Marriott Corp.

128 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Marriott In-Flite Services, Inc, a Division of Marriott Corporation and Local 481 , Production, Industrial, Technical, Miscellaneous and Amalgamated Work- ers Union Case 29-CA-4190 May 26, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On July 24, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Wal- ter H Maloney, Jr, issued the attached Decision in this proceeding Thereafter, Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Coun- sel submitted a brief in support of the Decision and a brief in reply to Respondent's exceptions 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 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order In agreement with the Administrative Law Judge and for the reasons set forth by him, we, unlike our dissenting colleague, find that Respondent dis- charged employees Connell Nicholson and Eaker Collins in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act Nicholson was a long-time employee with a virtu- ally unblemished record As more fully detailed by the Administrative Law Judge, Nicholson was active in the union campaign which began at Respondent's facility in late November or early December Re- spondent was aware that Nicholson supported the 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 (C A 3 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings 2 Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge s conclusion that Rardon during the course of his interrogation of Nicholson asked Nicholson if any management representatives had seen him passing out union cards Our review of the record indicates that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate a conclusion that either Rardon or the other inves- tigator, Bornoty, interrogated Nicholson about his union activities and therefore we do not find that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act by such conduct In addition in concluding that Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(1) by its coercive interrogation of Collins we do not attach any signifi- cance to the fact that this interrogation occurred late at night We note that Collins was interrogated after he finished his night shift and therefore the late hour of the interrogation was not unreasonable under the circum stances Union About 2 or 3 weeks before his termination, Nicholson had a conversation with Respondent's as- sistant manager, John Savage, during which Savage asked Nicholson what he thought of the Union Ni- cholson replied that he thought it was good Savage told him that if the Union got in the employees would lose their present profit-sharing benefits and their credit union 3 Nicholson was constructively dis- charged 4 on January 6, 1975, following an interview conducted by two professional investigators, William R Rardon and George Bornoty During that inter- view Nicholson was questioned at length concerning possible thefts of food and liquor He admitted that on one occasion a driver had come into the commis- sary with a pail containing four or five miniatures of liquor and had asked him to take the pail and put it in the pantry for some other employees Nicholson did so, leaving them on a table in the back of the room During the course of the interview, Rardon told Nicholson that his supervisor stated he deserved to be fired Nicholson asked why he should be fired and pressed Rardon for an answer, "Fired for li- quor " Rardon said, "No, not for the liquor " Rardon left the room and when he returned he offered Ni- cholson the choice of resigning or being fired Ni- cholson requested, and was denied, permission to speak to his supervisor or to make a telephone call Nicholson decided to resign Immediately after the resignation, when Nicholson asked the shop general manager, John McConnell, why he was being fired, McConnell told him he had done a "dumb thing at the wrong time " McConnell refused to tell Nichol- son what "dumb thing" he had done Thus, Nicholson was a long-time employee of Re- spondent with an excellent record He was active on behalf of the Union and Respondent was aware of his support of the Union Nicholson did admit to certain facts which may indicate that he was guilty of an indiscretion with respect to the handling of liquor However, Respondent at the time of its discharge of Nicholson specifically stated that he was not being discharged for this reason 5 Yet Respondent does not assert any other basis for the discharge, and since the discharge was not because of any mishandling of li- quor, we conclude that it was because of Nicholson's union activities This conclusion is supported by the fact that McConnell, in stating that Nicholson was discharged for doing a "dumb thing," refused to be more specific If the dumb thing constituted a legiti- 3 The Administrative Law Judge finds in our opinion correctly that this threat of loss of employee benefits violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the questioning of Nicholson by Savage on this occasion also constituted a violation of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act 4 There is no contention that Nicholson s resignation was voluntary 5 Our dissenting colleague in finding that Nicholson was discharged im mediately following an admission that he had pilfered property completely ignores this fact 224 NLRB No 26 MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES 129 mate basis for discharge McConnell undoubtedly would have clearly disclosed the nature of this al- leged misconduct It is further supported by the fact that Respondent refused to permit Nicholson to make a telephone call or consult with his supervisor prior to making his decision with respect to signing the resignation letter We conclude, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by constructively dis- charging Nicholson Collins was also a long-time employee of Respon- dent He, like Nicholson, had made his prounion sen- timents known to Respondent Thus, sometime in December, Israel "Buddy" Lee, Marriott's personnel director from its Washington, D C, headquarters, asked Collins what he thought about the Union Col- lins indicated that he was for it Sometime later, Col- lins told Shop Supervisor Juan Rodriquez that he was going to vote for the Union because "we need a Union here " Collins also voiced the same prounion sentiments to McConnell As early as June and July 1974 Respondent had received reports indicating that Collins might be taking food or liquor home with him Respondent continued to receive some re- ports of this nature, as fully detailed by the Adminis- trative Law Judge, throughout the period prior to Collins' suspension on January 6, 1975, and his sub- sequent discharge On January 6, 1975, Collins was interviewed by investigator Rardon Collins was asked about the theft of liquor and food, Collins did admit that he had taken two miniatures from an in- coming flight and drank them Rardon also asked Collins what he thought of the Union, and Collins replied that he thought it was a good thing for a working man and that the employees needed a union to get any place in a shop like Shop 375 6 Following the interview, Collins was suspended for 2 days and then, immediately following the suspension, dis- charged Thus, Collins, a long-time employee and a known union supporter, was suspended and discharged for activity which Respondent had tolerated for months prior to that time That Collins' support of the Union played at least a part in Respondent's decision to suspend and discharge him is demonstrated by the fact that these actions occurred immediately follow- ing Respondent's coercive interrogation of him as to his continued support of the Union When Collins responded with statements of continued support for the Union he was suspended and discharged I We find in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge 6 We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that this interrogation violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act 7 Although our dissenting colleague agrees the questioning was unlawful he ignores the fact that the discharge occurred immediately thereafter that Respondent' s actions resulted, at least in part, from Collins' support of the Union Therefore, we find that the suspension and discharge violated Sec- tion 8(a)(3) and (1) ORDER 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 the Respondent, Marriott In-Fhte Serv- ices, Inc, a Division of Marriott Corporation, Queens, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order MEMBER JENKINS, concurring in part and dissenting in part Although I agree with my colleagues that Respon- dent engaged in independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in the manner and to the extent indicated in the majority opinion, I do not agree with their findings that the discharges of Collins and Ni- cholson violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act In my judgment, the record supports Respondent's conten- tion that these two employees were fired because it believed they were pilfering property of its customers for which Respondent was the responsible custodian The fact that union activity is in progress when an employer has reasonable ground to believe that its employees are involved in theft of company property should not obscure the fact that the employer has a right to take appropriate disciplinary actions against the suspected offenders In the past, the Board has not denied an employer this right to protect its busi- ness by discharging employees who have misappro- priated company property 8 The record indicates, and the Administrative Law Judge so found, that the Respondent had experi- enced "a longstanding and continuing problem of theft of food and liquor " Both Respondent and its customers took various measures in hopes of secur- ing the food, beverages, and liquor entrusted to Respondent's care When John McConnell became general manager of Shop 375 in June 1974, his para- mount concern was to do something about the prob- lem of pilferage at this location At that time, several rigorous security measures were adopted But reports of thefts of both food and liquor continued In fact, as early as June or July 1974, several rank-and-file employees reported to McConnell that Collins was taking food and liquor home with him Because 8 See for example Allstate Insurance Company 209 NLRB 565 (1974) F W Woolworth 204 NLRB 396 (1973) and Saxon Paint Stores Inc et al 160 NLRB 1757 (1966) 130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD thefts of company property persisted, McConnell, in August 1974, arranged for an undercover agent to be placed in the shop The agent's reports of October and November identified Collins as an offender and in December the agent reported an incident where Nicholson appeared to have misappropriated proper- ty Throughout this time, McConnell was in contact with his superiors about the problem of pilferage In early January 1975, Respondent engaged the services of two trained polygraph examiners to con- duct investigations of the thefts Approximately 12 or 13 employees were interviewed and as a result of this investigation, 7 employees were terminated, includ- ing Collins and Nicholson Out of seven employees, three were fired and four resigned in lieu of being discharged Only Collins and Nicholson are alleged to have been discharged for discriminatory reasons After the polygraph interviews were completed, Respondent had what it considered to be sufficient evidence of Collins' and Nicholson's offenses The credited testimony shows that, during their inter- views with the polygraph examiners, Collins admit- ted appropriating liquor for his own use and Nichol- son admitted providing liquor to other employees on at least one occasion I do not find, as did the Ad- ministrative Law Judge, that the mere fact that Ni- cholson apparently does not drink liquor himself ex- cuses his actions Respondent's obvious concern was not with the eventual use of the pilfered property, but the fact that employees entrusted to use food and liquor in the service of Respondent's customers mis- appropriated this property for illicit purposes It is evident that as soon as Respondent learned that Collins and Nicholson admitted their participa- tion in the pilferage, which admissions corroborated earlier reports of their improper activities from other employees as well as the undercover agent, Respon- dent disciplined them immediately Respondent's ac- tions were taken after a long and extensive investi- gation This investigation also resulted in the terminations of five other employees The record in- dicates that the polygraph interviews which culmi- nated the investigation occurred at least a month af- ter the Union's organizational efforts began and not, as the Administrative Law Judge found, at the mem- bership drive's inauguration Although it is not de- nied that Respondent knew generally that such an organizational campaign was in progress, such knowledge alone is not sufficient to impute an un- lawful motivation to Respondent's actions On the basis of the credited evidence, I find it far more plau- sible that Collins' and Nicholson's terminations were a direct result of Respondent's serious concern with thefts of property for which it was responsible and its knowledge that Collins and Nicholson were among those employees who were believed to be responsible for the problem Accordingly, I would dismiss the complaint inso- far as it alleges that the discharges of Collins and Nicholson violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act DECISION FINDINGS OF FACT STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALTER H MALONEY, JR, Administrative Law Judge This case came on for hearing at Brooklyn, New York, upon a complaint I issued by the Regional Director for Region 29, alleging that the Respondent Marriott In-Flite Services, Inc, a Division of Marriott Corporation,2 violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act More particularly, the complaint alleges that the Respondent interrogated em- ployees with respect to their sympathies and activities in support of Local 481, 3 threatened employees with loss of benefits if they supported Local 481, and, on January 6 and 9, 1975, discharged Connell Nicholson and Eaker Col- lins, respectively, because of their union sympathies and activities The Respondent denies the commission of the independent violations of Section 8(a)(1) which are alleged, and asserts that both Nicholson and Collins were dis- charged for theft, although in the case of Nicholson the Respondent is imprecise about which incident or incidents of theft was the precipitating cause of Nicholson's dis- charge 4 A The Events in Question Respondent caters in-flight meals and related services to i The principal docket entries in this case are as follows charges filed by Local 481, Production , Industrial, Technical , Miscellaneous and Amalga mated Workers Union (herein called Local 481 or the Union ) on January 16 1975 complaint issued on March 20, 1975, Respondents answer filed on April 2, 1975, hearing held in Brooklyn, New York, on April 30 and May I and 2 1975 , briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent on June 16 1975 z Respondent is a Delaware corporation which operates a commissary for the preparation of meals and for related services for airlines at 49th Street and Astoria Boulevard in Queens New York and at various other points and places in the United States Its Astoria, Queens, commissary services airline flights to and from LaGuardia Field During the preceding year Respondent purchased and caused to be shipped to its Astoria , Queens, location, from points and places outside the State of New York, goods valued in excess of $50,000 Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the meaning of Sec 2 (2), (6) and (7) of the Act and the Board has so held in earlier cases relating to this same location See 192 NLRB 379 (1971) 209 NLRB 478 (1974) ' At the hearing the Respondent challenged the status of the Union as a labor organization within the meaning of the Act but later abandoned this challenge The uncontradicted record evidence in this case shows that Local 481 represents employees in collective bargaining with various employers with respect to wages, hours , and terms and conditions of employment that it has contracts with employers covering various employees and relating to these subjects, and that it processes grievances in bargaining units where it serves as a bargaining agent on behalf of persons employed in such units Accordingly I find that Local 481 Production Industrial Technical Mis- cellaneous and Amalgamated Workers Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act 4 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES 131 various airlines at a number of major airports located throughout the United States it operates a kitchen or com- missary, called Shop 375, at 49th Street and Astoria Boule- vard in Queens, New York, a short distance from LaGuar- dia Airport At this location, it employs about 300 people to service air flights by two of its clientele, Eastern Air Lines and Delta Air Lines At this location, food is re- ceived, stored, cooked, and transported along with alcohol- ic beverages, to departing flights Marriott stores at this location various kinds of liquor, principally hard liquor bottled in miniature bottles, which is the property of East- ern Air Lines and which is loaded aboard Eastern flights in metal sleeves, or containers, which are designed for this purpose Marriott also stores at Shop 375 a supply of beer, wine, and champagne for both Eastern and Delta Like the liquor miniatures, these are supplies belonging to the air- line clients for which Marriott is accountable Part of the responsibility of the Marriott employees assigned to Shop 375 is to unload both garbage and unused food and bever- ages from Eastern and Delta flights which land at LaGuar- dia Late in November or early December 1974, Local 481 began an organizing drive to enlist membership among the drivers, helpers, and various classes of cooks employed at Shop 375 This is the third organizing effort to be conduct- ed involving this shop in the past 4 years, although it is the first drive by Local 481 5 The Union evidenced its intention by leafleting employees from time to time in front of the commissary, giving cards to employees both for their own signatures and for distribution to other employees, and by speaking to arriving and departing employees from in front of the plant with the use of a bullhorn It has maintained this effort from time to time from late in the fall of 1974 up to the hearing in the instant case At Shop 375, Respondent has experienced a longstand- ing and continuing problem of theft of food and liquor Inventories of liquor kept on Marriott premises frequently have not tallied properly when periodic counts were made by its airline clientele Airline food services representatives testified that, upon making periodic inspections of Marriott's trucks and its premises, they frequently noticed both full and empty bottles and cans of various kinds of alcoholic beverages lying about in various places, and have often brought these matters to the attention of Respondent's management To reduce the pilferage of al- coholic beverages, both Marriott management and the air- lines took various measures designed to improve security in the handling of both alcoholic beverages and other items Beer, wine, and champagne to be taken aboard Delta flights from the Marriott commissary are now inventoried before being removed from the cooling boxes which are used to transport them from the commissary to the planes Locks were changed on the refrigerators where steaks are stored prior to cooking, as well as on the refrigerator where beer and wine are stored Shortly after John P McConnell, the present general manager of the shop, took over in June 1974, he instituted a practice of making unannounced visits to portions of the building, instituted a single entrance for employees to improve security, and distributed a letter, signed by Regional Vice President Robert Tozzi, pointing out to all employees the difficulties which the Respondent was experiencing because of theft and asking the coopera- tion of employees in reporting any pilferage of company property which they observed Despite these efforts, the handling of alcoholic beverages at the commissary prem- ises was still loosely done Marriott Corporation owns Marriott Security Systems, Inc, a large detective agency which provides security serv- ices not only to the Marriott chain but to a large number of outside customers In August, Respondent engaged Mar- riott Security Systems to plant an undercover agent in Shop 375 to seek out and report evidence of theft or misuse of company property by company employees, as well as drinking or use of narcotics on the job by Marriott employ- ees Marriott Security Systems, Inc, placed Jose Machado in Shop 375 as a night-shift employee for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of persons responsible for the con- tinuing theft of food and alcoholic beverages He normally worked from 1 30 a in until 9 a in each day As discussed later in detail, Machado made daily written reports to Mar- riott Security headquarters in Miami, Florida, which were then forwarded from Miami to Regional Vice President Tozzi Machado regularly engaged in this activity from late August 1974 until January 1975, when seven employees at Shop 375, including the two discriminatees named in the complaint, were terminated Eaker Collins, one of the two discriminatees, was em- ployed by the Respondent as a truckdriver for a period of about 4 years It was his responsibility to drive one of Marriott's specially equipped trucks from Shop 375 about a quarter of a mile to the LaGuardia terminal and then, with his helper, to place prepared meals and containers of liquor aboard outgoing flights He and his helper were also responsible for unloading dirty dishes, unused food, and alcoholic beverages from incoming flights So-called in- bound milk and pastry was and is discarded as garbage, even though it might not have been touched by airline pas- sengers Alcoholic beverages were supposed to be returned to the storage room at the commissary, although occasion- ally bottles were left in the pantry or elsewhere before re- turn to the storage room At the conclusion of a workday, Collins left his truck either in the parking compound at the commissary of on the street dust outside the entrance to the premises He normally worked from 2 30 until 10 30, al- though his workday varied slightly from these hours, and he occasionally worked overtime, depending on the sched- ule of incoming flights 6 From the time McConnell assumed his present responsi- bility as general manager of the shop in 1974, Collins was under suspicion of minor theft of food and liquor As early as June and July 1974, several rank-and-file employees re- ported to McConnell that they had personally seen Collins take food or liquor home with him Various daily reports forwarded to the Respondent by Machado also mentioned Collins by name Machado's report of October 21 stated that he observed Collins remove a large paper bag from the 'See Marriott In F&te Services 192 NLRB 379 (1971) and 209 NLRB 478 cited supra 6 Despite Collins protestations to the contrary it seems clear beyond peradventure that he frequently worked as late as 2 a in 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD truck Collins was driving and put it into his parked car Machado noted that he caught a glimpse of five or six cans of Budweiser beer on top of the bag The following week, Machado reported in his written report of November 7 that he saw Collins, who was in the process of unloading his truck at the commissary, load a paper bag containing prop- erty of the airlines, including a bottle of wine and a bottle of champagne Machado reported that he observed Collins on earlier occasions park his truck near his parked car, go to the car, and then return to the truck and park it in the parking area He reported that he was unable to see what Collins did at his car on these occasions In a third report, dated November 15, Machado reported that he had heard from other employees that Collins regularly took large numbers of liquor miniatures and wine home with him Collins stated that he does not drink alcohol, and never took anything home with him other than inbound milk,' and on occasion, the evening meal which is prepared and served at the cafeteria in an aluminum casserole to all Mar- riott employees,8 but which on occasion he was too busy to consume during his shift Sometime in December, Israel "Buddy" Lee, Marriott's personnel manager from its Washington, D C, headquar- ters, was present at Shop 375 in one of his periodic visits Collins was acquainted with Lee from previous visits which Lee had made to the premises Lee asked Collins what he thought about the Union and Collins indicated that he was for it Lee told Collins not to let anyone fool him, suggest- ed that Collins stay away from the Union, and character- ized it as nothing but trouble He asked Collins how he was being treated, and Collins told him that, while he was being treated all right, things could be better if employees had someone to represent them Lee told Collins that he was around in the Company to "represent" employees, to which Collins stated that he did not see him very often Lee then gave Collins his card and told him to phone him in Washington collect if he had any problems Lee noted that a union was not needed in the shop, and that it would take $10 or $12 a month from employees for nothing, to which Collins replied that Lee did not have to worry since he did not think that a union would come into the shop anyhow The conversation ended and Collins left for his driving as- signment Lee did not testify at the hearing, so I credit Collins' version of this conversation Sometime later, Collins had a conversation with Shop Supervisor Juan Rodriguez concerning unionization Rod- riguez told Collins that the employees would be stupid to have a union because they would have no one to represent them He noted that someone would have to be selected as shop steward or delegate, and said there was no one in the shop capable of fulfilling this function because most of the shop consisted of Spanish-speaking employees He asked Collins what good he thought he could do, since there were 7 Cartons of milk which are removed from incoming flights are dumped unless an employee elects to take a carton home with him It is clear from the record that employees, including management employees, were in the habit of taking cartons of "inbound" milk home and that this practice was condoned, if not specifically authorized 8 One meal each day is regularly prepared for Marriott employees at Shop 375 and a charge representing the cost of the meal is deducted from the employee s pay, regardless of whether or not he eats the meal only six black employees in the shop, and suggested that he "forget it " Collins replied that "here's one black boy going to vote for the union" because "we need a union here " He told Rodriguez that, when organizing drives came around, the Company provided employees with better meals, but as soon as the Union would lose the representation election, "you get slop again " 9 Collins also voiced prounion senti- ments to General Manager McConnell On January 5, 1975, Collins signed a Local 481 designation card and gave it to one of the union organizers in front of the shop Discriminatee Connell Nicholson had been employed at Shop 375 about 6-1/2 years at the time of his termination on January 6, 1975 He began as a dishwasher and was successively promoted on four occasions to various posi- tions, serving as a lead cook at the time he left the Respondent's employment During this period of time, Ni- cholson had only one minor cautionary warning on his record Shortly after the union organizing drive began, Ni- cholson had occasion to talk with one of the organizers while standing in front of company premises On a second occasion, he spoke to Roman in front of the company premises On another occasion, a week or two before his termination, Nicholson was taking a break about 1 a in on the loading dock outside the building when Roman drove his car into the company driveway between the plant gates, blew his horn, and summoned Nicholson to come over to speak to him The areaway in which they spoke was flood- lighted, and I find as a fact that the two spoke in plain view of Assistant Manager John Savage who was seated in the dispatcher's office behind a large plate glass window some 50-75 feet away Roman gave Nicholson a union card to sign and also gave him additional cards to distribute among employees in the plant 10 Nicholson personally signed a union card at another point in time and mailed it in He also distributed union cards to other employees both at the shop and away from the shop Nicholson voiced the opinion that management representatives did not actually see him give union cards to other employees, although he told company interrogators immediately before his termi- nation that he thought that a fellow employee, one Mer- cedes Cuculon, had reported his union activity to manage- ment About 2 or 3 weeks before his termination, Nicholson had a conversation with Savage concerning the Union Savage asked Nicholson what he thought of the Union, and Nicholson replied that he thought it was good Savage told him that, if the Union got in, employees would lose their present profit-sharing benefits and their credit union Nicholson replied that, at least with a union, people would have someone to talk to Savage countered that Ni- cholson could always talk to him or to some other supervi- sor Nicholson's reply was that, so far, employees had not gotten very far when they talk to supervisors and that su- pervisors can't do employees any good It During the first week in January 1975, Marriott Security Rodriguez did not testify, so I credit the uncontradicted version of this conversation recited by Collins 10 Management witnesses admit seeing union cards and union literature lying about the shop at or about this same period of time it Savage admits talking to Nicholson on the subject of unionization the contents of which are at variance with the conversation related by Nichol- son Savage places the conversation early in the fall, when no organizational effort was in progress I credit Nicholson's version MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES 133 Systems, Inc, dispatched polygraph examiners William R Rardon and George Bornoty from Miami to New York to conduct an investigation among the employees at Shop 375 Rardon is a former policeman and criminal investiga- tor with long experience in conducting polygraph examina- tions Bornoty, a former Marine Corps criminal investiga- tor, is also a professional polygraph examiner Rardon, who was in charge of the investigative team, was supplied with information taken from the reports which had been rendered to the Miami office by Jose Machado In New York, they met with Tozzi, McConnell, Machado, and others before initiating a series of interviews with employ- ees at Shop 375 who were under suspicion of theft These interviews were conducted on company premises during the evening of January 6 and during the day on January 7 Bornoty interviewed employees who spoke Spanish, and then assisted Rardon with employees who spoke English A total of 12 or 13 interviews were conducted In holding these interviews, Rardon or Bornoty met alone with the interviewee either in McConnell's office or in a secretary's office adjacent to McConnell's office While the interviews were in progress, McConnell and Tozzi waited outside, either in the hallway or in another secretary's office As a result of these interviews, seven employees were terminat- ed Three were fired and four resigned in lieu of discharge At or about 10 30 p in Collins, who was in the process of unloading his truck, was directed to go upstairs to the company office by his supervisor He saw Tozzi, McCon- nell, and Rardon in the company office Rardon began to question Collins alone in the secretary's office which he was using He told Collins that he was going to "pick out the good apples from the bad apples," 12 and was going to get rid of the bad apples He also told Collins that he had received prior information to the effect that Collins had been stealing wine and champagne from incoming flights and putting shopping bags containing beer into his car Collins denied the accusations, saying that he did not know who had been taking things but that he had not When Rardon pressed him about having been seen with wine and champagne in his possession, he replied that he was sup- posed to have these items in his possession when he "strip- ped" incoming planes Rardon also asked him personal matters, including whether he was married, whether his wife worked, and what kind of car he had He also asked Collins if he were fired how much unemployment compen- sation he could draw Collins said he never drew unem- ployment compensation but he imagined it would run about $90 or $95 Rardon asked Collins if he would take a lie detector test, and Collins replied that he would take any kind of test to prove that he did not steal anything 13 Col- lins inquired who the investigator was that reported these matters and insisted upon being confronted by him, but Rardon gave no answer Collins admitted to Rardon that, from time to time, he would take a meal or meals home with him, but averred that he was authorized to do so Collins also admitted taking two miniatures from an in- coming "10-11" Eastern flight and drinking them at the shop near the compactor 14 Neither of these matters were known to Rardon prior to the interview Collins asserts, and Rardon denies, that Rardon questioned him concern- ing union activities According to Collins, Rardon asked him what he thought of the Union and Collins replied he thought that it was a good thing for a working man, and that the employees needed a union to get any place in a shop like Shop 375 Rardon told Collins that he would let him resign in lieu of discharge, to which Collins replied, "I don't steal I ain't never been in any trouble You just want to get rid of me or maybe somebody in the Company want to get rid of me for some reason, but not shit, because I don't know about none of this " He declined the offer Rardon asked Collins to step out of the room at the end of the interview, whereupon Rardon reported the results of his interview to McConnell and Tozzi who were standing by Shortly after this conference, McConnell emerged from the room, went to his office, got a tablet of paper, and told Collins that he would have to give him a 2-day suspension Collins asked McConnell why he was being given the sus- pension, and McConnell replied that they had a lot of charges wrapped up there He denies being told specifically why he was being suspended McConnell asked Collins to sign a piece of paper, which Collins did The paper was a company personnel evaluation form containing several lines for "remarks" which, either before or after Collins signed it, was filled in with a legend to the effect that Col- lins was being suspended until Thursday pending an inves- tigation, noting an admission on Collins part that he had taken two miniatures and had drunk them on company property, and stating that he should return to see McCon- nell on Thursday morning at 9 a in When Collins came in on Thursday to see McConnell, McConnell discharged him, saying that he hated to do so but that they had too much on him and he (McConnell) was in a position where he could do nothing about it Collins said that he would fight the discharge, to which McConnell and Assistant Manager Hines, who was also present, replied that they did not blame him for doing so Collins denies putting any items taken from the shop in his car, other than inbound milk and the meal to which he was entitled He specifically denied taking any liquor home with him Nicholson was interviewed by Rardon and Bornoty on the same evening that Collins was questioned He was told by John Savage to report to the company office for that purpose The record is unclear whether Bornoty or Rardon spoke to Nicholson first, but, in the course of the evening, both of them questioned him As with Collins, Rardon in- terviewed Nicholson alone in a small company office He identified himself, said he was an investigator from Wash- ington, and was in New York to investigate a lot of stealing that was going on Nicholson asked, "What has this got to do with me?" Rardon said that he thought Nicholson could give them some information Nicholson said that he did not know anything about stealing, and specifically an- 12 Rardon denies using this phrase I credit Collins 14 I credit this aspect of Rardon s testimony over Collins denial with 13 Rardon states that Collins refused to take a polygraph test I credit respect to the liquor miniatures Collins vehemently denied making any Collins Rardon had his polygraph machine with him but did not make any admission that he had taken home more than one authorized meal per polygraph examinations during this New York visit evening I credit this denial 134 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD swered Rardon's question that he did not know anything about the theft of steaks or liquor He did admit taking home inbound milk from time to time Rardon then asked him if he knew about thefts on the part of other employees, and Nicholson said he did not Nicholson asked Rardon why he was asking him all these questions, to which Rar- don replied that he thought that Nicholson knew what was going on around there, adding that the Company had fired one employee that evening for stealing who said that Ni- cholson had given him some liquor Rardon also told Ni- cholson that someone had said that Nicholson was stealing company property and selling it Nicholson also denied that accusation Rardon told him that if he did not inform him about who was stealing, the Company would fire Ni- cholson He continued his interrogation, asking Nicholson about the theft of sleeves of liquor, and about the theft of liquor on a holiday, but Nicholson provided him with no information Finally, after a barrage of questioning, Ni- cholson told Rardon that, on one occasion, a driver had come into the commissary with a white pail containing four or five miniatures of liquor and had asked Nicholson to take the pail and put it in the pantry for some other em- ployees Nicholson did so, leaving them on a table in the back of the room Rardon asserts, and Nicholson denies, that he also admitted in the course of the interview, that on another occasion, he took 15 or 20 miniatures and gave them out to other employees Nicholson impressed me as a thoroughly honest and scrupulous person I credit his deni- al of this supposed admission relating to 15 or 20 minia- tures and his denial that he took liquor home with him, and I credit his assertion that he personally did not, and does not, imbibe alcoholic beverages Bornoty continued the interrogation of Nicholson, re- peating to him the same line of questions that Rardon had pursued As noted above, either Rardon or Bornoty asked Nicholson if he thought that any management representa- tives had seen him passing out union cards Nicholson's reply was that he thought that Mercedes Cuculon had in- formed on him but that he was not sure Rardon returned to the room sometime after Bornoty had finished, resumed questioning, and then told Nicholson that his supervisor stated that he deserved to be fired Nicholson asked why he should be fired, and pressed Rardon for an answer, "Fired for liquor2" Rardon said, "No, not for the liquor," left the room again, and then returned At this point, he said that he had talked the matter over with Nicholson's supervisor and that the Company would give Nicholson the option of resigning He told Nicholson that if he did not resign, he would be fired and added that if the Company fired Ni- cholson, he would not be able to get a job anywhere in New York State because of his bad record Nicholson thought for a while and asked to speak to his supervisor and to make a telephone call Rardon denied him permis- sion to do either and directed that he decide before he left the room whether or not he was going to resign in lieu of discharge Nicholson voiced the objection that, if he re- signed, he would not draw unemployment compensation Rardon replied that they would fix it so he could do so i5 Nicholson sat there for an additional span of time, and then told Rardon that he would consent to resign His res- ignation, written by Rardon, stated that he resigned for "personal reasons " Thereafter, McConnell accompanied Nicholson while he cleaned out his locker and escorted him out of the building Nicholson asked McConnell to give him a letter of recommendation At first, McConnell re- fused, later, he furnished Nicholson with the following let- ter, dated February 10, 1975 To Whom it May Concern Re Connell Nicholson We would like to advise you that Connell Nicholson was an employee of Marriott In-Flite Services located at the address above from July 20, 1968, to Jan 7, 1975 He held the position of cook and earned a wage of $5 03 per hour Mr Nicholson left his position for personnal (sic) rea- sons His work was satisfactory /s/ John McConnell General Manager B Analysis and Conclusions I Threats of loss of benefits and coercive interrogation As found above, Assistant Manager John Savage, in the course of his conversation with employee Connell Nichol- son, told Nicholson that, in the event the Union came into the shop, the employees would lose their profit-sharing benefits and their credit union The threat of a loss of em- ployee benefits is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act for which no citation of authority is necessary According- ly, I conclude that, by Savage's statement to Nicholson, the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act In the course of the same conversation, Savage inquired of Nicholson how he felt about the Union Since this question was coupled with, and was part of, a conversation involv- ing a threat to Nicholson of a loss of benefits if the Union were successful in its efforts, the remarks cannot be passed off as a casual inquiry made in the course of a noncoercive discussion Accordingly, I find that the questioning of Ni- cholson by Savage on this occasion also constituted a vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 2 Additional coercive interrogation Respondent employed two professional investigators with lengthy law enforcement experience to conduct a sys- tematic interrogation of several of its employees on the subject of suspected thefts of company property The evi- dence herein respecting Nicholson and Collins is quite clear that the manner in which at least Rardon went about his duties left something to be desired from the standpoint of respecting free employee choice in the selection or rejec- that Nicholson had resigned without good cause This position was ulti- matel denied b a referee of the New York State De art t f L b y m y p en o a or 15 After leaving the Company, Nicholson filed for unemployment com who found that Nicholson was forced to resign and that his termination pensation The application was contested by the Respondent on the basis was a discharge without conditions disqualifying him for compensation MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES 135 tion of a bargaining agent Both Nicholson and Collins were subjected to lengthy interrogations alone, late at night, in company offices, and were in effect kept incom- municado during the course of their respective interroga- tions Nicholson requested, and was refused, the opportu- nity to discuss his pending removal with his supervisor or to make a telephone call prior to making a decision as to whether he should resign from a job which he held for a period of 6-1/2 years or incur the obloquy of being fired Both Nicholson and Collins were repeatedly peppered with hostile questions over a lengthy period of time and made the subject of accusations of misconduct by unknown ac- cusers In the course of the questioning, Collins inquired of Rardon who had accused him of manifold acts of miscon- duct and requested a confrontation with his accuser but this information was denied him Nicholson was told to provide Rardon with information implicating other em- ployees in thefts of company property or he himself would be discharged Both were asked if they would be willing to take a lie detector test concerning accusations made against them Bornoty participated, albeit in a limited way, in this treatment of Nicholson Neither made any pretense of complying with the Board's requirements laid down in Struksnes Construction Co, Inc, 165 NLRB 1062 (1967) The questioning of suspects in the manner utilized by former policeman Rardon and former CID investigator Bornoty is the type of activity which the Supreme Court has taken great pains over a long period of time to elimi- nate from the enforcement of criminal statutes in this country 16 When such questioning occurs in a labor rela- tions context-and the questioning of both these "sus- pects" contained just such an aspect-it should also be condemned in the enforcement of the Act As found from credited evidence above, Rardon asked Collins what he thought of the Union and asked Nicholson if any manage- ment representatives had seen him passing out union cards Such interrogation, conducted in the manner and in the setting in which it took place, constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and I so find and conclude 3 The discharge of Eaker Collins The claim by the Respondent that it discharged Eaker Collins for misconduct lacks both logic and consistency Respondent was understandably exercised, and under pressure from its clientele, to eliminate or at least substan- tially reduce the amount of pilferae of food and liquor which was occurring at Shop 375 If Physical evidence of both pilferage and the drinking of stolen liquor continually littered company trucks and the company building The problem was of longstanding concern and was one which prompted a number of actions taken over a period of many months, including the employment of an undercover agent charged with the responsibility of identifying the offending 16 See, for example, Miranda v State of Arizona 384 U S 436 (1966) Brown v Walker, 161 U S 591 (1896), Brown N Mississippi, 297 U S 278 (1936), Silverthorne Lumber Co v US 251 US 385 (1920) Escobedo v Illinois 378 U S 478 (1964) 17 On one of its personnel forms Respondent refers to theft of comestible items as "peculations " parties However, in nearly a year which has elapsed from the time General Manager McConnell took over the opera- tion until the time of the hearing, the only terminations of known or suspected wrongdoers occurred in the course of the Rardon-Bornoty visit of January 6 and 7 This visit coincided with the inauguration by Local 481 of an orga- nizing drive, which manifested itself to Respondent's man- agement everytime leafleting occurred in front of company premises and whenever employees entering and leaving the building were addressed from the sidewalk by union organ- izers speaking over a bullhorn The coordinate purpose of attacking a longstanding company problem in this manner provided the Respondent with an adequate cover for cur- tailing an incipient union drive, the third to have taken place at Shop 375 in a period of 4 years In attempting to ascertain the precipitating cause of Col- lins' discharge, I inquired of Respondent's counsel the rea- son therefor, and was told by counsel that Collins was dis- charged because he admitted taking liquor and drinking it on the loading dock, because he reportedly admitted steal- ing employees meals and taking them home, and was seen taking a large shopping bag out of his truck when he re- turned from the field to the commissary The admission that Collins was drinking on company property and that he took food assertedly sealed his fate For many months, Collins was a known pilferer of company food and liquor Not long after McConnell's arrival in June 1974, employ- ees reported to McConnell eyewitness accounts of Collins removing food or beverages from company premises, but McConnell took no action of any kind directed at Collins He did not even question or speak to Collins about these reports His excuse was a thin one-rank-and-file employ- ees did not wish to become involved in a contretemps with Collins because of reports they had rendered, and no man- agement employees had ever actually caught Collins in the act This excuse vanished entirely late in October and early in November, just before the organizing drive commenced, when Respondent's undercover agent, Machado, reported in writing several instances he had personally observed in which Collins removed or clearly appeared to be removing food or beverages from company premises These reports were forwarded to Marriott's Regional Vice President Toz- zi Thus, early in November, Respondent had an ample basis on which to discharge or otherwise discipline Collins for pilferage, if indeed it felt that such matters warranted discharge Its failure to do so promptly upon discovery of such facts, coupled with its reliance upon the same events months later as an ancillary basis for discharge, leads ines- capably to the conclusion that pilferage was not the cause of Collins' discharge and that a modest level of consump- tion of food and beverages by employees was tolerated at Shop 375 by the Respondent as an undesirable but un- avoidable aspect of being in the catering business I credit the assertion of Rardon that Collins admitted drinking two miniatures of liquor near the compactor Col- lins made the same admission to Bornoty This information was unknown to company investigators at the outset of their interrogation and was the product of their repeated questioning I am inclined to believe Collins when he states that he admitted occasionally taking home his own uneat- en meal, but that he did not in fact take home meals to 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which he was not entitled and did not admit doing so I note in this connection that, on the personnel evaluation form which was prepared as a part of the 2-day suspension of Collins, no mention is made of purloined meals In any event, on the basis of this record it would be speculative to assume that any meals taken home by Collins were other than meals he came by properly, and, as such, they could hardly form the basis of a discharge for theft There is evidence in the record that, on occasion, the Respondent tolerated occasional drinking on the premises For example, its management personnel admitted partici- pating in drinking champagne, the ownership of which is unclear, with kitchen employees on company premises on New Year's Eve and knowing of such drinking by employ- ees on Christmas Eve No disciplinary action resulted therefrom From the occasional honoring of a rule in the breach by the Respondent, any employee could easily be led to believe that, here again, any prohibition against drinking on company premises was not a hard and fast rule This fact is also suggested by the timidity of the Re- spondent in disciplining Collins for consuming two minia- tures When Respondent decided to invoke sanctions against Collins for this offense, it first suspended him for a period of 2 days before taking any action to remove him permanently Only after the lapse of 2 days, but upon no new evidence or considerations, did McConnell and Hines take the final action, and then they did so apologetically, attempting to eschew personal responsibility for their ac- tion in the eyes of an employee of 4 years' service who was also incredulous that this was the real reason for his dis- charge The essence of a pretextual discharge is that one or more facts underlying the Respondent's asserted reason for ter- minating an employee are true but they have no bearing on the efficient clause of his removal, and are asserted to cloak the real motive behind the discharge It is motivation, not justification, which determines whether a discharge vi- olates the Act In the case of Collins, we are confronted with the situation of a known union adherent, who had proclaimed to several supervisors his desire for unioniza- tion in the emphatic, open, and slightly exaggerated tone which is his manner and who was fired 1 day after he signed a union card, for the kind of conduct on his part which was both known and tolerated by this Respondent for many months, if not years Such dilatory treatment is wholly inconsistent with a desire to suppress the theft of company property through the removal of wrongdoers Re- spondent did not previously have in its possession an ad- mission by Collins that he had drunk two miniatures of company (or airline) liquor on company premises This in- formation was elicited from him in the course of a coercive fishing expedition which its agents pursued on the evening of January 6 However, the Company was long possessed of substantial information of similar conduct on Collins part for quite a period of time, during which it did not even bother to request Collins to cease and desist from his prac- tices, much less take any disciplinary action to rectify an offensive situation Indeed, Collins had received no disci- plinary warnings for any reason during his 4 years of em- ployment The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back fell into place when a union organizing drive began to take shape in front of the Respondent's premises, an effort about which Respondent had considerable curiosity and more than a little apprehension, if the statements of its supervisors are any gauge of its attitude In light of these factors, I am constrained to find that the Respondent here- in discharged Eaker Collins because of his interest in and sympathy for Local 481, and that, in so doing, it violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 4 The discharge of Connell Nicholson During his terminal interview by an investigator em- ployed by the Respondent, Nicholson was offered the choice of resigning or being fired In presenting Nicholson with this choice, Rardon told him that if he were fired, he would never be able to get anotherjob in New York State As further inducement in securing Nicholson's resignation, Rardon told Nicholson, who was worried about his right to receive unemployment compensation, that the Company would fix it up so that he would not forfeit eligibility by resigning Apparently, the Respondent thereafter contested his eligibility for these benefits before the New York State Department of Labor In any event, Nicholson's resigna- tion was not the product of a free and untrammelled choice on his part, but was the result of both the "carrot and the stick" being applied in rapid succession to an employee against whom the Respondent had a thin case, by an agent who was an old hand at dealing with criminal suspects Respondent does not seriously contest the forced aspect of Nicholson's departure Accordingly, I find and conclude that Nicholson was constructively discharged, and that he did not voluntarily quit his job Nicholson was a 6-year employee of the Respondent with a nearly blameless record of service The first and only indication of possible misconduct which Respondent had relating to Nicholson was a report, rendered to the Respondent and dated December 26, 1974, by undercover agent Machado, to the effect that Machado noticed Ni- cholson remove a sleeve, or metal container, of liquor from the liquor room and take it back to the kitchen Neither then nor in his testimony at the hearing was Machado able to say what, if anything, Nicholson did with the liquor Machado did not follow Nicholson or keep him under sur- veillance to determine if Nicholson had converted the li- quor to his own use or had assisted others in doing so Nicholson denied to Rardon taking any sleeve of liquor on this or any other occasion 18 In the course of grilling Ni- cholson, Rardon obtained from him an admission that, on one occasion, he accommodated a company driver by tak- ing a white pail containing four or five liquor miniatures and placing it on a table in the back of the pantry There is no evidence that on this occasion, Nicholson took these miniatures for his own personal use Nicholson denied on the stand an assertion that, in the course of his interview, he admitted taking 15 or 20 miniatures on or about New Year's Eve or on any other occasion There is no mdepen- 18 Interestingly enough Rardon states that in questioning Nicholson he does not recall asking him about the removal of liquor from the liquor cage as reported by Machado although this alleged event is the only lead he had which suggested misconduct on Nicholson s part MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES dent evidence that he did The only reference to Nicholson in the context of taking 15 or 20 miniatures is a statement by company investigators that, in the course of being inter- rogated on January 6, he made such an admission I credit Nicholson Nicholson was in fact active on behalf of the Union in soliciting cards He acknowledged his interest in the Union to his supervisor, Savage, and admitted to company inter- rogators during the January 6 interviews that he was soli- citing memberships from employees, although he felt man- agement was unaware of his activity This statement itself made management aware of his activity The timing of his removal and the events surrounding the Rardon-Bornoty visit raise the same suspicious circumstances suggested above in the discussion relating to Collins At the end of the interview with Nicholson, which involved both threats and repeated pumping for information, Rardon came up dry as far as unearthing a basis for premising the removal of Nicholson was concerned When Nicholson asked Rar- don whether he was being discharged for stealing liquor, Rardon told him that he was not and promptly left the room for a conference with Tozzi and McConnell After he returned, he offered Nicholson the option of resigning and literally browbeat him into accepting it When Nicholson asked McConnell why he was being fired, all that McCon- nell could tell him was that he had done a "dumb thing at the wrong time " McConnell refused to tell Nicholson what the dumb thing was that he did Nicholson pleaded with McConnell that, if he was going to fire him, he should simply discharge him and not attempt to attach the stigma of theft to his removal If the December 26 incident report- ed by Machado was the precipitating cause of discharge, did this incident amount to theft or was it nothing" Not even Machado's testimony warrants a conclusion that Ni- cholson stole anything If some form of serious misappro- priation was involved, why did not Respondent remove Nicholson Immediately As to what may be called the "white pail" incident, similar questions arise If Respon- dent failed to discharge Collins over a period of many months when he was known to be taking property for his own use, why would it discharge Nicholson under these circumstances when there is no evidence now or at the time of the discharge that he ever took anything for his own use, other than inbound milk which was headed for the garbage can? If Nicholson's misbehavior was misconduct of such a nature that it warranted the removal of a 6-year veteran employee with a good employment record, why did it thereafter give him a reference stating that his work was satisfactory As with Collins, the Respondent temporized after receiving information of the kind or character it later relied upon as a basis for discharge, leaving the clear impli- cation that such activities were not truly dischargeable of- fenses in its catalogue of causes for removal The questions posed above lead inescapably to the answer that the Re- spondent discharged Nicholson for his known sentiments and activities on behalf of Local 481, and, in so doing, violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act I so find and conclude Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 137 1 Respondent Marriott In-Fhte Services, Inc, a Divi- sion of Marriott Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Local 481, Production, Industrial, Technical, Miscel- laneous and Amalgamated Workers Union, is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 By discharging Eaker Collins and Connell Nicholson for their support of Local 481, Production, Industrial, Technical, Miscellaneous and Amalgamated Workers Union, the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act 4 By the acts and conduct described above in Conclu- sion of Law 3, by threatening employees with loss of ben- efits if they supported the Union, and by coercively inter- rogating employees concerning their union sympathies and activities, the Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act 5 The unfair labor practices recited above in Conclu- sions of Law 3 and 4, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial effect on the free flow of commerce, within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed cer- tain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other actions which will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act As a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(3) goes to the very heart of the Act, I will recommend that the Board issue a so-called broad 8(a)(1) order which is de- signed to suppress any and all violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act J C Penney Co, Inc, 172 NLRB 1279, fn 1 (1968) The recommended Order will provide that the Re- spondent be required to offer to Eaker Collins and Connell Nicholson reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment, and that the Respondent make them whole for any loss of earnings which they have suf- fered by reason of the discrimination practiced against them, in accordance with the Woolworth formula,19 with interest thereon computed at 6 percent per annum I will also recommend that the Respondent be required to post a notice, advising its employees of their rights and of the remedy in this case Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and upon the entire record herein considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the fol- lowing recommended 19 F W Woolworth Company 90 NLRB 289 (1950) 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER 20 Respondent Marriott In-Flite Services, Inc, a Division of Marriott Corporation, and its officers, supervisors, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sentiments (b) Threatening to discontinue benefits if the Union should become the bargaining agent of its employees (c) Discouraging membership in Local 481, Production, Industrial, Technical, Miscellaneous and Amalgamated Workers Union or any other labor organization, by dis- charging employees or otherwise discriminating against them in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment (d) By any means or in any manner interfering with, coercing, or restraining employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef- fectuate the purposes and policies of the Act (a) Offer to Eaker Collins and to Connell Nicholson full and immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, in the event that their former positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights which they formerly en- joyed (b) Make whole Eaker Collins and Connell Nicholson for any loss of pay suffered by them by reason of the dis- crimination found herein, in the manner described in the section entitled "Remedy " (c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of back- pay due under the terms of this recommended Order (d) Post at the Respondent's place of business in Asto- ria, Queens, New York, copies written in English and in Spanish of the attached notice marked "Appendix " 21 20 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 21 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 ' Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 29, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained by the Re- spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous 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 over by any other material (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 29, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning their union activities and union sentiments WE WILL NOT threaten to discontinue employee bene- fits in the event the shop is unionized WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against employees in the hire and tenure of their em- ployment because they have engaged in union activi- ties All of our employees are free to become or re- main members of Local 481, Production, Industrial, Technical, Miscellaneous and Amalgamated Workers Union, or any other labor organization WE WILL NOT, in any manner or by any means, inter- fere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act These rights include the right of self-organization, the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activi- ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection WE WILL offer to Eaker Collins and to Connell Ni- cholson full and immediate reinstatement to their for- mer or substantially equivalent employment, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay which they have suffered by reason of the discrimination which was found in this case, with interest thereon at 6 per- cent per annum MARRIOTT IN-FLITE SERVICES, INC, A DIVISION OF MARRIOTT CORPORATION