Ramada Inns, Inc.

450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Ramada Inns, Incorporated and Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield Bartenders, Hotel , Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-7261 May 20, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On February 25, 1971, Trial Examiner Ivar Peterson issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engag- ing in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at- tached Trial Examiner's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex- aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi- cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex- aminer's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. The complaint alleges and the Trial Examiner finds that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing its employees that it prohibited employee solicitation for union membership on Respondent's premises at any time. The Respondent excepts to this finding. We find merit in this exception in that, in our opinion, the evidence does not establish that Respondent did in fact inform its employees that it prohibited employee solici- tation for union membership on Respondent's premises at any time. Sometime prior to August 7, Respondent posted in its lobby and bar areas a two-part no-solicitation rule. The first part prohibited employee solicitation or litera- ture distribution during the working time of the em- ployee engaging in the solicitation or the employee be- ing solicited. The second part prohibited nonemployee solicitation or literature distribution for any purpose on the premises.'On August 7, Respondent attempted to ' The rule also prohibited solicitation or distribution by anyone in areas enforce this last provision against nonemployee solici- tors on two different occasions, as fully detailed by the Trial Examiner. After the first of these occasions Re- spondent called the bartender's attention to the rule (the nonemployee solicitation occurred in the bar area) and asked him to post an additional copy of the rule in the bar area. Unlike the Trial Examiner we do not believe that there is anything in Respondent's actions in seeking to enforce its rule against nonemployee solic- itation which could reasonably lead employees to be- lieve that Respondent intended to broaden its rule against employee solicitation for union membership on nonworking time into a prohibition of said activity at any time. In particular, we do not believe that the calling of the bartender's attention to the rule and the additional posting of the rule in the context of nonem- ployee solicitation in violation of the rule would lead employees to believe that their employer, despite the plain wording of the rule, would not continue to distin- guish between solicitation by outsiders and solicitation by employees. Accordingly, we find that Respondent did not promulgate or enforce an unlawful no-solicita- tion rule in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and shall dis- miss those allegations of the complaint. AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Delete paragraph 4 and renumber the remaining paragraphs consecutively. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as modified below and hereby or- ders that Respondent, Ramada Inns, Incorporated, Chicopee, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order as modified be- low: 1. Delete paragraph 1(b) and reletter the present paragraph (c) as paragraph (b). 2. Substitute the attached notice for the Trial Ex- aminer's notice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleged unfair labor practices not specifically found. available to the public during the times when they are so available, and distribution at any time in any work area 190 NLRB No. 87 RAMADA INNS APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after a trial, that we violated Federal law by discharg- ing Paul Panske because of his union activity: WE WILL offer Paul Panske full reinstatement and pay him for the earnings he lost as a result of his discharge, plus 6-percent interest. WE WILL NOT discharge or discriminate against any employee for supporting Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO, or any other union. WE WILL NOT unlawfully interfere with our employees' union activities. RAMADA INNS, INCORPORATED (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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. Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Bulfinch Building, Seventh Floor, 15 New Char- don Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IVAR H. PETERSON, Trial Examiner: I heard this case on December 8 and 9, 1970,' in Springfield, Massachusetts, upon a charge filed on August 28 by Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Em- ployees International Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, which resulted in the Regional Director for Region 1 issuing a complaint dated November 13 against the Respondent. Briefly stated, the complaint alleged that the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in that it informed its employees that it prohibited employee solicitation for union membership on the Respond- ent's premises at any time and on August 7 threatened em- ployees with reprisals because of their activity on behalf of and membership in the Union, and unlawfully discharged Paul Panske on August 7, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) ' Unless otherwise indicated all dates refer to the year 1970 451 and (3) of the Act. In its answer the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. On or about Janu- ary 12, 1971, counsel for the Respondent and counsel for the General Counsel filed briefs, which have been carefully con- sidered. Upon the entire record in the case and from my observa- tion of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its princi- pal office in Phoenix, Arizona, maintains a place of business in Chicopee, Massachusetts, which is the only facility in- volved in this proceeding. At the Chicopee Inn the Respond- ent is engaged in providing motel accomodations and in the retail sale of food, drinks, and related services. The Respond- ent admits and I find that it causes large quantities of motel furniture, linens, supplies, and food and liquor used in its business to be transported in interstate commerce from and to various States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. It annually sells motel accommodations, food, drinks, and related products, the gross value of which exceeds $500,000. Annually the Respondent ships and transports pro- ducts valued in excess of $50,000 from its place of business in interstate commerce directly to States of the United States other than the State of Arizona. The Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union, Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield Bartenders, Ho- tel, Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Evidence The Respondent's Chicopee establishment is a new opera- tion. The hotel portion of the Inn opened on June 29 and the restaurant, which includes the food and beverage operation, opened on July 20 . Robert Gange, the general manager, who transferred to Chicopee from Arcadia, California , where he had worked at another of the Respondent's inns for about a year and a half, came to Chicopee in May and interviewed and hired all employees and supervised the other aspects of readying the establishment for operation. On May 23 Gange was an honored guest at a civic function welcoming the Respondent to the Chicopee area . In attend- ance was Edward Wall, the secretary-treasurer and business agent of Local, 116 . Wall met Gange and, during the course of their conversation , Wall stated that he would attempt to organize the Inn . In reply, Gange asked Wall to give him "a couple of months to get my feet on the ground " before begin- ning an organizational drive, and Wall assured that he would refrain from any efforts in that regard until Gange had gotten started. One of the two regular bartenders hired by Gange was Paul Panske, the alleged discriminatee in this case . He had worked as a bartender for some 20 years in various localities . On July 17 and for the next couple of days he assisted in setting up the bar area in the Respondent 's establishment and actually began tending bar when the Inn opened on July 20, working the day shift, from 10 a.m. until 6 :30 or 7 p.m. The night bartender came on duty about 5 p.m. 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On July 29, about 4:30 or 5 o'clock, Panske was told by a waitress that General Manager Gange wished to see him in the office. When Panske arrived in the office Gange said to him, "Paul, I think you have been drinking." Initially, Panske denied that he had been drinking but when Gange persisted in the opinion that he had been drinking, Panske admitted that he did have "a couple of drinks" with a friend of his from New York City who insisted that Panske join him in some drinks at the bar According to Panske, he had these drinks about 3:30 or 4 o'clock. Gange warned that he did not wish to see such an incident happen again and Panske promised that it would not. According to Panske, Gange mentioned no other complaints during the course of this meeting. Gange testified that on July 29, about 1:30, he was in- formed that two waitresses, Judy Kortabani and Carol Har- ris, wished to see him. When they came in they complained that they were receiving very poor service from the bartender and stated that he was at the other end of the bar talking to customers when they called in their drink orders. Gange stated that he would look into the matter. He did not, how- ever, immediately investigate the situation, testifying that he was occupied with other urgent matters. At approximately 4:30, while walking through the hotel area, he met Joseph Gelone, an official from the head office who was supervising opening operations at the Inn. According to Gange, Gelone stated that he thought Gange should "take a look at the bartender" because he (Gelone) "thought he was a little un- der the weather." Gange further testified that as he was walk- ing away from Gelone, Carol Harris came out of the lounge area and told him, "You better take a look at Paul. He's bombed." However, it was not until about 5 or 5:15 that Gange called Peter Wolf, the food and beverage manager, and told him that he wished he would have Panske come to the office and that Wolf should also be present. Gange continued by relating that Panske denied that he had been drinking, but stated that Panske's movements were "very slow," that he was "slurring his speech," and that his eyes were "glassy." According to Gange, he also brought up prior complaints registered with him by the waitresses regarding poor service and further mentioned that the night bartender, Al Theodore, had complained to him about the "sloppy condition" in which Panske left the bar when his shift ended Gange tes- tified that the interview terminated about 6 o'clock and that he requested that Panske punch out and go home.' Gelone testified that during the lunch hour he had received some complaints from some of the waitresses to the effect that they could not obtain satisfactory service from the bar. He further related that about 2 or 2:30 p.m., while checking up on some matters in the kitchen area, a waitress (Joan Ball) came up to him and said, "I'm not going to put up with this stuff anymore," stating that the bartender was drinking. Ge- lone continued by testifying that about 4:15 he went to the bar and ordered a soft drink and that he noticed that the bar- tender was sort of "glassy-eyed," that he "couldn't talk too straight, " and "slurred his words." Gelone, so he testified, went out of the lounge area, met General Manager Gange, and told him "I believe you have a problem. Your bartender is under the weather." Wolf, the food and beverage manager, testified that about 3:30 p.m., waitresses Harris and Ball told him that they thought Panske had been drinking. A little later Wolf ob- served Panske filling a bucket with ice cubes at the ice-making machine and noticed that he was spilling some cubes as he walked down the hallway in a swaying fashion. Wolf's ac- ' Gange admitted, on cross-examination, that in the prehearing affidavit he gave the Regional Office he did not mention anything about asking Panske to check out and go home at the close of the July 29 meeting count of the meeting in Gange's office was substantially the same as Gange's. Harris, the waitress, testified that she and another waitress, Kortabani, went to Gange's office on the afternoon of July 29 and complained that Panske's service was poor, that they could not do their work because of him, and also stated that another waitress was threatening to quit on account of Pan- ske's poor service. She further related that they told Gange that Panske had been drinking. Later in the day, so Harris testified, she met Gange in the hotel lobby and told him that Panske was "bombed." About 1:30 on August 7 Joseph Fessia, formerly president of the Union but for the past several years employed as a representative of the New England Telephone Company, came into the bar and was served a drink by Panske. Shortly thereafter Wall, business agent of the Union, came into the lounge and seated himself at the bar some distance away from Fessia. Panske identified himself to Wall, stating that some years earlier he had worked in Chicopee. Panske showed Wall his traveling union card and stated that he intended, as required by the rules of the International, to deposit the card with the Union. Panske told Wall that a past president of the Union was at the other end of the bar and proceeded to introduce Wall to Fessia. Panske, so he testified, also intro- duced Wall to waitresses Harris and Kortabani as the busi- ness agent of the Union. Wall testified that he spoke to the waitresses, saying that he would like to sit down and talk to them some day about forming a committee to organize the Inn. He explained to them that by organizing they could benefit in many ways, such as in wages, working conditions, and job security. He added that Kortabani said she was not interested. The two waitresses promptly complained to Gange, stating that Wall was interfering with their work in speaking to them about the Union. Gange picked up a framed "no solicitation" notice that had been posted in the lobby and went into the lounge area. He showed the plaque to Panske and asked if he was familiar with it. Panske replied that he was and, at the request of Gange, placed the plaque on the back bar. Gange then went to where Wall was seated and asked to see Wall in the lobby. Wall testified that in the lobby Gange asked him what he said "to my girls" and he (Wall) replied, "Well, I told them I would like to form a committee and organize the motel." To this Gange, so Wall testified, answered, "My employees don't want a union," to which Wall rejoined that Panske was already a member.' Gange further told Wall if he wished to organize the motel he should follow "the NLRB ground rules." Gange asked Wall to leave the premises, whereupon Wall returned to the bar, picked up his change, and left without finishing his drink. The "no-solicitation" notice which Gange had Panske place on the back bar reads as follows: "NO SOLICITATION RULE" In the interests of the comfort, convenience and the continued good will of our customers , there shall be no solicitation or distribution of literature of any kind by any employee during the working time of the employee soliciting or the employee solicited . Persons not em- ployed here may not solicit or distribute for any purpose anywhere on the property of this establishment. There ' On direct examination Wall testified that, in response to his statement that Panske was already a member , Gange said that when he hired Panske he did not know that he was a union bartender On cross-examination, Wall said that when he told Gange that the bartender "is already in the Union," Gange replied, "What? Had I known he was in the Union, I don't believe I would have hired him " RAMADA INNS shall be no solicitation or distribution by anyone in areas made available to the public during the times when they are so available nor will distribution be permitted at any time in any work area ANY EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS EMPLOYEE'S BULLETIN SHALL BE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL. RAMADA INNS, INC. The next incident material in this proceeding occurred on August 7, about 4:45 p.m. and thereafter . Kasimir Godek, the chairman of the Chicopee Licensing Commission and an as- sociate, Henry Mason, came into the bar. Fessia , who was still there, introduced Panske to them After serving them drinks, Panske, at Godek's request, sent for Gange. When Gange arrived he engaged in a 10- or 15-minute conversation with Godek, during which Godek presented him with the new liquor license for the Inn.' At Gange's request , Panske brought him the old license and Gange removed it from the plastic cover, inserted the new license , and gave it to Panske to post on the back of the bar. Gange and Godek discussed the details involved in a future application by the Respondent for an innkeeper's license, which would authorize the Re- spondent to offer expanded liquor services , such as service in the rooms of the Inn. Gange then left the vicinity of the lounge and Godek engaged in conversation with Fessia. Fessia, who was sitting near the service area of the bar, en- gaged in some converstion with the waitresses, including making the observation that they would be paid substantially more and enjoy other benefits if they were unionized. Godek inquired of one of the waitresses how business was and she responded that it was fine but would be better if they had an innkeeper's license. Godek then explained the purpose of his visit that day. Gange testified that while he was at the bar engaged in discussion with Godek , he observed that Panske "was leaning against the back bar ... with his arms crossed and eyes closed and sort of swaying...... Furthermore, it is his testimony that he inserted the new license in the plastic folder and personally went behind the bar and posted it. As he was thus engaged, so he further testified , he noticed Panske "reaching for a beer in the beer box" and that he stumbled and "almost fell into beer box " He continued by stating that later on, after he had left the lounge area and about 5 o'clock , he overheard waitress Harris tell Wolf, the food and beverage manager, that Panske had been drinking very openly with other gentle- men at the bar. Gange then asked Wolfe if he (Gange) could see Wolf in the latter's office. While they were together another cocktail waitress came to Gange and stated, so he averred, that she refused to go back into the bar because she felt she was being harrassed and was being interrupted in her work. She identified Fessia as the offender. Gange then, so he testified, instructed Wolf to go out to the lounge area and speak to Fessia Wolf went to the bar, walked up to where Fessia and Godek were seated and, in the words of Godek, faced both of them and said , "I want you to leave, you have no right to solicit." Godek asked Wolf if he knew who he (Godek) was and Wolf stated that he did not. Godek then introduced himself as the chairman of the Chicopee Licensing Commission and asked what Wolf s position was and for his name. Wolf identified himself and stated his position. Godek asked Panske to inform Wolf of the reason for his visit and Panske stated that Godek was delivering the liquor license. Thereupon Wolf apologized to Godek and stated he was not referring to him . Godek then told Wolf that he would like to Since July 20 the Respondent had operated on the license that had been issued to the preceding owner 453 speak to General Manager Gange and Godek , his associate, Mason, and Fessia went to Gange's office. Gange apologized to Godek, in substance stating that it was not intended that he or Mason should be accused of soliciting in the bar, but implied that the criticism applied to Fessia . Fessia advised Gange that Wolf did not know who he was, and stated that he was a member of management personnel wit+r the tele- phone company and did not belong to the Union. Godek testified that he was at the bar about 30 minutes before going to Gange's office and was served two drinks by Panske during that period. He had three verbal exchanges with Panske while at the bar and testified that he had ample opportunity to observe Panske and the latter's condition. Godek testified that Fessia offered to purchase a drink for Panske but the latter refused to accept it . Godek further stated that Panske "was sober" and "wasn't intoxicated at all." Mason testified that he observed Panske working behind the bar cutting some limes and lemon peels. He further stated that Panske was not intoxicated , that his speech was not slurred in any way, that he was not incoherent , and that he (Mason) did not see Panske take a drink. Gange related that , after he had concluded his conference with Messrs . Godek, Mason, and Fessia and had attended to some telephone messages, he went to the restaurant area near Wolf s office and while there heard Theodore, the night bar- tender, stating to Wolf, "Well, he is at it again ." It was then that Gange, according to his testimony , asked Wolf to have Panske come to the office . Gange asked Panske if he had been drinking and Panske denied that he had . Gange related that Panske was "sort of incoherent ," that he "just sort of stared," that his speech was "sort of slurred," and that he had "a glassy look again." In addition , so Gange testified, he men- tioned to Panske that during that week there had been "sev- eral shortages" in his deposits and asked for an explanation. He further stated that Panske had no explanation . Moreover, so Gange testified, he also told Panske that he was still getting complaints from the night bartender about the condition of the bar . He then told Panske that he was discharged and paid him off with a voucher that he had prepared prior to sending for Panske. Wolf, the food and beverage manager, testified that follow- ing the July 29 meeting he was receiving "more and more" complaints from the waitresses regarding Panske's service during lunch, and that he spoke to Panske in an effort to ascertain the reason for the slowdown. Furthermore, so Wolf testified, he again spoke to Panske about drinking on duty, as from his observation Panske had had "one too many." In sum, it is Wolfs testimony that following July 29 and prior to August 7 he warned Panske about drinking on about three occasions. Waitress Harris testified that Panske's service during the first week the Inn was open was satisfactory , but beginning the second week it became slow She acknowledged that the number of customers in the dining room was considerably heavier the second week She further testified that during August 7 she saw Panske drinking both in the liquor room and at the bar. It was not, however, until about 4 o'clock that she went to Wolfs office and reported the drinking to him. Waitress Kortabani also testified that following July 29 she saw Panske drinking quite often.' ' Theodore , the night bartender , who worked together with Panske from 5 to 7 p.m., was not called as a witness nor was it indicated that he was unavailable 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Concluding Findings As is so frequently the case in matters of this kind, involv- ing the alleged discriminatory discharge of an employee, a resolution of the issue requires the careful weighing of the relative credibility of the.witnesses and the reliability of their testimony. Here we have Panske stoutly maintaining that, following the meeting with Gange on July 29 and the warning given him by Gange at that time, he did not drink any bever- ages at any time during the remaining period of his employ- ment. With respect to his condition on August 7, there is the apparently disinterested testimony of Messrs. Godek, Mason, and Fessia, all of whom had opportunity to and testified that they did observe Panske and his condition. Of these three, Fessia remained at the bar from about 1:30 until late in the afternoon Each of them testified that from his observation he did not see Panske take a drink and that, in his opinion, Panske was not intoxicated or in the slightest'under the influ- ence of alcohol. On the other hand, Gange, Gelone, Wolf, and the cocktail waitress, Harris, variously testified that they saw Panske on more than one occasion take a drink at or near the bar, that his speech was "slurred," and that he appeared "glassy-eyed," and "incoherent." Indeed, the composite of their testimony is that Panske was inebriated from about 1:30 until he was terminated at 6:30. Upon a careful consideration of all the testimony, I am persuaded that Panske did not drink intoxicating beverages while on duty on August 7 or appear to be intoxicated. In coming to this conclusion I have given credence to the tes- timony of Godek, Mason, and Fessia, men who are mature and hold responsible positions in the community and who had no personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding. In particular, Godek, as chairman of the licensing commis- sion, by reason of his position and experience, would have been quick to notice any signs of intoxication on the part of the bartender. Nor do I believe it logical that Panske, with some 20 years of experience in substantial establishments, would openly violate a well-known rule of the Respondent, particularly so shortly after the warning given him by Gange on July 29 Moreover, it strains credulity to believe, as the Respondent would have it, that Gange and Wolf, the respon- sible representatives of management, would permit an em- ployee to continue with his duties as bartender after they had personally observed his allegedly inebriated condition. But the fact is that nothing was done to remove Panske from behind the bar for some:5 hours, during which period Gange and Wolf allegedly received complaints from other employees regarding the quality of,Panske's service and reports that he was drinking and was in an intoxicated condition. I think it is reasonable to infer from the testimony that Gange desired to avoid,or prevent the organization of the Inn's employees. Thus, at the meeting with Wall in May, Gange requested that Wall refrain from organizational ac- tivity at least until he (Gange) "got his feet on the ground." It was reasonable, therefore, for Gange to anticipate that efforts at unionization -would probably be attempted after the Inn had been in operation for some period of time. When Wall appeared at the bar on August 7 Panske identified him- self as a union member,and introduced Wall to two waitresses as the business agent of the Union. In addition, Wall told the two waitresses, Harris and Kortabani, that he would like to talk to them some day about forming a committee for the purpose of organizing the Inn, and explained the benefits that they would derive from such an effort if it were successful. Upon being promptly informed by the waitresses of the ap- proach made to them by Wall, Gange reacted positively, by ordering Wall to leave the premises and bringing the no- solicitation rule to the attention of Panske. During the con- versation with Wall in the lobby, Gange stated that the em- ployees did not desire a union and was then told by Wall that Panske was already a member of the Union.' Later in the afternoon, upon receiving from a waitress a complaint regard- ing Fessia who had been talking to the waitresses in a casual manner mentioning the benefits they might anticipate receiv- ing from unionization , Gange again reacted positively by sending Wolf into the bar to speak to the offending customer. I think it most significant that Gange had prepared the termi- nal voucher for Panske before calling him in to question him about his condition while on duty. Finally, I am persuaded that Gange determined to terminate Panske on the pretext that on August 7 he had again been drinking on the job, buttressing this by linking it to the admitted incident of such conduct on July 29. Upon all the evidence, I infer and find that the Respondent discharged Paul Panske on August 7 for discriminatory rea- sons, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleged that the Respondent "informed its employees that it prohibited any employee so- liciting for union membership on the Respondent's premises at any time," and that on or about August 7, Gange "threat- ened employees at the Chicopee location with reprisals con- cerning their employment because of their activity on behalf of and membership for (sic) the Union." Such conduct, it is alleged, constituted independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The record contains no evidence that would sup- port the allegation that on August 7 Gange threatened em- ployees with reprisals because of their union membership or activity. This allegation will, therefore, be dismissed. The Respondent's no-solicitation rule, quoted in full previ- ously, by its terms and in its application by Gange, forbids employee solicitation during working time of the employee engaging in the soliciting or the employee being solicited; nonemployees may not solicit or distribute for any purpose on the premises. Gange testified that copies of the rule had been supplied him by Phoenix headquarters, without instruc- tions as to how it should be applied. It seems plain enough that Gange interpreted the rule to apply not only to em- ployees but to the public as well, since he had it posted in the lobby and in the bar and, early in the afternoon of August 7, when Business Agent Wall spoke to waitresses about the Union and later when Fessia engaged in somewhat similar conduct, Gange caused Panske to post the rule on the back of the bar and told him that there was to be no soliciting in that area, and later caused Wolf to inform Fessia that no soliciting was permitted on the premises. Despite the breadth of the rule, which on its face did not differentiate between solicitation for union membership or solicitation for other purposes, the Respondent permitted charities to engage in solicitation of employees and customers during business hours. Moreover, the testimony established that employees engaged in casual conversation with each other and with customers without inhibition or restraint. Although Wall and Fessia, nonemployees, were the objects of the application of the rule on August 7, I think it a reasonable inference that Panske, who was asked to post the rule and thought it neces- sary when asked whether he was familiar with it to state that he had engaged in no solicitation, and the waitresses who were familiar with the particular circumstances under which the rule was applied on August 7, would reasonably interpret it to apply to solicitation during nonworking time and to 6 I do not believe that Gange, as testified by Wall on cross-examination, said in response to Wall's statement that Panske was already in the Union, "Had I known he was in the Union, I don't believe I would have hired him " Gange knew that Wall was the business agent of the Union and, in view of this fact, it seems most unlikely that he would make such a statement to Wall RAMADA INNS conversation about union activity or membership. I therefore conclude and find that the Respondent did inform its em- ployees that it prohibited employee solicitation for union membership on the Respondent's premises at any time, and since such prohibition included the nonworking time of em- ployees, it was too broad and therefore was violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Ramada Inns, Incorporated, is an em- ployer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, Chicopee, Holyoke, Westfield Bartenders, Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria and Restaurant Employees Interna- tional Union, Local 116, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Paul Panske was discriminatorily discharged on August 7, 1970, by the Respondent, and by such action the Respond- ent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 4. By maintaining and enforcing its no-solicitation rule so as to prohibit solicitation for union purposes or conversation concerning union activities at any' time in the Respondent's premises, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices burdening and affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the-Act. 6. In other respects alleged in the complaint the Respond- ent has not committed any unfair labor practices. THE REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find that it is necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and to offer rein- statement to Paul Panske, with backpay computed on a quar- terly basis, plus interest at 6 percent per annum, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumb- ing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, and to post appropriate notices. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Sections 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issued the following recommended:' ORDER Respondent, Ramada Inns, Incorporated, Springfield, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging union membership or concerted activities of its employees by discriminatorily discharging any em- ployees, or by discriminating in any other manner in regard ' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 455 to their hire or tenure of employment, or any term or condi- tion of employment. (b) Maintaining and enforcing its no-solicitation rule in such manner as to prohibit solicitation of union membership or conversation concerning union matters at any time within the Respondent's premises. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organ- ization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-mentioned Union or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro- tection, or to refrain from any and all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec- tuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Paul Panske immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or, if the job no longer exists, to a substan- tially equivalent position, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against him, in the manner set forth above in the section entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify immediately the above-named employee, if pres- ently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of the right to full reinstatement, upon application after discharge from the Armed Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act. (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board and its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, person- nel 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 place of business in Springfield, Massa- chusetts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly signed by an author- ized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted im- mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in'wnting, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.' In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, after excpetions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "