Motel 6, Inc.

MOTEL 6, INC Motel 6, Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 247, AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2737 November 6, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On August 1, 1969, Trial Examiner E. Don Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed an answering 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 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 and the entire record in this case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner 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, and hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE E. DON WILSON, Trial Examiner : A charge in this case was filed by Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local 247, AFL-CIO, herein the Union, on February 24, 1969, and amended on April 1, 1969. Upon the charge as amended, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein the Board , issued a complaint ' on April 29, 1969, alleging that Motel 6, Inc.,, herein Respondent , violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein the Act. Pursuant to due notice , a hearing in this matter was held before me at Des Moines, Iowa, on May 27 and 28, 1969 The parties fully participated . Briefs have been 'Later amplified by a bill of particulars 'Name as corrected at the hearing 5 09 received and considered.' Upon the entire record4 in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, excepting Copple and Watts, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT At all material times, Respondent has been a California corporation engaged in the multistate operation of nonresidential motels Respondent's Des Moines, Iowa, motel is the only motel involved in this proceeding. Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is representative of all material times, in the course and conduct of its operations, had a gross revenue in excess of $500,000. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of the Act III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Issues The issues include whether Respondent unlawfully discharged one Lucile Dawson and illegally threatened and interrogated employees, required a prospective employees to agree not to cross a picket line, told employees it would never sign a union contract, changed Dawson's working hours and forbade her from eating lunch with or talking to other employees B. Background Employee Viola Hibbert was the leading protagonist for the Union She was the one who contacted the Union in early August 1968.6 She arranged for the union meeting where employees signed up for the Union. Shortly thereafter 9 of about 13 employees attended a meeting at the union hall and signed union cards On August 14, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board On October 4, there was an election which the Union won, 9 to 4 The Union was certified on October 1 l Negotiations for a contract began on October 24 There were about nine negotiation meetings and in May 1969' Respondent and the Union signed a collective-bargaining contract Dawson, a laundry employee who was discharged with another laundry employee, Nellie McCarty,' on November 29, participated with two other employees,' in all bargaining sessions, even those after her discharge It is important to note that under Section 10(b) of the Act, the cutoff date for any violations by Respondent was August 24. 'Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted. it is marked TX Exh I 'On June 11, 1969, 1 received a letter from counsel for the General Counsel enclosing a stipulation by him and Respondent The stipulation is accepted and the letter and stipulation are received in evidence as TX Exh 2 'Calvert 'Hereinafter all dates refer to 1968, unless otherwise stated 'Before the hearing °A nonunion member 'Hibbert and Aller 179 NLRB No. 82 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. Alleged Threats Dawson'° testified that in the "latter part of August," after August 24," Respondent's manager, Willie Watts, told her Respondent didn't need a union, "and to be sure to think it over before we continued into it " She then testified that after a similar statement, just before the election, Watts, while talking about the Union, said, "some of the girls were going to be fired " In a three page, detailed, excepting for dates, affidavit given to the Board on March 12, 1969, Dawson swore, "Watts didn't do any talking about the union " In response to the Trial Examiner's questions, Dawson testified that all Watts talked about in his conversations about the Union was that "he thought the employees would be better off without the union ." While Watts didn't say so, according to her, she gathered this was his personal opinion She later testified, in answer to a question by the Trial Examiner, that Watts simply told her he didn't think she needed a union and they could iron out their own difficulties. When asked if Watts said anything else to her, she testified, "No." Certainly Dawson's testimony" does not establish an unlawful threat by Watts Dawson further testified that in the latter part of August, "after the 24th," head maid Mildred Paulson told her Respondent's area supervisor, Harry France, was very angry about the Union and wasn't going to have anything to do with it and "some of the girls were going to get fired over it if we continued with it " Paulson denied making such a statement In her affidavit, Dawson fixed the time of this statement as "after the meeting" where the employees signed cards." In response to the Trial Examiner's question, Dawson testified that Paulson made this statement about France and some of the girls getting fired, "before August 24 " Thus, based on Dawson's own testimony, there is no evidence that Paulson threatened her within the 10(b) period and no violation can be found.' ° Employee Emma Coons testified that on the afternoon of the election," Watts asked her if she was holding a union card and when she replied she was, he told her she had better withdraw it or she would be fired Viola Hibbert testified that she began taking notes of Respondent's conduct on August 14, as reported to her by Coons and the other employees and made a notation of as many as she could from that time forward.'6 Coons testified she told Hibbert of unlawful actions by Respondent from the time she found out Hibbert was taking notes She told Hibbert everything she thought was important She certainly must have considered Watts' alleged threat to fire her to be important. Hibbert's notes were shown to Coons and while there was a notation for October 4, there was no reference to the alleged threat by Watts I found Coons to be an evasive witness on cross-examination, particularly as to when she first "I was unfavorably impressed by her demeanor She frequently contradicted herself In important respects , her pretrial affidavit to the Board was in contradiction of her testimony I find she knowingly falsified her claim for unemployment compensation to the State of Idaho in an effort unlawfully to obtain unemployment payments after her discharge I do not credit her testimony "I find Dawson was acutely aware that no violations could be found based upon Respondent 's actions before August 24 "Especially in the light of her affidavit "Before August 14 "Note that I do not credit Dawson's testimony at all learned Hibbert was keeping notes," and her demeanor impressed me unfavorably. I do not credit her testimony. I do not credit Coon's testimony that during September and October, Paulson told her apparently repeatedly that if the Union wasn't forgotten the girls would be fired or Paulson would work them to death. I do not credit Coon's testimony that Paulson kept reminding her that she was supporting her family and that she had better withdraw her union card if she had one filed, or that if she wanted to keep her job she should forget about the Union. Coons testified that the acts of Respondent as testified to by her on direct examination were related to Mrs. Hibbert on the evening of the time they occurred She knew whether events occurred before or after August 24, because she had read Hibbert's notes on the Thursday before she testified 'S She testified that Hibbert wrote down the dates that Coons had the conversations with Watts and Paulson and she used Hibbert's notes to refresh her recollection on the Thursday before she testified. She implied that she told Hibbert of every conversation she had with management from the time she knew Hibbert was taking notes.19 I credit Paulson's denial that she told Coons the girls would be fired if they did not forget the Union. I do not credit Coon's testimony that Paulson told her right after the election that Dawson was a no good troublemaker and all she did was talk Union and they would not allow that D Alleged Interrogation General Counsel alleges that at various times, various agents of Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees Coons testified that "about a week or two" after the petition was filed, Watts asked her why they needed a union and if she had joined the Union.20 A week after the petition was filed was August 21, outside the 10(b) period Her testimony is too vague to permit a finding that it was within the 10(b) period, during which a violation could be found. In General Counsel's complaint, he alleges that on or about the week of December 2, Respondent required prospective employee Maxine Calvert "to agree" to cross any future picket line as a condition of employment. I find on the basis of the deposition of Executive Housekeeper Claudia Copple that she was not in Des Moines after November 28.21 This is part and parcel of alleged unlawful interrogation by Copple and Paulson, of Maxine Calvert There is no contention that Mrs Watts was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and I ignore all testimony of Calvert as to what Mrs Watts may have said to her as evidence of a violation. It appears from "Apparently after the election "It has been noted that Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union She was the union observer at the election I find it to be a reasonable inference that Coons was aware that Hibbert was maintaining this record since or shortly after Hibbert began taking notes "She admitted on one occasion that she learned Hibbert was keeping notes "before the election " "She knew things happened on certain dates within 2 weeks after the petition was filed because "we (Hibbert ) had taken down some different things that happened and some of the dates were on them she kept track of everything " "When she had a conversation with management, she told Hibbert about it and she put down the details and the date "She testified that the incidents she described on direct were related by her to Hibbert "Given by deposition with the approval of the Regional Director and with cross-examination by a representative of the General Counsel MOTEL 6, INC. Calvert's testimony that she was hired by Respondent in early December She quit after a couple of weeks. Calvert testified that in November she was interviewed by Copple for employment. According to Calvert, Copple asked her if she knew a union was going in and asked how she felt about it Calvert allegedly replied that she didn't know a union was going in. Copple then allegedly asked her if she would join the Union if she were hired and she said she didn't know According to Calvert, Copple asked her if she would cross a picket line if one were put up Calvert said she would because she needed the money Copple, according to Calvert, said they would call her the following week to come to work Calvert added that she didn't hear from Respondent and about 2 weeks later, she called and talked to Paulson.22 Calvert then testified that Paulson said they were putting the Union in down there. Paulson asked her if she went to work, would she cross a picket line. Calvert testified she replied in the affirmative Paulson allegedly told her they were not going to hire anybody that was going to go union Paulson allegedly hired her and told her to come to work the following day. Paulson denied asking Calvert if she would cross a picket line, or belonged to a union or that Respondent was hiring only nonunion people. Paulson credibly testified that before Calvert was hired, she had no conversation with Calvert She specifically and credibly denied that she ever asked Calvert to agree not to cross a picket line as a condition of employment She impressed me as truthfully stating that she did not know Calvert until after she was hired. She had no conversation with Calvert before Calvert was hired I was unfavorably impressed by Calvert's demeanor and find she testified untruthfully. On March 13, 1969, only about 2 months before the hearing herein, Calvert gave an affidavit to a Board agent about the events of her hiring by Respondent She never mentioned in her affidavit any dealings with Paulson which allegedly resulted in her hiring. I am convinced that the reason Calvert did not mention Paulson's name in her affidavit was because she never spoke to Paulson in connection with her hiring. Calvert reread her affidavit at the hearing and said it "reflects everything that was told to you and the interviews you had " With respect to General Counsel's allegation that Calvert would have to "agree" to cross a picket line to be hired, Calvert testified that this was not said, but she "assumed that." In her affidavit, she swore that Copple said she "would have to agree to cross a picket line if I was hired." (Emphasis supplied.) She testified that Copple did not say this, but she "assumed that " According to Calvert, her conversation with Paulson lasted 20-30 minutes. There is no reference in her affidavit to this or any other conversation with Paulson. I find that Calvert concocted her testimony about her interview with Paulson and Copple for the purpose of this trial. Her demeanor impressed me unfavorably. I do not credit her testimony.23 She testified definitely that her affidavit reflected everything that was told to her by Respondent's agents, and the interviews she had. As noted, the affidavit makes no reference to her alleged fairly long interview with Paulson who allegedly hired her. She would have told this to the Board agent, if it had happened, because this would have occurred on or about December 2, as General Counsel alleges. I find no substantial or probative evidence of a violation of the Act through or by the noncredited testimony of Calvert. "On the basis of Paulson's credited testimony, I find she had no authority to hire 511 Coons testified that 2 weeks after the petition was filed,- Paulson asked her if she had a union card and she replied in the affirmative. Paulson allegedly told her she had better forget about the Union and Paulson would give her the head housekeeping job and Paulson was going to be the executive housekeeper and would take Coons on a trip to Fort Wayne, Indiana, all expenses paid She added that Paulson told her that if she didn't forget the Union she would be fired and since she was supporting her family she "had better think it over " She further testified that during September and October, Paulson told her that if the Union wasn't forgotten the girls would be fired or worked to death. She testified that on two occasions Paulson promised her a promotion She testified that Paulson told her that if she had signed a union card and wanted to keep her job, she had better withdraw it. Again Hibbert's notes didn't reflect these conversations, according to Coons 25 As I have previously found, I do not credit the testimony of Coons, whose demeanor impressed me unfavorably The credited testimony is that none of Respondent's supervisors are trained at Fort Wayne, Indiana, and head maids, to which Coons was allegedly offered a promotion, are trained on the job I find Coons concocted this testimony out of whole cloth While this may be out of context with this subsection, I find I do not believe Coon's testimony that on October 4, Paulson angrily told her, after her vote had been challenged, that she would find out who had gone to the Board and have her fired.36 This allegedly happened on October 4 and she testified she told Hibbert of conversations with management representatives at least before October 4.27 There was nothing in Hibbert's notes about these incidents 28 I find it inconceivable that Paulson, who was merely a head maid, would promise an employee an all expense 2 week trip out of town to a place where no training was given.39 E Alleged Statements That Respondent Would Never Sign a Contract With the Union General Counsel alleges that area supervisor Harry France told Respondent's employees that Respondent would never sign a contract with the Union. It has been noted that since May 1969, Respondent and the Union have had a collective-bargaining contract and, of course, there is no 8(a)(5) allegation herein involved There is no suggestion of bad faith bargaining. I have previously noted that I do not credit Dawson's testimony in any respect. She testified that France told her the employees were going to get a drop in pay and Respondent was not going to sign a contract for anything over $1 25 an hour. Dawson further testified that it was "General Counsel did not contend that Mrs Watts was an agent of Respondent and I disregard any statements allegedly made by her "The 10(b) period is so important "She testified that she knew whether acts occurred before or after August 24, because Hibbert kept track of everything "She testified that whenever she had a conversation with management, she told Hibbert who put down the details and the date "I find she knew Hibbert was keeping notes at least as early as August 14 If the small plant rule applies to employers, it should apply to union members whose leader openly kept a list of alleged misdeeds of management from August 14 "Hibbert testified she noted the incidents reported to her by other employees as much as she could "Coons implied under cross-examination that Hibbert "had notes of all these conversations and the dates of them " She added that Hibbert wrote "down the dates (she) had these conversations with Mr Watts and Mrs Paulson " 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD before August 24, that France allegedly made this statement to her. Consequently, even on the basis of Dawson's uncredited testimony, Section 10(b) prevents a finding of a violation She also fixed the time of this conversation with France as shortly after her hours were changed 30 As I shall subsequently find, her hours were changed on August 19, before the 10(b) period I do not credit Dawson's testimony that on the afternoon of the election, France told her the Union wasn't going to do the employees any good and that he would not sign any contract that provided for pay higher than $1.25 or that he would never sign a contract with the Union. McCarty was allegedly present when these statements were made by France. McCarty was not called to corroborate' Dawson 11 I credit France's denial of such statements. F Alleged Unlawful Change i n the Work Schedule of Dawson and Alleged Unlawful Forbidding of Dawson to Eat Lunch With or Talk to Other Employees General Counsel alleged that on or about August 24, (the cutoff date) Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), changed Dawson's work schedule and forbade her to eat lunch with or talk with other employees. In his opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss and for a bill of particulars, General Counsel alleged that France and Watts changed Dawson's work schedule so that her quitting time was 6.30 p.m. rather than 4 p.m and that they were the ones who forbade her to talk. Dawson admitted that during August and September, she never worked as late as 6 p m. As I have noted, I find she was very aware of August 24 as the 10(b) date. She testified that on September 5, her hours were changed from 7:30 to 4 to 8 to 4:30, and that Watts changed the hours 32 She further testified that on this date her lunch hour was changed from 12 to 12 3013 to 12 30 to I She testified that until September 5 she ate lunch with the maids but that after that, she ate by herself. She said that when she ate with the maids they talked about the Union most of the time in the presence of Paulson. She added that almost every lunch hour until September 5, she spoke in favor of the Union Yet, she testified that her mother-in-law, Florence Dawson, worked part time with her in the laundry, and three or four times a week she drove her mother home during the lunchbreak She further testified that it was France, the day after the petition was filed,30 who changed her hours from 7 to 4:30 to 8 to 5 30 She implied in her affidavit that this was done to prevent her from going to beauty school at night. She admitted to the Trial Examiner that it was before August 24 that France changed her hours so that they would begin at 7:30. The fact is that Dawson's timecards are in evidence and establish beyond question that the changes in Dawson's working hours applied equally to Florence Dawson and that "her starting time was changed from 7.30 to 8.30 a m on Monday, August 19, 1968 71 This was, of course, beyond the 10(b) date Her lunch hour was changed on the same date from 12 30 to 1. The maids' lunch hour was from 12 to 12.30. General Counsel has failed to prove a violation within the 10(b) period in this regard. With respect to General Counsel's allegation that on or about August 24, Respondent through France and Watts forbade Dawson to eat lunch with or talk to other employees, Dawson testified she was never forbidden by Respondent to talk to any employees during lunch time. She testified merely that if she wanted to talk to the other employees she "could talk to them on my own time." She testified she was told not to talk to the other employees, "on working time." She didn't know whether the other employees talked with one another during working time since she was "away from them." It is evident from the record that Dawson certainly didn't eat lunch with the other employees after August 19, yet she testified about Paulson and the other employees discussing the Union during the lunch hours at least until September 9. As noted, Dawson's testimony is not credited I find General Counsel has not proved these allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of the probative and substantial evidence. The maids and laundry help for good efficient reasons did not eat lunch together because they started work at different times . Dawson admitted she did not eat lunch at Respondent's motel 3 or 4 days a week because she drove her mother-in-law home When she didn't drive her home she ate either in the maids' room or in her car. I specifically do not believe Dawson's statement in her affidavit that Watts told her she couldn't eat her lunch in the maids' room with the other girls. Dawson's work schedule and her lunch time were changed 5 days before the 10(b) period and I find no credible evidence that Respondent was aware of her union activities, if any, at that time. The work schedule of Dawson and her lunch time with the other employees were changed before the 10(b) period. Hence, I find General Counsel has not proven a violation of the Act by such changes. I find Dawson deliberately fabricated her testimony in saying that her hours were changed on September 5 and then changed her testimony to say it was on September 9. 1 specifically do not credit Abby Peck's testimony that about a week after the election, Paulson told Peck that Dawson was not eating in the maids' room with the maids because Dawson had been talking about the Union The demeanor of Peck impressed me unfavorably and I do not credit her additional testimony that Paulson told her there was more than one way of getting rid of the girls besides firing them She did not remember the context in which the remark allegedly was made and had no idea what led up to it She couldn't say whether they were discussing the Union at the time. With respect to Dawson's change in hours, Peck first fixed her conversation with Paulson as after the election, October 4, and then on cross as a day or two after Dawson's hours were changed, August 19. General Counsel in his brief states that Dawson's timecards "show that the change in Dawson's schedule occurred on August 19 " I accept these timecards as authentic, as stipulated to by General Counsel, and do not understand how General Counsel continues to argue that the change in Dawson's work and lunch schedule was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) since the change was outside the 10(b) period.36 Any testimony contrary to the authentic documentary evidence is simply not credited.37 It may be noted that while Dawson testified "She testified this happened on September 5 "No explanation was offered for not calling McCarty "Her calendar, never offered in evidence , allegedly so showed 'The maids' lunch hour "August 15 "See letter of General Counsel and stipulation attached, marked TX Exh 2, as well as the timecards in evidence "Note that the credited documentary evidence shows that her lunch period before August 19 was 11 30 to 12 "Dawson testified she filled in her hours MOTEL 6, INC. that until her hours were changed, she ate with the maids from 12 to 12.30, her timecard for the period beginning August 12 shows that she ate lunch from 11:30 to 12 and her other timecards show that from August 19 through September 30, she ate lunch from 12 30 to I Thus, especially considering the fact that she drove her mother-in-law home during her lunch period three or four times a week, there is no credible evidence that Dawson, as she claimed and as General Counsel claims, ever ate lunch with the maids. Dawson made her own entries on her timecards I credit Paulson's testimony that Dawson never had the same lunch hour as the maids, which was from 12 to 12 30, while she was employed in the laundry. I specifically discredit Dawson's testimony that until September 5, she almost always discussed the Union with the maids during lunch hour, in the presence of Paulson who admittedly ate with the maids from 12 to 12 30 On cross-examination, Dawson said she did eat lunch in the laundry room and was sure of that A few lines later, she testified, "I did not eat lunch in the laundry room." (Emphasis supplied ) There is credible testimony which I need not elaborate on, that Dawson did eat lunch in the laundry room prior to August 19. G The Discharge of Dawson General Counsel alleges that Dawson was discharged on November 29 because of her union and other protected concerted activities 38 As has been noted, contract negotiations began between Respondent and the Union on October 24 Dawson, along with Hibbert and Aller,39 were the employee representatives in the bargaining sessions As has also been noted, Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union and, aside from being the union observer at the election, became job steward. Dawson began her employment with Respondent in April 1967 as a maid and soon became a clerk She was transferred to the laundry by Watts, at her request, in April 1968, and continued there until her discharge When she took the job in the laundry she was the only employee there. France told her there was a possibility they might give her a slight increase in wages, 15 cents an hour He also told that to Watts, who was a new manager She got the increase in a couple of weeks and not in a couple of months as Dawson testified She received $1.75 an hour and the maids $1.60. I find no credible evidence that Dawson engaged in any union activities before or between the election and her discharge other than her attendance at the negotiating meetings on October 24, November 19 and 24 Dawson testified she and France had several heated discussions during the course of the bargaining. Union Representative Eugene A. Schueller testified that each of the three employee negotiators engaged in "heated discussions," with management. Hibbert wouldn't say that she engaged in heated discussions but testified she, Aller and Dawson spoke up on behalf of the Union I credit France's testimony that Dawson was no more outspoken for the Union than Hibbert. I find no evidence to support General Counsel's opening statement that Dawson "was an outspoken advocate at the bargaining session prior to her discharge " I find no particular evidence to the bargaining conference which preceded Dawson's discharge "Note that nonunion McCarty, a part-time laundress , was discharged at the same time "A maid 513 Aside from being on the bargaining committee, I find no credible evidence that Dawson was particularly active for the Union. There is no credible evidence that Respondent knew Dawson was a union sympathizer prior to October 16 In considering Dawson's discharge, I note that her testimony is unworthy of belief and I do not credit it unless corroborated by otherwise credited testimony. I have previously noted that Copple and Watts testified by deposition under the direction of the Regional Director, with cross-examination by a representative attorney for the General Counsel. These depositions, during which exhibits were introduced, were given before the hearing in this case opened and I did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of either Copple or Watts I evaluate their testimony in light of the entire record, particularly the fact that the testimony of Dawson is unworthy of belief. I credit France's testimony that in April of 1968, he learned from Watts that Dawson had been given a 15-cent raise because of the workload in the laundry.'" I credit Watts' testimony that she was given the raise to keep her satisfied and because the workload was heavy. I do not credit Dawson's testimony that the raise was given 2 or 3 months later because she was doing a good job I credit Watts' testimony that Dawson's work performance was bad. Hibbert, the union instigator, observer, negotiator and job steward, was obviously biased in favor of the Union herein. Having carefully observed her demeanor, I do not credit her testimony that Watts said at a bargaining session that Dawson was making more money than the other girls, "because she was doing such a good job." Union Field Representative Schueller at first testified on direct examination that at a bargaining session, Respondent stated that Dawson was getting more money than the other girls because "her work called for more money and the responsibility " He repeated that those were the "two reasons " It was not until further questioning that he added "good work" as a reason she was getting more money. I find that she was given the increase because of the workload in the laundry and not because her work was so good. I credit the testimony of Patricia Porter, a clerk of Respondent and within the bargaining unit, and covered by the union contract. She was a maid from April 1 to June 1. She testified that while she was a maid the hand towels that were placed in the linen room, presumably by Dawson, were damp and could not be used. She further testified that some of the sheets were stained or dirty "like they had been dropped on the floor" and they were not used but put in the "dirty linen." She testified that all the maids complained about the damp towels. She did not know whether another maid might have caused the sheets to fall to the floor and become dirty and replaced on the shelves Paulson testified in detail about Dawson's bad work over a long period of time. While I do not discredit all of her testimony, I do find that she tended to exaggerate and unduly magnify Dawson's alleged faults I ignore her testimony as to Dawson's alleged faults. A detailed chart of instructions, describing exactly how to operate the laundry equipment, was located in the laundry room I credit Watts' testimony" that in June he told Dawson the "laundry room"" didn't look right, it "She was apparently the only laundress then employed "1 credit none of Dawson 's unless corroborated by otherwise credited testimony "I correct the transcript to read "laundry" from the sense of the testimony 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was getting dingy and gray and wasn't white like it should have been Watts told her finally, after some experimentation, to stick to the chart schedule. Copple, Executive Housekeeper for Respondent's western area, credibly testified after cross-examination which shook her direct examination in no way She was at the Des Moines location for several days beginning on July 22 to instruct and assist the maids and laundry employees and the manager She observed the laundry facilities and observed that they were being run very poorly She tried to show Dawson how to correct her mistakes and put up a new chart and tried to instruct Dawson. Dawson did not follow her instructions. Dawson's work performance was "very poor" Watts credibly testified that Copple recommended to him at that time that Dawson be replaced due to her work performance. Watts agreed that the laundry wasn't properly being taken care of He began to look for another laundress but could not find one then. On August 23, Copple wrote a memo to her superior, Brockett, that she had recommended that the laundry help at Des Moines be replaced as soon as possible. She added that the laundry help was overloading the equipment and overusing soap and bleach and would not listen to directions There is no credible evidence that Copple was aware of Dawson's union activities, if any, at this time After Copple recommended to Watts in late July, that Dawson be terminated, Watts again spoke to Dawson about her work habits in August. He also spoke to McCarty Neither Dawson nor McCarty followed his instructions McCarty said they didn't go by the rules on the chart. In August, France observed that Dawson was using a measuring cup for bleach which was not in keeping with policy and she had no control over the amount of detergent used Also in August, France had to replace the washing machine agitators because bleach and detergent was being overused, which pitted and put holes in them Also he found that the laundry employees used too much grease on the spindles of the agitators, causing block spots to appear on the laundry France is area supervisor for seven of Respondent's motels in the Eastern Division, including the one here involved. It is part of his job to take inventory of linen At Respondent's Des Moines location there are 100 units At the Fort Wayne location there are 120. From July through December, 492 pieces of linen were discarded at Des Moines and only 189 at Fort Wayne. Thirty percent of rejects are due to ordinary wear and tear. In July, 54 sheets were discarded in Des Moines and France considered this an extremely high number He observed stained and discolored linen at the Des Moines motel He advised Copple of these figures in November when she came back to Des Moines as will be subsequently discussed. France testified that by observing the condition of the linen, Dawson and McCarty were not following the instructions for laundering Beginning on November 6, Copple was at the Des Moines location for about 16 days, with visits to other locations, until November 28 During this time, she observed the laundry and found it in the same condition as July, "very poor." She was surprised that Dawson was still there. The condition of the laundry room was the worst she had ever seen Dawson improperly folded the linen . "To some extent" the linen was damaged because of overuse of soap and bleach and not enough rinse time She worked with Dawson for a day and for several days thereafter, Dawson started to show a marked improvement, and then began to slip again, and Copple again recommended to Watts that she be replaced. She told France that the laundry situation should have been cleaned up by then and said it would be impossible to keep McCarty and Dawson in the laundry any longer France agreed with her 41 On one occasion in November, as an experiment, Copple redid some torn up towels which were used to wash windows, etc., and showed Dawson that they had not been properly rinsed of soap Copple had an opportunity, as of November, to observe the work done throughout Respondent's chain and she considered Dawson's work to be one of the worst she had ever seen. Aside from the few days when Dawson improved and followed Copple's instructions, she disregarded anything she was asked to do. Copple urged Dawson's discharge because of her poor work performance. Copple credibly testified Dawson's union activities had nothing to do with her discharge She recommended McCarty's discharge because her work, also, was "very poor." Copple's testimony in no way was successfully attacked by the representative attorney for the General Counsel. Watts testified he discharged Dawson because of her work performance on November 29, and so advised her He credibly testified her union activities had nothing to do with her discharge He testified that McCarty also failed to follow the laundry instructions and was discharged with Dawson for the same reason He specifically testified that Dawson's work performance was "bad " He was unable to find anyone to replace Dawson after Copple recommended her termination in July Watt's testimony was not successfully attacked on cross-examination by General Counsel's representative Hibbert testified, in effect, that on November 29, Dawson called her and told her she was fired, because of "dirty linen "°" I have found no inteiference, restraint, or coercion by Respondent with respect to any employee's union or otherwise protected concerted activities I have found Respondent bargained apparently in good faith with and entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union I find no probative and substantial evidence of antiunion animus on the part of Respondent. I recognize that Respondent kept Dawson, a poor employee, at work for a long time after it became aware of her unsatisfactory work General Counsel has failed to prove that Watts was able to obtain a replacement for Dawson after Copple first recommended her discharge in July. Dawson was jointly fired with an apparently nonunion employee, McCarty Of the other two employee negotiators, Hibbert is still employed and is job steward. Aller has been promoted to a supervisor's position.05 I have considered the timing of the discharge, that is, within about a month after Dawson became a union negotiator. Suspicions do not suffice for proof 46 I find and conclude that General Counsel has failed to establish by a preponderance of the substantial and probative evidence that Dawson was discharged because of her union or other "As noted, there is no evidence that McCarty was a union sympathizer "1 have noted that Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union and I find, based upon all her testimony , and her demeanor, that she was biased in favor of the Union and Dawson I have considered her testimony in this light "I have considered that this would take her out of the unit "As- I have found, there is no probative substantial proof of union animus MOTEL 6, INC. protected concerted activities . She was an at least poor employee who was discharged for that reason and not for her union or other protected concerted activities I realize that I, through the Regional Director' s direction, at the request of Respondent, never had an opportunity to observe the demeanors of Copple and Watts However, their respective testimonies were not successfully attacked on cross-examination and were not contradicted by credited testimony.47 I conclude that General Counsel has failed to prove or establish any part of his case by a preponderance of the probative and substantial evidence CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record, I make the following conclusions of law- 1. At all material times, Respondent has been an 515 employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 2. The Union, at all material times, has been a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3 The record does not establish that Respondent has engaged in the unfair labor practices , or any of them, alleged in the complaint as amended and amplified by the bill of particulars RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record, it is recommended that the Board enter an order dismissing the complaint , as amended. "Florence Dawson and McCarty , fellow laundry employees, were not called to testify