Chateau De Ville, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 1161 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
Chateau de Ville, Inc. and Hotel, Restaurant, Institu-
tional Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 26,
AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CA-12058, 1-CA-12135, 1-
CA-12138, and 1-RC-14652
December 13, 1977
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION
OF SECOND ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On July 18, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H. Maloney, Jr., issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief, the Charging
Party filed an answering brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative
Law Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, except that the
remedy is modified so that interest is to be computed
in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977).3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Chateau de Ville,
Inc., Saugus and Randolph, Massachusetts, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order,
except that the attached notice is substituted for that
of the Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the election conducted
on September 24, 1976, in Case l-RC-14652 be, and
it hereby is, set aside and this case is hereby
remanded to the Regional Director for Region I for
the purpose of scheduling and conducting a second
election at such time as he deems the circumstances
permit a free choice on the issue of representation.
[Direction of Second Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
l Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
233 NLRB No. 161
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In sec. I, B, of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge erroneously
refers to Supervisor Addomi as "Addamo." Additionally, the Administra-
tive Law Judge suggests that the June 7, 1976, memorandum of Skehill,
Respondent's vice president, was distributed to all of Respondent's
employees, whereas the record indicates only that the memorandum was
received by employees at Respondent's Saugus location Finally, he refers to
Olson as a supervisor, although the record is silent as to his supervisory
status. These apparently inadvertent errors are insufficient to affect the
results of our decision.
2 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Respondent violated
Sec. 8(aX3) with respect to employee Sakells, who was primarily assigned to
Respondent's Randolph location, by ceasing to assign her to work at its
other locations. He further concluded that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3)
when, after the union victory at Randolph, it reduced the hours assigned
first to all Randolph waitresses, and then only to prounion waitresses.
Respondent excepts to these conclusions on the grounds that the amended
complaint did not specifically allege a violation with respect to Sakells and,
with respect to the reduction of hours, alleged only a violation concerning
the prounion employees. Although the amended complaint did not
specifically allege these violations found by the Administrative Law Judge,
the issues were fully litigated at the hearing and the record fully supports his
conclusions. Accordingly, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge's finding
of these violations. See Gerald G. Gogin d/b/a Gogin Trucking, 229 NLRB
529 (1977).
3 See, generally, Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which both sides had the
opportunity to present their evidence, the National
Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
the law and has ordered us to post this notice and we
intend to abide by the following.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees
concerning their union sympathies and activities
and the union sympathies and activities of other
employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with physical
harm because they are engaging in or have
engaged in union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with dis-
charge or reduction in earnings because they have
given support to a labor organization.
WE WILL NOT create in the minds of employees
the impression that their union activities are
under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT request or direct employees to
campaign against the selection of any union as
their bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT discontinue existing benefits and
WE WILL NOT reduce waitress stations and the
number of nightly assignments in order to
discourage employees from giving support to a
labor organization.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees because they have given
1161
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
support to a labor organization. All of our
employees are free to become or to remain
members of Hotel, Restaurant, Institutional
Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 26,
AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT by any other means interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act. These rights
include the right to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted protected activities for
their mutual aid and protection.
WE WILL offer full and immediate reinstate-
ment to Thelma Shine, and to Ethel Brown to
their former positions or, if such positions no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions
and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of
pay which they have suffered by reason of the
discrimination found in this case, with interest
thereon.
WE WILL make whole any and all waitresses at
our Randolph, Massachusetts, dinner theatre for
any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of
the discriminatory reduction in waitress stations
and nightly assignments, with interest thereon.
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
DECISION
FINDINGS OF FACT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALTER H. MALONEY, JR., Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases came on for hearing before me in
Boston, Massachusetts, upon a consolidated unfair labor
practice complaint' issued by the Regional Director for
Region I and later amended, which alleges that the
Respondent, Chateau de Ville, Inc.,2 violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. The complaint case was later
consolidated with a representation case in which the
Charging Union seeks to set aside an election conducted at
I The principal docket entries in this case are as follows: Charge was
filed in Case I-CA-12058 by Hotel, Restaurant, Institutional Employees
and Bartenders Union, Local 26, AFL-CIO (herein sometimes called the
Union), and amended charge in the same case was filed by the Union on
August 31, 1976; charge was filed by the Union in Case I-CA-12135 on
August 19, 1976; charge was filed by the Union in Case 1-CA-12138 on
August 20, 1976; consolidated complaint issued on October 6, 1976, and
amended complaint issued on December 6, 1976; hearing was held in
Boston, Massachusetts, on April 4, 5, 6, and 18, and May 2 and 3, 1977; and
briefs were filed with me by the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and
the Respondent on or before June 20, 1977.
In Case I-RC-14552, relating to the Respondent's Randolph, Massachu-
setts, facility, a petition was filed by the Union on June 14, 1976; a
stipulated election agreement was approved by the Regional Director on
July 20, 1976; an election which the Union won was held on August 4, 1976;
and the union was certified on August 24, 1976.
In Case l-RC-14652, relating to the Respondent's Saugus, Massachu-
the Respondent's Saugus, Massachusetts, facility on Sep-
tember 24, 1976, because of objectionable conduct alleged-
ly committed by the same Respondent. More specifically,
the amended complaint alleges various acts of unlawful
interrogation of employees concerning their union activi-
ties and threats to discharge employees or reduce their
earnings through various techniques of assignment. The
amended complaint alleges that, following a union victory
in a representation election at the Randolph location, the
Respondent took reprisal on its Randolph waitresses by
discontinuing a practice of permitting them to have coffee
during coffeebreaks at company expense and by cutting
their working hours and the number of customers they
served so as to reduce their earnings. These latter
allegations form the basis of the Union's pending objec-
tions relating to the election at Saugus. The amended
complaint also alleges that the Respondent discharged two
of its Saugus employees, Thelma Shine and Ethel Brown,
because of their union activities. The Respondent denies
the specific allegations of 8(a)(1) conduct and objection-
able conduct. It further maintains that Thelma Shine
constructively quit her job by not showing up for work and
that Ethel Brown was discharged for failing to report for
work. Upon these contentions, the issues herein were
joined. 3
I. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ALLEGED
The Respondent operates five dinner theaters and
banquet facilities in New England, three of which are in the
Metropolitan Boston area. Its headquarters is at Framing-
ham, Massachusetts, some 15 miles west of Boston. The
two facilities principally involved in this proceeding are at
Saugus, which is northeast of Boston, and at Randolph,
which is due south of Boston. The Saugus and Randolph
Chateaus, as they are frequently called, are about 20 miles
apart.
At each of these chateaus, the Respondent has both
dinner theater and banquet facilities. At all locations, it
uses separate complements of waitresses for dinner theater
operations and for banquets, although both events take
place in the same building. While both sets of waitresses
have been found to be in the same bargaining unit, they
work under separate supervision at each location. The
events recited in this record pertain almost entirely to
dinner theater waitresses. Most, but by no means all, of the
dinner theatre waitresses work on a part-time basis. Their
setts, facility, a petition was filed on August 6, 1976; election was held on
September 24, 1976; Union's objections to the conduct of the election were
filed on September 29, 1976; Regional Director's Report on Objection was
filed on February 18, 1977; Order of the Board directing the consolidation
of Objection I for hearing with pending unfair labor practice complaint
issued April 19, 1977.
2 Respondent admits, and I find, that it is a Delaware corporation which
maintains an office and places of business, inter alia, at Saugus and
Randolph, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the business of operating
dinner theatres and banquet facilities. During the preceding year, its gross
annual volume of business exceeded $500,000. It annually receives goods
and supplies directly from points and places outside the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at these locations valued in excess of $50,000. Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec.
2(5) of the Act.
3 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
1162
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
employment is somewhat uncertain and sporadic since it
depends upon the number and kind of shows which are
booked at a particular chateau and how successful the
shows become in drawing customers.4 As might be
expected, much of the income of dinner theater waitresses
depends upon tips received from customers, and this
amount varies with the number of customers which each
waitress is assigned to serve on a particular evening.
Earnings also depend on the type of customer payment
arrangement that is in effect on a given night. When a show
is playing at which customers order dinners a la carte, a
waitress receives $1.32 per hour plus individual tips. If the
room is "pooled," all tips received by all waitresses on the
night in question become part of a common fund and are
distributed equally to all waitresses who work that night.
Occasionally, a group of customers may book dinner
reservations on a limited menu, in which event waitresses
would receive a $14 flat rate plus a fixed tip of 50 cents per
customer served. When business is lively at one location,
and comparatively slow at another, it is commonplace for
waitresses to be assigned on a nightly basis to work at a
chateau other than the one at which they normally work.
The union organizing campaign began in May 1976 at
the Saugus Chateau and spread from there to Randolph,
where it has been more successful to date than at the place
of its inception. The originator of the drive was Saugus
employee Thelma Shine, who after some prompting by
fellow waitresses agreed to assume leadership of the
organizing campaign, obtained authorization cards from
union representatives, and began to disseminate them.
Shine has a regular full-time position with another
employer and supplements her regular income by working
Saturday and Sunday evenings as a waitress. During the
first 5 months of 1976, she worked almost every Saturday
and Sunday evening, and occasionally worked a Friday
evening when she was especially requested to do so.
During May 1976, Shine distributed about 100 authori-
zation cards at the Saugus Chateau, either by giving cards
personally to individual waitresses or by giving a group of
cards to a waitress to be handed out in turn to other
employees. On one occasion, Shine handed a card to the
wine steward and saw him immediately thereafter in
conference with Supervisors Richard DiPerna and Michael
Addamo, after which Addamo came over and asked Shine
her name. She was not wearing her name tag and told him
who she was.
On June 7, Frank Skehill circulated a memorandum on
Respondent's letterhead to all employees which read as
follows: 5
An outside union has been trying to persuade you to
sign cards. They may be saying that they will use the
cards to get an election run by the National Labor
4 Waitress assignments are made locally at each chateau on a week-to-
week basis. Each Saturday. the supervisors of dinner theater waitresses
(Camerata at Saugus and Bogni at Randolph) obtain the number of dinner
theater reservations that have been made for the following week. They then
make up a list of assignments. running from Tuesday through the following
Sunday, for each night the theater is open. The theater almost always
operates on Saturday night and is almost always dark on Monday. There are
occasional Wednesday and Sunday matinees. It is the exception rather than
the rule for the theater to operate as much as 6 days in a given week.
Relations Board to determine whether you wish to be
represented by them.
DO NOT BE FOOLED
The union may attempt to use these cards to force
recognition without an election.
The choice is yours but we do not believe that it is in
your best interest to bring in the outside union.
Therefore, unless you are sure you want this union to
represent you,
DO NOT SIGN A CARD
Early in June, Shine visited the Framingham Chateau on
two or three occasions for the purpose of handbilling. One
such effort involved putting handbills on cars in the
employee parking area. George Keady, who is in charge of
kitchen operations at all of the chateaus, came over to her
to inquire what she was doing. Shortly thereafter, the local
police arrived and told her that she could not distribute
handbills, so she left. She inquired of a selectman of the
town of Framingham whether there was any local ordi-
nance which prevented her from handbilling and was told
that she was free to handbill so long as she did not go on
private property and did not block traffic. She returned on
or about June 12 to the Framingham Chateau in the
company of another waitress and began anew to distribute
handbills. On this occasion, Respondent's vice president,
Frank Skehill, and Supervisor John Olson ordered her off
the premises. Olson asked what her name was and she told
him. She also said that she worked at Saugus. Skehill's
reply was, "You used to." 6 Respondent or its guard
contractor maintains a number of guard dogs for security
purposes. Skehill asked Olson, in Shine's presence, "Have
you got the attack dogs ready in case she comes near the
parking lot?" At this point Shine simply said, "Forget it.
We're leaving."
Discriminatee Ethel Brown was another union activist at
the Saugus Chateau. Brown had worked at the Chateau
about 4-1/2 years and was a "five-nighter," meaning that
her initial agreement with the Respondent in coming to
work, as well as the continuing pattern of her employment,
called for a full-time employment when it was available
and not part-time employment. While the Respondent did
not, and could not, guarantee any waitress five nights of
employment each week, it maintained a complement of
full-time waitresses with whom it had an understanding
that, whenever possible, it would provide such waitresses
with full-time employment even though part-time waitress-
es might have to miss work opportunities. Brown became
upset in the spring of 1976 because she felt that the
Respondent was cutting back the hours of a number of
employees who depended entirely on their jobs at the
Occasionally, dinner reservations are canceled, or anticipated reservations
do not materalize, so it is necessary in midweek to cancel waitress
assignments which were made on the preceding Saturday.
5 Skehill is the Respondent's vice president.
a Skehill denies this utterance. I credit Shine's version. Shine's last day of
employment was Saturday evening, May 29, a few days before this incident.
On one other occasion she was seen by Saugus Kitchen Manager Herbie
Miller with union cards in her hands.
1163
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chateau for a livelihood. She obtained some union cards
and distributed them both at Saugus and at Randolph,
where her daughter, Tina O'Donnell, was employed as a
part-time waitress. She also held an organizing meeting at
an athletic field near the Framingham Chateau which was
attended by a group of waitresses employed at that
location. The meeting was broken up by local police.
On Saturday evening, June 19, Saugus waitress Barbara
Cardillo held a meeting in the office of Phyllis Camerata,
the supervisor of waitresses at Saugus. 7 Saturday is always
a particularly busy night at the chateau and many
waitresses are usually asked to work. Cardillo asked Brown
to come to the office. Other waitresses came in from time to
time after being summoned from the floor over a intercom
speaker by Camerata. It was a lengthy, acrimonious
session, punctuated by yelling and swearing. The purpose
of the meeting was to sift out rumors, charges, and
countercharges concerning the union campaign and to lay
bare who was responsible for the organizing effort and
various coincidental activities at Saugus. Cardillo accused
Brown of writing threatening notes and placing them on
employees' cars. Brown vehemently denied the accusation.
Camerata then stated to Brown, "Everytime I turn around,
your name keeps coming up.... I hear you are the
ringleader." Brown replied that she did not get into the
organizing campaign until she got upset about the cutting
of working nights of certain waitresses. When Brown
expressed sympathy with the underemployed waitresses,
Camerata asked her sharply, "What right have you got to
feel sorry for these people? I still say you are the
ringleader!"
Camerata then summoned waitress Rita Martin to the
office and asked her to repeat what she had said about
Brown. Martin stated that Brown had told her that she was
the ringleader and that she was going to see to it that the
big bosses at the chateau "got the girls' jobs back." Brown
replied to Martin's accusation that this was not quite what
she said. She admitted telling Martin that she would do her
best to get the Union in but denied saying that she was the
ringleader. Cardillo then stated that "Your partner is down
there and all she is doing is complaining about her station,"
whereupon Camerata summoned Brown's partners to the
office and asked her what she was doing by complaining
about her station. Brown's partner was asked if Brown had
told waitress Marie Polonais not to drive waitress Rita
Loveridge home because Loveridge had assertedly told the
big bosses who had signed and who had not signed union
authorization cards. The accusation was denied, so Marie
Polonais was summoned to the office. Camerata asked
Polonais who had told her not to talk with Rita Loveridge
because she had reported to management the employees
who had signed authorization cards. Polonais replied that
Rita Martin, among others, had done so, but she denied
that Ethel Brown had ever made that statement.
Camerata then asked Brown who had spread the
organizing campaign from Saugus to Randolph and
suggested that she and her daughter, Tina O'Donnell, a
I Camerata admits that she was present at the Chateau on this occasion
but denies that she was in attendance at the meeting in question, a meeting
which took place on a busy night in her office and which lasted for nearly an
hour. Her statement is incredible and I find, on the basis of other
corroborated testimony, that she was in fact present.
Randolph employee, were the culprits. When Brown
denied that her daughter was responsible for the union
effort at Randolph, Camerata asked who was responsible.
When Brown reiterated that it was not her daughter,
Camerata stated, "I should punch you out the back door."
The conversation then moved on to the subject of
waitresses Candy Erikkila and Joyce Lennon. Camerata
asked Brown if she had gone to their homes and had
threatened them. Brown said she had signed them up but
denied making any threats, so Camerata thereupon
summoned Erikkila from the restaurant. Camerata asked
Erikkila if it was not true that Brown had come to her
house, had threatened both her and Lennon to get them to
sign cards, and had said she would go to another waitress'
house and make her sign. Erikkila denied that Brown had
made any such statements. Camerata then called waitress
Roberta McCauley off the floor. She asked McCauley
whether Brown had told her that she was going to see
Frank Skehill to tell him that she (Brown) was the union
ringleader; that she was responsible for circulating union
cards; that she was going to get certain girls their jobs
back; and that she had flattened tires on employees'
automobiles. Brown broke in and flatly denied puncturing
any tires. From that point on, the discussion in the office
trailed off to other subjects and broke up when waitresses
returned to their stations to clean up in preparation for
going home.
Shortly before the waitresses were excused for the
evening, Camerata called a brief meeting for all of them in
the restaurant. She told them that what had happened
during the course of the evening had nothing to do with
union organization but was the result of the viciousness of
some of the girls. She asked Erikkila to state in the presence
of all the employees whether she was receiving calls at her
unlisted telephone number. Erikkila acknowledged this
fact, whereupon Camerata asked Rita Martin to stand up
and relate what had happened earlier that evening in the
office. Martin stated that Ethel Brown had admitted that
she was the union ringleader; that she was responsible for
the organizing campaign; and that she was going to see the
top bosses. This meeting broke up before Brown got a
chance for rebuttal.
Other conversations between management and the
Saugus waitresses on the subject of unionization took place
during the month of June. McCauley, who was a "five-
nighter" waitress, went to Camerata's office one Saturday
night, when schedules for the following week were
normally posted, and asked her why she had been cut back
from five nights. Camerata replied, "You know me and you
dare ask me that!" McCauley had signed a union card
about 10 days to 2 weeks previous to this conversation.
Selma Aronson, the supervisor of waitresses for all the
chateaus, and Cathy Simpson, a Saugus waitress, were
present. Aronson then told McCauley and Simpson to
leave the office because they both "made her sick." Later
on, McCauley spoke to Skehill, who was present at Saugus
on this occasion, and protested the cut back of her working
s Waitresses frequently were assigned to work in teams and many of
these teams become more or less permanent arrangements.
1164
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
hours. She asked him, "Why are you doing this to us
[meaning Cathy Simpson as well]?" Skehill replied that he
had received information that both were ringleaders. Both
denied the accusation. Later on the same evening, she and
Simpson were in the company office with Skehill and
Criola, the president of the Company. Skehill asked her if
they had signed union cards and both admitted that they
had done so. He then asked if they had read what they had
signed before doing so. Simpson replied that she had done
so. He then asked if they knew who else had signed and
they said that they were not sure. Skehill asked Simpson if
she had any cards with her. She looked in her purse and
found four or five. He then commented that signing a card
meant nothing and that it would not do them any good. He
asked both women if they knew that the man who has
previously been in charge of the Union had absconded
with union funds and had left it bankrupt. Their only reply
was to ask why the Company was taking it out on them for
organizing by refusing to schedule them for work. McCau-
ley told him that her job was her sole means of support and
that she was sick because she had been taken off the
schedule. Skehill's reply was a cheap remark, "Well, if my
wife kept getting calls that I was the biggest whoremaster in
town, wouldn't that create a doubt?" They then mentioned
to Skehill the names of three employees - Loveridge,
Marshall, and Cardillo - whom they knew had not signed
union cards.
A few days later, both employees were told they could
come in and go to work. McCauley was told to come in
early because both Aronson and Camerata wanted to talk
with her before work. She came in on Thursday evening,
June 16, and spoke with both supervisors in the customers'
ladies room. She was told on this occasion to keep her nose
clean and she would be able to continue working there.
The Union filed a representation petition for the
Randolph Chateau on June 14. On July 20, a conference
was held at the Board office to arrange for a stipulated
election, which was then scheduled to take place on August
4. Among those present on behalf of the Union were
O'Donnell, who served as union observer at the Randolph
election, and her mother, Brown. Four days later, on July
24, Brown was discharged from her position at the Saugus
Chateau under circumstances to be discussed infra.
I credit the testimony of Randolph waitress Doris Sakells
to the effect that she had a conversation with Aronson in
the Randolph mezzanine during a break, in the presence of
other Randolph employees, during which Aronson stated
that, if the Union were successful at the forthcoming
election, the employees would all be fired. I also credit her
testimony that, on another occasion during this same
period of time, the Randolph supervisor of waitresses, Judy
Bogni, stated to Sakells and other waitresses that, "If this is
what you want, if you're going to vote the Union in - the
days of the big stations will be all over." A few days before
the August 4 election, Skehill met with a few of the
waitresses. He began the meeting by asking how things
were going. When he received evasive or nonresponsive
answers, he told the waitresses that if the Union came in he
might be in a position where he would have to eliminate the
food service at the dinner theater. He explained that he had
big plans for the Randolph Chateau, including the booking
of some star performers, but these plans all depended on
whether or not the Union got in. He also stated that
Randolph waitresses might not get to work at the
Framingham Chateau for the forthcoming Wayne Newton
show if the Union got in. When waitress Betty Olivieri
asked why not, Skehill replied that this was because he did
not want to have any union girls working at Framingham.
He also told them that he could force waitresses to declare
their feelings about unionization by requiring them to wear
"Vote No" buttons. He then launched into a discourse to
the effect that unions were theoretically good but that they
had no place at the chateau. He stated that he could not
afford a union and was having trouble under present
conditions in meeting the payroll. He complained that it
cost him $60 or $75 every time he called up his lawyer. He
also made it known that he knew the identities of everyone
who had signed union cards and told the waitresses present
that it was up to them to relay his message to other
employees since he could not talk with them directly. He
asked them to do so. Both Skehill and Aronson, who was
also present, voiced the opinion that the waitresses at the
bottom and the middle of the schedule were for the Union
because they wanted to work the nights of the employees
who were at the top of the list. Kitchen Manager George
Keady was summoned by the Respondent to testify. Keady
admitted that he telephoned waitress Olivieri during this
period of time and asked her for information concerning
the progress of the union campaign.
The week of the election was a busy one at the Randolph
Chateau. About August 3 to 8, the Sandler and Young
Show was playing to capacity crowds, and it was necessary
for the Respondent to bring in a large number of waitresses
from other chateaus to wait on customers. On the day of
the election, Camerata was also present at Randolph. Not
long before the polls opened she spoke to Sakells and her
partner, Elsie Ferro, at the entrance to the dinner theater
and warned them, "You'd better go out there and make
your money now. Pretty soon, you won't be able to."
The Union won the August 4 election at Randolph and
was certified. On August 6, it filed a petition for an election
at Saugus. The Union lost the Saugus election by a wide
margin. The objections to that election are premised upon
events which took place at the Randolph Chateau
following the Randolph election and the August 6 filing of
the Saugus petition. One such objection relates to the
asserted denial to Randolph waitresses of coffee at
company expense during breaktime. The normal routine of
a dinner theater waitress requires her to arrive at work at 5
p.m. on a night she is scheduled to work. After setting up
the tables assigned to her or her team, there is often some
downtime before the first customers arrive at 6:30.
Waitresses who have finished their first round of chores are
accustomed to gathering on the mezzanine for a brief
coffeebreak. They have also been accustomed to getting
their coffee by going to an urn in the kitchen where coffee
is prepared by kitchen employees. After serving dinner, the
theatrical performance of the evening begins, at which time
waitresses retire from the dining room to the mezzanine to
await the intermission. After the show is over, they clean
the tables before leaving for home.
1165
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent admits that, both at Randolph and its other
chateaus, waitresses have long been permitted to drink
coffee at company expense during the initial break,
provided the coffee is ready and provided further that the
waitresses have completed setting up their tables. The gist
of the disagreement on this point is that the General
Counsel's witnesses contend, in effect, that coffee was
almost always available for this purpose at Randolph until
August 6, when it became unavailable. On this date, when
waitress Olivieri came to work, other waitresses told her
that she could no longer drink company coffee during the
break. Supervisor Bogni informed Olivieri that waitresses
could no longer smoke in the dinner theater while they
were setting the tables. About a week later, Olivieri went to
get some coffee from the urn in the kitchen and was told by
Kitchen Manager Tom Glover not to take any. The record
is clear that coffee was, in fact, not available to waitresses
at Randolph for a period of nearly 2 months following the
August 4 election, at which time it once again became
permissible for them to have a cup of coffee at company
expense while waiting for customers to arrive.
The General Counsel and the Charging Party maintain
that the Respondent took reprisal on union supporters
after the union victory at Randolph by cutting their
earning opportunities. This effort assertedly took two
forms - waitresses were assigned fewer nights to work
each week, and when they did come to work, table
assignments were so arranged that the number of custom-
ers (or stations) which they served were reduced, thereby
reducing the amount of their tips. Sakells testified that, in
the spring of 1976, she was regularly assigned to work at
another chateau on the average of once or twice a month.
Since her emergence as a member of the Randolph
employees' bargaining committee, she has not received any
assignment to work at another chateau in the 9 months
which have elapsed between the date of the election and
the date of the hearing in this case. Her testimony on this
point was neither contradicted nor explained by the
Respondent.
There is little question but that business at the Randolph
Chateau is seasonal, although a seasonal lull can be
interrupted by a presence of star theatrical personalities
and groups whenever they are booked. One such exception
was the Sandler and Young Show, which took place during
early August, a time when business is generally quite slow.
Business normally drops off after midJune. The Chateau is
normally closed during holiday weekends, such as Inde-
pendence Day and Labor Day, and business then picks up
again in late fall. It is generally good in December, up to
and including New Years' Eve. After the run of Sandler
and Young Show, an event which was roughly coincidental
with the Randolph election, business dropped off consider-
ably during the balance of August and throughout
September. As a result, work opportunities at Randolph
were more limited. It is within the framework of this
temporary decline that the General Counsel and the Union
maintain that a discrimination occurred.
With respect to the number of customers assigned to
Randolph waitresses following the representation election,
the supervisor of waitresses, Selma Aronson, admitted that
waitresses were being assigned fewer stations at Randolph
than they previously had received. She also explained that
the number of nights being assigned each week to
waitresses was being spread out more evenly among the 35
or so waitresses on the Randolph roster in an effort to
distribute work more evenly during a slack periods. During
their coffeebreaks on the mezzanine, the question of
unionization became a frequent topic of conversation
during the period preceding the election. The identity of a
group of union sympathizers at Randolph became general-
ly known among the work force, and the identity of those
opposing unionization, including the Respondent's choices
for company observers at the August 4 election, also
became known among the staff. It is a small inference to
draw that the Respondent also knew what its work force
knew and openly discussed on frequent occasion on
company premises.
An extrapolation drawn from the ponderous amount of
records placed in this record indicates that, beginning with
the week of August 16-22, Respondent assigned markedly
more nights of work to antiunion employees than to union
sympathizers and, on occasions in late August and early
October, brought in waitresses from other chateaus to work
at Randolph while regular Randolph employees were
working fewer nights than they had been working previous
to the election. Respondent maintains a roster in which
waitresses are listed in approximate though not strict order
of seniority. Respondent denies that it follows a practice of
assigning work by seniority and no contention is made by
the General Counsel that strict seniority has ever been
observed. Some waitresses are available only on weekends,
while others signed on with the understanding that they
would be frequently utilized, so a strict seniority rule would
be difficult to apply. However, the weekly assignment
sheets in evidence do indicate that during the period
covered by these records, placement high on the schedule
list meant, by and large, more work assignments while
lower ranking resulted in fewer assignments. Assignment
sheets for the weeks immediately following the August 4
election bear out Aronson's testimony, that work was
spread around more evenly throughout the employees on
the roster, with certain exceptions previously indicated.
During the preelection campaign at the Saugus Chateau,
the Union held two meetings which took place about a
week apart at the New England Oyster House. About 50 or
so Saugus employees attended. At the second meeting, six
waitresses from the Randolph Chateau attended. They
mingled with the Saugus waitresses and discussed with
them the various events which were taking place at
Randolph, including their complaints about the discontin-
uance of coffee and their feeling that union sympathizers
were losing work opportunities because of cutting back on
"stations" and fewer nightly assignments.
II. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
A. The Discharge of Thelma Shine
Shine had worked as a waitress at the Saugus Chateau
for approximately 3 years. The schedules contained in this
record indicate that she worked almost every week in the
first 5 months of 1976 and normally worked both Saturday
and Sunday nights. Her union activities started early in
1166
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
May and were extensive in character. There is no question
but that she was the leader of the in-house organizing
effort. On Saturday evening, May 29, Camerata asked if
any waitresses who were scheduled to work the following
night would volunteer to take off because dinner theater
reservations had not come up to expectations and there
would not be enough work for every waitress who had been
scheduled. Asking employees to volunteer to miss an
assignment was not an uncommon occurrence at Saugus.
Shine agreed to miss work on Sunday, May 30, and did so.
As she had another position, Shine normally found out
about her assignments for the following weekend either by
calling the Chateau and speaking with Camerata or by
asking her waitress partner whether or not she was on the
schedule. The record of assignments in evidence indicates
that Shine was originally scheduled to work her normal
tour of duty on Saturday and Sunday evenings, June 5 and
6. However, midway in the week, she phoned Camerata to
inquire about her assignment for the following weekend
and was told that she would have the weekend off because
the Chateau was not busy. The records in evidence further
indicate that the weekend in question was a busy one and
almost every waitress on the roster of the Saugus Chateau
worked either one or both nights.
The following Wednesday, June 9, Shine again called to
find out what her assignment was the following week. She
complained to Camerata that she had not worked the
previous weekend while waitresses junior to her were given
assignments and waitresses from other chateaus had been
called in to work. She asked Camerata if there was any
other reason why she was not getting an assignment.
Camerata's reply was, "Since when do I have to call girls
by seniority?" She also told Shine there would be no
assignment the following weekend. The record for that
weekend indicated that practically every waitress on the
Saugus roster received an assignment.
The weekend of June 12 is the one, noted above, during
which Shine met Skehill while she was handbilling at the
Framingham Chateau. At this time, Skehill made the
remark credited to him that Shine "used to be" a Saugus
employee. From that point on, Shine never received
another assignment on the Saugus assignment schedule.
Respondent's position vis-a-vis Shine's termination was, to
say the least, ambivalent. Her immediate supervisor,
Camerata, testified at the hearing in April 1977 that she
still regarded Shine as an employee and that the reason she
never worked was she never showed up for work and never
called in to "apologize" for what she said during the June 9
telephone conversation. Counsel for the Respondent took
the position in open court that Shine was a voluntary quit,
whereupon Camerata revised her testimony accordingly.
In summary, Shine was the in-house leader of an
organizing campaign in a place of business operated by a
respondent who, as discussed infra, has given independent
evidence of strong animus. Her public effort for the Union
at Framingham, as well as her activities at Saugus, were
well known. The undenied fact is that, after May 29, 1976,
she was never given an assignment, although at no time
9 Among the various items in Addomi's testimony is a statement that,
although he was the dinner theater manager at Saugus for a period of 19
months, he did not even know who Brown was. Brown was a "five-nighter"
either before or after that date did she ever state to the
Respondent that she no longer wanted to work. Indeed, her
final words with Camerata amounted to a complaint that
she was not being given any work. Credited testimony is to
the effect that, on or about June 12, she was told by
Respondent's vice president that she used to be an
employee at Saugus, a statement which is wholly inconsis-
tent with the Respondent's current defense. Failing or
refusing to schedule work for an employee and then
claiming that she quit her job because she never showed up
to do work to which she was not assigned is a patent
absurdity. Yet this is the essence of the Respondent's
defense. All of these factors, including the Respondent's
explanation of them, impress upon Shine's case the
unmistakable hallmark of a discriminatory discharge, and I
so find and conclude.
B. The Discharge of Ethel Brown
Brown was an active in-house organizer at Saugus and at
Randolph and the Respondent was well aware of this fact.
I credit her testimony that she told Dinner Theater
Manager Michael Addomi early in the campaign that she
was going to try to get the Union in because she was upset
at the fact that a number of waitresses who depended upon
their jobs as their principal means of support were losing
nights of work.9 Brown was the principal target of an
inquiry which took place in Camerata's office on the
evening of June 19. This was a wild scene which lasted for
about an hour. As set forth in great detail above, Camerata
and a waitress Cardillo angrily interrogated and argued
with several waitresses in an effort to get at the source of
the organizing effort and to place the blame on Brown both
for the union campaign and for various acts of vandalism
which were occurring in the parking lot adjacent to the
restaurant. Camerata even threatened to punch Brown
during the course of this donnybrook.
The asserted reason given for Brown's discharge on July
24 was that she had missed work without calling in
Wednesday afternoon, June 9, when she was scheduled to
work the matinee performance at the dinner theater.
Added reasons were that she had also failed to report her
prospective absences from work at the Saturday evening
performances on July 10 and 17. According to the
Respondent's records for the week ending June 13, Brown
was not in fact scheduled to work the Wednesday matinee
of June 9. The record also reflects, and Camerata testified,
that in the ensuing 5 weeks Brown was given less work than
she would normally have been assigned as a punishment
for missing the June 9 matinee. However, Camerata never
spoke with Brown about this alleged default and never
informed her of the reason for her decision to withhold
normal working days from Brown's schedule. In other
words, Brown was being secretly disciplined for missing an
assignment which in fact she had never been given. Such
an explanation lends objective credence to Brown's
subjective belief that she was being punished for union
activities.
waitress who had been at Saugus for more than 4 years. Such testimony by
Addomi is incredible on its face and lends a patina of unreliability to the
rest of his testimony.
1167
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Camerata was not present at the Saugus Chateau in the
early part of July because she was on vacation. Aronson
substituted for her. Brown was not aware of any assign-
ment on July 10 until the morning of that day. She had
made other plans for the evening and phoned Herbie
Miller, the kitchen manager, to say that she would not be in
to work. It was standard practice for waitresses who were
unable to work to leave word to this effect with the kitchen
manager if they could not reach Camerata. Miller, an
admitted supervisor still in the Respondent's employ, was
not summoned to refute Brown's testimony on this point or
to deny that in fact she had called in, so I conclude, under
well-established evidentiary law and Board precedent, that
his testimony, if presented, would have corroborated
Brown. Aronson made no inquiry as to the reason for
Brown's absence and simply divided the tables to which
she would have been assigned to other waitresses.
On July 17, Brown was ill and her daughter, O'Donnell,
phoned the restaurant to inform them of her illness and of
the fact that she would not be coming to work. Again this
underlying fact is not challenged. What is contended is that
Aronson did not receive the message, a totally different
matter from the allegation that Brown did not in fact call
in.l1 When Camerata returned from her vacation, she was
told of these two absences. During the same week, Brown's
union activities surfaced again, this time as a member of
the employee delegation which appeared at the National
Labor Relations Board Regional Office to discuss the
terms of a stipulated election at Randolph. Within 4 days,
after this meeting, Brown was discharged.
On Saturday, July 24, Camerata determined to discharge
Brown if she reported to work at 5 p.m. for her normal
weekly assignment. Camerata's testimony on the final
interview varied from page to page in the record. I credit
Brown's version (which was also one of Camerata's
versions), that when she reported for work she was
confronted immediately by Camerata who told her that her
services would no longer be required. When she was asked
why, Camerata gave no response.
The Brown discharge involves not only independent
animus and company knowledge of her lead role played in
the organizing campaign, it includes animus directed
personally at Brown, a prelude to discharge which involved
a reduction of her working hours, a failure by supervision
to give her a reason for the termination at the time of
discharge, and conflicting explanations on the record as to
the events of the discharge. The discharge also is punctu-
ated by timing which indicates that it was prompted by
Brown's appearance at the Board office at a Representa-
tion case conference which occurred just 5 days before the
disputed event. In light of these factors, it is clear that Ethel
Brown was discharged solely because of her union
sympathies and activities and that the discharge violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I so find and conclude.
10 Camerata testified that she would never fire an employee who could
not work and gave timely notice of an intended absence.
C. Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
The Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act by various acts and utterances which are set forth
below:
(a) Skehill's implied threat, uttered to Shine at the
Framingham Chateau, to summon guard dogs to prevent
her from engaging in union activity, violates Section
8(a)(l).
(b) The Respondent's action in calling the police to keep
Shine from engaging in union activity at the Framingham
Chateau. As an employee, or even as an illegally dis-
charged employee, she had a right to come on company
property to distribute handbills during her off-duty hours,
and any interference with this right amounted to a
violation of Section 8(aX I).
(c) Camerata's interrogation of Brown and other employ-
ees concerning union activities, which took place at the
"conference" in her office on June 19, was coercive and
illegal.
(d) Camerata's threat to Brown, implicit in the statement
that she ought to "punch her out the back door," is a
classic violation of the Act, the unlawfulness of which
needs no elaboration from me.
(e) The Respondent's action in cutting back the work
hours of McCauley and Simpson in reprisal for union
activities is a violation of Section 8(a)(1). Skehill's interro-
gation of these employees concerning their union activities
and the union activities of others likewise violates Section
8 (aX 1) of the Act.
(f) The statements made by Aronson and Camerata to
McCauley and Simpson that they could continue to work if
they "kept their noses clean" is an implied threat to
discharge employees for engaging in union activities and is
a violation of the Act.
(g) Aronson's threat, made in the mezzanine of the
Randolph Chateau, that employees would be fired if the
Union came in, violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(h) Bogni's statement to waitresses, that if the Union
came in the day of the big station would be over, is a threat
to reduce earning opportunities and violates Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
(i) Skehill's statements to employees just before the
election that the outcome of the election would determine
whether he would provide job opportunities at Randolph
through booking shows which would be drawing crowds;
his threat that he might eliminate food service at Randolph
in the event of a union victory; his statement that he could
force waitresses to declare their sympathies by requiring
that they wear "Vote No" buttons; and his request to
waitresses that they give this message to other employees
all constitute threats which violate Section 8(a)(l) of the
Act.
(j) Skehill's statement that he knew which employees had
signed union cards created an impression of surveillance of
union activities which violates Section 8(aX I).
(k) Camerata's statement to employees, just before the
polls opened for the Randolph election, that they had
better make their money now because they would not be
1168
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
able to after the election was over is a threat which violates
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(1) Keady's inquiries to Olivieri over the telephone
concerning the progress of the Union's organizing cam-
paign is illegal interrogation which violates Section 8(aXI)
of the Act.
D. Violations of the Act Which Also Constitute
Objectionable Conduct
On more than one occasion before the August 4 election
at Randolph, the Respondent, through various high-rank-
ing officials and supervisors, threatened to reduce the size
of waitresses' stations, to lower their earning capacity
generally, or to discharge them if the Union won. While
events which took place before the filing of the Saugus
petition on August 6 cannot constitute conduct which
warrants the setting aside of that election, statements
occurring before the commencement of the Goodyear"
period can be relied on to explain or illuminate events
which occur during the critical period for the purpose of
determining whether such conduct is objectionable. The
same rationale applies respecting the use of such state-
ments to determine whether the same acts and conduct
amount to unfair labor practices or are merely business
decisions which are made to facilitate the efficient running
of an establishment.
Having warned employees before the Randolph election
what would happen to them after the election if the Union
won, it is not out of place to believe the Respondent would
then go ahead and carry out its threats. Respondent admits
cutting the number of stations assigned to each employee
during the weeks which followed the Randolph election. Its
records reflect a disproportionate drop in nightly assign-
ments to leading union employees as compared with
assignments given during the same period of time to
antiunion sympathizers. Respondent normally experienced
late summer and early autumn lulls in business in other
years. However, its response on other occasions was not to
spread out work so as to lower the nightly earnings of
employees who did show up for work. Nor was its response
in other years to spread around assignments equally to high
and low seniority employees, despite the surface appear-
ance of equity which this practice might have to commend
it. In the past Respondent gave its regular full-time (or
nearly full-time) employees as much work as possible and
left the part-time employees to abide the consequences. In
this way, the Respondent had kept faith with "five-
nighters" and others who depended upon their jobs at the
Chateau as their principal means of livelihood. Its practice
in the summer of 1976 was a marked variation from its past
practice. It is quite clear that the Respondent's postelection
actions and its preelection statements were part of the same
pattern of conduct and that its deeds were merely a
fulfillment of its words. The intended effect was to lower
the earnings of Randolph employees in reprisal for their
support of the Union at the August 4 election. Accordingly,
these actions amount to discrimination in hire and tenure
of employment which violates Section 8(aX I) and (3) of the
Act.
Whatever the Respondent's abstract policy may have
been concerning permission given to waitresses to drink
company coffee while waiting for customers to arrive, the
practice established over the years changed markedly in
August and September and no coffee was in fact made
available during these months and up until mid-October.
This temporary discontinuance of a company benefit,
following hard on the heels of a union victory at Randolph,
can be explained only as an additional reprisal for union
support by a majority of Randolph employees. According-
ly, it violates Section 8(aX 1) and (3) of the Act.
The record herein leaves no doubt that there are
common labor relations policies and common supervision
between the Saugus and Randolph Chateaus, as well as
other chateaus, and that there is considerable interchange
of employees among these locations during peak periods,
despite the fact that their geographical separation makes
them separate bargaining units. Moreover, a preelection
meeting of Saugus employees which was attended by
Randolph waitresses was an occasion at which both groups
discussed postelection events at Randolph and Saugus
voters learned what was happening to their counterparts at
Randolph. As the Respondent's acts and conduct at
Randolph were violative of the Act and they occurred in
August and September after the filing of the Saugus
petition, they amount to objectionable conduct affecting
the outcome of the Saugus election and form a basis for
setting aside the Saugus election and the direction of a
rerun election.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record herein considered as a whole, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Chateau de Ville, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Hotel, Restaurant, Institutional Employees and
Bartenders Union, Local 26, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Thelma Shine and Ethel Brown
because of their membership in, and activities on behalf of,
Hotel, Restaurant, Institutional Employees and Bartenders
Union, Local 26, AFL-CIO; by discontinuing the practice
of permitting employees to utilize at coffeebreaks coffee
belonging to the Respondent; and by reducing the number
of nights of employment and the size of waitresses' stations,
and by failing and refusing to give Doris Sakells any
assignments at any dinner theaters other than the one to
which she is permanently assigned, all in reprisal for the
action of Randolph employees in supporting the Union
and in selecting the Union as their bargaining agent, the
Respondent herein violated Section 8(a)3) of the Act.
4. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu-
sion of Law 3; by threatening employees with reduction of
earnings and loss of employment in the event of a union
victory; by interrogating employees concerning their union
II Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 138 NLRB 453 (1962).
1169
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
activities and the union activities of other employees; by
threatening employees with physical violence because they
were engaging in union activities; by creating in the minds
of employees the impression that their union activities were
under surveillance; and by requesting employees to
campaign against the Union, the Respondent herein
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By reducing the number of nights of employment
and the size of waitresses' stations at the Randolph
Chateau and by discontinuing the practice of permitting
waitresses at coffeebreaks to drink coffee prepared by the
Respondent, all taken in reprisal for the action of the
employees at Randolph in selecting the Union as their
bargaining agent, the Respondent herein engaged in
objectionable conduct which effected the results of an
election conducted on September 24, 1976, among certain
of its employees in a bargaining unit located at Saugus,
Massachusetts.
6. The unfair labor practices and objectionable conduct
recited above in Conclusions of Law 3, 4, and 5 have a
close, intimate, and substantial effect on the free flow of
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed
certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other
actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of
the Act. The violations of Section 8(a)(1) which have been
alleged and proved in this case have been repeated and
pervasive. Moreover, the Respondent has also committed
certain violations of Section 8(a)(3) which go to the heart of
the Act. Accordingly, I will recommend to the Board a so-
called broad 8(aXI) order, designed to suppress any and all
violations of that Section of the Act. J. C. Penney Co., 172
NLRB 1279, fn. 1 (1968); Adam & Eve Cosmetics, Inc., 218
NLRB 1317 (1975). I will recommend that Thelma Shine
and Ethel Brown be reinstated to their former or substan-
tially equivalent employment and that they be made whole
for any loss of pay which they have suffered by reason of
the discriminations practiced against them, said sums to be
computed in accordance with the Woolworth' 2 formula,
with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum. I will further
recommend that Doris Sakells be made whole for the loss
of earnings she suffered by reason of the refusal of the
Respondent herein to give her periodic assignments at
other dinner theaters, with interest thereon at 6 percent per
annum. I will recommend that the Respondent be required
to make whole all of its Randolph, Massachusetts, dinner
theater waitresses for any loss of earnings which they may
have suffered by reason of the action of the Respondent in
reducing waitress stations and discriminatorily assigning
work nights, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum,
provided that no employee shall be required to repay to the
Respondent any sum of money by reason of the recompu-
tation of earnings called for by this recommended Order. I
12 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
13 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
will also require that the Respondent be required to post
the usual notice, informing its employees of their rights and
of the results of these cases.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record herein considered as whole, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following
recommended:
ORDER 13
Respondent, Chateau de Ville, Inc., Saugus and Ran-
dolph, Massachusetts, its officers, directors, supervisors,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their
union sentiments and activities and the union sentiments
and activities of other employees.
(b) Threatening employees with discharge or reduction
of earnings because they selected the Union as their
bargaining agent.
(c) Threatening employees with physical violence be-
cause they are engaging in union activities.
(d) Discontinuing company benefits and reducing work
schedules and assignments in order to take reprisal upon
employees for engaging in union activities.
(e) Creating in the minds of employees the impression
that their union activities are subject to company surveil-
lance.
(f) Requesting or directing employees to campaign
against the Union.
(g) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees in their hire or tenure of employment because
they have joined or supported Hotel, Restaurant, Institu-
tional Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 26, AFL-
CIO, or any other labor organization.
(h) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed to
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Thelma Shine and to Ethel Brown full and
immediate reinstatement to their former positions or, in the
event that such positions no longer exist, to substantially
equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority
or to other rights which they formerly enjoyed.
(b) Make whole Thelma Shine, Ethel Brown, and Doris
Sakells for any loss of pay they have suffered by reason of
the discrimination found herein, in the manner described
above in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Make whole all Randolph employees for any loss of
pay they have suffered by reason of the discrimination
found herein relating to the reduction of the number of
waitress stations and a reduction of the number of nights of
employment, in the manner described above in the section
entitled "The Remedy."
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1170
CHATEAU DE VILLE, INC.
(d) Post at its Randolph and Saugus, Massachusetts,
establishments copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 14 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region I, after being duly signed
by a representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports and all other records
14 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has
taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Objection I filed by the
Union in Case I-RC-14652 be, and it hereby is, sustained,
and the election conducted in that case is hereby set aside;
that Case l-RC-14652, be, and it hereby is, severed from
the complaint cases herein and remanded to the Regional
Director for Region 1; and that the said Regional Director
be, and hereby is, directed to conduct a second election
therein at such time as, in his judgment, a free and fair
election can be held.
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
1171