Western Golf & Country Club

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 2001

335 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

WESTERN GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB 1085
Western Golf and Country Club and Hotel Employ-
ees and Restaurant Employees International Un-
ion, Local 24, AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA–40879, 7–
CA–41618, and 7–CA–42401
September 12 , 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND
WALSH
On March 28, 2000, Administrative Law Judge Wil-
liam G. Kocol issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel and the Charging Party Union each
filed an answering brief to the Respondent’s exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions,2 to
modify the remedy,3 and to adopt the recommended Or-
der as modified.4
The Respondent argues in its exceptions that the judge
erred for two reasons in finding that it unlawfully
changed the manner of assigning overtime work: (1) the
existing practice of assigning overtime work to steady
employees on the basis of seniority was not “committed
to writing and signed by” both parties as required by Sec-
tion 20 of the relevant collective-bargaining agreement
and (2) the Respondent had a legitimate reason for as-
signing work to extra employees, and denying it to
steady employees, in order “to avoid paying overtime
which it is specifically allowed to do under the efficiency
clause of Section 51b” in the collective-bargaining
agreement. We reject the Respondent’s arguments.
With respect to the Respondent’s first argument, we find
that the Respondent’s practice of assigning overtime
work was an extra-contractual benefit, rather than a non-
conforming practice, as its assignments on the basis of
seniority were not inconsistent with the collective-
bargaining agreement. Furthermore, as the judge found,
with respect to the Respondent’s unilateral termination of
payments in lieu of health insurance benefits, in Section
20, the Union waived only contractual enforcement of
any unwritten practices under the agreement. There was
no clear and unmistakable waiver of its statutory right to
bargain about existing practices before the Respondent
unilaterally, and here unlawfully, changed them. As for
the Respondent’s second argument, the Board found in
Dearborn Country Club, 298 NLRB 915 (1990), that an
identical contractual provision did not provide an em-
ployer with “specific authorizations” to make a similar
change in overtime work assignments.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s findings that the Respon-
dent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by creating the impression of sur-
veillance of employees’ union activities, by indicating to employees
that it would be futile for them to support the Union, and by offering
employees inducements to resign their Union membership; that the
Respondent did not violate Sec. 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating
employees; and that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by refusing to
furnish certain information that the Union had requested.
3 We modify the judge’s recommended remedy to provide that back-
pay shall be computed as prescribed by Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (1971), with interest as com-
puted according to New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
4 We shall delete par. 1(b) of the judge’s recommended Order be-
cause that provision is identical to par. 1(a).
Additionally, we shall modify the recommended Order in accor-
dance with our recent decision in Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB
142 (2001).
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Western
Golf and Country Club, Redford, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
1. Delete paragraph 1(b) and reletter the subsequent
paragraphs accordingly.
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(d).
“(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place to be
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.”

Richard F. Czubaj, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Walter L. Baumgardner, Esq. (Musilli, Baumgardner, Wagner
& Parnell, P.C.), of St. Clair Shores, Michigan, for the Re-
spondent.
Stuart M. Israel, Esq. (Martens, Ice, Geary, Klass, Legghio,
Israel, & Gorchow, P.C.), for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WILLIAM G. KOCOL, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Detroit, Michigan, on February 1, 2000. The
335 NLRB No. 48
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1086
charges were filed on April 16 and December 15,1998,1 and
September 24, 1999, respectively. The amended charge in the
last case was filed December 29, 1999. The second order con-
solidating cases, amended consolidated complaint and notice of
hearing (the complaint) was issued January 4, 2000. The com-
plaint alleges that Western Golf and Country Club (Respon-
dent) violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees about
their union activities and creating the impression that those
activities were under surveillance, informed employees that it
would be futile for them to rely on the Hotel Employees and
Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 24, AFL–
CIO (the Union), as their bargaining representative, and asked
employees if they would leave the Union in exchange for a
salary. The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally assigning overtime work to non-
unit employees, unilaterally ceasing to provide pay to employ-
ees in lieu of medical insurance benefits, and refusing to pro-
vide relevant information to the Union. Respondent filed a
timely answer that admits the filing and service of the charges,
jurisdiction, interstate commerce, labor organization status,
unit, recognition, and 9(a) status. Respondent denied the sub-
stantive allegations of the complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel, Respondent, and the Union, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a corporation, has been engaged in the opera-
tion of a private club, providing golfing facilities and retail sale
of food and golfing supplies at its facility in Redford, Michi-
gan, where it annually derives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and directly purchases and receives goods valued in
excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of
Michigan. Respondent admits and I find that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a club that provides a wide range of
golfing services to its members. It also operates a restaurant
that serves food and beverages to members and guests at the
facility. The Union has represented Respondent’s employees
for a number of years. Respondent and the Union have been
parties to successive collective-bargaining agreements the most
recent of which ran from May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1999.
At the time of the hearing the parties appeared to have reached
agreement on new collective-bargaining agreement, but it had
not yet been signed. The new contract does not change any of
the provisions relevant to this proceeding.
The bargaining unit is described in several appendices to the
contract. That unit covers a broad range of classifications,
ranging from sous chefs to utility workers. Unit employees are

1 All dates are in 1998 unless otherwise indicated.
also classified as steady employees, who have the full range of
contractual coverage and accumulate seniority, steady-extra
employees, who do not have seniority but who have some
measure of job security under the contract, and extra employees
who have no contractual seniority.
B. The 8(a)(1) Allegations
In November 1997 Christopher Myers became Respondent’s
general manager. In April employee Kathleen Blight had a
conversation with Tom Shovely, assistant manager, Jennifer
Carpenter, human resources director, and Myers. Myers said
that he had heard that Blight had not been cooperating and did
not like the rules of his new management. Blight asserted that
she had been cooperating. Myers became upset and said the he
had heard that Blight had been going to the Union. Blight re-
sponded that she had a right to do so. Myers then said that he
did not “do” unions; he did what was best for the club. Myers
also asked if Blight would leave the Union if he gave her a
salaried position.2
Analysis
Respondent initially argues that Blight was a supervisor and
therefore not entitled to the protections of the Act. Board law is
clear that the burden rests on the party asserting supervisory
status to establish that fact. Bowne of Houston, 280 NLRB
1222 (1986). The record in that regard falls well short of estab-
lishing that Blight was a supervisor. Cassis Management
Corp., 323 NLRB 456 (1997).
The General Counsel argues that Myers’ statement that he
had heard that Blight had been going to the Union unlawfully
created the impression that Blight’s union activities were under
surveillance. I agree. The Board has held that such remarks
made in similar contexts violate Section 8(a)(1). L & B Con-
struction Co., 326 NLRB 1311 (1998).
The General Counsel next contends that Myers’ comment
that he does not “do” unions indicated that it would be futile to
engage in union activity. The context in which this comment
was made is important. Myers had just criticized Blight for
failing to cooperate with Respondent. He unlawfully gave the
impression that Blight’s union activities were under surveil-
lance, thereby prompting Blight to defend her contact with the
Union. Myers replied that he did not “do” unions, that he in-
stead did what was best for the company. Under these circum-
stances Myers was indicating that Blight’s contacts with the
Union would indeed be futile. Such statements violate the Act.
Woodline, Inc., 233 NLRB 97 (1977).
Finally, the General Counsel argues that Myers unlawfully
promised Blight a salaried position if she would resign from the
Union. The facts support this argument. It is well settled that
an employer may not offer inducements for employees to cease
engaging in activities protected under the Act. NLRB v. Ex-
change Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964).
The Union but not the General Counsel argues Respondent
also coercively interrogated Blight. However, I conclude that
the facts fall short of establishing that any interrogation oc-
curred.
2 These facts are based on the credible and uncontradicted testimony
of Blight.
WESTERN GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB 1087
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by creat-
ing the impression that employees’ union activities were under
surveillance, by indicating to employees that it would be futile
to seek the support of the Union, and by offering employees
benefits to induce them to resign from the Union.
C. The 8(a)(5) Allegations
1. The overtime issue
Employees typically work a Wednesday through Sunday
schedule. Although the club is generally closed to members on
Mondays, the club does book special golf outings on that day.
These events are not only an opportunity for employees to work
extra hours, but the tips from these outings are also generally
higher than normal occasions. Historically, employees had
been assigned to Monday work on the basis of seniority. In that
regard section 26 of the collective-bargaining agreement pro-
vides:

Steady employees may be requested, but shall not be required,
to work a designated sixth (6th) or seventh (7th) day, or more
than eight (8) hours in any one day, and shall rotate the over-
time equally in any job classification where scheduling is
practical. The Club shall make this request by seniority, and
if no steady employees volunteer, the Club shall have the right
to require the least senior steady employees to perform the
work.

Beginning in the 1999 season Respondent ceased scheduling
steady employees for Monday work. Instead, Respondent as-
signed steady extra employees and extra employees to perform
that work.
Respondent points to section 5(a) and (b) in the collective-
bargaining agreement: that provide in pertinent part:

Eight (8) hours of work shall constitute a work day and
five (5) days shall constitute a workweek for steady em-
ployees . . . .
The Club will maximize work assignments for steady
employees up to the five (5) day workweek. Extra em-
ployees will be used to supplement, not to displace steady
employees.

Myers testified that he concluded that it was not fiscally re-
sponsible to continue to assign steady employees to the Mon-
day work. He decided that the contract gave him the authority
to assign that work to other employees, and he did so. The
Union was not notified of this change.
2. The medical benefits issue
In 1990 employee Marqueta Smith and then General Man-
ager Ronald Pearson agreed that Smith would receive payments
in the amount of the cost of health insurance benefits provided
in the contract. Other employees had the same arrangement
with Respondent. In 1997 employees Brain Donehue, Mar-
queta Smith, Sandy Knoll, and Mark Kemmerling met with
Robert Donehue, who was then the general manager and who is
also Brian’s brother. These employees all were receiving the
payments. The result of the meeting was that Robert Donehue
and these four employees3 individually signed a document,
dated September 1, 1997, that read:

(Respondent) agrees to pay/reimburse an amount that netsout
to be that of equal value to current or future insurance rates for
Blue Care Network or HAP on monthly basis.

The documents indicated that copies were sent to the Union and
to the employee’s personnel file.
These employees continued to receive payments, which by
December 1997 amounted to $175 per month. These amounts
were treated as income to the employees and they were re-
ported and taxed. However, in December 1997 Myers advised
the employees that they would no longer receive the cash pay-
ments but they would be eligible to receive the health insurance
benefits. The payments were terminated effective January 1,
1998. This was done without notice to the Union.
Of significance to this issue is section 20 of the collective-
bargaining agreement. That Section provides in pertinent part:

[N]o extra-contractual benefit, condition, or practice of em-
ployment, past or future, is enforceable under this Agreement
by the Club or the Union unless committed to writing and
signed by the employing Club and the Union; provided that
any such writing shall not be effective beyond the term of this
Agreement.

3. The refusal to provide information issue
On June 17 the Union requested the following information:

(P)lease let us know whether the Club has provided pay in
lieu of health coverage, or health coverage, for Mark Kem-
merling, Marqueta Smith, Brian Donehue, and Sandra Knoll
in 1996, 1997, and 1998, and the amounts and dates of any
such pay. In addition, please provide the personnel files for
these four employees. If you have any questions about my
request, or if there will be any delay in the Club’s response,
please let me know right away.

An arbitration hearing was held on July 27. One of the
grievances concerned the claim by Brian Donehue, Kemmer-
ling, Knoll, and Smith that Respondent had improperly discon-
tinued the payments in lieu of health insurance coverage. In his
decision the arbitrator described how the parties agreed that
Respondent had not yet provided the requested information.
During the arbitration proceeding the Union presented only
Knoll’s agreement with Pearson; it did not present the testi-
mony of the remaining three grievants. The arbitrator, relying
on section 20 of the collective-bargaining agreement, deter-
mined that because the Union had failed to establish agree-
ments covering Donehue, Smith, and Kemmerling those claims
were without merit. As to Knoll, the arbitrator determined that
the agreement that she and Pearson signed was in substantial
compliance with section 20; he granted the grievance as it per-
tained to Knoll and ordered that she be made whole.
On December 18 Respondent provided the Union copies of
the personnel files for the four employees.4 Respondent has not

3 The agreement with Kemmerling is not in the record. However,
Respondent concedes in its brief that Kemmerling and Donehue signed
such an agreement.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1088
provided any of the additional information requested by the
Union, in particular the payroll records showing the history of
payments made to the four employees for the 3-year period.
However, the record establishes that Respondent did not have
in its possession copies of the September 1 agreements de-
scribed above.
Analysis
It is well settled that an employer may not make changes in
working conditions without first giving notice to, and upon
request, bargaining with a union. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736
(1962). In Dearborn Country Club, 298 NLRB 915 (1990), the
Board held that the employer5 violated Section 8(a)(5) by uni-
laterally discontinuing its established past practice of allowing
steady employees the opportunity to work overtime before
assigning other employees that overtime. The Board rejected
various claims that the contract permitted the employer to en-
gage in that unilateral action.
Concerning the overtime issue, the facts clearly show that
the practice was to assign steady employees the Monday over-
time work on the basis of seniority. Respondent points to sec-
tion 5, set forth above. But nothing in that section detracts
from the existence of the past practice or permits Respondent to
unilaterally discontinue it.
Under these circumstances I conclude that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when it changed the manner in
which overtime work was assigned without first giving the
Union an opportunity to bargain.6 Dearborn Country Club, Id.
Turning now to the payments made in the amount of the cost
of health care benefits issue, the evidence clearly shows that
this practice has existed since at least 1990 and that it was ter-
minated unilaterally by Respondent effective January 1, 1998.
Respondent first argues that the Union is attempting to enforce
an illegal act. It contends that the payments to the four em-
ployees violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). It argues that ERISA requires that the practice of
payments in lieu of benefits be described in the benefit plan.
Because that practice is not set forth in plan, Respondent argues
that it was unlawful.
However, as the Union points out the record in this case
shows that the four employees were excluded from coverage of
the health plan by operation of section 58 of the contract. That

4 Jennifer Gadwell, Respondent’s human resources director, testified
that she sent the same information to the Union 4 or 5 months earlier. I
do not credit that testimony. Respondent provided no documentation
such as a cover letter to support her testimony. Moreover, as pointed
out above, at the arbitration proceeding the parties agreed that Respon-
dent had not yet provided the requested information.
5 That employer was a member of an employer association. Re-
spondent had been a member of that same association until it opted out
prior to the start of the recent negotiations. Thus, the contract discussed
in Dearborn was the predecessor contract to the current one.
6 The Union requests in its brief that I receive in evidence an arbitra-
tion award issued in 1992 that it claims supports the notion that article
26 compels Respondent to assign this overtime work by seniority. I
note, however, that the General Counsel did not allege a contract-based
“consent” theory in the complaint. Thus, Respondent has not had a fair
opportunity to defend against this allegation. I therefore deny the Un-
ion’s request.
section provides that employees covered by a comparable plan
fully paid for by another employer are excluded from Respon-
dent’s plan. Thus, Respondent was not offering to the employ-
ees an alternative to health care coverage. Instead, it was sim-
ply paying more money to certain employees who were not
covered by its health plan. So far as this record shows, such an
arrangement raises no ERISA concerns. Respondent cites
Veileux v. Atochem North America, Inc., 929 F.2d 74 (2d Cir.
1991). However, that case involved an employer’s failure to
distribute plan documents to certain groups of employees.
There is no evidence of such an occurrence in this case.
Respondent next argues that the practice was not reduced to
writing in the manner described in section 20 and thus it was
not required to continue that practice. In effect, Respondent is
arguing that under this section the Union waived its statutory
right to bargain about the matter before it could be changed.
The law concerning waiver of statutory rights is clear. Such
waivers must be clear and unmistakable. Metropolitan Edison
Co. v. NLRB, 460 U.S. 693 (1983); Dearborn Country Club,
supra. I conclude that Respondent’s reliance on section 20 is
misplaced. That section explicitly states only that nonconform-
ing practices are unenforceable “under this Agreement.” Noth-
ing in that section can be read to indicate the Union was also
waiving any extra-contractual rights. Section 20 provides no
justification for Respondent’s unilateral action.
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
by unilaterally terminating payments made to employees in lieu
of health care coverage.
Finally, turning to the information issue, the facts show that
the Union requested certain information and that information
was patently relevant to a grievance that the Union was proc-
essing. Respondent delayed providing the personnel files for
about 6 months and never did supply the requested payroll
information. The Act requires that an employer supply a union
with requested information that is relevant to the union’s role as
the employees’ collective-bargaining representative. NLRB v.
Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). The employer must
supply that information in a timely fashion. Mary Thompson
Hospital, 296 NLRB 1245, 1250 (1989).
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
by delaying to provide the Union with the personnel files and
by failing to provide the Union with the requested payroll in-
formation.
Although Respondent does not explicitly argue that the
Board should defer to the arbitrator’s award concerning the
payments in lieu of benefits issue, such an issue presents itself
nonetheless. The Board will defer to an arbitration award under
certain circumstances. Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080
(1955). However, before the Board will defer to such an award
it must be established that the arbitrator considered the alleged
unfair labor practice issue. In order for the arbitrator to have
done so it must be shown that the contractual issues are factu-
ally parallel to the unfair labor practice issue and that the arbi-
trator was presented generally with the relevant facts regarding
the unfair labor practice issue. Olin Corp., 268 NLRB 573, 574
(1984). Here, it has not been shown that the contractual and
unfair labor practice issues are factually parallel. This is so
because the arbitrator relied only on section 20 of the contract,
WESTERN GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB 1089
and that Section explicitly pertains only to contractually rights;
it does not deal the Union’s remaining rights under the Act.
Moreover, Respondent’s refusal to provide information pre-
vented the Union form fully developing its case. This conclu-
sion is not undermined by the fact that the Union was success-
ful in challenging Respondent’s conduct concerning Knoll
based on the information it then had. The Board will not defer
to arbitration awards where an employer has unlawfully with-
held information relevant to the arbitration proceeding. United
Parcel Service, 311 NLRB 974 (1993). Under these circum-
stances deferral to the award is inappropriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By creating the impression that employees’ union activi-
ties were under surveillance, by indicating to employees that it
would be futile to seek the support of the Union, and by offer-
ing employees benefits to induce them to resign from the Un-
ion, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By unilaterally terminating payments made to employees
in lieu of health care coverage, by unilaterally changing the
manner in which overtime work is assigned, and by delaying in
providing and failing to provide relevant, requested information
to the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and desist
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I have concluded that Respondent unlaw-
fully terminated the practice of paying employees a sum of
money equal to the costs it paid for health care insurance. I
have also concluded that Respondent unilaterally changed the
manner in which overtime work is assigned. I shall require that
Respondent restore the prior practices and make employees
whole for any resulting loss of earnings and other benefits, with
interest. I have concluded that Respondent failed to provide the
Union the information it requested concerning the amounts and
dates of payments made in lieu of health coverage for Mark
Kemmerling, Marqueta Smith, Brian Donehue, and Sandra
Knoll in 1996, 1997, and 1998. I shall require that Respondent
provide that information.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended7
ORDER
Respondent, Western Golf and Country Club, Redford,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Creating the impression that employees’ union activities
are under surveillance.

7 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.
(b) Creating the impression that employees’ union activities
are under surveillance.
(c) Indicating to employees that it would be futile to seek
the support of the Union.
(d) Offering employees benefits to induce them to resign
from the Union.
(e) Unilaterally terminating payments made to employees in
lieu of health care coverage.
(f) Unilaterally changing the manner in which overtime
work is assigned.
(g) Failing to provide or delaying to provide requested in-
formation that is relevant to the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Restore the practice of making payments to employees in
lieu of health care coverage and make employees who suffered
a loss of earnings or benefits as a result of the termination of
this practice whole in the manner described in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision.
(b) Restore the practice of assigning overtime work to
steady employees in accordance with their seniority and make
employees who suffered a loss of earnings or benefits as a re-
sult of the termination of this practice whole in the manner
described in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) Provide the Union with the information it requested con-
cerning the amounts and dates of payments made in lieu of
health coverage for Mark Kemmerling, Marqueta Smith, Brian
Donehue, and Sandra Knoll in 1996, 1997, and 1998.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make avail-
able 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 necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Redford, Michigan copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
8 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1090
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since January 1, 1998.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.

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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered 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 protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT create the impression that employees’ union
activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that it would be futile to seek
the support of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
International Union, Local 24, AFL–CIO
WE WILL NOT offer employees benefits to induce them to
resign from the Union.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally terminate the practice of mak-
ing payments to employees in lieu of health care benefits and
WE WILL restore the prior practice and make employees
whole any resulting loss of earnings and benefits, with interest.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the manner in which
overtime is assigned and WE WILL restore the prior practice
and make employees whole for any resulting loss of earnings
and benefits, with interest.
WE WILL NOT fail to provide or delay in providing re-
quested information that is relevant to the Union’s performance
of its duties as the exclusive collective bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL provide the Union with the information it re-
quested concerning the amounts and dates of payments made in
lieu of health coverage, or health coverage, for Mark Kemmer-
ling, Marqueta Smith, Brian Donehue, and Sandra Knoll in
1996, 1997, and 1998.
WESTERN GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB