Treadway Inn

TREADWAY INN 715 Yankee Trader, Inc., d/b/a Treadway Inn and Hotel, Motel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 466, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-3980 July 31, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On May 5, 1970, Trial Examiner George Turitz issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging 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. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not en- gaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that these allegations of the com- plaint be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. 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 powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. 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 brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, as modified below. 1. While discussing the Union with several em- ployees, Respondent's Food Manager Van der Woude was asked "what would happen to [the em- ployees] ... overtime since the normal practice in union houses [was that employees] ... worked ... 40 hours." Van der Woude testified that he stated that he "didn't know, but from what I understood, the union would have to put on `x' number of peo- ple so that the house could not afford to pay over- time and everbody would have to go on 40 hours." The Trial Examiner found that, by this statement, Van der Woude threatened employees with loss of overtime and extra work if they organized, in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1). Respondent excepts to this finding by the Trial Examiner and contends that such a statement is protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. However, we agree with the Trial Examiner's finding. The record does not establish that Van der Woude had any way of knowing what demands the Union might make or how the Respondent might attempt to compensate for any increased expenses arising from union demands, and his prediction was purely speculative. As the Supreme Court stated in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969): [An employer's prediction about the con- sequences of unionization] must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to con- vey an employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his control ... in case of unionization. Since Van der Woude's prediction was not based on "objective fact ... as to demonstrably probable consequences," it was violative of Section 8(a)(1). 2. In ' finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employee McMillen about signing a union authorization card, the Trial Ex- aminer found that Respondent's Manager Zitrin "had somehow found out that McMillen had signed the card." Since this statement has no basis in the record and is speculative, we do not adopt it, although we agree with the Trial Examiner that Zitrin's interrogation of McMillen was violative of Section 8(a)(1). ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby orders that Respondent, Yankee Trader, Inc., d/b/a Treadway Inn, Rochester, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order, as so modified: 1. Amend paragraph 1(c) by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by ad- ding the following: "and, in implementation of such soliciting, urging, or suggesting, assisting employees in the preparation of letters or other documents by I No exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner's findings that Respon- dent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) by discharging employee Shapiro, and that Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating and requesting employee Shapiro to inform it of union activities of other em- ployees, by threatening to reduce benefits , eliminate overtime, and make other changes if the employees unionized , by requesting that the employee Deberardmis "get [the union ] off [Respondent's] back", and by threaten- ing to defeat the Union by replacing employees who joined or assisted the Union Accordingly, such findings are adopted proforma = The findings and conclusions are based, in part, upon credibility deter- minations of the Trial Examiner, to which Respondent has excepted. After a careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial Examiner 's credi- bility findings are not contrary to a clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence. Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing those findings Stan- dard Dry Wall Products, Inc , 91 NLRB 544, enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A. 3) 184 NLRB No. 81 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which employees could revoke their union mem- bership or designation cards." 2. Delete paragraph 1(d). 3. Renumber paragraph 1(e) as 1(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not found herein. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE TURITZ, Trial Examiner : Upon a charge and two amended charges filed by Hotel , Motel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 466, AFL-CIO ("the Union"), on December 22, 1969 , January 6, and February 6, 1970, and served on December 23, 1969, January 15 and February 6, 1970, respectively, upon Yankee Trader, Inc., doing business as Treadway Inn ("Respondent" and, at times , "Treadway"), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board ("the Board"), through the Regional Director for Region 3, on February 12, 1970, is- sued a complaint and notice of hearing against Respondent. The complaint was thereafter amended in certain respects . Respondent filed an answer in which it denied all allegations of unfair labor practices. A hearing was held at Rochester, New York, on March 19 and 20, 1970, before the Trial Examiner named above . The General Coun- sel, Respondent, and the Union were represented at the hearing by their respective counsel, and Respondent has submitted a brief to the Trial Ex- aminer. Upon the entire record and from his observation of the witnesses, the Trial Examiner makes the fol- lowing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, Yankee Trader, Inc., is, and has been at all times material herein, a New York cor- poration having a place of business in Rochester, New York, where it is engaged, under the name of Treadway Inn, in operating a motel and performing related services. In the course and conduct of its business operations at its motel Respondent an- nually receives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and annually receives goods valued at in excess of $10,000 which are transported to said place of business in interstate commerce directly or indirectly from States of the United States other than the State of New York. Respondent rents less than 75 percent of its rental units to guests who remain for one month or longer. It is found that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (the Act). II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees and Bar- tenders Union , Local 466, AFL-CIO, is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The principal issues litigated at the hearing were Respondent's allegedly discriminatory discharge of Charles Shapiro, its interrogation of employees as to their union membership and desires, its solicita- tion of withdrawals from the Union, and various al- leged threats of retaliation because of the em- ployees' membership in, and activities on behalf of, the Union. A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion In the middle of December 1969 the Union started a campaign to organize Respondent's em- ployees. Zitrin, Respondent's manager, was in- formed that a number of strangers were going through the maintenance section, hallways, and hotel rooms of the motel apparently seeking to in- terest employees in a labor organization. He in- structed his department heads and various em- ployees to notify him if any unauthorized in- dividuals were in "unauthorized sections" of the hotel. Charles Shapiro testified that after union, authorization cards had been circulated among the employees Zitrin, putting one of the cards into his pocket as he passed by Shapiro one day, called Shapiro a derogatory ephithet with obscene and in- sulting connotation. He stated that when he asked for an explanation, Zitrin said that the Union had given Respondent problems in the past and he would not tolerate having the Union. Shapiro protested, "I don't know anything about it," Zitrin replied, according to Shapiro, "You know about all of these cards going around." A moment later he said, Zitrin, asked him to come to the office, where he recounted past difficulties caused by the Union's alleged resort to violence, and repeated that he would not tolerate having a union which, in any event, the employees did not need. He then asked Shapiro to inform him of which employees were passing out cards and to report to him if any out- side organizers came into the kitchen. Shapiro also testified that Zitrin said, "We never had these cards before and all of a sudden you come here and these cards are starting to float around." He did not in- dicate at what point in the conversation that was said. Zitrin testified that he had no recollection of having called Shapiro the derogatory name, denied categorically having done so in connection with any question as to unionization, and denied having had TREADWAY INN 717 the conversation as described by Shapiro. As Shapiro was an interested witness and was not cor- roborated, and as he did not impress the Trial Ex- aminer as an especially reliable witness, it is found that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Zitrin made the various statements ascribed to him by Shapiro. It will be recommended that subparagraphs (a), (b), and (f) of paragraph VI of the complaints be dismissed. On December 17 Zitrin held meetings of the em- ployees in the various departments and addressed them. Shapiro testified that at the meeting he at- tended Zitrin pointed out that Respondent gave the employees jobs without asking for money, in con- trast to the Union, which, he said, took the em- ployees' money. He said that Respondent had given the employees all the benefits it could possibly give and all the benefits the Union could offer. He testified, also, that Zitrin said that if the Union came in, Respondent would permit employees to work only on jobs to which they were assigned, and they would have to clock out and leave when that job was finished, and that Respondent would not permit them to work on other assignments and thus earn overtime pay. Zitrin testified credibly that in the question and answer period of one of the meetings the question of whether an employee could work on more than one job was brought up and that he replied that he understood that with a union contract each employee had a classification and that the union did not permit employees to do any other kind of work. He flatly denied saying that the Respondent would not permit overtime. Shapiro was not corroborated. It is found that the General Counsel has failed to establish by a pre- ponderance of the evidence that Zitrin threatened that Respondent would deprive the employees of overtime or extra work if they joined or assisted the Union. It will be recommended that subparagraph (e) of paragraph VI of the complaint be dismissed. Shapiro testified that shortly after the meetings just described he had a conversation about the Union with Van der Woude, Respondent's food manager. He stated that Van der Woude said that Respondent could discharge the entire kitchen crew and keep the kitchen going by flying in per- sonnel from other parts of Respondent's chain, but that Respondent would not do it since it had ascer- tained that having the Union would not be too costly, although it would be very inconvenient. As to this last, he said, according to Shapiro, that the Union would not permit it to assign employees to other than their regular jobs, that Respondent would have to have a man assigned to each station, and that when overtime was needed, "the company will not go for it. We will bring in extra help if we have [to] rather than pay the overtime to the in- dividual." Shapiro testified that Van der Woude also pointed out that the hotel maids finished their work in 6-1/2 hours and relaxed the remainder of their 8-hour day, but that if the Union got in, Respondent would require them to clock out as soon as they had completed their work. Van der Woude admitted having indicated to Shapiro that Respondent might fly chefs in to keep the kitchen going. However, he testified that the occasion was a discussion between him and Shapiro as to the possibility of a strike and that it was Shapiro who made the original comment and that he merely agreed with Shapiro, at the same time saying that he did not know what Respondent would do. The Trial Examiner has credited Van der Woude's testimony as to what was said in the con- versation. It is found that Respondent did not threaten to defeat the Union by replacing em- ployees who joined or assisted the Union with chefs brought in from other parts of the country. It will be recommended that subparagraph (d) of para- graph VI of the complaint be dismissed. Van der Woude testified that he recalled no con- versation with Shapiro about overtime but testified that he had made similar comments to other em- ployees 'who asked him what would happen to their overtime in view of the normal practice in union houses of working 40 hours a week. He stated that he told them that he understood that the Union would require Respondent to employ a certain number of employees, so that, as a consequence, Respondent would not be able to afford to pay overtime and all employees would be limited to a workweek of 40 hours. According to both Van der Woude and Shapiro, Van der Woude said (a) that the Union's manning requirement would cause extra expense; (b) that Respondent would compen- sate for this by using extra employees, presumably at straight-time rates, when additional work was required, rather than use regular employees work- ing overtime at premium rates as in the past; and (c) that the decision to save money in this manner would be Respondent's, not the Union's. Thus Van der Woude was not stating what he reasonably be- lieved would be the likely economic consequences of unionization outside Respondent's control. He was, rather, telling employees that Respondent, on its own initiative and of its own volition, would cur- tail overtime in the event that the employees chose to have a union. It is found that Respondent threatened employees with loss of overtime and extra work if they joined or assisted the Union and that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Van der Woude testified that he recalled no con- versation with Shapiro about the maids being required to clock out when they finished work. The General Counsel offered no corroborative evidence. It is found that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent threatened to deprive the maids of rest time if the employees chose to bargain collec- tively. In December 1969 Donato Deberardinis, one of Respondent's bartenders, replying to Zitrin's criti- cism of certain of his conduct, assured Zitrin that 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD he no longer belonged to the Union, that he knew who they were and what was going on, and that they would never get in at Respondent's motel. Zitrin replied, "As long as you know them, get them off my back." It is found that Zitrin's remark was not coercive. It will be recommended that sub- paragraph (g) of paragraph VI of the complaint be dismissed. On December 29, 1969, McMillen, a busboy in the coffee shop, signed a union authorization card at the solicitation of a waitress. McMillen, an ex- tremely shy individual, felt conflict after signing the card. He testified, credibly, "Well, at first when I signed it, I felt some sort of pressure, I don't know just what kind of pressure, but it was there and I felt it. I felt some pressure from the Union and I don't know what the other one was." Some 10 or 15 minutes later, while crossing the corridor between the coffee shop and the kitchen in the course of his duties, he was met by Zitrin, who had somehow found out that McMillen had signed the card. Blanche Hauser, Respondent's sales manager, happened to pass by at the time and Zitrin called her over. He asked McMillen if he had signed a card for the Union. McMillen testified, "I had no other choice but to tell him that I did." He told Zitrin that he had been tricked and had not wanted to sign the card. Zitrin said that he could get his card back, and he asked McMillen to accompany him and Hauser to the sales office.' There Zitrin asked McMillen if he wanted to join the Union and McMillen said that he did not. Zitrin then asked if he wanted to sign a statement to that effect and he said that he would. McMillen explained that after talking with Zitrin, he thought that he might as well sign the statement because of the amount of dues involved. Hauser gave him a piece of stationery and told him what to write. He wrote: "I wish to recall that voting card that I singed [sic] today December 29th. James Richard McMillen." Hauser gave him an envelope and stamp and told him how to address it. McMillen accompanied Hauser to a mail box in which she deposited his letter. He subsequently signed two more authorization cards for the Union. Zitrin and Hauser described the incident somewhat differently. McMillen impressed the Trial Examiner as a truthful witness, although somewhat suggesti- ble at times, and his testimony has been credited over that of Zitrin and Hauser.' While McMillen, apparently because of conflicting pressures, was troubled at having signed the card and, as, he testified, "wanted to forget about the whole union matter altogether," he did not request Respondent to help him get his card back. That idea originated with Respondent, and it was carried out under Respondent's supervision and its direct participa- tion. It is found that by its solicitation of the withdrawal and its assistance' and participation therein Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. United Biscuit Company of America, Union Biscuit Division, 208 F.2d 52 (C.A. 8), cert. denied 347 U.S. 934, enfg. 101 NLRB 1552. Zitrin's questions to McMillen as to whether he had signed a union card and whether he wanted to be a union member had no legitimate purpose. Distinguish Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. On the contrary, his purpose was to lay a foun- dation for the illegal engineering of McMillen's withdrawal from the Union. In his speeches Zitrin had manifested to the employees Respondent's hostility to unionization. As a result, his action as innkeeper in interrupting McMillen's work to question him about having signed the card, in such a manner, moreover, as to convince McMillen that he had by some means already found out,3 neces- sarily created an atmosphere inspiring fear. An em- ployee thus confonted and questioned by Respon- dent's highest authority could not feel that he was a free agent with respect to unionization, and it is sig- nificant that McMillen testified, "I had no other choice but to tell him what I did." This feeling of lack of freedom was aggravated by moving the con- ference into the sales-banquet office, where the in- terrogation continued. It is found that Respondent's interrogation of McMillen was in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. B. The Discharge of Charles Shapiro Respondent 's kitchen and serving staff were under the overall supervision of its food manager, Van der Woude . The kitchen personnel numbered approximately 25. It included four full -fledged cooks , namely the second cook , the saute cook, the broiler cook, and the relief cook, and a cook-in- training who acted as cook 's helper." The second cook worked on the day shift , preparing all food, including sauces, for both shifts for the dining room and coffeehouse and for banquets; he was assisted by the cook's helper. The saute and broiler cooks worked the night shift, and the relief cook normally replaced these various individuals on their days off. In August 1969 Gibson, one of Van der Woude's staff, went on vacation. Gibson, a young man of 22 who had worked in the motel for 5 years, was the saute cook, but once a week he acted as second cook. While on vacation he had a heart attack, and Van der Woude understood that he would never return to work in Respondent's kitchen. In about late September or early October 1969 Van der Woude was dissatisfied with the then ' McMillen used the term sales office The office was used not only by the sales manager, but also by the banquet manager and by the head waiter 'The main point of difference was that Zitrin and Hauser insisted that the former did not accompany McMillen to the office The Trial Examiner is convinced that McMillen 's testimony on this matter was correct It should be noted, however, that the point is not important , since it is plain that whatever Hauser did with McMillen was at Zitnn's bidding ' The General Counsel did not allege or contend that by this incident Respondent created the impression of surveillance of the employees' union activities 'The remaining kitchen personnel were salad workers , bakers, dish washers, and cleanup people TREADWAY INN second cook and sought a replacement. He spoke with one James Bond, who, however, expressed reluctance to take the job because he was then working under a contract which was not to ter- minate until the end of the year. Van der Woude brought him to Zitrin, who offered him legal assistance to "break" the contract. Bond said he would think about it. On about October 17 Van der Woude interviewed Charles Shapiro, an ex- perienced cook, who worked full time as chef at night at a restaurant called the Rio Bamba. Because of extraordinary medical expenses Shapiro was seeking a second job. Van der Woude told Shapiro that he was committed to hire Bond, but that he would let Shapiro know if Bond refused the job. Shapiro's interview with Van der Woude took place on a Friday or Saturday. During that weekend the second cook whom Respondent was seeking to replace suddenly walked off the job. Van der Woude contacted Shapiro and asked him if he could start on Monday. Shapiro accepted. In order to accomodate Shapiro in connection with his job at the Rio Bamba, it was agreed that instead of working the usual 8-hour shifts he would work six 7-hour shifts, quitting an hour earlier each day than Respondent's normal schedule required. After Shapiro had been working several days, Van der Woude received a letter from Bond rejecting the job. He told Shapiro, who testified, that, in response to his question, Van der Woude said that the job was his permanently. This was denied by Van der Woude. He testified that about 3 weeks after starting Shapiro asked him if he could have the day-shift job on a full-time basis and that he put Shapiro off. On December 1 Gibson returned to the job, but only for 4 hours a day. On December 30 he brought Van der Woude a certificate from his physician cer- tifying that he was able to work 8 hours a day. The next day, Wednesday, when Shapiro was about finished with his shift, Van der Woude called Shapiro in. After telling Shapiro that he ap- preciated his having helped him out, he said that Gibson was ready to return to work and Shapiro would no longer be needed. Shapiro testified that he replied that he appreciated the fact that Van der Woude had given him the job and that if he ever could help him out he would. Wednesday was the middle of the payroll week and was not the usual payday.' Van der Woude admitted that Shapiro's pred- ecessor was a permanent employee and, if satisfactory, would not have been displaced by Gib- son, and that the same would have been the case with Bond if he had accepted the job. Nevertheless, he testified that he hired Shapiro as a temporary employee and that after about 3 weeks, when Shapiro asked whether he could have the job on a full-time basis, he put Shapiro off with an indefinite ' Shapiro recalled that this happened at about 12 30 and that he was not paid for a full day Van der Woude's testimony that it took place at the end 719 answer, since, he had some doubt that Shapiro could carry two jobs satisfactorily. He also testified that Gibson, although not so accomplished as Shapiro, had much ability and that he told Gibson during November that he was entitled to the second cook's job if and when he could work full time. Shapiro testified that on his first day of employment Van der Woude told him that Bond had rejected the job and that Shapiro could have it as long as he wished. He also testified that after a time he requested a wage increase from Van der Woude, who replied, "Let's see how things go for now and let things ride the way they are." The Trial Ex- aminer found Van der Woude the more convincing witness and, on the basis of his testimony, finds that Shapiro was hired as a temporary employee and that this status was not changed during his employ- ment. CONCLUDING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SHAPIRO'S DISCHARGE The second cook's job was the heart of Respond- ent's operation so far as the purveying of food was concerned. Except for what the broiler cook did on the night shift, the second cook did all the actual cooking for all meals served, whether night or day, in the dining room, the coffeehouse, and the banquet rooms. Van der Woude's preference not to have to depend permanently on a "moonlighter" for that crucial position, and his selection of Gib- son, an able long-time employee , seem most reasonable. It may be that most employers con- fronted by that situation, would not have acted as hastily as did Van der Woude in terminating Shapiro without notice the very day after Gibson presented his physician's clearance. Shapiro's ser- vices had been satisfactory and highly useful to Respondent, and there was no particular need to promote Gibson that quickly. However, even as- suming, arguendo, that Van der Woude's action represented a deviation from some sort of norm, it is plain that it was not so unreasonable as to war- rant, standing by itself, an inference of discrimina- tory motive. The record is devoid of evidence that anything happened that would have caused Re- spondent on that particular day to discriminate against Shapiro or any other employee. While the Union's letter demanding recognition was mailed that same day, there is no evidence that this had come to Respondent's notice. Indeed, there is little in the record to contradict Van der Woude and Zitrin's testimony that they understood that Shapiro was opposed to the Union. The only evidence offered as to Shapiro's union activities was his own testimony. He stated that in December Litto, the Union's in- ternational representative, encountered him at the Rio Bamba and, hearing that Shapiro was working for Respondent, gave him authorization cards to of Shapiro's shift was apparently borne out by Respondent's time records, which General Counsel examined during the hearing 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD distribute. He said that he turned the cards over to Ziegler, his helper, and Heinz, a baker. He also testified that employees questioned him as to wage rates and overtime under a union and that he replied with information of a general nature. How- ever, Shapiro did not testify that he solicited em- ployees other than Heinz and Ziegler. Moreover, his testimony stands bare of corroboration; and in his investigatory affidavit he stated, "To my knowledge prior to my discharge, the company never heard me talking about the union to anyone nor did they see me passing any cards nor did they know that I was already a union member." At the hearing he testified that his affidavit was inaccurate and that while under cross-examination he recalled that Van der Woude, who knew that the Rio Bamba was a union house, had commented to him, "You are in the union. You know what it is." It is found that the General Counsel has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent discharged Shapiro because of his ac- tivities on behalf of the Union. It will be recom- mended that paragraphs VII, VIII, and IX of the complaint be dismissed. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE It is found that the activities of Respondent set forth above in section III, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY As it has been found that Respondent has en- gaged in certain unfair labor practices, it is recom- mended that the Board issue the Recommended Order set forth below requiring Respondent to cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action which will effec- tuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and of the entire record in this case, the Trial Ex- aminer makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Yankee Trader, Inc., doing busi- ness as Treadway Inn, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent is, and at all times material has 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 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 In the event been, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 3. Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 466, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5.) of the Act. 4. Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practice by its termination of the employment of Charles Shapiro. 5. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. The unfair labor practices described above are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, Respon- dent, Yankee Trader, Inc., d/b/a Treadway Inn, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees with loss of overtime or extra work if they join, remain members of, or engage in activities on behalf of, Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 466, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion. (b) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership or desires in a manner, or under the circumstances , constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (c) Soliciting, urging, or suggesting to employees that they revoke cards signed by them applying for membership in the Union or any other labor or- ganization , or designating the Union or any other labor organization as their bargaining agent. (d) Assisting employees in the preparation of letters or other documents by which the employees could revoke their union membership or designa- tion cards. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found, will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its office and place of business located in Rochester, New York, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."6 Copies of said that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board " shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " TREADWAY notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed by a represen- tative, shall be posted 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 em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by it to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.' IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges unfair labor prac- tices not specifically found in this Decision. ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read . "Notify the Regional Director for Region 3 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which both sides had the opportuni- ty to present their evidence, a decision has been is- sued finding that we violated the law and ordering us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board and abide by the following: WE WILL NOT threaten you with loss of over- time or extra work if you choose to bargain collectively through Hotel, Motel and Restau- rant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 466, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organiza- tion. WE WILL NOT question you about your union membership or desires in such a way or under such circumstances as to interfere with your union activities. INN 721 WE WILL NOT suggest or urge that you revoke union membership or designation cards, nor will we assist you in preparing such revocations. WE WILL respect your rights to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza- tion, and to bargain collectively in respect to terms or conditions of employment through Local 466 or any other representative of your own choosing, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, and WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or co- erce you in the exercise of these rights, except insofar as these rights might be affected by a contract with a labor organization, if validly made in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act, whereby membership in a labor organization is a condition of employment after the 30th day following the date of such contract or the beginning of such employment, whichever is later. YANKEE TRADER INC., D/B/A TREADWAY INN (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100.