Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 455 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

SHENANDOAH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB 455
Sema Corporation , d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and
Country Club, Inc. and Local Joint Executive
Board , Hotel , Motel & Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO and its
member locals : Hotel , Motel & Restaurant
Employees Local 705; Bartenders Union Local 562;
Cooks Union Local 234, and Front Office and
Checkroom Employees Union Local 880 and Mari-
an Patnode and Thomas Gallo. Cases 7-CA-7562
and 7-CB-2042
assigns, and the Respondent Unions, Local Joint Exec-
utive Board, Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and
its member locals: Hotel Motel & Restaurant Employ-
ees Local 705;' Bartenders Union Local 562; Cooks
Union Local 234, and Front Office and Checkroom
Employees Union Local 880, their officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
MCCULLOCH AND BROWN
On May 26, 1970, Trial Examiner Herbert Silber-
man issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent Unions filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, together with a supporting 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 these cases 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 here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.`
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the Recommended
Order of the Trial Examiner , and hereby orders that
the Respondent Employer, Sema Corporation, d/h/a
Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc., Walled
Lake, Michigan , its officers , agents, successors, and
' We correct an inadvertence in the Tnal Examiner 's Decision wherein
he finds that the Respondent Unions violated Sec 8(a)(2) of the Act
when it is clear that Sec 8(b)(2) was intended
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERBERT SILBERMAN, Trial Examiner: A charge and
an amended charge having been filed in Case 7-CA-7562
on October 6, 1969, and January 22, 1970, respectively,
against Sema Corporation, d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and
Country Club, Inc., herein sometimes called Shenandoah
or the Company, and a charge and an amended charge
having been filed on the same respective dates in Case
7-CB-2042 against Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel,
Motel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Internation-
al Union, AFL-CIO, and its member locals: Hotel, Motel
& Restaurant Employees Local 705, Bartenders Union Local
562; Cooks Union Local 234, and Front Office and Check-
room Employees Union Local 880, herein called the Unions,
on January 29, 1970, an order consolidating the separate
cases and a consolidated complaint therein were issued.
The complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),(2), and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that the
Unions have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act.
In substance, the consolidated complaint as amended
at the hearing alleges that (a) on August 29, the Company
and the Unions entered into a collective-bargaining agree-
ment although a majority of the Company's employees
in the collective-bargaining unit covered by the agreement
had not designated the Respondent Unions as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative, (b) the agreement, among
other things, contains a union-security clause requiring
employees who are members in good standing of the Unions
to maintain their membership in good standing and all
other employees to become members of the Unions on
or before the thirty-first day following the effective date
of the agreement or the date of their hire, a job referral
procedure, and a provision for check-off of union dues;
(c) upon instructions from the Unions, the Company refused
to employ four applicants for positions as waitresses because
said applicants were not members of the Unions, and (d)
by other conduct set forth in the complaint the Company
and the Unions further infringed upon employee rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act. The Unions duly filed
an answer generally denying that they had engaged in
the alleged unfair labor practices The Company did not
file an answer and therefore is deemed to have admitted
185 NLRB No. 80
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the relevant allegations of the complaint and I find accord-
ingly.
A hearing in these proceedings was held on March 24,
and 25, 1970, in Detroit, Michigan. Thereafter briefs were
filed by General Counsel and by the Unions At the hearing
the Trial Examiner reserved decision on the Unions' motion
made at the close of the General Counsel's case to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. The motion is disposed of
in accordance with the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations made below.
Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in
the operation of a restaurant and golf course at Walled
Lake, Michigan, known as the Shenandoah Golf and Coun-
try Club, Inc. During the calendar year 1969, which period
is representative of its operations, the Company, in the
course and conduct of its business, derived gross revenues
in excess of $500,000 from the retail sale of food and
beverages and from golf course fees and rentals from persons
not members of the club During the calendar year 1968,
which period also is representative of its operations, the
Company, in the course and conduct of its business, pur-
chased goods and materials valued in excess of $500,000
which were transported and delivered to its premises directly
from points located outside the State of Michigan and
purchased alcoholic beverages valued in excess of $25,000
from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission, which
alcoholic beverages originated in places outside the State
of Michigan. The Unions admit, and I find, that the Compa-
ny is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2)
of the Act engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
iI THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Unions are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act
already three unit employees at work,' a waitress, a barten-
der, and a housekeeper. The waitress, Peggy Land, informed
Richardson that she was a member of Local 705
The official opening of Shenandoah was on June 15,
1968, by which time the Company employed about twenty
persons Six of this number had worked for Richardson
at Pine Lake. A seventh employee, Gilda Fox, who had
applied to Richardson for a position as a waitress while
he was still at Pine Lake had then told him that she
was a member of the Unions
At Shenandoah Richardson did not follow the practice
he had observed at Pine Lake of rejecting applicants for
employment who were not members of the Unions. Richard-
son testified that extra employees for parties or banquets
were obtained through the Unions' referral system He
also testified that as a rule he called upon the Unions
to refer permanent employees to him "unless [he] could
steal one from somewhere " However, he also hired persons
who lived in the area, who were referred to him by other
employees, or whom he otherwise learned might be available.
In June or July, 1968, shortly after the official opening
of Shenandoah, Triplett and Mortimer Furay, president
of Local 705, asked Richardson whether he was willing
to sign a collective-bargaining agreement similar to the
one in effect at Pine Lake. Richardson informed them
that he could not afford to do that. He testified, "I asked
them don't tax me anymore than you absolutely have
to until I can get started, give me time to get open."
Richardson indicated to them that he could not afford
to pay the fringe benefits called for by the Unions' contract.
However, according to Richardson, "[ i]t was understood
that I would pay the going wages for the contract. I
abided by the contract except for the fringe benefits "
Richardson further testified that with respect to recruiting
new employees, "I could utilize local help instead of going
to the Union for it, because I didn't have a contract "
However, he was told by the Unions' representatives that
when he signed a contract with them the nonunion employ-
ees would have to join the Union.'
In May or June, 1969, the Unions' representatives present-
ed a contract to Richardson for signature which was the
ill. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Shenandoah began operations in 1968 Its first restaurant
manager was Max Richardson who held the position from
May 15, 1968, until July 1, 1969 Prior thereto Richardson
had been manager of the Pine Lake Country Club for
7 years. During Richardson's tenure at Pine Lake that
club was party to successive collective-bargaining agreements
with the Unions and it was Richardson's practice to hire
only members of the Unions.
Before Richardson left Pine Lake, Herbert Triplett, a
business agent for Cooks Union Local 234, asked Richardson
whether he was going to recognize and sign an agreement
with the Unions after he moved to Shenandoah. Richardson
replied that he was not in a position to answer the question
When Richardson reported to Shenandoah there were
' The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit is composed of "All
house, bar , dining room and kitchen employees employed by Sema Corpo-
ration, d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club at its Walled Lake,
Michigan , place of business , excluding office clerical employees , casual
employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other
employees " All references in this Decision to rank-and-file employees
of the Company refer only to persons within the described unit classifica-
tions
' Contrary to the Unions, I find that Richardson's testimony does
not establish that he had an oral contract with the Unions Absent
from the record is evidence of an explicit , or even an implicit, mutual
expression of a present intention on the part of Richardson and the
Unions to bind themselves to the terms of any collective -bargaining
agreement Although Richardson testified that he "abided by the contract
except for the fringe benefits," in the context of his entire testimony
I find that he only meant that he abided by the wage provisions of
the contract except for the fringe benefits, and not that he abided by
any other terms of the contract It is clear from Richardson 's testimony
that he did not observe the union security provisions of the contract
nor did he closely observe its hiring provisions Also, there is no indication
that he followed the grievance procedures of the contract
SHENANDOAH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
same agreement that recently had been negotiated by the
Unions with a group of "clubs" in the area. Richardson
submitted the contract to the Company's board of directors.
He was instructed to "stall" the Unions. Between the
time Richardson was given the contract and July 1, 1969,
when he left the Company's employ, he was requested
on numerous occasions by the Unions' representatives to
obtain execution of the contract.
Richardson, who was a witness for the Respondents,
testified that when the Company commenced operations
he "would say" that a majority of the employees were
members of the Unions He also testified that when he
left the Company's employ "to the best of his knowledge"
a majority of the employees were members of the Unions.
However, on cross-examination by General Counsel, Rich-
ardson explained this testimony as follows
Q (By Mr. Niforos) In answer to Mr. Gregory's
question you said to your knowledge most of these
people were members of the union?
A Right
Q. How do you know this?
A. Just the fact that the ones that worked for me
previously belonged to the union. They had to pay
dues and they were keeping their dues up because
they paid their own dues to keep their hospitalization
in effect.
Q Do you know how many of them paid their
own dues?
A No
Q. You knew that some of them had been previous
members?
A. Yes, all of them that had worked at Pine Lake
had been.
Q You don't know if all of them kept paying their
dues?
A. I don't know that they did, no.
Kenneth E. Tubman succeeded Richardson as manager
of Shenandoah Tubman testified that between July 1, 1969,
when he assumed the duties of the position, and August
29, 1969, when the Company executed the collective-bar-
gaining agreement here in issue, he did not nor did he
instruct anyone to obtain employees through the Unions'
referral system. However, he further testified that he was
uncertain as to how extra waitresses were hired and he
believed that most of the extra waitresses whom he employed
had worked at Shenandoah previously. Tubman also testified
that when he became manager of Shenandoah he hired
between three and six persons who previously had worked
for him at other establishments where they had been mem-
bers of the Unions
In July or August, 1969, shortly after his arrival at
Shenandoah, Tubman was visited by Furay, Triplett, and
another union representative and was given copies of the
Unions' contract for execution. Tubman told them that
he would deliver the contract to the owners of the Company
and it would be up to the owners to sign the contract.
About 1 or 2 weeks later Furay telephoned Tubman and
inquired whether the contract had been signed. Tubman
replied in the negative and told Furay that the owners
felt that the employees should have a vote to determine
whether they wanted to be represented by the Unions.
457
Furay respondent that Mrs. Wolfgang, the principal execu-
tive officer of Local 705, would not be happy with that
decision.
The next event of significance took place on August
29, 1969 When Tubman arrived at Shenandoah that morn-
ing there were 50 to 75 pickets patrolling the premises.
Tubman testified that he recognized only two of the Compa-
ny's employees, Pete Markus and Sylvia Hampshire, in
the group. The Michigan Golf Classic was scheduled to
open at Shenandoah within a few days and was expected
to draw a crowd of between 15,000 and 20,000 people
Tubman learned from his purveyors that their drivers would
not cross the picket line to deliver the food and beverages
which had been ordered for the event. Tubman informed
the owners of the situation In order to remove the picket
line, the owners signed the contract (hereinafter referred
to as the Contract) here in issue the very same day
On August 29, 1969, when the Company and the Unions
executed their collective-bargaining agreement, there were
43 employees in the unit covered by the Contract At
the hearing the Unions stipulated that between May 1,
1969, and August 29, 1969, they did not have in their
possession authorization cards signed by a majority of the
employees in the unit during times when such employees
were employed by the Company However, the Unions
have authorization cards dated on or earlier than August
29, 1969, signed by 10 employees in the unit .' Four of
these 10 employees while employed by the Company and
prior to August 29, 1969, paid membership dues to the
Unions In addition, an eleventh employee (Helen Lisiak)
similarly paid dues to the Unions although they have no
authorization card from her.
Purporting to evidence union interest on the part of
the employees listed below (who are not included among
the 11 referred to above), the Unions showed the following:
Madeline Bratek-an undated insurance card issued
by Local 794 (a sister union) and an undated authoriza-
tion card:
Robert Carnere-an insurance card dated December
5, 1967, and a record showing a single payment of
dues to the Unions for the period ending November
1967;
L. Lauriette Crespi-an authorization card dated
November 1969,
Richard Edwards-an undated insurance card and dues
payment record showing last dues paid in March 1963;
also he was a member of Local 794,
Barbara Hanley-was a member of Local 794;
Celina Herren-an authorization card dated October
31, 1969; also she was a member of Local 794,
Milaim Jusufi-dues payment record showing last pay-
ment made in December 1967;
Nathan Lane-undated authorization card,
Joyce Mix-insurance card dated July 8, 1966, and
record showing dues last paid on June 24, 1968;
Olga Smith-insurance card dated June 18, 1963, and
belief that she transferred from Local 705 to Local 794;
' At the hearing General Counsel reserved his right to prove that
some of the 10 authorization cards are incorrectly dated and in fact
were signed after August 29, 1969
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joan Somerville and Marjorie Thornton-authorization
cards dated October 31, 1969;
Marian Patnode (one of the Charging Parties), R.
Jewell Brown, Robert Liebau, and Betty Jean Turner-
had been members of Local 794.4
The Unions argue in effect that the absence of written
authorizations does not prove that the employees had not
selected the Unions as their representative because the
employees might have made designations orally or in some
other form. I do not disagree with this proposition. "The
... Act requires no specific form of authority to bargain
collectively Authority may be given by action as
well as in words Not form, but intent, is the
essential thing. The intent required is merely that the union
or other organization or person act as the employees' repre-
sentative in collective bargaining . It is only necessary
that it be manifested in some manner capable of proof,
whether by behavior or language Oral authority is not
invalid. It is merely, as always, more difficult to prove "
Lebanon Steel Foundry v. N.L.R B., 130 F 2d 404, 407
(C A.D.C ), cert. denied 317 U.S 659 5 In the instant case
no proof was offered by the Unions that any oral designations
had been made. If there had been any, the evidence thereof
was particularly within the knowledge of the Unions How-
ever, the only witness the Unions chose to call in support
of their case was Max Richardson, the first manager of
Shenandoah Although Richardson testified that he "would
say" or that "to the best of his knowledge" a majority
of the Company's employees were members of the Unions,
on cross-examination it became clear that his belief was
nothing more than a guess based upon surmise but not
upon fact. Thus, he testified that he believed a majority
of the employees were members of the Unions from the
fact that some had worked for him previously and had
been members of the Unions at their previous places of
employment. However, the total number of persons that
might fall into this category from Richardson's own testimo-
ny amounts to only eight He further testified that he
believed that these same employees continued their member-
ship in the Unions because he believed they were keeping
up their dues payments in order to maintain their hospitali-
zation insurance However, he had no personal knowledge
that such was the fact.
Also, largely based on Richardson's testimony, the Unions
argue that most of the employees were hired through the
Unions' referral system and as a consequence would have
wished the Unions to be their representative There are
several faults with this argument. First, the referral system
presumably was operated on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that the employees
referred to the Company were members of the Unions
' Attached hereto as Appendix C is a schedule, provided by General
Counsel in his brief, listing the names of the employees in the unit
and indicating such evidence as has been offered regarding their designation
of, or interest in, the Unions as their collective-bargaining representative
' "Almost from the inception of the Act, it was recognized that
a union could establish a majority status by showing convincing
support, for instance, by a union-called strike or strike vote,
by possession of cards signed by a majority of the employees authorizing
the union to represent them for collective bargaining purposes "NL R B
v Gissel Packing Co, 395 U S 575, 597
or had otherwise signified a desire to be represented by
the Unions Second, whatever a person's attitude regarding
union representation may have been prior to his hire by
the Company, it does not necessarily follow that it remained
the same thereafter. Even had it happened that a majority
of the employees hired by the Company had at some
earlier times been members of the Unions, in the absence
of any evidence that their desires for representation contin-
ued unchanged, an inference to such effect cannot validly
be drawn Finally, Richardson testified that he was not
required to hire through the Unions and that he hired
employees wherever he could find them. Apart from vague
and general testimony by Richardson there is not evidence
that any substantial number of employees was hired through
the Unions' referral system
At the time the Contract was signed the Unions had
in their possession evidence that at most 11 of the 43
employees in the unit had in some manner manifested
a desire to designate or select the Unions as their representa-
tive As of August 29, 1969, a majority required a minimum
of 11 additional employees The evidence adduced by the
Unions in their behalf does not establish the existence
of additional valid designations. Membership in a sister
union is not evidence that an employee had designated
or selected the Respondent Unions as his representative
Evidence that an employee had paid dues to the Unions,
or had been issued an insurance card by the Unions more
than a year before the Contract was executed is stale
and too remote in time to be accepted as evidence of
a current desire to be represented by the Unions
I find that the Company and the Unions entered into
a Contract on August 29, 1969, which recognized the
Unions as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees
covered by its terms and which required the employees
to become members of the Unions within a defined period
of grace, notwithstanding the fact that the Unions were
not then the representatives of the employees within the
meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act This was an unlawful
trespass against the employees' right to select a collective-
bargaining representative of their own choosing. The Compa-
ny thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and the
Unions by accepting the benefits of such unlawful recogni-
tion violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) thereof. By entering into
such agreement the Company also contributed unlawful
support to the Unions in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act These infringements upon the rights guaranteed
employees by Section 7 of the Act were aggravated by
the inclusion of a clause in the Contract which required
the employees covered by its terms as a condition of employ-
ment to become members of the Unions. In the circum-
stances, such union-shop provision created discriminatory
conditions of employment encouraging membership in the
Unions. Therefore, by entering into and maintaining in
effect the August 29, 1969, contract, the Company also
violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Similarly, the Unions
as a party to the execution and enforcement of the agreement
were engaged in an unlawful attempt to cause the Company
' NL.R B v Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories , inc, 136 F 2d 85
(CA 2)
SHENANDOAH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
to create conditions which would result in discrimination
prohibited by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and thereby violated
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act'
The Unions stipulated at the hearing that should there
be a finding in this case that the August 29, 1969, Contract
was unlawfully executed then they would not contest the
allegations of paragraph 20 of the complaint to the effect
that the four employees named therein were discriminatorily
refused employment by the Company upon the instructions
of the Unions and the allegations of paragraphs 16 and
17 of the complaint that the Unions further restrained
and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(b)(I)(A)
of the Act by threatening employees with loss of their
jobs because the employees inquired whether they could
vote with respect to the question of whether they wished
union representation, and by advising employees on August
30, 1969, that they had 30 days within which to join
the Unions
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Company and of the Unions described
in the complaint and set forth in section III, above, occurring
in connection with the Company's operations described
in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company and the Unions have
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recom-
mended that they cease and desist therefrom and that
they take affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act
More specifically, I shall recommend that the Company
withdraw and withhold recognition from the Unions as
the collective-bargaining representative of any of the Compa-
ny's employees and that the Unions cease acting as such
representative unless and until the Unions shall be certified
as such representative by the National Labor Relations
Board.
I shall also recommend that the Company and the Unions
cease giving effect to their Contract of August 29, 1969,
and to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof.
However, nothing herein shall be construed as requiring
the Company to rescind, vary, or abandon any wage, hour,
seniority, or other substantive feature of its relations with
its employees which it has established in the performance
of such Contract It is presumed that any employees who
joined the Unions after the execution of the agreement
of August 29, 1969, were subject to the coercive influence
of its union-security provisions. I shall recommend that
the Company and the Unions, jointly and severally, reim-
burse such employees, past and present, for all dues and
other moneys illegally exacted from them by or on behalf
The Grand Union Compam 122 NLRB 589
459
of the Unions pursuant to the terms of the union-security
provision of the August 29, 1969, Contract. Reimbursement
shall include interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum
As I have found that the Company discriminatorily
refused employment to Jacquelyn Konzer, JoAnn Remig,
Margaret Garvey, and Susan Woodward, upon the
instructions of the Unions, I shall recommend that the
Company and the Unions, jointly and severally, reimburse
said employees for the wages they lost because of the
discrimination against them together with interest theron
computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum 8
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I By recognizing the Unions as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its employees and by entering into and
maintaining in effect the agreement of August 29, 1969,
which among other things required the employees covered
thereby as a condition of employment to become and remain
members of the Unions, at a time when the Unions were
not the representative of the aforesaid employees within
the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Company
has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act
2 By agreeing to and executing the Contract with the
Company dated August 29, 1969, at a time when they
did not represent a majority of the employees in the unit
covered by said agreement, the Unions have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the Act
3 By discriminatorily denying employment on or about
October 24, 1969, to the four persons named above upon
the instructions of the Unions, the Company has violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and the Unions by
issuing such instructions have violated Section 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(2) of the Act.
4. By threatening employees with loss of jobs because
they inquired whether they could vote with respect to
the question of whether they wished union representation
and by advising employees that they had only 30 days
within which to join the Unions, the Unions have further
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act.
The aforesaid unfair labor practices are labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDERS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the
case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that:
° The four persons who were denied employment were applicants
for positions of "extra" waitresses and would have been hired as casual
employees with no expectation of reemployment Accordingly, I shall
not recommend that they be offered employment with the Company
' 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
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Sema Corporation, d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Coun-
try Club, Inc , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
A Cease and desist from:
1. Unlawfully assisting the Unions or any other labor
organization by executing a collective-bargaining agreement
with any labor organization which does not represent a
free, unassisted, and uncoerced majority of its employees
in an appropriate unit
2. Recognizing the Unions as the exclusive bargaining
representative of any of its employees unless and until
the National Labor Relations Board shall certify the Unions
as such representative
3. Maintaining or giving any force or effect to the Contract
with the Unions executed on August 29, 1969, or to any
extension, renewal, or modification thereof; provided, how-
ever, that nothing in this Order shall require the Company
to rescind, vary, or abandon any wage, hour, seniority,
or other substantive feature of its relations with its employees
which it has established in the performance of said Contract,
or to prejudice the assertion by its employees of any rights
they may have thereunder.
4. Encouraging membership in the Unions, or in any
other labor organization, by conditioning the hire or the
tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ-
ment of any of its employees upon membership in, or
dues payments to, any such labor organization, except
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended
5. In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act
B. Take the following affirmative action which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
1. Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Local
Joint Executive Board, Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and
its member locals Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees
Local 705; Bartenders Union Local 562; Cooks' Union
Local 234, and Front Office and Checkroom Employees
Union Local 880 as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of any of its employees unless and until said
Unions have been duly certified as such representative
by the National Labor Relations Board.
2. Jointly and severally with the Unions reimburse all
of its former and present employees who joined the Unions
on or after August 29, 1969, for all dues and other moneys
illegally exacted from them by or on behalf of the Unions
in the manner provided in the section herein entitled "The
Remedy."
3. Jointly and severally with the Unions make Jacquelyn
Konzer, JoAnn Remig, Margaret Garvey, and Susan Wood-
ward whole for the loss of wages suffered by them by
reason of the discrimination against them in the manner
set forth in the section herein entitled "The Remedy."
4. Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay and other moneys due
under the terms of this Recommended Order.
5 Post at its place of business in Walled Lake, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."'°
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by its author-
ized representative, shall be posted by Respondent Company
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 customar-
ily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
6 Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps have been taken to comply herewith "
II. Respondent Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel, Motel
& Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union, AFL-CIO, and its member locals. Hotel, Motel
& Restaurant Employees Local 705, Bartenders Union Local
562, Cook's Union Local 234 and Front Office and Check-
room Employees Union Local 880, their officers, agents,
representatives, successors, and assigns, shall
A. Cease and desist from-
I Acting as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of any of the Company's employees unless and until
certified as such representative by the National Labor Rela-
tions Board.
2. Attempting to enforce or to apply the Contract with
the Company dated August 29, 1969, or any extension,
renewal, or modification thereof, and from entering into,
maintaining, or enforcing any agreement with the Company
which requires employees to join or maintain membership,
in the Unions as a condition of employment, unless the
Unions are the representative of the employees as provided
by Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act and
the agreement in all other respects conforms to requirements
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
3. By instructions, advice, or any other means causing
or attempting the Company to discriminate against any
employee because of nonmembership in the Unions unless
pursuant to an agreement which conforms to the require-
ments of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4 Threatening employees of the Company that they
will lose their jobs if they make inquiries about or otherwise
seek to obtain a vote as to whether they wish to be represent-
ed by a union.
5. Advising employees of the Company that they must
join the Unions within any period of time as a condition
of further employment unless and until the Unions shall
have lawfully entered into an agreement which in all respects
10 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."
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional
Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
SHENANDOAH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
conforms to the requirements of Section 8(a)(3) of the
Act
6. In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
the Company's employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
B Take the following affirmative action which, I find,
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
1. Jointly and severally with the Company reimburse
the Company's former and present employees who joined
the Unions on or after August 29, 1969, for all dues
and other moneys illegally exacted from them by or on
behalf of the Unions, in the manner set forth herein in
the section entitled "The Remedy."
2. Jointly and severally with the Company reimburse
Jacquelyn Konzer, JoAnn Remig, Maragret Garvey, and
Susan Woodward for any loss of wages suffered by them
by reason of the Company's refusal to employ them based
upon the instruction of the Unions.
3 Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all check-
off cards and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay and other moneys due under the terms
of this Recommended Order
4. Post at the Unions' respective business offices and
meeting halls copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix B."12 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly
signed by said labor organizations' respective authorized
representatives, shall be posted by them immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to their members are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Unions
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
5. Mail to the Regional Director for Region 7 signed
copies of said notice for posting by the Company at all
places where notices to its employees are customarily posted.
6. The Respondent Unions shall notify said Regional
Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of
this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply here-
with."
"See in 10, supra.
13 See fn 11, supra
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT recognize Local Joint Executive
Board, Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and its
member locals- Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees
461
Local 705; Bartenders Union Local 562, Cooks Union
Local 234, and Front Office and Checkroom Employees
Union Local 880, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of any of our employees unless and
until they have been certified as such representative
by the National Labor Relations Board
WE WILL NOT apply to our employees the Contract
with the above-named Unions executed on and dated
August 29, 1969.
WE WILL NOT withhold or deduct from the wages
of any of our employees any moneys pursuant to
checkoff cards obtained from such employees under
the terms and provisions of said August 29, 1969,
Contract
WE WILL NOT refuse to hire and WILL NOT other-
wise discriminate against any applicant for employment
because such applicant is not a member of the above-
named Unions or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT contribute support to the above-
named Unions in any other manner
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in the above-
named Unions, or in any other labor organization,
by conditioning the hire or the tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment of any of
our employees upon membership in, or dues payment
to, any such labor organization except as authorized
in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of the right to self-organization, to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, or to refrain from any or all such activities,
except to the extent that such rights may be affected
by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as author-
ized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations
Act
WE WILL jointly and severally with the above-named
Unions reimburse our former and present employees
who joined the above-named Unions on or after August
29, 1969, for any dues or moneys unlawfully exacted
from them by or in behalf of said Unions with interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL jointly and severally with the above-named
Unions make whole Jacquelyn Konzer, JoAnn Remig,
Margaret Garvey, and Susan Woodward for the loss
of wages suffered by them by reason of our discrimina-
tion against them together with interest thereon at
the rate of 6 percent per annum.
SEMA CORPORATION, d/b/a
SHENANDOAH GOLF AND
COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
(Employer)
462
Dated By
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(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, 500
Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michi-
gan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of any employees of Sema Corporation,
d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc, unless
and until we are certified as such representative by
the National Labor Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT attempt to enforce or to apply to
any employees of Sema Corporation, d/b/a Shenandoah
Golf and Country Club, Inc, our Contract with said
Company executed on and dated August 29, 1969
WE WILL NOT attempt to cause Sema Corporation,
d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc., to
discharge or to refuse to employ any employees because
they are not members of our Unions or because they
refused to join, remain members of, or assist our Unions
unless and until we are certified as representatives
of such employees by the National Labor Relations
Board and have entered into an agreement which in
all respects conforms to the requirements of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten to cause Sema Corporation,
d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc., to
discharge employees if employees make inquiries about
or otherwise seek to obtain a vote as to whether
they wish to be represented by a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce employees of Sema Corporation, d/b/a She-
nandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc., in the exercise
of their rights to self-organization, to bargain collective-
ly through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in any other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activi-
ties, except to the extent that such rights may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in
a labor organization as a condition of employment
as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Sema Corpora-
tion, d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc,
reimburse said Company's former and present employ-
ees who joined our Unions on or after August 29,
1969, for all dues and other moneys illegally exacted
from them for or on our behalf together with interest
thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
WE WILL jointly and severally with Sema Corpora-
tion, d/b/a Shenandoah Golf and Country Club, Inc.,
reimburse Jacquelyn Konzer, JoAnn Remig, Margaret
Garvey, and Susan Woodward for any loss of wages
suffered by them by reason of the refusal of said
Company to employ them based upon instructions
from us
Dated By
LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE
BOARD, HOTEL &
RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES
AND BARTENDERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO, AND ITS
MEMBER LOCALS: HOTEL,
MOTEL & RESTAURANT
EMPLOYEES LOCAL 705;
BARTENDERS UNION LOCAL
562, COOKS UNION LOCAL 234,
AND FRONT OFFICE AND
CHECKROOM EMPLOYEES
UNION LOCAL 880
(Labor Organization)
(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, 500
Book Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit, Michi-
gan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200
SHENANDOAH GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB 463
APPENDIX C
Unit Employee Pre-
Dated
Card
Contin -
uous
Member -
ship
Inter-
rupted
Member -
ship
Local
794
Member-
ship
Post
dated
Card
Insur-
ance
Card
Picket
line
1 Leo Avoledo X X
2. Sandra Bales X*
3. Madeline Bratek X
undated
4. June Brown
5. Shirley Buffmyer
6. Mary Bunch X*
7. Robert Carriere X X
11-67 12-5-67
8. L. Lauriette Crespi X
9. Vito DePalma X X
10. Michael Edwards
11. Richard Edwards X
n3-63
undated
u dated
12. Edith Gamble
13. Sylvia Hampshire X X
14. Barbara Hanley X
15. Celina Herren X X
16. Shirley Howard X*
17 Jusufi Milaim X
12-67
18. Nathan Lane ? (card undated) 9
19. Helen Lisiak X
20. Peter Markus X X X
21. Joyce Mix X X
6-24-68 7-8-66
22. Earline O'Donnell
23. Anthony Paletta
24. Marian Patnode X
25. Giacomo Pecis X X
26 Ralph Schlata
27. William Seidel
28. Patricia Shelton X
29 Craig Smith
30. Olga Smith X X
6-18-63
31. Joan Somerville X
32. James Steiger
33. Marjorie Thornton X
34. Majorie Welch X
35. Steven Wright
36. William Blaskiewicz
37. R. Jewell Brown X
38. Edward Hollister
39. Charley King
40. Robert Leibau X
41. Steven Leonhardt
42. E. Sullo
43. Betty Jean Turner X
*Subject to offer of prowl of Counsel lot the (,eneral ( ounsel-see dncu„ion a, to Question 5