Willard Hotel

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.