Holiday Inn

OLNEY MOTELS, INC. Olney Motels, Inc., d/b/ a Holiday 1 and Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, affiliated with Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 14-CA-4809 and 14-RC-6035 June 20, 1969 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On March 19, 1969, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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. He further found that certain conduct by the Respondent interfered with and affected the results of the election in Case 14-RC-6035 and recommended that the election be set aside and that a new one be directed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 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 supporting briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. The Trial Examiner specified the number of hours of work per week for which Respondent's backpay responsibility to Hammond shall be computed. The General Counsel excepts contending that the issue was not fully litigated herein. We find merit in this position , and, accordingly, we shall issue the usual reinstatement and backpay order, leaving for the compliance stage the determination of the extent of Respondent's backpay responsibility.3 'These findings and conclusions are based , in part, upon credibility determinations of the Trial Examiner to which the Respondent has excepted . After a careful review of the record , we conclude that the Trial Examiner's credibility findings are not contrary to the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence . Accordingly, we find no basis for disturbing these findings. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3). In adopting the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(aX3) and ( 1) by discriminatorily dischargin employees Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond we disavow any reliance on (1) Respondent's previous discharge of a waitress for stealing, (2) Respondent 's observation of the discharged employees with a union 903 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and orders that Respondent, Olney Motels, Inc., d/b/a/ Holiday Inn, Olney, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete paragraph 1(i) and reletter the following paragraphs consecutively. 2. Insert in paragraph 2(a) the words, "as modified in the Board's Decision," before the words "for any loss...." 3. Delete from the third indented paragraph of the Notice attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision that part thereof which reads "in accordance with the recommendation of the Trial Examiner's Decision." 4. Delete the thirteenth indented paragraph of the Notice attacked to the Trial Examiner's Decision. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar and it alleges unfair lab' practices not specifically found. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORRITERED that the election held on October 18,1968, among the Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, be, and it hereby is, set aside. [Direction of Second Election' omitted from publication.] representative after they were discharged, and (3) Respondent's refusal after the discharges to see the union representative unless Respondent was accompanied by its lawyer and by a representative from the Holiday Inn Organization. ,in adopting the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent vielatad Section 8(axl) of the Act, we do not agree that Respondent's statements denigrating the Union by referring to Union organizers as gangsters and hoodlums and as just taking employees' money were unlawful. 'Respondent shall be required to make Hammond whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by paying her a sum of money equivalent to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discharge, September 2, 1968, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period. The baokpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716. 'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right ,to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 14 within 7 days after the date of issuance of the Notice of Second Election by the Regional Director. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE PROCEEDING ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This consolidated 176 NLRB No. 111 904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceeding, with all parties represented by counsel, was heard before me, in Olney , Illinois on January 9 and 10, 1969.' The proceeding involves WTCeged violations of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. (herein called the Act), during September and October 1968, and also objections to alleged conduct affecting the results of an election held October 18 pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election . The issues in the CA case and RC case overlap considerably . After the hearing the General Counsel and Respondent filed helpful briefs, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Olney Motels, Inc., an Illinois corporation which runs a motel and restaurant at Olney, Illinois, as "Holiday Inn," during the year prior to October 1, 1968, a representative period, derived in excess of $500,000 from the retail sales of lodging, food, beverages, and other related products, and during said period purchased goods and services directly front outside of Illinois valued in excess of $5,000. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to exercise jurisdiction herein. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees, Local 573, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTION A. Background and Introduction: Self-Organization of the Employees, Discharges, and the Election Respondent is the proprietorship of Ralph Beal, who identified himself on the witness stand as "the franchise holder and Innkeeper of the Holiday Inn, Olney, Illinois." He has operated it since April 1964. Beal has been in the restaurant business since 1934 and never before has had any dealings with unions . Beal's relations with his restaurant and kitchen employees, herein involved, were informal and sometimes difficult . From time to time he held meetings of employees, at which he and they aired their grievances rather freely . Beal announced one such meeting for August 26, 1968,2 with a notice on the bulletin board that anyone who was not present would be terminated . At this meeting some of the waitresses complained to Beal that they should have a raise. Beal suggested $ 1.40 per hour and "no tipping" signs on the tables, but the waitresses' reaction to this was negative. Beal complained about the swearing in the kitchen and said it must be stopped . He threatened to put in a tape recorder and play it back in order to stop it. He complained against the tardiness of waitresses and the lying of some of them . He testified he told them "this was a happy Holiday Inn family and it is going to return to this if I have to fire everyone and put in new faces." Prior to this, on August 15 , waitress Barbara Hammond had made the original contact with the Union 'The original charge was filed by the Union on September 6, 1968. The amended charge was filed by the Union on October 14, 1968. 'All events herein occurred in August, September, and October, 1968. by letter, and had received a reply by telephone from the Union on August 24. On August 30 several waitresses, including Hammond and Reta Jackson, met at Jackson's home with Leo Ketchum, acting secretary and treasurer of the Union, who left them cards to have signed. In the next few days and nights Hammond and Jackson and a third waitress called on employees at their homes and, after talking to them, signed up about 29 of Respondent's employees. They talked with a few employees on Saturday night, August 31, with about 12 or 13 on Sunday late afternoon and night, and a like number on Monday. Hammond credibly testified that they signed up 26 employees before 2 p.m. on Labor Day. The names of Jackson and Hammond were stricken from the waitresses' work schedule on the morning of Labor Day, September 2. That afternoon Beal discharged Jackson. The following morning over the telephone Beal told Hammond he did not need her any more and that he had written a letter saying she was no longer employed by Respondent. The alleged 8(a)(1) conduct occurred at various times between September 2 and the election, which was held October 18. Of the approximately 61 eligible voters, 10 votes were cast for the Union, 34 against the Union. Thus 44 valid votes were counted. There were 13 challenged ballots. The valid votes counted plus the challenges came to 57. The challenges were not sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. A majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots were not cast for the Union. The Union filed timely objections, which are before me in this proceeding. B. Violations of Section 8(aX 1) and Conduct Affecting Results of Election 1. By her demeanor, her forthrightness, and the immediacy of her answers, waitress Pauline Shehorn appeared to me to be a very credible witness. According to her credible and credited testimony, at about the time on Labor Day afternoon that Reta Jackson was in Beal's office being discharged, the manager of the waitresses, kitchen, and bar, Paul DeFore, called her over to him in the kitchen and, in a confidential manner, asked her what she knew about the Union. When she denied any knowledge he replied not to "give me that ... you know what I am talking about." Within the hour Manager DeFore approached Shehorn again and told Shehorn, as she testified on direct and cross-examination, not to tell anyone, but that "Mr. Beal told me this morning he scratched two names off the schedule" and that he would never put them back on again . Later that day Shehorn checked the work schedule and noted that the names of Jackson and Hammond had been crossed out.' Later that afternoon, according to Shehorn's credited testimony, Proprietor Beal asked her if she had signed a union card and she replied yes. Beal had a green book Shehorn testified that there was friction in the air that afternoon and evening, that all the waitresses were talking about Jackson's discharge, that a waitress told her Beal had instructed Jane Walker to strike the names of Jackson and Hammond from the work schedule . It appears to me that, as was to be expected under the circumstances , the rumor mill was grinding. Shehorn testified also that DeFore told her he was instructed to strike off "the names." Although this was inconsistent with her testimony above, I attribute the inconsistency not to unrealiability as a witness but to the confusion and rumors interspersed with the facts surrounding Jackson's discharge which Shehorn was trying to recall and relate . DeFore did not deny Shehorn's testimony, but testified it occurred the following day. OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 905 about unions and rights, which he read to her. Among other things Beal talked to her about what the Union could not do for her and how the Union would just take her money. He told her he could discharge her for pouring coffee or walking across the floor the wrong way. One afternoon in early September shortly before Shehorn was to start working, she asked an employee, Goldie Reid, if she was going to the union meeting. Reid "went right directly to Beal" and told him, according to the latter, that Shehorn had just propositioned her to join the Union. Beal went immediately to Shehorn, shook his finger at her, and told her not ever to talk about this Union on his premises on his time. He threatened to fire her if he ever heard her talking union on his time. In fact Goldie had come in on her own time to get her check, and Shehorn was not due to start working for some 15 minutes, although she had clocked in. Beal stuck his pencil in Shehorn's hair to see if she was wearing a hair net as required by the rules and law.4 He told her that he could fire her for wearing earrings. During this conversation Beal said Reta Jackson was a troublemaker and he would never rehire her.' Shehorn replied that Reta was not a troublemaker. During a conversation in early September, possibly this one, Shehorn asked Beal why he fired Reta Jackson. Beal replied, "Because she was late on Sunday." Shehorn replied that Reta was not late on Sunday. Beal replied, "Maybe it was on Monday. That is when I found out about the Union." I do not find these remarks by Beal improbable as urged by Respondent. As the record showed, Beal talked about the Union to employees rather openly and with very little restraint. In a conversation in very early September when Beal was talking about the Union with Shehorn, Beal asked her what the Union could do for the emplo ees, and said that he would 'not join the Union even if he had a chance. Beal said that he would buy the waitresses uniforms if they would put down a deposit of $20 and when they quit he would return the deposit. He said if Shehorn would get in writing and bring to the office a list of the employees' complaints, he would see that the complaints were satisfied; except that he would not hire back Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond . Beal did not deny this conversation. On about Friday, September 6, Shehorn at first agreed to relieve the bartender, Pat Terry, who was slightly indisposed, and then decided she would rather go to the union meeting that night. Beal approached her and asked her why she did not want to go to the bar. Shehorn replied that she had another engagement, something more important to do. Beal ordered her into the bar or to go home, adding that the union meeting wouldn't do her any good. Under all the circumstances of this proceeding, Beal's and DeFore' s interrogations of Shehorn concerning the Union reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(1). In the context in which they were made, Beal's statements that he could discharge Shehorn for pouring coffee or walking the wrong way or wearing earrings were implied threats of discharge because of her 'It was habitual with Beal to test hair nets by thrusting his pencil into waitresses' hair. This seems to me a considerable invasion of their privacy. 'Waitress Annette Murphy testified she overheard Beal telling Shehorn that Rota was a troublemaker and she would not get her job back , in early October. This may have been a different conversation than Shehorn related, or the same one , with Murphy in error as to the month. union activities and were further violations by Respondent of Section 8(a)(l). Upon the entire record it is clear that Beal's offer to buy the uniforms and to satisfy the employees' complaints was on the implied condition that the employees abandon the Union, and were promises of benefits to discourage union activity, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. By telling Shehorn the union meeting would do her no good when the union meeting had not been mentioned, Beal gave the impression of surveillance of union activities, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l). 2. Equally credible, and credited, is the testimony of Linda Kay Knapp, that in early September, her best recollection being Labor Day,' in Beal's office, Beal told her that he knew that she had signed a union card and that some others had, naming two or three employees; Respondent thereby further creating the impression of surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(l). Beal interrogated her as to why she had signed and what she thought the Union could do for her, thereby reasonably tending to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l). Beal added that he did not consider her a loyal employee for signing the union card, that he thought he could do as much for her as the Union, and that "if you want me to buy your uniforms, I will do that." Beal did not deny the substance of this conversation with Knapp; he testified it occurred on Wednesday or Thursday, September 3 or 4. Upon the entire record I credit Knapp's testimony. By this promise of benefit to Knapp, to cause the abandonment of the Union and upon that implied condition, Respondent further violated Section 8(axl). 3. According to the credible and uncontradicted testimony of Rosemary McCleave, she signed a union card in about the first week in September and Beal spoke to her about the Union within a week or two after that. Beal asked her what she had against him. She replied "nothing, that I liked him and I liked working for him and the Holiday Inn. Then he said what could the Union give me that I didn't have already here, and I said, well, more wages. He said that he could give that too, and take away the tips." McCleave replied that she didn't like that idea. During the conversation Beal observed that since McCleave was pregnant she shouldn't be working there because his insurance did not cover her while pregnant. Beal also told her that it was he who gave her the job and not the Union. Under all the circumstances these remarks amounted to an implied threat to suspend her while she was pregnant, because of her union sympathy and activity, a further violation of Section 8(a)(l). Upon the preponderance of the testimony in the entire record, it is' clear that Beal's interrogation of McCleave as to what the Union could give her that she didn't already have reasonably tended to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. 4. According to the credited testimony of waitresses Mason and Shehorn,? at a long meeting of employees on company time on October 7, 11 days before the election, 'Although Knapp was not completely certain the date was Labor Day and her pretrial affidavit placed the date at "around the 5th of September," her demeanor impressed me as that of a credible witness. She credibly testified on cross-examination by Respondent's attorney that "I am pretty sure it was Labor Day. I think it was the evening that Reta left . . I really didn't think about the date until I talked to you last night, but I am relatively sure that[Labor Day) is the date." 'In her affidavit dated November 7, concerning this October 7 meeting, 906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Proprietor Beal pointed out that at present the waitresses could go back and have a cigarette or a sip of coffee whenever they wanted to, and threatened that if the place became unionized there might be or there would be only two breaks . Beal denied the threat . Beal admitted he read to them a clause from a contract between a union and another Holiday Inn which provided for two rest periods per 8-hour shift. On the entire record I credit the testimony of Shehorn and Mason and find here an additional threat in violation of Section 8(aXl) of the Act.. Shehorn also credibly testified , Beal denying, that at this meeting Beal said that the kitchen help would get a raise when "everything is over with," - a clear promise of benefit if and when the Union was defeated at the upcoming election, and a further violation of Section 8(ax l ). 5. Also participating in Respondent ' s violations was his manager over employees in the restaurant, kitchen, and bar, Paul DeFore, who had authority to fire and was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. DeFore admitted having talked to Pauline Shehorn four or five times about the Union . He admitted asking several waitresses why they wanted the Union, which , under all the circumstances of this proceeding , were interrogations in further violation of Section 8(a)(1). Shehorn credibly testified that in September in the presence of several waitresses, Manager DeFore said that the Union `just takes your money ' and that organizers were "gangsters." Annette Murphy credibly testified that once in September DeFore said the union organizers were "hoodlums." On all the facts this denigrating of the Union went beyond view, argument, or opinion and was a further intrusion of Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(l). 6. Also participating in Respondent's interrogations and threats was Jane Walker, hostess and cashier on one shift. She made out the weekly schedules late the previous week and was responsible to see that sufficient waitresses were on hand to handle the work. She decided how many days each girl would work , and which days. If a waitress wanted off or didn't show up on her scheduled workday, the hostess obtained a replacement by calling in someone who was having a day off, and placed her at the appropriate work station . The hostess checked to see that the waitresses were properly uniformed . She assigned waitresses to their work stations, although they usually knew at which station they worked because they had a rotation system . When a new waitress appeared , Walker assigned one older waitress to train her. "If anything came up we would go to Jane." On most of the work schedules Walker wrote, "this schedule is subject to chan ge," followed by her initials. Upon all this evidence I conclude that Walker had the authority to assign work days and work stations to waitresses and the authority to assign waitresses to train new waitresses; and that the exercise of this authority required the use of independent judgment . It follows and I find that Walker was a supervisor as defined in the Act, for whose activities heho that she did not recall anything being said about breaks during this meeting . On cross-examination she cmdi ly testified that she could remember more as a witness than she could when she gave the affidavit. She testified.... I am sitting right up here , I can remember a whole lot of things when I look at Mr . Beal, and when I look at you [Respondent's attorney was at the October 7 meeting ] and when I don't have my children around to interrupt me. . . I had a 15-month old daughter that was sitting on my lap every time I made this statement. I had an awful lot of interruptions . So now I am thinking and I can recall it quite a bit .... Without my daughter jumping on my lap, yes, sir, I can. Respondent was responsible. Waitress Annette Murphy credibly testified, and without contradiction, that in about the middle of September Jane Walker interrogated her as to whether she had been approached by any of the union organizers or the union people . During the conversation , Walker said that Bea] "could close his doors, he could just close down the restaurant; he could afford to do this." Walker also threatened that Beal "could put no tipping signs up if the Union came in." Upon the entire record I conclude that this interrogation and this threat of possible economic loss to a waitress if the Union came in amounted to further 8(aXl) violations by Respondent. 7. Two waitresses were raised from 57-1/2 cents an hour to 75 cents an hour in September 1968, Marilyn Mason , sister-in-law of Mrs. Beal, on about September 20, and Linda Kay Knapp about a week later. Mason had worked for Respondent for some 5 months and Knapp for some 8 months. The General Counsel contended these increases were granted in order to discourage the employees' union activities and that the granting of them tended to interfere with the free exercise of the employees' Section 7 rights. Respondent contended they were granted in accordance with established company policy of giving such raise after a waitress worked for Respondent for 3 months. First to be raised was Mason. She testified Respondent found out about her pay status because one day she was talking with Mrs. Beal about how much she was paid. Thereafter Beal told her she was being increased to 75 cents, that the former 6 months to qualify for the raise had been changed to 3 months, that Mason should have gotten her raise in July, and that it was due to a secretary's oversight that Mason had not been raised before. This was the first Mason had heard of employees' getting a raise after 90 days. In about late September Knapp pointed out to Beal one Friday night that her check was in error. Beal referred her to his secretary. On Monday in the presence of Beal the secretary said she had overlooked paying Knapp 75 cents after she had been there 6 months. Beal then said that the rules have been changed and that Knapp was to have received her raise after 3 months. Knapp testified she was given her backpay. Knapp had begun working for Respondent in late January 1968. She evidently received backpay for the period beginning in late April. Up to late September when she had this conversation with Beal and his secretary, the only thing she had heard about the change from 6 months to 3 months to qualify for a first raise had been from Marilyn Mason after she received her raise on about September 20. Beal testified Respondent's policy changed from 6 months to 90 days to qualify for a first increase, in June 1968, when he received a new rule book from the Holiday Inn organization . Supervisor Jane Walker testified the policy was changed and announced at the August 26 meeting of employees. Several employees testified concerning this meeting and none of them said anything about Beal's announcing a change of such policy or rule at that meeting. Pauline Shehorn credibly testified Beal announced the change at the October 7 meeting of employees and that she had not heard about the change until then. This was 11 days before the election and 11 days after the signing of the stipulation for the election on September 26. Had Beal in fact announced the change in policy in June, it seems probable to me that the new policy, which OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 907 was of considerable importance to low-paid employees, would have been well known to the waitresses. That the waitresses did not know of the change until shortly before the election and that two waitresses were individually informed of the change by Beal during the preelection campaign prior to the general announcement October 7 is strong evidence to me that the change was made and announced as an antiunion device and for the purpose of defeating the Union at the election . I note further that even Beal's secretary apparently did not know of the change until Beal told her of it in the presence of Knapp. Upon these facts and considerations and in the light of the credible evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, I find and hold that raises were granted to Mason and Knapp in late September and the new policy was announced to assembled employees on October 7 during the preelection campaign , with the intent and reasonable tendency to discourage sympathy and activity for the Union and to defeat the Union at the election, Respondent thereby further violating Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Cf. American Freightways Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146 at 147; Hermann Equipment Manufacturing Company, Inc., 156 NLRB 716. 8. I take official notice from the Board 's files that the Union filed the petition in Case 14-RC-6035 on September 9, 1968 . The unfair labor practices found above in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, and 7 occurred between the filing of the petition and the election on October 18, 1968. It is clear upon all the facts that this conduct also interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice in the election . I so find and recommend that the election of October 18 be set aside and a new election be conducted by the Regional Director . See Dal-Tex Optical Company, Inc., 137 NLRB 1782, 1786. C. The Discharge of Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond 1. Proprietor Ralph Beal, whose hostility to the self-organization of his employees has been amply demonstrated above, discharged Jackson and Hammond, the two waitresses who signed up some 29 employees for the Union, within a day or so after they exercised their statutory rights in this manner. Jackson and Hammond and a third waitress traveled together. They telephoned employees before calling on them, and then, with permission, called at employees' homes. They visited a few employees on Saturday night, August 31. They visited about 12 or 13 employees on Sunday, September 1, and a like number on Labor Day, Monday, September 2 before 2 p.m. 2. The names of Jackson and Hammond were on the restaurant employees' work schedule to work during the week beginning Sunday, September 1. Supervisor Jane Walker had made out the schedule late the previous week, and had scheduled Jackson to work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday ahd be off Friday and Saturday. She had scheduled Hammond, a part-time waitress, to work on Thursday. The names of Jackson and Hammond, and only these two, were stricken from the schedule on Labor Day. As has been seen above, that afternoon shortly after Jackson was discharged by Beal, Manager DeFore, who shortly before asked Shehorn what she knew about the Union, told Shehorn that Beal had told him that morning that he had scratched the two names from the schedule and would never put them back on again. Beal had been in the restaurant that morning for "coffee." Shehorn looked at the schedule that evening and saw that the two names had been scratched out. Jane Walker testified she did not know who struck the names. Neither Beal nor DeFore testified as to who struck the names. On all the evidence I hold that Beal struck them Monday morning . His striking them simultaneously and his refusal to put both back show that in his mind Beal somehow connected Jackson and Hammond together. Their only connecting link shown by the record was their joint organizing effort the previous 2 days. 3. At her severance interview on Labor Day a few moments after she reported for work at 4 p.m., with a tape recorder on, Proprietor Beal told Reta Jackson, according to her credible and credited testimony, that she was not a loyal employee, that he hoped she knew her rights, and that he knew his . He showed her a green book relating to union organizing and read her the title of it. He accused her of being out getting signatures, or getting signatures for the Union . He ordered her to clock out and never to return to the Holiday Inn as an employee or as a guest. He said her check would be ready for her the following day, Tuesday or Wednesday . Although Beal denied that the word "union" was mentioned during this interview, and denied accusing Jackson of getting union signatures or union organizing, the record does not contain Beal's version of this interview . Beal did not deny saying she was not a loyal employee and did not deny saying he hoped she knew her rights and that he knew his. The record suggests nothing but the Union that Beal was referring to in these remarks . Beal testified he obtained the book about union matters a few days later . As both Jackson and Pauline Shehorn testified he had a green book on Labor Day, and as they were more credible witnesses than he concerning the timing of the events, I credit Jackson's testimony concerning the severance interview. 4. After discharging Jackson, Beal escorted her to the timeclock, to the front of the dining room to get her apron, elsewhere to get her sweater, and then out the front door . Respondent's defense offered no reason why Beal went to such extreme lengths as to escort her out, and the record showed no other dischargee who was ever escorted out by Beal. Shehorn, a long-time employee, testified she has been in the restaurant when Beal has made discharges, and she has never seen him escort out any such person. 5. Russell Hammond, 15-year-old son of Barbara Hammond, credibly testified that on that Sunday or Monday, on Labor Day or the day before, while his mother was out soliciting for the Union , he received a telephone call from a person he recognized as Mr. Beal. He testified that he went to the Holiday Inn "about every week or so," that he ate there quite a bit, that he had talked to Mr. Beal a few times, and that he recognized his voice over the telephone . When the voice asked for Barbara, Russell replied that she wasn't home, that she "went out to get some signatures ." At this point Russell's sister, who was in the same room, shouted "shut up." The voice over the telephone replied "uhuh." Russell said that he didn't know when she would be back , that she had just gone out. The voice said he would call back later. On the witness stand Beal denied hearing Mrs. Hammond's son say his mother was out signing up people . He admitted calling the Hammond home several times and once talking to what sounded like a little girl; a 'In its brief Respondent moved to change the transcript I reading of "uhuh" to "huh," thereby converting the word of affirmative awareness to a word of questioning. I believe the court reporter correctly transcribed the testimony and so I deny the motion. 908 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD few moments later he testified he could not tell if it was her son or her daughter. As upon the entire record I do not think Beal was telling the truth concerning when he learned about the union movement, and as he did not appear to me to be a witness who was telling the whole truth , I do not credit his denial that he heard Mrs. Hammond's son say his mother was out signing up people . Upon the entire record I credit Russell Hammond's testimony, find "the voice" was Beal's, find that Beal heard Russell say his mother was out to get some signatures. Beal was out flying his airplane on Labor Day between "coffee" in the restaurant in the early morning, and that afternoon shortly before he discharged Jackson. Under all the circumstances of this case, I believe and find that it was on Sunday night before Labor Day when this telephone conversation occurred, and that this telephone conversation with Ressell Hammond reasonably tended to raise a suspicion in Beal's mind as to what Barbara was getting signatures for. 6. Barbara Hammond was a long-time employee of Respondent, but after February 1, 1968, she was, at her own reggest, a part-time employee. On August 26, when she attended Beal's meeting of employees,, Beal asked her, "Fatso, when are you coming back to work full time?" He added, in fun, that she needed to work a little more because she was "getting a little hippy." She replied she might return to working full time in the winter. Beal testified he told her he needed her. From this testimony I conclude that as of August 26 Beal had no intent to eliminate Barbara Hammond from his list of employees. 7. Having been informed by the hostess that her name was no longer on the work schedule, Barbara Hammond asked Beal "why?" over the telephone on Tuesday morning, September 3. Beal responded that the summer rush season was over, that Hammond did not work very much, that "we don't need you any more,"' and that, besides, he had received a letter from a bank in Chicago that Hammond owed it some money and he had replied that she no longer worked for Respondent." Beal admitted that he had received the letter from the bank about the middle of August, which was well before August 26, when he, in effect, invited Hammond back full time and, according to Beal's testimony, told her he needed her. Beal testified the summer season was over on Sunday night, the day before Labor Day, which fact he surely knew a few days before, on August 26, when he invited Hammond back full time. Further, Respondent advertised for two evening waitresses in the local newspaper on August 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28, which runs counter to any professed lack of need for Hammond from Labor Day on. On all of this evidence I conclude that Hammond's indebtedness to the Chicago bank, the alleged lack of need for her, and the end of the summer season, were but pretexts and not the real reason for Hammond's severance; and I find further that Hammond 'Beal did not deny this September 3 conversation with Hammond, which amounted to a severance interview, and Respondent 's brief gave Respondent's contention as to "the reason Hammond has not been called to work since September 1, 1968." Under these circumstances, and as Respondent did not rely on DeFore's testimony, I do not credit the testimony of DeFore on cross-examination that he continued calling Hammond and asking her to come to work some six or seven times after Jackson's discharge. "Although Beal testified as to a different version of his letter to the bank, Respondent did not produce a copy of the letter, which it was, presumably, in its power to do. Under all the circumstances I credit Hammond's testimony. was discharged as of the time of the striking of her name from the work schedule on September 2. 8. Late Tuesday afternoon, September 3, Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond returned to the motel with Leo Ketchum, acting secretary and treasurer of the Union, and tried, but futilely, to talk with Beal. As Ketchum was asking the day clerk if he could talk with Beal, the latter came out of his office. Ketchum asked Beal if he could speak to him. Beal replied he was tired, he had put in his 18 hours, and he would like to go home. Ketchum said it would take only a few minutes. Beal replied he was ready to go home. Ketchum asked if he could see him the next day. Beal replied that he would talk with him if he could catch him, but that Beal would not talk with Ketchum without his attorney and a representative from the Holiday Inn organization. It is clear from this testimony that Beal knew Ketchum was with the Union and connected Jackson and Hammond with him and the Union within hours after he discharged Jackson and Hammond allegedly for reasons other than their union activities. 9. Proprietor Beal admitted that he knew by Tuesday that it was Jackson and Hammond who had been talking to the employees about the Union, and that on that day he called the Holiday Inn headquarters for guidance concerning his union problem. 10. On Thursday, September 5, when Hammond and Jackson were having lunch in the restaurant, Beal put a chair at the end of their small table and sat on it for a half hour or more, thereby intruding himself into their conversation. The three of them had some small talk. Beal testified he sat with them to prevent them from talking with the employees about the Union - "because I wasn't going to let them come in my place and talk to my employees on this." He testified the Holiday Inn public relations man had told him that if they came back into the restaurant they would come in to "proposition" the other waitresses, that Beal could sit at the same table with them as long as he did not bother them. Beal added "after all it was my place." 11. A few days later Jackson, Hammond, and another waitress had lunch in the restaurant. Hammond walked through the waitress station, a small passageway between the large dining room and the small dining room, to talk to a painter who was working in the other room. Upon her return Beal came to their table and told them that the waitress station was off limits, and that if they ever went in there again he would have them arrested. 12. As has been seen above, in early September Beal told Shehorn that he would not rehire Jackson and Hammond. On Labor Day morning Beal told DeFore that he would never put them back on the work schedule. 13. In early September, as has been seen above, Beal told Shehorn he discharged Jackson because she was late on Sunday, or maybe it was Monday. Beal testified he discharged Jackson because she would not obey any rules. The record yields no reason favorable to Respondent why Beal gave different reasons at different times for the discharge of Jackson. Rather, this fact tends to show that both alleged reasons were pretexts. 14. Respondent's principal defense to the discharge of Hammond was that too often when she would be asked to work as a substitute in the restaurant or as a waitress at a party, she would decline, always having some excuse, and that Respondent decided to stop asking her. But this scarcely explains why her name was stricken from the work schedule on September 2 after she was already OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 909 scheduled to work that week and , insofar as the record showed, had not declined to work that week . Nor does this explain why Respondent changed its mind between .when Hammond 's name was put on the work schedule a few days before and when it was crossed out on Labor Day morning. Respondent contended that because she had not worked very much or very regularly lately Hammond was not an employee within the meaning of the Act, but was a "casual" worker. During the payroll periods for the payroll ending April 15 until the payroll ending August 31, Hammond worked 78-3/4 hours; she worked some during each payroll period except two . In addition she worked at least three banquets . The term "employee" under the Act has always been interpreted broadly, and includes extra men , temporary employees, and "casual" workers. See Tamphon Trading Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 597; Mushroom Transportation Co., Inc., 142 NLRB 1150; G.P.D., Inc., 163 NLRB No. 114; Bird Trucking and Cartage Co., Inc., 167 NLRB No. 82. I hold that Hammond was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act. 15. Respondent's principal defense to the discharge of Reta Jackson was that she was a difficult employee who used profane and sometimes vulgar language in the kitchen , disobeyed the rules, talked back to supervisors, made scenes in front of customers, and was a troublemaker . Jackson and Beal both testified there was a "clash of personality" between them. Whatever was wrong with Jackson and her behavior was not new and was well known to Beal. She had been that way from the beginning of her employment. He had' put up with it and her for about t year and 10 months because, as far as customers were concerned, she was one of his best waitresses. She "took pride in her work." Respondent used her to train new waitresses. She was thorough, fast, and sought to bring the customers' food in sufficient quantity and tastefully placed on the plate. In fact a principal source of dispute in the kitchen was her frequent demand , accompanied with some swearing, that the cooks prepare her plates more carefully, and the cooks' resentment of her pressure . The waitresses understood from Beal that they had the right to reject plates from the cooks, and Jackson exercised the right. Then Beal complained to Jackson that she was too much of a perfectionist. Beal and DeFore, who had authority to fire, passed up several opportunities in August to discharge Jackson for cause. After a scene in front of customers on August 21, Beal had a long talk with Jackson and let her continue working, although Respondent contended it had decided on about August 7 to discharge her at the conclusion of the busy summer season . In the record Beal and DeFore described their difficulties with her in some detail. However they never could quite bring themselves to the final act of discharge, although they had good justification . Beal and DeFore testified they hesitated because it was the busy summer season and they could not find a replacement. DeFore testified that at one point in early June he tried to find a replacement for her without success; however the record does not contain the extent of their efforts to find a replacement at any time. Beal testified they advertised in the local newspaper and got some "help" from the ads. The record is unconvincing that the reason they didn't discharge her earlier was because it was impossible to find a replacement for her; rather the record shows that there was a hesitancy to discharge her because she was a good waitress and because Beal thought "possibly things would correct themselves" - as DeFore quoted Beal in a June conversation. Beal testified that usually after he spoke to her she would improve for awhile. Upon these facts and considerations and the fact that DeFore and Beal did not impress me as fully credible witnesses, I do not credit Beal's wordy and unclear testimony, uncorroborated by DeFore, which Respondent contended proves that the decision to discharge Jackson on the Labor Day weekend was made on about August 7. Jackson was not Beal's only problem . DeFore testified a majority of the waitresses swore . Shehorn put the figure at three quarters of them. As has been seen at the beginning of this Decision, at his August 26 meeting with employees Beal complained about the swearing and threatened to put in a tape recorder to stop it;" he complained about tardiness and lying . Others violated various rules . On August 21 he discharged a hostess allegedly for drinking on the job - irrespective of any problem of finding a replacement in the tight labor market. Apparently during the summer of 1958 a waitress was discharged for stealing. Uncpr these circumstances the failure to discharge Jackson during the summer was significant. At the conclusion of their long talk on August 21 Beal told Jackson she could continue working if, according to Jackson's testimony, she would keep her mouth shut and not cause any commotion in the kitchen . According to Beal's version she was to keep her mouth shut, not sass him, and stop using vulgar language. There was no showing that thereafter Jackson ever violated any of these injunctions. Respondent contended that Jackson reported to work a half hour late after Beal's August 26 meeting of employees. Jackson and Shehorn credibly refuted this testimony. Jackson served Beal's family at noon time in the restaurant on the Sunday before Labor Day. Beal testified his wife took exception to Jackson's telling their 4-year-old son they were out of cokes and that if he were her child he wouldn't get any gum until he finished his chicken and potatoes . Upon the preponderance of the evidence I find that this incident was but another pretext and not the real reason for Jackson's discharge. Respondent's witnesses testified that at about 2:30 Sunday afternoon Beal told DeFore and a desk clerk that he was going to discharge Jackson. 16. As Beal's hostility towards the self-organization of the employees was well demonstrated; as Beal struck the names of Jackson and Hammond from the work schedule at the same time shortly after they engaged in an intensive effort to organize Respondent's employees, and discharged them shortly after that; as Respondent's knowledge on Labor Day of their union activities was shown by DeFore's interrogation of and statement to Shehorn that day, by Beal's admission to Shehorn that he learned about the Union on Monday, by Beal's possession on that day of a "green book" concerning union organizing, and by Beal's statements to Jackson at her severance interview and to Shehorn thereafter; as Beal indulged in the unusual behavior of escorting Jackson from his property; as Beal admittedly connected the two dischargees with the Union shortly after their discharge and refused to see the union representative without his lawyer and a representative from the Holiday Inn organization ; as Beal gave different and pretextual reasons for the discharges and "After DeFore and Jackson had testified to the large number who swore. Beal unbelievably in his testimony referred to putting in a tape recorder and playing it back to the "person" who did the swearing. 910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent's defense was generally unconvincing , I find, upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, that Beal discharged Jackson and Hammond because of their union activities and to discourage membership and activity of employees in the Union, Respondent thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. As provided in the Woolworth case, I recommend further that Respondent make available to the Board, upon request, payroll and other records in order to facilitate the checking of the amounts of backpay due. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occuring in connection with Respondent's operations described in section I, above, 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 I recommend the customary broad cease-and-desist order and the affirmative relief conventionally ordered in cases of this nature, where Respondent's unfair labor practices were of a character which struck at the roots of employee rights safeguarded by the Act. To remedy its discriminatory discharge of Reta Jackson, Respondent will be required to offer her reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by paying her a sum of money equivalent to the amount she normally would have earned as wages from the date of her discharge, September 2, 1968 , to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 percent as ascertained by the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. To remedy Respondent's discriminatory discharge of Barbara Hammond, Respondent will be required to offer her reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. She will be reinstated to the list of employees Respondent calls for extra help in the restaurant and for banquets, and receive invitations to work in the same frequency as before her discharge. Her union activities will not be held against her if in the future she wishes to return to work full time and Respondent has a vacancy. As Hammond worked 78-3/4 hours in the 22 weeks between April 1 and August 31, an average of about 3-1/2 hours per week, it is a fair inference that but for her discharge she would have continued working about that number of hours per week . To remedy its discriminatory discharge of Hammond, Respondent will be further required to make her whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination by paying to her a sum of money equal to what she would have earned as wages for 3-1/2 hours per week from the date of her discharge, September 2, 1968, to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period. The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the manner prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest thereon at 6 1. Olney Motels, Inc., of Olney, Illinois, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening to close down the restaurant rather than deal with the Union. 4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act by threatening to put up "no tipping" signs if the Union came in. 5. Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by threatening to discharge and suspend employees because of their union activities. 6. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening that if the Union came in waitresses would have only two breaks per shift. 7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies and activities. 8. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by giving the employees the impression that Respondent was keeping their union activities under surveillance. 9. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the the Act by making promises of benefits to discourage union activities among the employees and to cause the employees to abandon the Union. 10. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)of the Act by promising a wage increase to employees if and when the Union was defeated at the election. 11. Respondent violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by denigrating the Union by referring to union organizers as gangsters and hoodlums and as just taking employees' money. 12. Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) of the Act by announcing a new wage policy and raising waitresses to- discourage sympathy and activity in the Union and to defeat the Union at the election. 13. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, I recommend that Olney Motels, Inc., of Olney, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening to close down its restaurant rather than deal with the Union. (b) Threatening to put up "No Tipping" signs if the Union comes in. OLNEY MOTELS, INC. 911 (c) Threatening to discharge and suspend employees because of their union activities. (d) Threatening that if the Union comes in waitresses will have only two breaks per shift. (e) Interrogating employees concerning their union sympathies and activities. (f) Giving the employees the impression that Respondent is keeping their union activities under surveillance. (g) Making promises of benefits to discourage union activity among employees and to cause employees to abandon the Union. (h) Promising a wage increase to employees if and when the Union is defeated at the election. (i) Denigrating the Union by referring to union organizers as gansters and hoodlums and as just taking employees' money. (j) Announcing a new wage policy and raising waitresses to discourage sympathy and activity in the Union and to defeat the Union at the election. (k) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to join or assist Bartenders, Hotel , Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or any other labor organization, to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activity, 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 Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make them whole in the manner prescribed in the portion of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy" for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against them. (b) Notify Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.\ (c) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (d) Post at its restaurant and kitchen in Olney , Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."': Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14 (St. Louis, Missouri), after being duly signed by Respondent 's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. "In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, (e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith." RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPRESENTATION CASE As I have found above that Respondent's conduct interfered with the exercise of a free and untrammeled choice by the employees at the election, I recommend that the election of October 18, 1968, be set aside and that the Regional Director conduct a new election at such time as, in his judgment, the effects of the unfair labor practices have been dissipated. 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 the 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 " "In the event that this Recommended Order is 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 offer to Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority and other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, in accordance with the recommendations of the Trial Examiner's Decision. WE WILL notify the above- named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. WE WILL make whole Reta Jackson and Barbara Hammond for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in accordance with the recommendation of the Trial Examiner's Decision. WE WILL NOT discharge or in any other way discriminate against any employee because of his union membership or activities. WE WILL NOT threaten to close down the restaurant rather than deal with Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to put up "No Tipping" signs if the above-named Union comes in. WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge and suspend employees because of their union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten that if the Union comes in waitresses will have only two breaks per shift. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their sympathies and activities. 912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT give employees the impression that we are keeping their union activities under surveillance. WE WILL NOT make promises of benefits to discourage union activity among our employees and to cause the employees to abandon the Union. WE WILL NOT promise a wage increase to employees if and when the Union is defeated at an election. WE WILL NOT refer to union organizers as "gangsters, hoodlums, and as just being interested in taking employees' money." WE WILL NOT announce a new wage policy and raise wages to discourage sympathy and activity in the Union and to defeat the Union at the election. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or any other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria & Restaurant Employees Local No. 573, or of any other labor organization. Dated By OLNEY MOTELS, INC., DJB/A HOLIDAY INN (Employer) (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, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 314-622-4167.