Shin Nihon Kosan, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 755 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

SHOGUN RESTAURANT 755
Shin Nihon Kosan, Inc. d/b/a Shogun Restaurant
and Kathy Masaoka. Case 31-CA-12304
14 December 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN, HUNTER, AND
DENNIS
, On 14 September 1983 Administrative Law
Judge Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached
decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a
supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision, and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 and to adopt the recommended
Order.
Our dissenting colleague contends that the judge
erred in relying on statements allegedly made by
the Respondent's president Kanenobu in his pre-
hearing affidavit, finding them more reliable than
his contrary and inconsistent testimony at the hear-
ing. The record demonstrates, however, that the
judge is correct.
Kanenobu used an interpreter at the hearing, but
he testified that he spoke English when he gave his
affidavit to the Board agent. He also testified that
after the Board agent had finished taking his state-
ment, Kanenobu initialed each of the pages, attest-
ed that he had read and understood its contents,
and "certified that it was true and correct to the
best of [his] knowledge." In addition, he requested
and received a copy of the affidavit, but did not
then or later notify the Board agent that it con-
tained any errors. At the hearing Känenobu read a
portion of the affidavit aloud, finding difficulty
, The Respondent has excepted to some of the Judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law Judge's credibility resolutions 'unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cm 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
We note the following minor errors in the administrative law Judge's
decision (1) It is not "undisputed" that Takee became head waitress in
March 1982, the record indicates that she most likely became head wait-
ress in February 1982, (2). Kanenobu, the Respondent's president, stated
in his preheating affidavit that one of the reasons he considered Takee to
be a bad waitress was that she changed schedules without permission, not
with permission, (3) employee Kondo testified that Takee was told about
her discharge by the Respondent's manager Kamm, not by assistant man-
ager Cluwa, and (4) Takee's health card shows that she had family cov-
erage in November 1981, not December We find that these errors do not
affect the validity of the judge's conclusions
In her conclusions the Judge inadvertently found that the Respond-
ent's discharge of Takee on 1 June 1982 violated Sec 8(a)(3) as well as
Sec 8(a)(1)
273 NLRB No. 102
only with the words which the judge found were
illegible. In , short, Kanenobu can speak and read
English, and had ample time and opportunity to
correct or clarify those portions of the affidavit
which allegedly contained errors. Accordingly, we
find no grounds for impugning the authenticity of
the affidavit.
Our dissenting colleague contends that the judge
erred in crediting Takee's testimony without
making specific findings concerning employee
Yuka's testimony that Takee offered her a bribe to
give testimony at the hearing. Takee denied having
made this offer. In footnote 19 of her decision 'the
judge Jejected the Respondent's argument that
Takee's testimony was not credible and based on
her observation of the demeanor of the witnesses
and the entire record, the judge discredited the Re-
spondent's witnesses' testimony and credited
Takee's testimony where they conflicted. Thus, as
Yuka's testimony is part of the entire record, the
judge implicitly . discredited Yuka's testimony with
respect to the alleged bribe. See, e.g., Kimball Tire
Co., 240 NLRB 343, 344 fn. 5 (1979).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Shin Nihon
Kosan, Inc. d/b/a Shogun Restaurant, Pasadena,
California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
MEMBER ,HUNTER, dissenting.
The findings in this case rest largely on the
credibility of alleged discriminatee Voravan Takee.
The Respondent's witness Hyon-ChaCha (Yuka)
testified that Takee attempted to bribe her to give
testimony, the clear implication being that 'such tes-
timony was to be favorable to Takee's interests.
Takee denied this, but the administrative law judge
made no attempt to resolve the credibility of this
serious allegation. In the absence of such resolu-
tion, the propriety of the judge's overall crediting
of Takee over other witnesses is necessarily cast in
doubt. On such an important matter, which needs a
specific resolution, I would not rely as my col-
leagues , do on the judge's summary credibility com-
ment at footnote 19 of her decision. Moreover, the
comment at footnote 19, read in proper context,
appears to be a resolution of credibility between
the Respondent's witness Kajino and four employ-
, ees, including Takee, as to whether Kajino told the
employees that Takee was fired for her participa-
tion in a walkout. That resolution has nothing to
do with the issue of whether Takee bribed Yuka.
Takee's attempted bribery of a witness impliedly to
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fabricate testimony would . cast such a deep shadow
over her own credibility as a witness that the
judge's failure to rule on whether or not it oc-
curred is fatal to any reliance on her testimony.
In addition, the judge erred in relying on state-
ments allegedly made by the Respondent's 'presi-
dent Kanenobu in an affidavit as being "more reli-
able" than his contrary testimony at the hearing.
Kanenobu testified through an interpreter. Describ-
ing the affidavit, which was given in English, Kan-
enobu said that he did not read it before he signed
it; that he was told to sign it so he did; and that he
did not understand what was written. When asked
whether he had sworn to its veracity, he responded
that he did not understand that well. When asked
to read a position of his affidavit in English, he did
not read it verbatim. The General Counsel himself
described •Kanenobles reading as simply the "es-
sence" of what the affidavit stated. Kanenobu was
unable to read two phrases of the affidavit but the
judge concluded that this resulted from -the illegi-
bility of the handwriting and not from any inability
to read English. However, Kanenobu was never
asked if this was the reason for his difficulty. In
these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the affi-
davit was properly relied on.'
Because the judge's error in failing to resolve the
"question of Takee's bribery attempt has a major
impact on her general crediting of Takee, and as
-her error concerning Kanenobu's affidavit reflects
to some extent on her overall credibility findings, I
would remand the case to the judge for the making
and reviewing of such credibility findings as may
be necessary consistent with the foregoing.
My colleagues indicate that Kanenobu testified that at the time the
affidavit was taken he had *attested that he understood its contents While
Kanenobu signed the affidavit with its attestation clause, he testified that
he had not read that clause before he signed the affidavit Further, in
view of the above, it is unclear whether he understood the clause
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V. S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, on various dates in April and June 1983. The
charge was filed by Kathy Masaoka, an individual, on
July 7, 1982, and a copy thereof was served on Shin
Nihon Kosan, Inc d/b/ Shogun Restaurant (Respond-
ent), on July 12, 1982. The complaint, which issued on
April 5, 1983, alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations. Act (the Act)
The basic issue herein is whether Voravan - Takee' is a sn-
pervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
and, if not, whether she was discharged for participating
in a protected concerted walkout of employees.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the brief filed by Respondent, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all times material herein, Respondent, a California
corporation with an office and principal place of business
in Pasadena, California, has been engaged in the business
of operating a restaurant. Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operation, annually derives gross
revenue in excess of $500,000 and annually purchases and
receives goods or services valued in excess of $10,000
from sellers or suppliers located within the State of Cali-
fornia, which sellers or suppliers receive such goods in
substantially the same form directly outside the State of
California.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent is now, and at all times material herein
has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE SUPERVISORY STATUS OF VORAVAN TAKEE
A. Facts
At the times material herein Respondent's employee
complement consisted of 6 cooks .and 2 dishwashers who
worked under the supervision of Head Takayoshi Na-
kagawa; 12 waitresses and 6 busboys whose supervision
is in dispute; the hostess, the host, the bartender, the
barboy, 2 cocktail waitresses, 2 cashiers and 2 sushi chefs
who worked under the supervision of Assistant Manager
Morihito Chijiwa.
Takee began work for Respondent as a waitress in
February 1981. In June 1981 she left Respondent's
employ. According to her, she quit. According to Re-
spondent's president Sadaki Kanenobu, he discharged her
because she did not have sufficient experience. Thereaf-
ter, Respondent rehired Takee According to Kanenobu,
she was rehired because Respondent needed a waitress
and because he had heard that in the interim she had
been Working at Horikawa's Restaurant and that Hor- -
ikawa was very strict in its training. Consequently, he
thought that by this time Takee should be a good wait-
ress. Takee testified that she was away from Respond-
ent's employ for only a week. Kanenobu testified it was
about 3 months. The parties later stipulated that Takee's
break in service was no more than 2 weeks.'
It is undisputed that Takee became head waitress in
March 1982, 2 that Respondent announced such to the
other waitresses, and that her name was posted, along
with those of the two office employees, the manager, the
assistant manager, and the head chef, as one who was
permitted access to the - office. However, the testimony is
in conflict as to her duties and authority as head wait-
ress.
Kanenobu and Takee testified in this regard prior to a 3-week recess
in the hearing herein The stipulation was entered into after the recess
2 All dates hereinafter will be in 1982 unless otherwise indicated
757SHOGUN RESTAURANT
As evidence of Takee's supervisory status, Respondent
introduced into evidence minufes of a January 9, 1982
meeting attended by Respondent's president, .manager,
assistant manager, and maitre d'. Kanenobu, Respond-
ent's president, testified that the chart depicts the organi-
zational structure of the restaurant as discussed at this
meeting which he describes as the annual front meeting.3
According to him, this was the management structure
implemented when the restaurant opened and thereafter
reconfirmed the first of each year. The chart shows three
department heads reporting directly to the manager—the
head 'chef, the assistant manager, and the head waitress.
Reporting to the head chef are the cooks and dishwash-
'ers. Reporting to the assistant manager are the cashiers,
the bar-personnel, and the front personnel. Reporting to
the head waitress are the busboys and waitresses.
Kanenobu testified that the head chef and the assistant
manager had the authority to hire and fire employees
only in their respective departments, the head waitress
had the authority to recommend the hiring and firing of
busboys and waitresses, and that he thinks Takee recom-
mended that Pepe Castillon, the head busboy, be termi-
nated. He then- testified that Takee actually terminated
Pepe -for thievery without any prior investigation by him
or Manager- Kajino. Kanenobu also testified that Kajino
had the authority to hire and fire all employees without
first consulting with `Kanenobu. However, his preheanng
affidavit states that Kajino had such authority only with
regard to part-time employees, that he can hire and fire
, full-time employees only in an emergency.
Kanenobu testified that the duties of the head chef
were to admimster. and instruct his subordinates, to order
food, and that he had the authority to discipline kitchen
employees and to make their schedules The duties of the
assistant manager were to substitute for the manager in
-his absence, and to administer and supervise the cashiers,
the bar personnel, the front personnel, and the sushi
chefs. The duties of the head waitress were to supervise
her 18 subordinates. Specifically, he testified, one of her
important responsibilities was the training of new wait-
resses; and she had the authority to discipline_ waitresses
and busboys and to change their schedules. Kanenobu
also testified that the bar manager was responsible for
training the barboy and the cocktail waitresses and the
head busboy was responsible for training the busboys.
According to Kanenobu, the wages and salaries of res-
taurant personnel were: manager—$1800 a month; assist-
ant manager—$1600 a month; head chef—$1200 a
month; maitre d'—$900 a month; cashier $3.35 to $4 an
hour; head waitress,– $3.60 an hour plus tips; cooks—
$750 to $900 a month; hostess—$3.75 an hour; bar man-
ager—$5.75 to, $6 an hour; head busboy—$3.60 an hour;
bartender—$5.25 or $5.50 an hour plus tips; barboy-
. $3.35 an hour plus a portion of the bartender's tips; sushi
chefs—$1100 a month; and waitresses—$3.35 an hour,
plus tips.
Kanenobu testified that the maitre d', the cashiers, the
cooks, and the waitresses who worked a minimum of 30
hours a week and had completed the 3 months' proba-
tionary period are entitled to receive health insurance
covering the employee and his or her spouse. He later
testified that waitresses were entitled to health insurance
after 6 months. Further, according to Kanenobu, only
the manager, assistant manager, head chef, and head
waitress are entitled to health insurance covering their
children as well as their 'spouses and that no other em-
ployees receive such additional coverage. On direct ex-
-amination, Kanenobu testified, in regard to when Takee
began receiving this additional insurance, "I think we
began to cover her entire family after she became the
head waitress." On cross-examination, he testified that
she received the additional coverage in January before
she became head waitress. According to him, at that
point he had decided to make her head waitress. He did
not explain why, if the decision was made in January and
the former head waitress quit in January, Takee did not
become head waitress until March.
Takee testified that she has had coverage for her
spouse and children since November 1981, and in sup-
port thereof the General Counsel offered intO evidence
her health plan card indicating family coverage as of No-
vember 1981.
Kanenobu admits that, although she receives a slightly
hikher rate of pay than the other waitresses, Takee re-
ceived this raise in pay in December 1981 at the same
time that the former head waitress received a raise
Takee testified she received the wage increase in either
December 1981 or in January 1982 According to her
undenied testimony, Kajino called her and Nonko, an-
other waitress, into the cocktail lounge and told them,
"Both of you going to get increase. Just please help to
train the new waitress."
Kajino testified that when Takee was promoted to
head waitress toward the end of February he explained
to her what her duties and responsibilities would be. Ac-
cording to him, he told her she was to train the new
waitresses, make the weekly schedules for the waitresses,
make the daily assignments as to tables each waitress
would service, and relay directions or requests from the
kitchen to the waitresses. He further testified he told her
if she was dissatisfied with the performance of any new
waitresses as she was training, she could terminate them.
He posted a written announcement near the timecards of
the date she would become head waitress. Also, at the
monthly waitress meeting held on the first Saturday in
February, he announced to the waitresses that Takee had
been promoted to head waitress and that when she di-
rected them to do something they were to listen to her
and follow her instructions.
Kajino admits that 90 percent of- the time Takee
worked the same number of stations, referred to as "tep-
pans," as did the other waitesses However, according to
Kajmo, he told Takee that from time to time she should
not work any teppans so she co*. observe what the
other waitresses were doing and instruct them as to what
needed to be done. He also testified that Takee was per-
mitted to use the office, whereas the other ' waitresses
could not do so. Further, according to him, she disci-
4 There is no evidence as to whether Nonko, in fact, received a wage
Increase at that time3 The front employees are the maitre d' or host and the hostess
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plined waitresses. However, the only instance of disci-
pline that he related was one occasion when he asked
waitress Hyon-ChaCha, .also known as Yuka, v'vhy she
was crying, and Yuka said she had been scolded by
Takee.
As to the termination of head busboy Pepe, Kajino tes-
tified, "she [Takee] said to me, 'I saw Pepe taking tips
from the table, so I'm going to have him terminated.' I
just nodded and said, yes . . On that same day she
came to me and said she had fired him." When asked
what exactly she said, he first testified she said, "I had
Pepe quit." Then he testified she said, "I fired Pepe."
Kajino further testified that he did not speak to Pepe
before he was fired nor did he investigate prior to the
termination to determine if Pepe had in fact been stealing
tips.
Takee testified that her sole additional responsibility as
head waitress was to relay to the waitresses orders and
requests from management and the kitchen. According
to her undenied testimony this type of liaison was neces-
sary because the waitresses worked different shifts and it
was easier for management or the chefs to give instruc-
tions and requests to one waitress who could ensure that
each waitress received the information Further, she tes-
tified, without contradiction, that the cooks had been
complaining prior to her becoming head waitress that
there was no one to perform this function. 5 She denies
that any member of management ever specifically ex-
plained to . her what her citifies and responsibilities would
be as head waitress and testified that she first learned she
was the new head waitress at the monthly waitress meet-
ing. At that time, Assistant Manager Morihito - Chijiw. a
announced that from then on Takee would be head wait-
sess.6
Takee denies that she was in charge of the busboys or
that she told anyone she saw Pepe, the head busboy,
stealing tips or that she discharged Pepe. She also denies
that she made out the schedule or_ made assignments of,
or changes as to previously assigned, work stations. Ac-
cording to her, the schedules were prepared by Kajino
or Chijiwa, as were station assignments. She admits that
she trained new waitresses, but testified that she did this
both before and after she became head waitress and
denies that either Kajino or Chijiwa ever asked her to
report on the performance of any waitress she trained.
Also, she had access to the office both before and after
she became head waitess for the sole' purpose of obtain-
ing uniforms for the waitresses she was training Kajino
admits that Takee trained new waitresses before she
became head. waitress. She denies that she had authority
to grant time off or that she relayed requests for time off
to management. According to her, the waitresses went
directly to Kajino or Chijiwa to request time off.
Employee Diane Yoa 7 testified that when she wanted
_ time off she requested it from Kajino or Chijiwa. Also,
5 The request relayed between the cooks and waitresses had to do with
things such as use of proper abbreviations when writing an order
6 Yuka testified that Kamm announced at the meeting that' Takee
would be head waitress and would be in charge of all the waitresses and
busboys
Yoa left Respondent's employ on June 13 or 15
she contacted ,them directly if she was going to be late
or absent However, Yuka testified that about June she
asked Takee if she could leave about 30 minutes early,
and Takee immediately gave her permiision to do so.
Takee was not questioned in this regard. Yuka also testi-
fied that on one occasion, when she wished to change
her day off, she asked Takee to change her schedule and
Takee did do.
Further, according to Yuka, Takee changed her work
station on one occasion. However, in this regard, she tes-
tified that Takee came to her and asked if they could
change work stations because she could not tolerate the
customer's perfume. As to the change in her- day off,
Yuka does_ not recall whether Takee simply exchanged
days off with her. She did not ask Takee to exchange.
She simply requested that she be allowed to change her
day off that week and Takee said she could. Yuka fur-
ther testified that, when one of the .waitresses who was
to work with Takee on the late shift did not come in,
Takee "asked me if I could stay late with her or not.
And I answered, okay, I'll stay late."
.Of the three waitresses who testified, Kondo did not
testify with regard to Takee's supervisory status, -Yuka
testified that Takee was her supervisor, and Yoa testified
that she did not consider Takee as her immediate superi-
or, but rather so considered Kajnio. However, in Yoa's
prehearing affidavit, she stated,- "My immediate supervi-
sor was the head waitess, Rose Takee."
Yuka testified that Takee has disciplined her and that
she has observed Takee disciplining other employees.
When asked what she observed, she testified that when
one of the new waitresses was putting garnishes on a
cocktail glass, Takee shouted at her, "That's the wrong
garnish" She also testified that she observed Takee disci-
plining Pepe by telling him to pick up various things
from, or place things on, tables She admits that she,
Yuka, and other waitresses also told busboys to clean
tables. However, according to her, when she did so, she
was -requesting; when Takee did it, Takee did not say
• "please," but was ordering. Yuka further testified that
Takee disciplined her, that she 'scolded her frequently.
The only specific incident to which she testified was
once in the locker room when Takee scolded her and
told the other three waitresses present that Yuka was a
bad waitress.
' When Yuka was asked what she meant when she testi-
fied that Takee disciplined waitresses, she testified,
"[S]he let the new waitresses carry everything. And she
just was watching behind the new waitress." When asked
if she considered that discipline, she answered, "Yes."
She admits that Takee did the same thing when she
trained new waitresses prior to becoming head waitress.
She also testified that, after Takee became head waitress,
other waitresses assisted in the training of new waitress-
es.
B. Conclusions -
. For reasons set forth more fully below, I do not credit
Kanenobu and Kajino as to their conversations with
Takee regarding her supervisory status or as to her su-
pervisory authority or as to statements at the May 29
SHOGUN RESTAURANT

759
meeting regarding her-authority to discharge employees,
nor does other evidence establish such authority Con-
trary to Respondent's argument, I do not find the 'docu-
ment, containing the organizational Chart which is al-
leged as minutes of the annual front meeting; to be a reli-
able indication that Takee was considered to be one of
Respondent's three department heads on an organization-
al level with the assistant manager and the head chef.
I do not credit Kanenobu's and Kajmo's characteriza-
tion of that meeting as an annual meeting of front em-
ployees. In that regard, I note that the minutes indicate
nothing identifiable as "front" problems or - concerns.
Further, neither Kanenobu nor Kajino explained why
Respondent's organizational structure would be reaf-
firmed in a meeting with one "front" employee and was
not stated to other employees. In the circumstances, I
conclude that the document is not what it purports to be,
and cannot be relied on to establish Takee's placement in
the management and supervisory hierarchy.
Also, I find that Takee's wage rate belies the assertions
that she was on the same level as the head chef and the
assistant manager, whose supervisory authority is undis-
puted Thus, the 25-cent-an-hour differential between her
rate of pay and that of other waitresses is more compara-
ble to the differential of 25 cents an hour and 50 cents an
hour received by the head busboy and bar manager, re-
spectively, who are not department heads and whose
sole responsibility with regard to other employees ap-
pears to be training, than it is to the more than $500- and
more than $300-a-month differential received by the as-
sistant manager and head chef, respectively.
The only other evidence supporting Respondent's con-
tention that Takee was a supervisor' is the testimony of
Yuka that Takee disciplined waitresses, directed waitress-
es and - busboys in the performance of their duties,
changed work assignments, and changed scheduled days
off. Yuka's testimony clearly does not encompass any
conduct which could be considered' as either discipline
or responsible direction. 'Thus, her instructions to bus-
boys were admittedly no different than the instructions
that Yuka herself gave to busboys. That Takee may not
have been particularly polite is not an indicia of supervi-
sory authority Similarly, the instructions or observations
as to errors made to other waitresses is consistent with
her role as trainer. The one occasion involving a change
of work station appears to have been a favor between
two waitresses..
Also, I conclude that the change in Yuka's day off and
the request that she remain with Takee for 30 additional
minutes, on an occasion when the second late shift wait-
ress was absent, was nothing more than an informal ac-
commodation between two waitresses or,, at most, an iso-
lated overstepping of her authority. In this regard I note
that, despite his ,testimony, which was denied by Takee,
that Takee prepared the schedules, in his prehearmg affi-
davit Kanenobu stated that one of the reasons he consid-
ered Takee to be a bad head waitress was that she
changed schedules without permission
I further note the testimony of Takee,.Yoa, and Kondo
that waitress dissatisfaction with scheduling was one of
the complaints made at , the May 29 meeting and Takee's
testimony, which I credit, that Kanenobu promised that
prePäration of the schedule would be transferred from
Chijiwa to Kajino. If Takee, in fact, prepared the sched-
ule, there would have been no reason for Takee and the
other waitresses to include this complaint in a' list of
grievances which were clearly directed, in large part,
toward Chijiwa. Further, if Takee actually had the su-
pervisory authority claimed by Respondent and if
Chijiwa supervised only the front, bar, and sushi employ-
ees, there would have been no reason for waitresses to
complain about Chijiwa.
In all of the circumstances, I credit Takee's denial that
she possessed and/or exercised the various indicia of su-
pervisory authority as contended by Kanenobu and
Kajino or that she was ever told that she possessed such.
I further find that her duties and responsibilities in train-
ing other waitresses and in being an information conduit
from management and kitchen personnel to the waitress-
es do not establish that she possessed supervisory author-
ity, Poor Richard's Pub, 220 NLRB 1363 (1975).8
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.
A. Facts
During the period of March, April, and May, the 'wait-
resses became upset over working conditions and began
to discuss their dissatisfactions among themselves.
During the latter part of May, after they were informed
that Respondent would no longer furnish cream and
sugar for their coffee, the waitresses began considering
taking some action to improve their working conditions.
On ,Friday, May 28, they discussed their various dissatis-
factions with working conditions and what they should
do about it. They first decided they should walk out that
evening. They then decided that they should wait until
after their regular monthly meeting with management
which was scheduled for the following day.
On Saturday, May 29, about 1 to 2 hours before the
regularly scheduled meeting with management, about
eight of the waitresses, including Takee, met at a nearby
restaurant. They made up a list of their complaints and
decided that waitress Jennifer Lee would be their
spokesperson in presenting these complaints to manage-
ment They further decided, if management did not like
it or disagreed or would not respond, they would walk
out. Among the-complaints they listed were the posting
by management of notices, considered by the waitresses
to be derogatory, on the door to, and inside of, the Wait-
resses' changing room regarding their personal grooming
habits; the new requirement that they schedule a week in
advance the meals they planned to eat in the restaurant,
and the new requirement that they be tested as to their
knowledge of cocktails
Also included in their list of complaints was the
change in the tip system from one where all tips were
deposited into one box to be divided among the waitress-
es and other employees 8 to a system which retained the
8 In reaching this conclusion, I have fully considered the cases cited by
Respondent and find them to be distinguishable
9 Tips are shared with management and front personnel, sushi chefs,
bar personnel, kitchen personnel, and busboys
760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pooling feature but which would have each waitress de-
posit her tips in a separate box, the amount of which
would be considered by management as a factor in deter-
mining the quality of a waitress' job performance; the
changes in work schedules which had resulted in a cut in
hours for some employees; the requirement that waitress-
es make up any deficit if they undercharged a customer
whereas Respondent would retain any overage; and the
requirement that waitresses clean the soup and hot water
urns.
About 3:35 or 3:40 p.m. that day, Kajino, .Chijiwa, and
the head chef, Nakagawa, met with the waitresses. There
is no dispute about much of what was said at the meet-
ipg. 1 o Kajino commenced the meeting by chiding the
waitresses for arriving late. Lee said they were late be-
cause they wanted to have a special meeting and they
wanted Kanenobu to be present. Kajino said it was not
necessary for. Kanenobu to be present and he might not
be present. Lee said they needed Kanenobu there. At
that point, Kanenobu walked in.
Kajino then distributed a tip chart showing the amount
of tips each waitress had received and explained that tips
indicate whether a waitress was giving good service and
that this was a means of helping an individual waitress
recognize whether her service was good, or whether she
needed to improve. The reaction of the waitresses to this
was generally hostile. Takee, in particular, was rather
vocal. Kanenobu, then asked each of the waitresses her
opinion of the, tip charts. After they all responded nega-
tively, Kanenobu instructed Kajino to stop preparing the
tip charts.
The waitresses mentioned not being furnished cream
for their coffee. Kondo, Takee, and Yoa testified that
they discussed their concerns With the work schedule,
,complaining that Respondent was unfairly cutting the
number of hours some waitresses worked, and regarding
the uncertainty as to when they would be working.
Kajino testified that he does not think any scheduling
problems were discussed, but he does not recall. Kanen-
obu does not specifically deny that scheduling problems
were discussed; however, his account of the meeting
does not include any mention of scheduling.
The principal difference in the various accounts of this
meeting is the testimony of, -Kanenobu and Kajino re-
garding an interchange between Kajino and Takee,
which none of the employee witnesses included in their
.accounts. Kanenobu testified that during Kajino's expla-
nation as to the purpose of the tip charts, Kajmo men-
tioned how bad the service had become and said the re-
sponsibility was with the head waitress. Takee denied
this and said the responsibility was that of the waitresses,
that they were not well trained. Kajino said that was be-
cause Takee's training was bad. Takee said there were so
many new waitresses that it was difficult to train them
all at one time. Takee then became excited and
said,"Well then, is it all right for me to fire the employ-
ees." Kajino said, "Well, naturally, of course."
is Except as otherwise indicated, this account of the meeting is a com-
posite of the testimony of all the witnesses which I find more accurately
reflects what occurred
It was at this point that Kanenobu interrupted and said
he would poll each waitress as to whether she wanted
the tip system Changed. Kajino testified in general cor-
roboration of Kanenobu as to the interchange between
him and Takee. According to him, when he insisted that
• she was responsible for the recurring mistakes of the new
waitresses, Takee said, -"Well, if that is my responsibility,
then is it all right to fire the waitress- who makes the
same mistakes." Kajino said, "Of course, you could do
that."
About 4:30 p.m., the time for the early shift to prepare
to commence work, Kanenobu said it was time to go to
work. The waitresses said they had a number of things to
discuss. Takee suggested that she, Lee, and Yoa remain
to continue the discussion and that the other waitresses
begin work, which they did. Kanenobu suggested that
they continue the discussion ' the office. The three
waitresses went to the office but ' neither Kanenobu,
Kajino, nor Chijiwa came in.
Shortly thereafter Takee and Lee reported to the other
waitresses that Kanenobu did not come in to talk to
them. They decided to' walk out immediately and had
commenced doing so when one of the chefs advised that
they should first change out of their uniforms. They then
went to the changing room. Both Kajino and Morihito
came to the changing room door and attempted to per-
suade them to return to work. A commitment was made
to continue the discussions. All of the waitresses except
Lee and Takee returned to woll."
Lee and Takee then went to the office. Kanenobu said
he would meet with the waitresses regarding their com-
plaints, but he wanted to speak to Kajino first. They
agreed to meet in a nearby restaurant that evening after
work, which they did. Present at the meeting were 'all of
the waitresses who had worked that day, Kanenobu, and
Nakagawa. 12 Much of what occurred at this meeting is
undisputed. Kanenobu apologized, saying he was busy
with another restaurant and had not realized the situa-
tion. He had Kondo, who speaks both English and Japa-
nese fluently, read a letter of apology he had written.
Kondo testified that the letter requested that Chijiwa be
given another chance, stating that Chijiwa did not under-
stand a lot of American ways but he was willing to learn
and further stated that the schedules would be redone.
Yoa testified in general .agreement except her account
includes no mention of redoing the schedule. Takee testi-
fied in generalities that the letter explained how Kanen-
obu was feeling, that he understood them and requested
that they understand him, and that they forgive manage-
ment's attitude toward them. As to the schedule, Takee
testified that Kanenobu said in the future Kajmo would
prepare the schedule instead of Chijiwa: Takee also testi-
fied that someone asked if any of them would be dis-
charged because of the situation; to which Kanenobu re-
plied, "Why should I? Just go back to work, and . I prom-
ise you will be happy."
" They were away from work about 20 minutes
12 According to Nakagawa, Kanenobu asked him why he was present
and Nakagawa replied that the waitresses had requested that he attend
the meeting
SHOGUN RESTAURANT 761
Both Nakagawa and Yoa testified that Kanenobu said
they had discovered the person who was stealing tips"
and that person was no longer in Respondent's employ.
According to Nakagawa, this was in response to a ques-
tion. However, Kondo and Takee testified that nothing
was said at this particular meeting regarding the stealing
of tips Further, in the account of this meeting given in
Yoa's preliearing affidavit dated July 29, there is no men-
tion of any remarks regarding tip stealing.
Kanenobu testified -that in the letter Kondo read, he
stated that Chijiwa had only recently come from Japan
and was not very proficient in English but he wanted to
improve the business and perhaps some of the employees
had taken it the wrong way. Kanenobu further stated in
this letter that what Chijiwa was saying was not wrong,
and Kanenobu hoped they would try to understand
Chijiwa's English and give him an opportunity to im-
prove his language so he could 'communicate better.
Takee did not work on the following day, May 30.
She did work on June 1. According to her, at the end of
her shift Kajino told her he was sorry, he would have to
fire her because of the walkout on Saturday. He said as
head waitress, Takee had responsibility for that, so he
would have to fire her. Takee said, "but I asked the
waitresses to go back to work." Kajino replied, "Yes, but
you should not have let it happen at all." Kajino then
said that, personally, he liked Takee a lot but he had to
discharge her because of the walkout. .
Kondo testified that later that same evening , when she
went into the changing room, she saw Takee kneeling
down. She asked her what was the matter? Takee said
Chijiwa fired her. Kondo asked why. Takee said Chijiwa
felt that she was responsible for the walkout and she was
fired for that reason. On the following day according to
Kondo, she telephoned Kajino and told him she could no
longer work in an environment where Takee could not
be present. Kamp said the only reason Takee was dis-
charged was because she was the head waitress and she
was responsible for the walkout. He said even if someone
else had been the head waitress that person would have
been discharged.
Yoa testified that on June 2 she and another waitress
asked Kajino why Takee was discharged. Kajino replied
that she was discharged because she was -head waitress
and was responsible for the walkout. He said when
someone was hired into management Respondent wanted
that person to help Respondent, not go against Respond-
ent in any way, and if anything was wrong to let man-
agement know first so it could figure out some way to
solve the problem. He said it was for that reason only,
that personally Takee was a very nice person and very
honest, but they had to let her go because of the walk-
out.
Nakagawa testified that he was discharged on June 13.
Kajmo told , him he was discharged because most of the
chefs at the restaurant did not want to work with him
During the course of their conversation, which lasted
more than an hour, Nakagawa asked why Takee was dis-
" Yoa testified that he said they compared the work schedule with all
the times that money was stolen in order to single out the one person
who was working on each of these occasions
charged. According to him, Kajino replied that the
reason he had to fire Takee was because, as head wait-
ress, they wanted her to take the responsibility for the
walkout, for damaging Respondent's image. Kajino fur-
ther said that Nakagawa had also participated, that he
had been seen talking to the waitresses, agitating them to
engage in the walkout."
Kanenobu testified that Takee was discharged for two
reasons. one, service had deteriorated, which meant that
Takee was unable to lead or guide the other waitresses;
and; two, Takee had been stealing tips. According to
him, on May 30, he met with chefs Okhawa and Hir-
oyuki Matsuura." Matsuura said if present conditions
continued, he and Okhawa did not wish to remain in Re-
spondent's employ. Kanenobu asked what the situation
was. Matsuura said, "You have a terrible head waitress
and a terrible head chef. Kanenobu asked what he meant.
Matsuura said the head chef tried to avoid work as much
as possible and gave some examples.
As to Takee, Kanenobu testified, Matsuura said she
was not guiding the waitresses, that she was telling the
new waitresses the wrong thing, that the cooks would
report this to the head chef, but that he never relayed
these complaints to the head waitress or to the others so
that the same mistakes were repeated over and over
again. Matsuura said the head waitress should be a model
for the other waitresses but Takee would bring cakes
from outside and eat them while she was working. He
said neither Takee nor Nakagawa had the qualifications
to be "heads."
According to Kanenobu, Matsuura further said that
Takee was stealing tips, that she would tell the other
waitresses that she would do the counting so they did
not need to come near to where she was doing the work,
and so they had to stay a distance away. He further said
they all thought this was rather odd, and that while this
was happening he saw Takee stealing some of the tip
money. Matsuura and Okhawa said that, if Kanenobu did
not discharge Nakagawa and Takee, they would quit.
Kanenobu further testified that prior to this Kajino had
complained once or twice that the head waitress' training
was not going well.
_ Matsuura testified in general corroboration of Kanen-
obu as to what he said regarding the head chef. In addi-
tion, he testified that he said Nakagawa did not train the
new chef and he was "picking on" food at another de-
partment, the sushi bar. As to Takee, Matsuura testified
he told Kanenobu, that Takee was treating very well the
waitresses she liked, but did not treat well those she did
not like, that she drank coffee in the dining room and
used the sugar that was there for the customers. He
agreed that he said he saw Takee stealing tips. Accord-
ing to him, on two occasions in April he observed Takee
counting tips. No one else was present. On one occasion,
he saw her put money in an envelope without a name on
14 In his account of this conversation in his preheanng affidavit dated
July 26, there is no mention of a reason for Takee's discharge However,
that affidavit as given in support of the claim that Nakagawa was unlaw-
fully discharged and was not concerning Takee's discharge
15 At the time of the hearing herein, Matsuura was head chef and ap-
parently had been since sometime in June
762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it," take the envelope, and leave On a second occasion,
he saw her put tip money in her obi, which was unusual
Takee testified that all of the late shift waitresses sit at
a table and count the tips. Matsuura admits that is the
way,tips are supposed to be counted but testified that on
a number of occasions only one person counts the tips
Takee testified that she cannot recall any occasion when
she counted tips with no other waitress watching what
she was doing.
Kanenobu testified that on May 31 he related to Kajino
what Matsuura and Okhawa told him and asked him to
check what the amount of tips was. Later that day,
Kann() reported to him that there was a total of about
$1000 in tips missing per month since Takee became head
waitress." Kanenobu said he had to think that this de-
crease was because the head chef and the head waitress
were not good and that the tips were being stolen. He
then told Kajino to discharge Takee and to tell her that
service was bad, business was very bad, and they no
longer needed a head waitress so they were discharging
her. He further specifically instructed Kajino not to men-
tion the stealing of tips to Takee.
When questioned as to the reason for this latter in-
struction, Kanenobu testified, "We did not tell Pepe at
that time, when he was thought to have stolen, and also
we 'do not mention these personal matters." In further
justification of these instructions, he testified:
A . if that were said then we Would have to
say who saw it. Because we didn't want to create
any bad feelings there and she was going to leave
• and we wanted things to be left in a peaceful
manner
• Also, in our Oriental society, which is a very
small society, it would not be good to bring up peo-
ple's names in such a way.
And so. we tried to keep the problem as small as
possible.
. . . .
JUDGE RoBBINS: Are you saying that in the Ori-
ental society it is never mentioned if someone sees
someone else stealing?
A No, it's just that one does not throw rocks at
a departing person. But, however, if the person is
coming towards me like a fire squad then I would
have to 'do something about it.
However, in his statement of position submitted to the
Board's Regional Office in response to the charge herein,
he stated:
On June 1, 1982 our head. waitress, Voravan Takee
was terminated. She was dismissed, due to the fact
that business slowed down considerably and there
was no improvement on the service to our custom-
ers, so we saw no advantage of maintaining a head
waitress system.
16 All of the envelopes normally have names on them
17 According to Kanenobu, this was based on 10 percent of gross
sales
Further, in his prehearing_affidavit he states that the two
chefs told him they would not remain in Respondent's
employ if Nakagawa remained There is no mention of
any ultimatum with regard to Takee. Nor did he state in
his affidavit that a reason for discharging Takee was that
she was stealing tips.
According to Kanenobu, he did not mention the steal-
ing of tips in his affidavit for the same reason he did not
include it in his statement of position and also because he
felt that he should only tell the Board agent the reason
given by Kajino to Takee. In his prehearing affidavit, he
does detail, as follows, why he considered Takee a bad
head waitress:
As a head waitress, Takee was very bad in that she
would eat at the restaurant while she was working.
She would bring food from the outside and eat it in
the restaurant. She would drink soft drinks during
work; she would change waitresses schedules with-
out permission from the manager; she talked too
much Takee was never given any written warnings
about any of the above-mentioned matters. It is the
practice of the restaurant to give only oral warnings
or reprimands, never in writing. I never gave Takee
any oral warnings myself. That is the responsibility
of Mr. Kajino and Mr. ‘Monhito, the assistant man-
ager
Kajino testified in corroboration of Kanenobu as to the
reasons for Takee's discharge and as to his conversations
with Kanenobu with regard thereto. He denies the state-
ments attributed to him by Takee, Yoa, Kondo, and Na-
kagawa that Takee was discharged because, as head
waitress, she was involved in the walkout. He admits
that Yoa did ask him why Takee was discharged; to
which he replied that Takee was not suitable as a head
waitress. According to him, he felt it was not necessary
to mention the stealing of tips.
B Conclusions
I (16 not credit Kanenobu and Kajino as to the reasons
for Takee's discharge. I find them to be unreliable wit-
nesses who attempted to tailor their testimony in the
manner deemed to be most advantageous , to Respondent.
In this regard, I note the inconsistencies in Kanenobu's
testimony as to whether Takee discharged the head
busboy or only recommended that he be discharged; his
testimony that he discharged Takee in 1981 because she
was inexperienced and rehired her after a break in serv-
ice of approximately 3 months because in the interim she
had worked in a restaurant that had good training of
waitresses, which length of time was directly, and reason
for rehire and characterization of her separation as a dis-
charge were indirectly, contradicted by a subsequent
stipulation of the parties that Takee's break in 'service
was no More than 2 weeks; and his testimony that family
health insurance coverage was restricted to management,
which was contradicted by Takee's health plan card
which shows she had family coverage in December 1981
before she became head waitress.
I further note the conflicts between his testimony and
his prehearing affidavit set forth above; particularly the
SHOGUN RESTAURANT 763
statements in his affidavit that Kajino can hire and fire.
full-time employees only in an emergency; that one
reason for dissatisfaction with Takee's performance as
head waitress was her changing of schedules without
Kajino's permission, whereas he testified that Takee pre-
pared the schedules; and the failure, in his affidavit and
in his statement of position, to give the stealing of tips as'
one of the reasons for her discharge or to relate the al-
leged ultimatum given by Matsuura with regard to
Takee. I do not credit Kanenobu's explanation of the rea-
sons for these conflicts. Kanenobu, who speaks English
but testified through an interpreter, testified that when
he gave his affidavit he spoke to the Board agent in Eng-
lish, but did not understand what was written in the affi-
davit. He denies that he read the affidavit but admits that
the Board agent showed it to him and he looked at it.
According to him, he signed it because the Board agent
told him it would be disadvantageous to him and he
would lose the case if he did not sign it , fight then and
there.
Kanenobu admits, he , received a copy of the affidavit
but never contacted the Board agent to tell him it was
incorrect. According to him, he could not read the affi-
davit so he just left it that way. However, he also testi-
fied that he is a university graduate in electrical engi-
neering and that he has been in business for 3 years. Fur-
ther, he admits that he can read English and, on the wit-
ness stand, did read in English that portion of the affida-
vit regarding Kajmo's authority to hire and fire. He was
unable to read two phrases but I conclude that this re-
sulted from the illegibility of the handwriting and not
from any inability to read English. He read without diffi-
culty or error, "he [Kajino] can hire and fire full-time
employees only in an emergency." In the circumstances,
I conclude that Kanenobu's affidavit is a reliable account
of the statements he made at that time, and that his affi-
davit is more reliable than his testimony. •
I do not credit Kanenobu and Kajino that during 'the
May 29 meeting Kajmo told Takee she could fire wait-
resses who did not perform satisfactorily. In his affidavit,
Kanenobu states that even Kajino did not have such ad-
thority. Further, I find it unlikely that the waitresses
who testified would not recall such a statement. More-
over, if she had, in fact, fired Pepe, as Kajino and Kan-
enobu contend, there would have been no reason for her
to ask such a question. Nor do I credit Kanenobu and
Matsuura that Matsuura and •Okhawa had told Kanenobu
they would guit if Takee remained or that Matsuura saw
Takee stealing_ tips." I find it unlikely, considering the
concern of the waitresses as to their stolen or decreased
tips, that they would have tolerated, without complaint,
their exclusion from the counting of tips as allegedly de-
scribed by Matsurra to Kanenobu. Further, there is no
reason apparent from the record why two cooks would
threaten to quit because the head waitress was treating
the waitresses unfairly or because the head chef was not
relaying their complaints.
18 I do not credit Yuka as to the incident she descnbed as tip stealing
Further, there is no evidence that Respondent had knowledge of this in-
cident when Takee was discharged
. I also do not credit Kajino's denial that he told Takee,
Yoa, Kondo, and Nakagawa that Take& was discharged
because she participated in the walkout The testimony
of Takee, Yoa, Kondo, and Nakagawa, which I credit,"
tend to be mutually corroborative and, on a consider-
ation of the demeanor of the witnesses and the entire
record, more credible than that of Kajino. In all of the
circumstances, I find that the reasons asserted by Re-
spondent for Takee's discharge are pretextual and that
she was discharged because she engaged in a walkout,
along with other waitresses, in protest of their working
conditions. 2 ° Accordingly, I find that Takee was dis-
charged on June 1, 1982, in violation , of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. Voravan Takee is an employee within the meaning
of Section 2(3) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully discharging Voravan Takee, Re-
spondent has committed unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the A'ct.
4. By telling employees that a fellow employee was
discharged because she participated in a protected con-
certed walkout of employees, Respondent has committed
unfair labor practices in violation 'of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. •
5 The above-described unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
Meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
five action in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that Respondent unlawfully discharged
Voravan Takee in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act,
I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to .offer
Voravan Takee immediate and full reinstatement to her
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her se-
niority or any other rights or privileges previously en-
joyed, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her, plus interest, in the manner prescribed in F.
W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).21
19 I have fully considered and reject Respondent's argument that their
testimony is not credible
20 Contrary to Respondent's contentions, I find that Respondent has
not established that Takee would have been discharged, even absent this
protected activity See NLRB v Transportation Management Corp, 462
U S 393 (1983)
Si See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the folloWing recommend-
ed22
ORDER
The Respondent, Shin Nihon Kosan, Inc d/b/a
Shogun Restaurant, Pasadena, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise descriminating against
employees because of their protected concerted activi-
ties.
(b) Telling employees a fellow employee was dis-
charged because she participated in a protected concert-
ed walkout of employees.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. •
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to employee Voravan Takee immediate and
full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with-
out prejudice to her seniority or any other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, .and make her whole for
any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against her, plus interest.
(b) Expunge from its files any reference tothe dis-
charge of Voravan Takee on June 1, 1982, and notify her'
in writing that this has been done and that evidence of
this unlawful discharge will not be used as a basis for
future personnel actions against her.
(c) Preserve and, on reqiist, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in Pasadena, California, copies of
the attached notice in English and Japanese marked "Am
pendix." 23 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 31, after being signed
by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
,22 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, 'as - provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
23 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the _notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board"
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
inéluding all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken' to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.,
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.'
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protecL.
tion • • •
To choose not to engage • in- any of these protect-
ed concerted activities
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that fellow employ-
ees were discharged because they participated in a pro-
tected concerted walkout of employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge, and thereafter refuse to rein-
state, employees because they engaged, in protected con-
certed activities
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer to Voravan Takee immediate and full
reinstatement to her former job or, if her former job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position of em-
ployment without prejudice to her seniority or other
rights and WE WILL make her whole for any loss of pay
that she may have suffered by reason of our discrimina-.tion-against her, with interest
WE WILL expunge from our files any references to the
discharge of Vorvan Takee on June 1, 1982, 'and WE
WILL notify her that this has been done and that evi-
dence of , this unlawful discharge will not be used as a
basis for future personnel actions against her
SHIN NIHON KOSAN, INC. D/B/A SHOGUN
RESTAURANT