Willard Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1937

2 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1937)

In the Matter Of WILLARD^ INC.,, OPERATING UNDER THE NAME AND,
STYLE OF WILLARD HOTEL, and HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMIPLOYEES'
ALLIANCE , LOCAL 781, and GARLAND P. WEBB and MABEL NORMAN
Case No. C-164-Decided June 30, 1937
-hotel and Restaurant Business-Jurisdiction of Board in Dtstrtet of Colum-
bia-Discraenanation : discharge for union membership and activity ; for testify-
ing at hearing before Board-Strike : sit-down, provoked by employer 's unfair.
labor practices-Reinstatentent Ordered-Back Pay: awarded ; tips included as.
Mr. Jacob Blum and Mr. 0. H. Walburn for the Board.
Mr. Joseph W. Wyatt, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Josiah Lyman, of Washington, D. C., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph Rosenfarb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Alliance, Local 781 , hereinafter called the Union , the National Labor
Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board , by Bennet F.
Schauffler , Regional Director for the Fifth Region ( Baltimore,
Maryland ), issued its complaint dated January 14 , 1937, against
Willard, Inc., operating under the name and style of Willard- Hotel,.
Washington, District of Columbia , hereinafter called, the respondent.
The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the respondent and the Union . The complaint alleged that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices : affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1)- and (3) and Sec-
tion 2, subdivisions ( 6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat . 449, hereinafter called the Act, by reason of the dis-
charge of one of its employees , Garland P. Webb, on January 1,
1937. On January 22, 1937 the respondent filed its answer to the
complaint , admitting that it is engaged in carrying on the business
of an innkeeper within the District of Columbia , but denying that it
had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to the notice , a hearing was held in Washington, D. C.,
on January 25, 1937 before Emmett P. Dalaney, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board . The Board and the respondent were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing . Full oppor-
1094
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1095
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
produce evidence bearing upon the issues Was afforded to all parties.
At the opening of the hearing counsel for the respondent moved to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Act, particularly Sec-
tions 8 and 10, as applied to the respondent, was in contravention
of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Trial Examiner
denied the motion. Counsel for respondent then moved to dismiss
'the complaint on the ground that the business of the respondent was
not "commerce" as defined by the Act and that therefore the acts
charged against the respondent were not within the terms of Section
10 of the Act. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on the motion.
At the close of the Board's case, counsel for the respondent moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was no testimony
.substantiating the charge that Webb had been discharged because
of union activity or affiliations or for any reason other than assigned
by the respondent at the time of his discharge. The ruling on this
:notion was reserved by the Trial Examiner. At the end of the
hearing, counsel for respondent renewed the motion made at the
close of the Board's case. The Trial Examiner also reserved his
ruling on this motion. The parties were afforded full opportunity
for argument at the close of the hearing. Time to file briefs was
granted, but no briefs were filed.
On February 11, 1937, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate
Report, in which he found that the respondent had not committed
-unfair labor practices as charged, but recommended that Garland P.
Webb should be reinstated to his former position. He also denied
respondent's motion to dismiss. The Intermediate Report was duly
served upon the parties. No exceptions to the Intermediate Report
were filed by either party.
Thereafter, upon charges duly filed by the Union, the Board, by
Bennet F. Schauffier, Regional Director for the Fiftli Region, issued
a second complaint dated March 4, 1937, against the respondent.
The complaint and notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the respondent and upon the Union. The complaint alleged that the
respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8, subdivisions (1) and (4) and
Section 2, subdivisions (6) and (7) of the Act by reason of the dis-
charge of Mabel Norman, one of its employees, on February 28, 1937.
On March 17, 1937, the respondent filed its answer to the second
,complaint, admitting that it was engaged in the business of an inn-
keeper within the District of Columbia, but denying that it had
engaged in the alleged unfair labor practices.
On March 16, 1937, the Board consolidated for the purpose of
hearing the case arising on the second complaint and a case arising
1096 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on a petition which had theretofore been filed by the Union, request-
ing investigation and certification of representatives of the em-
ployees of the respondent for purposes of collective bargaining-
Thereafter counsel for respondent and counsel for the Union agreed
that an election should be held under the supervision of the Regional
Director among the employees of the respondent involved in the
petition to determine the question of their representation.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing on the second complaint was
held in Washington, D. C. on March 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 29, 1937
before Edwin S. Smith, a member of the Board. as Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Union, and the.
respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to produce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded
to all parties. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the respond-
ent made the same motions as in the Webb hearing. The motions
were denied. At the conclusion of the Board's case, counsel for the
respondent moved that the complaint be dismissed on the ground
that no evidence substantiating the charge was introduced. The
motion was denied by the Trial Examiner. During the hearing a
stipulation was entered into by counsel for the Board and counsel
for the respondent with reference to the nature of the testimony to,
be given by one of the witnesses who was not available. This stipu-
lation was incorporated in the record as part of the respondent's
case.
On March 22, 1937, counsel for the Union filed with the Board a
petition for extension of the time within which to file exceptions to
the Intermediate Report filed by the Trial Examiner in the case of
Garland P. Webb. The petition cited as reason for failure to file
exceptions to the Intermediate Report that the matter was not
brought in time before counsel for the Union. On April 21, 1937
the Board granted the petition, and thereupon counsel for the Union
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, excepting to the finding
of fact and conclusion of law of the Trial Examiner that Garland P.
Webb was not discharged by the respondent in violation of Section 8,
subdivisions (1) and (3) of the Act. On April 3, 1937 the Board
issued an order consolidating the two cases involving the discharges.
of Garland P. Webb and Mabel Norman. '
On April 21, 1937 an oral argument was held before the Board
in the case involving the discharge of Garland P. Webb, in which
counsel for the Union and counsel for the respondent participated.
At the oral argument counsel for the Union made a motion for fur-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1097
ther hearing in order to introduce additional evidence in the case.
The Board granted the motion and ordered a further hearing.
The hearing in pursuance of this order took place in Washington,.
D. C., on May 11, 1937 before Emmett P. Delaney , the Trial Ex-
aminer duly designated by the Board. Counsel for the Board and for-
the respondent participated in the hearing. At the commencement
of the hearing , counsel for the respondent moved that the proceed-
ings be vacated on the ground that the case had been closed. The
Trial Examiner overruled the motion . Testimony was introduced-
in support of the allegations of the complaint, but no evidence was
adduced in behalf of the respondent . At the close of the hearing, al-
though the opportunity was given by the Trial Examiner , no oral
argument was made by counsel for either side. Since the case had
theretofore been transferred to the Board, the Trial Examiner did
not file an Intermediate Report after this hearing.
The rulings of the Trial Examiners in both hearings are hereby-
affirmed. However, upon consideration of all the evidence , including
the evidence adduced at the further hearing in Webb's case, the
Board is constrained to reverse the finding of the Trial Examiner
that respondent was not guilty of an unfair labor practice under-
the Act in discharging Garland P. Webb.
Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENT AND ITS BUSINESS
The respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Virginia, having its principal place of business at Pennsyl-
vania Avenue and Fourteenth Street, Northwest, in the City of Wash-
ington, District of Columbia. It is engaged in the business of an inn-
keeper and is generally known as the Willard Hotel. As such it
offers its services to the general public, which services consist of the
rental of rooms and the furnishing of food and entertainment.
In these operations the respondent is engaged in trade within the.
District of Columbia.
II. THE UNION
The Union, Hotel and Restaurant Employees Alliance, Local 781, is-
a labor organization. With some exceptions, all employees of res-
taurants and hotels in Washington . are eligible for membership in_
the Union. At the time of the occurrences here related, practically
all of the waiters and waitresses of the respondent were members of
the Union.
1098 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharge of Garland P. Webb
Garland P. Webb had been employed by the respondent as a
lvaiter attached to the room service department for a period of eight
years. On January 1, 1937 Webb was discharged by A. F. Moeller,
maitre d'hotel, following a complaint by Harry P. Somerville, man-
aging director of the hotel. At the time of his discharge Webb was
the Union 's shop steward.
Somerville testified that on the morning of January 1 , 1937 Mrs.
:Somerville ordered breakfast for herself and Somerville , consisting
among other things of warm applesauce, a thick slice of ham,
scrambled eggs, and coffee. The order was given to the captain of
the room service, who in turn gave it to Webb to fill. After Webb
delivered the order to the room and departed, Somerville discovered
that the ham was thinly sliced, the warm applesauce was served in
the wrong dish, and there was no butter. Somerville testified that
he was very aggravated and reported the matter to the room service.
He next called Moeller, the maitre d'hotel, and complained to him
about the service, explaining the details. He further testified that
he offered no suggestion to Moeller as to what action should be taken
by him, as the head of each department is charged with the entire
responsibility in his department in the matter of employing and
discharging personnel. The maitre d'hotel thereupon called Webb
to his office and after a brief conversation dismissed him.
It is the position of the respondent that Webb was discharged be-
cause of the errors committed by Webb in serving Somerville 's break-
fast. It is therefore necessary to examine closely the circumstances
connected with the serving of the breakfast.
Moeller admitted that he did not blame Webb for serving thin
and not thick ham, because Webb had not taken the order. As to
whether the warm applesauce was correctly served in a peacock china
,dish when the rest of the meal was served in gold band china, there
is a conflict not only between the testimony offered on behalf of the
Board and that on behalf of the respondent, but also as between two
of the respondent's witnesses. Webb's explanation for two kinds of
.china is that applesauce could not be heated and served in the custom-
ary glass dish , and since no proper dish was included in the regular
room service china, he had to usempeacock china.
In evaluating Webb's explanation, it is to be noted that the girl
in the kitchen who dished out the applesauce served it in the peacock
dish; apparently she too believed that such a dish was correct.
Moeller testified that a glass dish was the correct dish to use, since
the gold band china had no correct dish for dessert. On the other
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1099
hand, Charles Lautenslager, the captain of the room service, insisted
that Webb should have used a terrapin dish with the gold band china.
Both Webb and Moeller testified that a terrapin dish was not proper.
Moreover, Lautenslager actually insisted that the service was wrong
in all respects except the dish in which the applesause was served,
since Somerville should have been served in peacock china and not
in the regular room service china. Lautenslager claimed that when
on previous occasions he had called Webb's attention to the alleged
rule that Somerville should be served in peacock china, Webb had
replied that Somerville was no better than anybody else. This was
denied by Webb. In view of this conflict of testimony, it is impos-
sible to conclude that Webb was discharged because of the use of a
wrong piece of china on Somerville's breakfast tray.
As to Webb's failure to include butter with the order, Webb'&
explanation is that since it was the morning after New Year's Eve all
the other waiters were off and he was the only waiter in the room
service department; consequently, he was too busy to make his usual
careful check-up of the tray. According to Lautenslager, however,
there were two more waiters that morning. Webb testified that at
the time when Lautenslager gave him the order, he called his atteii
tion to the fact that he was busy on another order, but Lautenslager
insisted that he should take care of Somerville's order too because
of lack of help. When the order was filled by the kitchen help, he
failed to notice the absence. of the butter and he claimed that Lauten-
slager also overlooked it, due to the fact, as Webb explained it, that
Lautenslager had been up all night and came on breakfast duty at
six in the morning.
Lautenslager and Moeller admit that it is the duty of the captain
of the service to check an order before it leaves the kitchen, but
Lautenslager claimed that he was not there when Webb filled the
order but that his assistant, Quispel, was on duty at the time.
That the circumstances connected with the serving of the breakfast
on January 1, especially the failure to include butter in the order,
could not be the real reason for the discharge of Webb can be gathered
from the fact that although others were.also to blame for the errors
connected with the serving of the breakfast, no one was discharged
or even reprimanded; indeed, they were•not even notified of what had
happened. Thus, it is admitted by Moeller and Lautenslager that
neither Lautenslager nor his assistant who had the duty of checking
the order after it was checked by Webb was ever asked for an expla-
nation of his failure to do so; as a• matter of fact, neither as told
anything about it. Likewise the'kitchen help who prepared the order
were not asked for an explanation of their failure in connection with
the service of the breakfast. Although Moeller and Lautenslager
claimed that the failure to include the butter was serious, they ad-
1100 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mitted that neither of them knew of any other waiter who had been
discharged for that reason. Lautenslager even went so far as to say
that he would not have reported it.
Moeller admitted that Webb was a good waiter. Although he and
Lautenslager claimed that for a few months before his discharge
Webb was not as careful as he had been, Moeller called him an
"outstanding employee". Both Moeller and Lautenslager admitted
that several patrons of the hotel insisted upon getting the services of
Webb even as recently as a few weeks before his discharge; this of
course makes a waiter particularly valuable to a hotel.
The -motive of the respondent in dismissing Webb finds explanation
in the attitude of the respondent to the Union. Webb has been a
member of the Union since 1928 except for a short period before
1933, and for eight months prior to his discharge was the shop
steward of the Union. As such, he collected dues and did other
work for the Union connected with that office.
Somerville and Moeller, although admitting that they knew that
Webb was a member of the Union, claimed that they did not know
that he was the shop steward. However, other evidence tends to
show that the management knew that Webb was the most active
union member in the respondent's hotel and that he was the repre-
sentative of the Union. Thus, Webb's testimony that the head
waiter, Mr. Denver, knew of his leading role in the Union remains
-uncontradicted. Likewise uncontradicted is Webb's testimony that
in a conversation in December, 1936 the chief steward, W. Sherman
Wiley, indicated to him that he was aware of his connections with
Miss Norman in helping to unionize the coffee shop waitresses, and
that the captains of the waiters knew of his leading part in the
Union by reason of his frequent attempts to induce them to join the
Union. Moreover, Lautenslager testified that he knew that Webb
,collected dues for the Union.
The,conclusion that the explanation of Webb's discharge is to be
.found in the antagonism of the respondent toward the Union becomes
-reinforced upon consideration of the circumstances surrounding the
dismissal of Mabel Norman.
B. The discharge of Mabel Norman
Mabel Norman was discharged on February 28, 1937. She had
been working in the coffee shop of the respondent for eight years
-with the exception of six months in 1935. Before she took leave in
1935 she worked on the night shift and was in a semi-supervisory
capacity in the coffee shop. When she returned in the fall of 1935
she worked on the day shift.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1101
On about December 1, 1936 Webb talked to Miss Norman about
unionization of the coffee shop waitresses. He also introduced Miss
Carter, the women's organizer for the Union, to Miss Norman. Miss
Norman thereupon started an active solicitation of membership in the
Union among the waitresses of the coffee shop with the result that
by about December 8 all of the 18 waitresses had joined the Union.
Three grievances of the waitresses against the management of the
respondent's hotel gave impetus to the unionization of the waitresses.
The most important one was the general resentment among the
waitresses against the management for compelling them to contribute
six dollars to the Community Chest while the cooks and the waiters,
who were also members of the Union, were at liberty to contribute
any, amount. It was Miss Norman who prevented the presentation
of a formal complaint by the waitresses to the management in the
matter of the contribution to the Community Chest. Another
grievance was that one of the waitresses, Mamie Harlow, was com-
pelled to pay a missing check for three dollars before she was given
an opportunity to find the check. The third grievance was the fact
that the management compelled the waitresses to pay a certain
amount from their wages to the bus boys in the coffee shop.
Soon after the waitresses joined the Union Miss Norman was
elected city chairman by the waitresses in Washington who were
members of the Union, and the officers of the Union appointed her
shop steward of the waitresses in the coffee shop.
On December 29, 1936 the waitresses in the coffee shop were pre-
sented with new individual wage contracts for the coming year.
Miss Norman and the other waitresses asked for time to consult the,
Union officers before signing the contracts. Miss Miller, the man-
ageress of the coffee shop, granted the request.. On the following
day the girls were again asked to sign the contracts by Miss Miller
and were told that if they did not sign they would be discharged.
The girls left the hotel at two o'clock without signing them but
within an hour they all returned and signed the contracts.
Mabel Norman testified at the hearing held by the Board on Jan-
uary 25, 1937 in the case arising out of the Webb discharge. Her
testimony was in conflict with that of Miss Miller with respect to one
of the issues in the case. On about February 24 John Dreos, presi-
dent, and Morris Verbov, business representative of the Union, con-
ferred with Somerville concerning terms and conditions of employ-
ment. At that time Somerville notified them that he wanted Miss
Norman replaced by another union girl; the only alternative he
offered was her discharge. He gave as the reason Miss Norman's
alleged incompetency. Dreos and Verbov asked 'for 48 hours in
1102 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which to investigate. They then called the waitresses of the coffee
shop together at Union headquarters and inquired as to Miss Nor-
man's case. Miss 'Norman was not present at the Ineeting. The
waitresses unanimously asserted that Miss Norman was a good, wait-
ress, a fact admitted by the management at the hearing, and that
the real reason for her discharge was the fact that she had testified
against the management in the Webb hearing.
In the course of the investigation conducted by the Union, Beulah
Carter, women's organizer of the Union, and Ernst B. Spangler,
secretary-treasurer of the Union, talked to Miss Miller and Miss Mary
Monroe Brim, the hostess of the coffee shop, who also had authority
to employ and discharge waitresses. Somerville joined the discus-
sion. Miss Miller admitted that Miss Norman was a good waitress,
but nevertheless objected to her attitude and complained because she
had contradicted her testimony. Miss Brim claimed that the Union
could not expect the management to keep Miss Norman after she had
organized the shop without the management's consent and after she
had testified against the management. Somerville admitted on the
stand that he was under the impression that Miss Miller told the
Union representatives that she would not work with a girl who had
testified against her. At the time, however, he was adamant in his,
insistence upon the dismissal of Miss Norman. Further conferences
between the Union representatives and Somerville failed to dislodge
Somerville from his determination.
Miss Norman was dismissed about six o'clock on Sunday night,
February 28. The circumstances surrounding her discharge are re-
,vealing. When Miss Norman asked for an explanation of the reason
for her discharge Miss Miller said that she already knew the reason.
But within the next half hour, after Miss Miller had conferred with
Somerville, she came back and told Miss Norman that the reason for
.the discharge was her incompetency. Miss Miller admitted on cross-
examination that she did not know the meaning of the word
"incompetency".
The management has assigned different reasons at different times
for the discharge of Miss Norman: Thus, incompetency was the
first reason,given by Somerville and Miss Miller for the discharge.
When, in a notice posted after the, employees went out on strike in
protest,'against the discharge, insubordination was alleged as the
reason. 1 This was repeated in the answer filed by the respondent.
At the hearing the position-of the respondent changed somewhat.
Incompetency and insubordination were no longer the gravamen.
The use' of these terms was explained on the ground that Mr. Somer-
ville and Miss Miller did not know their meaning. It was admitted
'Respondent's Exhibit No. 2.
DECISIONS' AND ORDERS, 1103
iby the management that Miss Norman's services as a waitress were
irreproachable. • No, evidence was produced of complaints by any
guests against her services. Chief emphasis was laid on her attitude
after she became shop steward. It was alleged that her attitude was
objectionable and of such a nature as to disrupt the alleged harmony
which had prevailed among the waitresses theretofore. However, the
respondent's witnesses found difficulty in testifying to specific acts or
incidents. They claimed that she was "bossy", and that she would
not talk to about five of the other girls. Incidentally, it may be men-,
tioned that the latter left the Union about the time of the first Webb
hearing, and shortly thereafter signed a petition to-the management
in which they asked that kiss Norman be discharged. In fact, the
charge that she was domineering proved principally to have reference
to the time when she was in a supervisory capacity on the night shift,
before she took her leave of absence in 1935.
Although the characteristics of Miss Norman's attitude as charged
are rather loosely defined by witnesses, they seem to have led to
serious consequences. Thus, it is claimed by witnesses on behalf
of the respondent that the nervous breakdown of a waitress, Mamie
Harlow, who left the respondent's employ on about February 14,
1937, was due to Miss Norman's failure to talk 4,o her and to the fact
that Miss Norman's testimony was in conflict with that of Miss
Miller at the Webb hearing. Another witness who testified on be-
half of the respondent intimated that she had become sick with
the grippe because of Miss Norman's attitude.
The intangible and unsubstantial character of the respondent's
charges against Miss Norman can be gathered from a consideration
of Miss Brim's testimony. Miss Brim, who admitted to a strong
anti-union bias, somehow blamed Miss Norman for the alleged in-
timidation of the girls by the Union, and testified that a persuasive
reason for their joining was that otherwise the chefs would have
spilled hot water on them or injured them in some other way. This
she could not substantiate in any way.
Another charge which was made against Miss Norman was that fol-
lowing the first Webb hearing she burlesqued the testimony of Mr.
Somerville and Miss Miller. Miss Miller admitted that she was not
particularly perturbed by this, but in any event this charge was
shown to be baseless • by the testimony of the respondent's witness,
Miss Baker, cashier of the coffee shop.
To support the respondent's charge that Miss Norman's attitude
was creating discord in the coffee shop and was disruptive of service,
the respondent introduced testimony of five girls who gave tip
membership in the Union about the time of the first hearing in the
Webb case. They,.test ified that on the day of the 'hearing they
signed a petition to 'the effect that "If it is a choice between Miss
1104 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Norman and Miss Miller we want Miss Miller and we don't want
the union". The petition was torn up by the girls after they took it
up to Mr. Somerville's office and found he was away. Soon after-
wards another petition addressed to the management was signed by
the same girls to the effect that "We, the Coffee Shop girls, would
like to settle this argument. We would like Mabel Norman to be
placed in another position. We have had nothing but trouble and
no peace of mind since we joined the union. We don't object to
the union." 2 The explanation given by the girls for signing this
petition was that they were afraid that because Miss Norman had
testified against Miss Miller, she was attempting to get Miss Miller
out of the Coffee Shop. When the contents of the intended peti-
tion were called to the attention of Mr. Somerville by the girls he
told them to take the petition to the Union. They did not do so.
Apparently the petition had value for the respondent only if it
appeared to be an independent act of the waitresses, spontaneous in
origin and uninfluenced by the management. It is therefore not
surprising that the first witnesses for the respondent, Sally Mulvey
and Angela Harrison, claimed that the petition originated with the
waitresses and that neither Mr. Somerville, Miss Brim, nor Miss
Miller knew anything about it. Subsequently this part of the re-
spondent's case collapsed entirely.3 It was reluctantly admitted
afterwards by Miss Miller, among others, that not only did she
know about the petition but that she actively solicited signatures
for it. It even appeared that in the case of one girl Miss Miller
applied pressure, though unsuccessfully, to induce her to sign the
petition.
Failure of the girls to take the petition to the Union was sought to
be explained by the belief of the signers of the petition that Miss
Carter, organizer of the Union, would do nothing about it. There-
fore, it was testified, the petition, when completed, was submitted to
Mr. Somerville between the 15th and 20th of February. Miss Miller
took the petition up to him and before he had a chance to read the
petition, Miss Miller testified, he said that he had already made up
his mind and that he would "take the bull by the horns".
The final answer to the position of the respondent that the reason
for the dismissal of Miss Norman was her objectionable attitude
is that at no time was she warned or admonished in any way and that
until the time of the dismissal no complaint was made by the man-
agement that Miss Norman's services or attitude were in any way
unsatisfactory. Mr. Somerville, Miss Brim, and Miss Miller testified
8 Respondent 's Exhibit No. 1. Norman hearing.
8It may be significant that the witnesses in behalf of the respondent not only con-
tradicted each other on many important points, but also each witness gave inconsistent
and evasive testimony , so much so that the Trial Examiner found it necessary time and
again to warn the witnesses. ..
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1105
that Miss Miller and Miss Brim continually complained to Mr.
Somerville during January about Miss Norman's attitude, that in-
deed Miss Brim even demanded the discharge of Miss Norman for
insubordination during January. However, the insubordination
consisted of Miss Norman's leadership in the contract episode of
December 29, 1936. Nevertheless, the management failed to do the:
one thing which may be expected from an employer who desires.
to achieve a harmonious relationship with his employees, to wit, call
Miss Norman's attention to her attitude and attempt to have her-
change it. Instead, as Mr. Somerville himself testified, he told Miss
Miller and Miss Brim to be patient and that everything would work
out in the end. He also warned them not to discharge or discrimi-
nate against Miss Norman because of his reluctance to face further-
charges under the Act.
C. Conclusions respecting the discharges
The articulate antagonism of the respondent to the Union serves:
as a guide to our understanding of this case. This antagonism flared
up as the result of the contract episode in December, 1936, two days
before Webb's discharge, when the complete unionization of the.
coffee shop waitresses was brought dramatically to the attention of
the management.
That this episode caused the management to take steps to oppose,
the Union is indicated by the testimony of Mabel Norman that on_
December 29, 1936 Miss Miller told her that Mr. Gilkes, assistant
manager of the hotel, upon hearing that the waitresses in the coffee
shop consulted the Union in signing the contracts, told her that it
would be necessary "to get rid of the ringleaders". The unionization
of the coffee shop girls in December, 1936 had its origin in the
approach Webb made to Miss Norman. The management knew this.
and resented it.
Miss Brim made no pretentions of hiding her sentiments in the.
matter. Miss Miller was a bit more discreet.
To look for an explanation of the discharge of Webb and Miss,
Norman in any other direction than the antagonism of the respond-
ent to the Union it would be necessary to find that it was sheer coin-
cidence that at a time when no other dismissals occurred the two most
active members of the Union, the two shop stewards, were dismissed
summarily, without previous warning, after long and excellent serv-
ice records, and for reasons which impress those examining them as.
being specious or ludicrous.
Somerville's ultimatum that the Union should replace Miss Norman
with a waitress who was a member of the Union does not indicates
that the management was friendly to the Union. The management
1106 NATIONAL LABut IIELATIONS BOARD
could not fail to comprehend that Miss Norman was the Union's
leading spirit in the coffee shop, and that the unionization of the
waitresses depended on her presence in the coffee shop. Likewise
the fact that no other union members were dismissed by the respond-
ent has little significance. The fact that the two most prominent and
active union leaders were discharged could not fail to serve as a
warning to the other employees of the respondent.
We need not decide whether the management would have dismissed
Miss Norman if she had not testified in the Webb hearing. The
record is replete with evidence that the active cause of Miss Norman's
dismissal was the management's resentment because she had testified.
We therefore find that by discharging Garland P. Webb the re-
spondent discriminated in regard to hire and tenure of employment,
and thereby discouraged membership in the labor organization known
as Hotel and Restaurant Employees Alliance, Local 781, and inter-
fered with, restrained,' and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights_guarantecl in Section 7 of the Act.
Webb was an employee of the respondent at the time of his dis-
charge and ceased work because of the aforementioned unfair labor
practices. Webb's salary, including tips, while working for the re-
spoudent, averaged $40 a week. Since his discharge he has managed
to earn an average of $20 a week. Webb therefore has not obtained
any other regular and substantially equivalent employment elsewhere
since the date of his discharge by the respondent.
We likewise conclude that the respondent discharged Mabel Nor-
man because she had given testimony under the Act in the hearing
involving Webb's discharge, and thereby interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. Mabel Norman was an employee of the re-
spondent at the time of her discharge and ceased work because of
the aforementioned unfair labor practices. Mabel Norman has not
worked at all since her discharge by the respondent and has not
obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment.
The discharge, of Webb had the intended effect on the employees.
'They became fearful lest their membership in the Union would cost
them their jobs. Thus, Angela Harrison, who testified on behalf of
the respondent, said that some time during January she asked Somer-
ville whether membership in a union would jeopardize one's job.
Also some defections from the Union occurred among the, waitresses
after Webb's discharge. At least five waitresses considered them-
selves as having ceased being members of the Union. Finally, the
discharge of Miss; Norman precipitated a sit-down strike among the
waiters, waitresses;' and cooks of the respondent with the resultant
complete interruption of its services.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1107
We find that the aforesaid acts of the respondent have led and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
within the District of Columbia and the free flow of such commerce.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact the Board makes
the following conclusions of law:
1. The Hotel and Restaurant Employees Alliance , Local 781, is a
labor organization , within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivision, (5),
of the Act.
2. Garland P. Webb and Mabel Norman are employees of the re-
spondent , within the meaning of Section 2 , subdivision (3) of the,Act.:
3. The respondent ,, by discriminating in regard ' to the , hire.and,
tenure of employment of- Garland P. Webb, -has engaged in, and ,is
engaging in unfair labor practices , within . the meaninggpf , Section'8,.
subdivision ( 3), of the Act.
4. The respondent , by discharging Mabel Norman ,because, she.had.
given testimony under;the National Labor Relations. Act; has, engaged'
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the meaning of,
Section 8 , subdivision (4) of the Act.
5. By interfering- with, restraining , and coercing its; employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the , Act,, ;the,
respondent has, engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 , subdivision , ( 1) of the Act.—
6. The aforesaid unfair practices are unfair labor ,practices affect,
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2, subdivisions (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
.of law and pursuant to Section 10, subdivision (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the respondent, Willard, Inc., and its officers, agents,
successors and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Discouraging membership in Hotel and Restaurant Employees
Alliance, Local 781, or any other labor organization of its employees,
by discharging, refusing to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating
against its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment,or
-any term or condition of employment;
(b) Discharging, refusing to reinstate, or otherwise discriminating
against an employee because he has given testimony under the
National Labor Relations Act;
5727-37-vol. 11-71
1108 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form,
join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective- bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Garland P. Webb and Mabel Norman, and to each
of them, immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions
with all rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make whole
said employees for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of
their discharge by payment to each of them, respectively, of a sum of
money equal to that which each would normally have earned during
the period from the date of his or her discharge to the date of such
offer of reinstatement, computed on the basis of their respective
weekly wages, plus an amount equal to the average weekly tips re-
ceived by each of them, respectively, during a period of three months
prior to the date of discharge, less any amounts earned subsequent to
the date of discharge;
(b) Post notices in conspicuous places in its place 'of business
stating that : (1) The respondent will cease and. desist in the manner
aforesaid; and (2) That such notices will remain posted for a period
of at least thirty (30) consecutive days from the date of posting;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the date of this order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.