Wayside Realty Group, Inc. And Georgetown Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1986

281 N.L.R.B. 357 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP
Wayside Realty Group , Inc. and Georgetown Hotel
and Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 25,
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO. Case 5-CA-
14675
9 September 1986
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
BABSON AND STEPHENS
On 22 April 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Elbert D. Gadsden issued the attached decision.
The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in op-
position to the Respondents ' exceptions.
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 briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings,' fmdings,2
and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified.
I The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge 's credibility
findings . The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administra-
tive 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 re-
versing the findings.
Y The judge found that employee Aramayo's authorization card should
be counted in determining the Union 's majority status because the Re-
spondents and the General Counsel had so stipulated in A. Exh. 1. The
Respondents contend that because Aramayo had temporarily transferred
to the Georgetown Hotel from another of the Respondents ' hotels, her
card should, therefore, not be counted, and that A. Exh . I does not indi-
cate otherwise . The General Counsel does not dispute the Respondents'
interpretation of A . Exh. 1. The General Counsel contends, however, and
the evidence shows , that Aramayo was not a temporary employee at the
Georgetown Hotel . Aramayo transferred to the Georgetown Hotel in
February 1982. She worked regular hours as a housekeeper , received reg-
ular wages and benefits, and was on the Georgetown Hotel's payroll. Al-
though she eventually returned to her original hotel on her own initia-
tive, she had no definite date of return while she worked at the George-
town Hotel. Accordingly , we find no merit to the Respondents' conten-
tion that Aramayo's card should not be counted. See, e .g., J. P. Sand &
Gravel Co., 222 NLRB 83, 84 fn. 2 (1976).
We agree, however , with the Respondents that the question of whether
employee Kettrell was unlawfully interrogated , as found by the judge,
was not fully and fairly litigated at the hearing . In this regard we note
that the judge denied the General Counsel 's motion to amend the com-
plaint to include such an allegation , and that the Respondents did not ex-
amine Kettrell or any other witness on this issue . Further , we note that
neither the General Counsel nor the Respondents briefed this issue to the
judge, and that in its brief in opposition to the Respondents ' exceptions,
the General Counsel does not dispute the latter 's contention that the issue
was not fully litigated . For these reasons, we reverse the judge's finding
that the Respondents violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully inter-
rogating Kettrell.
a Members Babson and Stephens note that the evidence in the record
clearly establishes that the Union , as of 12 March 1982, had obtained au-
thorization cards from a majority of the Respondents ' unit employees,
and agree with the judge that the Respondents , on that date , agreed to
recognize the Union upon its verification that the card signers were on its
payroll . They further note that although the Respondents and the Union
may have subsequently agreed to a private election as another means for
357
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below , and orders that the Re-
spondents, Wayside Realty Group , Inc., and
Georgetown Hotel , Washington , D.C., their offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the Order, as modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(a) and reletter the subse-
quent paragraphs.
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
determining if the Union had majority support, the Respondents ' decision
not to proceed with the private election , as agreed to, rendered the pri-
vate election agreement a nullity, and left the Respondents with the obli-
gation , according to its earlier agreement, to voluntarily recognize and
bargain with the Union on the basis of a card majority.
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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and
bargain collectively with the Hotel and Restaurant
Employees, Local 25, Hotel Employees and Res-
taurant Employees International Union, AFL-CIO,
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of our employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL recognize , sign, and deliver the recog-
nition agreement to Hotel and Restaurant Employ-
ees, Local 25, Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
our employees.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with
the Hotel and Restaurant Employees, Local 25,
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit described as follows:
All maids, housemen, bellmen and linen per-
sonnel employed by the Georgetown Hotel,
2121 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. ex-
281 NLRB No. 45
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cluding office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP, INC. AND
GEORGETOWN HOTEL
Jacqueline W. Mintz Esq., for the General Counsel.
Maurice Baskin, Esq. (Venable, Baetzer, Howard & Civilet-
ti), of Washington, D.C., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ELBERT D . GADSDEN, Administrative Law Judge. On
unfair labor practice charges filed on September 8, 1982,
by Hotel and Restaurant Employees , Local 25, Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO (the Union or the Charging Party)
against Wayside Realty Group, Inc. and Georgetown
Hotel (the Respondents) a complaint was issued by the
Regional Director for Region 5, on behalf of the General
Counsel on October 20, 1982.
The complaint alleges that the Respondents agreed to
recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of its unit employees , if the Union
could demonstrate by a card showing that it represented
a majority of the unit employees; that the Union so dem-
onstrated such a majority to the Respondents, and there-
upon requested and continues to request Respondents to
recognize and bargain with it as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative for its unit employees with re-
spect to their rates of pay, wages and hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment;
and that the Respondents subsequently withdrew its rec-
ognition of the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees, in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.'
The Respondents filed an answer on October 28, 1982,
denying that they have engaged in any unfair labor prac-
tices as set forth in the complaint.
A hearing in the above matter was held before me in
Washington , D.C., on January 4 and 5, 1983 . Briefs have
been received from the General Counsel and counsel for
the Respondents, respectively, which have been carefully
considered.
On the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent Georgetown Hotel is a District of Colum-
bia corporation with an office and place of business in
Washington , D.C. (Respondent 's facility), where it is en-
gaged in the operation of a hotel providing food and
lodging for guests.
' The complaint herein was amended during the hearing to include a
paragraph as follows : "4(b) At all times material, an unnamed agent has
been, and until March 23, 1982, was, an agent of the Respondent within
the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act."
Respondent Wayside Realty Group , Inc. is a District
of Columbia corporation with an office and place of
business in Washington , D.C., where it is, and has been
at all times material , engaged in providing management
services for hotels and commercial properties, and has
provided such services for the Georgetown Hotel.
At all times material , the Georgetown Hotel and Way-
side Realty Group , Inc. have been affiliated business en-
terprises with common officers, ownership, directors,
management, and supervision ; have formulated and ad-
ministered a common labor policy affecting employees of
said operations; have shared common premises and facili-
ties; have provided services for, and made sales to each
other; and have held themselves out to the public as a
single-integrated business enterprise.
The Georgetown Hotel and Wayside Realty Group,
Inc. (the Respondents), by virtue of their operations,
constitute related integrated business enterprises and are
joint employers within the meaning of the Act.
During the past 12 months, a representative period, the
Respondents in the course and conduct of business oper-
ations derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find,
that Respondents are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Hotel and Restaurant Employees , Local 25, Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International
Union , AFL-CIO (the Union) is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background Facts
The record shows that on March 8 , 9, and 10 and pos-
sibly 12, 1982, the Union (Local 25) through its repre-
sentatives, Roxie Herbekian and Charles McCollum, met
with or approached and solicited signatures of the Re-
spondents' housekeeping and other employees on cards
to become the employees' union and collective-argaining
representative . As a result of their efforts, the Union ob-
tained signed cards from the Respondents ' employees in
the following job classifications which the Union con-
tends constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All maids, housemen, bellmen and linen personnel
employed by Respondent at its 2121 P Street, N.W.,
Washington , D.C. location, excluding all other em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
At all times material , the Respondents admit that Jack
Rosenbloom has occupied the position of managing di-
rector, and has been, and is now, a supervisor of the Re-
spondents within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and an agent of the Respondents within the meaning of
Section 2(13) of the Act.
WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP
On March 12 , 1982, the Union approached Rosenb-
loom for the purpose of demanding recognition of the
Union. The conversations and actions which took place
during that meeting on March 12 , raised the following
factual issues presented for determination herein:
1. Whether the Union possessed a majority support of
the employees in an appropriate unit on March 12.
2. Whether the Respondents , on March 12 , agreed to
recognize the Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of employees in an appropriate unit, on the
Union's demonstration of majority support in such unit.
3. Whether the Union thereafter demonstrated to the
Respondents that a majority of the employees in an ap-
propriate unit supported the Union.
4. Whether the Respondents , on March 23 , 1982,2 re-
pudiated any voluntary recognition accorded the Union,
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Acts
The parties stipulated that the following named per-
sons served in the positions set opposite their respective
names, and were at all times material supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act:
Richard Bernstein, president of the Respondents; Al
O'Pack , vice president ; Haas, supervisor of personnel in
housekeeping; Williams, supervisor of personnel in
housekeeping; Dahl, front office manager; Maloney, res-
ervations manager; Jim Anderson, director of engineer-
ing maintenance; David Black, head of accounting de-
partment ; Dennis Lawson , sales manager; Herb White,
food & beverage; Mary LaSpada, assistant manager of
food and beverage ; Chino Thuropol, chef.
The parties' Joint Exhibit 1 contains the names of all
31 regular and full-time employees of the Respondents as
of March 12 , 1982, classified as follows: (a) maids, (b)
housemen, (c) linen personnel , and (d) bellmen, except
Blanca Aramayo, whose status is in dispute.
B. The Organizing Efforts of the Respondents'
Employees and the Union
The record shows that in response to a telephone call
from an employee of the Respondents in late January or
early February, Roxie Herbekian, organizer for the
Union, commenced meeting with interested employees of
the Respondents on a weekly basis, during which time
they discussed working conditions at the Georgetown
Hotel , and how employees may profit from being repre-
sented by a union . During a meeting in the Union's van
parked in the rear of the hotel on March 9 , Herbekian
distributed authorization cards to nine employees who
were present at the meeting. Herbekian testified that she
then read and explained in English and translated into
Spanish , the statement of purpose on the top of the card
(G.C. Exits . 2(a)-(i)), and told them if a majority of the
employees signed the cards, the Union would probably
request recognition of the Respondents. All nine employ-
ees present filled in, signed , and returned a card to Her-
bekian.
On March 8 Herbekian said she met employee Ricarda
Senzano and obtained a signed card from her.
a All dates referred to occurred in 1982, unless otherwise indicated.
The facts set forth above are undisputed and are not in conflict in the
record.
359
On March 10 employee Jenny Sandoval and another
employee saw Herbekian in the rear of the hotel where
she gave them a card which they completed and signed.
On the same day, March 10, signed authorization cards
were obtained by Herbekian from employees Eddie
Love and Debra Muse.
Also on March 10 employees Maria Argueta, Elvira
Langoo , and Maria Barrios entered the Union 's van and
asked Union Organizer Charles McCollum for an author-
ization card . McCollum gave each of them a card which
they completed and signed . Herbekian obtained a signed
card from employee Blanca Aramayo on March 12, but
this card was subsequently voided because her status was
in dispute . However, the parties stipulated in Joint Ex-
hibit 1 that Aramayo was an employee of the Respond-
ents on March 12, and her card is thereby validated and
hereafter considered.
The Respondents ' Efforts to Show Some Card
Signatories Were Either Misinformed or did not
Understand Whether They Were Signing to Join
the Union or for an Election.
In this regard, it is noted that the caption of the cards
used by the Union in soliciting the Respondent 's employ-
ees in late February and early March read as follows:
AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRESENTATION
I desire to be represented by Hotel & Restaurant
Employees Local 25, AFL-CIO, and I hereby des-
ignate Local 25 as my bargaining agent in matters
of wages, hours and other conditions of employ-
ment.
In the upper left-hand corner of each card is either ini-
tials RH, for Roxie Herbekian or CM , for Charles
McCollum, organizers for the Union , who initialed the
cards as evidence of their having solicited the cards.
In an effort to establish that some of the employee
card signatories were misinformed or did not understand
whether they were signing to select the Union as their
bargaining agent, or for an election to determine union-
ization, the Respondents called several witnesses on their
behalf. Most of the witnesses speak and understand Span-
ish and several understood only a little English. On
mutual agreement of the parties, Louis Sanchez, an em-
ployee of the hotel, was sworn in as an interpreter.
Union Organizer Roxie Herbekian speaks and under-
stands Spanish as well as English. The parties agreed she
could raise questions for purposes of clarification when
there appeared to be some misunderstanding or conflict
in translation.
Maria Argueta, who speaks and understands Spanish
and a little English, testified that she was asked to sign a
card by Union Organizer Herbekian , who read and ex-
plained the purpose of the card as being for an election;
and that everyone else had signed a card . Argueta identi-
fied the card she said Herbekian gave to her . It is ini-
tialed by Union Organizer McCollum , who testified he
gave her the card . On cross-examination, Argueta said
she was the only one present when Herbekian gave her
the card, but on redirect examination she said McCollum
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was present . On further examination, she testified that
about 15 other fellow employees , including Elvira
Langoo and Mayra Barrios (both of whom she testified
signed cards, but the record shows only a card signed by
Langoo) were present when Herbekian and McCollum
gave her the card.4
Calixta Berrios testified she can not read Spanish or
English but understands Spanish , and that a union agent
read the purpose of the card in English and Spanish
when it was given to her. At first she testified that the
agent said the purpose of the card was for a union.
When she was asked the question again she said the
agent said the card was for an election . She signed the
card and gave it to Union Organizer McCollum . Howev-
er, on further examination she testified that when the
union agent read the card to them she understood it, and
she signed it because she thought they needed a union. 5
Betty Kettrell testified on behalf of the Charging Party
that she reads , speaks, and understands English . She does
not have a language problem , having completed the 11th
grade in high school and having had some secretarial
training as a clerk typist . She testified that she was asked
by Union Organizers Herbekian and McCollum to sign a
card for the purpose of bringing in the Union . Kettrell
was a maid in March when she signed the card for the
Union and she remained a maid until June when she
became a supervisor.
Kettrell further testified undisputedly that in March,
Gottfried of the managerial staff of the hotel approached
her and asked her to accompany him to a conference
room. When she arrived at the conference room she was
introduced to Jacqueline Blancho, a legal assistant from
the law firm of Baskin , counsel for the Respondents.
Blancho told her they wanted to talk with her. There-
upon, in the presence of Gottfried, Blancho asked her
did she sign a card and she replied "yes." Blancho then
4 Although I find Argueta 's testimony somewhat inconsistent in terms
of who was present and what she was told when she was given the card,
I received the distinct impression that she was more confused than mten-
tionally trying to evade the truth . Nevertheless , I do credit her testimony
that Herbekian gave her the card, even though it is initialed by McCol-
lum, because this could simply have meant that McCollum collected the
card, because Argueta finally testified both Herbekian and McCollum
were present I also credit her testimony that Herbekian read and ex-
plained the purpose of the card However , I do not credit her testimony
that Herbekian told her the card was for an election, rather than to join
the Union . Although the explicit purpose of the card is printed on the
top thereof in English , I am not persuaded , and Argueta 's testimony in
this regard is not corroborated by Langoo or Mayra Barrios , whom she
said were present with her at the time Herbekian misread (intentionally
or inadvertently) the purpose of the card as being for an election . Rather,
I am persuaded that Argueta was one of a few witnesses who was con-
fused by the lapse of time since the signing of the card , and the questions
from respective counsel on cross- and redirect examination, in an attempt
to elicit testimony from this witness with respect to the technical distinc-
tion between a single purpose authorization card and one for an election
This conclusion is further supported when it is noted that the testimony
of other witnesses who testified they signed to join the Union were simi-
larly confused by such questions.
s What minor inconsistency there is in the testimony of Bernos with
respect to the purpose of the card she signed , I am persuaded from her
testimony that she understood the Spanish explanation that the purpose
of the card was for the purpose of joining the Union Any minor incon-
sistency in this regard I attribute to the aforementioned confusion a few
witnesses experienced in answering questions of counsel with respect to
the technical distinction between a single -purpose authorization card and
one for an election
asked her whether the card she signed was to bring in
the Union or was it for an election. 6
Based on the credited testimony of Kettrell, I con-
clude and find that the questions asked her regarding her
signing the card and the purpose of the card by Blancho,
legal assistant to Baskin, without giving Kettrell any as-
surances against reprisals , constituted an interference
with, restraint on, and coercion against employees in the
exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act. Although the complaint contained no
allegation of unlawful interrogation by the Respondents,
I nevertheless fmd that such interrogation was unlawful
because it was litigated during this proceeding (Tr. 87-
190.)
Ricarda Senzano presently a floor supervisor was not a
supervisor in March . She testified that union agents
asked her to sign a card as she entered a union meeting.
Senzano said union agents did not read the card but she
went into the Union's van with fellow employees Elvira
Langoo, Rosa Marchante, and Maria Benavides, where
Union Organizers Herbekian and McCollum were
present . Senzano's testimony regarding her signing the
card is interesting because she stated that they wanted
the Union very soon because the housekeeper at the time
was trying to fire everybody and give them a hard time.
Nevertheless , she testified that she explained to the union
agent that they needed to have an election, and she
asked if the card was for an election , "we have to get it
very soon ." She specifically asked what was the card
for, and Herbekian said , "If you sign, we have to have
an election." Senzano further testified that Herbekian ex-
plained the card in English and in Spanish and finally she
acknowleged that she can read English but on that day
said, "I don't pay attention to that"; that she did not read
the card and she signed it because she was in a hurry to
pick up her child.7
Finally, I also credit the testimonial accounts of Ket-
trell Berrios and Argueta because they are still in the Re-
spondents' employ and, under such circumstances, I am
further persuaded they have testified truthfully regarding
the purpose and their understanding of the purpose of
signing the authorization card. Shop-Rite Supermarkets,
231 NLRB 500 (1977); St. Anne's Home, 221 NLRB 839
(1975).
Based on the foregoing credited testimony , I fend that
all the card signatory witnesses understood and voluntar-
B I was persuaded by the demeanor as well as the substance of the tes-
timony of Kettrell that she understood she was signing a card for the
purpose of joining the Union , notwithstanding the extensive cross-exami-
nation by the Respondent , which again reflected answers which demon-
strated the witness was responding to questions dealing with the technical
distinction between single-purpose union authorization cards and cards
authorizing an election
7 I do not credit Senzano's testimony that she was told by any union
agent that the card she signed was for the purpose of obtaining an elec-
tion . Senzano admitted she could read English but stated that she did not
read the card Her testimony (as reflected Tr. 207 and 208) appears in
part, confusing , contradictory, and, at most , not convincing. This is espe-
cially true because she can read and the credited evidence regarding the
Union's conduct in soliciting cards does not establish that the Union en-
gaged in any misrepresentation, coercion , or undue or unreasonable influ-
ence in obtaining any of the signatures on the cards submitted in evi-
dence
WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP
ily signed the card for the purpose for which the card
stated, authorization for representation, designating
Local 25 as the bargaining agent in matters of wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment.
C. Respondents Agree to Recognize the Union
Union Representative Richardson testified about the
recognition procedure used by the Union for the past 2
years as follows:
In fact, we won't agree to organize a group of
employees who come to us unless they agree that
their signatures can be divulged to their employer.
We don 't do any of those secret card things.
We bring the cards in . We show them to the em-
ployer. If he agrees in advance to recognize the
union upon a showing of a majority status , we then
show him the cards and give him a set of photostats
to the cards and request that he sign a recognition
agreement.
A. Prior to the last couple of years we used to
just bring the cards in, tell the employer we repre-
sented a majority and give him the cards to look at
and a copy of the cards without previously asking
him if he'll agree to recognize the union upon re-
ceipt of a majority.
About two years ago , I guess, our attorneys told
us that board law had changed or evolved or there
had been a decision, or they felt uncomfortable with
that procedure, and that, in fact, the board-in the
event that we showed the cards to an employer, he
agreed to examine the cards and then subsequently
refused to recognize the union , that the board might
not consider that in and of itself to be an unfair
labor practice or an 8-5 unless, in fact, he had
agreed in advance to recognize the union upon re-
ceipt of a majority status, so we , at that point,
changed our practice and immediately began doing
that about two years ago.
After obtaining 17 signed cards from the Union's
count of 27 or 28 employees of the Respondent, Union
Representative Ronald (Ron) Richardson , accompanied
by Union Organizers Roxie Herbekian, Charles McCol-
lum, and Richard Whitehurst , visited the office of the
Respondents' managing director Jack Rosenbloom on
March 12 . Richardson testifed Rosenbloom was on the
telephone when they arrived at his office and his secre-
tary told him she would let him know when he was off
the telephone . When he got off the phone , Richardson
said he and Rosenbloom recognized each other because
he remembered having contact with him several years
ago, when Rosenbloom was a manager at the Madison
Hotel. Rosenbloom acknowleged he recognized Richard-
son's face . After exchanging pleasantries , Richardson
said he asked Rosenbloom could he speak with him, and
Rosenbloom said "yes, come on in," and they walked
into his office . However, Rosenbloom testified that as he
361
concluded talking to his secretary , Richardson and his
fellow union representatives barged into his office.8
Richardson introduced Herbekian, McCollum, and
Whitehurst to Rosenbloom and told him they represent-
ed a majority of his employees in a housekeeping and
bellmen unit, and asked him if he would recognize the
Union if they proved they represented a majority by a
show of cards . Richardson said Rosenbloom said 'fine, "
and asked him, while reaching for the cards , are those
for me - 9 Richardson then presented Rosenbloom with
the 17 signed cards , asking him to compare each card
with a photocopy thereof, which Rosenbloom did and
verified that the Union had 17 signed cards.
In his affidavit given to the Board , Richardson stated
he told Rosenbloom they represented a majority of his
hotel employees in a unit of maids , housemen, bellmen,
and linen personnel , and Rosenbloom said "Oh. " He
thereupon told Rosenbloom they had cards from the em-
ployees which they would allow him to examine if he
would agree to recognize the Union, providing they in
fact represented a majority of such employees, and Ro-
senbloom said he would. Rosenbloom, however , denied
he ever said he would recognize the Union . Instead, he
said he did not respond to Richardson 's question.
Union Organizer Herbekian essentially corroborated
Richardson's testimony regarding his representations and
questions to Rosenbloom . She testified that when Rich-
ardson told Rosenbloom , "If you will recognize the
Union voluntarily and sign this agreement we will dem-
onstrate to you now our majority status." When asked
what did Rosenbloom say, Herbekian said Rosenbloom
asked "are those [referring to the cards in Richardson's
hand] for me," and Richardson said "these are originals
and we will leave a xeroxed copy for you if you want to
check them." Rosenbloom said "yes," and proceeded to
check the cards which he handed back to Richardson
one by one . Richardson testified he asked Rosenbloom
did he have 27 or 28 employees, and Herbekian said 30,
and Rosenbloom nodded his head in the affirmative. How-
ever, Herbekian testified that after Rosenbloom complet-
ed checking the cards, Richardson asked Rosenbloom
did it look like a majority-"how many employees do
you have in the housekeeping department," and Rosenb-
loom said he was not quite sure , he would have to
check. She did not corroborate Richardson's statement
that Rosenbloom nodded his head in the affirmative.
Herbekian said Richardson then said , "Well on seeing
[verifying, after checking the signatures with payroll]
that it is a majority of the employees , will you recognize
the Union," and Rosenbloom said , ' pe& "10
8 Rosenbloom 's testimony in this regard is not corroborated and his
secretary did not testify in this proceeding. Because Richardson 's testimo-
ny in this regard is corroborated by Herbekian , and Rosenbloom did not
ask Richardson and his fellow representatives to leave his office, I am
persuaded by the corroborated version of Richardson that he and his
fellow representatives were asked to enter the office, although Rosenb-
loom was in all probability surprised by their unannounced visit.
s Herbekian testified that she could not recall any response made by
Rosenbloom when Richardson asked him would he recognize the Union
on demonstrated proof of a card showing.
10 I do not credit Richardson's testimony that Rosenbloom nodded his
head in the affirmative that the Respondents had 28-30 employees be-
Continued
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richardson gave Rosenbloom the agreement and asked
him to sign it. After Rosenbloom finished reading the
agreement, he refused to sign it, and said he could not
verify that the signers were all employees and he would have
to compare the signed cards against the payroll records,
and, if they checked out, he agreed to sign the recognition
agreement and deliver it to the Union . Richardson replied
"fine" and he suggested they could set a meeting date to
commence negotiations . The record shows no response
from Rosenbloom to this suggestion . The agreement was
left with Rosenbloom and Richardson and his fellow rep-
resentatives left the office. Herbekian and McCollum
thereafter went to the various floors in the hotel telling
employees Rosenbloom said he would recognize the
Union . Herbekian admitted on cross-examination that
what they told the employees about recognition was not
accurate at the time. Rosenbloom did not contact or send
the recognition agreement (G.C. Exh . 4) to the Union as
he said he would.
Conclusions
The testimony of Richardson and Herbekian is some-
what conflicting with respect to precisely what Manag-
ing Director Rosenbloom initially said in response to
Richardson's early statements and questions regarding his
request for recognition of the Union. Nevertheless, Rich-
ardson and Herbekian's testimony describing the latter
part of their conversations with Rosenbloom, clearly es-
tablished that Rosenbloom agreed to concede the Union
represented a majority and recognize the Union, if Ro-
senbloom's examination of payroll records coincided
with the names on the signed authorization cards, which
he retained for the purpose of such verification; and that
he would sign the recognition agreement (which he also
retained) and send it to the Union.
More specifically, the testimony shows that when Ro-
senbloom was initially asked to recognize the Union, he
said "fine," according to Richardson. On another occa-
sion when asked would he recognize the Union on proof
of majority, Richardson said Rosenbloom said "Oh," and
Herbekian said she could not recall what words Rosen-
bloom used, if he responded at all. The unequivocal
"yes" uttered by Rosenbloom, according to Herbekian's
account, was when Richardson asked Rosenbloom if he
wanted to check the xeroxed copies of the cards and Ro-
senbloom said "yes." However, it can hardly be argued
that assenting to check the cards amounts to assenting to
recognize the Union, and I do not find that such a reply
by Rosenbloom constituted an agreement to recognize
the Union, if in fact he made such a reply.
cause his testimony is not corroborated by Herbektan in this respect, and
Rosenbloom testified he made no response Rather, I credit Herbekian's
account that Rosenbloom responded he was "not quite sure" of the
number of employees in the Respondents ' employ This response appears
reasonable and credible because it is well established that Rosenbloom
had only been on the job 3 or 4 weeks He did not hire or have direct or
daily contact with most of the employees, so as to have known all of
them by name and/or sight . This conclusion is further supported by the
fact that Richardson apparently believed Rosenbloom's response in this
regard because he accepted Rosenbloom's pledge to check the signed
cards with the Respondents ' payroll records and, if verified, he would
recognize the Union if the cards represented a majority of employees.
According to Richardson 's testimony, there were two
occasions during their March 12 conversations when Ro-
senbloom responded unequivocally in the affirmative.
One was when Richardson asked Rosenbloom if he
wanted to check the signed cards to verify that there
were 17, and Rosenbloom said "yes." On the other occa-
sion, Richardson asked Rosenbloom if after checking the
signed cards with names on the Respondents ' payroll
records he found that all the card signatories are em-
ployed and represent a majority of the hotel employees,
would he recognize the Union . Richardson and Herbe-
kian said Rosenbloom said "yes." However , Rosenbloom
said he did not recall saying "yes," but I do not credit his
testimony in this regard. I I
It is therefore clear from the foregoing credited evi-
dence that Rosenbloom agreed to recognize the Union
on his verification that the names on the signed cards
also appeared on payroll records and represented a ma-
jority of employees on the Respondents ' payroll records.
Although Rosenbloom testified he as indicated could not
recall his response , or he made no response to Richard-
son's request, or that he did not agree to recognize the
Union, it is also clear that he did not tell Richardson
"no," he would not recognize the Union. Nor did he ex-
press doubt that the Union had acquired majority status.
If he had said "no," Richardson in all probability would
have left the office immediately and proceeded to file for
an election. If, on the other hand, Rosenbloom had not
responded at all, as he so testified , in all probability
Richardson would have pressed him for an audible
answer one way or the other.
It is more than doubtful , and I am not persuaded, that
an experienced union representative such as Richardson
would have given the recognition agreement and copies
of the signed cards to Rosenbloom for inspection with-
out an affirmative response from him to recognize the
Union on verification that the signed cards represented a
majority of the employees.
Moreover, it may be reasonably inferred from the
credited evidence of the subsequent efforts of the Re-
spondent (discussed, infra) to avoid voluntary recogni-
tion of the Union, that Rosenbloom was aware that he
had agreed to recognize the Union on the condition of
his verifying that the signed cards legitimately represent-
ed a majority of hotel employees. I do not find that
Richardson's testimony in this regard is in any material
way inconsistent with his affidavit submitted to the
Board.
It is particularly noted that Rosenbloom did not raise
any question about the appropriateness of unit employees
't I do not credit Rosenbloom's stated lack of recall because I was
persuaded by the selective manner in which he testified in this regard
that he did say "yes." I was further persuaded by the corroborated testi-
mony of Richardson, as well as by Rosenbloom's conduct and the events
which subsequently occurred, that Rosenbloom did say "yes," and he in
fact was capable of recalling that he said "yes." Herbekian testified that
Richardson said, "Well upon seeing that it [the cards] is a majority of
employees , will you recognize the Union," and Rosenbloom said "yes."
Because Rosenbloom was a supervisor and an agent of the Respondent as
herein found , I find that he had the authority to agree to recognize the
Union This is especially true because it was not shown that he did not in
fact have such authority
WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP
described by Richardson during their conversations on
March 12.
The Appropriate Unit
The record evidence is clear that Richardson told Di-
rector Rosenbloom on March 12 that the card signatories
represented maids, housemen, bellmen, and linen person-
nel employees at the Georgetown Hotel . Rosenbloom
did not raise any question about the employees in such a
unit, and neither did legal counsel for the Respondent
subsequently raise such a question . In fact, during the ef-
forts of the Respondents to obtain a private non-Board
election, the Respondents' legal counsel Chatilovicz
agreed to the identical classification of workers as an ap-
propriate unit which Richardson initially proposed to
Rosenbloom on March 12 . The Respondents' agreement
in this regard is evidenced by its letter to the Union of
March 23.(G.C. Exh. 5). Hence, I do not find that the
evidence presents a genuine issue of appropriateness of
the unit described herein, even though I am satisfied that
sufficient evidence was adduced during this proceeding,
and appropriate legal authority cited by the General
Counsel in her brief, which support the appropriateness
of the unit herein.
As the General Counsel points out, the Board has long
held that "there is nothing in the statute which requires
that a unit for bargaining be the only appropriate unit, or
the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit . The Act
requires only that the unit be appropriate." Morand Bros
Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409 , 418 (1950), enfd . 190 F.2d
576 (7th Cir. 1951). I am also satisfied that the Respond-
ents had not even latently shown at the time of the hear-
ing, that the unit described herein is inappropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining , as it is required by law
to do to overcome the presumption in favor of a single-
location unit . Magic Pan, Inc., 234 NLRB 1 (1978);
Frisch's Big Boy Ill-Mar, 147 NLRB 551 (1946), enf.
denied 365 F.2d 895 (7th Cit. 1966). Although the Re-
spondent attempted to introduce evidence of a multiloca-
tion unit, it nevertheless failed to establish that the Re-
spondent had centralized control over uniform labor re-
lations policy, employee interchange , and common em-
ployee supervision . Magic Pan, supra; Tryon Trucking,
192 NLRB 764 (1971 ); Haag Drug Co., 169 NLRB 877
(1968).
The Respondent adduced some evidence regarding the
appropriateness of the unit and submitted a fine brief
containing considerable legal authority cited on the sub-
ject. However, I find the Respondents' evidence insuffi-
cient to sustain their position and the cited legal author-
ity inapplicable to the facts as found herein.
Thus, the precise questions raised by the credited evi-
dence are:
Whether Rosenbloom 's condition for recognizing the
Union (verification that the signed cards represented a
majority of the employees) was satisfied and, if so, did
the Respondents thereafter express or imply confirmation
or acknowledgement of such verification to the Union?
The answers to these questions will be determined on
an analysis of the credited evidence summarized under
section D, infra.
363
D. Efforts by the Respondents to Circumvent their
Agreement to Recognize the Union and Insist on a
Board-Conduced Election
On the day following his visit to Rosenbloom's office,
March 13, Richardson testified that he met with Chatilo-
vicz of the law firm of Seyforth , Shaw, Fairweather and
Geraldson , legal representative of the Hotel Association
of Washington , D.C., and some 25 or 27 hotels with
which the Union has contracts . Chatilovicz represents
his firm in collective-bargaining sessions and grievance
proceedings. Richardson further testified that on this oc-
casion they were meeting with counsel for the Union,
Jeff Freund, to discuss some of the grievances. While
waiting for Freund, who was late, Chatilovicz said to
him, "You've really been busy last week," and he asked
Chatilovicz what he was talking about, and the latter
said, "the Georgetown Hotel"; that he had unsuccessful-
ly tried to reach him over the weekend. Chatilovicz then
asked him what happened at the Georgetown Hotel and
he eventually told him about his meeting with Rosen-
bloom on March 12 . Chatilovicz said, "I know that
you've been through this, and that you've done it already,
and Mr. Rosenbloom reached an agreement, but we would
like very much to have an election." Richardson said he
laughed and said the Union did not want to have an
election because it has had a card check and has an
agreement with Rosenbloom . Chatilovicz told him he
should have a little sympathy because Rosenbloom was
new on the job and could possibly lose his job if he is
forced to recognize the Union on the basis of the March
12 meeting.
Richardson said he told Chatilovicz the "hell with it,"
they would have an 8(aX5); that the Union could file
charges, and the Union could picket the hotel if Rosen-
bloom were fired. Concerned about the Respondents re-
neging on the agreement to recognize the Union, Rich-
ardson said he eventually told Chatilovicz the Union
would give the Respondents an election if the Respond-
ents would agree to hold an election within 1 week, con-
ducted by a priest, rabi, minister, retired Board agent, or
somebody other than the Board because you can not
have a Board election in less than 30 days . Chatilovicz
said that might save everybody's face and he would rec
-ommend such an election to the Respondents. The testi
mony does not show that Richardson at any time re-
scinded or agreed to substitute the conditional recogni-
tion agreement he had with Rosenbloom for the private
election. 1 s
12 Chatilovicz testified herein and denied that he acknowledged to
Richardson that Rosenbloom had reached an agreement with the Union,
but he admitted he told Richardson the Respondents would like to have
an election . However, I do not credit Chatilovicz ' denial that he did not
acknowledge, or imply acknowledgement or confirmation, that Rosenb-
loom had advised him Rosenbloom had conditionally agreed to recognize
the Union on verification of the signed cards . I was persuaded that Chatl-
lovicz' testimony in this regard was not accurate with the facts (the attor-
ney-client privilege which the Respondents waived during the trial) of
Rosenbloom 's agreement with the Union, not only by the demeanor of
Chatilovicz , but more so by the reasons he advanced in persuading Rich-
ardson to agree to an election of some kind. I credit Richardson's ac-
count of his conversation with Chatilovicz because it is corroborated, in
part, by Jeff Freund, Esq., who was present a part of the time, and I
Continued
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Later that afternoon or the next day, Chatilovicz
called Richardson and advised that the Respondents had
agreed to the private election within a week as he sug-
gested if they could work out the ground rules. The next
day, by telephone conversation, Richardson and Chatilo-
vicz agreed on William Boettichur, a retired Board field
investigator, to conduct the election. They further
agreed on an appropriate unit consisting of housekeep-
ing, laundry personnel , and bellmen . They further agreed
to split the cost of Boettichur's services and for other ar-
rangements in carrying out the election, including, if the
Employer held any captive-audience meetings, the Union
would have the right to do the same thing on company
time and premises . They agreed there would be an
equivalent of a Norris-Thermador list which would enable
them to know exactly who was and who was not eligible
to vote. Notices for the election were prepared and
posted, announcing the election scheduled to be held on
March 24, 1982, between 3:30 and 4:15 p.m. in the em-
ployees' cafeteria.
A letter dated March 23 (G.C. Exh. 5), confirming the
agreement and procedure of the election , including a list
of 30 names of those persons in an appropriate unit eligi-
ble to vote therein, was signed by Chatilovicz and sent
to the Union (Ronald Richardson). The letter was ini-
tialed by Richardson indicating approval, as requested,
on March 23, 1982.
On the same day, March 23, Chatilovicz' attorney
(agent) for the Respondents called Richardson and ad-
vised him that Chatilovicz was no longer representing
the Respondents; that he was not sure of the status of the
election scheduled for the next day; and that Richardson
could call the hotel about the new attorney. Richardson
thereupon called the Respondents and talked to Maurice
Baskin of the law firm of Venable, Baetzer, and Howard,
of Baltimore, Maryland, who advised him that the Re-
spondents had decided against the election; that Re-
spondent had already met with the employees and the
election was canceled; and that the hotel wanted an elec-
tion conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
Richardson undisputedly testified, and I credit his tes-
timony, that his conversation with Baskin continued as
follows:
I told him that we had reached an agreement first
on voluntary recognition, that the company had
asked as a favor to have an election the week later,
and we agreed to that, and now that they were re-
neging on that, that we were not going to agree to
a Board election, that we would be filing an 8(a)(5)
and possibly picketing the hotel, and he said, you
will do what you have to do, and hung up.
credit his testimony because it is consistent with events which followed;
and because it is consistent with all the credited evidence of record, as
well as the fact that his demeanor while testifying in this regard was
equally convincing as truthful Additionally, the diligent effort of Chati-
lovicz to obtain a Board election to which Richardson would not con-
cede, probably urged him to accept second best, by agreeing to a non-
Board election, demonstrated the urgency of the Respondents ' desire to
avoid the conditional voluntary recognition to which they had agreed. It
is also noted that Chatilovicz , an experienced labor law specialist, did not
file a petition for an election or other relief
Conclusions
It is well established by the foregoing credited and es-
sentially undisputed testimonial and documentary evi-
dence that the condition for Rosenbloom's recognition of
the Union (verification that 17 signed cards represented
legitimate employees and a majority of employees) was
met and satisfied, as evidenced by the oral agreement
reached by Richardson and Chatilovicz on March 13 or
15, and thereafter reduced to writing in a letter signed
and dated March 23 (G.C. Exh. 5). The letter shows that
the Respondent had 30 employees (Jt. Exh. 1 shows it
actually had 31 employees ) in its employ on March 12,
as Union Organizer Herbekian said it had, and that 17 of
the names on the signed cards appear in the letter's list
of 30 eligible voters . It may be reasonably inferred from
this agreement that the Respondents checked the names
on the signed cards with names on the payroll records
and found that they were not only valid but represented
a majority of its 30 or 31 employees. The parties herein
stipulated that all the 31 employees' names listed in Joint
Exhibit 1 constituted the employees in the Respondents'
employ on March 12. The letter (G.C. Exh. 5) which
contained 30 of the names in Joint Exhibit 1, also estab-
lished a factor which was not a part of Rosenbloom's
condition for recognition, namely, that the appropriate
unit consisted of maids, housemen , bellmen , and linen
personnel, as Richardson had stated to Rosenbloom on
March 12.
Consequently, I conclude and find that the Respond-
ents, through their first-retained legal counsel and agent
(Chatilovicz) acknowledged in oral conversations with
Richardson on March 13 or 15, and in its letter to the
Union of March 23, that the Union actually possessed
signed cards from a majority of the Respondents' em-
ployees on March 12. Such acknowledgement was the
verifying condition on which Manager Rosenbloom
agreed to recognize the Union, and its legal counsel's
conversations of March 13 or 15, and his letter of March
23, communicated to the Union, confirmation of the
Union's majority status and the appropriate unit. The
record does not show that the Union manifested any
intent to forgo or forfeit its conditional agreement for
recognition with Rosenbloom when it agreed to a non-
Board private election. In fact it is clear from the evi-
dence that Richardson agreed to a private election for
expediency, in having an early election before the Re-
spondent could have an opportunity to do anything to
dissipate the Union's majority, and to discourage the Re-
spondents from reneging on its conditional agreement to
recognize the Union, as the evidence shows Richardson
had obviously contemplated.
When the Respondents agreed on the appropriate unit
and the list of 30 names of eligible voters set forth in
General Counsel's Exhibit 5 and Joint Exhibit 1, from
which all the names on the signed cards are obviously
verified, the condition of the Respondents' (Rosenbloom)
agreement to recognize the Union became unconditional
on March 13 or 15, and again formally, in the Respond-
ents' letter of March 23. Additionally, the Respondents'
oral and written confirmation that the employees' names
which appeared on the signed cards, as well as the fact
WAYSIDE REALTY GROUP
that the number of such employees mathematically con-
stituted a majority of the Respondents' employees, were
thereby communicated to the Union . Under such circum-
stances, the agreement to recognize the Union was con-
summated . At no time prior to such consummation did
the Respondents ever intimate that they doubted the
Union's majority, or did it tell the Union they would not
recognize its majority status.
In Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709, 718 (1961), cited by
counsel for the General Counsel , the employer initially
refused to recognize the union , but later agreed to a card
check which indicated a majority of employees selected
the union. Nevertheless, the employer subsequently re-
fused to recognize the union and insisted on a Board-di-
rected election even though it did not question the au-
thenticity of the card check . The Board held that the
right of an employer to insist on a Board -directed elec-
tion is not absolute , and that because the employer enter-
tained no reasonable doubt of the appropriateness of the
proposed unit, the majority status of the union, nor pre-
sented any other valid ground for a Board -directed elec-
tion, the employer had failed and refused to bargain with
the union, in violation of the Act.
Although the Snow case, supra, is not precisely analo-
gous to the facts in the instant case, in that here, unlike
there, the Respondents did not refuse to recognize the
Union , but only later insisted on a Board-directed elec-
tion. Nevertheless, the Snow case is sufficiently compara-
ble on the fact that the Respondents here , like the re-
spondent there, manifested no reasonable doubt of the
Union's majority status , either before or subsequent to
the initial card check, their reasonably inferred check
with payroll, and their oral and written acknowledge-
ment of authenticity of signed cards and payroll verifica-
tion, which mathematically conceded a 17-to - 14 majority
status of the Union.
Moreover, although the facts in the instant case are
not precisely identical to those in Jerr-Dan Corp., 237
NLRB 302, 303 (1978), in which after examining the
cards, the employer exclaimed, "YOU GOT THEM
ALL!" thereby conceding majority, and thereafter
agreed to meet 4 days later for the purpose of bargain-
ing. Although after retaining legal counsel , the employer
therein canceled the agreement to bargain , the Board
said , "The key is the original commitment of the employ-
er to bargain upon some demonstrable showing of major-
ity." The Respondents made an original commitment to
bargain on a demonstrable showing of majority (its veri-
fication of signatories on signed cards).
In the instant case, the Respondents made a condition-
al commitment to recognize the Union on their own ver-
ification that the names on the signed cards were authen-
tic and constituted a majority of employees . The Re-
spondents made and orally communicated such verifica-
tion to the Union on March 13 or 15, and formally com-
municated such verification to the Union on March 23.
When they did so, they acknowledged the Union's ma-
jority, and its commitment to recognize the Union
became unconditional and binding . The Respondents,
through their newly retained legal counsel, on March 23,
for the first time, advised the Union by implication that
they would not recognize the Union , when they in-
365
formed the Union they were canceling the private non-
Board election and was insisting on a Board -directed
election. However, because the Respondents ' voluntary
recognition of the Union had already taken effect, the
Union was the duly designated exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the Respondents' employees.
See Brown & Connolly, Inc., 237 NLRB 271, 275 (1978).
There, the Board stated:
Once voluntary recognition has been granted to a
majority union, the Union becomes the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees, and withdrawal or reneging from the commit-
ment to recognize before a reasonable time for bar-
gaining has elapsed violates the employer's bargain-
ing obligation . Evidence that an employer has com-
menced bargaining or has taken other affirmative
action consistent with its recognition of the Union
aids in resolving the evidentiary question as to
whether recognition was granted . However, once the
fact of recognition is established, such additional evi-
dence is not required, for the bargaining obligation
arises upon voluntary recognition and continues until
there has been a reasonable opportunity for bargaining
to succeed. [Emphasis added.]
Although only a period of 7 days had elapsed after the
Respondents made their unconditional commitment to
recognize the Union when the Respondents insisted on a
Board-directed election, a reasonable time within which
bargaining could and should have commenced had not
elapsed in my judgment. In support of its argument that
the Respondents did not agree to recognize the Union on
March 12 , counsel for the Respondents cites Trevose
Family Shoe Store, 235 NLRB 1229 (1978). However, it
is observed that the employer there , unlike the Employ-
ers herein, did not expressly or impliedly agree to recog-
nize or bargain with the union if the union demonstrated
a majority designation. Thus, the facts there are distin-
guishable from, and are not controlling of, the facts
herein.
By failing to return the signed agreement (G.C. Exh.
4) and insisting on a Board -directed election under the
circumstances herein , the Respondents withdrew recog-
nition, and thereby failed and refused to bargain with the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its em-
ployees, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
I further conclude and find on the foregoing evidence
that the following employees constitute a unit appropri-
ate for purposes of collective-bargaining within the
meaning of the Act:
All maids , housemen, bellmen and linen personnel
employed by the Georgetown Hotel, 2121 P Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., excluding office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Any testimony adduced by the Respondents' witnesses
contrary to my findings herein was not ignored , but was
discredited as inaccurate , untruthful, or unpersuasive. Be-
cause all the employees in the unit herein found appro-
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate were in the Respondents ' employ on March 12-23,
1982 , I did not consider the Respondents' evidence re-
garding employee turnover because I deemed such evi-
dence irrelevant . This is especially so as any delay in rec-
ognition here was occasioned by the Respondents.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in close connection with its oper-
ations as described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and a substantial relationship to trade , traffic, and
commerce among the several States , and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(aX5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
It having been found that the Respondents interfered
with, restrained , and coerced their employees in the ex-
ercise of their Section 7 rights, by interrogating an em-
ployee about her union activities , in violation of Section
8(aXl) of the Act and by refusing to recognize the Union
as the designated and exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of their employees, the Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, the recommended
Order will provide that the Respondents cease and desist
from engaging in such lawful conduct, and that it take
certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the pur-
poses and policies of the Act.
Because of the character of the unfair labor practices
herein found, the recommended Order will provide that
the Respondents cease and desist from or in any like or
related manner interfering with, restraining , and coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act. NLRB v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120
F.2d 532, 536 (4th Cir. 1941).
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the
entire record in this case, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Wayside Realty Group, Inc. and Georgetown Hotel
are, and have been at all times material , employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, Local 25, Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO (the Union), is, and has been at all
times material, a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By coercively interrogating an employee about her
union activities , the Respondents coerced and restrained
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By failing to sign and return the recognition agree-
ment and insisting on a Board-directed election, the Re-
spondents have withdrawn recognition and thereby, have
failed and refused to bargain in good faith , in violation of
Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The conduct described in paragraphs 3 and 4,
above, are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed13
ORDER
The Respondents , Wayside Realty Group , Inc. and
Georgetown Hotel , Washington, D.C., their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of their guaranteed Section 7 rights, by
interrogating employees about their union activities.
(b) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive collective -bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize, sign, and deliver the recognition agree-
ment (G.C. Exh. 4) to Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Local 25 , Hotel and Restaurant Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of unit employees.
(b) Offer and, on request , bargain collectively in good
faith, with Hotel and Restaurant Employees Local 25,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO on behalf of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
(c) Post at Respondents ' 2121 P Street , N.W., Wash-
ington, D.C., Georgetown Hotel facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix ." 14 Copies of the
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5 , after being signed by the Respondents' author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondents
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondents to ensure
that the notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings , conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
11 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."