Sheraton-Kauai Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

SHERATON-KAUAI CORP.
Sheraton-Kauai Corporation and ILWU Local 142
Hotel , Restaurant Employees & Bartenders ' Union,
Local 5, AFL-CIO and ILWU Local 142. Cases
37-CA-543 and 37-CB-90
June 26, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On December 19, 1968, Trial Examiner William
E. Spencer issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision, together with supporting
briefs, and the General Counsel filed
cross-exceptions and a brief in answer to
Respondent's exceptions. Subsequently Respondent
Employer filed a reply 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
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner ' s Decision , the exceptions,
cross-exceptions , and briefs , and the entire record in
these cases, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, except as modified below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s findings and
conclusions that Respondent Employer, by its aid
and assistance provided Respondent Union, its
recognition of Respondent Union as bargaining
representative of the employees herein involved, and
the extension of the coverage of its 1967 agreement
to its Kauai employees, violated the Act. However,
in addition to the evidence relied on by the Trial
Examiner in this regard , we also rely on certain
additional record evidence not specifically referred
to in his Decision.
It appears from the testimony of Richard T.
Hashimoto, Industrial Relations Director of the
Sheraton Hotels in Hawaii, that the employees of
the Kauai Hotel, at the time of their hire, were
made aware by Respondent Employer of its
statewide agreement with Respondent Union, and
"they were informed of the benefits, conditions that
would apply, because of the application of the
existing contract."' Clearly, one of the applicable
provisions of that contract required the employees
as a condition of continued employment to join the
25
Union on the 31st day following their date of hire.
Thereafter, as a further reminder of the applicability
of this agreement 'to these newly hired employees, a
portion of the Respondent Company's welcome
letter describing the Respondent Employer's
employment and payroll policies contained in the
"Aloha Kit" distributed on February 12, 1968,
stated that all employees not specifically excluded
from the bargaining unit were "covered by the
Union agreement [and] you are required as a
condition of continued employment to join the
Union on the thirty-first day following your date of
hire." The Respondent Union's letter, included in
the "Aloha Kit" at the request of the Union,
welcomed the employees into "membership" and, in
bold affirmation of the fait accompli, announced to
them that "as members of our union you will be
covered by a contract that has been agreed to by the
Sheraton organization ." These events occurred well
in advance of the Respondent Union's meeting with
the employees at which time the authorization cards
were solicited and further support our agreement
with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that
Respondent Employer and Respondent Union herein
violated Section 8(a)(1)- and (2) and Section
8(b)(1)(A), respectively.
On the other hand, we disagree with the Trial
Examiner's failure to find, as alleged in the
complaint , that Respondent Employer violated
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and that Respondent Union
violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) by unlawfully
extending to Sheraton-Kauai employees the
above-described union-security agreement at a time
when Respondent Union did not represent an
uncoerced majority of the Respondent Employer's
employees. We make these additional findings.'
Having found violations of Section 8(a)(3) and
8(b)(2) in the unlawful extension of the
union-security contract to the Sheraton-Kauai
employees, we see no sound reason for departing
from our customary remedial policies for such
violations .' Accordingly, we shall, as urged by the
General Counsel, order joint and several
reimbursement of the employees by Respondent
Employer and Respondent Union for dues and fees
unlawfully exacted from them with interest, as set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB
716.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
'This testimony was given during the representation hearing in Case
37-RC-1427, held on March 19 , 1968. The transcript of that hearing has
been included as G.C. Exh 4(a) in the instant proceeding.
'E.g Super Markets General Corp. d/b/a Shop-Rite, 170 NLRB No.
6l, Sunset House, 167 NLRB No 132.
'See, e .g , cases in fn. 2
177 NLRB No. 13
26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondent Company, Sheraton-Kauai Corporation,
Hawaii, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheraton
Corporation of America, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , and the Respondent Union,
Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union,
Local 5, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and
agents, shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein
modified:
1. Insert the following paragraph numbered 2(b)
after 2(a) of the Order directed to the Respondent
Company and renumber succeeding paragraphs
consecutively:
(b) Jointly and severally with the said Respondent
Union reimburse its employees for any initiation
fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off
pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or any
extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or to any agreement superseding it, plus
interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
2. Insert the following paragraph before 2(a) of
the Order directed to the Respondent Union and
renumber succeeding paragraphs consecutively:
(a) Jointly and severally with Respondent
Company reimburse said Company's employees for
any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or
checked off pursuant to the agreement applied to
Respondent Company's employees or to any
extension, renewal, modification, or supplement
thereof, or to any agreement superseding it, plus
interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716.
3. Insert the following paragraph after the last
indented paragraph of Appendix A:
WE WILL jointly and severally with Hotel,
Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union,
Local 5, AFL-CIO, make whole the employees of
Sheraton-Kauai for dues and initiation fees paid
to the above-named labor organization, plus
interest at the rate of 6 percent per year.
4. Insert the following paragraph after the last
indented paragraph of Appendix B:
WE WILL jointly and severally with the
Sheraton-Kauai Corporation make whole the
employees of the Sheraton-Kauai Hotel for dues
and initiation fees paid by them to us, plus
interest at the rate of 6 percent per year.
MEMBER BROWN, dissenting:
I am not satisfied that Respondent Union's
majority status among the Kauai employees was
unlawfully coerced, and I am otherwise satisfied that
these employees were properly accreted to the
existing statewide unit. I would therefore dismiss the
complaint.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM E. SPENCER, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to
charges filed April 4, 1968, by ILWU Local 142, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board,
the latter hereinafter called the Board, issued his order
consolidating Cases 37-CA-543 and 37-CB-90 and
consolidated complaint dated June 11, 1968, alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by the Respondent
Employer and violations of 8(b)(i)(A) and (2) by the
Respondent Union, of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, hereinafter called the Act. Respondents, in
their respective duly filed answers, denied the commission
of any of the alleged unfair labor practices.
Following a hearing upon due notice at Lihue, on the
Island of Kauai in the State of Hawaii, in which all
parties participated, each of the parties filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, my observation of
witnesses, and consideration of the briefs filed with me. I
make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER
Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, the Respondent Employer
herein, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheraton
Corporation of America, on March 1, 1968, officially
opened a new resort hotel called Sheraton-Kauai hotel on
the Island of Kauai, State of Hawaii. On the basis of
business operations at the Sheraton-Kauai to the date of
the issuance of the complaint herein, a total gross revenue
exceeding $500,000 is anticipated for the forthcoming
12-month period, and it is anticipated that during the said
period the Respondent Employer will purchase and receive
materials and supplies from outside the State of Hawaii of
a value in excess of $50,000. It is also expected that
during the same period more than 75 percent of guests at
the Sheraton-Kauai will be transient guests residing at the
said hotel for a period of less than 30 days.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
ILWU Local 142, the Charging Party herein, and
Hotel , Restaurant Employees & Bartenders ' Union, Local
5, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Union herein , are, each of
them , labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
On September 20, 1967, Respondent Union executed a
bargaining agreement with three Sheraton entities of the
State of Hawaii, namely Sheraton Maui Corporation,
Sheraton Hawaii Corporation, and Sheraton Hawaii
Corporation on behalf of Kokusai Jogyo Kabushiki
Kaisha. At that time, Sheraton operated some four or
more hotels on the Island of Oahu and one on the Island
of Maui. The September 20 contract purported to cover
all Sheraton employees in the State of Hawaii. The
Sheraton Maui operation was brought into the bargaining
unit only after a Board-conducted election in which the
employees of that operation voted for inclusion within the
Statewide unit. The Sheraton-Kauai was under
construction at the time this contract was executed but no
permanent unit employees had been employed at that
time . Incorporated in the Agreement was the following:
SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. 27
The parties hereto recognize the continuing pressure
for expansion of hotel facilities both on the Island of
Oahu and neighboring islands in the State of Hawaii in
an effort to meet the demands of tourist arrivals,
particularly by reason of ever -increasing air carrier
accommodations and inducement of Hawaii vacations
through lower fares.
It is the desire of the parties to promote an orderly
expansion of hotel facilities and to facilitate the
interchange of experienced employees in establishing an
efficient staff. Therefore, the parties hereto agree that
the appropriate bargaining unit for coverage of
employees under the collective bargaining agreement
negotiated between the parties hereto in 1967 shall
include employees of the Employer within categories
covered by the prior agreement at all new hotels opened
by the Employer within the State of Hawaii, as well as
employees of hotels as to which the Employer assumes
operation under a management contract or otherwise;
and all provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement shall apply to said employees , except as the
wage rates and fringe benefits are amended by the
supplemental provision attached hereto.
The principal issues are whether the employees of the
Sheraton-Kauai were lawfully brought under the
Statewide agreement as constituting an accretion to an
existing appropriate unit , and/or (2) whether Respondent
Union represented an uncoerced majority of Kauai
employees at the time recognition was extended to it. In
the affirmative, the Respondents; in the negative, the
General Counsel and the Charging Party.
B. The Question of a Majority
As of February 12, 1968, a substantial majority of the
total complement of Sheraton-Kauai employees had been
hired and on March 1 the hotel was opened to the public.
On February 12, the Respondent Employer held an
orientation meeting for newly hired employees , and each
employee was given an "Aloha Kit" containing various
documents, including welcoming letters from Respondent
Employer ' s manager , Edward W . Davis and Respondent
Union's president, Arthur A. Rutledge. The latter
welcomed Sheraton -Kauai employees into membership in
Respondent Union, advised them that they were covered
by a contract that had been executed by Respondent
Employer, and that the benefits thereunder were embodied
in a summary of the contract which would be distributed
among them . Each employee received a document
containing basic contract provisions , including the
provision . you are required as a condition of
continued employment to join the Union on the thirty-first
day following your date of hire." During the course of the
meeting , Davis introduced Respondent Union ' s business
agent, though not necessarily in his capacity as a union
representative , Richard Tam , to the employees.
Following the Respondent Employer's orientation
meeting , Respondent Union met with the employees in a
room provided by Respondent Employer, and there Tam,
in the absence of any managerial personnel , reviewed
benefits to be derived by employees under representation
by his Union , and a leaflet was distributed comparing
benefits offered by Respondent Union with that of a rival
union , ILWU Local 142.' Toward the close of the
meeting, after reviewing benefits the employees would
receive from representation by the Respondent Union,
Tam asked them if they approved what his Union
proposed or had done - "Something along that line" -
and, according to him , some 12of the employees showed that
they were opposed . He admitted that there "were several
outspoken proponents for the ILWU." Also, toward the
close of the meeting , Tam requested employees to sign
union authorization and membership cards which were
passed out among them , and many signed. With
additional cards signed on the following day, a total of
some 98 employees , a top-heavy majority, signed cards.
On February 16, Tam met with Richard Hashimoto,
industrial relations director of the Sheraton chain of
hotels in Hawaii , submitted the 98 signed authorization
cards and requested recognition . Hashimoto, after
rejecting one of the 98 cards, agreed to recognize
Respondent Union as bargaining representative of Kauai
employees, and this recognition was confirmed in writing
by Hashimoto on February 19.
Conclusions
Kauai employees were given to understand at the
orientation meeting of February 12 that the Statewide
agreement already executed by the Respondents applied to
them. Rutledge, in his letter of greetings, welcomed them
into the Union, and their attention was specifically
directed through the distribution of the Aloha Kits to the
terms of the Statewide agreement. The union meeting
which followed the orientation procedure, though
unattended by managerial personnel , was held on
company premises and was addressed by Tam, who had
been introduced at the orientation meeting. Presumably,
Tam's " sales" pitch and the resultant solicitation of
authorizations was no more than a precautionary measure
to fall back on in the event it was found that the
Statewide agreement could not properly be applied to the
Kauai operations without the Kauai employees' consent,
and it was inconsistent with the presentation by both
management and the Respondent Union that their
coverage by the Statewide agreement was a fait accompli
which, if it were the fact, did not require their consent.
Obviously, these employees, having been told in effect that
they were already under the Statewide agreement and
under that agreement 'would be required to join the
Respondent Union, were not exercising the required
freedom of choice when on February 12, or thereafter,
they executed union authorization cards. They were
merely ratifying what they had been advised had already
been done, and under such circumstance their ratification
was without effect.'
C. The Issue of Accretion to an Existing Unit
This issue presents a more difficult problem. There is
no question that management-wise the Sheraton
operations in Hawaii are to a substantial degree centrally
controlled and directed. Without overburdening this report
with detail, it is noted that all the Sheraton hotels in
Hawaii are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sheraton
Corporation of America, and, with minor exceptions, have
common officers and directors; that they have central
headquarters, executive and staff administrative offices in
'There is no evidence that the ILWU represented any of the Kauai
employees at that time, though in a letter dated January 12 it had notified
the Respondent Employer of its intent to "seek" recognition as bargaining
representative of Kauai employees.
'In making these findings, I have not relied on the testimony of Mrs.
Kay Shimokawa, called by Respondent Union , testimony at variance with
her prehearing affidavit given an agent of the Board , nor have I relied on
her prehearing affidavit
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Honolulu, one General Manager, and of material
consequence, a single Industrial Relations Director. The
Director is in charge of labor and personnel policies
relating to the employees of all the Sheraton hotels in
Hawaii, and he, together with the General Manager, is in
charge of all matters relating to collective bargaining. The
individual managers do not directly participate in such
negotiation. A staff planning director from the offices of
the industrial relations director in Honolulu determines
the normal staffing requirements of each of the hotels and
is responsible for payroll control. In addition, there is a
central reservation system, sales director, chief engineer,
and purshasing director, positions not duplicated in the
managerial personnel of the individual hotels, and with
functions affecting the entire chain of Sheraton hotels in
Hawaii.
Seniority of the said Sheraton employees is both
departmental and statewide. Service in any one of the
hotels is accumulated as statewide seniority. "When an
employee is laid off from one hotel, he may, on the basis
of that seniority, claim a vacant position in another
Sheraton hotel." Employees may be promoted from one
hotel to another, and such employees are, on promotion,
on probation for 6 months, after which if they prove
unsatisfactory, they may return to their former jobs.
Employees may be temporarily transferred from one hotel
to another. While transfers do not appear to be common,
by stipulation of the parties, in the setting up of the Kauai
operations, a ground superintendent and an engineering
trainee were assigned from other Sheraton hotels to Kauai
for a period of some 5 or 6 months, and a total of some
10 employees were transferred to Kauai from other
Sheraton hotels, all of them prior to February 15, 1968.
Some Kauai employees were subsequently transferred to
other Sheraton operations. The record does not reflect
transfers in the past between the various other Sheraton
hotels, and, therefore, there is no firmly established
pattern of transfers.
In addition to the foregoing factors, it is noted that
there is no showing that working conditions vary
substantially from one location to another in which the
hotels are located, or that there would be a substantial
variance in problems of employer-employee relationships
in the several hotels, other than day-to-day grievances
which in any event would, in large measure, be settled at
the local level regardless of whether there was a single or
statewide unit.
In sum, I think there is no doubt that a statewide unit
is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and
doubtless it would be more advantageous for management
to deal with one rather than several labor organizations in
reaching contract terms applicable to all its Hawaii
operations. Certainly, conflict between the several
operations would thereby be avoided or mitigated. There
is also a good argument to be made, I think, that
industrial stability would favor a single statewide unit.
These conclusions do not, however, rule out the
appropriateness of a unit comprised solely of Kauai
employees, and we turn now to that aspect of the case.
There is at least partial autonomy in the Kauai
operation. It has a local supervisory staff and a local
manager. The latter, necessarily, is in charge and
responsible for day-to-day operations inasmuch as a single
General Manager for all the Sheraton operations could
not personally supervise such day-to-day operations in
each of the hotels. The local manager has the authority to
hire and to discharge, the latter qualified by the provision
that if a grievance is filed and is not satisfactorily adjusted
at the local level , it may be carried to the General
Manager who would then have the sole discharge
authority . Some 90 percent of employees at the
Sheraton-Kauai operation were hired on the Island of
Kauai, and it may be assumed that such matters as
promotions and demotions limited to the Kauai hotel
would be handled by the local manager and department
heads . There is a distance of some 100 miles between the
Kauai and Honolulu operations , most of it over water.'
Conclusions
It would be hard to distinguish the situation with
respect to Kauai employees from that which existed on
Maui, where a separate unit was found appropriate and an
election held in which employees of the Sheraton-Maui
were afforded a vote to determine whether they desired to
be brought under a Statewide contract . They voted in the
affirmative and thus enlarged the Statewide coverage, but
that fact alone does not appear to affect the
appropriateness of a separate Kauai unit . Also, in a
somewhat similar situation , the Board in Hilton-Burns
Hotel Co., Inc., 167 NLRB No. 29; concluded:
"Accordingly we find that either a separate unit, limited
to employees at the hotel , or the broader
two-hotel unit may be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining and that , in the circumstances , the ultimate
determination should be resolved in accord with the
desires of the employees as expressed in self-determination
elections ." It seems likely that the Board would apply the
same reasoning here with respect to the 100 or more
Kauai employees affected by a unit determination, and I
must rule in accordance with what appears to be
prevailing Board opinion , though, as previously indicated,
I can find merit in the argument for a single statewide
unit.
With this conclusion , there necessarily follows the
further conclusion that , by its aid and assistance provided
the Respondent Union, its recognition of the Respondent
Union as bargaining representative of its Kauai
employees , and the extension of the coverage of its 1967
agreement to Kauai employees , the Employer violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and that the
Respondent Union, by seeking and obtaining recognition
as bargaining representative of Kauai employees at a time
when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of said
employees , and by acting in concert with the Employer in
extending coverage of the 1967 agreement to Kauai
employees , violated Section 8(b)(i)(A) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Employer and Union
set forth in section III, occurring in connection with the
operations of the Respondent Employer set forth 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 thereof.
'Under the statewide contract, there was a wage differential affecting
Kauai employees but only because they were new employees . I do not
consider this a significant factor.
'I am not certain of the grounds on which the General Counsel would
base an 8 (bX2) violation , and in any event an adequate remedy is to be had
under a finding of an 8(b)(iXA) violation.
SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. 29
V. THE REMEDY RECOMMENDED ORDER
It having been found that the Respondent Employer, by
its assistance to and recognition of the Respondent Union
as collective-bargaining representative of its Kauai
employees and by extending the coverage of its existing
contract with the Respondent Union to its Kauai
employees , violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and
that the Respondent Union , because of the said employer
assistance and application of the terms and conditions of
the 1967 statewide agreement to Kauai employees,
violated Section 8(b)(i)(A) of the Act, it will be
recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from
the said violations of the Act, cease giving effect to the
1967 agreement insofar as it affects Kauai employees,
without , however , requiring the Employer to vary any
wage or other substantive features established under the
said contract , and that the Employer withdraw its
recognition of the Respondent Union as representative of
Kauai employees , and the Respondent Union cease acting
as bargaining representative of the said employees , unless
and until the Respondent Union ' s representative status
with respect to said employees has been established in a
Board-conducted election.
I shall not recommend reimbursement of Kauai
employees by the Respondents of dues and other fees paid
under the Statewide agreement for the several reasons that
by the date of the issuance of this decision Kauai
employees will have been receiving the benefits and
protection of the legitimately negotiated statewide
agreement for almost a year ; because I am convinced that
the Respondents , in bringing Kauai employees within the
coverage of the Statewide agreement , acted in good faith,
a single statewide unit also being appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining ; and because at the time the
Employer recognized the Respondent Union for its Kauai
employees, no other labor organization had asserted a
claim to represent these employees.'
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent , Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union and ILWU Local 142 are, each
of them , labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully assisting and supporting the
Respondent Union, Respondent Employer engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
4. By demanding and accepting recognition as the sole
bargaining representative of Sheraton -Kauai employees
and by submitting them to the terms and conditions of the
collective -bargaining agreement as found herein, the
Respondent Union restrained and coerced, and is
restraining and coercing , the employees of Respondent in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1) A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
'Obviously, the ILWU letter to Respondent of intent to organize did not
constitute a claim of representation.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
it is recommended that:
A. Sheraton-Kauai Corporation , its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Contributing support and assistance to Respondent
Union or to any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Recognizing Respondent Union as the bargaining
representative of any of its Sheraton - Kauai employees for
the purposes of dealing with the Employer concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages , rates of pay, hours of
employment , or other conditions of employment , unless
and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated
its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among the said Sheraton-Kauai
employees.
(c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement
of September 20, 1967 , between the Employer and
Respondent Union , or to any extension , renewal or
modification thereof (insofar as it applies to
Sheraton- Kauai employees): provided , however, that
nothing herein shall require the Respondent Employer to
vary or abandon any wages, hours , or other substantive
feature of its relations with its Sheraton-Kauai employees
which the Employer has established in the performance of
the contract , or to prejudice the assertion by employees of
any rights they may have thereunder.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with the
rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act,
except to the extent that such right 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from
Respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its Sheraton -Kauai employees for the
purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor
disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment , unless and until said
labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority status pursuant to a Board -conducted election
among employees at the Sheraton -Kauai hotel.
(b) Post at the Sheraton -Kauai hotel copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 20 after being duly signed by Respondent or its
representatives , shall be posted by Respondent
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.
(c) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (b) above , and as soon as they
are forwarded by the Regional Director , copies of
.In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words, "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent Union's notice herein, marked "Appendix B."
(d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within
20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.'
B. Respondent Union, its officers, representatives,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agency of any of
Respondent Employer's Sheraton-Kauai employees for the
purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment unless
and until said Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive
majority representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among the employees at
Sheraton-Kauai.
(b) Giving effect to the September 20, 1967,
collective-bargaining contract between the Employer and
Respondent Union insofar as it affects Sheraton-Kauai
employees, or to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof.
(c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing
Sheraton-Kauai employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, 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 Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post, in conspicuous places, in the Respondent
Union's business office, meeting halls, and places where
notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix B."8 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 20 shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent Union be posted
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(b) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of
the aforesaid notice for posting by Respondent Company
at the Sheraton-Kauai in places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall after being
signed by the Respondents, as indicated be forthwith
returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him.
(c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps they
have taken to comply herewith.'
WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Hotel,
Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5,
AFL-CIO, or to any other labor organization of our
employees.
WE WILL NOT recognize said Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of our Sheraton-Kauai
employees, unless and until the said labor organization
shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status
pursuant to a Board-conducted election among said
employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining
contract of September 20, 1967, with Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO,
insofar as it affects Sheraton-Kauai employees,
provided, however, that nothing in this Decision
requires us to vary or abandon those wages, hours, or
other substantive features of our relations with our
employees, established in performance of said
agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees
of any rights they may have thereunder.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations , to join or assist the above-named or any
other labor organization to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection 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 authorized in Section
8(a)(3) of the Act, as amended.
Dated
SHERATON-KAUAI
CORPORATION
(Employer)
By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 1311 Kapiolani
Boulevard, Suite 308, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814, Telephone
588-797.
APPENDIX B
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 37, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
'See fn . 6, supra
'See fn . 7, supra.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees of the Sheraton-Kauai
Hotel, unless and until we have demonstrated our
exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a
Board-conducted election among the said employees.
WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective -bargaining
agreement dated September 20, 1967 , between the
Company and ourselves , insofar as it applies to
Sheraton- Kauai employees , or to any extension,
renewal or modification thereof affecting the said
employees.
SHERATON - KAUAI CORP.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain
or coerce the aforementioned employees in the exercise
of their rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act,
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 Act.
HOTEL, RESTAURANT
EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS
UNION, LOCAL 5,
AFL-CIO
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
31
(Representative ) (Title)
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.
If anyone has any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions , they may communicate
directly with the Board ' s Regional Office , 1311 Kapiolani
Boulevard , Suite 308 , Honolulu , Hawaii 96814 , Telephone
588-797.