Hospitality Motor Inn, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

O()SPITAI ITY MOTOR INN, INC
Hospitality Motor Inn, Inc. and Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders Union, Local #235.
Case 7-CA-16351
July 28, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PFNELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On April 18, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Jerry B. Stone issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel
filed limited cross-exceptions and a brief in support
thereof, and Respondent filed an answering brief to
the General Counsel's cross-exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Hospitality
Motor Inn, Inc., Lansing, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
i Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Hoard's estahlished policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERRY B. STONE, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding, under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, was heard pursuant to due notice
on February 5, 1980, in Lansing, Michigan.
The charge was filed on May 7, 1979. The complaint
in this matter was issued on June 4, 1979. The issues con-
cern whether Respondent has refused to bargain with the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
by sending a letter declining a request for continuation of
bargaining, and by, thereafter, failing and refusing to
meet and bargain with the Union.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to partici-
pate in the proceeding. Briefs have been filed by the
General Counsel and Respondent and have been consid-
ered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following:'
FINDINGS F01 FACI
1. I HE BUSINESS OF I HI- ILMPIOI.NR 2
Hospitality Motor Inn, Inc., Respondent, is, and has
been at all times material herein, a corporation duly or-
ganized under, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the
State of Ohio.
At all times material herein, Respondent has main-
tained its principal office and place of business at 2100
Terminal Tower, Cleveland, Ohio, herein called the
Ohio place of business. Respondent also maintains other
facilities in the State of Michigan. Respondent is, and has
been at all times material herein, engaged as an innkeeper
in the providing of lodging for transit guests and the fur-
nishing of foods and beverages to the general public. Re-
spondent's facility located at 3600 Dunckel Road, Lan-
sing, Michigan, is the only facility involved in this pro-
ceeding.
During the year ending December 31, 1978, which
period is representative of its operations during all times
material hereto, Respondent in the course and conduct of
its business operations, had a gross volume of business in
excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be trans-
ported and delivered to its Lansing, Michigan, facility
goods and materials valued in excess of $1,000 of which
goods and materials valued in excess of $1,000 were
transported and delivered to its facility in Lansing,
Michigan, directly from points located outside the State
of Michigan.
As conceded by Respondent and based on the forego-
ing, it is concluded and found that Respondent is, and
has been at all times material herein, an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOL.VED3
Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union,
Local 235, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
I At the hearing. statements of counsel and certain letters indicate that
Respondent Hospitality Motor Inn. Inc. continues as the official corpo-
rate name but that Respondent is doing business a' Harley Hotels. Inc.
which is a div.ision of Helmsley Hotel,.
The facts herein are based on the pleadings and admissions therein
' The facts are hased on the pleadings and admissions therein
250 NLRB No. 155
I X4
I)t CISI()NS ()F NATI()NAI. I.AB()R RI.AlII()NS B()ARI)
111. '1111t UNtF,\IR I ABOR I'RA( i CICS
A. Prcliminarry Is.s.ues 4
I. Supervisory status
At all times material herein, Edward C. Jensas has oc-
cupied the position manager of personnel services, and
has been and is now a supervisor of Respondent, within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and its agent.
2. Appropriate bargaining unit
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 3600
Dunckel Road, Lansing, Michigan, including all lodging,
food, and beverage employees, but excluding all office
clerical employees, managerial employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. The certification
On or about March 3, 1978, a majority of employees in
the unit described above, by a secret-ballot election pur-
suant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election approved by the Regional Director for Region
7 of the Board in Case 7-RC-14663, designated and se-
lected Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders
Union, Local 235 as their exclusive representative for the
purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent, and
on or about March 13, 1978, the aforesaid Regional Di-
rector certified said Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the employees described
above.
4. The majority status of the Union
The facts are clear that the evidence presented in this
proceeding does not establish that the Union was not and
is not the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the employees in the above referred to appropriate
collective-bargaining unit. Rather, Respondent counsel
stated in effect that its defense was related to the estab-
lishment of a "good faith" doubt of the Union's majority
status. The same defense may be said to raise an issue of
whether the "presumption" of majority status flowing
from a certification has been rebutted. The evidence re-
lating to Respondent's "good faith" doubt defense is in-
sufficient to establish a "good faith" doubt and is insuffi-
cient to overcome the presumption of majority status of
the Union flowing from the certification of the Union as
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the above referred to appropriate bargaining
unit.
Thus, the overall evidence reveals that the bargaining
unit has approximately 120 employees, that at the time of
the National Labor Relations Board representation elec-
tion held on March 13, 1978, the election tally of the
votes reflected that 56 employees had voted for, and 43
employees had voted against, the Union. Respondent's
witnesses Weld, Hoffman, and Green testified in compos-
' The facts are based on Ihe pleadings and admisions Ihcrein.
ite effect that they had discussions concerning the Union
with some 33 employees, that such discussions occurred
prior to Respondent's April 1979 refusal to bargain with
the Union, and that during their discussions the employ-
ees expressed dissatisfaction with union representation.
The testimonial evidence does not reveal that the em-
ployees, alluded to by Respondent's witnesses, had been
employees who had previously been for the Union or
had voted for union representation. Some of the testimo-
ny clearly was to the opposite effect, that such employ-
ees had always been opposed to the Union. Under such
circumstances and considering the closeness of the
March 13, 1978, representation vote, such evidence is in-
sufficient to establish a change in employees' desires for
representation by the Union and is insufficient to rebut
the presumption of majority status accorded the Union as
a result of the March 1978 certification as exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative. Further, such evidence
is insufficient to reveal objective criteria as a basis for a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status. s
B. The Unfair Labor Practice., the Request fbr
Bargaininng, the Refusal
The General Counsel alleges and Respondent denies
that since on or about April 18, 1979, and continuing to
date, Respondent, through its agent Jenss, has failed and
refused to bargain in good faith with the Union by the
following acts:
a. Sending a letter to the Charging Party stating as fol-
lows:
We arc in receipt of your letter of April 9, 1979 re-
questing a continuation of bargaining. By your own
admission in the Lansing Journal dated March 14,
1979, the union no longer represents a majority of
employeei. Therefore, the company respectfully de-
clines your invitation to meet again.
b. Failing and refusing since said date to meet and bar-
gain with the Union.
The facts relating to such issues are set out herein.
On April 9, 1979, the Union sent the following letter
to the Respondent:
April 9, 1979
Mr. Edward C. Jenss
Manager, Human Resources
Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc.
2100 Terminal Tower
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Dear Mr. Jenss:
On March 7, 1979. Local 235 sent a certified
letter to you requesting a Bargaining Session as
soon as possible to continue negotiations.
As of todays date April 9, 1979, Local 235 has
not received an answer by mail or by telephone to
our request.
: lerrtll .Muchllm, C(onlpun,. 173 NL.RIt 148(1I 96h9)
119()
li()Sl'TAILITY M()O()R INN. INC
I am again requesting a bargaining session as
soon as possible to continue the negotiations.
Sincerely Yours,
William E. Weld
Financial Secretary-Treasurer
Business Agent
Local 235
CC: Dale Stormer, International Representative
On April 18, 1979, Respondent replied to the Union's
April 9, 1979. letter as is revealed by the following:
April 18, 1979
Mr. William E. Weld
Hotel and Restaurant Employees &
Bartenders Union, Local No. 235
422 N. Walnut Street
Lansing, Ml 48933
Dear Mr. Weld:
We are in receipt of your letter of April 9, 1979 re-
questing a continuation of bargaining By your own
admission in the Lansing Journal dated March 14,
1979, the union no longer represents a majority of
employees. Therefore, the Company respectfully
declines your invitation to meet again.
Sincerely
Edward C. Jenss
Manager, Personnel Services
ECJ/mo
cc Mr. Paul R. Ryan
The facts are clear that Respondent has, since April
18, 1979, continued to refuse to recognize and bargain
with the Union. Thus, on October 9, 1979, the Union
sent a letter to Helmsley Speer, Inc., attention Alan
Cambra, referred to the Union's certified status at Hospi-
tality Motor Inn in Lansing, to Helmsley as the successor
to Hospitality Motor Inn, and to pending unfair labor
cases, and requested bargaining. On October 19, 1979,
Alan K. Cambra for Harley Hotels, Inc., replied to the
October 9, 1979, union letter, and in effect referred to a
hearing held on March 6, 1979, before Administrative
Law Judge Winkler, and that a resolution of such
charges should be forthcoming. On or about November
30, 1979, the Union sent an undated letter to Alan K.
Cambra of Harley Hotels, Inc., in reference to Hospital-
ity Inn, Lansing, Michigan, and a recent decision by Ad-
ministrative Law Judge Winkler, and requested a bar-
gaining session. On December 12, 1979, Respondent's
counsel responded to the aforesaid undated union letter,
referred to the charge involved in the instant case as
being the subject of litigation before the National Labor
Relations Board, and the decision of Administrative Law
Judge Winkler and set forth that Respondent was in the
process of filing exceptions to such decision, set forth
that as to Case 7-CA-16351 Respondent had been ad-
vised that a hearing date had been set in January 1980.
Such letter further set forth a refusal to submit informa-
tion requested and a refusal to resume bargaining.
The facts are clear that Respondent. since on or about
April 18, 1979, has refused to bargain with the Union
The only issue is whether Respondent had a good-faith
doubt based on objective criteria to afford it a defense
for such refusal to bargain. As has previously been indi-
cated, the testimony by Respondent's witnesses, as to
statements made to supervisors or heard by supervisors
as to employee dissatisfaction with the Union, is not suf-
ficient to reveal a good-faith doubt as to the Union's ma-
jority status. There remains for consideration the evalua-
tion of alleged statements made by union officials to Re-
spondent officials, apparently before March 1979, and al-
leged statements alluded to in a newspaper story.
Thus, a newspaper article written by Patrick J. Fitz-
gerald, and published on March 14, 1979., alluded to
statements by union official Weld as is revealed by the
following excerpt therefrom:
Union business agent William Weld said only 32
of the 120 workers employed at Hospitality during
the election last March, and only one member of 12
on the original bargaining committee, are still em-
ployed by Hospitality.
"People have quit under the harassment," said
Weld. "The company is trying to break the union
before we get contract."
It is noted that Respondent's April 18, 1979, letter, al-
luded to Weld as having admitted as revealed by such
newspaper article that the Union no longer represents a
majority of employees. It is clear from a reading of such
newspaper article that it does not reveal an indicated ad-
mission that the Union no longer represented a majority
of employees. Rather, the newspaper article as a whole
reveals complaints and contentions that Respondent was
engaging in unfair labor practices and trying to break the
Union. Considering all of this, such newspaper article
does not constitute objective criteria upon which a good-
faith doubt of the Union's majority status can be based.
In this regard, I note that the newspaper article alludes
to a turnover of employees, that only 32 of the employ-
ees in the appropriate bargaining unit of employees at the
time of the March 1978 representation election remained
employed in March 1979, and that only one member of
the bargaining committee of 12 in 1978 remained em-
ployed in March 1979. Ryan, for Respondent, testified to
the effect that a high turnover of employees as occurred
in 1978 was not abnormal as is revealed by the following
excerpt from his credited testimony:
Q. This was in early April of '79?
A. Correct. There were only 24 employees that
had previously-give or take one or two, it was in
the 24 area.
Q. Was this an abnormal turnover rate during
this period?
A. Not at all. We experience a great deal of turn-
over, it's quite high. I think that year it was around
160 or 170 percent.
Q. What accounts for this high turnover rate if
you know?
1191
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELA'I'IONS O()ARD
A. Students we employ and mothers and parents
that work while their children are in school and
then they take the summers off and a lot of students
are employed.
Considering the above, a normal high turnover of em-
ployees does not warrant a belief or presumption that a
change in attitude toward the Union would result. Thus,
such references to a high turnover of employees and a
high turnover of employees as was actual, in the context
that such turnover of employees as was normal, does not
constitute objective criteria supporting a basis for a
good-faith doubt of the majority status of the Union. Nor
do such facts when coupled with statenments of employ-
ees as revealed by the testimony in this proceeding,
reveal a change in their attitude toward the Union. Thus,
all such facts do not reveal objective criteria to support a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status.
There remains for consideration whether the union of-
ficials made statements to Respondent's officials at a bar-
gaining session, apparently in March 1979, that constitut-
ed objective criteria to support a good-faith doubt of the
Union's majority status.
Respondent's main item of evidence concerning such
alleged statements is revealed by the following excerpt
from Ryan's testimony:
Q. Now, were you present at the last negotiating
session of the union and company?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Did you hear either Mr. Weld or Mr. Stormer
accuse the company of dissipating their majority in
the union at Hospitality?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you recall what Mr. Stormer said first?
A. I honestly-I was trying to put it in my mind
of whether it was Mr. Weld or Mr. Stormer, but
they had felt that they no longer had a majority and
that was part of the reason-he was concerned of
the fact that he no longer had a majority. I honestly
can't remember the words verbatim but that was an
issue at that point.
Respondent also elicited testimony from union official
Weld as follows:
Q. At the last negotiation session, you were pres-
ent, were you not, that was held with Hospitality
Motor Inns?
A. You'll have to speak up, I can't hear you.
Q. Were you present at the last negotiating ses-
sion of Harley or Hospitality Motor Inns?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall a discussion about or in
which you stated that the company had through
unfair labor practices, dissipated your majority
status in the hotel, you accused the company of dis-
sipating your majority at the hotel, do you recall
that?
A. No. I don't.
Q. You don't recall that. You deny that you said
that?
A. I don't recall it.
Q. You wouldn't deny it though, would you?
A. I just don't recall it.
Q. You wouldn't deny that Mr. Stormer said that
we had dissipated the majority over there at the
hotel?
A. I just don't remember.
Considering the foregoing and all the facts, I am not
persuaded that the testimony of Ryan is of sufficient pro-
bative value to establish that a union official admitted
loss of majority status by the Union. Ryan's testimony
was obviously weak and conclusionary. Considering the
Union's April 9, 1979, request for bargaining, I am per-
suaded that Respondent, had the Union admitted such
loss of majority status at the last bargaining session,
would have alluded to such admission and not to the al-
leged admission as having been alluded to in the newspa-
per article. Considering the above and all of the facts,
the facts do not reveal objective criteria to support a
good-faith doubt of the Union's majority status.
Considering the above, the facts are clear that Re-
spondent, by its refusal to bargain on April 18, 1979, and
thereafter, has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. 6
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR t ABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's oper-
ations described in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it will be recommended that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent has refused the Union's
request for meeting and bargaining, in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, it will be recommended
that Respondent, upon request for bargaining by the
Union, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union
as to terms, wages, and conditions of employment of the
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit as found
herein and, if agreement is reached, that such agreement
be reduced to a signed agreement.
The General Counsel requests that the remedy herein
extend the effect of the certification year for 1 year from
the date of Order herein. The evidence in this case does
6 Although General Counsel's complaint allegations narrowly proceed,
ed on the basis that Respondent's sole reason for refusal to bargain was
because of the newspaper article, the issue as litigated was broader, and
touched the general question of whether a good-faith doubt based on ob-
jective criteria existed. The evidence as presented revealed a request for
information and a declination of furnishing such information Considering
the pleadings and tartemc'nts made hy counsel at the time of presentation oj
exhibits into the record, I am not persuaded that the issue of the refusal to
furnish information has been presented as an unfair labor practice issue in
litigation in this proceeding
1192
HOSPITALITY MOTOR INN, INC
not warrant the utilization of such remedy. It may be
that the facts as ultimately determined by the Board
upon review of Administrative Law Judge Winkler's de-
cision in Cases 7-CA-15392 and 7-CA-15574 would sup-
port such remedy of extension of the certification year.
However, by proceeding with this case without consoli-
dation with such cases or prior to Board decision in such
cases, the General Counsel's request that I take official
notice of the decision in Cases 7-CA-15392 and 7-CA-
15574 must be rejected.7
The General Counsel, in brief, asks for extraordinary
remedies as is revealed by the following excerpts from
such brief:
Respondent's other evidence of its "good faith
doubt" consists of reliance on a newspaper article
quoting Weld speaking about employee turnover, a
factor the Board does not consider to be evidence
of loss of majority and alleged statements by some
representative of the Union, never specified by Re-
spondent, accusing Respondent of dissipating the
union's majority. Respondent's attempt to use the
Union's accusation of wrongdoing as a defense to
its refusal to bargain, only makes the frivolous
nature of its case more apparent.
The nature of Respondent's defenses lead to the
logical conclusion that Respondent seeks not to
raise legitimate issues, but rather to delay the proper
effectuation of the policies of the Act. The com-
plete lack of substance to the Respondent's defense
compels the grant of a remedy to discourage future
frivolous litigation, to effectuate the policies of the
Act, and to serve the public interest. Koval Press,
Inc., 241 NLRB No. 189; Fetzer Broadcasting Com-
pany, 227 NLRB 1377; John Singer, Inc., 197
NLRB 88; Tiidee Products, Inc.,194 NLRB 1234.
Accordingly, Counsel for the General Counsel
requests that Respondent be ordered to reimburse
the Board and the Union for expenses incurred by
the investigation and processing of the instant case
including, but not limited to reasonable attorney's
fee, salaries, record and printing costs, travel ex-
penses and per diem. Counsel for the General
Counsel further requests that Respondent be or-
dered to grant the Union access to its bulletin
boards during negotiations and that it be ordered to
furnish a list of employee names and addresses to be
kept current for one year.
Upon consideration of the record herein, I am not per-
suaded that such extraordinary remedy is warranted. I
am persuaded that the record does not establish objective
criteria upon which a good-faith doubt of the union ma-
jority status could be based. The determination of this
point, however, required an evaluation of credibility of
the testimony given by Ryan as to what was said by a
union official and whether it constituted an admission of
' At the lime of signing of this Decision. administratively several days
before issuance dale of said Decision. the undersigned is unaware of the
issuance of the decision by the Board in Cases ?-CA-15392 and 7-CA-
15574. It may be because of administrative processing that such decision
will issue before the technical date of issuance of this Decision
loss of majority status by the Union. Considering Ryan's
and Weld's testimony, the issues thereto were clearly not
frivolous issues. Accordingly, I deny General Counsel's
request for extraordinary remedies.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS 01 LAW
1. Respondent, Hospitality Motor Inn, Inc., is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union,
Local 235, is, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act, and is the certified exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of the employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit set forth below.
3. All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 3600
Dunckel Road, Lansing, Michigan, including all lodging,
food and beverage employees, but excluding all office
clerical employees, managerial employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. By refusing to bargain with the above referred to
Union over terms, wages, and conditions of employment
of the employees in the above-described appropriate bar-
gaining unit, Respondent has engaged in conduct viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER s
Respondent Hospitality Motor Inn, Inc., Lansing,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to recognize, meet with, and bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the Union, Hotel & Restau-
rant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 235, as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative, upon re-
quest for bargaining by such Union, as to terms, wages,
and conditions of employment of the employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit set out below. The appropri-
ate bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its facility located at 3600
Dunckel Road, Lansing, Michigan, including all
lodging, food and beverage employees, but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, managerial em-
"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 find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. be adopled by the Board and
become its findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto
shall be deemed waived for all purposes
1190
DFICISI()NS OF NATI()NAL I.AHBOR RELATIONS B()ARD
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act except to the
extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agree-
ments in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request by the Union, Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 235, recognize,
meet with, and bargain collectively in good faith with
said Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the above-described appro-
priate bargaining unit as to terms, wages, and conditions
of employment of the employees in said appropriate bar-
gaining unit and, if agreement is reached, upon request,
reduce such agreement to a written signed agreement.
(b) Post at Respondent's facility at Lansing, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 9
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representatives, shall be posted by it immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by Re-
spondent for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu-
ous places, including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
u In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posled by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board"
APPENDIX
NOICiE To EMI'IOYIeis
POSTI-D HY ORDER 01 IHI-
NAT IONAt LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WII 1. NOT refuse to recognize, meet with, or
bargain collectively in good faith with Hotel & Res-
taurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local
#235, as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative, upon request for bargaining by such
Union, as to terms, wages, and conditions of em-
ployment of the employees in the appropriate bar-
gaining unit set out below.
WE WILI NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act, except to the extent that such rights may
be affected by lawful agreements in accordance
with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL, upon request by Hotel & Restaurant
Employees & Bartenders Union, Local #235, recog-
nize, meet with, and bargain collectively in good
faith with said Union as the exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the
below-described appropriate bargaining unit as to
terms, wages, and conditions of employment of the
employees in said appropriate bargaining unit and, if
agreement is reached, upon request, reduce such
agreement to a written signed agreement. The ap-
propriate bargaining unit is:
All full-time and regular part-time employees em-
ployed by us at our facility located at 3600
Dunckel Road, Lansing, Michigan, including all
lodging, food and beverage employees, but ex-
cluding all office clerical employees, managerial
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
HosPI-rTALIIY MOTroR INN, INC.
1194