Airport Park Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1989

296 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

AIRPORT PARK HOTEL
Lee Hotel Corp . d/b/a Airport Park Hotel and
Reinaldo Zamora. Case 31-CA-17151
September 13, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On May 24 , 1989, Administrative Law Judge
Burton Litvack issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting 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 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent , Lee Hotel
Corp . d/b/a Airport Park Hotel, Inglewood, Cali-
fornia , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Order , except
that the attached notice is substituted for that of
the administrative law judge.
' 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 Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
In the absence of exception , we adopt the adverse inference drawn by
the judge to the Respondent 's failure to call former manager Dan Jones
to testify.
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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because they
have engaged in union or other protected concert-
ed activities or because we suspect them of having
done so.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with leasing
certain operations of the Airport Park Hotel, in-
cluding its bar, unless they cease engaging in union
activities.
509
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees with
regard to their union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with , coerce, or restrain employees in the
exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL reinstate Reinaldo Zamora, Danielle
Bell-Nagy , Robin Morrow , and Pedro Montero to
their former positions of employment or, if these
no longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions
and WE WILL make them whole for any wages lost,
with interest, as a result of our discrimination
against him or her.
WE WILL remove from our files any references
to the May 9, 1988 discharges of Zamora, Bell-
Nagy , Morrow , and Montero , and notify each in
writing that this has been done and that evidence
of the discharge will not be used as a basis for any
future personnel actions against him or her.
LEE HOTEL CORP . D/B/A AIRPORT
PARK HOTEL
Ann Reid Cronin , Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael W. Monk, Esq. and Miriam Teutsch, Esq., of Los
Angeles, California, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BURTON LITVACK , Administrative Law Judge. The
unfair labor practice charge in the above -captioned
matter was filed by Reinaldo Zamora, an individual, on
May 10, 1988. Having investigated the charge , on June
22, 1988 ,1 the Regional Director of Region 31 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a com-
plaint, alleging that Lee Hotel Corp . d/b/a Airport Park
Hotel (Respondent) engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (the Act). Respondent timely
filed an answer, denying the commission of any unfair
labor practices . Pursuant to a notice of hearing, which
accompanied the above complaint , a trial was conducted
by and before me on August 30 and 31, 1988, in Los An-
geles, California . At said hearing , all parties were afford-
ed the opportunity to examine and cross -examine wit-
nesses, to offer into the record any relevant evidence, to
argue their respective legal positions orally, and to file
posthearing briefs . The latter documents were filed by
both counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for
Respondent and were carefully considered by me. Ac-
cordingly , based on the entire record , including my ob-
servation of the testimonial demeanor of the several wit-
nesses2 and the posthearing briefs, I make the following
' Unless otherwise specified, all events herein occurred during calendar
year 1988.
2 An unusual aspect of this case is that much of the testimony , provid-
ed by both the General Counsel and Respondent , was uncontroverted
Continued
296 NLRB No. 70
510 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is now, and has been at all times material,
a California corporation, with an office and place of
business located in Inglewood , California, and, at said lo-
cation, is engaged in the business of operating a hotel
and providing food and beverage services to the public.
During the course and conduct of its foregoing business
operations , Respondent annually derives gross revenues
in excess of $500,000 and sells and ships goods or serv-
ices valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers lo-
cated outside the State of California. Respondent admits
that it is now, and has been at all times material, an em-
ployer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
H. ISSUES
The complaint alleges that Respondent terminated four
individuals (Zamora, Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow,
and Pedro Montero) on or about May 9, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, because each partici-
pated in a union organizing campaign at Respondent's
hotel and that, 3 days prior to said unlawful discharges,
Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by impliedly threatening to terminate
the bar operations at said hotel facility if employees se-
lected a union to represent them and by interrogating
employees as to their union activities , sympathies, and
desires . Respondent denies that the discharges of the
above individuals were, in any way, motivated by what-
ever union activities in which they may have engaged
and asserts that said discharges resulted from a change in
the method of operating the bar at the hotel, said change
having preceded any union or other protected concerted
activities.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The record establishes that the Airport Park Hotel
(the Hotel) is located on South Prairie Avenue in
Inglewood, California , across the street from the Forum
in which the Los Angeles Lakers professional basketball
team plays its home games , and is separated by a parking
lot from Hollywood Park Race Track ; that the Hotel
was purchased by the Lee Hotel Corporation (the Cor-
poration) on December 31, 1986 ; and that, at the time of
purchase , the Hotel 's facilities included a bar and lounge,
a gift shop , a coffeeshop , banquet and meeting rooms,
and a Chinese-style restaurant which was not in oper-
ation. The record further establishes that the Corporation
is closely held, that Charles Lee and his wife are its prin-
cipals and jointly own all the outstanding shares of stock,
Thus, I have not had the benefit of being able to base credibility resolu-
tions upon the contrasting testimonial demeanor of conflicting and con-
tradictory witnesses Nevertheless , as will become evident , the credibility
of the witnesses is directly at issue herein and resolutions of such have
been made based upon the witness ' demeanor and, in part , upon the
record as a whole
that the Corporation owns several types of businesses in
addition to hotels, and that the Airport Park Hotel was
the initial hotel purchased by the Corporation .3 At all
times material , Dan Jones was the Hotel 's director of op-
erations and responsible for daytime management;
Charles Noh was the night manager; Rudy Tenveldon
was the executive chef; and Hoon Park was the director
of personnel , and all were admittedly supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. According to
Lee, his normal business routine is to visit the Hotel no
more than 2 or 3 times a month , and Jones and Noh,
both of whom had equal authority , were in charge of
day-to-day hotel business . On this point, Lee explained
that "I 'm not much involved in the hotel" and that it
"mostly" was left to Jones and Noh. ("They don't report
to me every day.") The witness added, however, that
when "major problems" occurred , Jones or Noh would
telephone him, and "then I involve with it."
At the time of the Corporation' s purchase of the
Hotel ,4 although a collective -bargaining agreement had
recently expired , the employees , including the bartenders
and cocktail waitresses in the bar and lounge , were rep-
resented by Local 814 of the Hotel and Restaurant Em-
ployees Union. Notwithstanding that Lee entered into
negotiations for a successor agreement, his sentiments at
the time are revealed by the following uncontroverted
testimony of Robin Morrow , who had been employed as
a cocktail waitress since December 1983. According to
her, Lee met with the Hotel's employees shortly after
the purchase , and "he told employees that the Union was
a waste of money and there was no point in paying dues
whereas he could help us out more than the Union
could. And we were encouraged not to "renew our con-
tract." In fact, according to Lee, the negotiations with
Local 814 continued through August 1987 when they
ended without agreement . The Charging Party Zamora,
who had been employed as a bartender since 1979 , testi-
fied that, in the midst of the unsuccessful contract bar-
gaining, Local 814 advised the Hotel employees "not to
worry about [paying their union dues] because they
could never negotiate the contract with Mr. Lee."
Thereafter, the Hotel's employees ceased paying dues,
Local 814 apparently withdrew as the bargaining repre-
sentative of said employees, and there was no union ac-
tivity at the Hotel until late March or early April 1988.
At that time, representatives of the Hotel and Restau-
rant Employees Union (the Union) appeared outside the
employee entrance to the Hotel , distributed organization-
al leaflets to employees, and solicited them to sign au-
thorization cards for the Union . Several Hotel employ-
ees, including Morrow and bartender Pedro Montero,
who had worked in that capacity at the Hotel since 1978,
signed such cards early in April. The record reveals that
the union activity continued throughout April and into
a Subsequent to obtaining the Airport Park Hotel , the Corporation pur-
chased the Amfac Hotel which is also located in the Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia area
4 The existing hotel employees were terminated at the time of purchase
and instructed to reapply for employment Apparently most , if not all,
were immediately rehired but were forced to work for a probationary
period
AIRPORT PARK HOTEL
May, with employees continuing to execute authorization
cards,5 and that Respondent was well aware of it. Thus,
Charles Lee testified that, "almost" at the end of April,
Dan Jones telephoned him with the news that the Union
had "people around the parking lot . . . going to contact
my employee" and asked what he should do. Lee in-
structed Jones not to permit the organizers inside the
Hotel but to allow them to continue their activities in the
parking lot . However, according to Lee, the Union did
not confine its organizing efforts to areas outside the
Hotel , and actually rented a room , using it to reach the
employees . Upon learning of the room rental from Jones,
Lee instructed him to order any union agents to leave
the Hotel and, if they refused, to ask the police to evict
them.
While there is no evidence that any of the bartenders
and cocktail waitresses , other than executing authoriza-
tion cards , engaged in any significant organizing activi-
ties during the nascent union campaign in April and
May, there exists record evidence that, at the same time,
they engaged in other protected concerted activities,
conduct which clearly concerned Respondent . Such in-
volved an individual, Sam Patel , who had been hired by
Lee in the capacity of "cash manager" to "check up" on
employee usage of the various Hotel cash registers, in-
cluding the one in the Hotel bar, which was operated by
the bartenders. The record discloses that Patel, who had
been hired on approximately March 1 , gradually began
concentrating his activities in the bar area and that he
would normally station himself behind the bar, observing
the cash register and the work of the bartenders. Ac-
cording to Charging Party Zamora, Patel was constantly
"in our way" and employees would "bump into him all
the time ." In addition , the bar employees were uncertain
as to Patel's position , particularly whether "he was in
charge of us or not ." Zamora discussed the situation
with Morrow and another cocktail waitress , Danelle
Bell-Nagy, who had worked in the cocktail lounge since
1976, and , thereafter , spoke to Dan Jones in the latter's
office with regard to "Patel 's position and what he was
doing if he was behind the bar all the time ." Jones ex-
plained that Patel's job involved nothing more than
"checking up on the cashiers ." Zamora replied that the
bar employees were upset that Patel seemed to be behind
the bar on a regular basis and suggested that he could
observe by sitting at the counter . Zamora and Jones
ended the conversation with the latter agreeing to meet
with the bar employees the next afternoon at 4 p.m.
Zamora testified further that, rather than at the sched-
uled time, Jones came into the bar area the next day at
3:30 p .m. and spoke to him. Jones called the bartenders
"a bunch of primadonna [s]"; the Charging Party denied
that and said "we just want to know what 's going on
and what this Mr. Patel is doing behind the bar." Jones
responded, saying, "if you don't like the way we're run-
ning the place here is the front door , you know what to
do." Zamora then suggested that the scheduled meeting
be canceled, but Jones said that he wanted the meeting
to be held. A few minutes later, Rudy Tenveldon and
6 Reinaldo Zamora, who had worked for the Hotel since 1979 as a bar-
tender , signed an authorization card for the Union on or about May 2
511
Charles Noh entered the lounge; however, before the
employee meeting began, the wife of Charles Lee "came
to the bar and said, 'close the bar and send everybody
home."' Moments later , Dan Jones rescinded that in-
struction and ordered the bar to remain open . Finally,
with regard to this incident, Charles Lee testified that it
occurred in mid-April and that the scheduled meeting
with the bar employees was arranged by Dan Jones after
the employees threatened to "close down" the bar over
their difficulties with Sam Patel.
With the union organizing campaign ongoing for, at
least, 6 weeks, Dan Jones met with the bartenders and
cocktail waitresses in the bar area at 4 p . m. on Friday,
May 6 . 6 Present were Jones and Rudy Tenveldon and
employees Zamora, Morrow , Pedro Montero (a bartend-
er at the Hotel since 1978), Bell -Nagy, and Donna Jett.
Morrow , who described the meeting . as a "mandatory"
one, testified that Jones began by asking if any of the
employees knew how to speak Cantonese and, when all
asked why, stated
because apparently Mr. Lee is well aware of the
union activity. He is strictly against the Union. He
does not like them . He will fight them if he has to if
he doesn 't get some cooperation . . . from the em-
ployees in the bar he will lease it out . . . and it
will probably go to a Chinaman . So you'd better
learn how to speak Chinese. He said he would
rather give money to the employees as far as raises
and benefits than to pay lawyers to fight the Union
which he will do if he has to.
According to Morrow, Jones added that Lee "does not
trust bartenders" and he "thinks all bartenders are
thieves ." After soliciting suggestions for improving bar
business , Jones next said that "we were going to get a
raise June 1st.... He said that there would be an eval-
uation . And after the evaluation raises were to be distrib-
uted on June 1st." Jones concluded by telling bartender
Montero that his hours would be restored and that his
schedule would be what it had been prior to May. Pedro
Montero7 testified that , at the meeting, Jones said, "Mr.
Lee doesn't like the Union . . . because it cost a lot of
money. . . . And if the Union came to the hotel they
want to close [it] or they put condominiums or sell it to
the Chinese people. Then . . . we'd better start to learn
Cantonese." Also, Jones told Montero that he "wanted
to give me my shift back ." Asked whether a raise was
mentioned , Montero further testified that Jones said "he
wanted to give a raise on June 1st."
Also regarding this May 6 meeting , Reinaldo Zamora
testified that Jones began by asking the employees if they
wanted him to be "straight up" with them. After getting
their assent to such an approach , Jones "started talking
6 It is unclear whether Jones held similar meetings that day with any
other Hotel employees. Respondent 's own unlawful refusal to offer rein-
statment to the two employees was a material factor in creating the con-
fusion that exists now whether they would have returned in 1978 It is
well settled that where a partys conduct results in an ambiguity , the am-
biguity is not to be resolved in its favor I therefore reject these alternate
contentions of Respondent
7 Earlier that year , Jones had changed Montero 's hours and schedule
512 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about the raise he's going to give us," saying it was "not
going to be because of the union activity in the
hotel. . . . He said Mr. Lee bought the property for a
real estate investment and he wants to give the money he
makes to the employees ." Upon being asked by counsel,
Zamora recalled that Jones also "said if the union activi-
ty keeps going they 're going to lease . . . the bar and
we'd better start learning Cantonese . . . because [Lee]
was going to lease to an oriental ." Danelle Bell-Nagy
testified that Jones began by asking if he should come
right to the point or beat around the bush. Told to
follow the former approach , Jones said that "we should
all learn . . . to speak Cantonese because that 's what's
going to happen , Mr. Lee's going to lease out the bar.
He's not happy about the union activity in the hotel.
[Jones] went on to say . . . Mr. Lee was not happy with
the bar operation . . . . He suspects anyone who handles
money . All bartenders are thieves ." Bell-Nagy further
testified that Jones added that Lee was antiunion but that
he "would rather put his money back towards employee
benefits than spend the money paying attorneys to fight
... the Union ." Asked about the subject of raises, the
witness recalled that Jones mentioned a raise just before
the meeting ended , saying Lee had decided to give all
the Hotel employees a raise, effective June 1st. Neither
Jones nor Tenveldon was called by Respondent as a wit-
ness regarding what was said at this meeting, and Re-
spondent's counsel offered no explanation for his failure
to do so.8
Later that evening, at approximately 8 p.m., Bell-Nagy
was working behind the bar when Tenveldon and the
Hotel 's banquet manager, Ben Vinuya , approached her.
The discriminatee testified, "Rudy said , Dani let me ask
you something ; how do you feel about signing some anti-
union material?" Bell-Nagy replied that, while she had
not signed a card for the Union , why should she sign
against it. Tenveldon replied that she could not stay
middle-of-the-road and that she would have to take a po-
sition "one way or the other ." Bell-Nagy refused , saying
that she had been a long -time member of the Union and
would not execute a petition against it . ° Shortly after
Tenveldon and Vinuya left her, Bell-Nagy telephoned
Zamora, telling him what Tenveldon had requested.
Thereafter , at 9 p .m., she approached Banquet Manager
Vinuya and asked him what was going on with all the
"anti-union stuff"; Vinuya replied that he did not know
but that "we were all told to go to our various depart-
Jones was not called as a witness at the trial Respondent 's counsel
stated no reason for his failure to do so. Lee, however , mentioned that
Jones no longer worked for Respondent , having obtained employment at
another Los Angeles area hotel
Lee also testified that all Hotel employees were told that they would
receive a 5-percent wage increase . According to him , he initially dis-
cussed the matter with Hoon Park in early April but employees were not
told until May
Lee generally denied instructing Jones to speak to employees about the
Union.
9 Robin Morrow testified that, subsequent to the employee meeting
with Jones and Tenveldon , she overheard the latter speaking to Bell-
Nagy and asking her "how she felt about the Union and if she would be
willing to sign an antiunion petition ." According to Morrow, Bell-Nagy
said that she had not signed for the Union as yet , and "why should she
sign against the Union and she had been a member of the Union And she
would not go against it "
ments and . . . ask people." Testifying that Tenveldon
similarly spoke to him but on the previous evening (May
5) by telephone , the Charging Party Zamora stated that
Tenveldon told him that Lee was preparing "an anti-
union [petition]" and asked "if I'm willing to sign."
Zamora responded that he would not and wanted to
remain "neutral ." 10 Tenveldon did not testify with
regard to these conversations and, as stated above, Re-
spondent 's counsel offered no explanation for not calling
Tenveldon as a witness.
At approximately 10 p.m. on Sunday , May 8 , Zamora
telephoned Bell-Nagy with the news that "they intended
to lease out the bar ." Bell-Nagy immediately telephoned
Sam Patel inasmuch as, earlier that night, he had given
the discriminatee her shifts for the coming week. Patel
disavowed knowledge of exactly what had occurred,
saying "I have just found out myself." The next morn-
ing, Hoon Park , the director of personnel, telephoned
Bell-Nagy and said , "I'm really sorry but they're leasing,
they say they're leasing out the bar; could you please
come in and pick up your paycheck at 2:00 . . . this
afternoon ." Park placed similar phone calls to Zamora,
Morrow , and Montero , and the four discriminatees" ap-
peared at the bar at 2 p.m. on May 9 in order to receive
their final checks. According to Morrow, Dan Jones met
with them at that time and, when asked why no notice
of the bar leasing had been given to the employees, said
"these things happen." Asked who would work at the
bar when it reopened , Jones replied , according to Mon-
tero, that "banquet people" would be utilized.
The record establishes that, despite the likelihood of a
busy night in the bar due to a boxing program at the
Forum , ' 2 the facility was closed on Monday night and
that, while the bar reopened on Tuesday, May 10, oper-
ations that evening were chaotic . According to both
Morrow and Bell-Nagy, who were present, it was a
night of a Lakers' playoff game, and "it was a very busy
night ." Both women and Zamora , who also was there,
observed new employees behind the bar and on the
floor . One waitress was a Korean girl whom Morrow
and Bell -Nagy knew as Mrs . Lee's niece and who was
wearing the uniform of a coffeeshop waitress , and Sam
Patel appeared to be having a difficult time getting bot-
tles of liquor for the bar." Also, he asked for Zamora's
help in operating the cash register and for Bell-Nagy's
help in working a videotape recorder. Further, accord-
ing to Morrow , service was "slow" and "the drinks were
poured inconsistently ." 13 Finally, with regard to oper-
ations at the bar subsequent to the discharges , Morrow
testified that she returned to the Hotel's bar facility fre-
quently during May, June and July and observed Sam
10 Zamora straightforwardly admitted that he and Tenveldon were
close social friends
i i Each discriminatee appeared reluctant to testify regarding his or her
disciplinary record at the Hotel, and Zamora , in particular, exhibited a
rather inexact memory of events. Nevertheless , they were corroborative
and uncontroverted with regard to the events herein
12 Bell -Nagy testified that boxing at the Forum was an event "which
we get a very good crowd for A lot of the patrons stay in the Hotel and
they drink before and after the boxing "
is Morrow testified that, as a result of Lakers' playoff games in May
and June , "this is the busiest time of year for the bar "
AIRPORT PARK HOTEL
Patel "supervising" and "acting like the same he did
when we were working there." She added that Patel
acted as if he was "managing the bar, behind the bar."
Thus, not only was he in charge of the cash register but
also he was involved "with the liquor behind the bar."' 4
In presenting its defense to the allegations of the com-
plaint , Respondent failed to controvert any of the fore-
going record evidence. Rather, Respondent contends
that it entered into an agreement on April 24 with King
Labor Services for the latter to provide bar labor at
fixed rates, that such was intended as a preliminary step
to a lease agreement for the bar operation at the Hotel,
that the contracting parties mutually agreed upon May
10 as the commencement date for their April 24 agree-
ment , and that the four discriminatees were discharged
on May 9 in order for Respondent to "implement" the
terms of said agreement . At the outset, Charles Lee testi-
fied that, inasmuch as he was not "comfortable" with the
food and beverage aspects of the business,' s upon pur-
chasing the Hotel in December 1986, his intent was to
not have to "handle" such operations and to "sublease
out" management of the restaurant , coffeeshop, and bar.
According to Lee, his goal for each was to have a leas-
ing arrangement whereby the lessee would be responsi-
ble for managing the particular food and beverage oper-
ation and , in return , Respondent would receive a fixed
percentage of the income with a "minimum guarantee."
Indeed , approximately 2 months after purchasing the
Hotel , Lee reached such an agreement for leasing out
operation of the Shanghai Garden, the Hotel's restaurant.
However, throughout 1987, he was unable to locate
anyone interested in assuming responsibility for the bar
business . The record discloses that, in the late fall of that
year, Lee met an individual , Frank Ferm, who is em-
ployed by a wholesale produce supplier which had, in
the past , sold its products to the Hotel, at a local sushi
bar and that the two became friends . Whenever they
subsequently met at this sushi bar, Lee and Ferm dis-
cussed various aspects of the hotel business and, accord-
ing to Ferm, Lee began mentioning his desire "to lease
out his bar operation." Ferm told Lee that he had sever-
al contacts in the food and beverage industry and offered
to make inquiries . Thereafter, Ferm spoke to "a few
people," one of whom was the owner of two Beverly
Hills, California restaurants, Herb Newman. The latter
expressed some interest , and, in February 1988, Ferm in-
formed Lee of his conversation with Newman.
Lee testified that , not until a month later , did he tele-
phone Newman and that the latter, in turn, put him in
touch with Newman 's partner in various businesses,
"Babe" Croick. Croick, who described himself as being
involved in several types of businesses including restau-
rants and bars, office services , temporary help, and park-
14 Each discriminatee testified with regard to G.C. Exh. 2, an apparent
advertisement which had been posted by the employee timeclock on or
about May 6 Said document states that the Hotel had "immediate open-
ings" for employees , including cocktail waitresses The discriminatees
further denied that any openings for cocktail waitresses were available at
the time.
is Explaining his discomfort with the food and beverage aspect of the
Hotel business , Lee stated , "It's not only steal money It's a lot of thing
involved to having . . . food and beverage business "
513
ing lots, testified that, after Ferm spoke to Newman
about the possibility of managing a hotel bar pursuant to
a lease arrangement , he and Newman discussed the deal
in general terms and , in Croick 's words, "played it light-
ly." Then, according to Croick, just before he left for a
vacation in Palm Springs over the weekend of April 10,
they decided to pursue negotiations with Lee . Accord-
ingly, on or about April 14 or 15e Croick telephoned
Lee, and the latter "just said he wants out of the bar
business . . . . And he's interested in sub-leasing the bar."
Over the next 7 to 10 days, according to both witnesses,
Lee and Croick spoke two or three times, discussing an
arrangement for Croick to manage the Hotel's bar. What
resulted from their discussions bears no relation to Lee's
desired lease arrangement for the bar . According to
Croick, he had become leary of entering into any sort of
leasing agreement for a business of a different type than
he was involved in operating . However, remaining desir-
ous of doing business with Lee , Croick assertedly sug-
gested operating the bar "for a couple of months," utiliz-
ing employees hired from his temporary help business,
King Labor Services. As Croick testified, "I'll supply the
manpower and womenpower and I 'll just put it through
my payroll, pay them whatever. . . . And we can nego-
tiate after that ." Croick further testified that Lee agreed
to such an arrangement for a period of 60 days. While
Croick credited himself with having suggested the par-
ties' subsequent relationship , Lee described such as being
"mutually" agreed upon or possibly his idea-"it's a lot
of talk . . . how it's leasing out and ... what kind of
time.... At that time each other we don't know busi-
ness together never been before . Then his idea , my idea
is why don't you couple of months lease the operation to
involve them . Whatever is exactly cash flow how much
come out . Then . . . real contract making couple months
after." Whoever suggested the type of arrangement,
Croick and Lee agree that the former drafted the docu-
ment memorializing their agreement , Respondent's Ex-
hibit 3, and that both executed it at the Hotel on April
24. Said document reads, as follows:
April 24, 1988
Lee Hotel Corp.
600 South Prairie Avenue
Inglewood , Calif. 90301
Attn: Mr. Charles Lee
Re: Management and Supplying of Labor for the
Airport Park Hotel Cocktail Lounge.
Bartenders @12.00 Per Hour.
Cocktail Waitresses @ 8.00 Per Hour.
The above rates include all State and Federal
Payroll Taxes. Workmens Compensation Insurance
and Management Fees.
This Agreement is for a period of sixty (60) days
and shall terminate on June 24, 1988, at which time
we will negotiate to lease said Cocktail Lounge and
purchase your liquor license.
This Agreement between Lee Hotel Corp. and
King Labor Services will commence on May 10,
1988.
514 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With regard to the signing of their agreement , Croick
conceded that the only date on the document is in the
upper right hand corner and that nothing on it estab-
lishes the date of either signature, a factor which he
termed "insignificant." Croick then asserted that Hillary
Shockley, an individual who negotiates real estate deals
on behalf of Lee, was present at the time Lee and Croick
executed Respondent 's Exhibit 3; however, Respondent
failed to produce Shockley as a corroborating witness,
offering no reason for failing to do so.
With regard to the terms of the asserted April 24
agreement , May 10 was the date established as the com-
mencement date . On this point , Croick testified that he
asked for "a couple of weeks to set up with who I'm
going to put in there. . . . And we just picked out the
date." During cross-examination , Croick contradicted
himself, testifying that Lee established May 10 as the
starting date after he (Croick) said he would need "a
couple of weeks" to become ready. Responding "I don't
know" as to how May 10 was chosen as the contractual
starting date , Charles Lee believed that it was Croick
who suggested that date inasmuch as he (Croick) re-
quired 2 or 3 weeks to become ready to operate the
Hotel 's bar . Next, by its terms, the agreement was to be
for a period of 60 days. According to Croick, he suggest-
ed a 2-month term in order for him to evaluate the bar's
receipts , "what was being taken in. We had some ideas. I
knew that was a busy time . . . . I was looking to see
what the slow months were going to be. . . . And we
were going to get a reading from Mr. Lee on what it
took in the previous year. . . . So it was just a matter of
timing . I'd just see what was going to go, if we were
going to obligate ourselves." As set forth above, the tes-
timony of Charles Lee is unclear as to whether a 2-
month term was a mutually reached idea or his own pro-
posal , but he failed to credit Croick with proposing it.
Finally, pursuant to the terms of the alleged April 24
agreement, Respondent was required to pay to King
Labor Services specified amounts for the bartenders and
cocktail waitresses who would work at the Hotel's bar
and, out of said payments , the latter would compensate
the employees and pay all necessary taxes and insurance
amounts. In reality , as Croick testified, almost from the
commencement of the agreement , Respondent made
direct payments to the bartenders and cocktail waitress-
es. Initially terming these "advances" and contending the
payments were not the "full" amounts contemplated
under Respondent's Exhibit 3, Croick conceded that Re-
spondent was directly paying the bar employees, subse-
quent to May 10, what, in effect, was their wage rates-
"Whatever it came to." Croick added that Respondent
was well aware of the bar employees' wage rates inas-
much as "we both of us negotiated that." Asked which
party suggested this novel method of compensating the
bar employees, Croick pointed to Charles Lee, saying
"that was [Lee's] way to operate." Asked why Lee
adopted this payment policy, Croick claimed ignorance,
stating, "I never paid attention .. .. And it didn't make a
difference to me . . . because I'm getting my $12.00 per
hour."' a Croick added that Respondent could pay em-
ployees in the above manner as it controlled the employ-
ee timeclock and had access to the timecard records.
Conceding that the foregoing was not part of the em-
ployee compensation arrangement with Croick, Charles
Lee claimed that the suggestion for direct employee pay-
ments came from Herb Newman who told him that the
bar employees probably would need money on a daily
basis and would not be able to wait to receive a once-a-
month payment '' from King Labor Services.18
Casting doubt upon the validity of the asserted April
24 agreement between Lee and Croick is the undisputed
fact that , notwithstanding the stated intent of such and
the 4-1/2-month time period between the May 10 com-
mencement date of the contract and the instant hearing,
they had not, as yet, consummated any sort of lease
agreement for the Hotel bar and , according to Croick,
remain in negotiations . While he opined that "hopefully
it'll be worked out, such seems to be a rather dubious
possibility at best . Thus, unbeknownst to Croick, and
while supposedly negotiating in good faith with him,
Lee, at the same time , had Hillary Shockley approach
Zamora with regard to negotiating a lease arrangement
with him . Nothing resulted from these discussions inas-
much as, according to Zamora , withdrawal of the instant
unfair labor practice charge was a "condition" to any
agreement . When questioned about the impact of the
Zamora discussions upon his own lease negotiations,
Croick stated that he had been unaware of any talks be-
tween Zamora and Lee and , incredibly, added "if [Lee]
had another avenue and he could make a better deal for
himself; fine." Thereupon, Croick conceded that any
contract he had with Lee was "probably" worth no
more than the paper on which it was printed and said,
"If [Lee] would have come to me and said , 'I've got a
deal with somebody.' I could take the paper and tear it
up.... Because I really didn't have anything.... I had
nothing. It was a temporary deal."' 9
Central to Respondent 's defense to the unfair labor
practice allegations of the complaint is Charles Lee's as-
sertion that he mentioned nothing with regard to either
his April 24 temporary labor agreement with King Labor
Services for the hiring of bar personnel at the Hotel or
his commitment to enter into negotiations for a lease ar-
rangement for the bar to anyone in the managerial hier-
16 As this complicated payment system evolved , Respondent paid King
Labor Services the contractual amounts multiplied by the actual hours
worked with a deduction for the amounts paid directly to each employee.
14 Contrary to Lee , Croick testified that the bar employees were paid
twice each month
i8 Croick claimed that , between Sunday , April 24, and Tuesday, May
10, he visited the Hotel 's bar on three occasions-he would "stop there in
the evenings" and remain "maybe an hour " Asked to describe what he
did, Croick said, "I 'd just be in the lobby just hanging around " Bell-
Nagy , Morrow , and Montero all denied ever having seen Croick prior to
the hearing
19 According to Lee , he became aware subsequent to the May 9 lay-
offs that one of the bartenders had spoken to Ray Jones about leasing the
bar; Lee did nothing as the asserted April 24 agreement committed him
to enter negotiations for such a lease with Babe Croick after a 2-month
period Lee further testified that, after said 60 -day period passed by with-
out a lease agreement between Croick and him , he instructed Hillary
Shockley to reach Zamora and offer him the "same conditions" as pro-
posed to Croick
AIRPORT PARK HOTEL
archy of the Hotel until as late as Tuesday, May 10, the
effective date of the alleged April 24 agreement.20 Ac-
cordingly , Respondent argues that , when Jones spoke to
the bar employees on May 6, he was unaware of what-
ever arrangements Lee made for the operation of the
Hotel bar . On this point, Lee maintained that this failure
to communicate was deliberate on his part, explaining
that "this is my business operation style" and that "usual-
ly I contract I never tell anybody ." He added that the
only individual to whom he confided about his dealings
with Croick was his wife . Dan Jones , who clearly could
have corroborated the foregoing testimony , was not
called as a witness by Respondent , nor did Respondent's
counsel explain his failure to do so . In any event, both
Lee and Croick testified that the changeover in manage-
ment and staffing of the bar occurred , as scheduled, on
May 10, and , when asked if any confusion resulted, Lee
denied that there were any complaints . Finally, Lee
stated that, completing his desire to not operate his
hotels' food and beverage functions , he negotiated a lease
arrangement for the Hotel's coffeeshop in July.
As to the union activity at the Hotel , as set forth
above, Lee admitted being informed of such by Ray
Jones in late April. Asked if he and Jones discussed strat-
egy for dealings with the apparent organizing campaign,
Lee says he spoke to Jones-"I asking to what you
going on . Then he say but not much worry about this
not much in people interesting to some people so I'm not
concerned about it. That's what I understand Jones say."
Asked specifically if he believed the discriminatees might
be prounion , Lee said , "I never thought about the em-
ployee bar area." He added that his concern was the
entire employee complement at the Hotel and that Jones
told him not to be concerned as the employees did not
seem to favor the Union . Thereafter , according to Lee,
he paid little attention to the organizing efforts.
B. Analysis
My determination as to the legality of the May 9 dis-
charges of Zamora, Bell-Nagy, Morrow , and Montero is
governed by the traditional precepts of Board law in
8(a)(1) and (3) discharge cases, as modified by the
Board 's decision in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 453 U.S.
989 (1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Manage-
ment Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983). Thus, in order to estab-
lish a prima facie violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act, the General Counsel must establish ( 1) that the
alleged discriminatees engaged in union activities; (2)
that the employer had knowledge of such; (3) that the
employer's actions were motivated by union animus; and
(4) that the discharges had the effect of encouraging or
discouraging membership in a labor organization.
WMUR-TV, 253 NLRB 697, 703 (1980). Further, the
General Counsel has the burden of proving the afore-
mentioned by a preponderance of the evidence. Gonic
Mfg. Co., 141 NLRB 201, 209 (1963). While the afore-
mentioned analysis was easily applied in cases in which
the employer's motivation was straightforward , concep-
20 Lee stated that he was not sure whether it was on Monday (May 9)
or Tuesday (May 10) that he informed Jones of the new bar arrangement.
515
tual problems arose in cases in which the record evi-
dence disclosed the presence of both a lawful cause and
an unlawful cause for the discharge . In order to resolve
this ambiguity , in Wright Line, supra , the Board estab-
lished the following causation test in all 8 (a)(1) and (3)
cases involving employer motivation . "First, we shall re-
quire that the General Counsel make a prima facie show-
ing sufficient to support the inference that protected con-
duct was a 'motivating factor' in the employer 's decision.
Once this is established, the burden will shift to the em-
ployer to demonstrate that the same action would have
taken place even in the absence of the protected con-
duct ." Id. at 1089. Two points are relevant to the forego-
ing analytical approach . First, in concluding that the
General Counsel has established a prima facie violation
of the Act, the Board will not "quantitatively analyze"
the effect of the unlawful motive. The existence of such
is sufficient to make a discharge a violation of the Act.
Id. at 1089 fn . 14. Second , pretextual discharge cases
should be viewed as those in which "the defense of busi-
ness justification is wholly without merit" (id. at 1084 fn.
5), and the "burden shifting" analysis of Wright Line
need not be utilized. Arthur Young & Co., 291 NLRB 39
(1988).
I view the May 9 discharges of Zamora, Bell-Nagy,
Morrow , and Montero as being of the latter type and,
thus, patently violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act. In this regard, I believe that, while Respondent may
have desired to lease out each of the Hotel's food and
beverage operations , including the bar, Charles Lee en-
tered into no agreement , either for a leasehold or con-
templating such an arrangement , at least until the week-
end of May 6-9. Put another way, I believe Respond-
ent's Exhibit 3 , the asserted April 24 agreement between
Lee and Babe Croick is nothing more than a sham docu-
ment or, at best , backdated in order to cover up Re-
spondent 's unlawful conduct . In support , I note, at the
outset , that the collective testimony of the four alleged
discriminatees was not only utterly uncontroverted but
also corroborative to a significant degree and that each
impressed me as testifying in a candid and straightfor-
ward manner . 21 Therefore , each is credited as to the
events of April and May at the Hotel . Based upon said
testimony and the record as a whole, I find that the
Union commenced an organizing campaign amongst the
employees of the Hotel in early April; that the alleged
discriminatees participated , at least, to the extent of exe-
cuting authorization cards; that Respondent was well
aware of the organizing campaign-perhaps earlier than
21 I am mindful that each dlscnmmatee appeared reluctant to admit
possible disciplinary incidents and that Zamora, in particular , had a less
than perfect memory of the events herein However , each appeared to be
honestly recollecting events herein , and Respondent, for some reason,
chose to call no witnesses to controvert their collective testimony.
516 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
admitted by Charles Lee22-and was concerned by it;23
and that, in the midst of said union activity , the bar em-
ployes concertedly protested the activities of Sam Patel
behind the bar to the extent that Lee admitted he be-
lieved a work stoppage was possible . The foregoing con-
vinces me that, when Dan Jones met with and addressed
the alleged discriminatees on the afternoon of May 6, he
did so on behalf of Charles Lee, who undoubtedly be-
lieved that the Hotel 's bartenders and cocktail waitresses
were leaders of the union organizing campaign,24 and
with the intent of coercing them into ceasing their pro-
tected concerted activities . That such a conclusion is jus-
tified can be seen from Jones ' manner of speaking, which
made it clear to the bar employees that he was communi-
cating Lee's message, and his language.
Thus, at all times invoking the name of Respondent's
principal , Jones stated that he (Lee) was unhappy with
the Union and did not like it25 and warned that unless
the bar employees cooperated and the union activities
ceased , he would lease out the Hotel 's bar operation.
Absent Jones' denial that he spoke on behalf of Lee, I
feel free to draw the inference that he, indeed , did so, ex-
pressing Lee's exact sentiments . Moreover, what Jones
said conveyed an unmistakable warning of the conse-
quences of the discriminatees ' concerted activities, one
patently violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The
Broker, 282 NLRB 1265 (1987). Further, both prior to
and immediately after Jones uttered his unlawful threat,
Rudy Tenveldon asked discriminatees Bell-Nagy and
Zamora how each felt about executing an antiunion peti-
tion . There is no assertion that either was a known union
adherent or that Respondent possessed any sort of justifi-
cation for being involved in the circulation of such a
document and, despite a social friendship between
Zamora and Tenveldon , such interrogations are coercive
and violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Inner City
Broadcasting Corp., 281 NLRB 1210 (1986); Parkview
22 The uncontroverted record evidence is that the Union 's organizing
efforts commenced no later than early April While Lee maintained that
Dan Jones did not inform of such until late April, given Lee 's testimony
that Jones would immediately notify him of "major problems ," it seems
reasonable to conclude that union organizing would have constituted
such a circumstance necessitating immediate notification In any event, of
course, Jones was not called as a witness by Respondent in order to cor-
roborate Lee
89 Charles Lee asserted that Dan Jones specifically advised him that
the Hotel 's employees were not supporting the union organizing cam-
paign and that , as a result , he was "not concerned" by it. Dan Jones was
not called as a corroborative witness As a managerial employee and an
admitted supervisor , he undoubtedly would have been "favorably dis-
posed" to testifying on behalf of Respondent . While Jones is no longer
working for Respondent and is presently employed by another Los An-
geles area hotel , counsel offered no explanation for failing to subpoena
and call him as a witness The inference is, therefore, warranted that he
would have testified adversely to Respondent 's interests International
Automated Machines, 285 NLRB 1122 (1987)
24 I do not rely on the testimony of Charles Lee herein Not only did I
find him to be untruthful , lacking in candor , and entirely unpersuasive
but also significant portions of his testimony were uncorroborated when
Respondent clearly had the opportunity to do so I can only conclude
that the failure to do so was caused by counsel 's knowledge that wit-
nesses, particularly Dan Jones , Rudy Tenveldon , and Charles Noh, could
not do so.
25 That the discriminatees could reasonably believe Jones was, in fact,
speaking for Charles Lee can be seen from the fact that Lee himself told
employees that the Union was a "waste of money" soon after he pur-
chased the Hotel
Gardens Care Center, 280 NLRB 47 (1986). No bar em-
ployee agreed to execute such a petition and, within 72
hours, each discriminatee was discharged and Respond-
ent ostensibly began contracting out for bar employees.
In the instant circumstances , including Charles Lee's un-
disguised dislike for the Union , the continuing union or-
ganizing campaign and the discriminatees ' protected con-
certed activities , Jones' threat-on behalf of Lee-to
lease out the operation of the Hotel bar unless the bar
employees cooperated and the union ' activity ceased,
Tenveldon 's unlawful interrogation and the bar employ-
ees' refusal to participate in antiunion activity , and the
timing of the discharges of the discriminatees , the con-
clusion is justified , if not mandated , that said discharges
were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
My foregoing conclusions are buttressed by what I
perceive as the pretextual nature of Respondent 's defense
to the complaint allegations , which , of course , is pre-
mised upon the asserted April 24 written agreement be-
tween Charles Lee and Babe Croick and upon Dan
Jones' ignorance of the arrangement between the former
individuals . As to the April 24 agreement , as stated
above, I believe that , at the least, the memorialized ver-
sion of such , Respondent 's Exhibit 3, was neither drafted
nor executed on or about the stated date or that, at the
most , the document is nothing more than a sham. Thus,
while the above exhibit bears the date, April 24, there
exists no evidence that said document was signed then
other than the testimony of both Lee and Croick. Their
credibility having been placed at issue , I have previously
discussed my impression that Lee was neither a candid
nor a straightforward witness ; I do not credit his testimo-
ny herein . Perhaps more so than Lee, Croick impressed
me as being an utterly disingenuous witness and one who
himself did not believe what he was stating while under
an oath to be truthful . Likewise , I shall not credit his tes-
timony as to events herein . In these circumstances,
noting further that neither signature on Respondent's Ex-
hibit 3 is dated and that Hillary Shockley, who asserted-
ly witnessed the signing of the document on April 24,
was not called by Respondent as a corroborative witness,
there exists no credible record evidence-nor do I find-
that Respondent 's Exhibit 3 was, in fact, executed on the
stated date.
Turning next to the asserted validity of the agreement
itself, several factors establish its dubious value . Initially,
the agreement 's effective date of May 10 and the May 9
terminations , which occurred within 72 hours of Dan
Jones' unlawful threat, constitute a coincidence of such
magnitude so as to strain credulity. That such is a justifi-
able conclusion is best shown by the content of said
threat-to lease out the Hotel 's bar operation unless the
discriminatees ceased their union activities-and the facts
that not only was the uttering of said threat uncontro-
verted by Respondent but also it was made clear to the
employees that the words were those of Charles Lee.
While Lee may have intended to eventually lease out the
bar, the timing of the threat establishes that either he had
not yet decided to do so or had not located anyone with
whom to enter into a lease agreement . Further, while
Croick maintained that the 2 weeks between April 24
AIRPORT PARK HOTEL
and May 10 were necessary for him to staff the Hotel
bar, he was contradictory as to whether he or Lee chose
May 10 as the agreement 's effective date and , as Croick
already was in the business of operating bars, it is diffi-
cult to believe he required such a period to arrange staff-
ing. Next , while the terms of the asserted agreement
committed the parties to eventual bargaining for a lease
contract , no such agreement had been reached as of the
instant hearing , and the record establishes that Lee has
acted in such utter disregard for his commitment so as to
render the existence of such highly doubtful. Thus, while
ostensibly in the midst of lease contract bargaining with
Croick and without notice to him, Lee offered a lease,
under the same terms as proposed to Croick, to the
Charging Party Zamora . Inasmuch as Charles Lee evi-
dently felt free to undermine his negotiations with
Croick and as conceded by the latter, one may justifiably
infer that the asserted April 24 agreement "probably"
was worth no more than the paper on which it was
printed. A third factor establishing the dubious validity
of Respondent 's Exhibit 3 concerns the mode of payment
to the bar employees subsequent to May 10. Thus, while
King Labor Services was nominally the employer of
those staffing the bar as of that date and the entity re-
sponsible for their wages, what actually occurred was
that Respondent continued to act in the capacity of em-
ployer to the extent of making direct payments to the
bar employees in amounts equal to their wages. More-
over , Croick and Lee were inconsistent as to who was
responsible for this method of payment, with Croick
pointing to Lee, saying "that was Lee's way to operate,"
and Lee claiming the system was proposed by none
other than Croick's partner, Herb Newman . Finally,
pointing to the sham nature of the asserted agreement or,
at least , to its hasty preparation is the situation at the bar
on May 9 and 10. Thus, the facility was closed on May 9
notwithstanding the expectation of a large crowd due to
a boxing program at the Forum and, while open the next
night, the bar was staffed by Patel behind the bar and
Mrs. Lee's niece on the floor, both of whom appeared to
be inexperienced workers . The foregoing is reflective of
a lack of planning resulting from an unexpected occur-
rence-in this case, the instant discharges . Support for
this conclusion comes from the fact that , notwithstanding
Lee's testimony that he did not inform Jones of his ar-
rangement with Croick until Monday or Tuesday, the
discriminatees were made aware of their fates as early as
Sunday evening . Such suggests that the discharge deci-
sion was reached some time over the weekend of May 7
and 8.
With regard to the claimed ignorance of Dan Jones
concerning whatever arrangements for the operation of
the bar were by Lee and Croick, Charles Lee maintained
that his failure to communicate with Jones was deliber-
ate, an aspect of his so -called "business operation style."
The necessary corollary to this, of course, is that, when
Jones spoke to the discriminatees on May 6, he was nei-
ther unauthorized to do so nor spoke on behalf of Lee.
As with the validity of his agreement with Croick, sever-
al factors suggest that said contentions were nothing
more than fabrications , designed to support Respondent's
defense . Initially, of course, I have expressed my view as
517
to Lee's lack of candor while testifying . On this point, at
least, more compelling is Respondent 's failure to call
either Jones or Charles Noh in order to corroborate
Lee's assertion as to his operating "style ." As set forth in
footnote 23, supra, given both Jones and Noh's manage-
ment positions in May, it is likely that each would have
been "favorably disposed" to testifying in Respondent's
behalf. By not calling either official as a witness and of-
fering no explanation for failing to do so, Respondent has
left me little choice but to infer that, had either Jones or
Noh testified, he would have done so adversely to Re-
spondent 's interests . International Automated Machines,
supra. Further, I note that leasing out a significant hotel
function is hardly of trifling concern , and I find it impos-
sible to believe that any corporate official would deliber-
ately not communicate the fact of such an arrangement
to the individuals who were responsible for day-to-day
hotel business . To the contrary, Jones' uncontroverted
threat , spoken in terms of Lee's dislikes and intentions, to
the discriminatees on May 6 suggests close consultation
between the two . In short , I do not credit Lee's uncorro-
borated testimony that he distanced himself from hotel
business and that he was "not concerned " with the union
organizing campaign . Rather, based upon the foregoing
and the record as a whole, I believe that Lee was in-
volved to the extent of directing Jones to threaten the
bar employees with the leasing out of the bar operation
unless they ceased their union activities , undoubtedly in-
volving himself in the terminations of the discriminatees,
and negotiating a hasty agreement with Croick for the
staffing of the bar, a scheme designed to disguise the true
motive for the terminations-the discriminatees ' suspect-
ed role in the union organizing campaign at the Hotel.26
In short, I conclude that Respondent 's discharges of em-
ployees Zamora , Montero, Bell-Nagy, and Morrow on
May 9 were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By terminating employees Zamora, Bell-Nagy,
Morrow, and Montero on May 9, 1988, because of their
suspected role in a union organizing campaign, Respond-
ent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
3. By threatening to lease out the bar operation of the
Hotel unless employees ceased their union activities, Re-
spondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees as to their union sympa-
thies, Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent 's unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
26 Croick's motive for cooperating with Respondent was, of course, his
desire to obtain a lease agreement for the Hotel's bar operation.
518 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in serious
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist from such conduct and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act. I have concluded that Respond-
ent unlawfully terminated employees Reinaldo Zamora,
Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero
on May 9, 1988, because each participated in a union or-
ganizing campaign . Accordingly, I shall recommend that
Respondent be ordered to reinstate each to his or her
former position of employment or, if such no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position . Further, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to make
Zamora , Bell-Nagy, Morrow , and Montero whole for
any lost earnings he or she may have suffered as a result
of the discrimination practiced against him or her as pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
and Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 710 (1962), plus inter-
est as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 ( 1987).27 Additionally , I shall recommend
that Respondent be ordered to post a notice , setting forth
its obligations.
On these findings and conclusions and on the entire
record , I issue the following recommended28
ORDER
The Respondent, Lee Hotel Corp. d/b/a Airport Park
Hotel, Inglewood , California , its officers , agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging employees because they engaged in
union or other protected concerted activities or suspect-
ed that they so acted.
(b) Threatening employees that it would lease out the
Hotel bar facility unless they ceased engaging in union
activities.
27 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short -term Federal
rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set forth in the 1986 amendment
to 26 U S C. § 6621
28 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
(c) Interrogating employees regarding their union sym-
pathies.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, co-
ercing, or restraining employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer reinstatement to employees Reinaldo Zamora,
Danelle Bell-Nagy, Robin Morrow, and Pedro Montero
to their former positions or, if no such jobs exist any
longer, to substantially equivalent positions of employ-
ment and make each whole for the discrimination against
him or her in the manner set forth in the remedy section
above.
(b) Expunge from its files any references to the May 9,
1988 discharges of Zamora , Bell-Nagy, Morrow, and
Montero, and notify each in writing that this has been
done and that evidence of the discharges will not be
used as a basis for any future personnel actions against
him or her.
(c) Preserve and, on request , 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 the backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at the Airport Park Hotel wherever notices to
employees are customarily posted copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix."29 Copies of the notice on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by Respondent's authorized represent-
atives, shall be posted for 60 consecutive days in conspic-
uous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not
altered , defaced , 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 been taken to comply.
29 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."