Morrison Cafeteria Co., Inc., of Tallahassee

MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY 523 Morrison Cafeteria Company, Inc., of Tallahassee and United Hotel, Motel, Restaurant and Lounge Em- ployees Union and Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Em- ployees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO. cases 12-CA-6304 and 12-CA-6305 October 31, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On July 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Da- vid S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and United Ho- tel, Motel, Restaurant and Lounge Employees Union filed exceptions and supporting briefs and the Gener- al Counsel filed an answering brief. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER after referred to as United, on March 18, 1974. The charge in Case 12-CA-6305 was filed by Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local 737, on March 19, 1974, and was thereafter amended on March 29, 1974. Pursuant to these charges , a consolidated complaint issued on May 9 , 1974, alleging that Respondent unlawfully suspended employee Kenneth Lipscomb for 30 days and engaged in other acts of interference, restraint, and coercion . Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. On June 17, 1974, a hearing was held before me in Talla- hassee, Florida. Respondent did not appear at the hearing by counsel or otherwise. Upon being satisfied that Respon- dent had notice of the time and place of hearing , I proceed- ed to hear evidence in support of the complaint from the parties present. At the conclusion of the hearing , oral argu- ment was heard, and the parties were given leave to file briefs or memoranda . A brief has been received from Re spondent, and a memorandum has been received from United. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent, a Florida corporation, is engaged in the op- eration of a cafeteria in Tallahassee, Florida . It has annual retail sales in excess of $500,000, and annually purchases goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which it receives indirectly from points outside the State of Florida. I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effec- tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Morrison Cafeteria Compa- ny, Inc., of Tallahassee, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: The charge in Case 12-CA-6304 was filed by United Hotel, Motel, Restaurant and Lounge Employees Union, herein- II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 737 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.' III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Beginning of the Union Activity and the Alleged Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1) 1. During late 1973, one or two employees at Respondent's cafeteria became dissatisfied with some of the working conditions at the cafeteria and spoke about their concerns with John Stephens, an insurance agent and a friend.' Stephens said he would speak to some people he i The complaint does not allege that United is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The question of United's status as a labor organiza- tion is at issue in a related representation case, and the General Counsel has taken the position that resolution of that question is not necessary to a decision in this case 1 The findings of fact which appear herein are based on the uncontradict- ed and credited testimony of Carl Ford, Annie Lanier, Mary Washington, Zandra Harper, and Kenneth Lipscomb . In its brief Respondent contends that it was unreasonably denied postponement of the hearing by the Re- gional Director and was thereby denied an opportunity to be represented and cross-examine the witnesses It contends for that reason the "testimo- Continued 214 NLRB No. 80 524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD knew, and shortly thereafter a meeting was held at Ste- phens' house which was attended by about half of Respondent's 60 employees and two representatives of Lo- cal 737. At the meeting the Local 737 representative spoke about the advantages of belonging to a union and made authorization cards available. During the meeting one of the Local 737 representatives asked if there were any su- pervisors present. Number one waiter Willis Barber and number two waiter Ira Miller stood and identified them- selves as supervisors. A number of employees signed au- thorization cards at the meeting, and a few employees so- licited signatures from others thereafter. At some point fol- lowing the meeting United was formed and Stephens became its secretary. Some of the employees who had at- tended the meeting at Stephens' house joined and began to work on behalf of United rather than Local 737. The General Counsel contends that the presence of Bar- ber and Miller at the meeting at Stephens' home constitut- ed surveillance of employee union activities. Respondent contends that their presence at the meeting did not consti- tute surveillance because they freely and openly revealed their presence, because a majority of the employees present signed cards, and because there is no evidence that Barber and Miller were secretive, furtive, or disruptive, or that they were asked to leave.3 There is no question that Barber and Miller were present at the meeting and in a position to observe the identity and activity of others present. A find- ing of surveillances does not depend on a showing of in- tent, secretiveness, disruption, or impact on all employees present. It is the tendency of the presence of supervision at such meetings to inhibit the free exercise of employee rights which causes the Board to view such conduct as un- lawful surveillance .4 While extenuating circumstances, such as a specific invitation to attend the meeting, may be shown, there was no explanation offered for the presence of Barber and Miller at the meeting at Stephens' house. Accordingly, I find that by their attendance at the meeting, Respondent engaged in surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. roes of the witnesses are mere bald assertions which have not been tested or developed under the adversary process " Respondent has not shown that the Regional Director abused his discretion in denying Respondent's re- quest for a continuance . See Interurban Gas Corporation, 164 NLRB 1072 (1967) Moreover, Respondent did not appear at the hearing by any attor- ney or otherwise and did not seek a continuance at that time . Accordingly, its contention that it was denied an opportunity to be represented and cross- examine witnesses is rejected, and there is no reason to discount the testimo- ny adduced at the hearing because of Respondent 's absence 3 Respondent also contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Barber and Miller were supervisors within the meaning of the Act However, Respondent's answer admits that Barber and Miller are supervi- sors as alleged in the complaint No further evidence was necessary to estab- lish their supervisory status 4 Colo Well Service, Inc, 163 NLRB 707, 713 (1967) 5 Respondent contends that Lancer's testimony as to the date of the meet- ing at Stephens' house is in conflict with testimony of other witnesses and raises a serious question as to the credibility of her testimony concerning her conversation with Dennis . However, the discrepancies as to the timing of the meeting between Lanier and other witnesses are not as great as Respon- dent asserts, and it is common for the recollections of otherwise credible witnesses to vary as to timing of past events I find nothing in Lancer's testimony which gives cause to discredit or disregard it 2. About 2 weeks after the meeting at Stephens' house, Cafeteria Manager Milton Dennis called Annie Lanier into his office.5 Dennis asked her if she knew that the Union was supposed to be in. She said that she didn't know. Den- nis told her that he would tell her what the Union was for and that it was to try to get money from the employees for union representatives to drink and party with. Lanier said she didn't know that. Dennis said he wasn't going to stand for that and asked if she was sure whether she knew any- thing about the union. She again said she didn't know. Dennis said that union had tried to get in before and that he was going to stop it. Dennis also told her that if she ever heard anything she should be sure to let him know. Contrary to Respondent's contention, Dennis' statement to Lanier amounted to more than mere expression of oppo- sition to a union. Dennis questioned Lanier once, ex- pressed opposition to a union, and then questioned her again indicating disbelief of her initial answer. When Lani- er repeated her denial of knowledge, Dennis said he was going to stop the Union from coning in and asked Lanier to let him know if she heard anything. This was not casual questioning of an employee, but deliberate interrogation in coercive circumstances. I find that Dennis' interrogation of Lanier violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 3. Sometime in February 1974, after the meeting at Ste- phens' house, Dennis called Mary Washington into his of- fice. Dennis told her that he was aware of the union activi- ty, that a union had tried before and didn't get in, and that he would do "all in his power to keep it out." Dennis told Washington that the union representatives only wanted dues and would do nothing for the employees because they were never in town. Dennis said that he knew who was pushing the Union and that he was not going to tolerate that going on. Dennis also said that he knew Washington was in with the Union because he had a call from the Hilton Hotel, where she had previously solicited employees to sign cards for United, and that he knew that she was pushing the Union there. Dennis told Washington that he hated to see her get in it because she was one of his good employees. Dennis' statements to Washington not only indicated strong opposition to a union, but that he would do "all in his power to keep it out" and was not going to tolerate union activity. These statements convey that Dennis would take reprisals against employees, if required, to stop a union from gaining representation rights. I find that Den- nis' statements to Washington contained implied threats of reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The fact that Washington May have been engaged in activity on behalf of United rather than Local 737 does not afford any protection to Dennis' statements, for whether United is or is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, the statements of Dennis were directed at concerted activi- ty of employees protected by Section 7 of the Act. 4. On or about February 15, 1974, Zandra Harper was hired to work at the cafeteria. At her prehire interview with Manager Dennis and Assistant Manager Judd Boyer, Boy- er told her that if anyone approached her with a union card she should not sign it because the Union wanted cards signed to get in the cafeteria, and management did not want a union at the cafeteria. On the next day Boyer told her not to forget their conversation and added that if any- MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY one approached her with a card to sign she should let Boy- er or Dennis know who had approached her. Later Harper spoke to Washington who solicited her to sign a card for United, and Harper signed. Although Harper apparently did not comply with Boyer's request, it is well settled that a request to an em- ployee to report on the union activity of other employees is unlawful.6 I find that Boyer's request to Harper violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. Carl Ford had attended the initial meeting at Ste- phens' house and had solicited employees to sign union authorization cards thereafter. At some point he became an officer of United. On one occasion in February or early March 1974, number one waiter Barber told Ford that Caf- eteria Manager Milton Dennis knew "who all is in the union and who all is pushing the union, so you better stay on your P's and Q's because he's after you, and the least little thing you do, you gonna be gone." Barber's remarks to Ford conveyed a clear impression that the activities of the cafeteria employees were under surveillance in violation of the Act.7 Moreover, Barber directly threatened that Dennis was seeking to find a rea- son to discharge Ford in reprisal for his activities. Respon- dent contends that because Ford may then have been act- ing in behalf of United rather than Local 737 and because the complaint fails to allege that United is a labor organi- zation, these statements are not properly before the Board. However, as in the case of Dennis' threats to Washington, a finding that Barber's statements and threats to Ford in- terfered with employee rights does not depend on a show- ing that United was a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. I find that Barber created an impression that the union activities of the cafeteria employees were under surveillance and threatened Ford in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. Before the union activity started employees were re- quired to pay for food which they ate at regular cafeteria prices, although employees were occasionally permitted to drink iced tea or eat rolls that had become hard without being required to pay for them. After the union activity started, employees were required to pay for all food they consumed, and Respondent instituted a rule imposing a $5 fine on anyone found consuming food for which he had not previously paid. A notice was posted to that effect. The complaint alleges that the imposition of the $5 fine was a change in working conditions which was instituted in reprisal for employees' union activities. Contrary to Respondent's contention, the evidence is clear that the fine was not imposed until after the union activity started.8 Moreover, it will be recalled that the first union activity among the employees was their attendance at the meeting at Stephens' house to which Local 737 rep- resentatives had been invited. That meeting was attended 6 Stoner Lumber, Inc, 187 NLRB 923, 929 (1971), Michael Bednasz, d/b/a Hamburg Delivery, 190 NLRB 282 (1971) 7 Keystone Casing Supply, Inc, 196 NLRB 920, 921 (1972) 8 Kenneth Lipscomb so testified. While Annie Lanier indicated some un- certainty as to whether there were fines before the union activity, she also testified that she first heard of fines after the union activity started On the basis of the testimony of Lipscomb and Lanier taken together, I find that the fines were imposed after the union activity started 525 by supervisors Barber and Miller. Thus, from the very start Barber and Miller had knowledge of the union activity, and that knowledge is imputable to Respondent. The evi- dence also shows that Respondent expressed strong oppo- sition to unionization of its employees and threatened re- prisals against them. While there is no direct evidence showing a linkage between the imposition of the rule con- cerning fines and the union activity, in the absence of evi- dence of any other reason for the imposition of the fine,' there is sufficient evidence from the timing of the charge and Respondent's hostility to union representation of its employees to infer that the employees' union activities were the cause of the change in Respondent's rules. To be sure, Respondent might have been able to show a reason for the rule unrelated to union or concerted activity, but having not appeared or presented any evidence, the infer- ence raised by the General Counsel's evidence stands unre- butted. Accordingly, I find that Respondent instituted a rule providing for a $5 fine against employees who con- sumed food for which they had not paid in reprisal for employee union and concerted activities and thereby vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act B. The Suspension of Kenneth Lipscomb On March 9 waiter Kenneth Lipscomb was assigned to work in close proximity to dining room steward Mack Ben- nett, a supervisor. According to Lipscomb's uncontradict- ed testimony, Bennett required Lipscomb to perform a lot of Bennett's work during the morning, and Bennett both- ered and antagonized Lipscomb all morning. At some point, Lipscomb, who was not feeling too well, went to number two waiter Ira Miller and asked him to change Lipscomb's working position. Miller said that he did not have time to make a change. Lipscomb then said that he was going upstairs to use the restroom, left the cafeteria floor, and started upstairs. On the way he stopped to get a match from another employee to light a cigarette. Miller came to him and told him that if he was going to work he should come back out on the floor. Lipscomb again said he was going to the restroom and went there where he stayed for about 5 minutes. When Lipscomb returned to the cafe- teria floor, Miller told him, "You can go and take a day off." Lipscomb then went to punch out but found his time- card missing from the rack. He went to the office, where Assistant Manager Boyer told him he heard that Lipscomb had a 30-day vacation. Lipscomb asked what Boyer meant, and Boyer said that Miller had laid him off for 30 days. Lipscomb went back to the dining room and asked Miller if that were true. Miller replied, "Yeah, we don't give away weeks any more, we give away months now." As Lipscomb started to leave the cafeteria, Carl Ford, who was working nearby, called him over to give him a card with Stephens' name and number and told Lipscomb to contact Stephens. Miller walked up to Ford and asked 9 Although Respondent contends that the testimony of Annie Lanier shows that the fine was a response to "repeated infractions of the rule regarding food consumption," the testimony of Lanier relied on was vague and ambiguous, was not responsive to the quesiton asked her, and was not pursued when the witness' attention was directed to the question asked It does not support Respondent's contention 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD him if he wanted to go with Lipscomb. Lipscomb told Ford to keep cool and he would leave by himself. Lipscomb left and nothing further was done to Ford. Lipscomb remained on suspension for 30 days after which he returned to work for Respondent. Lipscomb had never previously been suspended. His work had never previously been criticized, but he had re- ceived compliments. Lipscomb testified that to his knowl- edge no one had ever been suspended for as long as a month, that suspensions were usually for a week at the most, and that employees were usually in fact told to re- turn to work after 2 days of suspension. Lipscomb testified that he did not believe that anyone had ever remained out of work for a whole week on suspension. Lipscomb was one of those who initially spoke to Ste- phens and attended the meeting at Stephens' house. At that meeting he spoke in favor of trying to bung in the Union. After the meeting he spoke to a few other employees about it, and at the time of the hearing he was a member of United. The General Counsel contends that Lipscomb was given severe discipline for what would otherwise have been at most a minor infraction because of his union and concert- ed activities. Respondent contends that there is no showing that it had knowledge of Lipscomb's union activities, that there was a long gap between the time of such activity and his discipline, that there is no evidence to show a casual connection between his union activity and the discipline, and that the evidence shows only that Lipscomb was disci- plined for leaving his work station and ignoring his supervisor's orders. There is ample evidence to establish both Respondent's knowledge of Lipscomb's union activities and its union an- imus. Thus Miller and Barber both attended the initial union meeting at which Lipscomb spoke in favor of organi- zation. Later in February, Manager Dennis told Mary Washington he knew who was pushing for the Union and at the same time threatened to do everything in his power to keep it out. In late February or early March, but before March 9, number one waiter Barber told Carl Ford that Dennis knew who was in the Union and who was pushing it. At that time Barber added that Ford, who was actively supporting unionization, had better watch himself, because Dennis was after him and "the least little thing you do, you gonna be gone." Indeed, there was a suggestion of imple- mentation of this threat when Miller asked Ford if he wanted to go also as Ford spoke briefly to Lipscomb fol- lowing Lipscomb's suspension. The testimony of Lipscomb himself leaves unclear whether in absence of any organizational activity effort his conduct might have resulted in some disciplinary action against him. But his testimony also establishes that the di- cipline meted out to him was unprecedented in its severity. Thus, Lipscomb testified that a week was the longest sus- pension ever previously given and that he did not believe in fact that anyone remained out for more than 2 days before being told to come back. Moreover, Miller in his statement to Lipscomb at the time of the suspension acknowledged the unprecedented severity of the suspension when he said that they didn't give away weeks anymore but were giving months. On the record before me the only explanation which cir- cumstantially appears for the severity of the suspension imposed on Lipscomb is his union and concerted activity. While Respondent might have refuted Lipscomb' s testimo- ny as to Respondent's disciplinary practices or have shown cause for imposing more severe discipline on Lipscomb than was its practice, it chose to present no evidence at all. In these circumstances, I find the record evidence suffi- cient to warrant the inference that Lipscomb was treated more harshly than he would have been treated otherwise because of his union and concerted activity. Accordingly, I find that Lipscomb's 30-day suspension violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.10 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations de- scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub- stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As I have found that Kenneth Lipscomb was unlawfully suspended on March 9, 1974, for a 30-day period, I shall recommend that he be made whole for the pay lost by him during the period of his suspension, with interest to be computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accord with the formulae set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I shall further recommend that Respon- dent be ordered to expunge the suspension from Lipscomb's record and to rescind the rule imposing a $5 fine on an employees who consumes food without having previously paid for it. United requests as extraordinary remedies that Respon- dent be required to bargain with United and to reimburse it for its litigation and organizing expenses. Apart from the failure of the complaint to allege that United is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, the record contains no foundation for ordering Respondent to take the actions requested by United. United also asks that either it be named in the order along with Local 737 or that neither organization be specifically named in the order and notice. As it has not been established in this proceeding that United is a labor organization within the meaning of 10 As Lipscomb's early union activity at least was in behalf of Local 737 1 find the evidence sufficient to support the allegation that the suspension violated Sec . 8(a)(3) of the Act But even assuming that the discrimination was based on Lipscomb's more recent activity on behalf of United, his suspension would still violate Sec 8(a)(1) and the remedy would be the same MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY the Act it cannot be named as such in the order. Converse- ly, as at least some of the employee activities with which Respondent interfered were in support of organizational efforts of Local 737, its name would ordinarily appear in the order. Any possible fears of United that Local 737 will gain an organizational advantage over United by being named in the order do not furnish sufficient cause to omit mention of Local 737. It is not the purpose of the order to favor Local 737 in relation to any other labor organization; it is its purpose to protect employee rights to engage in union activity on behalf of Local 737 or any other labor organization without reprisal. Accordingly, the special remedial requests of United are denied. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By engaging in surveillance of employee unit activi- ties, coercively interrogating an employee concerning union activities, threatening reprisals against employees because of their union or concerted activities, requesting an employee to report on the union activity of other em- ployees, creating the impression that employee union activ- ities were under surveillance, and instituting a rule impos- ing a $5 fine on any employee who consumes food or drink without having previously paid for it in reprisal for em- ployee union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. By discriminatorily suspending Kenneth Lipscomb because of his participation in union and concerted activi- ties, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices af- fecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act Upon the foregoing finding of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in these proceedings, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec- ommended: ORDER11 Respondent, Morrison Cafeteria Company, Inc., of Tal- lahassee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its 11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in 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 527 employees by attendance of its supervisors at union meet- ings. (b) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning employee union activities. (c) Threatening its employees with discharge or other reprisals for their union or concerted activities. (d) Asking employees to report to its manager or super- visors on future union activity which they may observe. (e) Creating the impression that employee union activi- ties are under surveillance. (f) Imposing more onerous work rules in reprisal for em- ployee union or concerted activities. (g) Discriminating against employees in regard to hire, tenure of employment, or any other condition of employ- ment because of their membership in Hotel, Motel, Res- taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga- nization or because they engage in protected concerted ac- tivities. (h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any or all such activities specified in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- ary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Rescind the 30-day suspension imposed on Kenneth Lipscomb on March 9, 1974, and expunge it from Lipscomb's work record. (b) Make Kenneth Lipscomb whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his suspension in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Rescind its rule imposing a $5 fine on any employee who consumes food without having previously paid for it. (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payments records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its Tallahassee, Florida, place of business copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Cop- ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di- rector for Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notice to em- ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 12 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial at which all sides had a chance to give evi- dence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the following: The Act give all employees these rights: To engage in self-organization To form, join, or help unions To bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing To act together for collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all of these things. WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with or restrains or coerces employees with respect to these rights. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union activi- ties of our employees by the attendance of our super- visors at union meetings. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees concerning employee union activities. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis- charge or other reprisals for their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report to their managers or supervisors on future union activities which they may observe. WE WILL NOT create the impression that employee union activities are under surveillance. WE WILL NOT impose stricter work rules on our em- ployees in reprisal for their union or concerted activi- ties. WE WILL NOT discriminate against any of our em- ployees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment, or any other conditions of employment because of their membership in Hotel, Motel Restaurant Employ- ees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization or because they engage in protected concerted activi- ties. WE WILL rescind the 30-day suspension imposed on Kenneth Lipscomb on March 9, 1974, and WE WILL expunge it from his work record. WE WILL make Kenneth Lipscomb whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his suspension, with interest. WE WILL rescind our rule imposing a $5 fine on any employee who consumes food without having previ- ously paid for it. MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPA- NY INC. OF TALLAHASSEE