Bel Air Sands Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 746 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bel Air Motor Inn, Inc , d/b/a/ Bel Air Sands Hotel
and Gerald Goldman Case 31-CA-1450
May 26, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN AND
JENKINS
On February 9, 1970, Trial Examiner Maurice Alexan-
dre issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set fourth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision
The Respondent filed timely exceptions and a brief
in support thereof
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner 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 the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations of the Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the
Respondent, Bel Air Motor Inn, Inc , d/b/a Bel Air
Sands Hotel, Los Angeles, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
MAURICE ALEXANDRE, Trial Examiner This case was
heard in Los Angeles, California, on September 24,
1969, upon a complaint issued on July 18, 1969,' alleging
that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended In its answer,
Respondent denied the commission of the unfair labor
practices alleged The issues presented are whether or
not (1) Respondent promulgated an illegal rule relating
to union activity by its employees during worktime,
and (2) certain written statements distributed by
Respondent to its employees were unlawful
Upon the entire record, my observation of the witness-
es, and the briefs filed by the General Counsel and
the Respondent, I make the following
I Based upon a charge filed on May 27 1969 by Gerald Goldman
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 2
I THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Evidence
The facts are not in dispute Respondent is a California
corporation engaged in the operation of a nonresidential
hotel and restaurant in Los Angeles, California In late
January or early February 1969,3 the hotel housekeeper
informed Peck, Respondent's vice president and general
manager, that she was having difficulty recruiting maids
because they were required to work Sundays and holi-
days at regular wage rates A day or two later, Peck
discussed the problem with Respondent's president, who
requested Peck to submit his recommendations concern-
ing wage increases and other employee benefits A few
days later, Peck instructed Respondent's auditor to fur-
nish him with a schedule of the wage scales and other
benefits, so that he could ascertain how much it would
cost "to do certain things" and how Respondent could
`get the money back " The auditor thereupon began
compiling such information
Towards the end of February, Peck learned that
Respondent's employees were engaging in union activity
Thereafter, on February 27, the Union filed a petition
for certification, which was served upon Respondent
Upon receipt of the petition, Peck instructed the auditor
to discontinue gathering further information, and did
not transmit the requested recommendations to Respond-
ent's president
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election
issued by the Regional Director on April 21, an election
among the Respondent's employees was scheduled for
May 21 The parties have stipulated that during the
period between May 12 and 19, Respondent's supervisors
distributed to its employees copies of a notice and
a statement, which are respectively set forth in full
in Appendix A and Appendix B attached hereto Employ-
ee Nicholson received his copy of the statement from
Peck's secretary while he was at work in the hotel
kitchen Nicholson testified that prior to receiving the
said document, he had not been informed by any repre-
sentative of Respondent that a review of wages was
in progress, that he was never informed by Peck that
the latter had been instructed to review employee wages,
and that so far as he knew, Peck had never so informed
any other employee
The election was held on May 21 and resulted in
a vote of 23 ballots against the Union, 12 ballots for
the Union, and 10 other ballots challenged
2 No issue of commerce is presented The complaint alleged and
by its failure to deny the answer admitted facts which I find establish
that Respondent is an employer engaged in operations affecting com
merce I further find that Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union
Local 814 Hotel Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International
Union AFL-CIO (hereafter called the Union) is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act
I All dates referred to hereafter relate to 1969
182 NLRB No 112
BEL AIR SANDS HOTEL
B. Concluding Findings
1. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's
notice announced a discriminatory no-solicitation rule,
since it threatened employees with discharge for engaging
in prounion activity during worktime, but at the same
time invited employees to engage in antiunion activity
without restriction as to when they could do so. Respond-
ent contends that it is entitled to adopt a rule prohibiting
organizing activity during worktime and to warn employ-
ees that if such activity results in neglect of or interfer-
ence with work, they could be discharged. It further
asserts that the rule was not discriminatory even though
it did not forbid antiunion activity during worktime,
since the Union had ample access to the employees
during nonworking time.
In considering a similar rule, the Board has held
that "an employer may lawfully prevent its employees
from soliciting for a union during working hours provided
the ban is not promulgated or enforced for a discriminato-
ry purpose." Serv-Air, Inc., 161 NLRB 382. In State
Chemical Company, 166 NLRB 455, the Board further
pointed out that a rule prohibiting union solicitation
which is limited to worktime is presumptively valid,
but that the presumption of validity may be rebutted
by evidence showing that the rule was adopted for
a discriminatory purpose. Here, since Respondent pro-
hibited prounion activity during worktime, but at the
same time invited antiunion activity without the same
restriction respecting worktime, it in effect promulgated
a rule which was discriminatory on its face. In addition,
the rule was first adopted shortly before the date of
the Board election and coincided with the issuance of
Respondent' s antiunion propaganda. In view of the tim-
ing of 'the promulgation of the rule and the difference
in treatment between prounion and antiunion activity,
it is difficult to escape the conclusion, and I find, that
Respondent promulgated its rule for the purpose of
defeating union organization by unlawfully repressing
union activity. Hosiery Corporation of America, 175
NLRB No. 31, and cases cited therein. There is no
merit to Respondent's contention that the rule was lawful
because it did not diminish the Union's ability to reach
the employees. Wm. H. Block Co., 150 NLRB 341.
I therefore find that the promulgation of the rule violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
2. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's
statement violated Section 8(a)(1) by disclosing to the
employees, for the first time just before the election,
that a wage and benefit review had been commenced,
and at the same time announcing that an increase in
wages or other benefits could not be given once the
Union had filed its petition. Respondent contends that
it correctly stated the law when it informed its employees
that the filing of the Union's petition for certification
precluded it from granting an increase in wages or
other employee benefits; that there is no basis for con-
cluding that such information was given to induce an
antiunion vote; and that its statement was thus protected
by the free speech provisions of Section 8(c) of the
Act.
747
Contrary to Respondent's contention, the filing of
the Union's petition did not necessarily preclude the
granting or announcement of an increase in wages or
other benefits to its employees. The legality of such
conduct turns on whether it "is undertaken with the
express purpose of impinging on their freedom of choice
for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated
to have that effect."4 The same test applies to the
withholding of an increase in wages or other benefits
and to the announcement of such withholding.' Applying
this test to Respondent's statement, I find that it was
unlawful. There is no doubt that Respondent abandoned
further consideration of an increase in wages and other
employee benefits solely because the Union had filed
its petition. Respondent so admitted at the hearing and,
in effect, so informed its employees. But Respondent
has failed to explain, and there appears to be no reason,
why such abandonment was necessary. Nothing in the
Act prevented Respondent from continuing its review
of employee benefits despite the Union's petition.
Nor has Respondent explained why it was necessary,
just before the election, to reveal the wage and benefit
review to its employees for the first time," and to tell
them that the filing of the petition precluded the grant
of a wage increase or other benefits. Nowhere in the
record is there evidence that such announcement was
motivated by legitimate business considerations. Where
an employer is faced only with the choice of either
granting or withholding a wage increase, as for example
where he announced the increase prior to learning of
union activities, he may run a risk that even if he
acts with pure motives, his conduct is "susceptible
of being construed as a misstep. "7 But here Respondent
was not required to run such risk. Since there is nothing
to'show that its employees were aware that a review
of wages and other benefits had been commenced,
Respond'ent' could have remained silent regarding the
review and the matter of increases in wages and other
benefits with no danger that such silence could be miscon-
strued. Certainly, Respondent could have postponed
disclosure of the abandonment of its wage and benefits
review until after the election. By acting just before
the election, Respondent deliberately took the risk that
its conduct could justify the inference it was timed
to induce votes against the Union. N.L.R.B. v. Newman-
Green, Inc., 401 F.2d I (C.A. 7). Since Respondent
has offered no explanation for such timing, I am con-
strained to conclude that it had no legitimate reason
therefor. In these circumstances, I conclude that by
its statement, Respondent sought to create the impression
that unionization stood in the way of further consider-
" N L R B v Exchange Parts Company, 375 U S 405.
' American Technical Machinery Corporation, 173 NLRB 1355, Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc , 166 NLRB 27, enfd on this
point 409 F 2d 296 (C A 5), Standard Coil Products, Inc , 99 NLRB
899, cf Uarco Incorporated, 169 NLRB 1153
" Employee Nicholson did not know about the review prior to the
distribution of Respondent's statement and, so far as he knew, neither
did the other employees The record contains no evidence that Respond-
ent had previously disclosed its review to the employees, and Respondent
does not claim that it had
' McCormick Longmeadow Stone Co , Inc , 158 NLRB 1237, 1242
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ation of increased wages and benefits, and hence that
the statement was a tactical device designed to interfere
with the employees' freedom of choice. I further find
that such tactical device was reasonably calculated to
have that effect, since the employees were not likely
to miss the inference that Respondent "was the source
of benefits, which could be withheld or granted as it
chose, and that its choice could be influenced" by
the employees' decision respecting unionization. Ameri-
can Technical Machinery Corp., supra. By such conduct,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
3. The General Counsel contends that Respondent's
statement also violated Section 8(a)(1) by informing its
employees that the scheduled election precluded disclo-
sure of the benefits they would otherwise receive, there-
by impliedly promising benefits to persuade its employees
to vote against the Union. Respondent contends that
in view of the pending election it was precluded from
discussing wage increases and other benefits and, there-
fore, that in so stating, its campaign literature was
accurate and thus lawful.
Respondent' s argument ignores the fact that by the
very statement that it could not reveal the benefits
it would have given but for the Union's petition,
Respondent implied the possibility of benefit improve-
ments if the employees voted against the Union. It
also ignores Respondent's expressed hope to improve
benefits and its explicit request that the employees give
it an opportunity to prove what it could do for them
by voting against the Union. In short, Respondent did
exactly what it admittedly knew it was prohibited from
doing-it dangled before its employees the possibility
of benefit improvements if they voted against the Union.
Such conduct violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Sher-
man Distributing Company, Inc., d/b/a Schroeder Dis-
tributing Company, 171 NLRB No. 194.
4. Finally, the General Counsel contends that both
the statement and the notice were unlawful in that
their references to "serious harm," together with related
illegal antiunion statements contained therein, were part
and parcel of Respondent's campaign to discourage its
employees from voting for the Union, and were calculat-
ed to create a fear of job insecurity and loss of existing
benefits if they voted for the Union. Respondent con-
tends that its "serious harm" and other language is
protected by Section 8(c) because it contained no threat
of reprisal.
Apparently, "serious harm" statements have been
widely used by employers during organizational cam-
paigns." In Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc., 162 NLRB
1275, 1276, referring to a notice containing a "serious
harm" statement, the Board set forth the following
criteria for determining the validity of such a statement:
We-have not ordinarily found such notices to
be illegal in and of themselves, for the bare words,
in the absence of 'conduct or other circumstances
supplying a particular connotation, can be given
a noncoercive and nonthreatening meaning. Even
the simultaneous existence of other unfair labor
practices may not render the notice coercive, unless
these practices tend to impart a.coercive overtone
to the notice. Where we have noted that other
unfair labor practices have been found, our deci-
sions have been bottomed on the premise that
there is a direct relationship between the notice
and the total context in which it has appeared,
including unfair labor practices, which serves to
give a "sinister meaning" to what might otherwise
be viewed as innocuous or ambiguous words. [Foot-
note omitted.]
In holding that the "serious harm" statement in Greens-
boro was invalid, the Board then said at page 1277-78:
Here, as in previous cases where we have found
the notice violative of law, the posting of the notice
was prompted by the initiation of a union organizing
effort. Our experience shows that in such a setting
the employees are constantly on the alert to any
suggestions , whether overt or covert, by their
employer, as to the consequences which may attend
their choice of a union as their collective-bargaining
representative. In such a context each employee
tends carefully to weigh all the pronouncements
of his employer which bear on the issue in the
light of his relationship with his employer and the
economic power his employer possesses to translate
what he says into concrete acts bearing on,.that
relationship and which might have a direct or ' seri-
ous" impact on the employees either individually
or as a group. Certainly, employees in the midst
of a union organizing campaign are scarcely likely
to be oblivious to posted and authoritative policy
pronouncements of top management, even though
they purport to be merely suggestive or advisory
in nature. When an employee or group of employees
is told by management that not benefit but only
"serious harm" can result from the union organiza-
tion, and without clear delineation by the employer
of the source or nature of the harm the employer
has in mind, it is reasonably to be expected that
the employees will connect the suggestion of "seri-
ous harm" with possible action that lies within
the power of the employer to take, including actions
of a reprisal nature.
In some contexts, the courts have held that "serious
harm" statements did not exceed the bounds of permissi-
ble campaign propaganda."' In others, it 'has been held
that the statements had a coercive impact." More recent-
ly, in N.L.R.B. v. Gissel, 395 U.S. 575, 617, the Supreme
This case is distinguishable from Standard Coil, supra , upon which
Respondent relies In that case , unlike here, the employer made it
clear to his employees that they would receive the withheld wage
increase as soon as the representation issue was settled , regardless
of the results of the election
" J P Stevens & Co v N L R B 406 F 2d 1017 (C A 4)
i" Ibid , N L R B v Greensboro Hosiery Mills, Inc , 398 F 2d 414
(C A 4), Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO v
NLRB,365F2d898(CADC)
" Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Amerca, AFL-CIOv N L R B,
420 F 2d 1296 (C A D C ), Serv-Air, Inc v N L R B , 395 F 2d 557
(C A 10), cert denied 393 U S 840, J P Stevens & Co v N L R B,
380 F 2d 292 (C A 2), cert denied 389 U S 1005
BEL AIR SANDS HOTEL
Court stated the following respecting employer state-
ments in general:
. . . an employer's rights 'cannot outweigh the equal
rights of the employees to associate freely, as those
rights are embodied in §7 and protected by §8(a)(1)
and to proviso to §8(c). And any balancing of
those rights must take into account the economic
dependence of the employees on their employers,
and the necessary tendency, of the former, because
of that relationship, to pick up intended implications
of the latter that might be more readily dismissed
by a more disinterested ear.. . .
The Court continued, at page 618, by stating that an
employer may "make a prediction as to the precise
effects he believes unionization will have on his compa-
ny," but that such a prediction-
. . . must be carefully phrased on the basis of
objective fact to convey an employer's belief as
to demonstrably probable consequences beyond his
control or to convey a management decision already
arrived at to close the,plant in case of unionization.
. . . If there is any implication that an employer
may or may not take action solely on his own
initiative for reasons unrelated to economic necessi-
ties and known only to him, the statement is no
longer a reasonable prediction based on available
facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepre-
sentation and coercion, and as such without the
protection of the First Amendment.. . .
Turning to Respondent's statement and notice, I find
that'"they' contained unlawful threats. The statement
pointed out that the employees have "steady" jobs
and "substantial benefits," but that the Union will not
pay their salaries or provide the other benefits they
received. It further pointed out that if the employees
unionized, it would operate to their "serious harm,"12
they ran "the risk of tearing apart everything, that
[they] now have," and they stood to "lose in the long
run." Respondent thus made clear to its employees
that it was the sole source of economic power and
that unionization involved the danger of economic harm.
There is no objective evidence to support the assumption
that unionization would per se cause economic harm
to the employees. On the other hand, there is evidence
that the danger of economic harm stemmed from
Respondent. For by unlawfully informing the employees
that it had abandoned consideration of an increase in
wages and other benefits because of the Union's petition,
and by promulgating an unlawful rule prohibiting only
prounion activity during worktime, Respondent demon-
strated that it was willing to use its economic power
in any manner necessary to defeat unionization.
Respondent's statement and notice thus cannot be
regarded as a mere prediction of "demonstrably probable
consequences beyond [Respondent's] control," but rath-
er are to be interpreted as containing an implication
that Respondent might retaliate against unionization
"solely on [its] own initiative for reasons unrelated
11 The notice repeated this statement
749
to economic necessities and known only to [it]."
N.L.R.B. v. Gissel, supra.
An employer is entitled to express his opposition
to unionization, and he may do so vigorously. But
as the Supreme Court stated at page 620 in Gissel:
. . . an employer, who has control over [the
employer-employee] relationship and therefore
knows it best, cannot be heard to complain that
he is without an adequate guide for his behavior.
He can easily make his views known without engag-
ing in "brinkmanship" when it becomes all too
easy to "overstep and tumble into the brink."
Wausau Steel Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 377 F.2d 369,
372 (C.A. 7th Cir. 1967). At the least he can avoid
coercive speech simply by avoiding conscious
overstatements he has reason to believe will mislead
his employees.
Here, Respondent's statement and notice contained the
type of "conscious overstatements" which the Supreme
Court has condemned. Cf. N.L.R.B. v. Dowell Division
of Dow Chemical Co., 420 F.2d 480 (C.A. 5). I according-
ly find that they violated Section 8(a)(1).13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees, as found herein, Respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
I shall recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from its unfair labor practices and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Respondent Bel Air Motor Inn, d/b/a Bel Air Sands
Motel, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a.) Promulgating any rule prohibiting prounion activi-
ties on company time, while permitting antiunion activi-
ties on such time.
(b.) Informing its employees that it has abandoned
consideration of benefit increases in order to influence
the employees to vote against unionization.
(c.) Implying that it may grant benefits to its employ-
ees in order to influence them to vote against unioniza-
tion.
" The decision in Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Co , 157
NLRB 1393, relied on by Respondent, is distinguishable. Although
the speech in that case was very similar to Respondent's statement,
it did not contain reference to "serious harm " Moreover, Belknap
was a representation proceeding and, unlike the instant case, the speech
was not made in the context of accompanying unfair labor practices
Third, Belknap was decided without the benefit of the teachings in
Gissel
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Threatening employees, by implication or other-
wise, with reprisals if they should vote for unionization
(e ) In any other manner unlawfully interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise
of their rights under Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action
(a) Post at its place of business in Los Angeles,
California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix C "14 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 31 shall, after
being signed by Respondent's representatives, be posted
by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places where notices to employees
are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken
to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
(b ) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith 1'
'^ In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be
changed to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board
IS In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional
Director for Region 31 in writing within 10 days from the date of
this Order what steps it has taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX A
serious concern to you, and our sincere belief
is that if this Union were to get in here, it
would not work to your benefit but in the long
run would itself operate to your serious harm
2 It is our positive intention to oppose this Union
and to use every proper means to prevent it
from coming into this operation
3 We would like to make it clear that it is not
necessary for anybody to belong to the (CWBU),
or any other Union, in order to work for the
Hotel We believe a man should have the right
of free choice without Union interference
4 Those who might join or belong to this Union
are not going to get any advantages or any pre-
ferred treatment of any sort over those who
do not join
5 If anybody causes you any trouble at your work
or puts you under any sort of pressure to join
the Union, you should let the Company know,
and we will undertake to see that this is stopped
6 No person will be allowed to carry on Union
organizing activities on the job Anybody who
does so and who thereby neglects his own work
or interferes with the work of others will be
subject to discharge
7 We ask for the help of those opposing the Union
in talking with their fellow employees who may
be unfamiliar with Union procedures
Anybody who tells you anything contrary to the
foregoing is not telling you the truth
STERLING PECK
Vice President & General
Manager
BEL-AIR SANDS OF Los ANGELES
Motor Hotel-11461 Sunset Blvd Los Angeles,
California 90049
(Sunset Boulevard at San Diego Freeway)
Executive Office
GR 6-1241
Area Code 213
May, 1969
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Since the Culinary Workers & Bartenders Union
(CWBU) has been putting on a campaign to unionize
the Bel-Air Sands Hotel, a good many questions
have been asked with regard to the following mat-
ters We have decided to state our position on
these subjects as clearly as we can for everybody
involved
I This matter is, of course, one of concern to
the Company It is also , however, a matter of
APPENDIX B
BEL-AIR SANDS OF Los ANGELES
Motor Hotel-11461 Sunset Blvd
Los Angeles, California 90049
(Sunset Boulevard at San Diego Freeway)
Executive Office
GR 6-1241
Area Code 213
I am taking the liberty of writing to you because
you are confronted with a family decision regarding
association with a trade union-one that seriously
concerns your future
As you know, a new company has recently taken
over the operation of the Bel-Air Sands I had
been instructed by the new owners to review the
salaries and benefits of all employees But the
Culinary Workers and Bartenders Union (CWBU)
filed a petition with the National Labor Relations
Board claiming that they represented a majority
BEL AIR SANDS HOTEL 751
of the employees and asked to represent them.
We didn't think they did so we asked the Labor
Board for a secret election' so you could decide
whether or not you wanted a Union.
Once the CWBU filed a petition the new owners
were unable to grant wage increases or other ben-
efits. The law prohibits us from doing this and
the law likewise states that the new owners cannot
tell you the benefits and other things they would
do because of the election which is to take place
on May 21st. Before you vote this Union or any
other Union in, give the new owners an opportunity
to prove what they can do for you.
Let me state that we haven't had a Union in
the past and there is no need for a Union at
the Bel -Air Sands under the new owners.
We are not a large and impersonal corporation
which is remote and distant from our employees.
We who now own and operate the Bel-Air Sands
Hotel are deeply concerned with your welfare.
Those of you who know me, know this to be
true.
I frankly do not know why the Union is interested
in a small company the size of the Bel -Air Sands
Hotel. I do not believe that this Union or any
Union can assume the role or undertake the respon-
sibilities that we have exercised and are continuing
to exercise. The Union will not pay your salary;
it makes no contribution to the insurance programs
or other benefits you receive; and it does not lend
a helping hand when you are down or financially
burdened. But we do, and more importantly, we
care.
The Union can furnish you nothing that you
do not now have. On the contrary, it is our sincere
belief that if this Union comes into this operation,
it would not work to your benefit, but in the long
run would itself operate to your serious harm.
In our opinion, all that a Union can do is to
create an atmosphere which you and I would prefer
to avoid. As you well know, a Union often brings
with it an atmosphere of discord, dissension and
distrust.
This is why you don't need a Union at the
Bel-Air Sands Hotel. We want all of you to take
an active personal interest in the question of wheth-
er this Union shall be voted in or not. We want
all of you who are eligible to vote in this election
to do so. Take a hand in this matter and help
make it go the way you want it to go. Otherwise,
you may find yourself saddled with a Union that
you do not want.
Bear in mind that all of you who are against
the Union are by law entitled to oppose the Union
and to talk and work against it, if you wish to
do so . Remember also that in this election, you
will be free to vote according to your own judgment
and convictions on the election day. You can vote
against the Union even though at sometime or other
you may have signed a Union card. Please think
carefully about all of the things I have tried to
bring out in this letter. As matters stand, you
have a steady job, substantial benefits, and a good
place to work . We all hope to make things even
better. Do you see any reason to bring this outside
Union in , pay dues, and at the same time run
the risk of 'tearing apart everything that you now
have?
Please study this whole matter thoroughly. I
believe that you will surely come to this conclusion
in your own good judgment: That you stand to
lose in the long run if this Union were to get
in and that you stand to gain by keeping it out.
One final word. The new owners should be given
an opportunity to prove to you that you don't
need a Union at the Bel-Air Sands Hotel. Give
them that chance by voting no.
Sincerely,
APPENDIX C
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT promulgate any rule prohibiting
union activity on company time , while permitting
antiunion activity on company time.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees that we have
stopped considering an increase in wages and other
benefits, in order to discourage unionization.
WE WILL NOT tell our employees, directly or
indirectly, that we may increase their benefits if
they vote against unionization.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with "seri-
ous harm" or any other reprisals if they should
unionize.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the National Labor Relations Act.
BEL AIR MOTOR INN,
INC.,
D/B/A BEL AIR SANDS
HOTEL
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
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.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024, Telephone
Office, Federal Building, Room 12100, 11000 Wilshire 824-7351