Doral Hotel

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 1, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 1112 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Estate of Alfred Kaskel, d/b/a Doral Hotel and Country Club' and Teamsters Local Union No. 769, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Case 12-CA-7790 March 1, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS PENEI.LO. MURPHY. ANI) TRUESI)AI. On September 25, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Re- spondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.3 and conclusions 4 of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.5 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing 2The General Counsel moved to strike Respondent's exceptions for fail- ure to comply with the provisions of Sec. 102.46(b) of the National luabhor Relations Board Rules and Regulations. Series 8. as amended 4ithough Respondent's exceptions and brief in support thereof do not conform in all particulars with the above-cited section of the Board's Rules and Regula- tions. theN are not so deficient as to warrant striking. Accordingls the (;en- eral ('ounsel's motion to strike is denied. Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made hb the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established polico not to oxer- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credihbilit unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence colvinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr Wall Prodllts. I . 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings The Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve the conflicting testinlt,.x regarding whether Vitucci. when she was laid off, withdrew her preioulkr approved request for a leave of absence Ihe General Counsel excepts this failure and requests that the Board find Vitucci did withdraw the re- quest. Inasmuch as a finding on this question requires a credibility resolu- tion, and as this question is relevant only to the issue of the amount of backpay owed to Vitucci rather than the issue of liahilit ., we defer the resolution of this question to the compliance stage of these proceedings. On p I of his Decision, the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently stated that one of the issues in this proceeding was an alleged discriminatory layoff for a 'two-week" period rather than the "twelve-week" period that was alleged by the General Counsel at he hearing. In his discussion of discriminatee Vitucci's laoff. the Administrative l[.a Judge inadvertently stated that, after Supervisor Parapar laid off Vitucci. he told her that Respondent could "retain" the runners. The record supports the Administrative Law Judge's finding earlier in his Decision that Parapar told Vitucci that Respondent could not "retrain" the runners. 4 The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Vitucci was laid ,ff in violation of Sec. 8a)13) and (I). Respondent excepts to this conclusion on the grounds that Vitucci's layoff was economically justified We find Re- spondent's contention to be without merit It is clear from the record that Respondent was hostile to the nioln and Vitucci's involvement in it. The Administrative Law Judge found that her supervisor. Parapar, had threatened to lay off any employees insolbed with the Union. He found that Vitucci had not been laid off during the pre ius 240 NLRB No. 150 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent. the Estate of Alfred Kaskel, d/b/a Doral Hotel and Country Club. Mi- ami, Florida, its officers, agents. successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the Administrative Law Judge. Ir Is FURTHER ORDER.I) that the complaint allega- tions not specifically found herein be. and they hereby are, dismissed. five summer seasons she worked for Respondent. and that she as denied vacation in July by Parapar on the grounds that Respondent would be too busy to let her have time off during that month. Further, the Administrative Law Judge found that Parapar told Vitucci when she was laid off: "No we can retrain the runners. hey were your boys. The union won't be much without you here," and that Parapar wrote on one of Vitucci's layoff lips that she was not recommended for rehire because of "[nion actiities organizer." Based on the entire record and these findings bh the Adminis- trative aw Judge, we conclude, notwithstanding the economic facts d- duced by Respondent. that a major part of the motivation for V'iucc', layoff was her union activities The Administrative Law Judge also concluded that Respondent's person- nel director, Levine. had threatened Vitucci in liolation of Sec. 8(;a( I. Respondent excepts to this conclusion as the complaint contained no allega- traons involving Levine. We find no merit In this exception as it is well established that a violation not alleged in the complaint may nevertheless he found where, as here, the unlawful actil tv was related to and ntertw ined with the allegations in the complaint, and the matter was fully litigated before the Administrative .aw Judge Sheert (ev il V 'orvrl Inernatlio,iia Associarion, Lcal No. 7/1. .411 ( 10 )H J 1Otien Co. 1 ). 193 NRB 23. 27. fn. 14 (1971). he General Counsel also petitioned the Board to issue a bilingual no- tice as Respondent's total work force assertedlS contains a high concenlra- tion of bilingual employees. We have issued ilingual notices in the past where some of the employees involved in the case either did nol speak English or primarily spoke another language. See tlrava Chenuliuil, Ii . 235 NLRB 903 11978). and Greatr (Chinee Amteriwan Sewing Cnlpati: Er-it dc (Corp 227 NLRB 1670 1977). It is not alleged, however, nor does the record reflect that the employees involved in this case do not speak English or primarily speak another language Accordingly. we decline to issue a bilin- gual notice. APPENDIX NoIIC(E To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF IlHE NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WII.L NOI threaten employees that they will be in trouble, laid off, be fired, or get hurt if they support Teamsters Local Union No. 769. affili- ated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organi- zation. WE Will NOI order employees to stay clear of DORAL HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB 1113 and not to listen to supporters of the aforesaid Union or any other labor organization. WE WIIlI ,o() interrogate employees as to their union activit 3 or the activity of the aforesaid Union or any other labor organization. Wi wnll.l o create the impression of surveil- lance of our employees' union activit. Wt w.l,. NI harass employees by the use of vulgar epithets because of their support for the aforesaid Union or an other labor organliza- tion. W- u ill. olI discourage membership in Teamsters Local Union No. 769. affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or any other labor organization bh la\- ing off employees and diminishing their hours of employment because of their union and concert- ed activities. WI wl.L N in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in the Na- tional Labor Relations Act. as amended. Wl. wil restore Brenda Vitucci to her regular full-time schedule of hours per week and make her whole with interest for any loss in pay as a result of our discrimination against her. Ttt[ Esi.xi (i At IRlI) KxsKill d b a DORAI. HoI 11 \NI) (()Iot I R Cit i DECISION ABRAHAM FRANK. Administrative Law Judge: The charge in this case was filed on July 11, 1977,1 and the complaint. alleging violations of Section 8(a)/ I) and (3) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, issued on August 19. The hearing was held at Coral Gables, Florida. on De- cember 12 and 13. All briefs filed have been considered. At issue are alleged statements and threats made by sup- ervisors and officials of Respondent Company to discour- age the union activity of its employees and an alleged dis- criminatory layoff of the Union's principal supporter for a 2-week period. FINI)IN(iS OF FA¢I ANI) C(ON( I SIONS O(I LAW A. Preliminary Findings and (onclus.ions The Respondent. with its principal office and place of business in Miami. Florida, is a Florida corporation en- gaged in the operation of a hotel and country club. Re- spondent admits, and I find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7) of the Act. All dates are in 1977 iillecss ohcrwi,, iwldiilted Referred to hereinafter as the 1ill T'he Charging Party 2 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. B. Back g'round Brenda Vitucci had been employed b Respondent as a front door cashier for approximately 6 ears. On June 11, 1976, the Union lost a Board-conducted election among a unit of front door "runners" or car parkers. Vitucci was included in that unit and voted in the election. She was on leave of absence from July 1. 1976. until on or about Sep- tember 12. 1976. Upon her return she discovered that in- stead of improvements in benefits and conditions of em- plon ment which she had expected, management had adopted a strict program with respect to hours, days off, and sick leave. A promise to promote an employee to per- manent relief doorman had not been fulfilled. The employ- ees received only a 10-cent pay raise. In her own case she was informed that beginning on October 4, 1976, she would have to punch a timecard, something not previously required of her. On October 8. 1976. Vitucci filed a charge with the Board, alleging unlawful discrimination against her and other employees because of their union activity. On De- cember 12. 1976, Vitucci amended her charge to include threats. interrogation, and promises of benefits. Thereafter the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Respondent posted a notice dated January 2, whereby it agreed to refrain from engaging in threats, inter- rogation, promises of benefit and other conduct in viola- tion of Section 8(a)( 1) of the Act. Initially. the notice was posted in the cashier's booth under the air conditioner where it was not clearly visible. Vitucci called the Labor Board and sent a letter to the compliance officer complaining about the location of the notice. Subsequently. the notice was moved to a location on the window of the cashier's booth. Counsel for the General Counsel adduced considerable background evidence relating to issues which were the sub- ject matter of Vitucci's charges in Case 12 CA 7422, sub- sequently settled by the parties with approval of the Board's Regional Director. In keeping with the Board's ad- monition on this subject. I place no reliance upon such evidence to establish Respondent's animus toward the unionization of its employees within the 10(b) period in the instant case. E'dgewood NVursing Center, Inc. 230 NLRB 1021 (1977): 'right Motors, Inc. 237 NLRB 570 (1978). From December 26. 1976. to January 16, other employ- ees of the Respondent, not including the front door run- ners and cashiers involved in this case, engaged in a strike called b the Hotel Employees Union. On January 2 or 3 Vitucci had a conversation with H. Lee Levine, Respon- dent's Personnel Director, relating to the striking hotel em- plosees. Levine told Vitucci that they' could hold out with all the new employees working, that they would not have to take any of the old employees back. Levine said he had the urge to run the hotel employees over when he saw them on the picket line and that he would do so if one got in front of his car. Levine also said that the hotel again had beaten the union and that they were holding all the cards: they 1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would not have to give the union employees anything they wanted. C. ('redibilitv My findings of fact in this case are based essentially upon the credited testimony of witnesses for the General Counsel. The testimony of employees Irshad Elahi, Rich- ard Bennett, and Jack Phillips is uncontradicted. The testi- mony of Vitucci, as it related to statements made by head doorman Jose Parapar, is also largely uncontradicted. With respect to Vitucci's testimony as to conversations with Per- sonnel Director H. Lee Levine. Operations Manager Gus- tovo Novo, Assistant Superintendent of Services Joe Mar- cel, I have credited Vitucci over these officials. For 6 vears Vitucci had been employed by Respondent in the responsi- ble and trusted position of cashier. Observing her on the stand, I do not believe she would fabricate a story out of whole cloth. Her testimony has the ring of truth and is consonant with the credited testimony of other witnesses. No reason other than her union activity would seem to warrant the extreme hostility and antagonism of Respon- dent's supervisors and officials, some of whom referred to her as a "bitch," an epithet at times embellished by an even more vulgar Anglo-Saxon adjective. In flatly denying any conversations relating to Vitucci's union activity or the union activity of other employees. ILevine, Novo, and Mar- cel were not convincing and did not persuade me that they were telling the truth as they knew it. D. The Unfair Lahor Practices On or about January 17, Vitucci had a conversation with Levine in the executive office behind the front desk at the country club. Levine said, "I can't believe you called up the Labor Board to complain about the posting of the no- tice." Vitucci replied, "Yeah, it wasn't posted where any- body could see it." Levine said, "I don't understand why they even came down here to look at it. Now you're push- ing too far. You're just asking for it." Vitucci responded that the employees could still join a union, that she had not forgotten what management did to the employees last year. and that she would bring the union in herself if she had to. She said, "I will. I'll go down to the office. I know where it is. I'll bring it in." Vitucci asked Levine, "What are you going to do, fire me, or set me up?" Levine replied, "That's too expensive, but we're working on' it." He also said. "They must have been giving you a lot of advice down at that Labor Board. They' must have been telling you not to be late because they've been checking your timecard every day and you haven't been late once. They're not supposed to be giving you advice down there. Why don't you quit? Why don't you leave?" Thereafter, when Vitucci saw Lev- ine he would ask her when she was leaving or when she was going to quit her job. In February Vitucci had a conversation with Marcel, during which Marcel asked Vitucci why she had not hon- ored the strike of the hotel employees. He said, "It was a Cuban strike anyway. At least we got rid of them." Marcel said, "If you go down to that union you're asking for trou- ble. Those union guys are known for taking payoffs and this hotel would do it." Marcel also said on several occa- sions that anybody who brought the Union in would be in trouble. On a few occasions in January, February, March, and April. Parapar said that anyone who brought the Union in or went to the union hall would be in trouble. Parapar would continually bring up the Hotel Employees' strike as an example to the front door runners. In February, in the presence of Vitucci and employees Jack Phillips and Tony Ramariz, Parapar said, "Look what happened to the Hotel Employees' Union. It's the same thing that could happen to you if you join the union. You'll either be laid off or you'll lose your job just like they did. You know how this hotel feels about unions and you know their lawyer. They' could lay you off or fire you for any reason. They got rid of all the people they didn't want." On January 19, 2 days after Vitucci's conversation with Levine concerning the notice. Vitucci was told by Novo that he wanted to talk to her in his office. Novo told Vituc- ci that the hotel was doing away with the position of night cashier and would have only one cashier in the daytime. Vitucci told Novo that she was going to school in the day- time, but that she would not quit. Novo asked Vitucci if she would take the daytime job and Vitucci agreed to take it. Novo also said, "It's not because the hotel isn't busy. I don't understand how anybody would want to join the union after you saw what happened to the Hotel Employ- ees' Union." Elahi testified that in March or April Parapar told Vituc- ci and Elahi, "I know you people are trying to bring the union in and the union is not good." Parapar said, "You can see the last strike. The union didn't do anything good for them." Then Parapar asked how the union was going to do good for "you people." Parapar also said, with respect to the people trying to bring the Union in, that Parapar could fire them or lay them off, and they would get in trouble. During the first week of Bennett's employment in late March or early April, Parapar told Bennett that some of the older runners and Vitucci would be trying to influence him. Parapar said that they would both get along much better if Bennett did what he was told and just stayed out of everything. About a month or two later, after union cards had been passed out, Parapar told Bennett to stay clear of the Union, not to listen to "them" because it was not going to work. In October Parapar told Bennett that it would be no problem for "her" to get a job and that was why she could get so deeply involved. Parapar said that little people, like Bennett and Parapar. get hurt when "these things" come on. On a few occasions prior to the recognition of the Union Parapar told Phillips that the same thing could happen to the runners that happened to the hotel employees: they got laid off or fired. Parapar also said "that we see what hap- pened to the other people. We see that they were a union and how many of them lost their jobs and that the hotel could do the same thing to us." In March Vitucci and Elahi, a front door runner, went to the union hall. Vitucci obtained authorization cards and solicited about 20 employees to sign them. Respondent's officials and supervisors were, of course, well aware that DORAL HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB 11115 Vitucci was taking an active part in the Union's organiza- tional campaign. Parapar was also present when Vitucci and the runners had conversations about the Union and he joined in the conversations. In May and April. Parapar would frequently ask Vitucci what's new with the Union. what's happening with the Union, what's the next move. Vitucci placed union authorization cards on her desk in the Parapar's presence. During this period Parapar would also receive telephone calls for Vitucci from James Driggers. the Union's representative. Parapar. who was at that time a member of the Union, told Vitucci that he knew Driggers and that Driggers was his friend. On June 1, Respondent recognized the Union as the bar- gaining agent for its runners and cashiers on the basis of signed authorization cards. At this time 4 of the I I runners received a 10-cent-per-hour pas raise. On 10 occasions from January to June. Vitucci asked Parapar whether the hotel was going to lay her off. Parapar would reply, "Absolutely not. We need you here." About June 8, Parapar asked Vitucci when she wanted her vaca- tion. She indicated she would like it in July. Parapar said. "Well, it's too busy in July. You're going to have to take August. That's when I'm taking it." Vitucci asked Parapar for several weeks' leave of absence. Parapar said she could have the leave of absence after her vacation, but not earli- er. On June 26 at 3:30 p.m., Parapar approached Vitucci and said, "You're laid off. Lack of work." Vitucci identi- fied General Counsel's Exhibit 3 as a "termination" form on which Parapar wrote her name, the phrase "lack of work," and his signature. The form, dated June 24. was already dated when Vitucci observed Parapar sign it. Vitucci was angry, but told Parapar, "All right. I don't care." As Parapar was leaving, he said. "Now we can re- train the runners. They were your boys. The union won't be much without you here." Parapar's purported signature appears on a second "Ter- mination" form, identified as General Counsel Exhibit 8, and dated June 27. Parapar testified that the printing of Vitucci's name on this form and the signature were his writing, as were the words "Front Door No. 321" and "Front Door Cashier." He denied, however, that he had printed the words "Agitator" under the reason for termina- tion-layoff or "Union activities organizer" on the line in- dicating that the employee was not recommended for reemployment. Parapar also signed a termination form for Phillips, whose last day worked was September 16. On this form Parapar wrote that Phillips was not recommended for reemployment because he was "involved in Union activi- ties." Respondent called a handwriting expert. Linda J. Hart. who testified that Parapar's signature on General Counsel Exhibit 8 was a forgery, that the word "Agitator" on that exhibit was written "highly probably" or "most probably" by Vitucci, and that the phrase "Union activities- organiz- er" was "certainly" written by Parapar. Vitucci testified that several weeks after her lavoff a copy of General Counsel Exhibit 8 was delivered to her by employee Tony Ramariz and she saw it then for the first time. Parapar, called on rebuttal, did not reaffirm his original testimony with respect to General Counsel Exhibit 8 nor did he attempt to refute the contrary testimony of the handwriting expert as to his signature or the phrase "Union activities--organizer" on that exhibit. Vitucci returned to work on September 16. Prior to her layoff she carried a regular full-time schedule of 46 hours per week and was paid at that rate for her vacation. Subse- quent to her recall, from September to December. Vitucci worked irregularly from 3 to 6 days a week. Analysis and Final Conclusions of Law On the basis of the evidence set forth above I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)( b the following con- duct: (I) Levine's threats to Vitucci on or about January 17. following her complaint about the posting of a Board no- tice, that Vitucci was "pushing too far" and '"just asking for it": that Respondent was "working" on firing her or setting her up for firing: Levine's suggestion in that context and thereafter that Vitucci leave or quit her job. (2) Marcel's threat to Vitucci in February that anvbodv who brought the Union in would be in trouble: that Re- spondent would make payoffs to the Union: that Respon- dent had gotten rid of employees in the hotel strike. (3) Parapar's threats in January. February, March. and April to Vitucci and Elahi that anyone who brought the Union in would be in trouble: that the runners would be laid off, lose their jobs, be fired if theN joined the Union, just like the hotel employees in their strike: that Respon- dent got rid of all the people they didn't want in the hotel strike. (4) Parapar's direction to Bennett in late March or earls April that Parapar and Bennett would get along much bet- ter if Bennett "staved out of everything" and to stay clear of the Union, not to listen to "them" because it was not going to work: Parapar's threat to Bennett in October that Bennett, as a "little" person, would get hurt because of the union activity of the runners. (5} Parapar's threat to Phillips prior to June I that the runners could get laid off or fired because of their union activity, the same thing that happened to the hotel employ- ees. who lost their jobs because of their union. (6) Parapar's interrogation of Vitucci in May and April as to what was new with the Union. what was happening with the Union, and what was the next move. (7) Novo's threat to Vitucci on January 19 that Novo did not understand how anybody would want to join the Union after they saw what happened to the Hotel Employ- ees' Union in the context of admissions by officials and supervisors that Respondent had fired hotel employees be- cause of their strike. (8) Parapar's participation in conversations about the Union in March with Vitucci and the runners and Parapar's comment to Vitucci that Parapar knew James Driggers, the Union's representative, and that Driggers was a friend of Parapar, thereby creating the impression of sur- veillance of the employees' union activity. (9) Parapar's. Marcel's. and Levine's reference to Vituc- ci as a "bitch" because of her active organizing efforts for the Union. thereby restraining and coercing her in the ex- 1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ercise of her Section 7 rights. I also find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by laying off Vitucci on June 26 and dimin- ishing her hours of employment when she was recalled. The evidence is overwhelming that Respondent was hos- tile to Vitucci because of her advocacy of the Union. In her 6 years of employment she had not previously been laid off because of lack of work. I credit her testimony over that of Parapar that Parapar told her in early June that she could not take her vacation in July because it would be too busy and that she would have to take her vacation in August. Nevertheless, a few weeks later she was summarily laid off. Parapar said that the Respondent could retain the runners because the "union won't be much" without the presence of Vitucci. The above evidence is sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant a finding of an 8(a)(3) violation. In addition, testimony of handwriting expert Hart is that Parapar wrote that Vitucci was not recommended for reemployment be- cause of "Union activities-organizer." Admittedly, Para- par had made a similar notation on the termination slip of Phillips. The certainty of the handwriting expert and the similarity of the two phrases as they applied to Vitucci and Phillips persuade me to accept the handwriting expert's conclusion on this particular point. Although I am less in- clined to accept her conclusion that the signature of Para- par on Vitucci's June 27 termination slip was a forgery in view of Parapar's contrary admission against his interest. her certainty on this point and Parapar's testimony that the front door is a hectic place to work persuade me that the June 27 termination slip of Vitucci may have left his desk without his signature and that another person appended his name to it.3 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and(7) of the Act. The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by: (I) assigning an employee to more onerous working conditions and (2) promising and granting wage increases; it also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) by terminating an employee be- cause of her union activity. I find that the General Counsel has not proved these latter allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. With respect to (I), there is no showing that the job of daytime cashier was more onerous than that of nighttime cashier or that Respondent did not have a valid business reason for discontinuing the latter job. With respect to (2), there is no showing that the pay raise granted four runners on or about June I was not in accord with Respondent's estab- lished policy of automatic pay increases or, indeed, that the raises were granted unilaterally without notification to the Union, which was recognized on June I. With respect to I make no finding with respect to the author of the word Agitrator on Vitucci's June 27 termination slip. Hart eslified that it was "highls prohba- ble" that Vitucci herself wrote this word. Hart conceded. however, that it was possible that another person wrote it. In view ,of the oerv heling evidence of Respondent's motivation to discriminate against Vitucci. the manner in which the June 26 layoff was accomplished. Parapa r' notlaition that she was not eligible for reemploymenl because of her union actilts,. the issue of the author of the word "Agitator" on Vituccils June 27 terinamttin slip s of no importance. the alleged 8(a)(3) violation, the evidence shows only that Vitucci was laid off, not discharged. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec- ommended: ORDER 4 The Respondent, the Estate of Alfred Kaskel, d/b/a Doral Hotel and Country Club, Miami, Florida, its offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees that they would be in trou- ble, be laid off, be fired, or get hurt if they supported the Union. (b) Ordering employees to stay clear of the Union and not to listen to supporters of the Union. (c) Interrogating employees as to their union activity and the activity of the Union. (d) Creating the impression of surveillance of the em- ployees' union activity. (e) Harassing employees by vulgar epithets because of their support for the Union. (f) Discouraging membership in a labor organization by laying off employees and diminishing their hours of em- ployment because of their union and concerted activity. (g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Restore Brenda Vitucci to her regular full-time schedule and make her whole with interest for any loss in pay as a result of the discrimination against her in accor- dance with the formulas set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289 )1950), and Florida Steel Corpora- tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating (Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).) (b) Preserve and. upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (c) Post at its hotel in Miami, Florida, copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive In the esenl nlo exceptions are filed as proided b Sec. 102.46 of the Rule ad Regulations of the National l.abor Relations Board. the findings. conclusins, and recommenlieded Order herein shall as provided in Sec. 11)2 48 of the Rules and Regulalions. he adopted h the Board and become is findings. concluslns. and Order. and all obhjections thereto shall be deemued wared for all purposes. In the eent that this Ordel is enforced hy a Judgment ,of the United Slates (Court of Appeals the ods in tile lnotlice reading Posted b Order of the Natunal l abor Rela tions Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgmenict of the nited States (otir of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Natarinal Lhabor Relations Board. DORAL HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB 1117 days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered b any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order. what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 1i Is FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges that Respondent assigned an employee to more onerous working conditions, promised and granted wage increases, and terminated an employee for the pur- pose of discouraging union activity and insofar as it alleges unfair labor practices other than those specifically found herein.