Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1599 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1599
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and-(7) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local No. 133, UAW, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the contemplation of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent is the recognized exclusive collective-bargaining agent in a unit
which includes those employees involved in grievances numbered 62-79, 62-114,.
62-161, and 62-187.
4. Respondent has fulfilled its statutory obligations under Section (a) of (5) of the
Act.
5. Respondent's refusal to allow Local 133 to make an independent time study in
connection with the grievances described in 3, above , does not constitute an unfair
labor practice.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions . of law , and the entire
record , it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
Aristocrat Inns of America , Inc., and Essex Inn Corporation
and Madie Roots
Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., and Essex Inn Corporation.
and Odell Butler
Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., and Ascot Motel Corporation.
and Lawrence I. Perry
Local No . 4, Building Service Employees International Union,
AFL-CIO and Madie Roots. Cases N08.13-CA-5429-1,13-CA-
5429-2, 13-CA-5474, and 13-CB-1385-2. May 14, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 17, 1964, Trial Examiner Horace A.. Ruckel issued his
Decision in the. above-entitled proceeding, finding , that certain Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respond-
ents had not engaged in other unfair labor practices, and recommended
that the allegations of the complaint pertaining thereto be dismissed..
Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent Employers filed
exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and supporting briefs,
and Respondent Employers also filed a brief in opposition to certain
of General Counsel's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
146 NLRB No. 178.
744-670-65-vol . 146-102
1600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the. hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was -committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and'recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and
modifications.
The Trial Examiner found that, by interrogating employees about
their signing of Roots' decertification petition, and by obtaining their
signatures to affidavits designed to defeat that petition, the Respondent
Union and Respondent Employers have violated Section 8(b) (1) (A)
and 8 (a) (1) of the Act, respectively. Respondents filed no exceptions
to the Trial Examiner's findings in this regard ; we adopt them pro
forma.
The General Counsel excepted to the Trial Examiner's failure to
find certain alleged threats of reprisal and promises of benefit to be
separate violations of the above-named section of the Act. However,
the Respondents' representatives denied the statements attributed to.
them, and the Trial Examiner did not resolve the issues of credibility.
We deem it unnecessary to pass upon these further alleged violations
of the Act, as they would not affect the scope of our order in any event.
The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to find
that the Respondent Employer's joint participation with Respondent
Union in the interrogation of employees was violative of Section
8(a) (2) of the Act. It further excepts to his failure to find that Re-
spondent Employers. also violated Section 8 (a) (2) by discharging
Roots for her decertification activities. We find merit in these excep-
tions. As we have found that. Respondent Employers assisted Re-
spondent Union in the unlawful restraint and coercion of employees
in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
we find that they also violated Section 8(a) (2) 'by discharging Roots
because of her decertification activities.'
The Trial Examiner found that Respondent Eiployers violated
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discharging Madie Roots. We agree.
However, the General Counsel excepts to his recommendation that
the allegations of the complaint with regard to Section 8(a) (4) be dis-
missed.' We find merit in this exception. As we agree with the Trial
Examiner's finding, supported by the record, that Roots was dis-
charged for her decertification activities, including the filing of certain
decertification petitioiis with the Board, we find, as alleged in the com-
plaint, that her discharge also violated Section 8(a) (4) of the Act.'
1 See Precision Fittings , Inc., 141 NLRB 1034.
= Precision Fittings, Inc., supra.
. ARISTOCRAT INNS OF.AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1601
In conformity. with our findings of further violations, we hereby
awake the following:
ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Madie Roots for her decertification activities,
Respondent Employers Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., and Essex
Inn Corporation have engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
2. By discharging Madie Roots for filing decertification petitions
with the Board, Respondent Employers Aristocrat Inns of America,
Inc., and Essex' Inn Corporation have engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (4) and (1) of the Act.
3. By participating with Respondent Union in the interrogation of
their employees, 'Respondent Employers Aristocrat Inns of America,
Inc.; and Essex Inn Corpoiation have engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a) (2) and (1) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that:
A. The Respondent Employers, Aristocrat Inns. of America, Inc.,
and Essen Inn Corporation, theii officers,-. agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Encouraging membership of their employees in Respondent
Union, Local No. 4, Building Service Employees International. Union,
AFL-CIO, or in any other labor organization, or discouraging,. ac-
tivities with respect to the decertification ' of Respondent Union, by
discriminating in regard to their hire, tenure, or any other terms or
conditions of employment. . I •
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee
because he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act.
(c) Assisting or supporting Local No. 4, Building: Service Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, by unlawful interrogation of
or reprisals against any employee for activity in opposition to it, or
in any other manner assisting or supporting it, or any other labor
organization.
(d) Coercively interrogating employees with respect to their union
activities or sympathies. .
. (e) In. any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form,
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their owu choosing, to engage in concerted activities
1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purpose of collective bargaining, or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the ex-
tent that such right may be affected by an agreement authorized by
Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Madie Roots immediate and full reinstatement to her
former or a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for
any loss of pay in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial
Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy." Interest at the rate
of 6 percent per annum shall be added to the backpay to be
computed in the planner set forth in Isis Plumbing di Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 71.6.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or
its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Decision.
(c) Post in. Essex Inn in Chicago, Illinois, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix A." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, shall, after being
duly signed by representatives of Respondent Employers, Aristocrat
Inns of America, Inc., and Essex Inn Corporation, be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60 con-
secutive. days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by said Respondents to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Post at the same places and under the same conditions as set
forth in (c) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the Regional
Director, copies of the Respondent Union's attached notice marked
"Appendix B."
(e) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A," for posting by
Respondent Union at its offices where notices to its members are cus-
tomarily posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director, shall, after being duly signed by representatives
of Respondent Employers, Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., and
Essex Inn Corporation, be forthwith returned to the Regional Direc-
tor for such posting.
8In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order" the words "a
Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order."
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC . 1603
(f) Notify the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent Employers, Aristocrat', Inns of America, Inc., and Essex
Inn Corporation, have taken to comply herewith.
B. The Respondent Union, Local No. 4, Building Service Employ-
ees International Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, representa-
tives, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Coercively interrogating employees concerning their union
activities or sympathies.
(b) Discouraging, or attempting to discourage, by coercive means,
the employees of Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., or Essex Inn Cor-
poration from circulating or supporting the circulation of any. peti-
tion or petitions which seek to decertify the above-named Union, or
discouraging or attempting to discourage any other permissible activ-
ity in opposition to it or in support of any other labor organization.
(c) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees of Aris-
tocrat Inns of America, Inc., or Essex Inn Corporation, in the exercise
of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor orga-
nizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
free choice, and to engage in other concerted activities for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such
right may be affected by an agreement authorized-by Section 8(a) (3)
of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management •Reporting and Dis-
closure Act of 1959. .
2. Take the following; affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. .
(a) Post at its business offices and meeting halls in Chicago, Illinois,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."" Copies of-said
notice, to be: furnished . by, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent Union's
representative, be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to its members are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent
Union to insure that said notices 'are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(b) Post at the same places, and under the same conditions as set
forth in (a) above, and as soon as they are forwarded by the said
Regional Director, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix
A" signed by representatives of Respondent. Employers, Aristocrat
Inns of America, Inc., and Essex Inn Corporation.
' See footnote 3, supra.
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Mail to the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region signed
copies of Appendix B for posting by the Respondent Employers,
Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., and Essex Inn Corporation. Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the said Regional' Director, shall,
after being signed by the Respondent Union's representative.. be
forthwith returned to the Regional Director for such posting.
(d) Notify said Regioii,al Director, in writing, within' I@ days from
the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent Union has taken
to comply herewith.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that those allegations of the complaint alleg-
ing violations of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act not herein found, be, and
they hereby are, dismissed.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to 'a Decision and Order of the National -La4or,-R61atIGi)s
Board, aand in order to effectuate the policies of the Na:tional : Labor.
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that:
'11TE.WILL NOT. discharge or otherwise discriminate against, any
:employee because of activity in support of. any labor organiza=.
tion, or in opposition to Local No. 4, Building Service Employees
International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor.orga.nizat.ion
or foraoliciting'or.obtaining signatures to or filing with the. Na-
tional Labor Relations Board any. petition for decertification of
the above-named labor organization, or any other labor organiza-
tion, or in order to discourage membership in any labor organiza-
t.ion, or encourage membership in Local No. 4, Building Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or in a.iny other labor
organization.
WE WILL NOT'interrogate our employees r'egairding then- union
inembership,or• activities.
WE WILL NOi in any other manner interfere with, restrain; or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right, to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to Nix-
gain collectively through representatives of their own free choice,
and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or :protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities, except to the extent that
such right nnay be affected by an agreement authorized by :Section
8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management Re-
porting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL offer Madie Roots immediate and full reinstatement to
her former or a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1605
udice to her seniority or other rights or privileges, and niake her
whole for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination practiced against leer:
WE WILL NOT assist or support Local No. 4, Building Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, by reprisal against
any employee for activity in opposition to it, or in any . other
manner assist or support it, or any other labor organization.'
All our employees are free to become or remain, or to refrain from
becoming or remaining, members of Local No. 4, Building Service
Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other labor
organization. -
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC.,
AND EssE x. INN CORPORATION, . .
Employers..
Dated---------------- By------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------- By--------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title) V
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material. •
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams • Street, Chicago; Illinois,
Telephone No. Central 6-9660,. if they have any questioii.concerninb
this notice or compliance with its provisions. - - •
. APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL No. 4, BUILDING SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATION:\L UNION, AFL-CIO
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in•order- to effectuate the -policies of- the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that: V
WE WILL NOT interrogate the employees of Aristocrat Inns of
America, Inc., or Essex Inn Corporation, as to their activities
with respect to the circulation or support of any petition or. peti-
tions which seek to decertify the undersigned Union, nor in any
other manner discourage or seek to discourage the said employees
with respect to such activity.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employees
of Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., or Essex Inn Corporation, in
the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form, join, or
1606 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through, rep-
resentatives of their own free choice, and to engage. in other con-
certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such
activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement authorized by Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified
by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
LOCAL No. 4, BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,
Labor Organization.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------=-----------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, Midland Building, 176 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois,
Telephone No. Central 6-9660, if they have any question concerning
this-notice'or compliance with its provisions.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
'STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed on February 19 and March 11 , 1963 , by Madie Roots,'on
February 18 and March 15, 1963 , by Odell Butler , and on March 11, 1963, by
Lawrence Perry , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board,
respectively called the General Counsel and the Board , by the Regional - Director
for the Thirteenth Region ( Chicago , Illinois ), issued a complaint dated May 29, 1963,
against Aristocrat Inns of America , Inc., Essex Inn Corporation , and Ascot Motel
Corporation , herein jointly called Respondent Employers , or separately Respondent
Aristocrat, Essex, and Ascot, and Local No . 4, Building Service Employees Inter-
national Union , AFL-CIO, herein called Respondent Union , alleging that Respond-
ent Employers had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 ( a)(1), (2),-(3), and (4) and Section 2(6) and (7), and
Respondent Union within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ( 29 U.S .C. Sec . 151, et seq.),
herein called the Act.
Specifically , the complaint as amended at the hearing alleges in substance that
Respondent Employers : ( 1) interrogated , and permitted Respondent Union to in-
terrogate , employees concerning their union affiliations ; ( 2) deducted sums of money
from wages of employees as union fees and dues and paid them to Respondent
Union , although said employees had not authorized Respondent Employers to make
such deductions ; and (3 ) on February 16, 1963 , discharged Madie Roots and Odell
Butler , and on March 9, 1963 , discharged Lawrence Perry , because they had
refused to join or assist Respondent Union , and Roots for the additional reason that
she filed with the Board decertification petitions involving employees of Respondent
Employers . All Respondents filed answers denying that they had engaged in un-
fair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Horace A . Ruckel
at Chicago , Illinois, on July 29, 30 , and 31 and August 1 , 3, 5, 6, 7 , and 8, 1963,
at which the parties were represented by Counsel . Upon the conclusion of the
hearing the parties waived oral argument . The General Counsel and Respondent
Employers have filed briefs.
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1607
Upon the record as a whole , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT EMPLOYERS
Aristocrat Inns is an Illinois corporation having its principal office and place of
business in Chicago, Illinois, where, through Respondent Essex Inn Corporation,.
Respondent Ascot Motel Corporation, Avenue Motel, Inc., and Acres Motel Corpo-
ration, all wholly owned subsidiaries and Illinois corporations, it operates the Essex
Inn, Ascot Motel, Avenue • Motel, and Acres Motel. All these companies are
affiliated businesses with common 'officers, ownership, directors, and operators, and
constitute a single integrated business enterprise, and formulate and administer a
common labor policy affecting employees of the several companies. The only
motels with which this proceeding is directly concerned are Essex Inn and Ascot
Motel.
During the year preceding the issuance of the complaint, Respondent Aristocrat
Inns of America, Inc., in the course of its operation at the aforementioned motels,
had gross revenue from these motels in. excess of $500,000, and each of the motels,
in the conduct of its operations, had gross revenues in excess of $500,000. Each
of these motels, during the same period, had transient guests in excess of 25 percent
of its capacity. The complaint alleges and the answer of Respondent Employers
admits that Respondent Employers , are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7.) of the Act.
H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 4, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization admitting employees of Respondent Employers to membership.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The discharges
Background :
Each of the motels operated by Aristocrat Inns of America, Inc., including Re-
spondent's.Essex Inn Corporation and Ascot Motel Corporation, has been for some-
time a party to a collective-bargaining contract with Respondent Union. The last
contracts were due to expire on October 11, 1963, but were automatically renewed
for 1 year in the absence of a 60-day notice of termination . During the latter
part of December 1962, Madie Roots; a maid employed at Essex Inn, procured the
names of 15 maids to a petition which stated that the signers wished "to dispose
of" Respondent Union. This document was filed as a decertification petition with
the Board's Regional Office, and a formal decertification petition signed by Roots as
petitioner was filed on December 28, 1962, a copy of which was served on Respond-
ent Essex Inn on December 31, 1962.1 There is no evidence that Respondents had
any knowledge of Roots' activity in the preparation of the petition before that date.
The petition filed by Roots on December 28, 1962, was later withdrawn. Dur-
ing the latter part of January and first part of February 1963, Roots circulated a
similar petition and obtained the signatures of 33 maids and housemen employed at
Essex Inn. Odell Butler, whose alleged discriminatory discharge is hereinafter dis-
cussed, was one of the maids who signed this petition. The petition was submitted
to the Regional Office of the Board and a formal decertification petition was filed
on February 19, 1963,2 and a notice served on Respondent Essex Inn shortly there-
after. This petition was still pending at the time of the hearing in the instant case.
There is no evidence that any of Respondent Employers had knowledge of Roots'
activity in the preparation of the first petition prior to December 31, 1962, when
Respondent Essex Inn was served with a copy of it, signed by her as petitioner.
Nor did any Respondent Employers have any knowledge of who the signers were
to either of the two informal petitions circulated by Roots, until the hearing.
1. The discharge of Madie Roots
Roots was employed as a maid at Essex Inn from December 12, 1961, until her
discharge on February 16, 1963. During the last 5 months of her employment
I Case No. 13-RD-534.
2 Case No. 13-RD-538. This was 3 daps after Roots' discharge, hereinafter discussed.
1608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
she was regularly assigned to the eighth floor where she attended to odd numbered
rooms 801 through 819. During this same period she substituted for Lucinda Wyatt
as head linenroom girl every other Saturday and Sunday. On January 27, 1963,
3 weeks before her discharge, when Wyatt was off because of an injury, Roots took
her place. As linenroom girl Roots received several cents an -hour more than as
maid.
The signatures to the decertification petition which Roots circulated were affixed in
the linenroom when the maids reported for work in the morning. On December 31,
1962, the day that Respondent Essex Inn received notice of the filing of the first
decertification petition by Roots, Eugene Heytow, vice president of each of Re-
-spondent Companies, came to the linenroom and asked Roots what the trouble was
and if she had another union in mind. Roots replied that she did not like the
way Local No. 4 was representing the employees and that they were going to get
another union, although they did not have any particular one in. mind. 'Heytow
said. this trouble ,had arisen once before and had cost Respondent a lot of money.
In the afternoon of January 7 an informal meeting took place in the linenroom.
at which there were present, in addition to Roots, Edith Murphy, housekeeper' and
Roots' supervisor, Beulah Price, an inspector, Sam Kraus, director of organization
for Local No. 4, and James Walsh, another representative of Local No. 4.. Kraus
asked Roots what the "trouble" was and accused her of starting "all the trouble"
by going to-the Board. This obviously had reference to her filing the decertification
petition on December 28. From January 27 through February 9, 1963, Roots
,substituted for Wyatt in the linenroom . She did not work from February 10 to 14,
but was called back on February 15 to her regular assignment as eighth floor maid-.
During that morning Heytow, along with Holt Chater, assistant manager of the
motel, came to the eighth floor and inspected one of the rooms in Roots' domain.
While so engaged Murphy came in. Heytow declared that the area above the fluores-
cent light and the telephone were dirty, Chater complained that the floor under
the beds was riot clean. Roots denied that the light area and' the telephone were
..dirty. She pointed out, and it is.so conceded, that.it was not her duty but-that of
the housemen to clean under the beds when to do so necessitated moving the-beds,
:as it did here. The uncontradicted testimony of Roots, which I credit, is that on no
previous occasion had Heytow or Chater inspected one of Roots' rooms, but that
this duty was normally performed by Murphy or an inspector.
The further testimony of Roots is that when she punched. out that evening at
:4:30, -Murphy, with reference to the criticisms of Heytow and Chater, asked her how
-she felt and that when she replied that she felt better, Murphy told her to "forget
-it." This conversation was confirmed by the testimony of Eldora Brooks, another
-maid, and not contradicted by Murphy. I credit it.
Murphy's testimony is that after the inspection of Roots' room Chater said that
she would. have to get rid of Roots, and told her to discharge her. Her further
testimony, however, is that she did not-consider this to be an order, and that the
decision to discharge Roots was her own. There is, 'also, a conflict in the record
as to when the discharge took place. Saturday, February 16, was Roots' day off
.and she was next scheduled to work on Sunday, the 17th. Her testimony is that
when she punched out on February 15, at 4:30 p.m., she asked Murphy for the keys
to the linenroom so that she could open up on Sunday morning, and Murphy gave
them to her. Her further testimony is that Murphy telephoned her at her home on
'Saturday afternoon and told her not to come in on Sunday, that she was discharged.
When Roots asked why, Murphy said, "You know," and told Roots that she hated
to lose her. Roots reminded Murphy that she had the keys to the linen closet
and Murphy told her to bring them when she came for her paycheck. According
to Murphy's testimony, on the other hand, she told Roots at quitting time on Friday,
at the timeclock, that Respondent could not use her any more, and that Roots said
.only, "All right."
I credit the testimony of Roots as to the time and circumstances of her discharge.
I have previously found that Roots, when asked by Murphy how she felt about the
inspection incident, said that she felt better and Murphy told her to forget it.
This conversation took place at 4:30 p.m., at the timeclock in the linenroom, when
Roots and Brooks were punching out. I find inconsistent with this Murphy's testi-
mony that, at the same time and place, she told Roots that she was discharged.
Moreover, Murphy did not deny Roots' account of receiving the linenroom keys
from her, so that she could open up the linenroom when she came to work on
Sunday. Obivously, Murphy would not have given Roots the keys if she were
discharged. Roots' testimony that she was discharged by telephone on. February .16,
and not at the motel at the end of work on February 15, is further substantiated by
the testimony of Lucinda Wyatt, head linenroom maid, who related that on Saturday
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1609
noon she observed Murphy sitting with her bead in her hands, and that when Wyatt
asked her what was wrong said that she had to telephone Roots to tell her she was
discharged, a thing which she did not want to do. According to Wyatt, Murphy then
went to the telephone and -told Roots not to come in the next morning.
Conclusions
In addition to the criticisms of Roots' work upon the occasion of her discharge, the
testimony of Murphy is that beginning about Christmastime 1962 she began to receive
complaints from the office as to her housekeeping. This time corresponds with the
period during which Roots circulated the decertification petition filed on December 28.
Murphy, at. this time inspected the' rooms for which Roots was responsible. and
found in certain instances that a floor, or a bathroom, was dirty. Murphy did not
testify -that she spoke to Roots about these complaints. Roots' testimony is,. that. she,
did not,. and.. that, neither, did Price, the inspector. Not is it disputed that the. first
time that Roots' rooms were inspected by Heytow and 'Chater during her entire
period of employment was the day of her discharge. The only testimony in,the
record that' Roots was spoken to about her work is the testimony of William
Hickey, manager.of Essex Inn, that around the first part of 1963 he cautioned her
about the care of his own, suite of rooms, for which she was responsible. There-
after, .however, Roots was designated as regular substitute for the linenroom girl,
and continued to be such until her discharge. This was more responsible work .than
that of a maid, and paid a higher wage.
In my opinion the complaints as to Roots' work as a maid are trivial and serv&d only
as a pretext for her discharge. They originated in the office about the time. that Roots
began the circulation of the first decertification filed by her on December 28, 1962.
On the day that the Respondents received notice of its filing , Heytow, vice president,
asked Roots what the trouble was , stating that the,matter was going to cost Respond-
ents a lot of;money. That Respondents were, opposed to Roots' attempt to obtain
another bargaining -representative is further demonstrated by,the meeting on January 7,
in the linenroom, attended. by representatives of the Union,.and - by Murphy and
Price, where the union officials. asked Roots, as Heytow had done the week before,
what the "trouble" was, and accused her of starting "all the trouble" by filing the
petition .. I conclude and find that Respondents discharged Roots not for legitimate
business reasons but for her activity in circulating and filing with the. Board a
petition. seeking to decertify. Respondent Union. In so doing Respondents violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.3
2. The discharge of Odell Butler
Odell Butler was employed as a maid at the Essex Inn from October 1961 to her
discharge on February 16, 1963, along with Roots. She was 1 of 15 employees who in
December. 1962 signed the first decertification petitions circulated by Roots and 1 of
33 who signed the second, filed 3'days after her discharge. As has been found, the
names on these petitions did not become known to Respondents prior to the hearing.
The signing of these petitions. was the sum total of Butler's collective activity. On
the evening of January 2 and 3 as she was checking out, Murphy spoke to her and
two other maids, Barbara Charles and Louanna Walton. Butler's account of this
conversation, critical to her case, is as follows:
Q. Will you tell us what was said in that conversation?
A. Mrs. Murphy asked the three of us together. She said, "Girls, I want to
know from you all, did you sign the petition that Madie Roots had? . . . and I
said "Why." She said, "I want to know if you signed it."
Q. Who is she?
A. Mrs. Murphy, our housekeeper. "If you signed it, you will lose your job.
And if you didn't sign it, you will keep your jobs." And I said , "I signed it."
So, she said, "That is all right, I want you to be truthful about it." And I said,
"I signed it." And the other two maids, Louanna and Barbara, they didn't say
anything." [Emphasis supplied.]
3The complaint alleges that Respondents also violated Section 8(a)(4) of the Act in
discharging Roots-because she filed a petition with the Board. I disagree. Section 8(a) (4)
of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice to discharge or otherwise discriminate against
an employee "because he has filed charges or gave testimony under this Act." A petition
in a representation proceeding is not a charge of unfair labor practices and Roots at no
time testified in any Board proceeding prior to the instant case. It is hereinafter recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed in this respect.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Murphy , though called as a witness , did not testify as to this conversation, and a
finding that she told Butler that she would be discharged if she signed the petition,
and that Butler in the face of this threat told Murphy that she had in fact signed it,
might be justified . I do not, however , credit Butler 's testimony further than to find
that Murphy did ask Butler if she signed Roots ' petition . Both Charles and Walton
testified to this effect and several other witnesses testified credibly that on other
occasions Murphy made similar inquires of them.
Butler signed three separate pretrial statements for the Regional Office, dated
March 8 , 15, and 20, 1963 . It is conceded that in none of these statements did she
mention the threat which she testified was made by Murphy. She testified that when
she thought of something she had not related in a prior statement she went to the
Regional Office and made another statement , and that she did mention the threat to a
Board agent when she made one of her three statements , but that the agent. neglected
to include it in the statement.
Charles and Walton were called by the General Counsel as witnesses later in the
proceeding and testified that Murphy asked the three maids only if they had signed
Roots' petition , and that they said .they had not, but could not remember what
Butler had said. They impressed me as truthful witnesses.
The General Counsel elicited from Charles and Walton the 'statement that they
left Murphy 's presence together, but thought that Butler may have remained behind.
.The inference sought to be drawn that Murphy might have threatened Butler -after
Charles and Walton had left, is contrary to the account of Butler herself, who
testifie,d, that Murphy "asked the three of us together" if they had signed Roots' peti-
tion, and, with no break in'continuity , told them that if they had done - so they would
lose their jobs.
Conclusions
3 do not credit Butler 's testimony that Murphy , 2 weeks before her discharge,
told her together with Charles and! Walton that if they signed Roots ' decertification
petition they would lose their jobs, and that Butler then told Murphy that she had in
fact signed it . There remains no, evidencewhatever , the' Respondents knew, prior
to the hearing , of Butler's collective activity in signing two decertification petitions
along with numerous other employees.
The General Counsel in his brief, advanced another theory as to Butler 's discharge,
namely, that she was discharged • as a "cover up" for Roots' discharge . This theory,
of course , requires that Butler be considered not as an employee engaged in col-
lective activity, but on the contrary as one not interested in such activity, and the
more uninterested the better , so that she might be contrasted the more forcibly with
Roots. Respondents , such a theory runs, discharged an employee who it is appar-
ent was not interested in acting collectively with other employees , so that she might
be pointed to, along with Roots , as one discharged for legitimate business reasons.
The trouble with this contention is not only that it flatly contradicts the first, but
that there is no evidence whatever to support it. Nor do I find any evidence to
support the more conventional concept that Butler was discharged for signing the
decertification petition , since there is no credible evidence that Respondents had any
knowledge of it prior to her discharge . This being the case , I do not. find it nec-
essary to- consider the reasons which Respondents assign for her termination.
3. The discharge of Lawrence Perry
Perry was employed as a maintenance man at the Ascot Motel on the 4 p.m. to mid-
night shift , from May 1962 until March 9 , 1963 , when he was discharged . His im-
mediate supervisor was Tony Bucci , chief engineer . He was not a member of Re-
spondent Union, though eligible . In August 1962 , at two meetings of maintenance
employees convened by Marcel Lutwak , Respondent's executive director , Perry ex-
pressed his opposition to Local No . 4, as he did on one or two subsequent occasions.4
On March 1, 1963 , in the lobby of the Ascot Motel , Walsh , a representative of Local
No. 4, in the presence of Kraus, another union official , asked Perry if he had signed
a Blue Cross and Blue Shield application and Perry told him that he had not and
'Perry's lack of interest in Local No. 4 was apparently- due to the fact that he.was re-
ceiving a substantially higher wage rate than he thought would be provided for in a union
contract . He testified that be told Lutwak that the maintenance men did not want to
belong to Local No. 4 and were "satisfied with the arrangements under the management."
About a week before his discharge Perry circulated a petition to "dispose of Local No. 4,"
similar to that circulated by Roots, among the maids at Ascot and obtained several signa-
tures. When other maids refused to sign Perry destroyed the petition . There is no
credible evidence that this came to the attention of any of Respondent 's supervisors.
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1611
would no t do so until he saw a union contract covering maintenance . men and engi-
neers. Walsh asked Perry if he,was.going to join the Union and Perry said he was not,
stating his reasons . Heytow approached the. group • and asked what the trouble
was. Upon being told, he stated, according::to the :uncontradicted. testimony of
Perry, that Perry would have to join Local No. 4 or.Respondents would have to
let him go. Perry replied that he was not going to join a union which offered
him no benefits, and walked away. Heytow called after him. "You quit?" and
Perry replied in the negative, adding: "You are going to have to fire me."
Perry's discharge followed on March 9'under the following circumstances. About
12:30 a.m. on March 8, a, half hour after Perry's March 7 shift had ended, Ray-
mond Tress, assistant manager-of Ascot, saw Perry in the-back hallway near a
vending machine in the act of "bringing a bottle away from his mouth, and putting
it 'towards his pocket'." • Tress asked him what was going on and Perry replied
equivocally that it was on'.his own time, to-which Tress replied that drinking by
employees was not allowed on the premises at any time. ' Perry's testimony is that
he had found a bottle on the premises with)a little 'liquor'in'it which'he'was taking
with him. He had placed it on the vending machine while he -adjusted his tie
in the mirror, and was removing the bottle from the machine and was.putting it
in his pocket when Tress spotted him. Tress reported the incident to Bucci who
said he would speak to Perry on the 'next day.
Perry. however, did not report'to work on the following evening, assertedly be-
cause of a toothache. He testified that he attempted to'call•Ascot Inn several times
to report that he would not be in, but was unable to reach the Ascot Inn switch-
board and that he then telephoned' Michael Estroda, engineer at Essex Inn, to ask
him to cover his -job at Ascot, but Estroda was not able to do so. Records of
Illinois Bell Telephone Company show, and I find, that the .telephone at Ascot Inn
was reported to. the, repair department. at 4:20 p.m. to be out of order, and that no
-calls could be received until 6 p.m. The record does not disclose at what precise
time the telephone went out of order, only the time it was reported. About 7 p.m.
Lutwak came into the boilerroomand asked Bucci why he was still there and -Bucci
told him that Perry was "late again" and that Tress had caught him drinking the
night before. Lutwak "suggested" to Bucci that be let Perry go and Bucci said he
would do so the following day. Later,: •Lutwak checked with Tress who told him
he had caught Perry drinking on the premises.
When Perry reported for work the following afternoon Bucci told him that he
was discharged on the order. of Lutwak for drinking on the premises and for not call-
ing in the previous evening. Perry said that he had called in but that the telephone
was out of order:' Later ,' Bucci asked the switchboard operator if there had been
any calls for -him 'and 'was told there bad not been, but did not ask if the line had
been out of order. • Perry's testimony 'was that Bucci , when discharging him, told
him that Lutwak said that there were various ways of getting rid of employees who
'did not join the Union . ' •Bucci's testimony was that he simply told Perry the reasons
for his discharge. I credit Bucci's account. •
Conclusions •
While Perry was not a member of Local No. 4, and had made it plain to Respond-
• ents that he had little use for it, he did not , like Roots , file a decertification petition.
Heytow's statement to Perry on March 1, little more than a- week before his termi-
nation, that he would have to join Local No. 4 or be let go, raises a suspicion that
the reasons advanced for his discharge on March 9 were a pretext . But, as has
many times been remarked in decisions of the Board , suspicion is not enough. The
record discloses that Perry had on various previous occasions been reproved by
Bucci for being 'late for work, and that several times Bucci had reported this to Joe
Skidmore and Raymond Tress, respectively manager and assistant manager of Ascot.
When on March 8, at the end of the last shift that Perry worked before his discharge,
Tress found Perry apparently in the act of drinking on the premises in violation
of the rules,.and when on the following evening Perry did, not report for work or
get in touch with his supervisor on the telephone, as required, Respondent Ascot
was justified in believing that the two violations were connected. In any event, at
7 p.m. on March 8, 3 hours after Perry should have reported for work Lutwak
found that he had not done so and had not communicated with Bucci to explain
his absence. He recommended to Bucci that he discharge Perry when he next
reported for work. When Lutwak made this recommendation and when Bucci acted
upon it the following afternoon , neither man had knowledge that the.telephone at the
motel had been out of order. Perry did tell Bucci that he had tried to reach. him
but that the telephone was out of order, and Bucci checked this statement only to
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the extent of satisfying himself that no calls were listed for him . His failure to
inquire if the telephone had been out of order the previous evening was not, I find,
because of any wish to incriminate Perry.
I-do not find that the General Counsel has met his. burden of proof with respect
to Perry's discharge , and it will be hereinafter recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to him.
B. The joint interrogation of employees by Respondent Employers and
Respondent Union
It has previously been found that Madie Roots obtained the signatures of 33 maids
and housemen employed at Essex Inn which she submitted to the Regional Office
of the Board in support of the formal petition for decertification filed on Febru-
ary 19 , 1963 . To counteract the effect of his activity , obviously inimical to Local
No. 4, and to lay the ground for an attack on the sufficiency of the Roots' petition,
Sam Kraus . and another representative of Local No . 4 prepared an affidavit in the
following form:
STATE OF ILLINOIS
County of Cook, ss:
In the matter of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA Case No. 13-RD 538
AFFIDAVIT
The undersigned , being first duly sworn , on oath deposes and says as follows:
I am an employee of ------------------------------------------
which I understand is affiliated with the Aristocrat Inns of America. I am
employed as a ----------------. I have not within the past six -months
signed any petition or form addressed to the National Labor Relations Board,
nor have I signed any request that Local 4, Building Service Employees' In-
ternational Union be decertified as my exclusive collective bargaining represent-
ative . I have not given any authority to Madie Roots to file any decertifica-
tion petition with the National Labor Relations Board on my behalf and I have
not during the past six months signed any document whatever which was
submitted to me by Madie Roots.
------------------------------------
On March 8 - Kraus and Walsh , another union representative , together with a
notary public , came to Essex Inn to obtain the execution of the affidavits by the Essex
maids. Hickey, manager of the Inn , running across Kraus in the halls, offered him
the use of his apartment and Kraus accepted . Heytow , informed of this event, gave
Hickey permission to bring the maids in separately so that Kraus might question
them, and Hickey proceeded to do so. Hickey and Heytow were in and out. of
the apartment while Kraus conducted the interrogation. Kraus testified that Hickey
and Heytow between them talked to most of the maids and Heytow admitted while
testifying that he may have asked certain maids if they had signed the Roots' peti-
tion . The testimony of other witnesses removes the matter from doubt and reveals
also that some of the maids were asked to sign Local No. 4's affidavit not only by
Kraus but by Heytow and Hickey as well. Typically, Kraus would ask if the em-
ployee had signed the Roots' petition , saying that if she had not then she should
sign the affidavit. On occasion Heytow or Hickey interjected to say that she should
sign, or to say,that if she had signed the petition she should not sign the affidavit.
In one or two instances , at least , when a maid demonstrated reluctance Heytow or
Hickey, or both, asked her why she did not want to sign , saying that it was "the
right thing" to do, or stating that all the others had signed, or that Local No. 4
was "their union ." In at least one instance , a maid , Nettie James, told Kraus that
she had signed the Roots ' petition but Kraus , notwithstanding, asked her to sign the
affidavit. There is evidence that others were not asked whether they had signed the
Roots' petition before signing the affidavit , and that still others executed it without
an opportunity to read it through. Indeed the impression left by this record is
that as the representatives of Respondent Union and Respondent Employer warmed
to their task ,5 it became a contest to obtain as many affidavits as possible , without
regard to whether the affiants had previously signed the Roots' petition. Such a
solicitation of maids in the private suite of Respondent Essex 's manager, in the
presence of Hickey or Heytow, Respondent Essex's most responsible supervisory
5 Local No. 4's campaign to get affidavits continued until March 13 In the manner above
described.
ARISTOCRAT INNS OF AMERICA, INC., ETC. 1613
personnel , and two of Respondent Union's representatives , complete with notary
public and seal, was calculated to induce , and in fact did induce in some instances,
execution of the affidavits regardless of whether the affiants had already signed
the Roots ' petition.6 This is particularly reprehensible since the affidavit states
unequivocally : "I have not during the past six' months signed any document what-
ever which was submitted to me by Madie Roots," and Respondents ' representatives.
must have known that in certain instances the affiants were swearing falsely when they
signed.
By interrogating employees about their signing a petition protesting representation
by Respondent Union and by obtaining their signatures to affidavits designed to
assist Respondent Local No. 4 in defeating a decertification petition , Respondent
Local No. 4 restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) thereof . Respondent
Employer , by jointly participating in the interrogation , interfered with , restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act .7
C. The checkoff of dives
The contract between Respondent Employers and Respondent Union contains
a union -security clause and provides for the checkoff of union dues upon the execu=
tion by an employee of a written assignment authorizing Employer to make such- a
deduction . The assignment is made irrevocable for a period of 1 year . The com-
plaint alleges that during the period from August 19, 1962, to February 19, 1963,
when the first charge herein was filed , Respondent Employers deducted union dues of
employees although they had not authorized Respondent Employers to do so:
This is said to be an unfair labor practice violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of
the Act.
As to 82 employees said by the General Counsel in his more definite statement
of complaint to have had their dues deducted "without authorization," Respondent
Employers produced 79 cards 8 signed by employees authorizing such deductions.
Of these 79 cards, 10 were dated subsequent to the date of the first deduction of
dues. Four other cards refer to the signer 's place of employment as a motel other
than any of those involved in this proceeding . I do not find that this error, at the
most merely a misdescription of the place of employment ,, affects the validity of
the assignment since these cards were in fact executed while the signers were em-
ployed ' by one of Respondent Employers and were delivered to Respondent Union
and by it to Respondent Employers with the knowledge of the signers.
Conclusion
The decision of the Board in Salant and Salant , Inc.,9 is to the effect that an un-
authorized deduction of union dues is not per se a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act. Nor did the Board , on the basis of the facts in that case , find a violation of
Section 8 (a)(2). Nor do I here. I have heretofore found that Respondent Em-
ployers violated this section by jointly with Respondent Union interrogating em=
ployees concerning their attitude toward Respondent Union , in effect urging them
to retain their allegiance to it . This took place , however, several months sub-
sequent to the time when most of the wage deduction authorizations were executed.
I see no connection between these events. There is no evidence prior to the
filing by Roots of the first decertification petition. on December 28, 1962 , that Re-
spondent Employers were concerned with what bargaining representative represented
their employees . Moreover, Respondents had signed authorization cards from all
but three of those employees whose names were mentioned by the General Coun-
sel. I accept as credible Respondent Employers' explanation that the absence of
cards for these three employees was due to careless bookkeeping . I shall recommend
that the complaint be dismissed in this respect.
8 Heytow's testimony is to the effect that he instructed Hickey to tell the maids that
Respondent did not care whether they signed the affidavits and Hickey 's testimony is
that be carried out these instructions . Hickey may well have done so in some instances.
But such a statement becomes pro forma and of little effect in the light of other state-
ments found to have been made by both Heytow and Hickey.
1 See Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. and Bordo Products Co., d/b /a Stokely-Bordo, 130
NLRB 869.
8 The cards are membership application cards which include language authorizing dues
deductions.
9 88 NLRB 816.
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondents set forth in section III, above , occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Respondent Companies described in section I, above,
have a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Employers Aristocrat and Essex , and Respondent
Union , Local No. 4, have engaged in certain of the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint , I will recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that these Respondent Employers discriminately discharged Madie
Roots on February 16, 1963, I will recommend that they offer her full reinstatement
to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority
or other rights and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may
have suffered by reason of Respondents ' discrimination against her , by payment to
her of a sum of money equal to that which she would normally have received as wages
from the date of the discrimination against her to the date of offer of reinstatement,
less net earnings during said period, in the manner established by the Board in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 . It will be further recommended that
Respondent Companies preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or
its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary
and useful to determine the amount of backpay due and the rights of reinstatement
under the terms of this recommendation . It will also be recommended that Re-
spondent Companies and Respondent Union cease and desist from coercively inter-
rogating employees concerning their union activities or sympathies.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent Companies are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. Local No. 4, Building Service Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
3. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Madie
Roots, Respondent Employers Aristocrat and Essex have engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) and ( 1) of the Act.
4. By interrogating employees concerning their union activities and sympathies,
thus interfering with, restraining, and coercing them in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , these Respondent Companies have engaged in
and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act , and Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. Respondent Companies have not , by deducting union dues from the wages of
their employees , violated the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
International Printing Pressmen and Assistants ' Union of North
America , AFL-CIO ; Memphis Newspaper Printing Pressmen's
Union, Local No. 24; and Their Agent , Frazier Moore and
Kelley & Jamison , Inc. Case No. 26-CD-15. May 14, 196.1
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10(k) of the Act, following a
charge filed by Kelley & Jamison, Inc., herein called the Company, al-
146 NLRB No. 186.