Irwin & Wafford

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Room 2033 , Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Telephone 684-3627. Dale Irwin, Woody Irwin, and Granville E. Wafford d/b/a Irwin & Wafford and Food & Drug Clerks Local 1092, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association , AFL-CIO. Case 36- CA-1488. October 26,1966 DECISION AND ORDER On July 20, 1966, Trial Examiner James R. Webster issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief, and the Charging Party filed exceptions and a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with his case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.] [The Board further ordered that the complaint be dismissed inso- far as it alleges violations not specifically found.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case was heard before Trial Examiner James R. Webster in Portland, Oregon, on May 12 and 13, 1966, on a complaint of the General Counsel and answer of Dale Irwin, Woody Irwin, and Granville E. Wafford dlb/a Irwin & Wafford, herein called Respondent . The complaint was issued on March 28, 1966, upon a charge filed on January 19, 1966, and amended on March 11, 1966. The complaint alleges that the Respondent terminated employee George Volk on or about February 10, 1966, and threatened, restrained , and coerced employees , thereby violating Section 8 (a)(1) and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. 161 NLRB No. 43. IRWIN & WAFFORD 525 Briefs have been filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent and have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the wit- nesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Dale Irwin, Woody Irwin, and Granville E. Wafford are partners doing business under the trade name of Irwin & Wafford. Respondent is engaged in the operation of three retail food stores in and near the city of Portland, Oregon. The store located at 13580 South East Powell Boulevard is the only store involved in these proceedings. During the past year Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations in Portland, Oregon, has sold and distributed products of a gross value exceeding $629,000. During the same period Respondent received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly or indirectly from outside the State of Oregon. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Food & Drug Clerks Local 1092, affiliated with Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefactory statement and issues On March 12, 1965, Respondent filed a petition (Case 36-RM-354) for an election among its employees to determine if they desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Union. On August 23, 1965, the Board directed elections in two separate units found to be appropriate, and on January 13, 1966, elections were conducted pursuant to said direction. On or about January 19, 1966, the Union filed timely objections to the conduct of the election. In unit 1, there were four voters-one casting a ballot for the Union, one casting a ballot against the Union and two ballots were challenged by the Union. In unit 2, of three eligible voters, one ballot was cast for the Union, and two ballots were challenged by the Union. The Union commenced picketing at Respondent's store in the latter part of November 1965; picketing has continued to the date of the hearing herein. Harold E. Carlson, secretary of the Oregon Independent Retail Grocers Asso- ciation, has assisted and advised Respondent in matters of labor relations and has acted on behalf of Respondent and as its agent in the matters involved in these proceedings. On December 1, 1965, Harold Carlson caused Lon Imel, an agent of the Union, to leave Respondent's parking area in front of its stone involved in this case. Their encounter was observed by employee George Volk. On January 19, 1966, the Union filed charges against Respondent alleging that by "assaulting a Union representative" and by other conduct Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. On or about January 27 and February 9, 1966, Dale Irwin, manager of the store involved, took employee Volk to the offices of the Board in Portland, Oregon, for the purpose of having him give information pertaining to the matters contained in the charge. On February 11, 12, and 13, 1966, employee George Volk did not report for work. The issues in this case are: 1. Did Harold Carlson's conduct in his encounter with Lon Imel on Decem- ber 1, 1965, constitute an interference, restraint, or coercion of employees? 2. On January 27 and February 9, 1966, did Respondent through Agent Carlson interfere with, restrain, or coerce employee Volk in the matter of giving evidence to an agent of the Board in the investigation of the charge filed herein? 3. Was employee Volk terminated on February 10, 1966, because he gave testi- mony under the Act, or did he voluntarily quit his employment? 4. On February 12, 1966, did Respondent through Agent Carlson violate the Act by statements made to Mrs. Volk? 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. The encounter of December 1, 1965 Respondent operates a grocery store and a hardware store in a building on the corner of South East Powell Boulevard and 135th Street, near Portland, Oregon. The store is set back from Powell Boulevard far enough to permit head-in parking along the length of the building. The parking area is leased by Respondent with the building. The county of Multnomah owns approximately 3 or 4 feet along the side of Powell Boulevard, but this is used as part of the off-street parking area. It is on this strip of land, which is paved and appears to constitute part of the parking area, that the picket walks from one end of the food store to a point even with the partition separating the food store and the hardware store. The picket does not traverse the area in front of the hardware store. On December 1, 1965, a Seven-Up Bottling Company driver was making a delivery to the hardware store. He had backed his truck in front of the hardware store. At approximately 3:15 p.m., Union Agent Lon Imel brought a person to picket the food store, to relieve the person who was then engaged in picketing. While at the premises he approached the driver of the Seven-Up delivery truck. While talking to this driver, he was standing in the parking area of Respondent approximately 1 or 2 feet from the county property. He was observed by Dale Irwin and by Harold Carlson. Carlson told Irwin that Imel was on Respondent's property and that he had no right to be there and he asked Irwin if Irwin would like for him to order Imel off Respondent's property. Irwin answered in the affirmative and Carlson in a very excited and incensed manner approached Imel. He was waving his arms in the air and telling. Imel that he was trespassing on private property and illegally interfering with business and if he did not leave, he (Carlson) would call the sheriff's office and have him arrested. As he approached Imel, Imel began to back away and Carlson gave him a small push or shove. Imel then walked over to where the picket was walking, which was in the 3- or 4-foot strip of the parking area not covered by Respondent's lease and constituting county property.' The sheriff's office was called and an investigation conducted. No charges were filed. Employee Volk observed the encounter between Carlson and Imel through the glass window at the front of the grocery store. He did not hear their conversa- tion. He later saw Carlson talking to a deputy sheriff. C. Volk's testimony to the Board agent On January 27, 1966, Store Manager Dale Irwin asked Volk to go to the office of the Board in Portland for the purpose of giving a statement regarding the original charge filed herein by the Union on January 19. Before going to the Board office he took Volk to the office of Carlson. Carlson asked Volk if he had seen any "run-in" between himself and the union agent; Volk replied that he had not. Carlson then advised him that if he signed anything at the Board office to be sure and wait and get a copy of it and bring it back to Carlson. Volk was then taken by Irwin to the Boaid office and was interviewed by Board Agent Strumpf. Irwin waited outside. Volk told Strumpf that he did not want to get involved in the matter and that he was just a working man trying to make a living. He gave no statement to the Board agent and walked out. He and Irwin went back to meet Carlson, and Carlson asked Volk if he had signed anything. Volk replied that he had not. That evening while Volk was at work at the store, Carlson called him on the telephone and asked him again if he had signed anything at the Board office. Volk again replied in the negative. Carlson asked him if he had mentioned anything about the pushing incident, and Volk replied that he had not. On February 9, 1966, Irwin again talked to Volk about giving information to a Board agent on the matters set forth in the chaige. Again they met Carlson before going to the Board office in Portland. Carlson showed Volk an affidavit that he was going to give to the Board and he asked Volk to read it over carefully. Volk did so and then went to the Board office alone and was interviewed by Strumpf. 1 Carlson denies any physical contact with Imel "as far as [he] can recall ," but lie also testified , "I felt very keenly that Mr. Imel had been trespassing on [Respondent's] property repeatedly, and I felt very strongly about ejecting him from the property. I felt very strongly it was my obligation to do so." Imel and the Seven-Up driver testtified that there was a push or a shove ; Volk testified , "It was kind of a shove , but I never thought that it was-you know, I thought it was just a gesture more ." On evaluation of all testi- mony and witnesses on the point , I find there was a small shove or push. IRWIN & WAFFORD 527 On this occasion he did tell Strumpf what he had seen on December 1, 1965, in the encounter between Carlson and Imel. After the interview he returned to a hotel to meet Irwin and Carlson. Carlson asked him if he had signed anything, and Volk replied that he had not and that he told the Board agent the same as he had the first time. D. The events of February 10-14, 1966 Volk's normal workweek was from Wednesday through Sunday, with Monday and Tuesday off. He worked on the second shift with hours from 4 p.m. to mid- night, although he usually reported to the store earlier than 4 p.m. On Sunday mornings he worked the first shift and reported to the store at 7 a.m., and on some occasions he worked a day shift during the week. Store Manager Irwin works the first shift on all days except Sundays. On Thursday, February 10, 1966, Irwin, on his way to bowl, returned to the store at about 8.30 p.m. and told Volk that he wanted him to open up the following morning, that is, to report at 7 a.m. rather than in the afternoon. Again at about 11:45 p.m. Irwin, after bowling, returned to the store and told Volk that he was not to total up the daily sheet the next morning, that is, he was not to "tabulate our bottles, over-rings, refunds and any miscellaneous cash," and enter these tabu- lations on the "daily sheets," but that he was to spend his time putting away the accumulation of new stock. He then left. At midnight Volk closed the store; he put the money in the safe as was customary, leaving in the front part of the safe the amount necessary for the person opening the store the next morning to make change. The next day Volk did not report for work. About 8 a.m. Granville Wafford, one of the partners, attempted to telephone the store and was unable to get any answer. He then called Irwin and reported that he had been unable to get any answer at the store. Irwin hurried to the store and opened it for business. He then called Carlson about the matter. Carlson suggested that a letter be written to Volk asking if he intended to report for work. The following letter was dispatched special delivery that afternoon and was delivered to the Volk residence that evening: (Irwin got no answer on his telephone call to Volk's residence that morning.) Mr. George Volk 203 S.E. 75th Portland, Oregon Dear George: You did not show up for work at 7 a.m. this morning. Will you please let me know whether or not you misunderstood or whether there was some reason why you did not come to work. This position is still open and available to you. But I will have to know whether or not you intend to report to work and I would appreciate it if you would let me know. Please let [me] know if you will report for work at 4 p.m. on Saturday, February 12. Yours truly, Dale Irwin On Friday evening after this letter was received by Volk, Mrs. Volk called Irwin and inquired as to why they had received the letter. Irwin asked her if Volk was coming back to work and she replied that she did not know, that he was ill and she did not know whether it was the flu or "whether it's the whole mess that's going on." On Saturday, February 12, Mrs. Volk went to the store and talked with Irwin. She told him she guessed that Volk was not coming back to work, that the way he understood it, he had been laid off and that he was mad because of what happened on Wednesday night, and that she wanted to get her husband's check. Irwin replied that he could not understand why Volk was not planning to return to work and that he wished Volk would come in and talk with him about it. At about this time Carlson came to the store on another matter. Irwin told Carlson what Mrs. Volk had said to him, and Carlson told her that charges had been made by the Union that Volk had been discharged and that if her husband was not coming back to work, he should write a letter that he resigned and had not been discharged before he could get his check, that for his own good and his future he should not have a blackmark of a discharge on his record, that Irwin could make it 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hard for Volk to get a job elsewhere. Irwin repeated that he wanted to talk to Volk. Mrs. Volk said she would take it up with her husband and she left .2 On Monday morning, February 14, 1966, Volk telephoned Irwin and told him he was quitting and that he was sending his wife down to the store with the keys. Irwin asked Volk to come to the store and talk to him. Volk and his wife then came to the store. Irwin asked Volk if he had been happy working for him and Volk replied that he had been. Irwin asked him what the problem was, and Volk said that it was "the mess that was going on that was upsetting him." Irwin told him he was sure it would be over before long and that Volk's job was still open if he wanted it. Volk agreed to return to work, which he did on Wednesday, Febru- ary 16, 1966. He was paid for all of the prior workweek, including Friday, Satur- day and Sunday. On March 11, 1966, an amended charge was filed in this case adding as an unfair labor practice the alleged termination of Volk on February 10. A copy of this charge was served on Respondent several days later. Shortly thereafter Dale Irwin called Volk into his office for a conversation about the matter. Prior to this con- versation however, he talked with his attorney and with Harold Carlson. His attorney, Gunther Krause, advised him not to threaten or coerce Volk and sug- gested that it might be advisable to make a record of the conversation. Irwin secured a tape recorder from Harold Carlson which he placed on his desk and turned on as he and Volk entered his office on or about March 23, 1966. He told Volk that he had received a letter from the Board setting forth that on or about February 10, 1966, he had discharged Volk in retaliation for having given evidence adverse to the employer in the course of a Board investigation ; that he had asked his attorney if he could talk to Volk about the matter, and his attorney said that he could; that for his own protection he wanted of make a recording; that Volk could say anything he wanted to say, but he did not have to say a word and could walk out .3 During the conversation Irwin attempted to explain to Volk that he had not been fired on February 10, and he suggested that Volk go to the Board office and give a statement to this effect so that the matter could be resolved without a hear- ing. Volk acknowledged that he may have misunderstood Irwin on February 10, but stated that "the way I understood it, what you said about the books and every- thing, well, you know, maybe I was through, was the way I figured it." Volk repeated throughout the conversation that he did not want to get involved in the matter; that it was a matter between Irwin and the Union; that he wanted to remain neutral; that if they had to go to a hearing, they would have to subpena him to get him there; that he did not want to go down to the Board office; that he did not want to have anything to do with the Board, the Union, or Carlson. Finally, Volk said that rather than get implicated in this matter, he would find another job. They then left the office to get coffee. This conversation occurred about 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 23, 1966. Volk was due to start work that day at 4 p.m., but he told Irwin that he was going to see Board Agent Strumpf and get the matter straightened out. He left and did not return. That evening his wife took the store keys to Irwin and Volk quit his employment with Respondent. 2 Carlson denies that he heard Mrs. Volk ask for her husband 's paycheck ( for the 2 days be had worked that pay period), but he was not present during much of her conversation with Irwin ; Irwin repeated her conversation to him. Carlson 's testimony of his statements to Mrs. Volk on this occasion does not include that the paycheck was conditioned upon a letter of resignation nor that Irwin could make it hard on Volk in securing employment elsewhere ; their testimony varies in this respect, but he does not specifically deny her testimony to this effect. Her testimony on these points is consistent with Carlson's effort to secure a letter of resignation with which to meet the charge of the Union that Volk had been discharged I credit her testimony on these points. Carlson does not state how he knew of the Union's contention on Volk ; the amended charge was not filed until March 11, 1966. s Volk testified that be did not notice the tape recorder until sometime during the course of their conversation, and that a telephone book was on top of it. Irwin testified that the tape recorder was in the middle of his desk and in the open at all times From the loca- tion of the tape recorder and the statement of Irwin regarding the recording , I find that the recording was made openly and not secretively. IRWIN & WAFFORD 529 E. Conclusions Respondent generally concedes the facts found herein relative to the December 1 incident, except for the push or shove, but contends that Carlson was provoked into taking the action he did by the Union's repeated efforts to interfere with Respondent's business and by Imel's doing so on company property. Evidence of all of the parties' relations prior to this incident are not before me. On March 12, 1965, Respondent filed a petition for an election among its employees; on August 23, 1965, the Board directed elections; elections were held on January 13, 1966. In November 1965, the Union commenced picketing Respondent's store with legends that the store was on an official unfair list. The picketing was done off Respondent's property. Imel entered a foot or two on Respondent property to talk to the Seven-Up driver. There was no clear demar- cation of the boundary line. Volk saw Carlson' s motions and "kind of a shove," but did not hear him; he later saw Carlson talking with a deputy sheriff. Under all the circumstances giving rise to this incident, I consider it too trivial to constitute an interference, restraint, or coercion in violation of Secton 8(a)(1) of the Act. The cases cited by the General Counsel are all of a more aggravated nature .4 On two occasions after the filing of the original charge herein Store Manager Irwin endeavored to get Volk to give information to a Board agent on the matters set forth in the charge. On the first occasion Volk did not give a statement and on the second occasion he did. On both occasions and both before and after his interviews with the Board agent, he was talked to by Carlson. The issue is whether any of Carlson's remarks constitute interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I find that by Carlson's instructions to Volk to get a copy of anything he might sign and bring it back to him and by Carlson's interrogation of Volk after his interviews with the Board agent as to whether he had signed anything and as to what he had told the Board agent (if he had mentioned anything about the pushing incident), Respondent interfered with and restrained Volk in his participation in the Board's investigation and Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act6 The General Counsel contends that Carlson requested that Volk give only evi- dence not in conflict with his evidence and that Volk conceal evidence. Although Carlson showed Volk an affidavit he planned to give to the Board and asked him to read it carefully, and he may have hoped in so doing that Volk's testimony would agree with his, this evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that Volk was thereby requested to give similar "evidence or to conceal evidence. The Gerieral•'Counselcontends that Volk was discharged on February 10, 1966, and Respondent. contends That he quit. 'Volk testified that on that evening Irwin "acted very mad" and told him he "shouldn't touch the books [the daily sheet and the tabulations] "or anything like that any more," and that "the way [he] under- stood it, that [he] was through:" Volk testified he thought Irwin was mad "because of my statement" to the Board agent given the day.before, February 9. It seems inconceivable to me that an employer would discharge an employee, then leave the store and leave with a discharged employee the responsibility to put the cash receipts into the company safe, lock the store and retain all store keys. Furthermore, if Irwin had discharged Volk, he would have been present at the store on the following morning at or near 7 a.m., when the store was scheduled to open. The store remained closed that morning for more than 1 hour. On February 9, 1966, Volk had given a statement to the Board agent and had not told this to Store Manager Irwin. Volk was nervous and upset over the matter and apparently misunderstood the directives given him by Irwin on the evening of February 10, 1966. I find that Volk was not terminated by Respondent on Feb- ruary 10,. 1966. - On February 12, Mrs. Volk sought to get her husband's paycheck for the 2 days he worked that pay period. Carlson told her that the Union had made a charge that Volk had been discharged, and that before she could get his paycheck, Volk would have to write a letter that he resigned and had not been discharged, and * Even in Salyer Stay Ready Filter Corp., 136 NLRB 1210, which the Board dismissed, with Chairman McCulloch dissenting, the incident was of a more serious nature. 5 Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 156 NLRB 671 ; St. Louis Harbor Service Com- pany, 150 NLRB 636; Montgomery Ward & Co., 154 NLRB 1197. 264-188-67-vol. 161-35 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carlson stated that without such letter Respondent could make it hard for Volk to get employment elsewhere. I find that in so doing Respondent threatened Volk in order to secure from him a letter negating the contention of the Union that Volk had been discharged. Although I have found that the charge that Volk was discharged has not been substantiated, Respondent's efforts to secure the negation of such charge by use of threats to an employee constitute interference, restraint, and coercion of his rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. Since the action threatened by Respondent was not taken, I find that there has been no discrimina- tion against Volk and no violation of Section 8(a) (4) of the Act. On March 23, 1966, after the filing of the amended charge alleging a discharge of Volk on February 10, Irwin discussed the matter with Volk and a recording of the conversation was made. Irwin endeavored to convince Volk that he was not discharged on February 10, as I have found herein, and to persuade him to make a statement to the Board to straighten the matter out. Volk chose to quit rather than involve himself further in the matter that he considered to be between the Respondent and the Union. I find nothing violative of the Act in the state- ments of Irwin to Volk on this occasion, nor do I find that the recording of the conversation constitutes a violation of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, set forth in section III, occurring in connection with its business operations as set forth in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By instructing an employee to give to Respondent a copy of any statement he might give to a Board agent, and by interrogating an employee as to what transpired in his interview with a Board agent, and by threatening an employee that he could not get his paycheck and that Respondent could make it hard for him to get a job elsewhere unless he gives Respondent a letter negating allegations in a charge made against Respondent, Respondent has thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in para- graphs 9, 12, and 15 of the complaint, nor has Respondent requested an employee to conceal evidence, or not to sign anything or to give only evidence not in con- flict with the evidence of an agent of Respondent as alleged, among other things, in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the complaint. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it post notices to employees to this effect, which action I find is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire record herein, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER Dale Irwin, Woody Irwin, and Granville E. Wafford d/b/a Irwin & Waffoid, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Instructing employees to give Respondent a copy of any statement the employee might give to a Board agent. IRWIN & IVAFFORD 531 (b) Interrogating employees as to what transpires in interviews with Board agents. (c) Threatening employees that a paycheck will not be given or that Respondent could make it hard for an employee to get a job elsewhere unless he gives Respond- ent a letter negating allegations in a charge made against Respondent. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Food & Drug Clerks Local Union 1092, or any other labor organiza- tion, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at each of its retail grocery stores in and near Portland, Oregon, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." B Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board, after being signed by Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 19, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.? IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the following paragraphs and allegations of the complaint be dismissed: paragraphs 9, 12, and 15, and the allegations in para- graphs 10 and 11 that Respondent requested an employee to conceal evidence, not sign anything, and give only evidence not in conflict with evidence of an agent of Respondent in an interview with a Board agent. G In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words " the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" 7 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT instruct employees to give us or any representative of man- agement a copy of any statement any employee might give to an agent of the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees as to what transpires in any interview they may have with an agent of the National Labor Relations Board. WE WILL NOT threaten employees that a paycheck will not be given or that we could make it hard for an employee to get a job elsewhere unless be gives us a letter or statement negating allegations in a charge made against us. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the Food & Drug Clerks Local Union 1092, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All of our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming or remaining members, of any labor organization. DALE IRwnv, WOODY IRWIN, AND GRANVILLE E. WAFFoRD d/b/a IRWIN & WAFFORD, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 612 Lincoln Building, 208 SW. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, Telephone 226-3361. Carson City Nugget Casino, Inc. and American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees. Cases 20-CA-35711 and 3574-3. October 07, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On June 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Lowell Goerlich issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the complaint. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a brief and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief. A brief in answer to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions was also filed by Respondent. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Exam- iner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in these cases,l and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- 1 While these cases were pending before the Board, Respondent filed a Motion to Remand to Trial Examiner and Reopen Record for the purpose of adducing further evidence in support of Respondent's contention that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over enterprises engaged in the gambling industry . This contention has been urged before the Board in prior cases and we have concluded that no reasonable basis exists for excluding gambling establishments from the coverage of the Act. See El Dorado , Inc., d/b/a El Dorado Club, 151 NLRB 579. Accordingly, Respondent's motion is hereby denied. 161 NLRB No. 40.