The Blue Note

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1988

288 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

16

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ben Susan Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Blue Note
and Mary Bruschini. Case 2-CA-22046
March 8, 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND CRACRAFT
On November 16, 1987, Administrative Law
Judge D. Barry Morris issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Ben Susan
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Blue Note, New
York, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.
a
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an admimstrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
James Wasserman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Steven S. Goodman, Esq. (Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler &
Krupman), of New York, New York, for the Respond-
ent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
D. BARRY MORRIS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was heard before me in New York City on 17 and
18 June 1987. 1 On a charge filed on 29 January, a com-
plaint was issued on 13 March alleging that Ben Susan
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Blue Note (Respondent or
The Blue Note) violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act by discharging Mary Brus-
chini on 17 January. Respondent filed an answer denying
the commission of the alleged unlair labor practices.
The parties were given full opportunity to participate,
produce evidence, examine, and cross-examine witnesses,
All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise specified.
argue orally, and file briefs. Briefs were filed by the
General Counsel and by the Respondent.
On the entire record of the case, including my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a New York corporation, with an office
and place of business in New York City, is engaged in
the operation of a restaurant selling food and beverages
and providing entertainment to the public. Respondent
admits, and I so find, that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
IL THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. Background
On 30 September 1986 Administrative Law Judge
Arthur A. Herman issued a Decision and Order in The
Blue Note, Case 2-CA-2139 et al, finding that Respond-
ent, a restaurant and jazz club, unlawfully discharged
five waitresses, including Mary Bruschini. Respondent
did not file exceptions to the judge's decision and on 12
November 1986 the decision was adopted by the Board.
On 22 December 1986 Respondent notified the Region
that it had posted the required notice. In January 1987,
prior to the issuance of the backpay specification, the
Regional Office requested documents from Respondent
relating to backpay computations. On 3 February the
Region issued a backpay specification alleging that the
five discriminatees were owed a total of $25,160.
2. Bruschini's discharge
As of 17 January Bruschini was the last of the four
discriminatees who had accepted reinstatement the previ-
ous March and was still at work at the club. 2 On 17 Jan-
uary John Thomas, a former manager of The Blue Note,
entered the club with a party of seven friends. The de-
tails about when the party arrived and what subsequently
transpired is the subject of confficting testimony. Brus-
chini testified as follows: Thomas and his friends arrived
at the club around 3 a.m. and immediately ordered
drinks. After the first round of drinks, Thomas asked
Bruschini whether the kitchen was open. Bruschini re-
plied that the kitchen was closed, inasmuch as the kitch-
en regularly closes at 2 a.m. Sometime afterwards,
Norman, who was a regular attendee of the club, went
outside and returned with bagels and cream cheese.
Bruschini saw the bagels, cream cheese, silverware, and
napkins on the table at which the Thomas group was sit-
ting. Bruschini testified that she did not place the cutlery
on the table. Bruschini also testified that Norman would
2 Linda Meyers had declined Respondent's offer of reinstatement.
Gavito, Miller, and McLemore had returned to work, but had later either
quit or had been discharged
288 NLRB No. 6
BLUE NOTE 17
often bring food into the club after the kitchen was
closed, that it was "nothing unusual," and that on occa-
sions she had seen him go to the soda stand and serve
himself and go to the kitchen.
Bruschini testified that Danny Ben Susan, owner of
The Blue Note, saw the bagels and cream cheese on
Thomas' table. Ben Susan took Norman into the waitress
station and Bruschini overheard Ben Susan "yelling at
him about bringing in the food and did he want to cost
the waitress her job." At 4 a.m., as Bruschini was check-
ing out, Everett, one of the managers, told Bruschini
there was a problem because of the "food on the table."
Bruschini testified:
. . . at that point Danny jumped in. I was lying and
I embarrassed him in the club and I told John
Thomas that he, Ben Susan, was angry about the
food. And that it was because of me that he . . .
had a lawsuit in the club and get out. Did I know
that a lady from the Labor Board. . . came.
Bruschini also testified that sometime prior to her dis-
charge she wrote "thank you" or "service not included"
on a customer's check, which was against the club's
rules. In addition, she testified that she accidentally
spilled a drink on a woman customer.
Leila Gastil, also a former waitress at The Blue Note,
testified that she worked at the club on the morning of
17 January. She stated that Norman was a habitue of the
club and he was there almost every night after the last
show. She testified that Norman brought bagels into the
club around 3 a.m. on 17 January and that Bruschini did
not provide cutlery or plates for the Thomas group.
Ben Susan testified as follows: At approximately 1:30
a.m. Thomas entered the club and told Ben Susan that he
was there with seven friends and asked Ben Susan to
waive the music charge, which Ben Susan agreed to do.
Fifteen minutes later Ben Susan noted bagels, lox, cream
cheese, plates, and cutlery on the Thomas table. Ben
Susan then asked Norman to accompany him to the coat
room and asked Norman whether anyone gave him per-
mission to bring in food from the outside. Norman re-
plied that Thomas had asked him to do it. Thomas subse-
quently approached Ben Susan and apologized for asking
Norman to bring in food from the outside. Ben Susan
asked Thomas why he was apologizing and Thomas re-
plied because he had heard that Ben Susan was angry.
Ben Susan then asked Thomas who had told him that he
was angry and Thomas replied that it was Bruschini. Ben
Susan testified that this made him even more angry be-
cause she got a "customer involved in something he is
not supposed to get involved" in. At closing time Ben
Susan spoke to Bruschini and asked her why she told
Thomas that he was angry about the food. Bruschini re-
plied that she did not tell him. He then asked her why
she allowed food to be eaten from the outside and re-
ferred to Bruschini's having written on a customer's
check and having spilled a drink on a customer. Ben
Susan testified that he then told Bruschini:
[I]ts too much . . . I don't want you to work
here for me any more . . . . She stated then you
[are] going to hear from me. I'm going to sue you.
You [are] going to have another Board case against
you.
Ben Susan also testified that after the decision of the ad-
ministrative law judge in September 1986 he was aware
that there would be a further backpay proceeding.
Thomas testified that he arrived at the club between•
1:15 and 1:30 a.m. He did not ask Ben Susan to waive
the music charge nor did he have any discussion with
Ben Susan at the time he entered the club. He testified
that Norman "usually had gotten bagels" and he gave
Norman money and asked him to go outside and buy
some bagels and lox. He further testified that he asked
Bruschini to bring silverware to the table, which she did.
Lee Kerrigan, the night manager, testified that
Thomas and his group entered the club arotmg 1:30 a.m.
He also stated that during the first week of January there
was a meeting at which time the waitresses were told
that nothing was to be written on a customer's check. He
testified that subsequent to that meeting he saw that
Bruschini had written something such as "service charge
not included" on a patron's check. He discussed the
matter with Ben Susan who told him to give Bruschini a
warning. He testified that "at the time I told her that she
would not be fired for it."
3. Concluding findings
Bruschini, Gastil, and Kerrigan all testified in a forth-
right manner and appeared to me to be credible wit-
nesses. On the other hand, Ben Susan appeared to me to
be evasive in his testimony. Ben Susan and Thomas con-
tradicted each other on certain important points. Based
on the foregoing, I find that Thomas and his friends en-
tered the club at approximately 1:30 a.m. Soon after the
group entered they ordered drinks. After the first round
of drinks, which occurred sometime after 2 a.m., Thomas
asked Bruschini whether the kitchen was closed. She re-
sponded that it was. Thomas then asked Norm to pur-
chase some bagels and lox from the outside. I credit
Bruschini's testimony, which was corroborated by Gastil,
that Bruschini did not place the silverware on the table. I
further credit Bruschini's testimony that when she was
checking out at 4 a.m. Ben Susan told her that it was be-
cause of her that he had a lawsuit in the club and that
someone was coming from the "Labor Board." I also
find that Bruschini had accidentally spilled a drink on a
customer prior to the discharge but there is no indication
in the record that she was reprimanded for this. In addi-
tion, I find that in January, Bruschini wrote a notation
on a customer's check contrary to club policy. She was
given a warning concerning that but was told that "she
would not be fired for it."
Discussion
The complaint alleges that Respondent discharged
Bruschini because she testified in the prior proceeding.
Bruschini testified during March 1986. On 30 September
1986 the administrative law judge issued his decision
finding that Respondent unlawfully discharged five wait-
resses and issued an order that Respondent make them
whole for lost earnings. On 12 November 1986 the
18 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
judge's decision was adopted by the Board and on 22
December 1986 Respondent notified the Region that it
had posted the required notice. Ben Susan testified that
he was aware that there would be a further backpay pro-
ceeding. I have credited Bruschini's testimony that when
Ben Susan fired her he told her that it was because of
her that "he had a lawsuit in the club" and he made ref-
erence to "someone coming" from the National Labor
Relations Board. Thus, the General Counsel has shown
that animus existed on the part of Respondent and, with
respect to timing, the discharge came soon after the prior
order had become final.
I find Respondent's reasons for the discharge to be
pretextual. Respondent's brief states that Bruschini was
discharged for allowing a customer to consume food
purchased outside the club. I have credited Bruschini's
testimony that at the time the food was brought in the
kitchen was closed and that Norman often brought food
in from the outside. Indeed, it was Thomas, a former
manager, who asked Norman to bring the food and
Thomas testified that Norman "usually had gotten
bagels." I find Ben Susan's statement that "nobody ever
brought food from [the] outside" to be not credible. Con-
cerning Bruschini's having accidentally spilled a drink on
a customer sometime prior to her discharge, there is no
indication in the record that she was reprimanded for
that. With respect to her having made a notation on a
customer's check, while she was giveit a warning for
doing that, Kerrigan credibly testified that he told her
"she would not be fired for it."
If a trier of facts finds that an employer's stated motive
for an action, such as a discharge or a refusal to hire, is
false, he can infer that there is another concealed motive
for such action. Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB,
362 F.2d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 1966); Daniel Construction
Co., 229 NLRB 93, 95 (1977); John P. Bell & Sons, 266
NLRB 607, 610 fn. 6 (1983). In addition, if there are
"shifting defenses," it makes the "claim of non-discrimi-
nation the less convincing." Grede Foundries, 211 NLRB
710, 711 (1974); F. & M. Importing Co., 237 NLRB 628,
632 (1978). Respondent's letter dated 3 March 1987 to
the New York State Department of Labor lists two rea-
sons for Bruschini's discharge, viz, writing on a custom-
er's check and serving food purchased elsewhel e. It does
not mention that she allegedly embarrassed a customer
nor does it state that she spilled a drink on a customer.
Having found Respondent's defenses to be pretextual,3
I find that Respondent discharged and has failed to rein-
state Bruschini because of her testimony at the prior pro-
ceeding, in violation of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Ben Susan Restaurant Corp. d/b/a The Blue N te is
an employer engaged in commerce within the me' ging
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. By discLarging and failing to reinstate Bruschini be-
cause of her testimony in the prior proceeding, Respond-
8 See United Plastics, 261 NLRB 1328 (1982); Limestone Apparel Corp.,
255 NLRB 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir. 1982).
ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I find it necessary to order Respondent
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive action necessary to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
Respondent, having discharged Mary Bruschini in vio-
lation of the Act, I find it necessary to order Respondent
to offer her full reinstatement to her former position or,
if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equiv-
alent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of
earnings that she may have suffered from the time of her
discharge to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with the
formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as computed in New Horizons for the
Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).4
The complaint seeks as part of the remedy that the
order include a visitatorial clause authorizing the Board
to engage in discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for the purpose of securing compliance with
the Board's Order. However, the General Counsel has
not shown any special circumstances necessitating a de-
parture from the standard remedy in similar cases. Ac-
cordingly, I will not include that requested remedy in
this Order. See Northwind Maintenance Co., 281 NLRB
317 (1986); 0. L. Willis, Inc., 278 NLRB 203 (1986).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed 5
ORDER
The Respondent, Ben Susan Restaurant Corp. d/b/a
The Blue Note, New York, New York, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees for activities protected by
Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Mary Bruschini immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former position or, if such position no longer
exists, t( a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
4 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to
26 U.S.0 § 6621.
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regule4ons, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as pro ■ 'Wed m Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objection, to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
BLUE NOTE 19
udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make her whole for any loss of earnigns with interest, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Bruschini and notify her in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against her in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in New York, New York, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered - by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
e If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for activities pro-
tected by Seciton 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstatement to
Mary Bruschini to her former position or, if such posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges and WE WILL make her whole for any loss
of earnings that she may have suffered by reason .of her
discharge, with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to the
discharge of Mary Bruschini and notify her in writing
that this has been done and that evidence of the unlawful
discharge will not be used against her in any way.
BEN SUSAN RESTAURANT CORP. D/B/A
THE BLUE NOTE