Airport Park Hotel

AIRPORT PARK HOTEL Lee Hotel Corp. d/b/a Airport Park Hotel and Reinaldo Zamora. Case 31-CA-17151 September 13, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On May 24, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Burton Litvack issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. 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,' and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent , Lee Hotel Corp. d/b/a Airport Park Hotel, Inglewood, Cali- fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the administrative law judge. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge 's credibility find- ings. The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative 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 reversing the findings. In the absence of exception, we adopt the adverse inference drawn by the judge to the Respondent 's failure to call former manager Dan Jones to testify. 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they have engaged in union or other protected concert- ed activities or because we suspect them of having done so. WE WILL NOT threaten employees with leasing certain operations of the Airport Park Hotel, in- cluding its bar, unless they cease engaging in union activities. 509 WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with regard to their union sympathies. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, coerce, or restrain employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL reinstate Reinaldo Zamora, Danielle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero to their former positions of employment or, if these no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions and WE WILL make them whole for any wages lost, with interest, as a result of our discrimination against him or her. WE WILL remove from our files any references to the May 9, 1988 discharges of Zamora, Bell- Nagy, Morrow, and Montero, and notify each in writing that this has been done and that evidence of the discharge will not be used as a basis for any future personnel actions against him or her. LEE HOTEL CORP . D/B/A AIRPORT PARK HOTEL Ann Reid Cronin, Esq., for the General Counsel. Michael W. Monk, Esq. and Miriam Teutsch, Esq., of Los Angeles, California, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE BURTON LITVACK, Administrative Law Judge. The unfair labor practice charge in the above -captioned matter was filed by Reinaldo Zamora, an individual, on May 10, 1988. Having investigated the charge , on June 22, 1988,1 the Regional Director of Region 31 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a com- plaint, alleging that Lee Hotel Corp . d/b/a Airport Park Hotel (Respondent) engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent timely filed an answer, denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to a notice of hearing, which accompanied the above complaint, a trial was conducted by and before me on August 30 and 31, 1988, in Los An- geles, California. At said hearing, all parties were afford- ed the opportunity to examine and cross-examine wit- nesses, to offer into the record any relevant evidence, to argue their respective legal positions orally, and to file posthearing briefs. The latter documents were filed by both counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent and were carefully considered by me. Ac- cordingly, based on the entire record, including my ob- servation of the testimonial demeanor of the several wit- nesses2 and the posthearing briefs, I make the following ' Unless otherwise specified, all events herein occurred during calendar year 1988. 2 An unusual aspect of this case is that much of the testimony , provid- ed by both the General Counsel and Respondent , was uncontroverted Continued 296 NLRB No. 70 510 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent is now, and has been at all times material, a California corporation, with an office and place of business located in Inglewood , California, and, at said lo- cation, is engaged in the business of operating a hotel and providing food and beverage services to the public. During the course and conduct of its foregoing business operations, Respondent annually derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and sells and ships goods or serv- ices valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers lo- cated outside the State of California. Respondent admits that it is now, and has been at all times material, an em- ployer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. ISSUES The complaint alleges that Respondent terminated four individuals (Zamora, Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero) on or about May 9, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, because each partici- pated in a union organizing campaign at Respondent's hotel and that, 3 days prior to said unlawful discharges, Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by impliedly threatening to terminate the bar operations at said hotel facility if employees se- lected a union to represent them and by interrogating employees as to their union activities, sympathies, and desires. Respondent denies that the discharges of the above individuals were, in any way, motivated by what- ever union activities in which they may have engaged and asserts that said discharges resulted from a change in the method of operating the bar at the hotel, said change having preceded any union or other protected concerted activities. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Facts The record establishes that the Airport Park Hotel (the Hotel) is located on South Prairie Avenue in Inglewood, California, across the street from the Forum in which the Los Angeles Lakers professional basketball team plays its home games, and is separated by a parking lot from Hollywood Park Race Track; that the Hotel was purchased by the Lee Hotel Corporation (the Cor- poration) on December 31, 1986; and that, at the time of purchase, the Hotel's facilities included a bar and lounge, a gift shop, a coffeeshop, banquet and meeting rooms, and a Chinese-style restaurant which was not in oper- ation. The record further establishes that the Corporation is closely held, that Charles Lee and his wife are its prin- cipals and jointly own all the outstanding shares of stock, Thus, I have not had the benefit of being able to base credibility resolu- tions upon the contrasting testimonial demeanor of conflicting and con- tradictory witnesses Nevertheless, as will become evident , the credibility of the witnesses is directly at issue herein and resolutions of such have been made based upon the witness ' demeanor and, in part, upon the record as a whole that the Corporation owns several types of businesses in addition to hotels, and that the Airport Park Hotel was the initial hotel purchased by the Corporation.3 At all times material , Dan Jones was the Hotel's director of op- erations and responsible for daytime management; Charles Noh was the night manager; Rudy Tenveldon was the executive chef; and Hoon Park was the director of personnel, and all were admittedly supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. According to Lee, his normal business routine is to visit the Hotel no more than 2 or 3 times a month, and Jones and Noh, both of whom had equal authority, were in charge of day-to-day hotel business. On this point, Lee explained that "I'm not much involved in the hotel" and that it "mostly" was left to Jones and Noh. ("They don't report to me every day.") The witness added, however, that when "major problems" occurred , Jones or Noh would telephone him, and "then I involve with it." At the time of the Corporation's purchase of the Hotel,4 although a collective-bargaining agreement had recently expired , the employees, including the bartenders and cocktail waitresses in the bar and lounge, were rep- resented by Local 814 of the Hotel and Restaurant Em- ployees Union. Notwithstanding that Lee entered into negotiations for a successor agreement, his sentiments at the time are revealed by the following uncontroverted testimony of Robin Morrow , who had been employed as a cocktail waitress since December 1983. According to her, Lee met with the Hotel's employees shortly after the purchase, and "he told employees that the Union was a waste of money and there was no point in paying dues whereas he could help us out more than the Union could. And we were encouraged not to "renew our con- tract." In fact, according to Lee, the negotiations with Local 814 continued through August 1987 when they ended without agreement . The Charging Party Zamora, who had been employed as a bartender since 1979 , testi- fied that, in the midst of the unsuccessful contract bar- gaining, Local 814 advised the Hotel employees "not to worry about [paying their union dues] because they could never negotiate the contract with Mr. Lee." Thereafter, the Hotel's employees ceased paying dues, Local 814 apparently withdrew as the bargaining repre- sentative of said employees, and there was no union ac- tivity at the Hotel until late March or early April 1988. At that time, representatives of the Hotel and Restau- rant Employees Union (the Union) appeared outside the employee entrance to the Hotel, distributed organization- al leaflets to employees, and solicited them to sign au- thorization cards for the Union . Several Hotel employ- ees, including Morrow and bartender Pedro Montero, who had worked in that capacity at the Hotel since 1978, signed such cards early in April. The record reveals that the union activity continued throughout April and into a Subsequent to obtaining the Airport Park Hotel , the Corporation pur- chased the Amfac Hotel which is also located in the Los Angeles, Cali- fornia area 4 The existing hotel employees were terminated at the time of purchase and instructed to reapply for employment Apparently most , if not all, were immediately rehired but were forced to work for a probationary period AIRPORT PARK HOTEL May, with employees continuing to execute authorization cards,5 and that Respondent was well aware of it. Thus, Charles Lee testified that, "almost" at the end of April, Dan Jones telephoned him with the news that the Union had "people around the parking lot . . . going to contact my employee" and asked what he should do. Lee in- structed Jones not to permit the organizers inside the Hotel but to allow them to continue their activities in the parking lot. However, according to Lee, the Union did not confine its organizing efforts to areas outside the Hotel, and actually rented a room, using it to reach the employees. Upon learning of the room rental from Jones, Lee instructed him to order any union agents to leave the Hotel and, if they refused, to ask the police to evict them. While there is no evidence that any of the bartenders and cocktail waitresses , other than executing authoriza- tion cards, engaged in any significant organizing activi- ties during the nascent union campaign in April and May, there exists record evidence that, at the same time, they engaged in other protected concerted activities, conduct which clearly concerned Respondent . Such in- volved an individual, Sam Patel , who had been hired by Lee in the capacity of "cash manager" to "check up" on employee usage of the various Hotel cash registers, in- cluding the one in the Hotel bar, which was operated by the bartenders. The record discloses that Patel, who had been hired on approximately March 1 , gradually began concentrating his activities in the bar area and that he would normally station himself behind the bar, observing the cash register and the work of the bartenders. Ac- cording to Charging Party Zamora, Patel was constantly "in our way" and employees would "bump into him all the time." In addition , the bar employees were uncertain as to Patel's position, particularly whether "he was in charge of us or not." Zamora discussed the situation with Morrow and another cocktail waitress , Danelle Bell-Nagy, who had worked in the cocktail lounge since 1976, and, thereafter, spoke to Dan Jones in the latter's office with regard to "Patel's position and what he was doing if he was behind the bar all the time ." Jones ex- plained that Patel's job involved nothing more than "checking up on the cashiers ." Zamora replied that the bar employees were upset that Patel seemed to be behind the bar on a regular basis and suggested that he could observe by sitting at the counter. Zamora and Jones ended the conversation with the latter agreeing to meet with the bar employees the next afternoon at 4 p.m. Zamora testified further that, rather than at the sched- uled time, Jones came into the bar area the next day at 3:30 p.m. and spoke to him. Jones called the bartenders "a bunch of primadonna[s]"; the Charging Party denied that and said "we just want to know what 's going on and what this Mr. Patel is doing behind the bar." Jones responded, saying, "if you don't like the way we're run- ning the place here is the front door , you know what to do." Zamora then suggested that the scheduled meeting be canceled, but Jones said that he wanted the meeting to be held. A few minutes later, Rudy Tenveldon and 6 Reinaldo Zamora, who had worked for the Hotel since 1979 as a bar- tender, signed an authorization card for the Union on or about May 2 511 Charles Noh entered the lounge; however, before the employee meeting began, the wife of Charles Lee "came to the bar and said, 'close the bar and send everybody home."' Moments later, Dan Jones rescinded that in- struction and ordered the bar to remain open . Finally, with regard to this incident, Charles Lee testified that it occurred in mid-April and that the scheduled meeting with the bar employees was arranged by Dan Jones after the employees threatened to "close down" the bar over their difficulties with Sam Patel. With the union organizing campaign ongoing for, at least, 6 weeks, Dan Jones met with the bartenders and cocktail waitresses in the bar area at 4 p .m. on Friday, May 6. 6 Present were Jones and Rudy Tenveldon and employees Zamora, Morrow, Pedro Montero (a bartend- er at the Hotel since 1978), Bell -Nagy, and Donna Jett. Morrow, who described the meeting. as a "mandatory" one, testified that Jones began by asking if any of the employees knew how to speak Cantonese and, when all asked why, stated because apparently Mr. Lee is well aware of the union activity. He is strictly against the Union. He does not like them . He will fight them if he has to if he doesn't get some cooperation . . . from the em- ployees in the bar he will lease it out . . . and it will probably go to a Chinaman. So you'd better learn how to speak Chinese. He said he would rather give money to the employees as far as raises and benefits than to pay lawyers to fight the Union which he will do if he has to. According to Morrow, Jones added that Lee "does not trust bartenders" and he "thinks all bartenders are thieves." After soliciting suggestions for improving bar business, Jones next said that "we were going to get a raise June 1st.... He said that there would be an eval- uation. And after the evaluation raises were to be distrib- uted on June 1st." Jones concluded by telling bartender Montero that his hours would be restored and that his schedule would be what it had been prior to May. Pedro Montero7 testified that, at the meeting, Jones said, "Mr. Lee doesn't like the Union . . . because it cost a lot of money. . . . And if the Union came to the hotel they want to close [it] or they put condominiums or sell it to the Chinese people. Then . . . we'd better start to learn Cantonese." Also, Jones told Montero that he "wanted to give me my shift back." Asked whether a raise was mentioned, Montero further testified that Jones said "he wanted to give a raise on June 1st." Also regarding this May 6 meeting , Reinaldo Zamora testified that Jones began by asking the employees if they wanted him to be "straight up" with them. After getting their assent to such an approach, Jones "started talking 6 It is unclear whether Jones held similar meetings that day with any other Hotel employees. Respondent 's own unlawful refusal to offer rein- statment to the two employees was a material factor in creating the con- fusion that exists now whether they would have returned in 1978 It is well settled that where a partys conduct results in an ambiguity, the am- biguity is not to be resolved in its favor I therefore reject these alternate contentions of Respondent 7 Earlier that year, Jones had changed Montero 's hours and schedule 512 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD about the raise he's going to give us," saying it was "not going to be because of the union activity in the hotel. . . . He said Mr. Lee bought the property for a real estate investment and he wants to give the money he makes to the employees." Upon being asked by counsel, Zamora recalled that Jones also "said if the union activi- ty keeps going they're going to lease . . . the bar and we'd better start learning Cantonese . . . because [Lee] was going to lease to an oriental ." Danelle Bell-Nagy testified that Jones began by asking if he should come right to the point or beat around the bush. Told to follow the former approach, Jones said that "we should all learn . . . to speak Cantonese because that's what's going to happen , Mr. Lee's going to lease out the bar. He's not happy about the union activity in the hotel. [Jones] went on to say . . . Mr. Lee was not happy with the bar operation. . . . He suspects anyone who handles money. All bartenders are thieves." Bell-Nagy further testified that Jones added that Lee was antiunion but that he "would rather put his money back towards employee benefits than spend the money paying attorneys to fight ... the Union." Asked about the subject of raises, the witness recalled that Jones mentioned a raise just before the meeting ended, saying Lee had decided to give all the Hotel employees a raise, effective June 1st. Neither Jones nor Tenveldon was called by Respondent as a wit- ness regarding what was said at this meeting, and Re- spondent's counsel offered no explanation for his failure to do so.8 Later that evening, at approximately 8 p.m., Bell-Nagy was working behind the bar when Tenveldon and the Hotel's banquet manager, Ben Vinuya , approached her. The discriminatee testified, "Rudy said , Dani let me ask you something; how do you feel about signing some anti- union material?" Bell-Nagy replied that, while she had not signed a card for the Union, why should she sign against it. Tenveldon replied that she could not stay middle-of-the-road and that she would have to take a po- sition "one way or the other." Bell-Nagy refused, saying that she had been a long-time member of the Union and would not execute a petition against it .° Shortly after Tenveldon and Vinuya left her, Bell-Nagy telephoned Zamora, telling him what Tenveldon had requested. Thereafter, at 9 p.m., she approached Banquet Manager Vinuya and asked him what was going on with all the "anti-union stuff"; Vinuya replied that he did not know but that "we were all told to go to our various depart- Jones was not called as a witness at the trial Respondent 's counsel stated no reason for his failure to do so. Lee, however , mentioned that Jones no longer worked for Respondent , having obtained employment at another Los Angeles area hotel Lee also testified that all Hotel employees were told that they would receive a 5-percent wage increase. According to him, he initially dis- cussed the matter with Hoon Park in early April but employees were not told until May Lee generally denied instructing Jones to speak to employees about the Union. 9 Robin Morrow testified that, subsequent to the employee meeting with Jones and Tenveldon , she overheard the latter speaking to Bell- Nagy and asking her "how she felt about the Union and if she would be willing to sign an antiunion petition." According to Morrow, Bell-Nagy said that she had not signed for the Union as yet , and "why should she sign against the Union and she had been a member of the Union And she would not go against it " ments and . . . ask people." Testifying that Tenveldon similarly spoke to him but on the previous evening (May 5) by telephone, the Charging Party Zamora stated that Tenveldon told him that Lee was preparing "an anti- union [petition]" and asked "if I'm willing to sign." Zamora responded that he would not and wanted to remain "neutral." 10 Tenveldon did not testify with regard to these conversations and, as stated above, Re- spondent's counsel offered no explanation for not calling Tenveldon as a witness. At approximately 10 p.m. on Sunday, May 8, Zamora telephoned Bell-Nagy with the news that "they intended to lease out the bar." Bell-Nagy immediately telephoned Sam Patel inasmuch as, earlier that night, he had given the discriminatee her shifts for the coming week. Patel disavowed knowledge of exactly what had occurred, saying "I have just found out myself." The next morn- ing, Hoon Park, the director of personnel, telephoned Bell-Nagy and said , "I'm really sorry but they're leasing, they say they're leasing out the bar; could you please come in and pick up your paycheck at 2:00 . . . this afternoon." Park placed similar phone calls to Zamora, Morrow, and Montero, and the four discriminatees" ap- peared at the bar at 2 p.m. on May 9 in order to receive their final checks. According to Morrow, Dan Jones met with them at that time and, when asked why no notice of the bar leasing had been given to the employees, said "these things happen." Asked who would work at the bar when it reopened , Jones replied, according to Mon- tero, that "banquet people" would be utilized. The record establishes that, despite the likelihood of a busy night in the bar due to a boxing program at the Forum, ' 2 the facility was closed on Monday night and that, while the bar reopened on Tuesday, May 10, oper- ations that evening were chaotic . According to both Morrow and Bell-Nagy, who were present, it was a night of a Lakers' playoff game, and "it was a very busy night." Both women and Zamora, who also was there, observed new employees behind the bar and on the floor. One waitress was a Korean girl whom Morrow and Bell-Nagy knew as Mrs . Lee's niece and who was wearing the uniform of a coffeeshop waitress , and Sam Patel appeared to be having a difficult time getting bot- tles of liquor for the bar." Also, he asked for Zamora's help in operating the cash register and for Bell-Nagy's help in working a videotape recorder. Further, accord- ing to Morrow, service was "slow" and "the drinks were poured inconsistently." 13 Finally, with regard to oper- ations at the bar subsequent to the discharges, Morrow testified that she returned to the Hotel's bar facility fre- quently during May, June and July and observed Sam 10 Zamora straightforwardly admitted that he and Tenveldon were close social friends i i Each discriminatee appeared reluctant to testify regarding his or her disciplinary record at the Hotel, and Zamora , in particular, exhibited a rather inexact memory of events. Nevertheless , they were corroborative and uncontroverted with regard to the events herein 12 Bell -Nagy testified that boxing at the Forum was an event "which we get a very good crowd for A lot of the patrons stay in the Hotel and they drink before and after the boxing " is Morrow testified that, as a result of Lakers' playoff games in May and June, "this is the busiest time of year for the bar " AIRPORT PARK HOTEL Patel "supervising" and "acting like the same he did when we were working there." She added that Patel acted as if he was "managing the bar, behind the bar." Thus, not only was he in charge of the cash register but also he was involved "with the liquor behind the bar."' 4 In presenting its defense to the allegations of the com- plaint, Respondent failed to controvert any of the fore- going record evidence. Rather, Respondent contends that it entered into an agreement on April 24 with King Labor Services for the latter to provide bar labor at fixed rates, that such was intended as a preliminary step to a lease agreement for the bar operation at the Hotel, that the contracting parties mutually agreed upon May 10 as the commencement date for their April 24 agree- ment, and that the four discriminatees were discharged on May 9 in order for Respondent to "implement" the terms of said agreement . At the outset, Charles Lee testi- fied that, inasmuch as he was not "comfortable" with the food and beverage aspects of the business,' s upon pur- chasing the Hotel in December 1986, his intent was to not have to "handle" such operations and to "sublease out" management of the restaurant, coffeeshop, and bar. According to Lee, his goal for each was to have a leas- ing arrangement whereby the lessee would be responsi- ble for managing the particular food and beverage oper- ation and, in return, Respondent would receive a fixed percentage of the income with a "minimum guarantee." Indeed, approximately 2 months after purchasing the Hotel, Lee reached such an agreement for leasing out operation of the Shanghai Garden, the Hotel's restaurant. However, throughout 1987, he was unable to locate anyone interested in assuming responsibility for the bar business. The record discloses that, in the late fall of that year, Lee met an individual, Frank Ferm, who is em- ployed by a wholesale produce supplier which had, in the past, sold its products to the Hotel, at a local sushi bar and that the two became friends. Whenever they subsequently met at this sushi bar, Lee and Ferm dis- cussed various aspects of the hotel business and, accord- ing to Ferm, Lee began mentioning his desire "to lease out his bar operation." Ferm told Lee that he had sever- al contacts in the food and beverage industry and offered to make inquiries. Thereafter, Ferm spoke to "a few people," one of whom was the owner of two Beverly Hills, California restaurants, Herb Newman. The latter expressed some interest, and, in February 1988, Ferm in- formed Lee of his conversation with Newman. Lee testified that, not until a month later, did he tele- phone Newman and that the latter, in turn, put him in touch with Newman's partner in various businesses, "Babe" Croick. Croick, who described himself as being involved in several types of businesses including restau- rants and bars, office services, temporary help, and park- 14 Each discriminatee testified with regard to G.C. Exh. 2, an apparent advertisement which had been posted by the employee timeclock on or about May 6 Said document states that the Hotel had "immediate open- ings" for employees, including cocktail waitresses The discriminatees further denied that any openings for cocktail waitresses were available at the time. is Explaining his discomfort with the food and beverage aspect of the Hotel business, Lee stated, "It's not only steal money It's a lot of thing involved to having . . . food and beverage business " 513 ing lots, testified that, after Ferm spoke to Newman about the possibility of managing a hotel bar pursuant to a lease arrangement, he and Newman discussed the deal in general terms and, in Croick's words, "played it light- ly." Then, according to Croick, just before he left for a vacation in Palm Springs over the weekend of April 10, they decided to pursue negotiations with Lee . Accord- ingly, on or about April 14 or 15e Croick telephoned Lee, and the latter "just said he wants out of the bar business. . . . And he's interested in sub-leasing the bar." Over the next 7 to 10 days, according to both witnesses, Lee and Croick spoke two or three times, discussing an arrangement for Croick to manage the Hotel's bar. What resulted from their discussions bears no relation to Lee's desired lease arrangement for the bar . According to Croick, he had become leary of entering into any sort of leasing agreement for a business of a different type than he was involved in operating. However, remaining desir- ous of doing business with Lee , Croick assertedly sug- gested operating the bar "for a couple of months," utiliz- ing employees hired from his temporary help business, King Labor Services. As Croick testified, "I'll supply the manpower and womenpower and I'll just put it through my payroll, pay them whatever. . . . And we can nego- tiate after that." Croick further testified that Lee agreed to such an arrangement for a period of 60 days. While Croick credited himself with having suggested the par- ties' subsequent relationship, Lee described such as being "mutually" agreed upon or possibly his idea-"it's a lot of talk . . . how it's leasing out and ... what kind of time.... At that time each other we don't know busi- ness together never been before . Then his idea, my idea is why don't you couple of months lease the operation to involve them. Whatever is exactly cash flow how much come out . Then . . . real contract making couple months after." Whoever suggested the type of arrangement, Croick and Lee agree that the former drafted the docu- ment memorializing their agreement , Respondent's Ex- hibit 3, and that both executed it at the Hotel on April 24. Said document reads, as follows: April 24, 1988 Lee Hotel Corp. 600 South Prairie Avenue Inglewood, Calif. 90301 Attn: Mr. Charles Lee Re: Management and Supplying of Labor for the Airport Park Hotel Cocktail Lounge. Bartenders @12.00 Per Hour. Cocktail Waitresses @ 8.00 Per Hour. The above rates include all State and Federal Payroll Taxes. Workmens Compensation Insurance and Management Fees. This Agreement is for a period of sixty (60) days and shall terminate on June 24, 1988, at which time we will negotiate to lease said Cocktail Lounge and purchase your liquor license. This Agreement between Lee Hotel Corp. and King Labor Services will commence on May 10, 1988. 514 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With regard to the signing of their agreement , Croick conceded that the only date on the document is in the upper right hand corner and that nothing on it estab- lishes the date of either signature, a factor which he termed "insignificant." Croick then asserted that Hillary Shockley, an individual who negotiates real estate deals on behalf of Lee, was present at the time Lee and Croick executed Respondent's Exhibit 3; however, Respondent failed to produce Shockley as a corroborating witness, offering no reason for failing to do so. With regard to the terms of the asserted April 24 agreement, May 10 was the date established as the com- mencement date. On this point, Croick testified that he asked for "a couple of weeks to set up with who I'm going to put in there. . . . And we just picked out the date." During cross-examination, Croick contradicted himself, testifying that Lee established May 10 as the starting date after he (Croick) said he would need "a couple of weeks" to become ready. Responding "I don't know" as to how May 10 was chosen as the contractual starting date, Charles Lee believed that it was Croick who suggested that date inasmuch as he (Croick) re- quired 2 or 3 weeks to become ready to operate the Hotel's bar. Next, by its terms, the agreement was to be for a period of 60 days. According to Croick, he suggest- ed a 2-month term in order for him to evaluate the bar's receipts, "what was being taken in. We had some ideas. I knew that was a busy time. . . . I was looking to see what the slow months were going to be. . . . And we were going to get a reading from Mr. Lee on what it took in the previous year. . . . So it was just a matter of timing. I'd just see what was going to go, if we were going to obligate ourselves." As set forth above, the tes- timony of Charles Lee is unclear as to whether a 2- month term was a mutually reached idea or his own pro- posal, but he failed to credit Croick with proposing it. Finally, pursuant to the terms of the alleged April 24 agreement, Respondent was required to pay to King Labor Services specified amounts for the bartenders and cocktail waitresses who would work at the Hotel's bar and, out of said payments, the latter would compensate the employees and pay all necessary taxes and insurance amounts. In reality, as Croick testified, almost from the commencement of the agreement , Respondent made direct payments to the bartenders and cocktail waitress- es. Initially terming these "advances" and contending the payments were not the "full" amounts contemplated under Respondent's Exhibit 3, Croick conceded that Re- spondent was directly paying the bar employees, subse- quent to May 10, what, in effect, was their wage rates- "Whatever it came to." Croick added that Respondent was well aware of the bar employees' wage rates inas- much as "we both of us negotiated that." Asked which party suggested this novel method of compensating the bar employees, Croick pointed to Charles Lee, saying "that was [Lee's] way to operate." Asked why Lee adopted this payment policy, Croick claimed ignorance, stating, "I never paid attention.. .. And it didn't make a difference to me . . . because I'm getting my $12.00 per hour."' a Croick added that Respondent could pay em- ployees in the above manner as it controlled the employ- ee timeclock and had access to the timecard records. Conceding that the foregoing was not part of the em- ployee compensation arrangement with Croick, Charles Lee claimed that the suggestion for direct employee pay- ments came from Herb Newman who told him that the bar employees probably would need money on a daily basis and would not be able to wait to receive a once-a- month payment'' from King Labor Services.18 Casting doubt upon the validity of the asserted April 24 agreement between Lee and Croick is the undisputed fact that, notwithstanding the stated intent of such and the 4-1/2-month time period between the May 10 com- mencement date of the contract and the instant hearing, they had not, as yet, consummated any sort of lease agreement for the Hotel bar and , according to Croick, remain in negotiations. While he opined that "hopefully it'll be worked out, such seems to be a rather dubious possibility at best . Thus, unbeknownst to Croick, and while supposedly negotiating in good faith with him, Lee, at the same time, had Hillary Shockley approach Zamora with regard to negotiating a lease arrangement with him. Nothing resulted from these discussions inas- much as, according to Zamora, withdrawal of the instant unfair labor practice charge was a "condition" to any agreement. When questioned about the impact of the Zamora discussions upon his own lease negotiations, Croick stated that he had been unaware of any talks be- tween Zamora and Lee and, incredibly, added "if [Lee] had another avenue and he could make a better deal for himself; fine." Thereupon, Croick conceded that any contract he had with Lee was "probably" worth no more than the paper on which it was printed and said, "If [Lee] would have come to me and said , 'I've got a deal with somebody.' I could take the paper and tear it up.... Because I really didn't have anything.... I had nothing. It was a temporary deal."' 9 Central to Respondent 's defense to the unfair labor practice allegations of the complaint is Charles Lee's as- sertion that he mentioned nothing with regard to either his April 24 temporary labor agreement with King Labor Services for the hiring of bar personnel at the Hotel or his commitment to enter into negotiations for a lease ar- rangement for the bar to anyone in the managerial hier- 16 As this complicated payment system evolved , Respondent paid King Labor Services the contractual amounts multiplied by the actual hours worked with a deduction for the amounts paid directly to each employee. 14 Contrary to Lee , Croick testified that the bar employees were paid twice each month i8 Croick claimed that, between Sunday, April 24, and Tuesday, May 10, he visited the Hotel's bar on three occasions-he would "stop there in the evenings" and remain "maybe an hour " Asked to describe what he did, Croick said, "I'd just be in the lobby just hanging around " Bell- Nagy, Morrow, and Montero all denied ever having seen Croick prior to the hearing 19 According to Lee, he became aware subsequent to the May 9 lay- offs that one of the bartenders had spoken to Ray Jones about leasing the bar; Lee did nothing as the asserted April 24 agreement committed him to enter negotiations for such a lease with Babe Croick after a 2-month period Lee further testified that, after said 60-day period passed by with- out a lease agreement between Croick and him, he instructed Hillary Shockley to reach Zamora and offer him the "same conditions" as pro- posed to Croick AIRPORT PARK HOTEL archy of the Hotel until as late as Tuesday, May 10, the effective date of the alleged April 24 agreement.20 Ac- cordingly, Respondent argues that , when Jones spoke to the bar employees on May 6, he was unaware of what- ever arrangements Lee made for the operation of the Hotel bar. On this point, Lee maintained that this failure to communicate was deliberate on his part, explaining that "this is my business operation style" and that "usual- ly I contract I never tell anybody ." He added that the only individual to whom he confided about his dealings with Croick was his wife . Dan Jones, who clearly could have corroborated the foregoing testimony , was not called as a witness by Respondent, nor did Respondent's counsel explain his failure to do so . In any event, both Lee and Croick testified that the changeover in manage- ment and staffing of the bar occurred, as scheduled, on May 10, and, when asked if any confusion resulted, Lee denied that there were any complaints. Finally, Lee stated that, completing his desire to not operate his hotels' food and beverage functions , he negotiated a lease arrangement for the Hotel's coffeeshop in July. As to the union activity at the Hotel , as set forth above, Lee admitted being informed of such by Ray Jones in late April. Asked if he and Jones discussed strat- egy for dealings with the apparent organizing campaign, Lee says he spoke to Jones-"I asking to what you going on. Then he say but not much worry about this not much in people interesting to some people so I'm not concerned about it. That's what I understand Jones say." Asked specifically if he believed the discriminatees might be prounion, Lee said, "I never thought about the em- ployee bar area." He added that his concern was the entire employee complement at the Hotel and that Jones told him not to be concerned as the employees did not seem to favor the Union . Thereafter, according to Lee, he paid little attention to the organizing efforts. B. Analysis My determination as to the legality of the May 9 dis- charges of Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and Montero is governed by the traditional precepts of Board law in 8(a)(1) and (3) discharge cases, as modified by the Board's decision in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 453 U.S. 989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Manage- ment Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). Thus, in order to estab- lish a prima facie violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, the General Counsel must establish ( 1) that the alleged discriminatees engaged in union activities; (2) that the employer had knowledge of such; (3) that the employer's actions were motivated by union animus; and (4) that the discharges had the effect of encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization. WMUR-TV, 253 NLRB 697, 703 (1980). Further, the General Counsel has the burden of proving the afore- mentioned by a preponderance of the evidence. Gonic Mfg. Co., 141 NLRB 201, 209 (1963). While the afore- mentioned analysis was easily applied in cases in which the employer's motivation was straightforward , concep- 20 Lee stated that he was not sure whether it was on Monday (May 9) or Tuesday (May 10) that he informed Jones of the new bar arrangement. 515 tual problems arose in cases in which the record evi- dence disclosed the presence of both a lawful cause and an unlawful cause for the discharge . In order to resolve this ambiguity, in Wright Line, supra, the Board estab- lished the following causation test in all 8 (a)(1) and (3) cases involving employer motivation . "First, we shall re- quire that the General Counsel make a prima facie show- ing sufficient to support the inference that protected con- duct was a 'motivating factor' in the employer 's decision. Once this is established, the burden will shift to the em- ployer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place even in the absence of the protected con- duct." Id. at 1089. Two points are relevant to the forego- ing analytical approach . First, in concluding that the General Counsel has established a prima facie violation of the Act, the Board will not "quantitatively analyze" the effect of the unlawful motive. The existence of such is sufficient to make a discharge a violation of the Act. Id. at 1089 fn . 14. Second, pretextual discharge cases should be viewed as those in which "the defense of busi- ness justification is wholly without merit" (id. at 1084 fn. 5), and the "burden shifting" analysis of Wright Line need not be utilized. Arthur Young & Co., 291 NLRB 39 (1988). I view the May 9 discharges of Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and Montero as being of the latter type and, thus, patently violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In this regard, I believe that, while Respondent may have desired to lease out each of the Hotel's food and beverage operations, including the bar, Charles Lee en- tered into no agreement , either for a leasehold or con- templating such an arrangement , at least until the week- end of May 6-9. Put another way, I believe Respond- ent's Exhibit 3, the asserted April 24 agreement between Lee and Babe Croick is nothing more than a sham docu- ment or, at best, backdated in order to cover up Re- spondent's unlawful conduct . In support, I note, at the outset, that the collective testimony of the four alleged discriminatees was not only utterly uncontroverted but also corroborative to a significant degree and that each impressed me as testifying in a candid and straightfor- ward manner. 21 Therefore, each is credited as to the events of April and May at the Hotel . Based upon said testimony and the record as a whole, I find that the Union commenced an organizing campaign amongst the employees of the Hotel in early April; that the alleged discriminatees participated, at least, to the extent of exe- cuting authorization cards; that Respondent was well aware of the organizing campaign-perhaps earlier than 21 I am mindful that each dlscnmmatee appeared reluctant to admit possible disciplinary incidents and that Zamora, in particular , had a less than perfect memory of the events herein However, each appeared to be honestly recollecting events herein , and Respondent, for some reason, chose to call no witnesses to controvert their collective testimony. 516 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD admitted by Charles Lee22-and was concerned by it;23 and that, in the midst of said union activity , the bar em- ployes concertedly protested the activities of Sam Patel behind the bar to the extent that Lee admitted he be- lieved a work stoppage was possible . The foregoing con- vinces me that, when Dan Jones met with and addressed the alleged discriminatees on the afternoon of May 6, he did so on behalf of Charles Lee, who undoubtedly be- lieved that the Hotel's bartenders and cocktail waitresses were leaders of the union organizing campaign,24 and with the intent of coercing them into ceasing their pro- tected concerted activities . That such a conclusion is jus- tified can be seen from Jones' manner of speaking, which made it clear to the bar employees that he was communi- cating Lee's message, and his language. Thus, at all times invoking the name of Respondent's principal, Jones stated that he (Lee) was unhappy with the Union and did not like it25 and warned that unless the bar employees cooperated and the union activities ceased, he would lease out the Hotel's bar operation. Absent Jones' denial that he spoke on behalf of Lee, I feel free to draw the inference that he, indeed, did so, ex- pressing Lee's exact sentiments . Moreover, what Jones said conveyed an unmistakable warning of the conse- quences of the discriminatees' concerted activities, one patently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The Broker, 282 NLRB 1265 (1987). Further, both prior to and immediately after Jones uttered his unlawful threat, Rudy Tenveldon asked discriminatees Bell-Nagy and Zamora how each felt about executing an antiunion peti- tion. There is no assertion that either was a known union adherent or that Respondent possessed any sort of justifi- cation for being involved in the circulation of such a document and, despite a social friendship between Zamora and Tenveldon , such interrogations are coercive and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Inner City Broadcasting Corp., 281 NLRB 1210 (1986); Parkview 22 The uncontroverted record evidence is that the Union's organizing efforts commenced no later than early April While Lee maintained that Dan Jones did not inform of such until late April, given Lee 's testimony that Jones would immediately notify him of "major problems," it seems reasonable to conclude that union organizing would have constituted such a circumstance necessitating immediate notification In any event, of course, Jones was not called as a witness by Respondent in order to cor- roborate Lee 89 Charles Lee asserted that Dan Jones specifically advised him that the Hotel's employees were not supporting the union organizing cam- paign and that , as a result, he was "not concerned" by it. Dan Jones was not called as a corroborative witness As a managerial employee and an admitted supervisor, he undoubtedly would have been "favorably dis- posed" to testifying on behalf of Respondent . While Jones is no longer working for Respondent and is presently employed by another Los An- geles area hotel, counsel offered no explanation for failing to subpoena and call him as a witness The inference is, therefore, warranted that he would have testified adversely to Respondent 's interests International Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122 (1987) 24 I do not rely on the testimony of Charles Lee herein Not only did I find him to be untruthful , lacking in candor, and entirely unpersuasive but also significant portions of his testimony were uncorroborated when Respondent clearly had the opportunity to do so I can only conclude that the failure to do so was caused by counsel 's knowledge that wit- nesses, particularly Dan Jones, Rudy Tenveldon , and Charles Noh, could not do so. 25 That the discriminatees could reasonably believe Jones was, in fact, speaking for Charles Lee can be seen from the fact that Lee himself told employees that the Union was a "waste of money" soon after he pur- chased the Hotel Gardens Care Center, 280 NLRB 47 (1986). No bar em- ployee agreed to execute such a petition and, within 72 hours, each discriminatee was discharged and Respond- ent ostensibly began contracting out for bar employees. In the instant circumstances , including Charles Lee's un- disguised dislike for the Union , the continuing union or- ganizing campaign and the discriminatees' protected con- certed activities, Jones' threat-on behalf of Lee-to lease out the operation of the Hotel bar unless the bar employees cooperated and the union ' activity ceased, Tenveldon's unlawful interrogation and the bar employ- ees' refusal to participate in antiunion activity, and the timing of the discharges of the discriminatees , the con- clusion is justified , if not mandated, that said discharges were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. My foregoing conclusions are buttressed by what I perceive as the pretextual nature of Respondent's defense to the complaint allegations, which, of course, is pre- mised upon the asserted April 24 written agreement be- tween Charles Lee and Babe Croick and upon Dan Jones' ignorance of the arrangement between the former individuals. As to the April 24 agreement, as stated above, I believe that, at the least, the memorialized ver- sion of such, Respondent's Exhibit 3, was neither drafted nor executed on or about the stated date or that, at the most, the document is nothing more than a sham. Thus, while the above exhibit bears the date, April 24, there exists no evidence that said document was signed then other than the testimony of both Lee and Croick. Their credibility having been placed at issue, I have previously discussed my impression that Lee was neither a candid nor a straightforward witness ; I do not credit his testimo- ny herein . Perhaps more so than Lee, Croick impressed me as being an utterly disingenuous witness and one who himself did not believe what he was stating while under an oath to be truthful . Likewise, I shall not credit his tes- timony as to events herein . In these circumstances, noting further that neither signature on Respondent's Ex- hibit 3 is dated and that Hillary Shockley, who asserted- ly witnessed the signing of the document on April 24, was not called by Respondent as a corroborative witness, there exists no credible record evidence-nor do I find- that Respondent's Exhibit 3 was, in fact, executed on the stated date. Turning next to the asserted validity of the agreement itself, several factors establish its dubious value . Initially, the agreement's effective date of May 10 and the May 9 terminations, which occurred within 72 hours of Dan Jones' unlawful threat, constitute a coincidence of such magnitude so as to strain credulity. That such is a justifi- able conclusion is best shown by the content of said threat-to lease out the Hotel 's bar operation unless the discriminatees ceased their union activities-and the facts that not only was the uttering of said threat uncontro- verted by Respondent but also it was made clear to the employees that the words were those of Charles Lee. While Lee may have intended to eventually lease out the bar, the timing of the threat establishes that either he had not yet decided to do so or had not located anyone with whom to enter into a lease agreement. Further, while Croick maintained that the 2 weeks between April 24 AIRPORT PARK HOTEL and May 10 were necessary for him to staff the Hotel bar, he was contradictory as to whether he or Lee chose May 10 as the agreement's effective date and, as Croick already was in the business of operating bars, it is diffi- cult to believe he required such a period to arrange staff- ing. Next, while the terms of the asserted agreement committed the parties to eventual bargaining for a lease contract, no such agreement had been reached as of the instant hearing, and the record establishes that Lee has acted in such utter disregard for his commitment so as to render the existence of such highly doubtful. Thus, while ostensibly in the midst of lease contract bargaining with Croick and without notice to him, Lee offered a lease, under the same terms as proposed to Croick, to the Charging Party Zamora. Inasmuch as Charles Lee evi- dently felt free to undermine his negotiations with Croick and as conceded by the latter, one may justifiably infer that the asserted April 24 agreement "probably" was worth no more than the paper on which it was printed. A third factor establishing the dubious validity of Respondent's Exhibit 3 concerns the mode of payment to the bar employees subsequent to May 10. Thus, while King Labor Services was nominally the employer of those staffing the bar as of that date and the entity re- sponsible for their wages, what actually occurred was that Respondent continued to act in the capacity of em- ployer to the extent of making direct payments to the bar employees in amounts equal to their wages. More- over, Croick and Lee were inconsistent as to who was responsible for this method of payment, with Croick pointing to Lee, saying "that was Lee's way to operate," and Lee claiming the system was proposed by none other than Croick's partner, Herb Newman. Finally, pointing to the sham nature of the asserted agreement or, at least, to its hasty preparation is the situation at the bar on May 9 and 10. Thus, the facility was closed on May 9 notwithstanding the expectation of a large crowd due to a boxing program at the Forum and, while open the next night, the bar was staffed by Patel behind the bar and Mrs. Lee's niece on the floor, both of whom appeared to be inexperienced workers. The foregoing is reflective of a lack of planning resulting from an unexpected occur- rence-in this case, the instant discharges. Support for this conclusion comes from the fact that , notwithstanding Lee's testimony that he did not inform Jones of his ar- rangement with Croick until Monday or Tuesday, the discriminatees were made aware of their fates as early as Sunday evening. Such suggests that the discharge deci- sion was reached some time over the weekend of May 7 and 8. With regard to the claimed ignorance of Dan Jones concerning whatever arrangements for the operation of the bar were by Lee and Croick, Charles Lee maintained that his failure to communicate with Jones was deliber- ate, an aspect of his so-called "business operation style." The necessary corollary to this, of course, is that, when Jones spoke to the discriminatees on May 6, he was nei- ther unauthorized to do so nor spoke on behalf of Lee. As with the validity of his agreement with Croick, sever- al factors suggest that said contentions were nothing more than fabrications, designed to support Respondent's defense. Initially, of course, I have expressed my view as 517 to Lee's lack of candor while testifying. On this point, at least, more compelling is Respondent 's failure to call either Jones or Charles Noh in order to corroborate Lee's assertion as to his operating "style." As set forth in footnote 23, supra, given both Jones and Noh's manage- ment positions in May, it is likely that each would have been "favorably disposed" to testifying in Respondent's behalf. By not calling either official as a witness and of- fering no explanation for failing to do so, Respondent has left me little choice but to infer that, had either Jones or Noh testified, he would have done so adversely to Re- spondent's interests. International Automated Machines, supra. Further, I note that leasing out a significant hotel function is hardly of trifling concern , and I find it impos- sible to believe that any corporate official would deliber- ately not communicate the fact of such an arrangement to the individuals who were responsible for day-to-day hotel business. To the contrary, Jones' uncontroverted threat, spoken in terms of Lee's dislikes and intentions, to the discriminatees on May 6 suggests close consultation between the two . In short, I do not credit Lee's uncorro- borated testimony that he distanced himself from hotel business and that he was "not concerned" with the union organizing campaign . Rather, based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole, I believe that Lee was in- volved to the extent of directing Jones to threaten the bar employees with the leasing out of the bar operation unless they ceased their union activities, undoubtedly in- volving himself in the terminations of the discriminatees, and negotiating a hasty agreement with Croick for the staffing of the bar, a scheme designed to disguise the true motive for the terminations-the discriminatees ' suspect- ed role in the union organizing campaign at the Hotel.26 In short, I conclude that Respondent's discharges of em- ployees Zamora, Montero, Bell-Nagy, and Morrow on May 9 were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. By terminating employees Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and Montero on May 9, 1988, because of their suspected role in a union organizing campaign, Respond- ent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 3. By threatening to lease out the bar operation of the Hotel unless employees ceased their union activities, Re- spondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By interrogating employees as to their union sympa- thies, Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. Respondent's unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 26 Croick's motive for cooperating with Respondent was, of course, his desire to obtain a lease agreement for the Hotel's bar operation. 518 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REMEDY Having found that Respondent engaged in serious unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. I have concluded that Respond- ent unlawfully terminated employees Reinaldo Zamora, Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero on May 9, 1988, because each participated in a union or- ganizing campaign . Accordingly, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate each to his or her former position of employment or, if such no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position . Further, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to make Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and Montero whole for any lost earnings he or she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him or her as pre- scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 710 (1962), plus inter- est as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 ( 1987).27 Additionally, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to post a notice, setting forth its obligations. On these findings and conclusions and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended28 ORDER The Respondent, Lee Hotel Corp. d/b/a Airport Park Hotel, Inglewood, California, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Discharging employees because they engaged in union or other protected concerted activities or suspect- ed that they so acted. (b) Threatening employees that it would lease out the Hotel bar facility unless they ceased engaging in union activities. 27 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short -term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set forth in the 1986 amendment to 26 U S C. § 6621 28 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 (c) Interrogating employees regarding their union sym- pathies. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, co- ercing, or restraining employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer reinstatement to employees Reinaldo Zamora, Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero to their former positions or, if no such jobs exist any longer, to substantially equivalent positions of employ- ment and make each whole for the discrimination against him or her in the manner set forth in the remedy section above. (b) Expunge from its files any references to the May 9, 1988 discharges of Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and Montero, and notify each in writing that this has been done and that evidence of the discharges will not be used as a basis for any future personnel actions against him or her. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records , timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of the backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at the Airport Park Hotel wherever notices to employees are customarily posted copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."29 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed by Respondent's authorized represent- atives, shall be posted for 60 consecutive days in conspic- uous places, including all places where notices to em- ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has been taken to comply. 29 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 Nation- al 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."