Laurels Hotel and Country Club

LAURELS HOTEL AND COLNTRY CLUB 705 L. C. C. Resort, Inc., d/b/a Laurels Hotel and Country Club and Local 343, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO. Cases 3-CA-2950, 2950-2. 2950-3, 2950-4, 2950-6, 2950-7, 2950-8, 2950-9, 2950-10, 2950-11, 2950-12, 2950-15, 2950-16, and 2950-17 September 29, 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER B1 CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On April 8, 1968, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding ,' finding that Respondent had committed violations of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1), (3). and (5), and ordering that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action. Thereafter, upon its own motion , the Board ' decided to reconsider its finding that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and its order requiring Respondent to bargain upon request with the Union , in light of the Supreme Court's decision in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly, the Board issued a Notice3 to the parties, including the General Counsel . on August 5, 1969, that statements of position with respect to the above issue would be accepted by the Board for consideration on or before August 19, 1969 . The Union filed a Statement of Position. The Board has again reviewed the entire record including the Union 's Statement of Position, and having reconsidered the matter , affirms its original finding and order for the reasons stated below. In its original decision the Board found, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, that Respondent had engaged in numerous violations of the Act within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) at various times material hereto, in that Respondent discharged seven employees because of their union ox concerted activities ; discharged a supervisor because of his refusal to interfere with the union activities of Respondent' s employees; threatened employees with loss of their ;obs in retaliation for union activities ; engaged in surveillance of union meetings; interrogated employees with respect to their union activities; promised benefits in return for abandonment of union activities ; threatened that the hotel would close in the event the Union prevailed ; stated that the Respondent would not bargain in good faith with the Union ; and posted a notice calling for a vote against the Union and asked employees to sign the notice. With respect to the Section 8(a)(5) allegation, the Board found that on April 19, 1966. the day on which the Union made its demand for recognition, the Union , by virtue of authorization cards, represented 108 employees out of the 199 employees in the unit. Having carefully reconsidered this matter, we are of the opinion that Respondent's unfair labor practices , as set forth above. are of such a substantial nature as clearly to preclude the holding of a fair and free election and require a bargaining order to repair their unlawful effects . We have, therefore, concluded that the desires of Respondent's employees, as expressed by the valid authorization cards signed by a majority of the employees in the unit, can be protected , and statutory policies effectuated, only by affirming the Board's previous finding of Section 8(a)(5) and its order that Respondent bargain , upon request with the Union involved herein . ,'VV.L.R B v. Gissel Packing Company, 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly, we hereby reaffirm the Decision and Order heretofore issued in this case '170 NLRB No 113. '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 'Not published in NLRB volumes. 178 NLRB No. 11 1