The O'Hare Hilton

THE O'HARE HILTON 255 Hilton Hotels Corporation, d/b/a The O'Hare Hilton and William St. Jacques. Case 13-CA- 18565 March 11, 1980 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBER JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE On December 3, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Stanley N. Ohlbaum issued the attached De- cision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in answer to Respon- dent's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find- ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Hilton Hotels Corporation, d/b/a The O'Hare Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recom- mended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi- bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con- vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all sides had the opportu- nity to present evidence and cross-examine wit- nesses, the National Labor Relations Board has decide that we have violated the National Labor 248 NLRB No. 31 Relations Act, and has ordered us to post this notice. We intend to abide by the following. The National Labor Relations Act gives all employees the right: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through represen- tatives of your own choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline, or fail to reinstate any employee, or threaten to do so, because he or she lawfully carries out his or her proper responsibilities on your behalf as your union steward; or because he or she oth- erwise engages in lawful union activity, or ex- ercises any right under the National Labor Re- lations Act. WE WILL NOT discharge, discipline or fail to reinstate any employee, or threaten to do so, because he or she has filed charges or given testimony against us under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through representatives of your own choosing; to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purposes of collective bargain- ing or other mutual aid or protection; or to re- frain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer to William St. Jacques im- mediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to his former job with us at The O'Hare Hilton or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub- stantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights, privileges, bene- fits, and emoluments, including wage proges- sions and increases; WE WILL make him whole for any loss of income, benefits, and emolu- ments (including tips, overtime, holiday and vacation pay, time off, and hospitalization and all other insurance benefits), plus interest, from the date we discharged him (March 19, 1979); and WE WILL eliminate from his file and our records all indications that he was discharged for cause, and WE WILL in no way indicate upon inquiry to us that he was discharged for cause. All our employees have the right to representa- tion of their interests by their union stewards to the full extent permitted by law, and also to exercise any other right under the National Labor Relations T H E O'H A R E HIL T O N 255~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act, as they see fit, without any interference, re- straint, or coercion from us. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, D/B/ A THE O'HARE HILTON DECISION I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT; ISSUE STANLEY N. OHLBAUM, Administrative Law Judge: This proceeding' under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein the Act), was heard before me in Chicago, Illinois, on October 2 and 3, 1979, with all parties participating throughout by counsel, who were afforded full opportunity to present evidence and argu- ments, as well as to file post-trial briefs received on No- vember 26, 1979. The issues presented are whether, in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) of the Act, Respondent Employ- er threatened the Charging Party, William St. Jacques,2 a union steward of a recognized bargaining unit of Re- spondent's employees, with discharge, issued a written warning to him, discharged and continues to refuse to re- instate him for engaging in union and protected concert- ed activities. Upon the entire record and my observation of the tes- timonial demeanor of the witnesses, I make the follow- ing: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS II. JURISDICTION At all material times Respondent has been and is a Delaware corporation in the hotel and restaurant busi- ness, including a hotel and restaurant known as The O'Hare Hilton at O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois, the facility here involved. During the representa- tive calendar year immediately preceding issuance of the complaint, in the regular course and conduct of its busi- ness at The O'Hare Hilton, Respondent derived gross revenues exceeding $500,000 and purchased, from enter- prises engaged in interstate commerce, goods valued in excess of $5,000. I find that (as admitted in Respondent's answer) at all material times Respondent has been and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act; and that at all of those times Hotel, Motel, Club, Cafeteria, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 450 (herein the Union), has been and is a labor organization as defined by Section 2(5) of the Act. A complaint was issued by the Regional Director for Region 13 on May 9, 1979, growing out of charge filed by the Charging Party on March 23, 1979, as amended April 9, 1979. Unspecified dates are in 1979 throughout. I Apparently this is the correct spelling of the Charging Party's name. See Resp. Exh. 4. II111. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts as Found Charging Party William St. Jacques has been in Re- spondent's employ as a dining room waiter at The O'Hare Hilton for 5 or 6 years, and was the union ste- ward for a recognized collective-bargaining unit there for around 4 years until his discharge on March 19 by his supervisor, Respondent's director of food and bever- age, Andy Papoutsis, under circumstances to be described.During the first week of March, at or around midnight, as he was readying to go home after work, St. Jacques received a complaint from an Hispanic busboy member of the bargaining unit for which St. Jacques was union steward, that-in variation from past practice-he had been refused something to eat in the employees' cafeteria at the end of his midnight shift. Prior to this, busboys as well as waiters had received a meal before the start of their shift (4:30 p.m.) and a sandwich at the end of their 8-hour shift (midnight).3 St. Jacques went to the cafeteria with the busboy. There he was told by part- time cashier Willa Burrows that the busboy had already eaten and, unlike waiters, was not entitled to eat again. St. Jacques thereupon tendered his own meal card to Burrows and asked her to give St. Jacques' food to the busboy, which she did. St. Jacques thereafter reported this complaint incident to Executive Chef Wieland Ludwig, and possibly as well to newly installed Dining Room Manager David Varnagates. Shortly thereafter, on March 14, just before the start of the 4:30 p.m. shift, St. Jacques was chatting with other waiters, unit members, at a table in the employees' cafeteria, when Executive Chef Ludwig entered and, calling out to St. Jacques by name, told him, "I have orders from . . . the Food and Beverage Manager [Pa- poutsis] . . . that no longer will there be two meals fed in this cafeteria to the employees, and they don't care what the union has to say about it." St. Jacques' response 3 Upon the basis of credited testimony of St. Jacques, Christopher, and Cerezo, I find the foregoing to have been the established practice up to about this time-i.e., a meal at 4 p.m. Oust prior to 4:30 p.m. shift start) and a sandwich (with or without salad) at midnight. Although Respon- dent claims it maintained posted on the employees' bulletin board a notice dated January 30, 1975, on "Employee Meal Policy" (Resp. Exh. 5A-B) under which "Food and Beverage Employees" were "entitled" to only one "meal" (unlike other categories of employees, no "per day" or work period specified), credited proof establishes that (1) this notice was not in fact maintained posted on the bulletin board or otherwise brought to the attention of the waiters and busboys and (2) actual practice was to provide waiters and busboys with a meal at 4 p.m., and a sandwich (with salad) at the midnight shift end. Indeed, the unposted January 30, 1975, document itself is not inconsistent with the foregoing actual practice, since it merely speaks of "entitled" and "meal," and specifies no "per day" or worktimne period for "Food & Beverage Employees" (Resp. Exh. 5B). The collective agreement (Resp. Exh. I) provides that "Meals shall be provided for all regular, steady extra, and extra employees on duty" (id., p. 30, par. A(5), "working conditions" provisions applicable to waiters and busboys), that "No employee shall . . . be deprived of any established and recognized benefits or privileges in excess of or more ad- vantageous than the contract provisions" (id., p. 6, sec. 9), and that "The Employer . . . will continue to tender meals on the Employer's premises to employees presently receiving meals" (id., p. 8, sec. 15). Respondent's employees are issued cafeteria identification cards (Resp. Exh. 6) bearing not only dates, but also additional "X" marks in a separate column, which credited testimony establishes were for shift-end sandwich, where availed of. THE O'HARE HILTON 257 was, "Look, this isn't my argument. I've got two dimes [i.e., for a telephone call] in my pocket. I'll call the union and you can argue it out with them." 4 Later, around 8 p.m., Respondent's Director of Food and Beverage Pa- poutsis took occasion to remind St. Jacques that Papout- sis was "running the food and beverage operation at the hotel as [1] see fit," adding that he did not "give a sh- what the union had to say or the goddam[n] Labor Board." 5 A few days later, on March 19, when he came to work, St. Jacques was informed by a waiter that there was a letter for him on a table, in open view, near where waiters sign in; and, at a regular work assignment meet- ing around 4:45 (15 minutes before opening of the dining room), St. Jacques was handed that letter (G.C. Exh. 2) by Dining Room Manager Varnagates. The letter, dated March 19, is from Director of Food and Beverage Pa- poutsis, and states that St. Jacques had been "reprimand- ed" on March 14 in relation to the aforedescribed busboy incident, which Papoutsis characterized as "threatening and discussing union procedures and policies" and a "misinterpretation of the union contract," and that Pa- poutsis' letter was intended to "serve as a repromand [sic] notice and final warning that should the above named employee interfere with management by threaten- ing, he will be immediately terminated." Upon receipt of this letter, 6 St. Jacques went to work as usual.7 At the 4 There is a degree of testimonial conflict as to whether voices were raised during the described discussions or remarks concerning the bus- boy's sandwich. In view of the record, which establishes that at least Ex- ecutive Chef Ludwig's voice was "raised." I find it unnecessary to at- tempt to quantitate the comparative decibel count or to qualitate the voice qualities of the participants, since I believe that St. Jacques' voice did not reach unacceptable levels or jarring timbres, and I am persuaded that in any event it was not these factors which cost him his job. I About a year earlier, St. Jacques had filed a charge with the Board based upon Respondent's alleged write-up of a waiter for being a "trou- blemaker" and complaining to St. Jacques as union steward Promptly following his filing of this charge, according to St. Jacques, he himself became the recipient of several "misconduct notice[s]." St Jacques with- drew the charge he had filed with the Board. 6 St. Jacques was also given an "Employee Misconduct Notice," like- wise dated March 19, concerning an alleged absence from a "required Dept. meeting" on March 9, although (according to the same notice) he "was not scheduled to work this day" (Resp. Exh. 3). St. Jacques' uncon- troverted credited testimony establishes that he had never been required to attend a meeting on a nonwork day, and had never been so informed. The collective agreement provides that though the Employer may sched- ule such meetings on a time-and-a-half pay basis, "special meetings of the employees . . shall be held on the employees' scheduled work shift" (Resp. Exh. 1, pp. 6-7, Sec. 10) and that "All employees shall be entitled to two (2) consecutive days off during each work week" (id., p. II11, sec. 25(b)). In any event, I find, as in effect conceded by Respondent, as shown below, that this "misconduct notice"-which St. Jacques received in company with two other waiters- was not the reason for his dis- charge. I Although there is some testimony (from Respondent's Dining Room Supervisor Diane Cerasani and Dining Room Manager Varnagates, as well as Papoutsis, based on reports of concededly unwitnessed alleged occurrences) that St. Jacques was lolling on his job on the evening of March 19 and-in the words of Cerasani-creating "tension" and "trou- ble," which she promptly reported to Papoutsis as well as Varnagates, upon the basis of the overwhelming weight of credited testimony (St. Jacques, Takahashi, Christopher, and Flores) to the contrary, I find that St. Jacques carried out his duties that evening in his normal and accept- able fashion. (It is further noted that St. Jacques' alleged inattention to his work is nowhere reflected in any writing or report; and that it is con- ceded no customer complaint was received concerning his performance that evening.) Concerning Respondent's claim that St. Jacques was dis- conclusion of dinner, around 10 p.m., St. Jacques was di- rected by Dining Room Manager Varnagates to change to his street clothes and accompany him to the office of Food and Beverage Director Papoutsis, where, in the presence of Assistant Food and Beverage Director Virgi- lio Madridejos and Dining Room Manager Varnagates, he was summarily discharged by Papoutsis, who told him," [You are] through as of [this evening] . .. [You have] not been on [my] team since the time [you went] to the Labor Board . . .. [You] would find employment elsewhere better."8 St. Jacques was told his final pay- check would be ready the next day. He was thereupon escorted to his locker, where he turned in his company property, and left. Testifying that he discharged Union Steward St. Jac- ques because of his "disruptions .... interference . . . antagonistic attitude and anti-management attitude . . . over the last four years"-"reasons" which he concedes went beyond his termination memorandum to the file (G.C. Exh. 4), Food and Beverage Director Papoutsis also testified that he found Union Steward St. Jacques' activities to be "disrespectful," as well as "disrupting" and "antagonistic" to management, and Papoutsis ex- pressly conceded that if the aforedescribed incident involving the disputed food to the busboy had not occurred, he would not have discharged St. Jacques at the time he did-Pa- poutsis' answer to this qestion was, "No, sir, definitely not." This incident thus stands acknowledged as the tributing leaflets to his coworkers in the O'Hare Room on the evening in question (testimony of Assistant Food and Beverage Director Madride- jos), not only was this not testified to as having been observed by Dining Room Supervisor Cerasani (to whom the report was attributed by Madri- dejos, who did not himself witness it and who conceded on cross-exami- nation that Cerasani did not tell him she saw it either), but the over- whelming weight of credited evidence (St. Jacques, Takahashi, Christo- pher, and Flores) is to the contrary, that no such thing took place. (What did take place was that during breaktime assistant steward-waiter Takaha- shi had requested a cashier to make a few photocopies of Respondent's letter given to St. Jacques earlier that evening (G.C. Eah. 2), which the cashier later did and delivered-unobtrusively and not so as to interfere with work activity.) I accordingly also reject, as contrary to fact and without basis, the allegations of Papoutsis' postdischarge March 23 memorandum to the file (G.C. Exh. 4), seemingly seeking to lend "record" memorialization to the foregoing canard that St. Jacques was circulating his warning notice and a petition-even though even that would presumably have been lawful under the Act if not during work- time or in customer-tended areas. a Papoutsis' version of the discharge interview is somewhat different. Denying that he referred to the Board, Papoutsis claims he merely told St. Jacques, "We have really tried with you ... [butl you have not been part of our team. You have undermined [sic] us You have tried to under- cut management. You have not really tired to play in our ball park You have bad mouthed every decision that we have made. You have been a real problem . .. We warned you a couple of days ago, if you have a problem, to go to your supervisor to discuss it, not to discuss it in front of all of the employees. But you do not-you do not listen. You haven't been part of our team, and we will part company. This will be your last day with us." According to Respondent's witness, Assistant Food and Beverage Manager Madridejos, who was present, Papoutsis discharged St. Jacques because (as Papoutsis stated to St. Jacques) he had become "so antagonistic and trying to be so anti-management." Upon compara- tive testimonial demeanor observations, I prefer and credit St Jacques' version as recounted above. In this connection, although Papoutsis insists he had "never mentioned" the Labor Board to employees, uncontrovert- ed credited rebuttal testimony of Respondent's waiter Takahashi estab- lishes that at an all-shift employee assemblage convoked in early March Papoutsis informed all waiters and busboys that "as far as the union and the Labor Board is concerned, they have nothing to do with the dining room or the Hilton." THE OHARE HILTON 257 258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cause for St. Jacques' discharge, and I find that but for it St. Jacques would not have been discharged. 9 B. Resolution and Rationale This case thus involves the summary discharge of a union steward hot on the heels of his intercession on behalf of a non-English-speaking member of his bargain- ing unit to ascertain why the latter was being denied the sandwich which unit members had been served for years at the end of their 8-hour shift at midnight. Without need to determine the question of the unit employees' legal en- titlement to the shift-end sandwich or why it was denied to the particular busboy (or whether across-the-board denial was in the offing, contrary to previously estab- lished practice), it is certainly clear that St. Jacques' ac- tions in questioning the change in practice constituted concerted activity within the Act's protection (cf. N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Company, 370 U.S. 9 (1962)), and, indeed, his duty as union steward as well as his express respondsibility under the collective agreement (Resp. Exh. 1, p. 19, sec. 32, and p. 21, sec. 39(a)), for which he was insulated from discharge not only by the Act but also by express provision of the collective agree- ment (Resp. Exh. 1, p. 18, sec. 32, final sentence). It fol- lows that his discharge for this reason-as explicitly con- ceded by Respondent's Food and Beverage Director Pa- poutsis, who testified that St. Jacques would "definitely not" have been discharged if that incident had not oc- curred-is violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and, since it comprised discrimination against St. Jacques, as well as other employees, to chill protected union organi- zational activity, also violative of Section 8(a)(3). Finally, Papoutsis' statement to St. Jacques at the time of his dis- charge that that action was related to his having filed charges against Respondent under the Act, causing him to be scratched from its "team," was clearly in violation of Section 8(a)(4). In its union steward discharge aspect, this case is remi- niscent of Guerdon Industries, 199 NLRB 937 (1972), where, also, a union steward was discharged for an act of good samaritanship as well as good stewardship on another employee's behalf. It is not established by sub- stantial credible evidence here that St. Jacques carried out those responsibilities in other than a lawful and proper manner. While it may well be that Respodent was irked at and displeased by what it regarded as St. Jac- ques' "disrupting" and "antagonistic interference" with management in this regard, and while Respondent may well have been distressed over an imagined or real "ten- sion" which it attributed to St. Jacques in this respect- sentiments which Respondent is at liberty to entertain privately-it is plain that Respondent could not lawfully terminate St. Jacques for these reasons, since they in- volved no more than his exercise of rights guaranteed to employees by Congress under the Act. As stated in Jack August Enterprises, Inc., 232 NLRB 881, 899 (1977), enfd. 9 Based upon the quoted explicit testimonial admission by Papoutsis, as well as upon other factors (e.g., collective agreement, Resp. Exh. 1, p. 21, sec. 37, par. 2) and the record as a whole, I reject any contention that alleged historical disciplinary slips (Resp. Exh. 2A-E) dredged from his file-mostly unacknowledged and unsigned by St. Jacques-in years antedating St. Jacques' discharge, caused that discharge. 583 F.2d 575 (Ist Cir. 1978), wherein an employer also discharged an employee because the employee's protect- ed activities created a "tension" among other employees which the employer regarded as intolerable, "An em- ployee's assertion or exercise of rights under the Act is not contingent upon their being nontension-producing." Even an employee who is "dissident and annoying" by reason of his protected concerted activities is not exempt from the Act's protection. Duo-Bed Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 337 F.2d 850, 851 (10th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 380 U.S. 912 (1965); cf. N.L.R.B. v. Hudson Motor Car Co., 128 F.2d 528, 531-533 (6th Cir. 1942). Finally, any sugges- tion that St. Jacques' discharge, under the described cir- cumstances, was justified by reason of Papoutsis' alleged reliance on reports of subordinates-here found to have been erroneous and unfounded-concerning St. Jacques' steps in the course of pursuit of the very matter for which he was discharged, must fail, since in the course of protected concerted activity "[a] protected activity acquires a precarious status if innocent employees can be discharged while engaging in it, even though the em- ployer acts in good faith." N.L.R.B. v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21, 23 (1964). It is, accordingly, upon the entire record, determined that by its described actions as found Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, I state the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Jurisdiction is properly asserted in this proceeding. 2. By engaging in the actions hereinabove described and found in section III, supra, Respondent has: a. Interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employ- ees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7, and has thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. b. Discriminated in regard to hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment, to discourage member- ship in a labor organization, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. c. Discharged and discriminated against an employee because he filed charges or gave testimony under the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(4) of the Act. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices and each of them have affected, affect, and unless permanently re- strained and enjoined will continue to affect, commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Respondent should be ordered to refrain from continu- ing to violate the Act in the respects found or in any like or related manner, to post the usual notice to Employees, and to offer discharged Union Steward St. Jacques rein- statement to his former job or, if it no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his se- niority and emoluments, together with backpay and in- terest, to be computed as explicated by the Board in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962); F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). Respondent should be required to preserve and make available to the THE O'HARE HILTON 259 Board's agents its records for backpay computation and compliance determination. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, there is hereby issued the following: ORDER' ° It is hereby ordered that the Respondent Hilton Hotels Corporation, d/b/a The O'Hare Hilton, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, terminating the employment of, laying off, furloughing, suspending, or otherwise in violation of the Act altering the employment status of or disciplining any employee, or threatening to do so, or failing or re- fusing to recall, reinstate, or rehire any employee, be- cause he or she engages in or carries out his or her lawful responsibilities as a union steward of and for a collective-bargaining unit of Respondent's employees, or because he or she has exercised, or proposes to exercise, or continues to exercise any right under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended; or directly or indirect- ly so doing, or threatenting to do so, so as to discrimi- nate in regard to the hire, tenure, or terms or conditions of employment of any employee because he or she exer- cises or proposes to exercise or continues to exercise such right or engage in such activity, or so as to inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exer- cise of any right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. (b) Discharging, terminating the employment of, laying off, furloughing, suspending, or otherwise in vio- lation of the Act altering the employment status of or disciplining any employee, or threatening so to do, or making coercive or intimidating statements to him or her, or failing or refusing to recall, reinstate, or rehire such employee, because he or she has filed charges or given testimony under the Act. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; to form, join, or assist any labor organization; to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing; to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; or to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement lawfully requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Dis- closure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: 'O In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes (a) Offer to William St. Jacques immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job with Respondent, without prejudice to his seniority and other rights, privileges, benefits, and emoluments, includ- ing but not limited to any pay and wage rate increases to comparable employees since Respondent's discharge of St. Jacques; and make St. Jacques whole for any loss of income, benefits, and emoluments, including tips, over- time, holiday and vacation pay, and time off, and hospi- talization, medical and other insurance claims and bene- fits, both personal and derivative and dependents' if any, and expenditures in lieu thereof during any noncoverage period until his reinstatement hereunder, together with interest, in the manner set forth in "The Remedy" por- tion of the Decision of which this recommended Order forms a part. (b) Expunge from all of Respondent's books and re- cords any entry or mention indicating or to the effect that the termination of William St. Jacques was because of any contravention or infraction of any of Respon- dent's rules, requirements, or policies, or because of any fault or work-related deficiency or shortcoming on his part; and refrain from making any such report or state- ment voluntarily or in response to any inquiry from any employer, prospective employer, employment agency, unemployment insurance office, union, or reference- seeker or inquiry. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, wage rate and other records, work schedules, production reports and data, restaurant checks and receipts data, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re- cords and entries necessary to determine the amounts of backpay and other sums and benefits due under and the extent of compliance with the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its premises at O'Hare International Air- port, Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized represen- tative, shall be posted in said premises by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. " In the event that 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 National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu- ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." THE O'HARE HILTON 259