Scoler's Inc.

248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Scoler's Incorporated and,Local 59, Hotel and Restau- rant Employees 'and Bartenders International Un- ion, AFL-CIO. Case 1-CA-7270 July 27, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND KENNEDY On April 28, 1971," Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled pro- ceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the allegations pertaining thereto be dismissed. Thereaf- ter, Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with briefs in support thereof. Respondent also 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions,2 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 adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Scoler's Incorporated, Hartford, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. I We have affirmed the Trial Examiner's finding of 8(a)(1) and (5) violations and his recommendation that a bargaining order be issued on the basis of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Company, Inc., 395 U.S. 575. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to pass on the General Counsel's contention that Respondent also violated 8(a)(5) under the Snow & Sons (134 NLRB 709, enfd. 308 F.2d 687 (C.A. 9)) line of cases, nor do we adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion with respect thereto. 2 The Trial Examiner, while "lean[mgI in favor of counting" employee Albertine Cyr's authorization card, found it unnecessary to pass on the validity of the card. The record shows that, although Cyr testified that she had no intention of joining the Union when she signed the card, employee Watson credibly testified that, when she gave the card to Cyr, she explained that by signing the 7card Cyr was agreeing to have the Union represent her. Because of the Trial Exam iter's credibility resolution in favor of Watson's testimony as well as the fact that Cyr admitted reading the title of the card, "Application for Membership," we conclude that Cyr's authorization card is valid and, .,therefore, the Union had valid authorization cards from 11 employees in the'unit.' TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT . OF THE CASE- FREDERICK U. REEL, Trial Examiner: This case, heard at Hartford, Connecticut, on February 25" and 26, .1971, pursuant to a charge filed the preceding September 8, and a complaint issued December] 1, presents questions. arising out of, the organizing campaign conducted by the Charging Party (herein called the Union) at Respondent's restaurant, and Respondent's reaction thereto, including its refusal to bargain with the Union. Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by General Counsel and by Respondent, I make the following: FINDINGS of FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent, herein sometimes called the Company, a Connecticut corporation operating a restaurant in Hart- ford, has annual gross revenues in excess of $500,000, annually receives supplies and materials valued in excess of $25,000, directly from points outside the State, and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Summary of Events Late in July the Union obtained the signatures of 11 waiters, waitresses, and bartenders to cards which provided in clear, prominent, and unmistakable language that the signer applied for membership in the Union, and which also recited (equally unmistakably, but less prominently) that the signer authorized the Union to represent him in collective bargaining. Armed with these cards, the Union on July 31 filed with the State of Connecticut Labor Board a petition for an election in a unit of waiters, waitresses, and bartenders, and on the same day the Union's business manager, Leonard LaPenta, advised Clifford Lackman, the owner and operating head of the restaurant, of the filing. A few days later LaPenta again visited Lackman, this time to complain that Lackman had been interfering with employ- ees in violation of their Section 7 rights and to suggest that Lackman retain special counsel experienced in labor law rather than rely on his usual lawyer. Lackman heeded the latter advice and was accompanied by a specialist in labor law at a joint conference with i All dates herein except where otherwise noted refer to the year 1970. 2 Including Joint Exh. 12, and the affidavit attached thereto, which is hereby admitted pursuant to motion received after the close of the hearing. 192 NLRB No. 49 SCOLER S INC. LaaPenta at" the state board's office on August 17. On this occasion the agent for the state board checked the signed application cards against signatures submitted by Lack- man, and announced that, the Union had I 1 cards out of a unit of 18 waiters, waitresses, and bartenders. Counsel for Respondent then stated that the unit was inappropriate, and' should include a number of other employees such as sandwich makers and kitchen employees. The state board scheduled a, hearing ,on the matter for August 24, but on August 21 the Union withdrew its petition, and the state board thereupon closed the proceeding before it. Meanwhile on Wednesday; August 19, LaPenta again called _on Lackman, presented him with a formal demand for recognition, and left with 'him copies of the 11 signed applications. Lacknian asked for time to consult his lawyer, and LaPenta agreed, asking for a. reply by Friday, August 21. On that date LaPentareceived from Lackman's counsel a letter 'reciting, that Respondent had "serious doubts whether, . the cards signed by employees expressed their true wishes" and believed "that the cards do not express true employee sentiment in an appropriate bargaining unit." The ,letter, further reciting that Respondent had not verified the signatures on the cards, which were returned therewith, concluded with the suggestion that the Union "proceed to resolve any representation question through the appropriate governmental channels." That afternoon, August 21, the Union commenced picketing at the restaurant. Respondent countered on August 25 by filing with the National Labor Relations Board a petition for an election. This Petition, -filed August 25, alleged that the appropriate unit included, all employees of the restaurant (except for statutory exclusions), but on August 27 Respondent filed an amended petition reciting that the appropriate unit consisted -either of "all, waiters, waitresses and bartenders," excluding all kitchen employees, or "any other unit the NLRB, may find appropriate." On September 2 the Board's Regional Director wrote the parties directing that an election be held in the unit of waiters, waitresses, and bartenders which he expressly found to be appropriate. No review of this ruling was sought, and the election was held September 9. The so-called Excelsior list furnished by the Respondent contained 19 names. The day before the election the Union filed the charge initiating this litigation, and the Regional Director has therefore impounded the ballots. B. The Union's Majority Status 1. The appropriate unit Respondent's answer denies the allegation in the complaint that "all waiters, waitresses and' bartenders excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act." I find, however, that the record amply supports the allegation. Not only was this unit found appropriate by the Regional Director, but it was the very unit stated to be appropriate in Respondent's amended petition. Moreover, evidence placed in the record by Respondent establishes 249 that the Connecticut Labor Board has frequently found similar units appropriate, Finally, Respondent's suggestion that the "sandwich men".should be included in the unit is ill-taken, for although in this particular restaurant these men work in the dining area, their duties are far more akin to those of cooks,-chefs, and kitchen employees generally than they are to those of the waiters, waitresses, and bartenders. The Excelsior list of 19 employees submitted by Respondent excluded the hostess-head waitress, and properly so, as she has many of the aspects of a supervisor, can affect the waitress' earnings by her assignment of tables, does not wear a uniform as do theemployees in the unit, and is often in sole charge of the establishment. Also unlike the other employees she is paid on a salary, rather than an hourly, basis and she works substantially shorter hours. The list included the head bartender, but I need not resolve the issue as to his supervisory status, as the Union needs 10 to establish a majority whether the unit included 18 or 19 employees. 2. The validity of the cards The record establishes that at all pertinent times the Union had signed cards from 11 employees, and that the cards in unequivocal language recited that the signer applied for membership in the Union and authorized the Union to bargain in his behalf. Respondent introduced evidence bearing on the validity of the cards signed by Marjorie Cianci and Albertine Cyr. Cianci signed her card at the request of employee Medbury. Cianci took the card from Medbury on the floor of the restaurant, but took it into the ladies' restroom to sign it, and then returned it to Medbury, about 3 or 4 minutes later. Cianci testified she did not read the card, but she filled it out to the extent of entering her name, social security number, address, place of employment, and occupation, and also signed it. Even assuming that she did not read the text 'of the card, she could not have avoided reading the large print, solid capitals, bold-face caption "Application for Membership in the Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union." Early in October Cianci stated in an affidavit that she "originally was in favor of . . . the Union" but "about two weeks later ... changed [her I mind." At the hearing Cianci sought to repudiate the affidavit, testifying that she had indeed changed her mind, but that before she had changed it she had merely been "very up in the air" and "hadn't made [her ] mind up." Cianci's testimony was somewhat inconsis- tent as to whether Medbury had uttered any threats with respect to the card signing. At first Cianci attributed to Medbury the statement "That the union could come in to have a vote, and she also said that anyone who didn't sign a union card would automatically lose her job if the Union got in." Then, still on direct examination, she amended that testimony to make it clear that "this was because of the union shop, and you had to join in 30 days." Later, and still on direct, she attributed to both Medbury 'and employee Barrett the statement that "anybody who didn't sign a card would automatically lose their job," and also attributed to Medbury the statement that if Barrett "didn't sign up for the union, he would never get a job in the city... and also, 250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I think, if the bartenders didn't sign, they wouldn't get a job I found Cianci to be a most unconvincing witness, whose testimony brings to mind the warning of the Supreme, Court that "employees are more likely than not , many months after a card drive and in response to questions by company counsel, to give testimony damaging to the Union, particularly where company officials have previously threatened reprisals for union activity in violation of Section 8(a)(1).". N.L.A.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 608, I find that Cianci voluntarily signed a clear and unambiguous card, and that her subsequent defection from the ranks of union supporters postdated the unfair labor practices described below. I have more trouble with the card of Albertine Cyr, who testified that,,,when employee Carolyn Watson solicited her card, Watson stated that the card "didn't mean anything, but the vote would, when it came to a vote." Cyr also testified that a few days later she told Watson not to use Cyr's name as a "yes" vote, and that Cyr "had no intention of joining the Union." On the other hand Cyr admitted reading the part of the card marked "Application for Membership." Also the record establishes that Watson told her that by signing the card Cyr was agreeing to have the Union represent her, although it is far from clear that Cyr understood the meaning of the phrase. According, to Watson, an impressive and fully credible witness, Cyr when she signed the card said she would "go along with" the Union if the other employees did. Watson testified that, Cyr later expressed objection to having her card shown to the employer, but denied that Cyr stated she had no intention of joining the Union at that time . Also Watson "doubted" ever mentioning to Cyr anything about an election, as Watson herself was not aware at that time of that possibility Although I find Cyr's case close to the line, I would, in view of my high regard for Watson's credibility, lean in favor of counting Cyr's card.But the matter is academic, as even without her card, the Union had 10 cards in a unit of 18 or 19, and hence held a majority at the time, of its bargaining request. C. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion The, alleged violations of Section 8(a)(1) arise largely out of conversations which Clifford Lackman or his son and assistant, James Lackman, had or allegedly had, with several employees. To some extent the Lackmans' version of these conversations varied significantly from that given by the employees. The facts as found below are based on my credibility resolutions which rest on my observation of the witnesses, and on what I regard as the inherent probability or improbability of the, conflicting versions in particular cases. 1. Lackman's early interviews with employees As soon as Clifford Lackman heard of the Union's' efforts 3 The first of , these 'occasions may have occurred before Lackman retained counsel in this matter. 4 I' do not credit that part of Piers' testimony, which attributes to Lackman the offer of a car in return for Chambers' and Piers' support. I to organize, he took steps to learn the identity of the union leaders. During the , next week •Lackman ,had separate conversations " with employees Medbury, Watson, and" Barrett, three union leaders. In" these conversations Lackman committed 'several violations of the Act. On August 3 Lackman asked Medbury if she had signed a I union card `(which she, falsely denied), named other` employees he thought had _ signed, - asked her if -other employees he named had signed,and told her'that he; would look after 'those who were against the Union. The"next day Lackman told, Medbury that the had learned she signed, a card. About the same time Lackmain asked Watson if she had signed ,'a union card and if she "was 'one of the organizers or starters ' of the 'Union.' She"answered his' questions in the negative. She testified that Lackman` did not tell her why he was asking, but that she attributed the inquiry to "more curiosity than anything else" Lackman's conversation with " Barrett is somewhat difficult to reconstruct. I` do not credit Barrett's'testimony that he had several conversations with'Lackman before the latter learned from the `Union that it was or'ganizing,' but I also do not credit Lackman's version of the oneconversa- tion which he'admitted having with Barrett after-'that date. I find that, at the very least, 'Lackman interrogated Barr`ettas to his union membership and activity. I credit Medbury's testimony, that she repeated to ' other employees the gist of her conversations with Lackman. Also, Lackman on or about ' August 1 told a group ,of employees that he had no objection to their having a union, but if they had wanted -a 5' or 10-cent wage, increase, he would'have given it to them. Finally, on or about August 3 Lackman ' asked employee Naomi Rugar if she had heard anything about the Union's being organized and `just how [she] felt about i£" 2. Lackman's subsequent comments - to employees` As noted above, LaPenta on August -5 complained, to Lackman 'that-he was interfering with employee rights and advised Lackman to retain a labor law specialist . Lackman did so, but apparently did not entirely follow counsel's advice to refrain from further conversations with employ- ees. Lackman did on at least two occasions discourage employees who tried to talk to him about the Union. However, he•did discuss the Union with employees Angela Piers and Robert Chambers. Lackman told Chambers on several occasions 3'' that Lackman opposed the Union and that "the people who stuck by him would be all right, but the ones that didn't stick by him, they wouldn't be working there after this was over with." He also asked Chambers if he had signed a union card. On one occasion Piers was present with Chambers when Lackman indicated that he would "take care of"the employees who "went with him." 4 Piers further testified that ' Lackman and his son attempted to ascertain how she would vote 'in the election. In conversations with her they would name certain employees who were opposed to the Union, and -then; to think Piers must have misunderstood Lackman at that point. Nevertheless, I credit Piers as to the gist of the conversation set forth above, noting that her, testimony in. those respects is corroborated by Chambers, and that Piers' testimony contains other convincing corroborative details. SCOLER'S INC. 251 quote Piers, "they'd come to me, and they'd say I wonder if I've got you." Piers said she would not respond on these occasions. Piers also testified that Clifford Lackman would say that he knew "who the ring leaders are," would name them, and then would add that Respondent would "get rid of those when this thing is over." On one occasion, according to Piers, Lackman said he would "close up the backroom and-the dining room and then he would just keep the front for those that were with him." 5 3. Other alleged violations of Section 8(a)(l) Barrett's testimony, corroborated by that of employee Lillian Gabinetti, is that, in the course of an argument between , Barrett and the chef over a nonunion matter, James Lackman called Barrett a union instigator and threatened to throw him out of the restaurant. James Lackman, corroborated by employee Gloria Bradshaw, denied referring to the Union during the course of the altercation. I credit = Respondent's witnesses in this regard, and in any event would not find a violation in this episode even if Lackman did so refer to Barrett's well-known union sympathies. As to'the allegation that Clifford Lackman stated to customers, within the hearing of employees,- that he, would see that union supporters were blacklisted for employment } in 'Hartfor'd, 'I am unable to find that a preponderance of the evidence supports the allegation. Finally,, I credit, Lackman's explanation that the removal of a`few items,' notably roast duck and swordfish, from the list of things employees could be served at the restaurants was not attributable to the union campaign but to the reluctance of the chef to cook such items in the half-hour meal time available" to the employees . Also, the new rule against waiters "taking home sandwiches was satisfactorily explained as not beingantiunion in motivation. We turn, finally, to the Company's preelection speech, letter, and leaflet. These documents are relied on not by General Counsel ," in: the usual'case but by the Company to show that a fair election was possible, and that the effects of any earlier ,unfair labor practices were dissipated. The Company's propaganda, although repeatedly exhorting the employees to vote against the Union, stayed well within the limits permitted by Section 8(c) of the Act. It contained two statements, however, which might be considered as "curing"`the previous violations of the Act and clearing the way for a fair election. Lackman stated about midway in his four page speech the day -before the election: "We don't know everything about this union business and maybe we have made soiree mistakes, but make sure that no employee here need fear for his job-no matter what happens." At the same time Lackman read to the employees a three page document 'containing 15 questions and answers, which he also distributed to the employees . Question 'and answer number 12 read as follows: 12. Will I lose my job if I vote for the Union or if the Union gets in? Answer: No employees of Scoler's need fear for their S Lackman testified that ^he told Piers that, "if they pulled half of my employees out of the restaurant, I would have to possibly close the back' of the dining room whereas I-would only have enough help to run the front of the dining room." I credit Piers' version of the conversation, and note in passing that the Union used nonemployee pickets and apparently made no jobs whether or not the Union gets in. There will be no reprisals taken against anybody, no matter how they vote, nor will there be any special benefits because you vote one way or another. D. Concluding Findings The facts summarized above establish that in a unit of 18 or 19 employees, Lackman subjected at least six to unlawful coercive interrogation, threats, and implied promises of benefits. To be sure, many of these unlawful statements, but by no means all, were made before Lackman retained counsel, but their impact on employees' in a small closely knit group of waitresses is rendered 'nonetheless coercive because of their employer's failure to be advised of their rights. The critical issues in the case are whether the Company unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union, and whether a bargaining order should be entered under the doctrine of N.L.R.B. v. Gissel Packing Co., Inc., 395 U.S. 575. As noted above, the Union represented a majority in an appropriate unit when it first demanded recognition and bargaining. The Company, moreover, learned of the Union's status from a reliable and impartial source, an agent` of the Connecticut Board, and at that time Respondent expressed no doubt of the validity of the authorization cards, but based its refusal to bargain on an alleged doubt of the appropriateness of the unit. This "doubt" can only be characterized as spurious, as' the unit is a common one and manifestly appropriate as the Company soon conceded by naming that unit as appropriate in a petition filed with the Board. Under these circumstances there is considerable force to General Counsel's argument, based on the line of cases stemming from Snow & Sons, 134 NLRB 709, enfd. 308 F. 2d 687 (C.A. 9, 1962), that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union after the meeting at the Connecticut Board. On the other hand, the element of "reneging after consent," basic in the Snow case, was absent here. Moreover, the Union made a subsequent demand, left' the cards with Lackman, and readily acquiesced in his suggestion that he talk the matter over with his counsel. In the light of all the circumstances, I would not say that the episode at the Connecticut Board prevented the impany from thereafter asserting a doubt as to the validity of the cards. Under the Gissel case, however, a bargaining order appears warranted here. The repeated threats to punish union adherents and reward union opponents and the coercive interrogation were sufficiently widespread in this small, closely knit unit to make a fair election impossible. Lackman's belated effort on the advice of counsel to "bail himself out" must be characterized as "too little, too late," or perhaps it could more accurately be said that his transgressions were "too much, too soon." It should be noted that, although Lackman retained counsel fairly early in the game, he waited until the day before the election, after his unlawful threats and promises had had full effort to have prounion employees refrain from working. 6 All employees were charged 60 cents per meal for the privilege of eating at the restaurant, whether or not they ate there , but the menu afforded them was always more restricted thanthat available to the general public. 252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD opportunity to work their desired result, before he rendered the lipservice to employee rights which is now urged as wiping the slate . clean. None of the cases cited in Respondent's able brief as warranting the withholding of a bargaining order present circumstances comparable to those here. In Bill Pierre Ford, Inc., 181 NLRB No. 155, the complaint was dismissed as the sole violation was an isolated interrogation. In J. A. Conley Co.,.181, NLRB No. 20, where the, unit was three times as large as that in this case, there were but a few instances of 8(axl) violations, basically arising out of the efforts- of a management- inspired employee to get others to rescind their authoriza- tions,. In ,Central Soya of Canton, Inc., 180 NLRB No. 86, there were no "broad scale unfair labor practices"; the violations grew out of a 1 day prohibition; promptly rescinded, against wearing badges, and the unit embraced 256 employees.- In Arcoa Corp., .180 NLRB No. 5, there were neither promises nor threats,, but only a poll conducted for legitimate reasons (although lacking certain safeguards) and a wage increase after the employees defected from the union., In Blade-Tribune Publishing Co., 180 NLRB No., 56, 161 NLRB 1512, the interrogation, although unlawful, was accompanied by statements that the employees "if they answered me, or did not, answer me, they were still`,going, to be my, friends and employees at the newspaper" (161 NLRB at 1526), , tend the' other "violations" were minimal. I find, in short, that a bargaining order should be entered here as the Company's unfair labor practices may fairly,be characterized as pervasive, and at the very least ,so undermined the Union and impeded the election process as to make a fair election impossible. Under , all ` the circumstances it' is my view that, on balance, employee sentiment,- once fairly and uncoercedly expressed through cards, ,would be better protected by a bargaining-order than by a rerunning of the election. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, by, interrogating its employees as to their union membership and activities and those of other employees, by stating to an employee that it knew she had signed a union.card, by threatening to take reprisals against employees,who supported the Union and to curtail its operations if the Union became the bargaining representa- tive, by suggesting to -employees during the course of a union campaign that they could obtain a wage increase by merely asking the Respondent, and by promising favored treatment to employees who opposed the Union, engaged _i unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(aXl) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union prior to, the commission of the above found unfair labor practices, which render a fair election impossible,, represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit, so that Respondent's refusal to bargain constituted an unfair labor practice affecting commerce 7 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. within the meaning of Sections 8(aX5) and (1) and 2(6).and /'r r,f tt,. A m ) THE REMEDY For reasons already discussed I 'shall recommend, an order directing that Respondent not only 'cease aad desist from its unfair labor practices, but also that it bargain with the Union upon the litter's request. I shall,' however, in accordance with Respondent's request,`°include' in the proposed notice herein recommended a provision acquaint- ing employees with their right to petition'for a new election. See Cocker Saw Co., 186 NLRB No. 101, and cases there cited. ' ' ` ' Upon the foregoing findings of €act, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuantto Section I0(c)of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 7 ORDER, -Respondent, Scoler's Incorporated, its, officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1, Cease and desist from: ,(a) interrogating employees as to their union membership or ,activity or that of fellow employees. (b) Conveying the impression of surveillance by advising sing employees it knew they had signed union cards. (c) Promising benefits to employees for the purpose of dissuading them from supporting a labor organization. (d) Threatening reprisals against,employees who support_ ,-ed a,labor organization. , (e) Promising to reward employees who,opposed.a labor organization. , (f) Threatening to curtail operations, if the employees chose a labor organization to represent-them.. (g) Refusing to bargainupon request with Local59,,Hotel and, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders, International Union, AFL-CIO, as representative of all.waiters,^waitress- es, , and bartenders (exclusive of supervisors) employed ,by Respondent. (h) In any other manner interfering, with, restraining, or coercing employees in the_ exercise of. their rights ,under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the followingaffirmative° action necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act: ' (a) Upon request, .bargain collectively (as that , term" is defined in Section 8(d) of the Act) with .the above-named labor' organization as the representative,of the employees in the above-described unit: (b) Post at its restaurant at Hartford, Connecticut, copies of the attached notice marked 'Appendix." 8 Copies rof said notice, ,on forms, provided by the Regional" Director for Region 1, , after being `duly signed by the ,Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the' Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for,60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,;includ- ing all places where notices to employees are. customarily B 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." SCOLER'S INC. posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure° that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c), Notify,the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9 " In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board, after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read: "Notifyethe 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." t APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED 'BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL recognize and bargain collectively with Local 59, Hotel and ` Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO,' as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our ,waiters, waitresses, and bartenders (excluding supervi- sory employees). WE WILL NOT question our employees as to their union membership or, activity or as to that of other employees. WE WILL NOT threaten reprisals against employees who support a union or promise rewards to those who do not. WE WILL NOT curtail, or threaten to curtail, our operations because.a union has become the bargaining representative of our employees. `WE WILL NOT convey the impression of surveillance 253 by telling any employee we know that he has signed a' union card. - WE WILL NOT offer benefits to employees to dissuade them from supporting a union. Employees, pursuant to Section 9(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, may at an appropriate time petition the National Labor Relations Board for-an election to, decertify and remove the Union as their bargaining representative. The filing of such a petition can' only be done as the voluntary act and choice of the employees and on'their own initiative, without coercion, encouragement, or assistance from management. All applicable rules, regulations, and standards for - conducting such an election -must be met. Except in unusual circumstances no such petition will be acted upon until after we have complied ,with the terms of the Board's order and have bargained in good faith with the Union. Dated By SCOLER'S INCORPORATED (Employer) (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 Chardon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, Telephone 617-223-3300.