Events
Late in July the Union obtained the signatures of 11
waiters, waitresses, and bartenders to cards which provided
in clear, prominent, and unmistakable language that the
signer applied for membership in the Union, and which also
recited (equally unmistakably, but less prominently) that
the signer authorized the Union to represent him in
collective bargaining. Armed with these cards, the Union
on July 31 filed with the State of Connecticut Labor Board
a petition for an election in a unit of waiters, waitresses, and
bartenders, and on the same day the Union's business
manager, Leonard LaPenta, advised Clifford Lackman, the
owner and operating head of the restaurant, of the filing. A
few days later LaPenta again visited Lackman, this time to
complain that Lackman had been interfering with employ-
ees in violation of their Section 7 rights and to suggest that
Lackman retain special counsel experienced in labor law
rather than rely on his usual lawyer.
Lackman heeded the latter advice and was accompanied
by a specialist in labor law at a joint conference with
i All dates herein except where otherwise noted refer to the year 1970.
2 Including Joint Exh. 12, and the affidavit attached thereto, which is
hereby admitted pursuant to motion received after the close of the hearing.
192 NLRB No. 49
SCOLER S INC.
LaaPenta at" the state board's office on August 17. On this
occasion the agent for the state board checked the signed
application cards against signatures submitted by Lack-
man, and announced that, the Union had I 1 cards out of a
unit of 18 waiters, waitresses, and bartenders. Counsel for
Respondent then stated that the unit was inappropriate,
and' should include a number of other employees such as
sandwich makers and kitchen employees. The state board
scheduled a, hearing ,on the matter for August 24, but on
August 21 the Union withdrew its petition, and the state
board thereupon closed the proceeding before it.
Meanwhile on Wednesday; August 19, LaPenta again
called _on Lackman, presented him with a formal demand
for recognition, and left with 'him copies of the 11 signed
applications. Lacknian asked for time to consult his lawyer,
and LaPenta agreed, asking for a. reply by Friday, August
21. On that date LaPentareceived from Lackman's counsel
a letter 'reciting, that Respondent had "serious doubts
whether, . the cards signed by employees expressed their
true wishes" and believed "that the cards do not express
true employee sentiment in an appropriate bargaining
unit." The ,letter, further reciting that Respondent had not
verified the signatures on the cards, which were returned
therewith, concluded with the suggestion that the Union
"proceed to resolve any representation question through
the appropriate governmental channels." That afternoon,
August 21, the Union commenced picketing at the
restaurant.
Respondent countered on August 25 by filing with the
National Labor Relations Board a petition for an election.
This Petition, -filed August 25, alleged that the appropriate
unit included, all employees of the restaurant (except for
statutory exclusions), but on August 27 Respondent filed
an amended petition reciting that the appropriate unit
consisted -either of "all, waiters, waitresses and bartenders,"
excluding all kitchen employees, or "any other unit the
NLRB, may find appropriate." On September 2 the Board's
Regional Director wrote the parties directing that an
election be held in the unit of waiters, waitresses, and
bartenders which he expressly found to be appropriate. No
review of this ruling was sought, and the election was held
September 9. The so-called Excelsior list furnished by the
Respondent contained 19 names. The day before the
election the Union filed the charge initiating this litigation,
and the Regional Director has therefore impounded the
ballots.
B. The Union's Majority Status
1. The appropriate unit
Respondent's answer denies the allegation in the
complaint that "all waiters, waitresses and' bartenders
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act." I find, however, that the record amply supports
the allegation. Not only was this unit found appropriate by
the Regional Director, but it was the very unit stated to be
appropriate in Respondent's amended petition. Moreover,
evidence placed in the record by Respondent establishes
249
that the Connecticut Labor Board has frequently found
similar units appropriate, Finally, Respondent's suggestion
that the "sandwich men".should be included in the unit is
ill-taken, for although in this particular restaurant these
men work in the dining area, their duties are far more akin
to those of cooks,-chefs, and kitchen employees generally
than they are to those of the waiters, waitresses, and
bartenders.
The Excelsior list of 19 employees submitted by
Respondent excluded the hostess-head waitress, and
properly so, as she has many of the aspects of a supervisor,
can affect the waitress' earnings by her assignment of
tables, does not wear a uniform as do theemployees in the
unit, and is often in sole charge of the establishment. Also
unlike the other employees she is paid on a salary, rather
than an hourly, basis and she works substantially shorter
hours. The list included the head bartender, but I need not
resolve the issue as to his supervisory status, as the Union
needs 10 to establish a majority whether the unit included
18 or 19 employees.
2. The validity of the cards
The record establishes that at all pertinent times the
Union had signed cards from 11 employees, and that the
cards in unequivocal language recited that the signer
applied for membership in the Union and authorized the
Union to bargain in his behalf. Respondent introduced
evidence bearing on the validity of the cards signed by
Marjorie Cianci and Albertine Cyr.
Cianci signed her card at the request of employee
Medbury. Cianci took the card from Medbury on the floor
of the restaurant, but took it into the ladies' restroom to
sign it, and then returned it to Medbury, about 3 or 4
minutes later. Cianci testified she did not read the card, but
she filled it out to the extent of entering her name, social
security number, address, place of employment, and
occupation, and also signed it. Even assuming that she did
not read the text 'of the card, she could not have avoided
reading the large print, solid capitals, bold-face caption
"Application for Membership in the Hotel & Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union." Early in
October Cianci stated in an affidavit that she "originally
was in favor of . . . the Union" but "about two weeks later
... changed [her I mind." At the hearing Cianci sought to
repudiate the affidavit, testifying that she had indeed
changed her mind, but that before she had changed it she
had merely been "very up in the air" and "hadn't made
[her ] mind up." Cianci's testimony was somewhat inconsis-
tent as to whether Medbury had uttered any threats with
respect to the card signing. At first Cianci attributed to
Medbury the statement "That the union could come in to
have a vote, and she also said that anyone who didn' t sign a
union card would automatically lose her job if the Union
got in." Then, still on direct examination, she amended that
testimony to make it clear that "this was because of the
union shop, and you had to join in 30 days." Later, and still
on direct, she attributed to both Medbury 'and employee
Barrett the statement that "anybody who didn't sign a card
would automatically lose their job," and also attributed to
Medbury the statement that if Barrett "didn't sign up for
the union, he would never get a job in the city... and also,
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I think, if the bartenders didn't sign , they wouldn't get a job
I found Cianci to be a most unconvincing witness, whose
testimony brings to mind the warning of the Supreme, Court
that "employees are more likely than not , many months
after a card drive and in response to questions by company
counsel , to give testimony damaging to the Union,
particularly where company officials have previously
threatened reprisals for union activity in violation of
Section 8(a)(1).". N.L.A. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S.
575, 608, I find that Cianci voluntarily signed a clear and
unambiguous card , and that her subsequent defection from
the ranks of union supporters postdated the unfair labor
practices described below.
I have more trouble with the card of Albertine Cyr, who
testified that,,, when employee Carolyn Watson solicited her
card, Watson stated that the card "didn't mean anything,
but the vote would , when it came to a vote ." Cyr also
testified that a few days later she told Watson not to use
Cyr's name as a "yes" vote, and that Cyr "had no intention
of joining the Union ." On the other hand Cyr admitted
reading the part of the card marked "Application for
Membership." Also the record establishes that Watson told
her that by signing the card Cyr was agreeing to have the
Union represent her, although it is far from clear that Cyr
understood the meaning of the phrase . According, to
Watson, an impressive and fully credible witness , Cyr when
she signed the card said she would "go along with" the
Union if the other employees did. Watson testified that, Cyr
later expressed objection to having her card shown to the
employer, but denied that Cyr stated she had no intention
of joining the Union at that time . Also Watson "doubted"
ever mentioning to Cyr anything about an election, as
Watson herself was not aware at that time of that
possibility
Although I find Cyr's case close to the line, I would, in
view of my high regard for Watson's credibility, lean in
favor of counting Cyr's card.But the matter is academic, as
even without her card , the Union had 10 cards in a unit of
18 or 19, and hence held a majority at the time, of its
bargaining request.
C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The, alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) arise largely out
of conversations which Clifford Lackman or his son and
assistant, James Lackman, had or allegedly had, with
several employees. To some extent the Lackmans' version
of these conversations varied significantly from that given
by the employees. The facts as found below are based on
my credibility resolutions which rest on my observation of
the witnesses, and on what I regard as the inherent
probability or improbability of the, conflicting versions in
particular cases.
1. Lackman's early interviews with employees
As soon as Clifford Lackman heard of the Union's' efforts
3 The first of , these 'occasions may have occurred before Lackman
retained counsel in this matter.
4 I' do not credit that part of Piers' testimony , which attributes to
Lackman the offer of a car in return for Chambers ' and Piers' support. I
to organize, he took steps to learn the identity of the union
leaders. During the , next week •Lackman , had separate
conversations " with employees Medbury, Watson, and"
Barrett, three union leaders . In" these conversations
Lackman committed 'several violations of the Act.
On August 3 Lackman asked Medbury if she had signed
a I union card `(which she, falsely denied), named other`
employees he thought had _ signed , - asked her if -other
employees he named had signed ,and told her'that he; would
look after 'those who were against the Union. The"next day
Lackman told, Medbury that the had learned she signed, a
card. About the same time Lackmain asked Watson if she
had signed ,'a union card and if she "was 'one of the
organizers or starters ' of the ' Union.' She"answered his'
questions in the negative . She testified that Lackman` did
not tell her why he was asking, but that she attributed the
inquiry to "more curiosity than anything else"
Lackman's conversation with " Barrett is somewhat
difficult to reconstruct. I` do not credit Barrett's'testimony
that he had several conversations with'Lackman before the
latter learned from the ` Union that it was or'ganizing,' but I
also do not credit Lackman's version of the oneconversa-
tion which he'admitted having with Barrett after-'that date. I
find that, at the very least, 'Lackman interrogated Barr̀ettas
to his union membership and activity.
I credit Medbury 's testimony , that she repeated to ' other
employees the gist of her conversations with Lackman.
Also, Lackman on or about ' August 1 told a group ,of
employees that he had no objection to their having a union,
but if they had wanted -a 5' or 10-cent wage , increase, he
would 'have given it to them . Finally, on or about August 3
Lackman ' asked employee Naomi Rugar if she had heard
anything about the Union's being organized and `just how
[she] felt about i£"
2. Lackman's subsequent comments - to employees`
As noted above, LaPenta on August -5 complained, to
Lackman 'that-he was interfering with employee rights and
advised Lackman to retain a labor law specialist . Lackman
did so , but apparently did not entirely follow counsel's
advice to refrain from further conversations with employ-
ees. Lackman did on at least two occasions discourage
employees who tried to talk to him about the Union.
However, he•did discuss the Union with employees Angela
Piers and Robert Chambers.
Lackman told Chambers on several occasions 3'' that
Lackman opposed the Union and that "the people who
stuck by him would be all right , but the ones that didn't
stick by him, they wouldn 't be working there after this was
over with ." He also asked Chambers if he had signed a
union card . On one occasion Piers was present with
Chambers when Lackman indicated that he would "take
care of"the employees who "went with him." 4
Piers further testified that
'
Lackman and his son
attempted to ascertain how she would vote ' in the election.
In conversations with her they would name certain
employees who were opposed to the Union, and -then; to
think Piers must have misunderstood Lackman at that point. Nevertheless,
I credit Piers as to the gist of the conversation set forth above , noting that
her, testimony in. those respects is corroborated by Chambers , and that
Piers' testimony contains other convincing corroborative details.
SCOLER'S INC. 251
quote Piers , "they'd come to me, and they'd say I wonder if
I've got you." Piers said she would not respond on these
occasions . Piers also testified that Clifford Lackman would
say that he knew "who the ring leaders are," would name
them, and then would add that Respondent would "get rid
of those when this thing is over ." On one occasion,
according to Piers, Lackman said he would "close up the
backroom and-the dining room and then he would just keep
the front for those that were with him." 5
3. Other alleged violations of Section 8(a)(l)
Barrett's testimony , corroborated by that of employee
Lillian Gabinetti, is that, in the course of an argument
between , Barrett and the chef over a nonunion matter,
James Lackman called Barrett a union instigator and
threatened to throw him out of the restaurant. James
Lackman, corroborated by employee Gloria Bradshaw,
denied referring to the Union during the course of the
altercation . I credit = Respondent's witnesses in this regard,
and in any event would not find a violation in this episode
even if Lackman did so refer to Barrett 's well-known union
sympathies . As to' the allegation that Clifford Lackman
stated to customers , within the hearing of employees,- that
he , would see that union supporters were blacklisted for
employment } in 'Hartfor'd, 'I am unable to find that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation.
Finally,, I credit, Lackman's explanation that the removal of
a`few items,' notably roast duck and swordfish, from the list
of things employees could be served at the restaurants was
not attributable to the union campaign but to the
reluctance of the chef to cook such items in the half-hour
meal time available" to the employees . Also, the new rule
against waiters "taking home sandwiches was satisfactorily
explained as not beingantiunion in motivation.
We turn, finally, to the Company's preelection speech,
letter, and leaflet . These documents are relied on not by
General Counsel , " in: the usual'case but by the Company
to show that a fair election was possible , and that the effects
of any earlier ,unfair labor practices were dissipated. The
Company's propaganda, although repeatedly exhorting the
employees to vote against the Union, stayed well within the
limits permitted by Section 8(c) of the Act . It contained two
statements, however, which might be considered as
"curing"`the previous violations of the Act and clearing the
way for a fair election . Lackman stated about midway in his
four page speech the day -before the election : "We don't
know everything about this union business and maybe we
have made soiree mistakes, but make sure that no employee
here need fear for his job-no matter what happens." At
the same time Lackman read to the employees a three page
document 'containing 15 questions and answers , which he
also distributed to the employees . Question 'and answer
number 12 read as follows:
12. Will I lose my job if I vote for the Union or if
the Union gets in?
Answer : No employees of Scoler's need fear for their
S Lackman testified that ^he told Piers that, "if they pulled half of my
employees out of the restaurant , I would have to possibly close the back' of
the dining room whereas I-would only have enough help to run the front of
the dining room ." I credit Piers ' version of the conversation, and note in
passing that the Union used nonemployee pickets and apparently made no
jobs whether or not the Union gets in. There will be no
reprisals taken against anybody, no matter how they
vote, nor will there be any special benefits because you
vote one way or another.
D. Concluding Findings
The facts summarized above establish that in a unit of 18
or 19 employees, Lackman subjected at least six to unlawful
coercive interrogation, threats, and implied promises of
benefits. To be sure, many of these unlawful statements,
but by no means all, were made before Lackman retained
counsel, but their impact on employees' in a small closely
knit group of waitresses is rendered 'nonetheless coercive
because of their employer's failure to be advised of their
rights.
The critical issues in the case are whether the Company
unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, and whether
a bargaining order should be entered under the doctrine of
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575. As noted
above, the Union represented a majority in an appropriate
unit when it first demanded recognition and bargaining.
The Company, moreover, learned of the Union' s status
from a reliable and impartial source, an agent` of the
Connecticut Board, and at that time Respondent expressed
no doubt of the validity of the authorization cards, but
based its refusal to bargain on an alleged doubt of the
appropriateness of the unit. This "doubt" can only be
characterized as spurious, as' the unit is a common one and
manifestly appropriate as the Company soon conceded by
naming that unit as appropriate in a petition filed with the
Board. Under these circumstances there is considerable
force to General Counsel's argument, based on the line of
cases stemming from Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709, enfd.
308 F. 2d 687 (C.A. 9, 1962), that the Company violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain
with the Union after the meeting at the Connecticut Board.
On the other hand, the element of "reneging after consent,"
basic in the Snow case, was absent here. Moreover, the
Union made a subsequent demand, left' the cards with
Lackman, and readily acquiesced in his suggestion that he
talk the matter over with his counsel. In the light of all the
circumstances, I would not say that the episode at the
Connecticut Board prevented the impany from thereafter
asserting a doubt as to the validity of the cards.
Under the Gissel case, however, a bargaining order
appears warranted here. The repeated threats to punish
union adherents and reward union opponents and the
coercive interrogation were sufficiently widespread in this
small, closely knit unit to make a fair election impossible.
Lackman's belated effort on the advice of counsel to "bail
himself out" must be characterized as "too little, too late,"
or perhaps it could more accurately be said that his
transgressions were "too much, too soon." It should be
noted that, although Lackman retained counsel fairly early
in the game, he waited until the day before the election,
after his unlawful threats and promises had had full
effort to have prounion employees refrain from working.
6 All employees were charged 60 cents per meal for the privilege of
eating at the restaurant, whether or not they ate there , but the menu
afforded them was always more restricted thanthat available to the general
public.
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
opportunity to work their desired result, before he rendered
the lipservice to employee rights which is now urged as
wiping the slate . clean. None of the cases cited in
Respondent's able brief as warranting the withholding of a
bargaining order present circumstances comparable to
those here. In Bill Pierre Ford, Inc., 181 NLRB No. 155, the
complaint was dismissed as the sole violation was an
isolated interrogation. In J. A. Conley Co.,.181, NLRB No.
20, where the, unit was three times as large as that in this
case, there were but a few instances of 8(axl) violations,
basically arising out of the efforts- of a management-
inspired employee to get others to rescind their authoriza-
tions,. In ,Central Soya of Canton, Inc., 180 NLRB No. 86,
there were no "broad scale unfair labor practices"; the
violations grew out of a 1 day prohibition; promptly
rescinded, against wearing badges, and the unit embraced
256 employees.- In Arcoa Corp., .180 NLRB No. 5, there
were neither promises nor threats,, but only a poll
conducted for legitimate reasons (although lacking certain
safeguards) and a wage increase after the employees
defected from the union., In Blade-Tribune Publishing Co.,
180 NLRB No., 56, 161 NLRB 1512, the interrogation,
although unlawful, was accompanied by statements that the
employees "if they answered me, or did not, answer me, they
were still`,going, to be my, friends and employees at the
newspaper" (161 NLRB at 1526), , tend the' other
"violations" were minimal.
I find, in short, that a bargaining order should be entered
here as the Company's unfair labor practices may fairly,be
characterized as pervasive, and at the very least ,so
undermined the Union and impeded the election process as
to make a fair election impossible. Under , all ` the
circumstances it' is my view that, on balance, employee
sentiment,- once fairly and uncoercedly expressed through
cards, ,would be better protected by a bargaining-order than
by a rerunning of the election.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, by, interrogating its employees as to
their union membership and activities and those of other
employees, by stating to an employee that it knew she had
signed a union.card, by threatening to take reprisals against
employees,who supported the Union and to curtail its
operations if the Union became the bargaining representa-
tive, by suggesting to -employees during the course of a
union campaign that they could obtain a wage increase by
merely asking the Respondent, and by promising favored
treatment to employees who opposed the Union, engaged
_i unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Sections 8(aXl) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union prior to, the commission of the above
found unfair labor practices, which render a fair election
impossible,, represented a majority of the employees in an
appropriate unit, so that Respondent's refusal to bargain
constituted an unfair labor practice affecting commerce
7 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,' 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.
within the meaning of Sections 8(aX5) and (1) and 2(6).and
/'r r,f tt,. A m)
THE REMEDY
For reasons already discussed I 'shall recommend, an
order directing that Respondent not only 'cease aad desist
from its unfair labor practices, but also that it bargain with
the Union upon the litter's request. I shall,' however, in
accordance with Respondent's request,`°include' in the
proposed notice herein recommended a provision acquaint-
ing employees with their right to petition'for a new election.
See Cocker Saw Co., 186 NLRB No. 101, and cases there
cited. ' ' ` '
Upon the foregoing findings of €act, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuantto Section I0(c)of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 7
ORDER,
-Respondent, Scoler's Incorporated, its, officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1, Cease and desist from:
,(a) interrogating employees as to their union membership
or , activity or that of fellow employees.
(b) Conveying the impression of surveillance by advising
employees it knew they had signed union cards.
(c) Promising benefits to employees for the purpose of
dissuading them from supporting a labor organization.
(d) Threatening reprisals against ,employees who support_
,-ed a,labor organization. ,
(e) Promising to reward employees who,opposed .a labor
organization. ,
(f) Threatening to curtail operations , if the employees
chose a labor organization to represent-them..
(g) Refusing to bargainupon request with Local59,,Hotel
and, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders, International
Union, AFL-CIO, as representative of all .waiters, ^waitress-
es, , and bartenders (exclusive of supervisors) employed ,by
Respondent.
(h) In any other manner interfering, with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the_ exercise of. their rights ,under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the followingaffirmative° action necessary to
effectuate the purposes of the Act:
'(a) Upon request , .bargain collectively (as that , term " is
defined in Section 8(d) of the Act) with .the above-named
labor' organization as the representative , of the employees in
the above-described unit:
(b) Post at its restaurant at Hartford, Connecticut , copies
of the attached notice marked 'Appendix." 8 Copies rof said
notice, ,on forms, provided by the Regional" Director for
Region 1, , after being `duly signed by the ,Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by the' Respondent immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained by it for,60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,;includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are. customarily
B 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 be changed, to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment 'of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
SCOLER'S INC.
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure° that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(c), Notify,the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision,
what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9 "
In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
after exceptions have been filed , this provision shall be modified to read:
"Notifyethe Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply
herewith." t
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED 'BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with
Local 59, Hotel and ` Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO,' as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
,waiters, waitresses, and bartenders (excluding supervi-
sory employees).
WE WILL NOT question our employees as to their
union membership or, activity or as to that of other
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals against employees
who support a union or promise rewards to those who
do not.
WE WILL NOT curtail, or threaten to curtail, our
operations because .a union has become the bargaining
representative of our employees.
`WE WILL NOT convey the impression of surveillance
253
by telling any employee we know that he has signed a'
union card. -
WE WILL NOT offer benefits to employees to dissuade
them from supporting a union.
Employees, pursuant to Section 9(c)(1) of the National
Labor Relations Act, may at an appropriate time petition the
National Labor Relations Board for-an election to, decertify
and remove the Union as their bargaining representative.
The filing of such a petition can' only be done as the
voluntary act and choice of the employees and on'their own
initiative, without coercion, encouragement, or assistance
from management. All applicable rules, regulations, and
standards for - conducting such an election -must be met.
Except in unusual circumstances no such petition will be
acted upon until after we have complied ,with the terms of
the Board's order and have bargained in good faith with the
Union.
Dated By
SCOLER'S INCORPORATED
(Employer)
(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 concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office,
Bulfinch Building, Seventh Floor, 15 New Chardon Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300.