The Ramada Inn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Denmac Corporation d/b/a The Ramada Inn and
Hotel , Motel , Restaurant and Club Employees
Union , Local 750, a/w Hotel & Motel Employees
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO.
Case 23-CA-3070
April 22, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On September 24, 1968, Trial Examiner John F.
Funke issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding finding that the Respondent had engaged
in an unfair labor practice by having a petition
prepared for the decertification of the Union herein,
by encouraging its circulation, and by offering to
provide an attorney to institute decertification
proceedings. The Trial Examiner recommended that
the Respondent cease and desist therefrom, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision, but
found that the violation did not warrant the posting
of the usual notice. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain
other alleged unfair labor practices and
recommended that these allegations be dismissed
from the complaint. Thereafter, the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief Thereupon, the Respondent
filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, as modified below.'
The Trial Examiner failed to recommend the posting of the usual
Notice after concluding that the Respondent did not in the true sense
instigate the filing of the petition, that the issue is moot since the petition
died aborning , and that the posting of the notice might revive the issue of
an earlier 8(a)(3) violation which was affirmed by the Board on June 25,
1968.
We agree with the Trial Examiner ' s conclusion that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(i) of the Act by preparing the petition , encouraging
Hopper to have it signed , and by offering to provide an attorney to process
it Based upon this conclusion , we, unlike the Trial Examiner, find that the
Respondent did instigate the filing of the petition ; but even were this not
the case, Respondent 's encouragement of and assistance in the preparation
and filing of the petition would warrant the posting of a notice The fact
that the petition died aborning does not in our view adequately eliminate
the adverse effect the Respondent 's conduct might have had on employees
organizational activities protected by Section 7 of the Act And the issue is
not moot merely because the petition did not succeed The posting of the
Notice would serve a preventive as well as a remedial purpose
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Denmac Corporation d/b/a The Ramada Inn,
Beaumont, Texas, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Preparing or having prepared on its behalf any
petition for decertification of the Hotel, Motel,
Restaurant and Club Employees Union, Local 750,
or any other labor organization, delivering any such
petition to any of its employees, encouraging any of
its employees to circulate or sign any such petition,
and offering to provide an attorney to process any
such petition.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following action which the Board
finds will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(a) Post at its motor hotel and restaurant in
Beaumont, Texas, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
23, shall, after being duly signed by the Company's
representative, be posted by the 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 customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Company to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Decision and Order 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:
WE WILL cease and desist from preparing or having
prepared any petition for decertification of Hotel,
Motel , Restaurant and Club Employees Union, Local
750, a/w Hotel & Motel Employees and Bartenders
International Union , AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization , delivering it to any employee, encouraging
any employee to circulate or sign it, and offering to
Furthermore , the posting of the Notice would not tend to "revive" the
issue of the prior 8(aX3) violation , the Respondent not having complied
with the Board 's Order therein
'In the event the Order is enforced by a decree of the United States
Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and
Order" the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order."
175 NLRB No 77
THE RAMADA INN 475
provide an attorney to process any such petition
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Dated By
DENMAC CORPORATION
D/B/A THE RAMADA INN
(Employer)
(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, 6617 Federal
Office Building, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002,
Telephone 713-228-4296
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN F. FUNKE, Trial Examiner Upon a charge filed
July 8, 1968, by Hotel, Motel, Restaurant and Club
Employees Union, Local 750, herein the Union, against
Denmac Corporation d/b/a The Ramada Inn, herein the
Respondent, the General Counsel issued complaint dated
July 26, 1968, alleging 12 instances of violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act on the part of Respondent.'
The answer of Respondent denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
This proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard
by me at Beaumont, Texas, on September 12. Briefs and
oral argument were waived by the parties.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my
observation of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Texas corporation having its principal
place of business at 1295 N. 11th Street, Beaumont,
Texas, where it operates a motor hotel and restaurant.
During a representative 12-month period it receives
revenues in excess of $500,000 from its operations During
the same period it receives goods valued in excess of
$1,000 shipped to it directly from places outside the State
of Texas.
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
The complaint was amended at the hearing to allege another violation
of Section 8(a)(1)
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Testimony
William H. Hopper testified that he had been employed
by Respondent for 5 or 6 years as bell captain and that he
was a member of the Union.'
In June 1968' Hopper went to the office of Ben H.
Roberts, Respondent's manager, and told him he thought
he (Hopper) was going to get out of the Union.' Roberts
replied that the decision was up to him. Two or three days
later he again told Roberts he was going to get out and
Roberts told him he could not advise him adding, "If you
want to get out, get out." Four or five days later Roberts
asked him if he still wanted to get out and Hopper
affirmed his decision Roberts told him he could get out if
he wanted to.
Shortly after this third conversation Roberts brought
him a paper (G.C. Exh. 2) and told him if he wanted to
get out to get it signed and that if all the members signed
"we will get a lawyer." The preamble read:
We, the undersigned employees of the Denmac
Corporation, d/b/a Ramada Inn hereby allege that the
Hotel, Motel, Restaurant and Club Employees Union,
affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO is no longer
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of
the above company, and we authorize . to
represent us in petitioning the National Labor
Relations Board to decertify said union as our
representative.
Below the preamble, which was typewritten, were lines
for the signature of the employees and the date of signing.
After receiving this petition Hopper told three other
employees about it but did not ask them to sign it and
never signed it himself. Roberts later asked him, some two
or three times, how he was coming along with the petition
and Hopper told him it was slow.
Wilma Leger, employed by Respondent as a waitress,
testified that she was an officer of the Union and also
union steward and that some time in June Hopper
approached her and asked her if she had ever thought
about getting out of the Union. She told him she did not
think it possible because she thought she would be fired if
she got out of the Union. She also learned of the petition
from Hopper.' Later she had a conversation with Roberts
in which he said he had heard she was afraid she would
lose her job if she "did anything like this." He told her
she would have her job whether she did anything "like this
or not." She did not accept Robert's assurance because he
was leaving. Later had a conversation with Donald
McGregor, Jr., Respondent is owner and president, in the
coffee shop and in the presence of Mulligan, the new
manager , and Roberts The conversation was not related
to the Union in any way, but to the ownership of the
coffee shop and to the hours worked by the waitresses.
The day before he left, however, Roberts told her that he
had given a paper to Hopper and that if they all signed it
Mulligan would get them a lawyer.
'The Union was certified as collective -bargaining agent of the employees
following an election held May 1967, and a collective -bargaining contract
was in effect at the time of the hearing ( Resp Exh 1)
'Unless otherwise noted all dates refer to 1968
'Roberts was manager until the end of June 1968
'Hopper told her he had gotten the petition from Roberts
476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The General Counsel also offered testimony by
employees Alice Julun, Ann Wilhelm, Gladys Wilson, and
Jeanette Robertson to support other allegations of the
complaint. I find the testimony of these witnesses falls so
short of establishing any violation of Section 8(a)(l) that
it does not merit discussion
As to the petition, Ben Roberts testified that in June
Hopper came to him and told him he was sick and tired
of the Union and had not paid his dues for 4 months
Roberts told him he would have to get out as he had
gotten in, by an election and that he would have to
circulate a petition and get it signed by one-third of the
employees to get an election Later Hopper came to his
office and asked for the petition and asked what would
happen to him and "the principles" in the Union if they
did get rid of the Union. He also told Roberts he wanted
to see Mr. McGregor about it.
Subsequently Hopper met with Roberts and McGregor
in Roberts' office Roberts told Hopper he had the
petition, asked him if he wanted it and when he said he
did Roberts gave it to him in the presence of McGregor.
Roberts testified that McGregor told Hopper that he did
not care whether the employees were Union or not, that
Respondent wanted qualified people. McGregor testified
that all Hopper said was that he wanted the paper and
that when he got it he left without any discussion with
him (McGregor).
authority This is a time-honored violation of Section
8(a)(1).
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in an unfair
labor practice I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom
I do not believe the violation found herein warrants the
posting of the usual notice. Respondent did not instigate
the filing of the petition in the true sense, it acted in
response to Hopper's request for information as to how to
get out of the Union This, apart from Roberts' inquiry of
Hopper as to how he was coming along and his advising
Leger, on the day he was leaving, of the effect of the
petition, was the extent of Respondent's unlawful conduct.
The petition died aborning and the issue is now moot.
Under these circumstances the posting of a notice, rather
than contributing to the continued peaceful relationship
between parties who have achieved a bargaining
relationship might rather serve to revive an issue now
seemingly dormant.'
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and
conclusions and upon the entire record in this case, I
make the following-
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
B Conclusions
I find it unnecessary to resolve the divergence in
testimony between Roberts and Hopper as to where the
delivery of the petition took place. In any event Roberts
did have the petition prepared for Hopper and I accept
the testimony of both Hopper and Leger that Roberts told
them Respondent would get them a lawyer when the
petition was signed. By preparing the petition,
encouraging Hopper to have it signed and by offering to
provide a lawyer to process decertification Respondent
unlawfully participated in revocation of the Union's
1. By preparing a petition for the decertification of the
Union herein , by encouraging its circulation and offering
to provide a lawyer to institute decertification proceedings,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practice is an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
This recommendation is made after consideration of the Board's
decision in Denmac Corporation d/b/a The Ramada Inn, 172 NLRB No
25, in which the Board found Respondent guilty of an unfair labor
practice