Sheraton-Kauai Corp.

SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. Sheraton-Kauai Corporation and ILWU Local 142 Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO and ILWU Local 142. Cases 37-CA-543 and 37-CB-90 June 26, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On December 19, 1968, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, together with supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions. Subsequently Respondent Employer filed a reply brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases 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, cross-exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, except as modified below. We agree with the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions that Respondent Employer, by its aid and assistance provided Respondent Union, its recognition of Respondent Union as bargaining representative of the employees herein involved, and the extension of the coverage of its 1967 agreement to its Kauai employees, violated the Act. However, in addition to the evidence relied on by the Trial Examiner in this regard , we also rely on certain additional record evidence not specifically referred to in his Decision. It appears from the testimony of Richard T. Hashimoto, Industrial Relations Director of the Sheraton Hotels in Hawaii, that the employees of the Kauai Hotel, at the time of their hire, were made aware by Respondent Employer of its statewide agreement with Respondent Union, and "they were informed of the benefits, conditions that would apply, because of the application of the existing contract."' Clearly, one of the applicable provisions of that contract required the employees as a condition of continued employment to join the 25 Union on the 31st day following their date of hire. Thereafter, as a further reminder of the applicability of this agreement 'to these newly hired employees, a portion of the Respondent Company's welcome letter describing the Respondent Employer's employment and payroll policies contained in the "Aloha Kit" distributed on February 12, 1968, stated that all employees not specifically excluded from the bargaining unit were "covered by the Union agreement [and] you are required as a condition of continued employment to join the Union on the thirty-first day following your date of hire." The Respondent Union's letter, included in the "Aloha Kit" at the request of the Union, welcomed the employees into "membership" and, in bold affirmation of the fait accompli, announced to them that "as members of our union you will be covered by a contract that has been agreed to by the Sheraton organization." These events occurred well in advance of the Respondent Union's meeting with the employees at which time the authorization cards were solicited and further support our agreement with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that Respondent Employer and Respondent Union herein violated Section 8(a)(1)- and (2) and Section 8(b)(1)(A), respectively. On the other hand, we disagree with the Trial Examiner's failure to find, as alleged in the complaint, that Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and that Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) by unlawfully extending to Sheraton-Kauai employees the above-described union-security agreement at a time when Respondent Union did not represent an uncoerced majority of the Respondent Employer's employees. We make these additional findings.' Having found violations of Section 8(a)(3) and 8(b)(2) in the unlawful extension of the union-security contract to the Sheraton-Kauai employees, we see no sound reason for departing from our customary remedial policies for such violations.' Accordingly, we shall, as urged by the General Counsel, order joint and several reimbursement of the employees by Respondent Employer and Respondent Union for dues and fees unlawfully exacted from them with interest, as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as 'This testimony was given during the representation hearing in Case 37-RC-1427, held on March 19, 1968. The transcript of that hearing has been included as G.C. Exh 4(a) in the instant proceeding. 'E.g Super Markets General Corp. d/b/a Shop-Rite, 170 NLRB No. 6l, Sunset House, 167 NLRB No 132. 'See, e.g , cases in fn. 2 177 NLRB No. 13 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD modified below, and hereby orders that the Respondent Company, Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, Hawaii, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheraton Corporation of America, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and the Respondent Union, Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives, and agents, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Insert the following paragraph numbered 2(b) after 2(a) of the Order directed to the Respondent Company and renumber succeeding paragraphs consecutively: (b) Jointly and severally with the said Respondent Union reimburse its employees for any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the aforesaid agreement or any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any agreement superseding it, plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 2. Insert the following paragraph before 2(a) of the Order directed to the Respondent Union and renumber succeeding paragraphs consecutively: (a) Jointly and severally with Respondent Company reimburse said Company's employees for any initiation fees, dues, or other moneys paid or checked off pursuant to the agreement applied to Respondent Company's employees or to any extension, renewal, modification, or supplement thereof, or to any agreement superseding it, plus interest as set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 3. Insert the following paragraph after the last indented paragraph of Appendix A: WE WILL jointly and severally with Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO, make whole the employees of Sheraton-Kauai for dues and initiation fees paid to the above-named labor organization, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per year. 4. Insert the following paragraph after the last indented paragraph of Appendix B: WE WILL jointly and severally with the Sheraton-Kauai Corporation make whole the employees of the Sheraton-Kauai Hotel for dues and initiation fees paid by them to us, plus interest at the rate of 6 percent per year. MEMBER BROWN, dissenting: I am not satisfied that Respondent Union's majority status among the Kauai employees was unlawfully coerced, and I am otherwise satisfied that these employees were properly accreted to the existing statewide unit. I would therefore dismiss the complaint. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WILLIAM E. SPENCER, Trial Examiner: Pursuant to charges filed April 4, 1968, by ILWU Local 142, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, the latter hereinafter called the Board, issued his order consolidating Cases 37-CA-543 and 37-CB-90 and consolidated complaint dated June 11, 1968, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) by the Respondent Employer and violations of 8(b)(i)(A) and (2) by the Respondent Union, of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter called the Act. Respondents, in their respective duly filed answers, denied the commission of any of the alleged unfair labor practices. Following a hearing upon due notice at Lihue, on the Island of Kauai in the State of Hawaii, in which all parties participated, each of the parties filed a brief. Upon the entire record in the case, my observation of witnesses, and consideration of the briefs filed with me. I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT EMPLOYER Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, the Respondent Employer herein, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sheraton Corporation of America, on March 1, 1968, officially opened a new resort hotel called Sheraton-Kauai hotel on the Island of Kauai, State of Hawaii. On the basis of business operations at the Sheraton-Kauai to the date of the issuance of the complaint herein, a total gross revenue exceeding $500,000 is anticipated for the forthcoming 12-month period, and it is anticipated that during the said period the Respondent Employer will purchase and receive materials and supplies from outside the State of Hawaii of a value in excess of $50,000. It is also expected that during the same period more than 75 percent of guests at the Sheraton-Kauai will be transient guests residing at the said hotel for a period of less than 30 days. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED ILWU Local 142, the Charging Party herein, and Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO, the Respondent Union herein, are, each of them, labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues On September 20, 1967, Respondent Union executed a bargaining agreement with three Sheraton entities of the State of Hawaii, namely Sheraton Maui Corporation, Sheraton Hawaii Corporation, and Sheraton Hawaii Corporation on behalf of Kokusai Jogyo Kabushiki Kaisha. At that time, Sheraton operated some four or more hotels on the Island of Oahu and one on the Island of Maui. The September 20 contract purported to cover all Sheraton employees in the State of Hawaii. The Sheraton Maui operation was brought into the bargaining unit only after a Board-conducted election in which the employees of that operation voted for inclusion within the Statewide unit. The Sheraton-Kauai was under construction at the time this contract was executed but no permanent unit employees had been employed at that time. Incorporated in the Agreement was the following: SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. 27 The parties hereto recognize the continuing pressure for expansion of hotel facilities both on the Island of Oahu and neighboring islands in the State of Hawaii in an effort to meet the demands of tourist arrivals, particularly by reason of ever-increasing air carrier accommodations and inducement of Hawaii vacations through lower fares. It is the desire of the parties to promote an orderly expansion of hotel facilities and to facilitate the interchange of experienced employees in establishing an efficient staff. Therefore, the parties hereto agree that the appropriate bargaining unit for coverage of employees under the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the parties hereto in 1967 shall include employees of the Employer within categories covered by the prior agreement at all new hotels opened by the Employer within the State of Hawaii, as well as employees of hotels as to which the Employer assumes operation under a management contract or otherwise; and all provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall apply to said employees, except as the wage rates and fringe benefits are amended by the supplemental provision attached hereto. The principal issues are whether the employees of the Sheraton-Kauai were lawfully brought under the Statewide agreement as constituting an accretion to an existing appropriate unit, and/or (2) whether Respondent Union represented an uncoerced majority of Kauai employees at the time recognition was extended to it. In the affirmative, the Respondents; in the negative, the General Counsel and the Charging Party. B. The Question of a Majority As of February 12, 1968, a substantial majority of the total complement of Sheraton-Kauai employees had been hired and on March 1 the hotel was opened to the public. On February 12, the Respondent Employer held an orientation meeting for newly hired employees , and each employee was given an "Aloha Kit" containing various documents, including welcoming letters from Respondent Employer's manager, Edward W. Davis and Respondent Union's president, Arthur A. Rutledge. The latter welcomed Sheraton-Kauai employees into membership in Respondent Union, advised them that they were covered by a contract that had been executed by Respondent Employer, and that the benefits thereunder were embodied in a summary of the contract which would be distributed among them . Each employee received a document containing basic contract provisions, including the provision . you are required as a condition of continued employment to join the Union on the thirty-first day following your date of hire." During the course of the meeting, Davis introduced Respondent Union 's business agent, though not necessarily in his capacity as a union representative, Richard Tam, to the employees. Following the Respondent Employer's orientation meeting, Respondent Union met with the employees in a room provided by Respondent Employer, and there Tam, in the absence of any managerial personnel , reviewed benefits to be derived by employees under representation by his Union, and a leaflet was distributed comparing benefits offered by Respondent Union with that of a rival union, ILWU Local 142.' Toward the close of the meeting, after reviewing benefits the employees would receive from representation by the Respondent Union, Tam asked them if they approved what his Union proposed or had done - "Something along that line" - and, according to him, some 12of the employees showed that they were opposed . He admitted that there "were several outspoken proponents for the ILWU." Also, toward the close of the meeting, Tam requested employees to sign union authorization and membership cards which were passed out among them, and many signed. With additional cards signed on the following day, a total of some 98 employees, a top-heavy majority, signed cards. On February 16, Tam met with Richard Hashimoto, industrial relations director of the Sheraton chain of hotels in Hawaii, submitted the 98 signed authorization cards and requested recognition . Hashimoto, after rejecting one of the 98 cards, agreed to recognize Respondent Union as bargaining representative of Kauai employees, and this recognition was confirmed in writing by Hashimoto on February 19. Conclusions Kauai employees were given to understand at the orientation meeting of February 12 that the Statewide agreement already executed by the Respondents applied to them. Rutledge, in his letter of greetings, welcomed them into the Union, and their attention was specifically directed through the distribution of the Aloha Kits to the terms of the Statewide agreement. The union meeting which followed the orientation procedure, though unattended by managerial personnel, was held on company premises and was addressed by Tam, who had been introduced at the orientation meeting. Presumably, Tam's "sales" pitch and the resultant solicitation of authorizations was no more than a precautionary measure to fall back on in the event it was found that the Statewide agreement could not properly be applied to the Kauai operations without the Kauai employees' consent, and it was inconsistent with the presentation by both management and the Respondent Union that their coverage by the Statewide agreement was a fait accompli which, if it were the fact, did not require their consent. Obviously, these employees, having been told in effect that they were already under the Statewide agreement and under that agreement 'would be required to join the Respondent Union, were not exercising the required freedom of choice when on February 12, or thereafter, they executed union authorization cards. They were merely ratifying what they had been advised had already been done, and under such circumstance their ratification was without effect.' C. The Issue of Accretion to an Existing Unit This issue presents a more difficult problem. There is no question that management-wise the Sheraton operations in Hawaii are to a substantial degree centrally controlled and directed. Without overburdening this report with detail, it is noted that all the Sheraton hotels in Hawaii are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sheraton Corporation of America, and, with minor exceptions, have common officers and directors; that they have central headquarters, executive and staff administrative offices in 'There is no evidence that the ILWU represented any of the Kauai employees at that time, though in a letter dated January 12 it had notified the Respondent Employer of its intent to "seek" recognition as bargaining representative of Kauai employees. 'In making these findings, I have not relied on the testimony of Mrs. Kay Shimokawa, called by Respondent Union , testimony at variance with her prehearing affidavit given an agent of the Board , nor have I relied on her prehearing affidavit 28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Honolulu, one General Manager, and of material consequence, a single Industrial Relations Director. The Director is in charge of labor and personnel policies relating to the employees of all the Sheraton hotels in Hawaii, and he, together with the General Manager, is in charge of all matters relating to collective bargaining. The individual managers do not directly participate in such negotiation. A staff planning director from the offices of the industrial relations director in Honolulu determines the normal staffing requirements of each of the hotels and is responsible for payroll control. In addition, there is a central reservation system, sales director, chief engineer, and purshasing director, positions not duplicated in the managerial personnel of the individual hotels, and with functions affecting the entire chain of Sheraton hotels in Hawaii. Seniority of the said Sheraton employees is both departmental and statewide. Service in any one of the hotels is accumulated as statewide seniority. "When an employee is laid off from one hotel, he may, on the basis of that seniority, claim a vacant position in another Sheraton hotel." Employees may be promoted from one hotel to another, and such employees are, on promotion, on probation for 6 months, after which if they prove unsatisfactory, they may return to their former jobs. Employees may be temporarily transferred from one hotel to another. While transfers do not appear to be common, by stipulation of the parties, in the setting up of the Kauai operations, a ground superintendent and an engineering trainee were assigned from other Sheraton hotels to Kauai for a period of some 5 or 6 months, and a total of some 10 employees were transferred to Kauai from other Sheraton hotels, all of them prior to February 15, 1968. Some Kauai employees were subsequently transferred to other Sheraton operations. The record does not reflect transfers in the past between the various other Sheraton hotels, and, therefore, there is no firmly established pattern of transfers. In addition to the foregoing factors, it is noted that there is no showing that working conditions vary substantially from one location to another in which the hotels are located, or that there would be a substantial variance in problems of employer-employee relationships in the several hotels, other than day-to-day grievances which in any event would, in large measure, be settled at the local level regardless of whether there was a single or statewide unit. In sum, I think there is no doubt that a statewide unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and doubtless it would be more advantageous for management to deal with one rather than several labor organizations in reaching contract terms applicable to all its Hawaii operations. Certainly, conflict between the several operations would thereby be avoided or mitigated. There is also a good argument to be made, I think, that industrial stability would favor a single statewide unit. These conclusions do not, however, rule out the appropriateness of a unit comprised solely of Kauai employees, and we turn now to that aspect of the case. There is at least partial autonomy in the Kauai operation. It has a local supervisory staff and a local manager. The latter, necessarily, is in charge and responsible for day-to-day operations inasmuch as a single General Manager for all the Sheraton operations could not personally supervise such day-to-day operations in each of the hotels. The local manager has the authority to hire and to discharge, the latter qualified by the provision that if a grievance is filed and is not satisfactorily adjusted at the local level, it may be carried to the General Manager who would then have the sole discharge authority . Some 90 percent of employees at the Sheraton-Kauai operation were hired on the Island of Kauai, and it may be assumed that such matters as promotions and demotions limited to the Kauai hotel would be handled by the local manager and department heads. There is a distance of some 100 miles between the Kauai and Honolulu operations, most of it over water.' Conclusions It would be hard to distinguish the situation with respect to Kauai employees from that which existed on Maui, where a separate unit was found appropriate and an election held in which employees of the Sheraton-Maui were afforded a vote to determine whether they desired to be brought under a Statewide contract. They voted in the affirmative and thus enlarged the Statewide coverage, but that fact alone does not appear to affect the appropriateness of a separate Kauai unit. Also, in a somewhat similar situation , the Board in Hilton-Burns Hotel Co., Inc., 167 NLRB No. 29; concluded: "Accordingly we find that either a separate unit, limited to employees at the hotel, or the broader two-hotel unit may be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and that, in the circumstances, the ultimate determination should be resolved in accord with the desires of the employees as expressed in self-determination elections." It seems likely that the Board would apply the same reasoning here with respect to the 100 or more Kauai employees affected by a unit determination, and I must rule in accordance with what appears to be prevailing Board opinion, though, as previously indicated, I can find merit in the argument for a single statewide unit. With this conclusion, there necessarily follows the further conclusion that, by its aid and assistance provided the Respondent Union, its recognition of the Respondent Union as bargaining representative of its Kauai employees, and the extension of the coverage of its 1967 agreement to Kauai employees, the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and that the Respondent Union, by seeking and obtaining recognition as bargaining representative of Kauai employees at a time when it did not represent an uncoerced majority of said employees, and by acting in concert with the Employer in extending coverage of the 1967 agreement to Kauai employees, violated Section 8(b)(i)(A) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent Employer and Union set forth in section III, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent Employer set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. 'Under the statewide contract, there was a wage differential affecting Kauai employees but only because they were new employees . I do not consider this a significant factor. 'I am not certain of the grounds on which the General Counsel would base an 8(bX2) violation, and in any event an adequate remedy is to be had under a finding of an 8(b)(iXA) violation. SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. 29 V. THE REMEDY RECOMMENDED ORDER It having been found that the Respondent Employer, by its assistance to and recognition of the Respondent Union as collective-bargaining representative of its Kauai employees and by extending the coverage of its existing contract with the Respondent Union to its Kauai employees, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, and that the Respondent Union , because of the said employer assistance and application of the terms and conditions of the 1967 statewide agreement to Kauai employees, violated Section 8(b)(i)(A) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Respondents cease and desist from the said violations of the Act, cease giving effect to the 1967 agreement insofar as it affects Kauai employees, without, however, requiring the Employer to vary any wage or other substantive features established under the said contract, and that the Employer withdraw its recognition of the Respondent Union as representative of Kauai employees, and the Respondent Union cease acting as bargaining representative of the said employees , unless and until the Respondent Union's representative status with respect to said employees has been established in a Board-conducted election. I shall not recommend reimbursement of Kauai employees by the Respondents of dues and other fees paid under the Statewide agreement for the several reasons that by the date of the issuance of this decision Kauai employees will have been receiving the benefits and protection of the legitimately negotiated statewide agreement for almost a year ; because I am convinced that the Respondents, in bringing Kauai employees within the coverage of the Statewide agreement, acted in good faith, a single statewide unit also being appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining; and because at the time the Employer recognized the Respondent Union for its Kauai employees, no other labor organization had asserted a claim to represent these employees.' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union and ILWU Local 142 are, each of them , labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By unlawfully assisting and supporting the Respondent Union, Respondent Employer engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act. 4. By demanding and accepting recognition as the sole bargaining representative of Sheraton-Kauai employees and by submitting them to the terms and conditions of the collective-bargaining agreement as found herein, the Respondent Union restrained and coerced, and is restraining and coercing, the employees of Respondent in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1) A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 'Obviously, the ILWU letter to Respondent of intent to organize did not constitute a claim of representation. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case, it is recommended that: A. Sheraton-Kauai Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Contributing support and assistance to Respondent Union or to any other labor organization of its employees. (b) Recognizing Respondent Union as the bargaining representative of any of its Sheraton -Kauai employees for the purposes of dealing with the Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the said Sheraton-Kauai employees. (c) Giving effect to the collective-bargaining agreement of September 20, 1967, between the Employer and Respondent Union, or to any extension , renewal or modification thereof (insofar as it applies to Sheraton-Kauai employees): provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Respondent Employer to vary or abandon any wages, hours, or other substantive feature of its relations with its Sheraton-Kauai employees which the Employer has established in the performance of the contract, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with the rights guaranteed employees in Section 7 of the Act, 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Respondent Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its Sheraton -Kauai employees for the purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and until said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among employees at the Sheraton -Kauai hotel. (b) Post at the Sheraton-Kauai hotel copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 after being duly signed by Respondent or its representatives, 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 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. (c) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set forth in (b) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional Director , copies of .In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words, "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent Union's notice herein, marked "Appendix B." (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' B. Respondent Union, its officers, representatives, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Acting as the exclusive bargaining agency of any of Respondent Employer's Sheraton-Kauai employees for the purpose of dealing with the Employer concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment unless and until said Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the employees at Sheraton-Kauai. (b) Giving effect to the September 20, 1967, collective-bargaining contract between the Employer and Respondent Union insofar as it affects Sheraton-Kauai employees, or to any extension, renewal, or modification thereof. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing Sheraton-Kauai employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post, in conspicuous places, in the Respondent Union's business office, meeting halls, and places where notices to its members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20 shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent Union be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of the aforesaid notice for posting by Respondent Company at the Sheraton-Kauai in places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director, shall after being signed by the Respondents, as indicated be forthwith returned to the Regional Director for disposition by him. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps they have taken to comply herewith.' WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Hotel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO, or to any other labor organization of our employees. WE WILL NOT recognize said Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of our Sheraton-Kauai employees, unless and until the said labor organization shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among said employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining contract of September 20, 1967, with Restaurant Employees & Bartenders' Union, Local 5, AFL-CIO, insofar as it affects Sheraton-Kauai employees, provided, however, that nothing in this Decision requires us to vary or abandon those wages, hours, or other substantive features of our relations with our employees, established in performance of said agreement, or to prejudice the assertion by employees of any rights they may have thereunder. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such rights 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 amended. Dated SHERATON-KAUAI CORPORATION (Employer) By (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 1311 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 308, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814, Telephone 588-797. APPENDIX B '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 37, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 'See fn. 6, supra 'See fn . 7, supra. APPENDIX A 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: NOTICE TO MEMBERS AND 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 you that: WE WILL NOT act as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees of the Sheraton-Kauai Hotel, unless and until we have demonstrated our exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the said employees. WE WILL NOT give effect to the collective-bargaining agreement dated September 20, 1967, between the Company and ourselves, insofar as it applies to Sheraton-Kauai employees, or to any extension, renewal or modification thereof affecting the said employees. SHERATON-KAUAI CORP. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce the aforementioned employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights 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. HOTEL, RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS UNION, LOCAL 5, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By 31 (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 anyone has any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office , 1311 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 308 , Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 , Telephone 588-797.