Schimmel Hotel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1378 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interfered with , restrained , or coerced their employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by the Act, except by the acts and conduct found herein to have been
violative.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
Walter Schimmel , A. Q. Schimmel , Edward Schimmel, and
Bernard Schimmel , d/b/a Schimmel Hotel Company and
Hotel , Motel , Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union,
Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos.
17-CA-2338 and 17-CA-2338-2. Jwne 30, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1964, Trial Examiner Joseph I. Nachman issued his
Trial Examiner's Preliminary Decision, and, on May 7,1964, a Supple-
mental and Final Decision, finding in the earlier decision that the Re-
spondent, by refusing to bargain with Local 747 after Local 747 was
validly certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of Respond-
ent's employees, violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, and in the latter
Supplemental Decision that the Respondent, by threatening to fire
employees for picketing, and by discriminatorily discharging employee
Robert A. Wolff, violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the Act. The
Trial Examiner recommended that the Respondent cease and desist
from engaging in the unfair labor practices found and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's De-
cisions. The Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decisions and support-
ing briefs. The Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, asked leave of the Board to file a
brief amicus on behalf of itself and Local 747, in support of the latter's
exceptions, and requested that the Board grant oral argument on the
issues raised by those exceptions. The AFL-CIO joined the Inter-
national in this request and asks that, if the request is granted, it be
permitted to participate in the oral argument and to file a brief amicas.
As in our opinion the exceptions and the briefs adequately present the
issues and positions of the parties, the request for oral argument is
hereby denied.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
147 NLRB No. 157.
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1379
aminer's Decisions, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its
Order, the Order recommendedby the Trial Examiner and orders that
Respondent Walter Schimmel, A. Q. Schimmel, Edward Schimmel,
and Bernard Schimmel, d/b/a Schimmel Hotel Company, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in
the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, with the following
modifications :
Add the following new paragraph 2(e) and renumber the present
paragraphs 2(e), (f), and (g), accordingly:
"(e) We will notify the above-named employee if presently serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States of his right to full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as
amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces."
I The iCharging Party, Local 747, excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that
a strike called by the Local in protest against the Respondent 's alleged unfair labor
practices and to compel the Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union consti-
tuted a constructive discharge of the strikers ; and to the Trial Examiner's failure, in
the circumstances of the case, to provide, as part of his remedy , for reinstatement and
backpay for the striking employees . We find the,Charging Party's exceptions are without
merit and we accordingly overrule them.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S PRELIMINARY DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These matters heard before Trial Examiner Joseph I . Nachman at Wichita,
Kansas, on February 4 and 5, 1964, involve separate complaints consolidated by
the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board ( herein called the Board ). In Case No. 17-CA-2338 the complaint ' alleges
that Walter Schimmel , A. Q. Schimmel, Edward Schimmel , and Bernard Schimmel,
d/b/a Schimmel Hotel Company (herein called Respondent or Company ), violated
Section 8 (a) (5) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( herein
called the Act), by refusing to meet or bargain with Hotel , Motel , Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders Union , Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO (herein called the Union
or Local 747), which was certified by the Board as the collective -bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate unit . Respondent admits that it
refused to bargain with the Union , but denies a violation of the Act on the ground
that the Board 's certification is defective as a matter of law. In Case No . 17-CA-
2338-2, the complaint 2 alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of
the Act by interfering with , restraining , and coercing its employees , and by discrimina-
torily discharging two employees . These allegations Respondent denies. The latter
complaint also alleges that by reason of Respondent 's unfair labor practices, the
employees involved went on strike on December 31, and that said strike is continuing.
I Issued December 26, upon a charge filed November 8, and amended December 26. Un-
less otherwise stated all dates herein mentioned are 1963.
2 Issued January 17, 1964 , upon a charge filed November 19, and amended January 16,
1964.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing all parties were represented by counsel, and were afforded full
opportunity to adduce pertinent evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to argue orally on the record. Oral argument was presented and is included in
the transcript of the proceedings. Briefs were submitted by the General Counsel
and the Respondent. The oral argument and the briefs have been duly considered.
Upon the pleadings, stipulations, evidence, and the entire record in the cases, in-
cluding my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Both complaints allege, and . the separate answers admit , facts which establish that
Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I find the facts as
pleaded . The Board has asserted jurisdiction over Respondent in the representation
proceeding (17-RC-4137), hereinafter more fully discussed . The complaints fur-
ther allege that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,
which allegations Respondent denies. The instant record shows, and I find, that
Respondent's employees participate in the affairs of Local 747, at least to the extent
of giving it active assistance and support in the strike against Respondent , and that
Local 747 exists, at least in part , for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concern-
ing the wages, hours, and working conditions of Respondent's employees. These
facts are sufficient to establish that Local 747 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act? The Board so found in the representation pro-
ceeding above referred to.
II. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The facts
On September 20, upon conclusion of a representation proceeding,4 the Union was
certified as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate
unit composed of "all regular employees of the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita,
Kansas, excluding office-clerical employees, PBX operators, cashiers, desk clerks,
and professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act." 5 It is
admitted that on September 23, and on a number of occasions thereafter, the Union
requested Respondent to bargain, and that all such demands were refused. Indeed,
Respondent has posted in its hotel a "Notice To All Employees," which states, in
substance, that until all avenues of attack upon the Board's certification have been
exhausted, it will not bargain with the Union. The last such demand was in the
a N.L.R.B. v. Cabot Carbon Company, at al., 360 U.S. 203; The Cincinnati Transit
Company, 121 NLRB 765; Wicaeo Machine Corporation, 69 NLRB 741.
4 The file in the representation proceeding, of which I take official notice, shows the
following chronology of events:
April 5, representation petition filed ; May 2, Notice of Representation Hearing
issued ; May 16, Representation Hearing held ; June 10, Regional Director's Decision
and Direction of Election ; June 20, Petition for Review of Decision and Direction of
Election ; June 28, Petition for Review denied by Board because "it raises no sub-
stantial issue warranting review" ; July 17, election conducted-72 votes for Union,
28 against, 32 challenged ballots, and 1, void ; July 23, Respondent files objections to
conduct affecting results of election ; July 29, Regional Director's Order and Notice
of Hearing on Objections ; August 5, Objections and Exceptions to Regional Director's
Order of July 29, and Request for Review by the Board ; August 9, Board denied the
August 5 Request for Review as raising "no substantial issues" ; August 14 and 15,
Hearing on Objections held ; September 20, Regional Director's Supplemental Deci-
sion and Certification of Representative ; September 30, Request for Review of Sup-
plemental Decision of September 20 ; October 25, Request for Review of Supple-
mental Decision denied. Board stated that "Accepting as true the factual allegations
[made by Respondent] . .. they are insufficient to establish that the election re-
sults did ont reflect the free choice of the employees involved" ; November 7, Re-
spondent's Request for Reconsideration filed ; November 14, Request for Reconsidera-
tion denied as containing ". . . nothing not previously considered by the Board."
5 Respondent raises no issue in the instant proceeding as to the appropriateness of unit,.
nor was such an issue raised in the representation proceeding.
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1381
form of a telegram the Union sent Respondent on the morning of December 3 1,
which also stated that unless Respondent notified the Union no later than 5 p.m. of
that day that it would bargain, the Union would take necessary action. Respondent
did not reply to that •telegram, and at 6 p.m. the Union struck and began picketing
Respondent's hotel premises with "on strike" signs.6 The testimony is uncontradicted
that the Union struck "to force the [Respondent] to recognize us and bargain with
us." At the time of the hearing the strike and picketing were continuing.
2. Conclusions on refusal-to-bargain allegations
Respondent quite candidly admits its refusal to bargain with the Union. It
predicates such refusal upon the proposition that the Board incorrectly decided a num-
ber of issues which it raised in the representation case. Thus, in this complaint pro-
ceeding, Respondent seeks to relitigate the various contentions advanced by it in
the representation proceeding, and which, after prolonged litigation, were duly
considered and decided by the Board, adversely to Respondent? In the absence of
newly discovered evidence-and none such is here alleged-the Board, in the
interest of finality of adjudication, has consistently refused to reconsider, in a sub-
sequent unfair labor practice proceeding alleging a refusal to bargain, matters which
it disposed of in a prior related representation proceeding. Myca Products Division
of the Kane Company, 145 NLRB 1068; Dewey Portland Cement Company, 142
NLRB 951; Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co., 140 NLRB 1412, and the cases cited
in those decisions. I find nothing in the record in the instant case to warrant a
departure from this well-settled principle. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the
Union was validly certified on September 20 as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of Respondent's employees in the unit set forth above, and in view of Respond-
ent's admitted refusal since September 23 to meet with the Union for purposes of
collective bargaining, it is clear, and I find, that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
I further find and conclude that the strike which began on December 31 was
caused, and has since continued, because of Respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain
with the Union since September 23, and hence was an unfair labor practice strike
from its inception.
Respondent's violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act I regard as crystal clear, and
its attack upon the Board's certification as utterly devoid of merit. Its refusal to
bargain with the Union has resulted in a strike which, at the time of the hearing,
was continuing. On the other hand, the portions of the complaint alleging the
discriminatory discharge of two employees present more difficult questions, and re-
quire more detailed study and consideration. In these circumstances, I think the
overall policies of the Act will best be served by the -forthwith issuance of a bargain-
ing order. I shall, therefore, reserve for further consideration the question whether
Respondent discharged the two employees for discriminatory reasons in violation
of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as alleged in the complaint in Case No. 17-CA-2338-2,
and shall dispose of those issues in due course by a Supplemental Decision. While
those questions, as to which there is no great urgency, are being considered, the
General Counsel and the Board will have an opportunity to consider the advisability
of instituting proceedings for an injunction pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act.8
"The Union began picketing the hotel on November 6 with signs appealing to the
public not to patronize that establishment. The employees did not go on strike at that
time and crossed the picket line to perform their duties. However, it does appear that
some employees engaged in actual picketing either before or after their normal working
hours.
7 The principal contentions which Respondent seeks to relitigate in this proceeding
are that: (1) the Union is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act;
(2) no question of representation was shown to exist as between Respondent and Local
747, because the representation petition was filed by the International with which Local
747 is affiliated, and not by Local 747, and that said petition was improperly amended at
the representation hearing; and (3) Respondent's objections to conduct affecting the re-
sults of the election should have been sustained. Subpenas issued at the request of Re-
spondent for the Regional Director and other personnel in the Regional Office, directing
them to produce the Board's official files in the representation case, and to give testimony
relating to that case, were, on motion of the General Counsel, quashed. See Del E. Webb
Construction Company, 95 NLRB 377; Humboldt Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
103 NLRB 955; N.L.R.B. v. Globe Wireless, Ltd., 193 F. 2d 748 (C.A. 9).
8 The Issuance of separate Decisions will not prejudice Respondent . See Equitable Life
Insurance Company, 133 NLRB 1675, footnote 3.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain
affirmative action which, it is found; will effectuate the policies of the Act. As
Respondent on September 23 and at all times thereafter has refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its employees
in an appropriate unit, as required by the Act, it will be recommended that Re-
spondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union, and if an understand-
ing is reached, embody same into a signed agreement.
It having also been found that the strike by Respondent's employees which began
on December 31 and which was in progress at the time of the hearing on February 4
and 5 was caused by Respondent's unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain with
the Union, and that strike was, therefore, an unfair labor strike from its inception,
the employees who were on strike on December 31 and thereafter thus became unfair
labor practice strikers entitled to reinstatement upon application, irrespective of
whether their positions have been filled by Respondent's hire of other employees
as replacements for them. Accordingly, in order to restore the status quo as it
existed prior to the strike on December 31, and thereby to effectuate the policies of
the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent shall, upon application, offer
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice
to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all its employees who were on
strike on and after December 31, 1963, dismissing , if necessary , any persons hired
after that date. It will also be recommended that Respondent be ordered to make
whole those employees who were on strike on and after December 31 for any loss
of pay they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's refusal, if there be such
refusal , to reinstate them , by paying to each of them of a sum of money equal to
that which he normally would have earned as wages during the period beginning
5 days after the date on which they severally apply for reinstatement , to the date of
Respondent 's offer of reinstatement . Loss of pay shall be computed on a quarterly
basis in accordance with the formula established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 , and shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum,
as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Schimmel Hotel Company , a copartnership composed of Walter Schimmel, A. Q.
Schimmel , Edward Schimmel , and Bernard Schimmel , is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747,
affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization with the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor organization was on September 20, 1963, and at all times
thereafter has been, the duly certified collective -bargaining representative , for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act, of
Respondent 's employees in an appropriate unit consisting of all regular employees of
the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel , Wichita , Kansas, excluding office clerical employees,
PBX operators, cashiers , desk clerks , and professional employees , guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
4. By failing and refusing , since September 23, 1963 , to meet with the Union for
purposes of collective bargaining as the exclusive collective -bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the
Act.
5. By the conduct set forth in the preceding paragraph , Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
to them by Section 7 of the Act , and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tl
O
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1383
tions Act, as amended, it is recommended that Walter Schimmel, A. Q. Schimmel,
Edward Schimmel, and Bernard Schimmel, d/b/a Schimmel Hotel Company, their
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment. The
appropriate unit is:
All regular employees of the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita, Kansas, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, PBX operators, cashiers, desk clerks, and professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies
of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit consisting of all regular
employees of Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita, Kansas, excluding office clerical
employees, PBX operators, cashiers, desk clerks, and professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody any
understanding reached in a signed contract.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, to all those employees who were on strike on and after
December 31, 1963, and who have not already been reinstated to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by them on or after
December 31, 1963, who were not in their employ on that date.
(c) Make whole the employees referred to in paragraph 2(b), above, for any loss
of pay they may suffer by reason of the refusal, if any, to reinstate such employees in
the manner provided in paragraph 2(b), above, by paying to each such employee a
sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as wages during
the period beginning 5 days after the date on which the employee applied for re-
instatement, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings
during said period, if any.
(d) Post at its Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita, Kansas, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 9 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Seventeenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board (Kansas
City, Missouri), shall, after being duly signed by their duly authorized representative,
be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by them for
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be by them to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of
receipt of this Decision, what steps they have taken to' comply herewith.'°
9In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice. If the Board 's' Order is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals, the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the
words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order" for the
words "a Decision and Order."
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read: "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from
the date of this Order, what steps they have taken to comply herewith."
Q
1384
s
0
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Hotel, Motel, Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, as the exclusive representa-
tive of employees in the appropriate unit described below, and embody any under-
standing reached in a signed contract. The unit is:
All regular employees fo the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita,
Kansas, excluding office clerical employees, PBX operators, cashiers, desk
clerks, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT by refusing to bargain with the aforesaid Union, or in any
like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of coil collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activities.
WALTER SCHIMMEL, A. Q. SCHIMMEL, EDWARD SCHIMMEL AND
BERNARD SCHIMMEL, D/B/A SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By------------------------------------ _------(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its .provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S SUPPLEMENTAL AND FINAL DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 30, 1964, I issued a. preliminary Decision in these cases which had been
consolidated for hearing , disposing of the violation of Section 8(a)(5) alleged in
Case No. 17-CA-2338 , and, for reasons there stated , reserved for further considera-
tion the appropriate disposition of the alleged 8(a) (1) and ( 3) violations which are
the basis of the complaint in 17-CA-2338-2. The purpose of this Supplemental
Decision is to dispose of the issues upon which decision has been reserved, and to
complete the proceeding before the Trial Examiner . No purpose will be served
by repeating here the formal parts of my Preliminary Decision . My findings of fact
and conclusions of law there set forth , to the extent that they deal with the nature of
Respondent 's business and the character of the Union as a labor organization, are
reaffirmed as though restated here. Accordingly, this Supplemental Decision is to be
read in conjunction with , and as a part of, my Preliminary Decision , the two constitut-
ing the complete Decision of the Trial Examiner in these cases. I proceed now to a
consideration of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint in Case No.
17-CA-2338-2.
1. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
A. Interference, restraint, and coercion
The Section 8(a)(1) allegation which the General Counsel undertook to prove
herein is that in November 1963, Housekeeper Alsdorf, an admitted supervisor,
threatened to discharge employees if they engaged in picketing Respondent's hotel
premises.' The only evidence to support this allegation is that of Elda Mansfield
I The complaint also alleges that another supervisor Interrogated employees with re-
spect to their union and other concerted activities. The General Counsel admitted that
no proof' in support thereof was presented, and withdrew that allegation of the complaint.
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1385
who worked for Respondent as a maid. Mansfield credibly testified that shortly after
picketing of the hotel began,2 she heard Alsdorf say "that she would fire anyone if
she saw them on the picket line." Mansfield testified that this occurred about
7:45 a.m. while she was in the dressing room (which is close to the linen room),
changing clothes preparatory to beginning work at 8 a.m. On this occasion Mansfield
did not see Alsdorf, nor did she know to whom Alsdorf was talking, if anyone.3
The record does not show when this statement was made in relation to the alleged
discriminatory discharge of Wilmar Ma Brown, another maid, on November 16,
as hereafter detailed.
Concluding Findings with Respect to 8 (a) (1) Allegations'
Alsdorf's statement that she "would fire anyone if she saw them on the picket line,"
if made directly to an employee, or under circumstances where it could reasonably
by anticipated that it would be overheard by an employee, would clearly be coercive
and violative of Section 8 (a)( 1 ) of the Act. In the instant case the statement was
made in an area in close proximity to the dressing room where employees go to change
clothes before beginning work, about 7:45 a.m., when maids reporting for work
at 8 a.m. would normally be expected to be there; and the statement was in fact
heard by a maid. As the statement was that Alsdorf, the person who supervised the
maids, would do the firing, its clear import constituted a threat to the maids. Accord-
ingly, I find that Alsdorf's statements was violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
B. The alleged discriminatory discharges
. 1. Wilmar Ma Brown
Wilmar Ma Brown (herein called Brown), had been employed by Respondent as
a maid for about 3 years. Housekeeper Alsdorf was, at all times material, Brown's
supervisor. There is no evidence that prior to the events hereafter set forth, Brown
was other than a satisfactory employee.
The Union's organizational campaign at Respondent's hotel began about mid-
March 1963.4 While the record does not disclose when Brown became interested
in the Union, it does show that she attended union meetings , wore a union button
while at work, and engaged in picketing the hotel from the time informational
picketing began on November 6 at least until her discharge on November 16.
The record also shows that the other maids in the hotel wore union buttons, and
many-if not all of them participated in the aforementioned informational picketing.
Early in November, Hotel Manager Carey had a meeting with the maids. Carey
explained that the maids were being given an hourly rate increase of 5 cents but
that the maids working on the east side of the buildings would have to do 16 rooms,
and those on the west side 17 rooms each day,5 and that for any production over the
assigned quota, a bonus of 25 cents per room would be paid. All maids, however,
had 8 hours of duty each workday, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., regardless of the number
of rooms they serviced.
On November 16, the day Brown was discharged, her quota was 16 rooms. About
3 p.m. that day, Housekeeper Alsdorf told Brown that she had not completed her
quota of rooms. Brown insisted she had. Alsdorf then told Brown that if she could
not do the rooms assigned she (Alsdorf) would have to let Brown go .6 Brown replied,
3 This picketing by the Union began on November 6 with signs reading "Could you
afford to stay at the Lassen Hotel if your salary was 38 cents a day?" The employees
did not strike at that time and crossed the picket line to perform their duties. However,
at least some of the employees engaged in actual picketing of the hotel in their off-duty
hours.
D
31 do not credit Alsdorf's denial that she made any such statement. I reach this con-
clusion because the statement is in conformity with Respondent's union animus as dis-
closed by the record in this case and by the Board's findings in a related case against
Respondent which it recently decided . See Walter Schimmel, et al., d/b /a Schimmel
Hotel Company, 146 NLRB 878.
* The Board so found in a prior case against Respondent, of which I take official notice.
See 146 NLRB 878.
6 The robins on the east side are twin-bedded, hence a 'lower quota was set.
e The testimony of Brown and Alsdorf is in accord on these basic facts. There is a con-
flict in their testimony as to the number of rooms Brown serviced that day, Brown claim-
ing that she completed 16 rooms, while Alsdoff•testifed that it was only 15. For reasons
hereafter stated, I find it unnecessary to resolve this conflict.
1386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"If you feel that way, it is O.K. with me." Alsdorf then directed Brown to change
to street clothes and report to Manager Carey, where she would be paid. Brown
refused to leave the floor until her regular time for doing so, but at 4 p.m. reported
to Manager Carey's office, where she gave Manager Carey a written statement of the
reasons for her termination. Her statement is as follows:
I made up 16 rooms and the Housekeeper (Alice) wanted me to do the 17th
room on the west side of the 6th floor. It was 3 o'clock and I told her I
couldn't do it because I already did 16 rooms. She said "if I didn't do it, I
wouldn't have a job" and I said "that's all right with me-if that the way you
feel about it!" She said "you won't have to come to work tomorrow."
WILMAR M. BROWN.?
Concluding Findings as to Brown
I find that the record does not establish that Brown was discharged because of
her union activities. It is true that Brown was a member of the Union, attended union
meetings, wore union insignia while at work, and participated to some extent in the
informational picketing, as did most, if not all, of the maids. It is also true that
Respondent's union animus had been clearly established. But it does not follow
from these facts alone that Brown's discharge was discriminatorily motivated. The
latter is what the General Counsel must show, if he is to prevail. There is no showing
that Brown was more active in the union movement than any other maid; that Re-
spondent was particularly concerned about her union activity; or that the reason for
her discharge-as Brown herself stated it in her termination interview-was in any
sense pretextuous. Upon the whole record, I find and conclude that the General
Counsel has failed to establish that Brown's discharge was discriminatorily motivated,
and shall recommend that the complaint in that respect be dismissed. .
2. Robert A. Wolff
Wolff began working at the hotel in November 1962 as a maintenance carpenter
in the engineering department. He made the initial contact which began the Union's
campaign to organize Respondent's employees. He was probably the most active
and outspoken employee on behalf of the Union and participated in virtually all of
the Union's activities. Wolff was also an observer on behalf of the Union at the
Board's election among Respondent's employees, held in July; passed out authoriza-
tion cards; and -wore union buttons, and at times other materials, on his person to
indicate his union adherence.8
From the inception of the Union's organizational campaign until about June 15,
Wolff's immediate supervisor was Maintenance Foreman Daniels. Daniels' immediate
supervisor was Chief Engineer William Lorenz. Shortly after March 27, Daniels
was told by Lorenz that Wolff was talking to employees while on duty, and "to keep
close surveillance on [Wolff] and confine his work where [Daniels] could control
him and keep him from going all over the hotel." Although Wolff's duties required
him to go anywhere maintenance work was needed, Daniels restricted Wolff to the
engineroom and prohibited him from riding the service elevator. Subsequently, when
the maintenance work began to accumulate, these instructions were rescinded.
In mid-April, Daniels cautioned Wolff that he (Wolff) could "get fired for talking
about this damn union," and thereafter wrote Wolff a note complimenting the latter
on his work, but also stated that he (Daniels) "had word from the big boys" that
Wolff was "nothing but a damn troublemaker," and "to fire him at the first op-
portunity." Daniels was discharged by Lorenz on June 15 .9
From June 15 until his discharge on November 8, Wolff was under the immediate
supervision of Lorenz. When the Union began its informational picketing of Re-
spondent's premises on the morning of November 6, Wolff, whose tour of duty was
7 Brown denied telling Manager Carey that the Incident In question occurred about
3 o'clock, and that she refused to do the additional room requested by the housekeeper
because she had completed her quota of 16 rooms. I find Brown's testimony on the sub-
ject confusing. In any event, to the extent that her testimony conflicts with that of
Carey, I credit,Carey.
8 The findings in this paragraph are based on the credited and uncontradicted testimony
of Wolff.
9 The findings in this paragraph are taken from the Board's findings In the prior case
against Respondent dealing with those events. See Walter Schimmel, et at., d/b/a
Schimmel Hotel Company, 146 NLRB 878.
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1387
'from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., picketed on November 6 from 6 a.m. until shortly before
8 a.m., and then went to work. A number of supervisors observed Wolff on the
picket line; in fact on the morning of November 8, Lorenz observed the picketing
and told Wolff and his fellow picket, "You guys are crazy." During the afternoon
of November 7, Wolff left the hotel and went across the street to pick up a doorcheck
sent there for repair, Wolff having been told the preceding week by the repair shop
that the check would be ready November 7.10 Wolff left the employee entrance of
the building, went past the pickets, and crossed the street to the repair shop. Finding
that the check was still not ready. Wolff retraced his route and reentered the hotel
through the employee entrance. It is admitted that the route Wolff followed was the
most direct that could have been used to get from the employee entrance of the hotel
to the repair shop. Wolff testified that in going to and from the repair shop he did
not stop to converse with the pickets, or speak to them at all. Wolff worked the re-
mainder of the day and clocked out, without incident. When Wolff reported for work
the following morning (November 8), he found that his timecard was not in the
rack. In response to his inquiry of the timekeeper as to where his card was, Wolff
was informed that his card had been pulled and that he should report to the personnel
office. Wolff obtained a blank card and punched it to establish that he had reported
for duty on time, and then went to Personnel Manager Clark to find out why his time-
card had been pulled. Clark indicated surprise at Wolff's presence and stated he
would send for Lorenz to "find out what it was all about." 11 When Lorenz came
on the scene, Wolff stated that his timecard had been pulled and asked what it was
about. Lorenz replied that Wolff had. been discharged. Wolff asked why, and
Lorenz said, "Leaving the building without permission." Wolff inquired what this
meant, and Lorenz said, "Well, then, insubordination to your supervisors." Wolff
repeated the last quoted words in the form of a question, and Lorenz then said, "Well,
being in places where you should not be." Wolff asked what this meant. Lorenz
then opened a portfolio and apparently reading from it, said, "You have been dis-
charged for leaving the building without permission, insubordination to your super-
visors, and being in places where you should not be." . Lorenz gave no further
explanation of the foregoing statement. Wolff asked if he might have a copy of
the document from which Lorenz apparently read, but Lorenz refused to give it.
Lorenz did not deny this conversation. Wolff has not since worked at the hotel.
Lorenz testified that he had received an average of about two calls a week from
other supervisory personnel complaining about Wolff disturbing employees under
their supervision by talking to them about the Union. Lorenz was rather evasive
as to when these incidents occurred, but in view of the fact that Lorenz had caused
Wolff to be restricted to the engineroom prior to the election among Respondent's
employees on July 17, and then lifted that restriction at least,to some extent, and
did not specifically refer to any occasion that he 'received such a report after the
election, it would seem that most, if not all, of these incidents, occurred prior to the
election in July. According .to Lorenz, during the early afternoon of November 7,
he happened to look out the window of the hotel's coffee shop, and saw quite a
crowd of people, including photographers, and Wolff talking -to the pickets then
engaged in picketing the hotel; that he watched Wolff talking to the pickets for some
5 or 10 minutes; that while so watching he commented to Mrs. Petersen, manager of
the coffee shop, "Just take a look at, my ;boy." 12 According to Lorenz, when he
saw Wolff leave the area of the picket line.he went, within the building, to the em-
ployee entrance, arriving about the same time Wolff entered the building, asked
Wolff who had given him permission to leave the building, and Wolff replied, 'No-
body did," and started to say something about picking up a doorcheck, but that he
(Lorenz) interrupted telling Wolff, "Well, this has gone too far now, I will check
with the management and see if I can halt this matter"; Wolff attempted to engage
him in further conversation, but he just walked away. According to Lorenz he
10 The check had been removed sometime early in October and sent to the shop for re-
pair . Lorenz had told Wolff to get the check when it had been repaired, and reinstall it.
Parts had to be ordered and its repair was delayed . Lorenz testified that be subseqently
relieved Wolff of all responsibility -concerning this doorcheck, and told him 'the matter
would be taken care of by someone else. Wolff denied having received such instructions.
This conflict will hereafter be resolved.
11 Clark did not testify. Wolff's statement in that regard, therefore , stands undenied.
12 Mrs. . Petersen corroborates Lorenz with respect to this remark: that Wolff did talk
to the pickets, and that she and Lorenz watched this for between 5 and 10 minutes.
1388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
followed Respondent's "normal procedure" of giving the timecard to the personnel
manager whose duty it was to call the employee in and take the necessary termina-
tion interview statement, calling Lorenz only if circumstances so required.
Credibility Resolutions and Concluding Findings as to Wolff
Although I do not credit Wolff's testimony in its entirety,13 I do credit him on
what I regard as the salient aspects of the case. I credit his testimony that: he had
standing instructions to pick up and reinstall the doorcheck when it had been
repaired; he went to the repair shop on November 7 for that purpose; he had no
inkling of his impending discharge until he learned on the morning of November 8
that his timecard had been pulled and that he should report to the personnel office;
Personnel Manager Clerk was surprised to see him, and apparently knew noth-
ing of the plan to discharge Wolff until Lorenz came in and the conversation
I have set forth above followed.14 In view of these findings, and the fact that
Wolff had been told that Respondent regarded him as "nothing but a damn trouble-
maker," and that it intended "to fire him at the first opportunity," I find and conclude
that Lorenz' stated reasons for discharging Wolff were pretextuous; that his real rea-
son was Wolff's prounion activity, to which Respondent had demonstrated its
unalterable opposition, and which was brought to a head when Lorenz saw Wolff
on the picket line the morning of November 8. To Lorenz, the appearance of Wolff
on the picket line apparently supplied the opportunity which Respondent was admit-
tedly seeking, to relieve itself of its most prounion employee. Lorenz' testimony
that he had given consideration to discharging Wolff on a number of occasions dur-
ing the summer and early fall of 1963 because of the latter's alleged interference
with the work of other employees, but refrained from doing so because he had
been advised that this "would only create greater problems with the Union situa-
tion as it was," does not stand up under scrutiny. If Wolff was in fact interfering
with the work of others, and Lorenz had discharged him for that reason , plainly,
such discharge would not have violated the Act. It is significant that Lorenz does
not claim that he warned or reprimanded Wolff in any manner, during the period
of his alleged derelictions of duty. Even on November 7, as I have found, Lorenz
did not complain to Wolff about his conduct, or reprimand him for spending his
time talking with the pickets. Though Lorenz claims that he refrained from dis-
charging Wolff on the afternoon of November 7, to ;give him an opportunity to dis-
cuss the situation with management, there is no evidence that he did so.15 What
little evidence there is on that subject would indicate the contrary, as Personnel
Manager Clark, whose duty it was to conduct the termination interview and attend
to the details of the termination, indicated surprise by the appearance of Wolff in
his office the morning of November 8, and was unable to give Wolff any explanation
as to why his timecard was not in its usual place that morning.
Upon all the facts, I find and conclude that the motivating cause for Wolff's dis-
charge on November 8 was his extensive prounion activity toward which Respond-
ent has demonstrated strong antipathy. The fact that Wolff had talked with the
pickets during the afternoon of November 7 I find and conclude was seized upon
as a pretext and attempted justification of Respondent's unlawful conduct.
13 Thus, I do not credit Wolff's statement that on November 7 he did not speak to the
pickets at all while going to or returning from the repair shop. Not only is Lorenz' con-
trary testimony corroborated by Mrs. Peterson, a witness whom I find credible, but it is
highly improbable that Wolff, the person who had brought the Union in, and took such an
active part in doing what he could to make its campaign successful, who was one of the
first on the picket line when it was established the morning of November 6 and who un-
doubtedly knew most if not all the pickets, would have walked by those pickets on two
occasions and not speak to them. While I find that Wolff, contrary to his denial, did
talk with the pickets on November 7, I do not regard that fact to control the disposition
of the issue whether Wolff was discriminatorily discharged on November '8.
14I specifically discredit Lorenz' testimony that (1) prior to November 7 he told Wolff
that the latter had been relieved of further responsibility in connection with the door-
check ; and (2) when he met Wolff at the employee entrance, after observing the latter at
the picket line, he told Wolff, in effect, that he had gone too far and that he (Lorenz) was
going to talk with management about dismissing Wolff. My Impression of Lorenz as a
credible witness was not favorable.
11 Lorenz did not so testify, and no other representative of management testified on
that subject.
SCHIMMEL HOTEL. COMPANY
II. THE REMEDY
1389
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom,IS and take certain affirmative
action found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
To remedy Respondent's discriminatory discharge of Robert A. Wolff, it will be
recommended that it offer him immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement
to his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered
by reason of the discrimination against him by the payment to him of a sum of, money
equal to that which he normally would have earned, absent the discrimination,
from the date of such discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, less his net
earnings during such period, with backpay computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
Such pay loss shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum as set forth in
Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. It will be further recommended
that Respondent preserve and make available to the Board upon request, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and
all other records necessary or useful to determine the amount of backpay due and
the fact of reinstatement under the terms of these recommendations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following additional:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, as set forth in section I, A, above, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a) (1) of the Act. -
2. By discriminatorily discharging Robert A. Wolff as set forth in section B, 2,
above, thereby discouraging membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3)
and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The evidence fails to establish that the discharge of Wilmar Ma Brown was
discriminatorily motivated, and the allegations of the complaint in that respect should
be dismissed.
Having found herein that Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in addi-
tion to those set forth in my Preliminary Decision, the order recommended therein
will be and is amended to read as follows:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the
entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , it is recommended that Walter Schimmel, A . Q. Schim-
mel, Edward Schimmel , and Bernard Schimmel , d/b/a Schimmel Hotel Company,
their officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Hotel , Motel , Retaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective,
bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit , with respect to
rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , or other terms and conditions of em-
ployment . The appropriate unit is:
All regular employees of the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel , Wichita, Kansas, ex-
cluding office clerical employees , PBX operators , cashiers , desk clerks, and profes-
sional employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Discouraging membership in Hotel , Motel , Restaurant Employees and Bar-
tenders Local Union No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
10 In view of my findings of 8(a ) ( 1) and ( 3) violations herein; the findings of 8(a) (5)
and (1 ) violations made in my Preliminary Decision , and the 8 ( a) (1) and ( 3) violations
found by the Board in the prior proceeding against- Respondent (146 NLRB 878), the
broad order recommended herein is justified . See N.L . R.B. v. Empress Publishing Com
peny, 312 D.S. 4126; Entwistle Mfg. Co., .' 120. F. 2d ' 532 (-C.A. 4).
1390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
threatening to discharge, discharging, or refusing to reinstate employees, or in any
other manner discriminating in regard to their hire or tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment.
(c) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of the right. to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or
assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in any other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, as the certified bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit consisting of all regular employees
of Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita, Kansas, excluding office clerical employees,
PBX operators, cashiers, desk clerks, and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody any under-
standing reached in a signed contract.
(b) Upon application, offer immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to
their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority
or other rights and privileges, to all those employees who were on strike on and
after December 31, 1963, and who have not already been reinstated to their former
or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other
rights and privileges, dismissing if necessary, any persons hired by them on or
after December 31, 1963, who were not in their employ on that date.
(c) Make whole the employees referred to in paragraph 2(b), above, for any
loss of pay they may suffer by reason of the refusal, if any, to reinstate such em-
ployees in the manner provided in paragraph (b), above, by paying to each such
employee a sum of money equal to that which he normally would have earned as
wages during the period beginning 5 days after the date on which the employee
applied for reinstatement, to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less
his net earnings during said period,'if any.
(d) Offer Robert A. Wolff immediate, full, and unconditional reinstatement to
his former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
or other rights or privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings, in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" of the Trial Examiner's
Decision.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents all
payroll and other records, as set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy" of the
Trial Examiner's Decision.
(f) Post at its Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita, Kansas, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix." 17 Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board (Kansas City, Missouri), shall, after being duly signed by their duly
authorized representative, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof and
maintained by them for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by them to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(g) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date
of receipt of this Decision, what steps they have taken to comply .herewith.18
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint herein, to the extent that it alleges
that Wilmar Ma Brown was discriminatorily discharged , be, and the same hereby is,
dismissed.
17 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a
Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the. Recommended Order of a
Trial Examiner" in the notice . If the Board's Order Is enforced by a decree of a United
States Court of Appeals , the notice will be further amended by the substitution of the
words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order" for the
words "a Decision and Order."
is In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision
shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing , within 10 days from
the date of this Order , what steps they have taken to comply herewith."
SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY 1391
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Hotel, Motel, Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders Union, Local No. 747, as the exclusive representative
of employees in the appropriate unit described below, and embody any under-
standing reached in a signed contract. The unit is:
All regular employees of the Lassen Terrace Motor Hotel, Wichita,
Kansas, excluding office clerical employees, PBX operators, cashiers, desk
clerks, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders, Local Union No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other
labor organization, by threatening to discharge, discharging, or refusing to
reinstate any employee, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to his
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations,
to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
any other concerted activities for the purpose of collective-bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL offer Robert A. Wolff immediate, full, and unconditional reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against him. .
WE WILL, upon application, offer immediate, full, and unconditional rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without prej-
udice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, to all our employees who
were on strike on or after December 31, 1963, and who have not already been
reinstated to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , dismissing if necessary
all persons hired on or after December 31, 1963.
WE WILL make each such employee whole for any loss of pay suffered by
him as a result of our failure to reinstate him within 5 days after his application.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from becoming
or remaining , members of Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders,
Local Union No. 747, affiliated with Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, AFL-CIO, or of any other labor organization.
WALTER SCHIMMEL, A. Q. SCHIMMEL, EDWARD SCHIMMEL AND
BERNARD SCHIMMEL, D/B/A SCHIMMEL HOTEL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NoTE.-We will notify such of the above-named employees who are serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended , after discharge from the Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 1200
Rialto Building, 906 Grand Avenue , Kansas City, Missouri, Telephone No. Balti-
more 1-7000, Extension 731, if they have any question concerning this notice or
compliance with its provisions.