Holiday Inn

HOLIDAY INN Ozark Properties, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn and Teamsters Local Union No. 245, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn and Teamsters Local Union No. 245, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases 17-CA-11747 and 17-CA- 11798 28 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 21 June 1984 Administrative Law Judge Lawrence W. Cullen issued the attached decision. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief.' The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 2 and conclusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order. i The Respondents' request for oral argument is denied as the record, the exceptions, and the brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties 2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge's credibility findings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administra- tive law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for re- versing the findings Additionally, the Respondents contend that some of the judge's find- ings are the result of bias We reject this contention as unsupported by the record In sec II of his decision, the judge found that Shipman, Respondents' owner, told employees during the Friday, 22 July 1983, meeting to go back to work "and/or" attend the meeting on Saturday morning, or be terminated However, it is clear from the record, as later found by the judge based on credited testimony, that Shipman told employees to return to work or they would be terminated Additionally, in sec 11 of his decision, the judge found that employees Parsons and Anderson were terminated by Shipman in accordance with the terms of Shipman's state- ment to the employees at the 22 July meeting that those employees who were not scheduled to work on Friday, 22 July, would be terminated if they did not return to work on Saturday, 23 July, "and/or" attend a meeting scheduled for the same day However, as is clear from the record, and as the judge earlier found based on credited testimony, Ship- man told employees at the 22 July meeting that the employees who were not scheduled to work on 22 July could either come to work in the morning or pick up their checks Finally, in sec II of his decision, the judge found that the attendance records of both Gateway and Holiday Inn employees contained the notations, "In Walkout of 7/22/83-Termi- nate (d)," and found this to be consistent with the employees' contentions that they had been terminated However, it is clear from the record that these notations only appeared on the attendance records of Holiday Inn employees Furthermore, the judge found the wording of these notations to be, "Terminate (d)," whereas, except for those notations on the records of employees Gloria Brown, Jones, Schreve, and Underwood, it is clear from the record that the notations read, "Terminate " These errors are insufficient to affect the results of our decision 3 The Respondents except to the judge's conclusion that Peggy Collins was unlawfully discharged for engaging in the economic strike, and con- tend that Collins engaged in abusive conduct towards Shipman and was 687 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondents, Ozark Properties, Inc, d/b/a Holiday Inn and Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn, Branson, Missouri, their officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order. thus removed from the protection of the Act According to undisputed testimony not mentioned by the judge in his decision, Collins approached Shipman outside the banquet hall, pointed her finger in his face, and re- peatedly inquired in an agitated manner whether she and her fellow em- ployees were fired Assuming arguendo that Collins engaged in such con- duct, we nevertheless find such actions and statements insufficient to remove Collins from the protection of the Act Chairman Dotson and Member Hunter do not find that the employees engaged in protected activity to the extent that certain of them protested the Respondents' decision to terminate Supervisor Remy They agree, however, that the Respondents terminated the employees because they engaged in a protected economic strike and thus violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act In doing so, they find it clear from the record that the focus of the strike for which the employees were discharged was the employees' protest over working conditions Cf Mr Steak, Inc, 267 NLRB 553 In 3 (1983) Member Dennis agrees that protesting a decision to terminate a super- visor is not protected activity, but that here the focus of the strike for which employees were discharged was working conditions DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LAWRENCE W CULLEN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard before me on October 19 and 20, 1983,1 and February 7, 1984, at Branson, Missouri, pur- suant to an order issued by the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on October 5 consolidating the complaints in Cases 17-CA-11747 and 17-CA-11798. The complaint in Case 17-CA-11747 is based on an amended charge filed September 6 by Teamsters Local No. 245, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union or the Charging Party) and alleges that Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc d/b/a Holiday Inn (Holiday) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) by terminating its employees Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whittington, Peggy Je- linek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Collins, Juanita Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, and Julie Jones because of their engagement in protected concerted activity under the Act, and by the entry of no- tations on the attendance records of its employees Shir- ley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood be- cause of their engagement in protected concerted activi- ties under the Act. The complaint in Case 17-CA-11798 is based on an amended charge filed on October 4 by the Union and alleges that Respondent Gateway Motel of I All dates are in 1983 unless otherwise stated 274 NLRB No. 96 688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn (Gateway) violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating its employees Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson because of their engagement in protected con- certed activities under the Act The complaints are joined by the answers of Respondents. Respondents have also filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that Gateway does not meet the jurisdictional re- quirements of the Act, and that the General Counsel has failed to prove the alleged violations of the Act On the entire record in this case. including my obser- vations of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondents, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS2 1. JURISDICTION The Business of Respondents The complaint alleges, Respondent Holiday admitted at the hearing, and I find that Respondent Holiday is a corporation engaged in the operation of a motel at Bran- son, Missouri, with an annual gross volume of business at said facility in excess of $500,000 and that it annually in the course and conduct of its business operations within the State of Missouri purchases goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources which are located outside the State of Missouri and that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint also alleges that Gateway is an employ- er engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. At the hearing the Respondent moved to amend its answer to the complaint to deny that Gateway meets the jurisdictional requirements of the Act which motion was granted The evidence as adduced at the hearing showed that Gateway is a sole proprietorship which operates a motel in Branson, Missouri, of which George Shipman is the sole owner. George Shipman is also the sole share- holder and the president of Holiday. Thus, Shipman holds the highest management position in each of these two businesses. These two businesses as well as several other businesses owned by Shipman are operated by Shipman and his managerial staff from his office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Shipman has the overall responsibility for the operations of Holiday and Gateway and report- ing to him is Paula Sizim, the general manager, and then Mickey Grau, a supervisor, who has responsibility for various motel properties owned by Shipman including Holiday and Gateway. Grau serves as a liaison between Shipman and Sizim and the managers of the individual motels. Holiday and Gateway and Shipman's other busi- ness enterprises are centrally operated from the Tulsa of- fices through the use of a common computer system, payroll account, and bookkeeping department. In addi- tion Shipman sets general wage rates and performance standards for all of these businesses. There has also been interchange of employees and supplies between Holiday and Gateway Under these circumstancesa I find that Gateway and Holiday are a single employer and that Gateway is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Consolidated Dress Carriers, 259 NLRB 627 (1981) I also find that Holiday and Gateway have been prop- erly served and made parties to this proceeding and that the cases were properly consolidated I reject Respond- ent's contentions that they were not properly served be- cause of a misnomer in the names of the Respondents NLRB v. Process & Pollution Control Co., 588 F 2d 786 fn. 1 at 788 and 789 (10th Cir. 1978); Peterson Construc- tion Co., 106 NLRB 850 (1953). In accordance with the motion of the General Counsel and the stipulation of the Respondents at the hearing, the complaints were amend- ed to reflect the correct legal name of Holiday to Ozark Properties, Inc, and of Gateway to Gateway Motel of the Ozarks II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Facts On July 22, 1983, the maids and laundry employees of Holiday commenced work at the Holiday Inn Shortly thereafter some of the maids who are employed to clean the motel rooms found shortages of linens and other sup- plies required to clean the rooms. Maid Betty Eisley tele- phoned Tanya Remy, the housekeeper who was the im- mediate supervisor of the maids and laundry employees and told her that the employees should strike. Remy told Eisley she was in favor of this as she had been unable to persuade management to improve working conditions. Other maids and laundry employees were notified by the maids and met in Remy's office to list various problems with wages, hours, and working conditions, and made up picket signs. They then went to the front of the motel property and picketed with signs stating, "Holiday Inn Unfair to Maids," "On Strike," and "Maids not Slaves " At that time Remy and Minnie Lewis, one of the maids at Holiday, drove to Gateway and brought to the Holi- day three of the Gateway maids, Argie, Martha, and Billie Johnson who were the daughter and granddaugh- ters of Minnie Lewis. These three employees then joined in the walkout at Holiday. Shortly thereafter, Holiday Innkeeper Alice Elrich ar- rived and asked the employees to come into the motel banquet room to discuss the problems and listened to the employees' complaints concerning their wages, hours, and working conditions and Elrich told the employees to tell Shipman when he arrived. Shipman arrived at 3 p.m. having previously been noti- fied by Grau of the call from the Holiday Inn informing her of the situation He also had telephoned Remy in the interim and asked her to ask the employees to return to work and he would meet with them in the morning. She 3 On the basis of the undisputed testimony of Shipman, Alice Elrich, innkeeper of Holiday, and Mickey Grau, the supervisor of Holiday and 2 The following includes a composite of the testimony of the witnesses, Gateway, I find that each were at all times relevant herein supervisors which testimony is credited except as specific credibility resolutions are and/or agents, acting on behalf of Respondents within the meaning of hereinafter made Sec 2(11) and (13) of the Act HOLIDAY INN refused to do so. When Shipman arrived at Holiday, he met with Remy and discharged her. Shortly thereafter Remy entered the banquet room and informed the em- ployees that she had been discharged At the time of this meeting, 19 of the 20 employees of Holiday who are named as discrimmatees in the complaint and 3 of the 4 employees of Gateway named in the complaint were present as were various other employees, principally laundry workers as well as Shipman and Elrich. Grau was present during only part of the meeting . Shipman commenced the meeting. Shipman asked the employees to return to work and clean the rooms Shipman had al- ready arranged for maids to be flown from Tulsa, Okla- homa, and for members of his family and relatives and others to assist in the cleanup of the rooms. He had also brought along blank paychecks. According to the testimony of employees Eisley, McIntosh, Lewis, and Billie Johnson, Shipman asked the employees to go to work and told them he would meet with them in the morning to discuss their problems and Shipman ultimately told them to go back to work and/or to attend the meeting on Saturday morning or they would be terminated and held up the paychecks that they could pick up if they did not choose to return to work Angela Boucher, a maid at the time of the hear- ing, did not hear Shipman use the word terminate except with respect to laundry employee John Cosolo who was terminated by Shipman at the meeting for the use of foul language toward him. There was no designated spokes- man for the employees although several of them spoke at the meeting (i.e., Eisley and McIntosh) It is undisputed that the employees urged Shipman to rescind the dis- charge of Remy although the employees presented by the General Counsel contended that they did not refuse to return to work because of Remy's discharge but rather because of working conditions Certain of the em- ployees, principally the laundry workers, returned to work during or after the meeting and refused their pay- checks Paychecks were then issued to the employees who did not return to work (except the three Gateway employees) who were subsequently issued checks. Two other employees who were not at work that date, Ellen Parsons of the Holiday and Lela Anderson of Gateway subsequently did not return to work and later picked up their paychecks The meeting was held by Shipman the following morning and attended by certain of the em- ployees at which wages and terms and conditions of em- ployment were discussed and changes were made by Re- spondent to correct the problems (i.e., repair of vacuum cleaners, ordering of additional linens, a pay raise an- nounced the following week) Certain of the alleged dis- criminatees picketed for approximately a week and there- after ceased to picket. Shipman testified that he discharged Remy for failing to do her job and Cosolo for his abusive language at the meeting toward Shipman but did not discharge any other employees It is undisputed that Cosolo either called Shipman a "fucker" or referred to him as "fucking " Shipman contended at the hearing that he had hired temporary maids as he needed to have the rooms cleaned and could not rely on the return to work of the maids in time to clean the rooms and had brought blank pay- 689 checks in the anticipation that some of the employees might request them He testified that he was given an ul- timatum that the employees stood with Remy and would not return to work unless she were reinstated and that he at no time terminated or discharged the other employees except Cosolo . He acknowledges that he asked the em- ployees to attend the meeting on Saturday morning and that he later instructed Elrich and Grau that he wanted to talk personally to any employees who wanted to return to work . He denies that he was aware of the pres- ence at the meeting of any of the employees from the Gateway and contends he did not know the vast majori- ty of the employees at the meeting . His testimony was essentially corroborated by Grau and Elrich who testi- fied that Shipman spoke to certain of the employees who were allowed to return , but that one employee was of- fered employment at another motel but refused One other employee (Jelinek) telephoned on behalf of herself and another employee to the new housekeeper , Brenda Stacey, who replaced Remy and requested reinstatement but was told that Shipman was not there and Holiday would call her back . Jelinek, one of the Holiday maids engaged in the strike , testified she has never been called back and that neither she nor the other employee had moved or changed their phone number Stacey testified she attempted to call the employees but was unable to reach them It is undisputed that the addresses of the em- ployees were in the possession of Respondent Holiday Employee McIntosh testified that she called the atten- tion of Shipman at the meeting of July 22, 1983, to the presence of the three employees from Gateway and that Shipman looked to Elrich who nodded in the affirmative that they were present. The records of the alleged discriminatees of both Gateway and Holiday contain the caption , "In walkout of 7/22/83-Terminate [d]." Although the charge in Case 17-CA-11747 was initially filed on July 27, 1983, none of the alleged discriminatees were called back to work or offered reinstatement. Additionally , employee Ellen Par- sons who was not at work on July 22 testified she joined the strike and walked the picket line on July 23, a sched- uled workday for her, and received her check from a lady behind the desk at Holiday on either July 24 or 25 and told another lady called from the office that she was there to pick up her check as she agreed with the maids Her attendance record also bears the notation , "In walk- out of 7/23/83-Terminate." Lela Anderson of Gateway who was not working on July 22, also joined the em- ployees on the picket line on July 23. B. Analysis The General Counsel contends that the employees of Gateway and Holiday were terminated for engaging in a strike over their wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment and that Respondents thus violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the notation on the at- tendance records of employees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood of the caption "In walkout of 7/22/83-Terminate[d]" was also violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The General Counsel con- tends that the evidence shows there was no central 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spokesperson, that the strike was initially protected and that even if some but not all of the employees asserted the reinstatement of Remy, a supervisor, as a condition of their return, this does not remove them from the pro- tection of the Act. The General Counsel contends also that, assuming arguendo , there was a misunderstanding as to what Respondents intended, Respondents created the ambiguity and are responsible if their words were reasonably perceived by the alleged discriminatees as ter- minations and further that Cosolo was discharged for his engagement in protected activities. Respondents contend that the central theme of the walkout of the discriminatees was in support of Remy, an acknowledged supervisor, and that such conduct was unprotected and further that Respondents did not termi- nate the employees but rather asked them to attend a meeting and that Shipman asked the employees seeking to return to work to talk to him personally as he wanted to discuss the problems with them. Respondents further contend that the alleged discriminatees abandoned or quit their jobs and that it was not required to refrain in- definitely from replacing them and that Cosolo was dis- charged for cause for using abusive language toward Shipman in the presence of other employees. I find that Respondents did terminate the 24 named discriminatees because of their engagement in concerted activities concerning their terms and conditions of em- ployment. I further find that Respondents violated the Act by the notation "In walkout of 7/22/83- Terminate[d]" attached to the attendance records of em- ployees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Un- derwood. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the like- lihood of the versions presented by the parties It appears from all accounts that the meeting was disorganized with various employees speaking out and asserting various complaints to Shipman including assertions that Remy should be reinstated. However, I credit the testimony of employees Eisley, McIntosh, and Lewis that Remy's re- instatement was but one of many items discussed at the meeting as the strike had initially been called to protest wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment, which had also been discussed with Remy, and then Elrich and Shipman, and which remained the focus of the meeting on the next day I also credit the testimony of these employees that Shipman demanded that they return to work and/or attend the meeting the following morning and offered them their checks if they refused to return. Remy testified that the normal practice was to give employees their final paycheck when they were ter- minated Moreover, the attendance records of the em- ployees which were filled out shortly after the termina- tions bore the designation "In walkout of 7/22/83 - Terminate[d]" rather than "Quit" which is consistent with the versions of the alleged discriminatees who con- tended they were terminated. It may be that Shipman viewed the refusal of the employees to discontinue their strike and return to work as a voluntary quit, but such was clearly not the case. As the General Counsel con- tends, an employer is not free to order employees to ter- minate a strike and to return to work or to attend a meeting or face discharge. Nor is he entitled to treat striking employees as having voluntarily quit or terminat- ed the employment relationship I thus find that the named alleged discriminatees in the complaint engaged in a protected concerted work stop- page commencing on July 22 and/or 23, 1983, and were insulated by the Act from discharge for their engage- ment in the strike. The credited testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses as set out above was that Shipman told the employees at the meeting to return to work or be terminated and that when they chose to remain on strike, they were terminated I thus find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging those employees because they engaged in a strike to protest wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment. However, assuming arguendo, that Shipman viewed the employees' refusal to terminate their strike and return to work as a voluntary quit from their jobs, I find that Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act under this set of circumstances also as Respondents' lack of under- standing of the status of the employees as strikers rather than having voluntarily quit their jobs could not extin- guish their rights as strikers to return to work. By their actions Respondents conveyed to the striking employees that they were or would be terminated as a result of their engagement in the strike. Seyforth Roofing Co., 263 NLRB 368 (1982). I further find that the assertion of some employees that they would not discontinue their economic strike until Remy was reinstated did not oper- ate to remove the strikers from the protection of the Act See Dobbs Houses, Inc., 135 NLRB 885, 888 (1962). I cannot credit Elrich's testimony that she was un- aware that the three Gateway maids were present at the meeting. I find rather that Respondent had notice that these three employees were in attendance at the meeting and credit the testimony of McIntosh that she called Shipman's attention to this. Moreover, the notations on the attendance records of these three employees "In Walkout of July 22, 1983--Terminate[d]" are identical to those on the attendance records of the discharged Holi- day employees. I thus find that Respondent had knowl- edge of their participation in the walkout and terminated them as well as the Holiday employees. With respect to the terminations of Ellen Parsons and Lela Anderson, I credit the testimony of McIntosh that Shipman told the employees at the meeting that the em- ployees who were not scheduled to work on July 22, 1983, could either pick up their check or go back to work in the morning. According to the unrebutted testi- mony of Parsons which I credit, she joined the other em- ployees on the picket line on July 23, 1983, in support of the strike by the other employees. According to the un- rebutted testimony of Lewis, which I also credit, her granddaughter Lela Anderson also joined the other em- ployees on the picket line on July 23, 1983, in support of the strike by the other employees. The attendance record of Parsons bears the caption "In walkout of 7/23/83- Terminate." Under these circumstances, I find that these employees joined the strike on July 23, 1983, and were also terminated by the Respondent in accordance with the terms of Shipman's statement to the employees at the meeting that those employees who were not scheduled HOLIDAY INN to work on Friday, July 22, 1983, would be terminated if they did not return to work on Saturday, July 23, 1983, and/or attend the meeting. Although employees Parsons and Anderson were not present when Shipman told the employees at the meeting of July 22 that those employees who were not scheduled to work on Friday July 22 would be terminated if they failed to report and/or attend the meeting on Saturday, July 23, I find that the record evidence is sufficient to warrant the inference that these two employees were made aware of Shipman's remarks in this regard prior to their joining the other employees on the picket line. Highland Plastics, 256 NLRB 146 (1981). With respect to the termination of John Cosolo, I find that he was terminated by Respondent in retaliation for his participation in concerted activity of engaging in a strike as were the other employees and that his words of vulgarity addressed to Shipman during the heat of a ne- gotiation meeting during the strike did not remove him from the protection of the Act. Kay Fries, Inc., 265 NLRB 1077 (1982) It is well established that employees who engage in abusive language towards employers and their representatives during negotiation meetings do not lose the protection of the Act because of their engage- ment in such language during the heat of the moment, in the absence of aggravated conduct (i.e , threats of vio- lence). I thus find that Cosolo's conduct, while distaste- ful and regrettable, was not so opprobrious so as to remove him from the protection of the Act. III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The unfair labor practices of Respondents as found in section II, above, in connection with Respondents' oper- ations as found in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing the flow of com- merce. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc, d/b/a Holiday Inn and Respondent Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn are a single employer and accordingly Re- spondent Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 3. On July 22, 1983, Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn and Respondent Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully terminating employees Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whittington, Peggy Jelinek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Collins, Jua- nita Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie Jones, Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson be- 691 cause they ceased work and concertedly engaged in an economic strike commencing on that date. 4. Respondent Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holiday Inn and Gateway Motel of the Ozarks d/b/a Gateway Inn violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by entering nota- tions on the attendance records of its employees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Underwood that said employees had been terminated as they had been "In walkout of July 22, 1983 " 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices have a close, in- timate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions de- signed to effectuate the policies of the Act, including the posting of the appropriate notice Having found that Respondents discharged the named discriminatees as set out above in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and discriminated against the other named discriminatees by the entry of notations on their attendance records as set out above in violation of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act, it shall be ordered that Respond- ents offer immediate reinstatement to said unlawfully dis- charged employees and make them whole for any loss of earnings and benefits they may have sustained by reason of the unlawful discharges and expunge from their files any references to the termination of all employees listed as discriminatees in the complaint and notify them in writing thereof. All loss of earnings and benefits incurred by the aforesaid unlawfully discharged employees as a result of Respondents' acts, as set out above, shall be computed with interest in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed5 ORDER The Respondents Ozark Properties, Inc., d/b/a Holi- day Inn and Gateway Motel of the Ozarks, d/b/a Gate- way Inn, Branson, Missouri, their officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging its employees because of their engage- ment in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the Act. (b) Entering notations on the attendance records of its employees that they have been terminated because of their engagement in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the Act. 4 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 692 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to employees Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIn- tosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whittington, Peggy Jelinek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Collins, Juanita Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie Jones, Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions or if their former positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to any rights or privileges previously enjoyed. (b) Remove from its files any reference to the termina- tion of any of the named discriminatees in the complaint as amended at the hearing and notify them in writing of this, and that said terminations and/or notations thereof on their files shall not be used as a basis for future per- sonnel actions concerning them. (c) Make the unlawfully discharged discriminatees whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits they may have sustained by reason of the discrimination against them in the manner set forth in this decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this recommended Order. (e) Post at its Branson, Missouri facilities copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 6 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT discharge our employees for engaging in concerted activity protected under Section 7 of the Act WE WILL NOT make notations on our employees' at- tendance records that our employees have been terminat- ed because of their engagement in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer immediate reinstatement to Betty Eisley, Rhonda McIntosh, Sharon Carter, Sandy Whit- tington, Peggy Jelinek, Virginia Gillete, Minnie Lewis, Gloria Brown, Ellen Parsons, Peggy Colins, Juanita Fischer, Cindy Casteel, Dena Hunt, Stephanie Bukaty, Sheryl Preston, Gary Keuma, Gary Brown, John Cosolo, Lisa Hutson, Julie Jones, Argie Johnson, Billie Johnson, Martha Johnson, and Lela Anderson to their former positions at the time of their discharge, or to sub- stantially equivalent positions if their former positions no longer exist. WE WILL make said employees whole for any loss of earnings or other benefits they may have sustained by reason of our discharge of them with interest upon moneys due WE WILL expunge from our files all references to the termination of the aforesaid employees and also of em- ployees Shirley Collins, Christy Shreve, and Marilyn Un- derwood and will send each of them a notice in writing thereof. OZARK PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A HOLIDAY INN GATEWAY MOTEL OF THE OZARKS, D/B/A GATEWAY INN