Holiday Inn-Glendale

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 23, 1985

277 N.L.R.B. 1254 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Joseph A . Perry d/b/a Holiday Inn-Glendale and
Hotel Employees `' and Restaurant Employees
International Union , Local 531, AFL-CIO.
Case 31-CA-13520 -
23 December 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN -DOTSON AND MEMBERS
DENNIS AND BABSON
On 28 September 1984 Administrative Law
Judge .Earldean V. S. Robbins issued the attached
decision. The Respondent filed exceptions' and a
supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed lim-
ited exceptions and a brief in support of limited ex-
ceptions to, and in support of, the judge's decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority,-in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has- considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified.2
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EARLDEAN V. S. ROBBINS, Administrative Law Judge.
This matter was heard before me in Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, on various dates in May, June, and July 1984.
The charge was filed by Hotel Employees and Restau-
rant Employees International Union, Local 531, AFL-
CIO (the Union) on September 19,- 1983, and was served
on Joseph A. Perry d/b/a Holiday Inn-Glendale (Re-
spondent or the Glendale Hotel) on September 22, 1983.
A first amended charge was filed by the Union and
served on Respondent on November 1, 1983. The second
amended complaint, which issued on March 15, 1984, al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The basic
issue herein is whether Respondent discharged certain of
its employees because of their union activities and
whether Respondent engaged in certain other conduct
which interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in violation of their rights under Section 7 of the
Act.
On the entire record,' including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Joseph A. Perry d/b/a Holiday Inn-
Glendale, Glendale, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Order as modified.
Insert the following as paragraph 1(a) and relet-
ter all subsequent paragraphs.
"(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating
against employees for supporting Hotel Employees
and Restaurant Employees International Union,
Local 531, AFL-CIO or any other Union."
I Respondent's exceptions were limited to the 8(a)(1) findings associat-
ed with the conduct of Josefina Morales and the 8(a)(3) discharge viola-
tions
2 We shall modify the recommended Order to reflect all of the viola-
tions found and to conform the judge's notice
Eugene L. Kusion and Alice J. Garfield, Esgs., for the
General Counsel.
Daniel T. Berkley, Esq. (Pechner, Dorfman, Wolfe, Roun-
ick & Cabot), of San Francisco, California, for the Re-
spondent.
Don Gabriel, Esq. (Cantrell, Green, Peckage & Zachs), of
Long Beach, California, for the Charging Party.
1. JURISDICTION
At all times material, Respondent has been owned and
operated by Joseph A. Perry, a sole proprietorship,
doing business as, and trading under the name of, Holi-
day Inn-Glendale with an office and principal place of
business located in Glendale, California, where it is en-
gaged in the operation of a hotel providing food, bever-
ages, and lodging for guests. Respondent, in the course
and conduct of its business operations, annually derives
gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and annually pur-
chases and receives goods or services valued in excess of
$5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of California.
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent is now, and at all, times material has
been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The complaint alleges, the parties stipulate, and I find
that the Union is now, and at all times material has been,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
' At the close of the hearing, the record was left open for the receipt
of a translation of R Exh 16 The translation cover letter has been fur-
nished by the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent has stipulated
as to the accuracy Accordingly, the translation and stipulation are re-
ceived into evidence as R Exhs 22(a), (b), and (c)
277 NLRB No. 145
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE 1255
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Respondent's Operations and Management
Hierarchy
Joseph Perry is a building contractor who owns a
number of properties in Glendale, California, which were
built, and are operated or managed, by companies owned
by him Among these properties are apartment buildings
managed by the J. P. Allen Company and three hotels
located in Glendale, California, and the nearby cities
Burbank and Long Beach, which are operated under a
franchise from Holiday Inn, Inc. Some employees of the
Glendale hotel live in J. P. Allen apartments and pay
rents which are reduced because they are hotel employ-
ees.
Perry operates his businesses out of an office located
off the lobby of the Glendale Hotel, which he shares
with Erika Hofmann, district director in charge of the
three hotels. She reports to Perry, and in addition to the
responsibility of generally overseeing the operations of
the three hotels, she directly supervises front desk per-
sonnel which includes desk clerks, PBS operators, and
sales department personnel. If other departments have a
problem, they consult her. If she can help to resolve it,
she does so. If not, she refers it to Perry.
The hotel caters both to long-term guests (monthlys)
and transient guests The operating departments at the
hotel include the front desk, sales , restaurant and bar,
and housekeeping. The sales department, which is re-
sponsible for the monthly guests, is staffed by Margie
Green and two other persons. Prior to August 1983,2
Ron Hofmann was operations manager responsible for
purchasing and operations, including overseeing the res-
taurant and bar. When he left in mid-August, he was re-
placed by Barbara Mahfood. Perry is at the hotel on a
daily basis and involves himself to some extent in all
levels of operation at the hotel. The lines of authority in
Respondent's management hierarchy seem blurred, but it
is clear that Perry, Erika Hofmann, and Ron Hofmann
are at the top.
B. The Pre-August 1983 Operation of the
Housekeeping Department
This matter involves the housekeeping department. In
the first half of 1983, the head housekeeper in charge of
the department was Frances Bettis. Bettis began woi king
at the hotel in 1974 as a maid She was promoted to
checker, then to assistant housekeeper and, in 1977 to
head housekeeper. In 1983 approximately 150 to 160 em-
ployees were employed at the hotel. The housekeeping
department was staffed by approximately 20 laundry at-
tendants, who did the laundry in facilities located near
the housekeeping office, and 50 maids who were respon-
sible for cleaning guestrooms and the general areas of the
hotel, such as the lobby, hallways, and public restrooms.
Prior to 1983, the checkers, who were responsible for
inspecting each guestroom cleaned by a maid, were in
the housekeeping department under Bettis' supervision.
In early 1983 the checkers were removed from the
2 Unless otherwise indicated all dates herein are in 1983
housekeeping department . Their supervision thereafter is
at issue here . However, it is undisputed that they were
no longer under Bettis' supervision and that their day-to-
day activities were directed to some disputed extent by
Josefina Morales, the head checker. Morales reported di-
rectly to Ron Hofmann.
As head housekeeper , Bettis was responsible for the
scheduling and hiring and firing of the maids at all three
hotels . The Burbank and Long Beach hotels had house-
keepers who reported to Bettis , but Bettis directly super-
vised the housekeeping department at the Glendale hotel.
She had three assistants-Ruth Petty, the night house-
keeper, Sandra Seabeck, the assistant housekeeper on the
day shift , and Chepita Blandon, the relief assistant house-
keeper on the 2 days that Seabeck was off.
Each evening the night auditors prepare a housekeep-
ing report which shows the status of each room-vacant
or occupied and if occupied whether the guest will be
staying over or checking out. Each morning , Bettis
would obtain the housekeeping report from the front
desk and take it to the housekeeping office where it was
used to record the daily work assignments for the
maids.3 Assignments were indicated on two sheets pre-
pared daily by Bettis, Seabeck , or Blandon . One was a
worksheet which contained the name of each maid
scheduled to work that day and the number of rooms she
was assigned to. At the end of the day, Seabeck, Blan-
don, or Laundry Manager Teresita Cuadros would enter
on the worksheet the number of rooms actually done,
the time spent cleaning the room , and the maid would
initial or sign it . Also prepared daily were individual as-
signment sheets for each maid which shows the date, the
maid 's name, and room number of each guest room the
maid was assigned to clean that day. 'The sheet also had
space where the maid was to write the number of towels
placed in and removed from each room and whether the
sheets were changed.4
When the maids report to work each day, they clock
in at the timeclock located in the housekeeping office.
They then pick up their individual assignment sheets,
keys to the assigned rooms, and cleaning carts and pro-
ceed to the guestrooms they are to clean . During the
course of the day, they make the required entries re-
ferred to above on the assignment sheets , and indicate
whether the guest in that room is a stayover or a check-
out. The following morning Seabeck , Blandon, and/or
Cuadros would review the assignment sheets, transfer in-
formation from them 'to the worksheet , and give the as-
signment sheets to Ron Hofmann.
During the course of the workday, maids have occa-
sion to return to the housekeeping office to pick up sup-
plies and linens and to clock in and out for lunch and
their 10-minute restbreaks . Their work is inspected by
checkers who keep a daily activity report which lists any
deficiency observed in a maid's cleaning of a room. The
checker also informs the maid of the deficiency and in-
structs her to return to correct it. Additionally , Morales
3 Later in the morning, Morales picked up the housekeeping report for
use in assigning work to the checkers
4 The sheets in the rooms rented on a monthly basis are changed only
twice a week
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inspects two rooms which have been checked by each of
the checkers. The checkers are also responsible for
making a notation of any need for maintenance or repair
work.5 Morales was responsible for placing orders for
the necessary maintenance work to be done or for giving
the necessary information to'fhe housekeeper.
A board is kept at the front desk showing all the room
numbers. Cards are placed on the board which indicate
the status of the room, "unchanged" or "clean." Each
afternoon Morales or someone else made the changes on
the board to indicate which rooms were clean. Notwith-
standing this procedure, in the first half of 1983 Re-
spondent experienced some difficulty with irate guests
who, upon checking in, were sent to dirty rooms, some-
times more than once . During this same period , accord-
ing to Respondent's witnesses , there were also a number
of guest complaints regarding failure to clean rooms
properly,° four or five complaints regarding lost items,
four or five complaints regarding maids using the person-
al property of guests,' some complaints that "Do Not
Disturb" signs were on doors which had not been placed
there by guests, and other complaints that rooms were
cleaned despite the fact that a "Do Not Disturb" sign
was left on the door.8 Also, Petty complained that too
many rooms were being left for the night maids to
clean.9
Perry testified that there were additional problems
with the maids such as prostitution, throwing towels in
the trashbags, maids lying in bed in guestrooms watching
television and playing games, and the smoking of mari-
juana . Petty testified that she told Perry some of the
maids were sitting in the lunchroom for hours when they
were supposed to be working. She further testified that a
number of plumbing problems were caused by flushing
soap down the toilets. She accused the day maids of
doing this, but had no evidence to support the accusa-
tion. Despite this information as to alleged misconduct
by the maids, no effort was made, except as to com-
plaints of missing items and use of guest property, to
identify the maids responsible and no disciplinary action
was taken.
However, a guest's threat to sue Respondent because
someone had in some manner disturbed his computer
causing the loss of a program, and a request from Erika
Hofmann for a meeting caused Perry to have a meeting
in April or May attended by Bettis, Ron Hofmann, his
5 It is also part of the housekeeper 's responsibility to periodically in-
spect rooms for maintenance and other problems, such as the need to re-
place furniture , drapes, et cetera
6 Bettis testified that during this period there was a shortage of linens,
cleaning supplies , and equipment such as vacuum cleaners
i Respondent's witnesses claim that such complaints were received
several times a day, however, no formal records were kept of such com-
plaints and the witnesses were able to recall specifics as to less than 20
complaints over the course of several months Some of the witnesses,
mostly at Perry ' s request, wrote him memos summarizing complaints re-
ceived by them Generally , these memos did not refer to specific individ-
ual complaints
8 Bettis testified that children playing in the hallways would sometimes
change signs from one door to another
9 There were only three night maids They were there for emergencies
and should not regularly have to clean more than 2 or 3 rooms a night
Petty complained that sometimes as many as 20 rooms were left for the
night maids to clean She also testified that once in 1983, prior to April,
50 rooms remained for the night maids to clean
assistant Debbie Pleshette, Erika Hofmann, Petty, Green
and Morales. Seabeck was called into the meeting later.
Perry said they had to solve the problem of guest com-
plaints and invited all the participants to air their com-
plaints, which they did. All, or most, the complaints
were directed toward housekeeping. Perry then told
Bettis that no more than 2 or 3 rooms should be left for
the night maids to clean and that she would have to get
the housekeeping department straightened out within 90
days or she would be discharged. Notwithstanding the
fact that the nature of many of the complaints indirectly
implicated checkers in that they involved deficiencies
which should have been noticed by the checkers, no
such ultimatum was given to Morales.
According to Perry, sometime in June or July, about
60 days after the meeting, he told Bettis that he had seen
no improvement in the housekeeping department and he
wanted her to see to it that the maids did their jobs
properly.
C. The May, June, and July Union Activities and
Respondent's Alleged Unlawful Conduct in Response
Thereto
1. The Union's organizational campaign
In April, the Union commenced an organizing cam-
paign among Respondent's coffee shop, kitchen, and bar
employees. In May, the campaign was extended to the
housekeeping employees Union Organizer Sam Nuck-
olls, assisted by Organizer Hugh Fischer, was in charge
of the campaign
Perry testified that about 2 weeks after the meeting re-
garding guest complaints, he was at the front desk when
the cashier telephoned and told him someone from the
Union was there talking to the waitresses She said he
had also been there the previous day. Perry immediately
went into the restaurant and approached Nuckolls as he
sat in one of the booths. According to Nuckolls, Perry
introduced himself as owner of the hotel, said he knew
the Union was organizing, and inquired as to the number
of authorization cards the Union had obtained. Nuckolls
said, "At this time , not enough " Perry said Nuckolls had
his permission to organize the employees as he wished
but for the past 10 years no one had been able to sign
them into the Union. Perry said Nuckolls could go into
all of the public areas of the hotel, but would not be al-
lowed in the maid's quarters, the supervisors' office, nor
any of the rooms where employees were working.
Perry testified that after they introduced themselves,
he asked Nuckolls why he had not been around before.
Nuckolls said he had, a couple of years before, but had
gotten no response. Perry said it was strange because he
had invited the Union in when he opened the hotel.
Perry described the union representative to whom he
spoke and Nuckolls speculated as to who it was. Perry
said he was neither for nor against the Union, that it was
up to the employees. Perry said he was alleged to be the
largest building contractor in Glendale, that he had been
in a union since he was 19 and had run a union shop in
his construction business for more than 42 years. He then
related a story regarding his first experience with a union
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
when he was in the Navy. Perry said he liked unions and
that Nuckolls could talk to any employee during work-
ing hours anywhere . He further said that Nuckolls could
use the bulletin board and could have meetings , that he
would assist him, and if he wanted to see Perry, he
should so advise someone at the desk . Nuckolls thanked
him and said he intended to return later to speak to ev-
eryone in the dining room and then to the kitchen and
lounge employees.
Nuckolls testified that he obtained authorization cards
from a majority of the kitchen and bar employees but
ran into difficulties in May when he tried organizing the
housekeeping department . He attributes this difficulty to
the language barrier,10 the use of a male interpreter, and
Perry's habit of approaching Nuckolls and walking down
the hallway with him wil h his arm draped around Nuck-
olls' shoulder . Nuckolls suggested that Perry should not
do this since everyone thought he and Nuckolls were
great buddies . Perry replied, "Well , we are, aren't we?
We're friends." Nuckolls replied that they were friends
and attempted to lead Perry away from the other union
representative.
Nuckolls testified that on May 23 he requested the
AFL-CIO office in San Francisco to provide him with a
female organizer who spoke Spanish . Within a week he
was contacted by Diana Perez, an AFL-CIO organizer
headquartered in Los Angeles. Perez testified that she
was contacted earlier by .Joe Criscione , the Union 's busi-
ness manager, and that she actually met with Nuckolls
and Criscione on May 23, at which time they requested
her assistance in organizing the housekeeping and laun-
dry departments at the hotel.
Perez began organizing at the hotel on May 31. She
spoke to some of the maids, told them about the organiz-
ing campaign , said she had information for them and
gave them her business card and home telephone
number. They inquired as to what the Union was, what a
union organizing campaign was, and how they could
become involved . Her first contact with a maid after this
was in June when Carmen Naranjo telephoned her at
home , said they had been hearing rumors about starting a
union in the hotel and she wanted to have information.
Perez explained about authorization ' cards and a National
Labor Relations Board election and told her that in
order to start a union , they needed to meet and get a ma-
jority of the employees involved. A few other maids
telephoned Perez but she only recalls one name, Susana
Sevillano, who basically asked the same questions that
Naranjo had . Perez continued her organizing attempts
through June and until mid-July when she concluded
that the employees were not ready to be organized since
they were willing to talk but never suggested meetings.
Naranjo testified that after speaking with Perez, she
related her conversation with Perez to fellow employees,
including Maria Hillabrand , Jeannie Vivanco , Maria Val-
diviezo, Susana Sevillano, Ana Ramirez , Rosanna
11 Most of the maids are Hispanic and speak Spanish only Nuckolls
does not speak Spanish
1257
Erbert , 1 1 Isabel Brito, and Thomasita . r 2 She tried to or-
ganize a meeting and they did meet sometime in June.13
Antonia Morales testified that in April she began
speaking to other maids , including _ Valldiviezo , Naranjo,
Ramirez, Sevillano, and Tomasa Rocla. According to
Morales, they spoke about the Union on more than one
occasion . They discussed the pressure at work, harder
work , and their belief that they would receive better
consideration if they had the Union with them. Later
that month , she spoke with Perez . 14 Lorena Salazar tes-
tified that in late June Ana Ramirez told her and other
maids in the lunchroom that the Union was trying to or-
ganize the hotel and she had the name of someone for
them to contact . Helena Chavez also testified that in July
and August she participated in discussions with fellow
employees.
2. Perry's response to the union activities
Bettis testified that Perry called her into his office in
mid-June. Erika Hofmann was present in the office.
When she entered the office , he asked her if she had seen
anyone from the Union . She said no . Perry said they had
been at the hotel and she should be on the lookout for
them. Bettis said she would find out if they had been
there and what was said . Bettis testified that she then
went to the housekeeping office and asked Seabeck if she
had seen anyone from the Union . Seabeck said they had
been there talking to the maids on Bettis' day off . Bettis
immediately returned to Perry's office and related to him
the information she had obtained from Seabeck.
About a week later, according to Bettis, a male union
representative , whose name she does not recall, came
into the housekeeping office and said he wanted to have
a meeting with the maids. Bettis said she would arrange
it and that she would like to attend to be sure that the
maids understood what was going on since most of them
did not speak English. The union representative said he
would tell her where and what time . Again , Bettis imme-
diately went to Perry's office and told him the union
representative wanted to have a meeting with the maids
and that she had said she would attend . Perry told her
not to get involved , that he would send his own people.
Perry and Bettis then discussed the opinion that the
Union was no good. According to Bettis, Perry said
unions were no good , they were not really there to help
you. He also said the maids would have to go to Kaiser
clinic . Erika Hofmann agreed and said she had worked
at a union place and had to go to Kaiser , that Kaiser was
no good and slow.
Bettis testified that about a week later, still in June, the
union representative visited Bettis again and asked if she
was still going to arrange the meeting with the maids.
Bettis said she would like names and telephone numbers
11 Erbert testified that Sylvia Rios was also present
12 Although unclear from the record, Thomasita may refer to Tomasa
Roda
13 The record does not reflect whether this was a formal or informal
meeting , where it was hid or who was present
14 Since Perez did not commence organizing until May 31 and Nar-
anjo testified that she had discussions with other maids in June, I con-
clude that the conversations about which Antonia Morales testified oc-
curred in June
1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of other hotels where the Union represented the employ-
ees so she could call and see if they were happy with the
Union. The union representative said he did not have
this information with him, but gave her a name and tele-
phone number and told her to call his supervisor who
would give her the names and telephone numbers she re-
quested. Later that day, Bettis went to Perry's office and
related this conversation to him. Erika Hofmann was
present in the office. According to Bettis, Perry said the
Union was no good and would not really help the maids.
He further said the maids would have to go to Kaiser,
which was as bad as County General Hospital.
On the following day, according to Bettis, she was
called into Perry's office. Again Erika Hofmann was
present in the office. Perry said if the Union got in, he
would cut their working hours in half and would raise
the rent on their apartments. He also said the Union
could not help the maids get their green cards, that all
the Union wanted was their names and addresses so they
could be deported and replaced by blacks. Perry said he
would close down rather than have the Union come in.
He further told Bettis to tell the maids what he had just
said Erika Hofmann commented that the Union was no
good, that Kaiser was no good, and that was where ev-
eryone would end up going. Bettis testified she had a
number of other conversations with Perry regarding the
union activities in June and several times in July.
Perry admits that he had a conversation with Bettis re-
garding the Union around the end of May in his office.
Erika Hofmann was in the office. According to Perry, he
told Bettis:
I'm sure you are aware that the Union has been
here and Sam Nuckolls, the Business Agent, has
asked me whether he can come back to the house-
keeping department and talk to the laundry workers
and the maids and I said he could. However, I
wanted to advise the department head, you, that he
was going to come I want to give you instructions
in exactly how to handle it. I want you to be very
courteous to them when they come back. I want
you to let them talk to anybody, any time, any
place, as many as they want.
Perry further said, according to him:
Please don't talk about the union, don't even men-
tion the name. There's nothing more that the Labor
Board would rather do than to throw me in the
slammer "cause when they see self-made million-
aires that start out with $535 end up a multi-million-
aire, that's a living proof that the free enterprise
system works. And these liberal bureaucrats don't
like people like me. So if they can destroy me and
put me in the slammer, they have an office party.
That's how they get their jollies. And please don't
get me in jail. Please don't talk about the union to
nobody, pro or con. My personal opinion about the
union in the hotel is I'm not for it. I'm not against
it. If the employees want it, we'll have it. If they
don't want it, we won't have it, and any department
that wants it is welcome to have it, such as the desk
clerks
At this point, according to Perry, Bettis asked, "What
do you -mean the whole Hotel?" Perry replied, "Well,
this particular Union is only interested in the housekeep-
ing, the kitchen, dining room and lounge and they're not
sure about the building, but they do not get involved
with the desk clerks." He further said, "Now, as soon as
the union's back there, I want you to be sure now that
you treat them courteously, and I'd like to know how
everything went, because I don't want no problems. I
don't need it." Bettis said she would follow his instruc-
tions and she would tell him how the meeting and every-
thing went and left the office.
About a week later, according to Perry, Bettis came to
his office and told him the Union had been there and ev-
erything was fine. She said a Cuban lady and a big tall
guy came by and they did have a meeting or two and
were talking to the maids on the floors Perry said,
"Fine," and told her, "The only thing I want you to say
is `Welcome. You can talk to anybody at any time, any-
where, as long as you want,' and that's all to say." He
further said, "Do not discuss the Union with anybody,
including your husband. Don't mention the word be-
cause I'll end up in Leavenworth. My whole career is
sitting in the palm of your hand."
Perry denies telling Bettis to inform the maids that if
they went to the Union, their hours would be cut, or
that their jobs were in jeopardy in any way. He also
denies telling her to inform the maids about anything re-
garding the Union or their reduced rents. He further
denies telling Bettis to say anything to employees con-
cerning their immigration status and the Union. Bettis
was not recalled and questioned in detail as to Perry's
version of their conversations. However, on cross-exami-
nation in response to leading questions, she testified that
she does not recall him saying anything with regard to
some group desiring to put him in the "slammer" if he
did the wrong thing regarding the Union and she only
recalls him telling her once not to get involved.
Erika Hofmann testified on direct examination that
Bettis came into the office and spoke to Perry at least
twice during June and July. On the first occasion, the
only portion of the conversation she heard was as Perry
and Bettis were at the door, walking out of the office.
Perry said, under no circumstances did he want any talk
about union activity. On a subsequent occasion she heard
Bettis give Perry the room status for the day, but noth-
ing was said regarding a union. She does not recall Bettis
ever saying anything to Perry about a union meeting, or
whether Perry told Bettis to do anything concerning a
union. She denies that Perry told Bettis to report back to
him about a union or that he told Bettis he would cut
hours or close the hotel if the employees chose the
Union, or anything concerning a union or instructed
Bettis to say anything to employees about the Union.
Erika Hofmann shares an office with Perry. An 8-foot
high glass partition separates their desks. There is only
one door into the office which is located near Erika Hof-
mann's desk. According to her, when someone comes in
to see Perry, she tells Perry the visitor is there and, after
that, continues with her work and does not pay any fur-
ther attention to them unless something happens right in
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
front of her. She admits that she heard only the one
statement during the first conversation and nothing of
the second conversation. She also admits that she does
not actually know whether, during these conversations,
Perry told Bettis to report to him regarding the Union or
whether he said anything regarding closing down the
]hotel or instructed Bettis to tell this to the maids. She
does not recall any discussion with Bettis and Perry in
the office regarding Kaiser. She does recall that once
somewhere outside of the office Bettis asked her if she
had heard of Kaiser. She said, "Yes, I belong to it."
Bettis asked if she liked Kaiser. Erika Hofmann replied
that she did not like it and would never belong to it
again. She did not explain why she did not like Kaiser.
I credit Bettis' account of these conversations. She im-
pressed me as an honest and conscientious witness Her
testimony is generally consistent and is corroborated in
many respects by other witnesses On the other hand,
Perry evinced a tendency to slant his testimony in the
manner deemed most favorable to Respondent's position.
His testimony was contradictory and in some respects
conflicts with his prehearing affidavit and that of other
of Respondent's witnesses. Thus, he testified that he per-
sonally checked rooms in September when he was reach-
ing a decision as to which employees to discharge, Mo-
rales testified that it was in June or July that he asked
her for rooms to check; that Vivanco was not in charge
of housekeeping, yet his prehearing affidavit states that
the department was run by Petty and Vivanco and that
they were overseen by Mahfood and Shepard testified
that Ron Hofmann told her the department was being
run by one of the checkers; his testimony that all Eng-
lish-speaking maids automatically became assistant house-
keepers, which is rcontradicted by the testimony of Bettis,
Shepard, Vivanco, and the record as a whole; his state-
ment in his prehearing affidavit that the hotel failed the
September inspection; his statement in his prehearing af-
fidavit that on September 15 he ordered that 21 maids be
discharged, which he denied during his testimony at the
hearing. Further, there are certain inherent improbabil-
ities in his testimony-such as Perry's testimony that he
read, studied, and analyzed the daily activity reports
given him by Morales but never saw the information
contained therein regarding union activities, and his testi-
mony that the housekeeping department was run by a
committee of English-speaking maids and that he ran the
department and supervised 70 maids and laundry attend-
ants by looking in the door of the housekeeping office
five or six times a day-that tend to destroy his credibil-
ity. Accordingly, I do not credit Perry except to the
extent his testimony is otherwise corroborated in the
record.
Erika Hofmann's testimony cannot serve as such cor-
roboration. Although she was quick to deny that Perry
told Bettis to report back to him about a union or that he
would cut hours or close the hotel if the employees
chose the Union or anything concerning a union or in-
structed Bettis to say anything to employees about a
union; upon subsequent questioning, she admitted that
she heard nothing of one conversation and only one
statement in another and, thus, does not know what
Perry might have told Bettis. This evinces a willingness
1259
to slant her testimony so as to favor Respondent's posi-
tions. Accordingly, I do not credit her testimony as to
what was not said in these conversations.
3. The solicitation of employees to sign a "No
Union" list and the threats of reprisals and promises
of benefit made by Bettis
a. Facts
Bettis testified that later on the same day that Perry in-
structed her to repeat his statements to the employees
she spoke to some of the maids and told them Perry said
if the Union got in he would cut their hours in half, raise
their rents, and they would have to go to Kaiser She
also told them Perry said the Union only wanted to get
their names and addresses so they could be deported and
that he would rather close the hotel than let the Union
in.
Helena Chavez testified that in mid-July Bettis came
into the lunchroom while Chavez and other maids were
there eating lunch. Bettis said she had come to speak to
them because Perry is not opposed to the Union coming
in, but he will put our salary at the minimum. At the
time Chavez' wage rate was $3.60. Later that day,
Chavez learned that the minimum wage rate was $3.35.
Bettis further testified that Perry continued to call her
into the office on a number of occasions in June and sev-
eral times in July. According to her, it seemed that he
was calling her into the office every day to ask what the
maids had said and what their reactions were. On one
occasion in July, Perry told her that Betty Barry, a wait-
ress in the restaurant, had put up a "No Union" list and
everyone there was going to sign. He said the same thing
should be done in housekeeping, that they should put up
a long sheet of paper with "No Union"' on the top and
have the maids sign it. Bettis said she would do it. Perry
said she was management and should not do it herself,
but should have one of her assistants prepare the list.
Bettis said she would do that. Perry said all but two em-
ployees in the restaurant had signed the list, that only
two employees in the restaurant were for the Union, and
he knew who they were Perry said he would show the
lists to the Union to show that the employees did not
want the Union there.
Bettis returned to the housekeeping office and told the
assistant housekeeper on duty, either Seabeck or Blan-
don, i 5 that Betty had made out a "No Union" paper and
they were going to do the same. She does not recall if
she mentioned that Perry had instructed her to do this.
The assistant housekeeper prepared a paper saying "No
Union No," posted it on the wall behind the desk, and as
each maid came to the office that day, each maid was
told about the paper and told that she should sign it. At
first, Bettis did not recall whether she said anything
about this list to any of the maids. Then she testified that
she could have, but does not remember However, ac-
cording to her testimony on direct examination, she did
not tell them what would happen if they signed the list.
On cross-examination, she testified that she told the
She does not recall which one it was
1260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maids to sign the paper and that, if they signed, they
would receive raises.
Several maids testified that Bettis spoke to them, gen-
erally in groups , when they came into the housekeeping
office to clock in and out regarding signing the "No
Union" list. It is not always clear from the record
whether two or more maids were testifying as to the
same conversation or as to different conversations. It is
also not always clear whether the conversation was in
reference to the first or second list. It appears likely that
a reference by an employee to the first list may refer to
the first list seen by the employee , not necessarily to the
first list posted . However, it is undisputed that the first
paper was ripped from the wall after only a few days by
a person or persons unknown, and that the second paper
was posted within a day or two thereafter . Thus, a deter-
mination as to which of the lists a witness is referring is
not critical herein.
Laura Martinez testified that when she first saw a "No
Union" paper on the wall she asked Bettis what it was
for. Bettis said the paper was to stop the Union from
coming in. Bettis said they had to sign the paper , that the
ones that signed would receive a raise and would keep
their jobs , and that those who did not sign would not re-
ceive a raise and their jobs would be taken away from
them. She said Martinez would receive a 30-cent raise to
$3.90 an hour if she signed the paper.
Carmen Naranjo testified that Bettis told her, Liliana
Ramos, and Maria Hillabrand to sign the paper, that if
they did not sign it she would not give them a raise, but
would fire them and would allow immigration to come
in. Nevertheless Naranjo did not sign the first paper, but
did sign the second one . Hillabrand testified that Bettis
said to her and other maids on more than one occasion
that if they did not sign the paper their jobs would be
taken away and the rent on their apartments would be
increased . Hillabrand lives in an apartment owned by
Perry. She did not sign the first paper, but did sign the
second one.
Liliana Ramos testified that Bettis told her and other
employees , including Teresita Cuadros, Chepita, Rosa
Garcia, Maria Hillabrand , and Flor , that the paper was
there for them to sign that they do not want a union and
anyone who did not sign it would be discharged and
evicted from their apartments . Bettis also said that if they
signed they would receive a raise, that the girls from
Long Beach had already signed and had gotten a raise to
$3,90 an hour . Ramos signed the paper that same day.
Ana Ramirez testified that Bettis told her and other
maids that they had to sign the paper because Perry was
going to discharge those who did not sign and give those
who did sign a 30-cent raise . Ramirez signed.
Rosa Maria Garcia testified that Bettis told her to sign
the paper and she did . Lorena Salazar testified that Bettis
told her and other maids they had to sign the "No
Union" paper so they would receive the 30-cent raise.
She also said the Union was going to "sic" immigration
on the employees , that the Union did not want " illegals"
working there. Bettis further said that the Burbank maids
had received the 30-cent raise because they did not want
the Union. Salazar signed that same day. Jeannie Vi-
vanco testified that she heard Bettis speaking to several
maids regarding the "No Union" list. Bettis said Perry
was going to discharge the maids who did not sign the
"No Union" list.
Maria Elena Cruz testified that Bettis told her and
other maids that a union wanted to come in but a lot of
girls would have to sign a paper to see if the Union
could come in or not. A few days later, possibly in July,
Bettis told a group of maids that if the Union came in
perhaps Perry would take away the apartments or in-
crease the rent . 16 Bettis also said if a union came in, "the
old man" would decrease the wage rate to the minimum,
$3.35 an hour; but if the Union did not come in, they
would receive a wage increase . Cruz further testified
that sometime in July she saw a "No Union" paper
posted . Later Bettis showed her the paper and said,
"Here's a paper and you have to sign it. If you don't sign
it, Mr. Perry is going to fire you because you're one of
the only ones that has not signed." Cruz signed.
Rosanna Erbert testified that Bettis told her and other
maids, including Isabel Brito and Sylvia Rios, that if they
did not sign the "No Union" paper they would not re-
ceive a raise , that employees at the Burbank and Long
Beach hotels had signed already and had received a
raise . Bettis also said if the Union came in they would no
longer work 8 hours. Bettis said the Union had tried to
come in many times but had been unsuccessful , and they
were not going to come in this time either. Bettis further
said they would receive a raise.
After a day or two, the first "No Union" paper was
ripped from the wall. According to Bettis, when she re-
ported this to Perry, he told her to prepare another list
and to bring him copies as the maids signed . Bettis had
someone, she thinks Seabeck, prepare a second list which
was posted in the same place as was the first paper.
Bettis admits that she told some of the maids, in groups
that if someone would tell her who removed the first
"No Union" list' from the wall, she would give the in-
formant the weekends off, but she would discharge the
person who removed the list. She said she thought re-
moving the list was unfair to the employees who did not
want the Union.1i
Bettis also testified that she gave Perry copies of this
list on more than one occasion . At least one employee
knew that Perry was receiving copies of the list . Bettis
testified that on one, occasion she asked Janett Garcia to
make a copy of the list and take it to Perry. Bettis admits
that she probably spoke to some of the maids about sign-
ing the second "No Union" paper, but testified that she
has no specific recollection of doing so.
Hillabrand testified that Bettis told a group of maids
they should sign the second "No Union" paper, that if
they signed, they would receive a raise; but if they did
not sign the list, they would lose their jobs and rents
would be raised. Hillabrand signed after about 2 days.
Garcia testified that Bettis told her she should sign the
second paper because the first one had been lost . Garcia
signed. Antonia Morales testified that in July when the
second "No Union" paper was posted, Bettis asked her if
16 At the time Cruz lived in an apartment owned by Perry.
: r Martinez , Hillabrand , Naranjo, and Ramos corroborate Bettis in this
regard
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
she had signed the paper. Morales said no. Bettis asked
what was she waiting for. Morales said, nothing, but if
Bettis wanted her to sign, she would sign the paper. Mo-
rales did sign. Ginnania "Jeannie" Vivanco testified that
Bettis told her and others that the "No Union" paper
had disappeared and they had to sign again.
Bettis testified that after the second "No Union" paper
was posted, Seabeck told her that one of the maids, An-
tonia Morales, might know something about the missing
list Later that day she spoke to Morales. According to
Bettis , she asked Morales if she knew anything about the
missing list or if she knew anyone who was for the
Union Bettis said she would give Morales weekends off
if she told her. Morales said she did not know anything.'
Morales corroborates this testimony. Bettis testified that
she told Perry about this conversation with Morales and
that she had threatened to discharge whoever removed
the list . Perry smiled but said nothing in response.
Bettis testified that the signing of the paper was drag-
ging on and she wanted to get it over with, so she com-
pared the signatures on the paper with the timecards,
made a separate list of the maids who had not signed,
gave this separate list to one of the maids, Maria, and
told her to ask the maids listed if they wanted to sign the
"No Union" paper. Maria later returned with the signa-
tures of all the maids Bettis had listed. Vivanco testified
that Bettis sent Janett Garcia to look for maids to sign
the list. According to Vivanco, Janett told her they
wanted the maids to sign a paper again because the other
"No Union" paper had been lost. She also heard Janett
tell one of the maids that she should sign the paper Vi-
vanco was a checker at the time. She did not sign either
of the "No Union" papers
Helena Chavez testified that Seabeck told her she
should sign the "No Union" paper so she could receive a
wage increase to $3.90 an hour Seabeck said, "You sign
for more money," whereupon Chavez signed the paper
On a prior occasion in July, according to Chavez, Sea-
beck came into the lunchroom where Chavez, Susana
Sevillano, Rosanne Verde, Isabel Brito, Maria Valdi-
viezo, Sylvia Rios, and Liliana Ramos were eating lunch.
Seabeck had the "No Union" paper in her hand. Chepita
and perhaps Janett Garcia was with Seabeck Either
Chepita or Janett translated to Spanish what Seabeck
said in English. Seabeck said they should sign the paper
so they could get their wages increased to $3.90.
According to Bettis, after all the maids signed, she
took the list to Perry toward the end of July and told
him all of the maids had signed. Perry said he was going
to show it to the people from the Union to show that the
employees did not want them there Perry denies that he
ever told Bettis to post any particular papers or docu-
ments in the housekeeping office or that she ever told
him about posting any. He also denies ever discussing
with Betty Barry any papers or documents being posted.
Waitress Betty Barry testified that she posted "No
Union" papers in the kitchen, the dining room, the
lounge, and the housekeeping office. According to her,
in July when she posted the paper in the housekeeping
office, she told Bettis if anyone did not understand what
it meant, she should explain that it means "We do not
want a union " On the following day, when Barry re-
1261
turned to the housekeeping office to check the number
of signatures. There were about 30. Later Bettis told her
the list was gone but did not explain what happened to
it. She denies that Perry ever instructed her to post these
"No Union" papers or that she,ever informed him she
had done so , or otherwise discussed these papers with
him. According to Barry, she knew the Union was
"coming in very strong" and she planned to keep the
lists if she should need them on a rebuttal basis. None of
the lists were returned to her. Initially, she testified that
she never saw any of the lists after they were removgd
from where she had posted them. However, after being
shown her prehearing affidavit, she testified that she saw
one on a desk in the cashier's office at the front desk but
does not know which one it was.
Barry is open regarding her opposition to Union.
When she was interviewed for employment by Respond-
ent, she asked if the employees were represented by a
union, and candidly admits that if they had been, she
would not have accepted the job. In October, during the
election campaign , she instigated picketing of the hotel,
the union hall, the Burbank hotel and the offices of the
NLRB Region 21 in Los Angeles with signs reading
"Our Local 531 Card's Green"18 and "We do not want
the Union."
b. Conclusions
Respondent admits that at the times material herein
Bettis was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act
but denies her agency . The basis of this position seems to
be the contention that Bettis acted outside the scope of
her authority and against Perry's express instruction I
find no merit in this argument. It is well established
under Board law, in conformity with common law prin-
ciples of agency and Section 2(13) of the Act, that a
principal may be responsible for the act of his agent
within the scope of the agent's general authority or the
scope of his employment even though the principal has
not specifically authorized or may have specifically for-
bidden the act. It is sufficient if the principal empowered
the agent to represent him in the general area within
which the agent acted. Longshoremen & ILGWU (Sunset
Line & Twine), 79 NLRB 1487, 1509 (1948).
Here Bettis was Respondent's agent for dealing with
and supervising Respondent's employees in its house-
keeping department. In the normal course of things, she
was the highest representative of Respondent with whom
they dealt and who communicated to them Respondent's
various rules and expectations . Therefore , her conduct
was not outside the general area in which she was em-
powered to act and employees could reasonably view
her as speaking on Respondent 's behalf ' Clearly applica-
ble therefore is the Board's general principle that an em-
ployer is bound by the acts of its supervisors whether
specifically authorized or not. GAC Properties, 205
NLRB 1150 (1973); Glenroy Construction Co., 215 NLRB
866 (1974), Collectramatic, Inc., 267 NLRB 866 (1983).
18 Barry testified that this was a reference to nonresident working
cards since the picketers felt they would be out voted by Respondent's
Hispanic employees and wanted to know if their union cards would be
green , as are the working cards.
1262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Furthermore, here Bettis, was acting on express instruc-
tion by Perry Thus Respondent cannot escape responsi-
bility for her conduct. EMR Photoelectric, 251 NLRB
1597, 1601 (1980).
Bettis admits to a plethora of threats , interrogations,
promises of benefit, and other coercive conduct, all or
most of which are corroborated by various employee
witnesses. In view of this testimony, which I credit, I
find that Respondent, through Bettis, violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by (1) telling employees, most of
whom are Hispanic, that the Union only wanted their
names and addresses so they could be deported-a state-
ment clearly designed to coerce the employees into with-
drawing or withholding their support for the Union; (2)
telling employees that if the Union got in Perry would
cut their hours in half and raise their rents ,' 9 Hillside
Avenue Pharmacy, 265 NLRB 1613 (1982); Federated De-
partment Stores, 241 NLRB 240 (1979); S. & M. Grocers,
236 NLRB 1594 (1978); (3) telling employees that Perry
would rather close the hotel than let the Union in Polet-
ti's Restaurant, 261 NLRB 313 (1982); and (4) telling em-
ployees that employees at the Burbank Hotel had re-
ceived wage increases because they withdrew or with-
held their support from the Union. Boyle-Midway, Inc.,
247 NLRB 851 (1980).
Also unlawful was the creation , posting, and soliciting
of employees to sign a "No Union" list. Soliciting em-
ployees to sign such a list induces them to withdraw or
withhold their support for the Union, particularly where,
as here, the solicitation is accompanied by threats of re-
prisals if they refuse to sign the list and/or promises of
benefits if they do sign. Further , such a list requires em-
ployees to divulge their sentiments regarding the Union.
Such conduct is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. Scott's Wood Products, 242 NLRB 1193 (1979); Pon-
derosa Hotel & Casino, 233 NLRB 92 (1978); AMR, Inc.,
222 NLRB 161 (1976); Penn Color, Inc., 261 NLRB 395
(1981).
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
(1) threatening employees that they would not receive a
raise, their rents would be increased, they would be
evicted from their apartments, and they would be dis-
charged if they did not sign the "No Union" list; (2)
promising employees a wage increase if they did sign the
list; (3) threatening employees that if the employees did
not sign Respondent would allow Immigration to come
in. Sure-Tan, Inc., 234 NLRB 1187 (1978); (4) threatening
to discharge the employee who removed the "No
Union" list; and (5) promising weekends off to the em-
ployee who identified the person who removed the list.
See Guerdon Industries, 255 NLRB 610 (1981).
D. The August Wage Increase
1. Facts
On August 8 or 10, Respondent granted certain of its
employees a general wage increase. The maids received
a 30-cent-an-hour increase . Announcements as to the in-
crease were posted in the housekeeping office, the laun-
dry, and the lunchroom. Prior thereto, the employees at
is Employee tenants pay discounted rents
the Long Beach and Burbank hotels were granted an in-
crease of this same amount on June 27 and July 14 re-
spectively.
Bettis testified that in July a laundry worker from
Long Beach telephoned her and said the Union had been
there talking to the maids in housekeeping with the
doors closed. Bettis went to Perry's office20 and told
him that the Union had been to both Burbank and Long
Beach. Perry said he was going to give them a raise and
act as if he did not know about the Union's presence at
those hotels, but that he could not give Glendale em-
ployees a raise because it would look like a bribe. Perry
further said that the Glendale employees would also get
a raise as soon as the Union left, and that Bettis should
tell the maids that Long Beach and Burbank both got
raises and that Glendale would get one too as soon as
the Union left them alone. According to Bettis, when she
left Perry's office she saw one of the maids, Ana Rami-
rez. She told Ramirez that the Burbank and Long Beach
maids were getting raises but because of the Union the
Glendale maids were not getting raises and until the
Union left, there would be no raises for Glendale em-
ployees. She also told this to other maids.
Perry does not specifically deny this conversation with
Bettis. However, he did deny that in granting the wage
increases he was in any way motivated by the Union's
organizing effort. In explaining why Burbank and Long
Beach employees received raises several weeks before
Glendale employees, Perry testified that he was uncer-
tain as to what to do with regard to raises at the Glen-
dale hotel because he knew that unilateral changes in
working conditions are prohibited when there is any
type of union activity. According to him, he called three
different NLRB Regional Offices, explained the circum-
stances, and sought advice as to whether he could legal-
ly grant a wage increase . The responses he received, in
essence, were that he should do what he ordinarily did.
Perry further testified that in the latter part of June he
told Nuckolls the Union had been organizing since April,
employees were beginning to complain about harassment
from union supporters, he could not hire, fire, or give
raises ; and that he wanted an election so he could get on
with his business.21 At a later time in June, according to
Perry, he again asked Nuckolls for an election, and said
that Respondent was having nothing but trouble, that he
had to return $3000 or $4000 to guests under the room
guarantee program22 because things were not done right.
Nuckolls said he could not petition for an election yet
because the Union did not have authorization cards from
82 percent of the employees, but he thought they would
reach that percentage by July 1.
According to Perry, on July 1 or 2 he again asked
Nuckolls if there was going to be an election. Nuckolls
said he thought they would have the 82 percent in about
20 Erika Hofmann was present in the office but was not questioned in
this regard
21 They also discussed Respondent's wage rates which Perry said was
50 cents to $1 an hour higher for the restaurant employees than the near-
est union shop.
22 Although not absolutely clear from the record, it appears that Holi-
day Inn has a program whereby guests receive some type of refund or
extended stay if accommodations do not meet certain standards
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
2 days and would then petition for an election. A day or
two later, Nuckolls told him the Union could not get the
desired percentage but they would return the next year.
Perry asked, "Now, can I once you walk out of here-
can I give my normal raises that I give in July, can I fire
people if I want, can I make any type of unilateral
changes?" Nuckolls replied, "From today on, you can do
anything you want. However, if you give them a raise,
you'd be stupid." Perry said, "What do you mean,
stupid?" Nuckolls said, "When we come in next year,
you'll be at a higher base to go at. So I'd just leave them
hike they are." Perry said, "Now, as far as you're con-
cerned, I won't be seeing you for another year?" Nuck-
olls said, "In the course of that time, you can do any-
thing that you want that's legal."
Perry then said:
Since I've been in business, I've always gave a[n]
approximate cost-of-living raise every year, either
March or July. For my apartments, it normally was
March, and for the Hotel, it was normally July.
And I said, "I got scared to death in '81 when I
opened up two hotels within a year plus 160-room
addition that I built in Glendale, and I thought I
may have a cash-flow problem." "And they raised
the interest on my mortgages," I told him, "to 20
percent on a $12-1/2 million," and I told the people
at that point that as soon as I could get the signal,
that I personally thought the economy was turning
around, I would give them a raise. And that's the
first time in as many years, I think in '81 and '82,
that the raises were very small and they were not
what you'd call blanket raises for everybody.[23]
According to Perry, it is Respondent's custom to give
raises annually in July, if possible. Initially he testified:
Q. You testified that over the past 40 years
you've given raises every year in either March or
July, is that correct?
A. Almost every year. I may have missed one
year. I do not want to be up for perjury if I missed
one year.
Q. And your custom was to give raises at the
Holiday Inn-Glendale: annually in July, is that cor-
rect?
A. If it was possible, yes.
Q. Well, did you or did you not give raises annu-
ally at the Holiday Inn-Glendale in July?
A. I gave them in July, right.
Q. So you did?
A. Right.
On further questioning, he admitted that he did not
grant raises every year but testified that he had done so
for the majority of the 10 years the hotel has been in op-
eration. According to him, he has always tried to give
raises in all his businesses in March and July because in-
23 The record does not reflect whether anything further was said in
this conversation Perry testified that he made the same statement regard-
ing wages to Respondent's department heads and to employees who
asked when they would be receiving a raise.
1263
formation regarding cost-of-living is .released by the gov-
ernment in February, and in the' construction industry
raises, strikes, and problems normally occur in July.24
He therefore uses those 2 months as a guide but has
granted raises in other months. He further testified that
he followed this practice until 1981 or, 1982 when he
opened 690 new rooms at the three hotels within a 12- to
15-month period. With this expansion and the increase in
interest rates, he felt he could not afford an increase.
The parties stipulated that no maids in the Glendale
hotel received raises in 1982,25 but that wage increases
were granted in 1980 and 1981. It was further stipulated
that on July 28, 1980, maids at the Glendale hotel were
paid $3.35 an hour during their first 6 months of employ-
ment and $3.45 an hour after 6 months, and that on April
6, 1981, maids at the Glendale hotel were paid $3.50 an
hour during their first 6 months of employment and
$3.60 an hour after 6 months.
2. Conclusions
It is well established that a wage increase granted
during a union organizing campaign is unlawful absent
an affirmative showing of some legitimate business
reason for the timing Fisher-Haynes Corp., 262 NLRB
1274 (1982). Respondent offers no reason for the timing
of this wage increase other than the alleged pattern of
annual increases which had been slightly delayed by the
union activity. However, as set forth above, Perry
admits he did not grant wage increases every year. The
last year of no increase was 1982. There is no evidence
that any announcement was made to employees in 1982
which would convey to them that the failure to grant a
wage increase was an exception to Respondent's policy
and annual wage increases would be resumed in 1983.
Thus, Respondent has failed to establish a regular pattern
of annual wage increases in July.
Respondent argues that the Union abandoned its orga-
nization campaign on July 2. However, Perez credibly
testified that she continued her organizational activities
through July and Bettis' unlawful conduct continued
until near the end of July. Furthermore, the wage in-
crease was granted shortly after Bettis had obtained sig-
natures from all, or almost all, the housekeeping employ-
ees on the "No Union" list through, inter alia, promises
of a wage increase if they signed. Accordingly, I find
that Respondent granted the August wage increase in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that
Respondent, through Bettis, violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act by telling employees that they could not receive
a wage increase because of the Union and that they
would receive such increase as soon as the Union left
them alone.
24 J P Allen Company raises were in March and raises in Perry's con-
struction business and hotels were in July
25 Presumably this refers to the basic wage rate and does not include
the normal 6-month step increase received after 6 months' employment
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. Housekeeping Operations in August and September
1, Bettis' discharge
According to Perry, despite the ultimatum he issued to
Bettis he observed no noticeable improvement in the
housekeeping department. He verified this observation
by talking to Erika Hofmann and other management per-
sonnel . He spoke to desk clerks, night auditors, and
Margie Green and asked them to give him a list, in writ-
ing, of all the problems at the desk, any type-parking,
rude bellmen, waiting at the airport-anything that was
causing the hotel to be in the shape it was in. He also
talked to guests, bellmen, and other employees in an at-
tempt to find out what the major problems were, so that
any new housekeeper could be informed. Several per-
sons, including Petty, Green, and Byrnes gave him writ-
ten lists. The lists contained little, if any, information that
was not related in the April meeting.
Compounding the problem was an unacceptable rating
on guest rooms on the July 8 inspections. At least twice
a year Holiday Inn, Inc., Respondent's franchisor, con-
ducts an unannounced inspection of Respondent's facili-
ties . If there are no problems, this is done every 6
months. If there are problems, the intervals drop to 90
days, 60 days, and 30 days. A second rating of unaccept-
able in the same area can result in a default and termina-
tion notice which could lead to revocation of the fran-
chise. These inspections cover the entire hotel-kitchen,
restaurant, accounting, front desk, guest rooms, public
areas, grounds, and physical condition of the building.
As to the guest rooms-the province of the housekeep-
ing department-about two rooms selected at random
are checked on each floor in addition to any rechecks
scheduled from the previous inspections. Ratings are
based on the number of deficiency points given in four
areas-policy or rule violation, life safety, maintenance,
or cleanliness deficiency, and capital expenditure defi-
ciency. On the July 8 inspection, Respondent received
deficiency points as follows:
Policy 280
Maintenance/Cleanliness 89526
Capital Expenditure 1740
Total Points Per
Room 194.3
Rating Unacceptable
Around the latter part of July, Perry instructed Ron
Hofmann to discharge Bettis. According to Perry, he
told Hofmann to handle the discharge with kid gloves
and as gently as possible for safety reasons, that he was
afraid of some type of physical action against him per-
sonally or some type of sabotage.27 Bettis was dis-
charged by Ron Hofmann on Friday, July 29, According
to Bettis, Ron Hofmann told her she was being dis-
charged because Perry was getting pressure from Mem-
26 From the nature of the maintenance/cleanliness deficiency points, it
appears at least 375 of the 895 points received in this area involved main-
tenance deficiencies which were not the responsibility of the maids.
11 The record contains no explanation of the basis for this alleged fear
phis28 to hire a more experienced housekeeper. Ron
Hofmann left Respondent's employ shortly thereafter.29
2. Vivanco's supervisory status prior to August 22
Jeannie Vivanco, a checker, testified that on July 28
both Ron Hofmann and Perry told her to come to the
office the following day. The next day she was called
into Ron Hofmann's office. At that time Hofmann told
her that Bettis was no longer working there and that Vi-
vanco was to be in charge of housekeeping. He did not
say how long she would be in charge nor that Respond-
ent was looking for another housekeeper to replace
Bettis. Vivanco remained in this position until August 22
when Mary Shepard began work as Respondent's new
executive housekeeper. Vivanco had two assistant house-
keepers, Janett Garcia and Sandra Seabeck. Seabeck quit
after a week or two. Seabeck was paid $4.50 an hour.
Garcia was paid $4 an hour. Vivanco was paid $5 an
hour.30 Vivanco's personnel record shows that she was
rehired as a checker on June 14 at $4 an hour and that
on July 23 she received a wage increase to $5 an hour.
The notation as to this increase shows it as a general in-
crease and her classification as assistant housekeeper.
However, the general wage increase was not granted
until August, and Vivanco testified that she was not
working as assistant housekeeper at the time of Bettis'
discharge. Further, Bettis names only Seabeck and
Garcia as her assistants.
Vivanco testified she was never told specifically what
her authority was. She assumed she had the authority to
hire since she was "in charge," but this was never tested.
She continued to follow the same permanent work
schedule which had been prepared, and followed, by
Bettis. She could, and did, authorize maids to work over-
time for short periods of time-10 or 20 minutes.31 On
the one occasion when there was extensive overtime
work to be done, Vivanco secured the approval of her
immediate superior, Barbara Mahfood. She verified and
initialed timecards.32 She had the authority to send an ill
employee home early or give a maid permission to leave
early in cases of personal emergency,33 She could, and
did, send employees home early whose work was com-
plete. When, due to shortage of personnel, a maid had to
be called in to work on her day off, Vivanco would
select the person to call. Normally she tried to call in the
employees who had worked the least number of hours.
She did this because a previous housekeeper had told her
26 The location of the franchisor's headquarters.
22 Ron Hofmann, who now resides in Germany, did not testify
30 Bettis had been paid $7.50 an hour.
31 Bettis testified that even for these short periods a decision had to be
made as to whether the maid should stay overtime to finish, whether, if
prior to the end of the shift a maid was known to be behind, someone
should be sent up to help her; or whether someone on the next shift
should do the work
32 This occurred for overtime work, when the timeclock malfunc-
tioned, and when an employee forgot to clock in or out She never re-
fused to initial a timecard However, there was never a time when she
felt the time claimed by the employee was incorrect An employee would
not be paid for overtime unless the timecard was verified and initialed
33 Vivanco never refused such permission
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
this was the way it was done.34 Vivanco also instructed
Garcia to use this procedure.
In fact, Vivanco testified that no one told her how to
run the housekeeping department, nor what she could or
could not do. However, she knew the way things were
done in the department and she continued doing them
that way. In the beginning, Mahfood told, her to talk
with her if she needed something. However, during the 3
to 4 weeks that Vivanco was in charge of housekeeping,
she only spoke to Mahfood 5 or 6 times regarding work
related matters.
Vivanco testified that as housekeeper it was her re-
sponsibility to have everything in order to see to it that
the maids cleaned the rooms to which they were as-
signed and that the laundry was done. She, along with
Garcia and Seabeck, prepared the worksheets and daily
assignment sheets described above. It required 2 or 3
hours to prepare the papers that are given to the maids.
The remainder of the workday is spent answering the
telephone,3$ checking the laundry, checking the hall-
ways, and helping with the laundry, when necessary.
Maria Jimenez testified that on a Thursday in August
she asked Vivanco if her sister Maria Otanez could be
transferred from the Burbank hotel to the Glendale
hotel. Vivanco said she would think about it, that she
would speak to the housekeeper at Burbank, and give
her an answer the following Monday. On Monday, Vi-
vanco told Jimenez that Otanez could begin work at the
Glendale hotel on Tuesday, which she did. Otanez testi-
fied that upon her transfer Vivanco talked to her about
the work she was to do in the guest rooms and told her
what her work schedule would be. Vivanco was not
questioned specifically regarding the Otanez transfer.
She did testify that she does not recall whether she trans-
ferred anyone when she was in charge of housekeeping.
Employees Lorena Salazar and Carmen Naranjo testi-
fied that when they had work related problems during
this period, they discussed them with Vivanco. Salazar,
Erbert, Naranjo, and Otanez testified that when they
needed materials and supplies, some of which were ware-
housed outside of the housekeeping area, they requested
them from Vivanco. These employees also testified that
Vivanco gave them their room assignments.
Perry denies that Vivanco was ever in charge of the
housekeeping department. However, his prehearing affi-
davit states that the housekeeping department was run by
Petty and Vivanco and that they were overseen by Mah-
food.36
as In previous years, Vivanco was assistant housekeeper for approxi-
mately 1 year under Bettis
as This includes receiving and resolving guest complaints and requests.
as Perry testified that he did not read his affidavit thoroughly before
he signed it However, he initialed each page , the various corrections,
and deletions, and the acknowledgement , contained therein , that he had
read the affidavit Further , his attorney was present and the affidavit was
given in his attorney's office Respondent argues that the affidavits
should not be considered for impeachment purposes in view of the "out-
rageous, overwhelming administrative abuse-the extended discourteous
and negligent manner in which the statements were prepared , received
and executed " Specifically, Respondent refers to "extended sessions
during which witnesses were left in waiting rooms without notice of time
or ability to utilize toilet facilities and the opportunity for meals, the ex-
tensive repetition of questions, language difficulties, and the hurried exe-
cution without thorough review of the documents " I reject this argu-
1265
Perry also denies that he ever told Ron Hofmann to
designate anyone as interim housekeeper. According to
Perry, around July 15 or 16,-lie'told Ron Hofmann that
he was going to be in charge of the housekeeping depart-
ment, that he was removing th4t,,department from Hof-
mann's responsibility, and thereafter anything concerning
the housekeeping department was to be handled through
Perry. Perry further testified that from the time Bettis
was fired, he ran the housekeeping department
According to Perry, on the Monday following Bettis'
discharge, he went into the housekeeping office around 7
a.m. Some Spanish-speaking maids were near the time-
clock and the maids who spoke English were around the
desk-Vivanco, Rosa Garcia and Janett Garcia. All the
maids who spoke English were assistant housekeepers,
according to Perry, because as soon as a maid can speak
English she automatically becomes an assistant house-
keeper with title only-a method of stroking egos and
encouraging the maids to try to learn to speak English.
As to what he told the maids, that morning, Perry tes-
tified:
I said , "As you're aware, Frances Bettis has been
terminated , and I will have a Housekeeper here
within three or four days, and I want all the Eng-
lish-speaking Maids and the oldest ones here to con-
tinue on with our regular routine that we have and
run the Housekeeping Department as a Committee."
And then I said , "Do you all understand what a
committee means?" Then they all said , "Si, si, si, si,
si." ... Then I knew they did not know.. . .
JUDGE ROBBINS: The English-speaking Maids
too?
THE WITNESS: Pardon?
JUDGE ROBBINS : The English-speaking Maids
too?
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
Then I knew-then I thought when everybody is
saying "si, si,,si," normally in the business area that
means they do not really know.
So then I tried to use another word. I said, "I
want you to run this with a group, and just contin-
ue on with our system." We have a system, sup-
posedly for everything. And, "There's no boss here.
Nobody can be hired. Nobody can be fired. No
schedule will be changed. There's to be no changes
whatsoever. Nothing is to be done other than our
routine basis. If you have any problems, you call
me."
Just a minute, I want to think.
I said , "You call me, or if necessary, you have
me beeped, and I will answer any questions, and
there's to be absolutely no changes on nothing.'.'
BY MR. BERKLEY:
ment . Aside from any resolution of credibility as to these allegations, I
note that whatever validity such an argument might have had if the state-
ments had been given in the NLRB offices it pales into insignificance in
circumstances where, as here, the statements were given in the offices
and presence of Respondent 's attorney The alleged language difficulty,
which applies only to Morales, and another circumstance which relates
only to Shepard, will be discussed below as related to the credibility of
Morales and Shepard
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Q. Did you instruct anyone there who to go to
besides yourself, if anyone?
A. I said that the ladies that talked the best Eng-
lish and been there the longest is the team member
that you should ask if there is any routine questions,
but anything that is not routine, I want to be noti-
fied immediately. "If I'm not here, Mr. Hofmann is
to be notified , cause I am the new Housekeeper."
Q. Did you ever designate anyone to be House-
keeper at that time?
A No, sir.
Q. And following that, did you designate anyone
as Housekeeper?
A. Yes, Mrs. Shepard.
Q And that was when?
A. August 22.
Q. During the conversation on the Monday after
Mrs. Bettis was fired, did you designate anyone or
tell anyone that they were an Assistant Housekeep-
er?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you tell anyone during that conversation
that they were in charge of the Department?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether Sandy Seabeck was
there at the time of your conversation?
A. No, she was not there,
Perry further testified that during the interim period
between Bettis' termination and Shepard's hire he visited
the housekeeping department about six times a day 37
However, the only thing he did on these visits was to
just look in and ask anyone who happened to be there
how everything was going. During this period, he spent
his days doing just what he had done when Bettis was
there-nonhousekeeping related things. According to
Perry, the housekeeping department ran itself by going
by Respondent's rules. In this regard, he testified:
I run my business like the Navy. You do every-
thing the same every time, right or wrong, you do
it the Navy way. And everything is on a system.
My business does not need-they do not need
anybody as long as I'm there, because I'm all the
brains they need. What I need is a lot of policemen
to see that maybe the thing's done, because every-
thing is done the same every time identical. And
any time there's any change, I am advised of it.
Mary Shepard, who began working for Respondent as
executive housekeeper38 on August 22,39 testified that
37 Perry testified that normally he went into guest room areas only
about once every 4 to 6 months
3e In the interim between Bettis and Shepard, two persons, one of
whom was Black , were brought into the housekeeping department either
after having been hired as housekeeper or when under consideration for
the position Each of them rejected the position after less than a day and,
according to Perry, one described the hotel as " a mess" with which she
could not cope Perry also testified that some of the maids made com-
ments, either to him or in his hearing range, that indicated they-mostly
Hispanics--thought Respondent planned to replace them with Blacks
39 Shepard has previously been employed as executive housekeeper in
several hotels
neither when she was interviewed and hired nor when
she began working at the Glendale Hotel was she told
that the department was being run by a committee of
maids. Rather, she testified, when she was waiting to be
interviewed by Perry prior to her employment by Re-
spondent, she asked Ron Hofmann if the housekeeper
was still there. Hofmann said no, the housekeeper had
been terminated, and the department was being run by
one of the checkers on a temporary basis. Then when
Shepard arrived for work on her first day, Vivanco was
there.
According to Shepard, Perry did not mention that first
day whether anyone had been in charge of the depart-
ment He just took her to the housekeeping office, said,
"Well, this is housekeeping," and introduced her to Vi-
vanco as the new housekeeper, Shepard testified that it
was her understanding that Vivanco had been the person
temporarily in charge of the department. Shepard felt
she needed Vivanco's assistance and did not want her to
quit, so when Perry introduced her to Vivanco she told
Vivanco she hoped they could work together.
I do not credit Perry that there was no interim house-
keeper at the Glendale Hotel between Bettis and She-
pard. Vivanco credibly testified that Ron Hofmann told
her she was in charge of the housekeeping department.
With possibly two exceptions, she performed the same
functions as had Bettis, an admitted supervisor. She did
not hire and fire employees and the General Counsel has
failed to establish that she had authority to do so. She
had to obtain permission for extensive overtime. Howev-
er, there is no evidence on the record to indicate wheth-
er Bettis also had to have such permission.4° There is
evidence that she possessed certain indicia of supervisory
authority She transferred an employee from the Burbank
hotel to the Glendale hotel and the assignment of short
periods of overtime work, which she did, was not entire-
ly routine. She called employees in to work on their
days off. Further, if Vivanco was not a supervisor, there
would be 70 unsupervised employees in the housekeep-
ing department Accordingly, I find that from July 30 to
August 22 Vivanco was a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2(11) of the Act See Hospitality Motor Inn,
249 NLRB 1036, 1037 (1980). See Washington Beef Pro-
ducers, 264 NLRB 1163 (1982), It is immaterial that her
position was temporary. See Interpace Corp., 238 NLRB
560, 562-563 (1978).
3. The supervisory status of the assistant
housekeepers prior to August 22-Seabeck, Garcia,
and Petty
Following Bettis' discharge, Seabeck continued as as-
sistant housekeeper for several days. There is nothing to
indicate that her duties changed in any way from what
they were when Bettis was housekeeper. Bettis testified
that Seabeck functioned as housekeeper on Sundays and
Mondays, which were Bettis' days off On those 2 days,
Seabeck was in full charge. She had authority to release
maids from work early without prior consultation with
40 In this regard, I note that extensive overtime may well involve fi-
nancial considerations
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
Bettis . She also had authority to authorize overtime or to
call a maid in to work on the maid 's day off. She made
room assignments but had no authority to change a
maid's work schedule. She had authority to, and did,
make temporary transfers of maids from one hotel to an-
other in order to cover a personnel shortage . She also
had authority to send a maid home or suspend a maid for
any reason and to resolve problems between employees.
However, Bettis also testified that although she did tell
Seabeck she was in complete charge of the housekeeping
department on Bettis ' days off, she does not recall
whether she detailed the specific authority this entailed
nor does she recall whether , during 1983, Seabeck ever
suspended a maid or sent one home. Bettis further testi-
fied.
Q. With regard to problems that would come up
during your days off, did you instruct Sandy Sea-
beck about how to handle them?
A. I told her she could call me at home and talk
to me and I would talk it over with her and suggest
what to do
Q. Would this also include any particular guest
complaints, or would those be handled pretty much
internally, if possible?
A. She tried to handle problems like that herself
Helena Chavez testified Seabeck gave her permission
to leave work early when she was ill . Maria Elena Cruz
testified that she translated for Seabeck on one occasion
when Olga Delgado, in Bettis' absence ,41 asked Seabeck
for permission to leave work early. Seabeck told Del-
gado she could leave and that Seabeck, would talk to
Bettis . Cruz also testified that on one occasion, in Bettis'
absence , she reported to Seabeck that a maid did not
want to vacuum a room Seabeck spoke to the maid,
after which the maid did vacuum the room.
Bettis also testified that when Bettis was on duty, Sea-
beck's duties and responsibilities were the same as Bettis'
other two assistants , Chepita Blandon and Ruth Petty.
They prepared supply lists, assignment sheets, work-
sheets, handled complaints and requests from guests,
checked the halls for trays, trash, etcetera, and helped in
the laundry when needed They did not wear uniforms
as did the maids . When Janett Garcia was assistant
housekeeper, she performed the same duties previously
performed by Seabeck.
As night housekeeper, Petty works a 2°30 to 11 p.m.
shift and is in charge of three to six night maids. Petty
testified that she answers the telephone and receives and
resolves guest complaints and requests . She folds linen,
checks rooms , and assigns maids to clean rooms as neces-
sary. She also hung the keys42 turned in by the day
maids. On the one occasion when she clocked out two
maids who had refused to assist her in hanging keys, she
was reprimanded by Perry for doing so and the two
maids were paid for the time lost. She was also repri-
manded by Perry on the one occasion when she initialed
41 According to Chavez, Bettis was working that day but was not in
the housekeeping office
42 This is apparently a system of sorting and storing keys by room
number
1267
timecards to verify overtime work. Perry said she had no
authority to do either of those things . If a maid wanted
to leave work early or if it was necessary to call in an
extra maid , Petty consulted Erika Hofmann.
In view of Bettis' testimony that she instructed Sea-
beck to call her at home when problems arose and the
lack of any explication on the record as to the circum-
stances under which Seabeck did, or did not, consult
with Bettis on Bettis' days off, I find that the General
Counsel has failed to establish that Seabeck possessed the
requisite indicia of supervisory status. There was little or
no testimony to distinguish Garcia's functions from those
of Seabeck . Accordingly , I find that the General Counsel
has also failed to establish that Garcia possessed indicia
of supervisory status. There is a similar failure as to
Petty She testified , without contradiction , that she con-
sulted with Erika Hofmann if a maid wanted to leave
early or if it was necessary to call in an extra maid. In all
the circumstances , I find that the assistant housekeepers
at the Glendale Hotel prior to August 22-Seabeck,
Garcia and Petty-were not supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act . Towne Plaza Hotel,
258 NLRB 69, 75, 80 (1981).
4. The supervisory status of the assistant
housekeepers after August 22-Vivanco and Garcia
Shepard retained Vivanco and Janett Garcia as assist-
ant housekeepers and gave them wage increases. Vi-
vanco was increased to $5.50 an hour . As assistant
housekeeper , Vivanco continued to prepare worksheets
and daily assignment sheets. On Saturdays and Sundays,
Shepard's days off, Vivanco was in charge of the depart-
ment.43 According to Vivanco, she did not have author-
ity to hire or fire nor to effectively recommend such. On
Shepard's days off, she did not have authority to let a
maid work overtime. In such instances , she was required
to telephone Shepard. She did have authority to let a
maid leave work early for personal reasons.44 She also
had authority to send a maid home early if there was no
work to do. On Shepard's days off, she had authority to
discipline a maid through an oral reprimand . Vivanco
testified that Shepard specifically told her she had such
authority. She only had authority to initial timecards
upon Shepard's specific direction . Shepard testified that
Vivanco and Garcia were instructed to call her if they
had any problems. Further, she would call periodically
and also came in from time to time on her days off.
During August and September, she worked for a portion
of each Saturday and Sunday.
Garcia did not testify. However, there is no evidence
to establish that her authority was any greater than Vi-
vanco's . Rather, it would seem to be less since , insofar as
the record reveals, she was never left in charge of the
department. Shepard did utilize her as a translator.
In the absence of authority to hire or fire or to effec-
tively recommend such and/or to assign overtime or to
initial timecards or to schedule employees and, in view
43 Garcia also worked on Saturdays and Sundays
44 Shepard testified that it was her practice to never refuse such per-
mission
. 1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the close contact Shepard kept with the department
on her days off, I find that Vivanco and Garcia did not
possess the requisite indicia of supervisory authority. The
reports they, prepared were routine, requiring no exercise
of independent judgment and the bare assertion that Vi-
vanco had authority to discipline a maid through an oral
reprimand is not sufficient to establish such, authority
without further explanation of what such a reprimand
entailed . This is particularly true since it was evident
that some employee witnesses seem to consider the mere
act of telling a maid she had done something wrong con-
stitutes a reprimand-a definition which may be accurate
in the general parlance but is not so in personnel terms.
Accordingly, I find that while working as assistant
housekeepers under Shepard, Vivanco, and Garcia were
not supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of
the Act.
5. Morales' supervisory status
It is undisputed that no one other than Morales direct-
ed the day 'to day work of the checkers. Respondent
contends that such direction was routine, and that Mo-
rales possesses no indicia of supervisory authority. How-
ever, Cruz credibly testified that Morales assigned her
overtime, and authorized checkers to take time off. Fur-
thermore, both Perry and Shepard asked her to evaluate
the maids, and testified that they relied on such evalua-
tions in making personnel 'decisions.
Morales hired and fired checker Angelina Chu. Thus,
in August or September, Morales told Ron Hofman she
was short of help. Ron Hofman told her to hire a check-
er if she needed one. Morales said she did not know how
to hire someone.' Ron Hofman told her that if she needed
any help, she could ask his secretary Debbie. A few days
thereafter Angelina Chu applied for a job as a checker.
Morales 'reviewed Chu's application and inquired about
Chu's previous experience. She then went to the house-
keeping department and told Shepard she had a new
`lady applying for a job as checker. Shepard inquired as
to Chu's experience. There is no evidence that Shepard,
rather than Morales, hired Chu. Morales filled out and
signed the hire slip and Hofman never instructed her to
obtain anyone's approval prior to hiring a new checker.
A few days later, after Shepard reported to Perry that
Respondent had received a number of deficiency points
during the September 13 inspection for rooms checked
by Chu, Perry instructed Morales to discharge Chu.
Whereupon, Morales filled out and signed a termination
slip for Chu.
Further, Morales issued warning notices to Charlene
Sanchez on July 5. According to Morales, on that date
she went to Ron Hofman's office to discuss an absentee-
ism and tardiness problem she was having with Sanchez.
Hofman was busy so Morales related to Debbie, his sec-
retary, the problems she was having. Debbie suggested
that Morales issue a warning notice to Sanchez for each
of the two incidents. Morales said she did not know how
to fill out a warning notice. Debbie said she would do it,
which she did. Morales signed the two warning notices
and gave them to Sanchez.
In view of the above, I find that Morales possesses in-
dicta of supervisory authority and that she is a'supervisor
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
F. September Union Activity and Respondent's
Knowledge Thereof
Around the first week in September, the maids again
began to talk among themselves regarding the need for
union' representation. These conversations occurred
during breaks in the lunchroom, in the parking lot, and
on the street outside the hotel. Their concern was the
need ' for a union to protect them from Shepard, who
they thought was working them too hard. Naranjo gave
Sevillano Perez' telephone number so she could talk to
her to see if the Union could help. Sevillano telephoned
Perez and told her the situation was getting worse; Re-
spondent's employees needed to talk to her about the
Union. Perez suggested that she and Sevillano discuss
the matter in person. On September 9, Perez and Nuck-
olls visited Sevillano in her home at which time they dis-
cussed the benefits of union representation and strategies
for organizing the hotel.
On September 13, Nuckolls and Perez met with a
group of Respondent's housekeeping employees. There
were 25 to 35 employees present, including most of the
alleged discriminatees. Twenty-one of the employees
present signed union authorization cards at the meeting,
including most of the alleged discriminatees' Some of the
employees present, including Naranjo, Erbert, and Sevil-
lano, left the meeting with blank authorization cards
which they-later distributed to fellow employees. All the
alleged discriminatees signed cards at the meeting or
later that day.45
Morales admits that Gilma Isaia, Susanna Sevillano,
and perhaps Ana Ramirez and Sylvia Rios told her they
were all protected now. She also admits that she heard
that employees were getting signatures and having meet-
ings but denies that she heard employees talking about
signing union authorization cards or meetings at Ana Ra-
mirez' house or union meetings. In fact, she denies that
she knew what "union" meant. She also admits that
Perry asked her to give him reports about everything the
maids were doing. -So beginning on September 12 she
wrote on the daily activity reports general assessments or
evaluations of the work of individual maids. Also on
September 14 she included on a daily activity report,
which she gave to Perry, the following notation:
There is a group of maids, that are having meetings
after work in some other place. The purpose of the
meetings is "UNION" somebody from the
UNION-is having meetings with them. Some of
the maids doing a list & signs-quite a few haven't
signed the list. They say they are all protected now.
Some of these maids are already laid off.46
45 The authorization card of Susanna Sevillano bears the date of Sep-
tember 9 and those of Isabel Brito and Laura Martinez are dated August
8. They all credibly testified that those dates are incorrect and that they
signed the cards on September 13.
46 In her October 11 prehearing affidavit, Morales stated "I did not
know there was a union campaign until I saw the maids who were fired
Continued
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
Morales also testified that she gave Perry these reports
prior to September 16.
Perry testified that he had no knowledge of any union
activity in September until about September 21 or 22
when he was notified that the Union had filed a petition
for an election and the charge herein,47 and a reporter'
for a local newspaper telephoned to tell him there might
be a picket line at the hotel the following day. He admits
that he reviewed the reports given to him by Morales,
but denies that he saw the union notation. According to
him, "I do not ever read nothing what you'd call consist-
ent or thorough. Whenever I read any type of reports, I
more or less glance at them. I never read anything word
for word." Both Morales and Perry deny that she ever
orally communicated this information to him.
Shepard testified that her first knowledge of union ac-
tivity was when she saw a picket line at the hotel on
September 23. She. specifically denies that she saw the
September 12-14 daily activity reports prepared by Mo-
rales. At one time she testified Morales was not subordi-
nate to her and did not regularly give her the daily ac-
tivity reports. At another time she testified that Morales
showed her the reports on a daily basis at least twice a
day. However, she also testified that Morales never left
the reports with her, but that Shepard would look
through the reports to see if any of the maids had im-
proved in their work. Initially she testified that she did
ask Morales for the daily activity reports the week of the
discharges and she did look at them but did not study
them. Later, she testified that she could not give an
answer as to whether she read any daily activity reports
for the week of September 12-16.
Vivanco testified that on September 13 or 14,48 she
saw Morales bring into the housekeeping office a list of
maids who worked well and of those whose work was
unsatisfactory. Vivanco does not recall how many names
were on the list but it was not all the maids.
Cruz further testified that on September 15, she saw
something written in Morales' handwriting on Morales'
desk. Written on the back of a menu was "They are
looking for union," and underneath were listed the
names of some maids. Some of the names listed were
Erbert, Brito, Ramos, and Ramirez. Cruz thinks Naran-
jo's name was also on the list but does not recall] for cer-
tain. All the names on the list were maids. A few min-
utes later Cruz warned Ramos not to say anything to
Morales, and told Erbert, Ramirez, and Naranjo what
she had seen. She also told Salazar about the list. Ramos
corroborates Cruz. According to her, Cruz told her she
should be careful of Morales because she had a list of the
ones that were going to be fired because they had signed
for the Union. Erbert also testified that Cruz mentioned
and other people picketing in front of the hotel on September 23, 1983."
The affidavit further states, "In the month of September 1983 1 was not
aware of any union meetings employees were attending," Morales testi-
fied that she did not understand all the words that were used at the time
she gave her affidavit. However, she admits that Respondent's attorney
was present and that whenever she told him she did not understand
something , he sought clarification from the Board agent. Morales con,
tends that the clarification was sometimes insufficient but admits that she
never mentioned this
41 The charge was filed on September 19.
49 Her prehearing affidavit places the date as September 14,
1269
a list to her. Chavez testified that there was a rumor that
Morales had a list of all the girls who had signed union
authorization cards and that they were going to be fired.
Further evidence that Respondent had information re-
garding union activities, according to the General Coun-
sel, is Vivanco's testimony that sometime in August or
September Salazar came into the housekeeping 'office.
Both Vivanco and Janett Garcia were by the desk. Sala-
zar told Vivanco she wanted to talk to her in secret and
left. Shortly thereafter Garcia left the office. About 10
minutes later, Shepard came into the office and told Vi-
vanco that Janett Garcia had told her Vivanco had se-
crets with Salazar. Vivanco said she did not have any se-
crets with Salazar. Shepard said Vivanco was talking to
the girls behind her back. Vivanco said Shepard should
bring the girl who was saying that in front of Vivanco.
Shepard said forget it.
Vivanco further testified that on September 13 or 14
Janett Garcia told her that some of the girls were not
going to come to work, they were going to strike. Vi-
vanco asked why. Garcia said they were with the Union,
that she had heard Martinez and the other girls speaking
in the hall. On the following day, according to Vivanco,
Garcia again told her the girls were not going to come
to work. She further said they would be fired if they
were not going to come to work and if they were for the
Union.
In view of the fact that the Union had been in the
Glendale Hotel trying to organize employees for 3 or 4
months earlier in the year and that Morales highlighted
the word "union" by capitalizing it in her report to
Perry, I do not credit her testimony that she did not
know what "union" meant. I also do not credit her testi-
mony that she did not hear employees talking about sign-
ing union authorization cards or attending union meet-
ings. In this regard, I note that her September 14 report
to Perry which clearly states that a group of maids are
having meetings with someone from the Union and are
signing a list conflicts both with these denials and with
the statement in her prehearing affidavit that she was not
aware that employees were attending any union meetings
in September.49
Similarly, I do not credit Perry's and Shepard's denial
of knowledge of union activities prior to the discharges.
Perry specifically testified that he read Morales' reports
during the week prior to the discharge. Shepard testified
that Morales showed her the daily activity reports twice
a day. I find it incredible that they would miss the refer-
ence to union activities, particularly since the word
"union" was highlighted in the report by being printed in
46 In making this credibility resolution, I have fully considered and
reject Respondent's argument , set forth above, as to the circumstances
surrounding the taking of the affidavits. I also reject that portion of the
argument which refers to language difficulties. I had an opportunity to
observe Morales on the witness stand for more than a day, She appeared
to have an adequate command of the English language and had no diffi-
culty indicating when there was some word or phrase she did not under-
stand Further, she assisted counsel for Respondent at various periods
throughout the trial and at times counsel questioned the translation made
by the official interpreter herein or responded to such questioning by the
General Counsel in a manner which made it obvious to me that he was
relying on information given to him by Morales regarding the translation
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all capital letters. Based on their demeanor, certain in-
consistencies in their testimony, the conflicts between
certain, of their testimony and prehearing affidavits,50 the
inherent improbabilities of certain other testimony, and
the record as a whole, I find Shepard and Morales, as
well as Perry, to be unreliable witnesses whose testimony
I do not credit except as to admissions against interest
and as otherwise corroborated in the record. In the cir-
cumstances, I find that, at least by August 14, Morales,
Shepard, and Perry had knowledge of the resurgence of
the Union's organizational campaign and that the house-
keeping department employees were then engaged in
union activities.
G. Interrogations, Solicitation, of Surveillance, and
Threats by Morales
1. Facts
Laura Martinez testified that Morales approached her
on-September 12 and said Perry knew they were orga-
nizing the Union. She further said Perry had a lot of
money to fight the Union and if the Union came in the
employees would be fired. Martinez did not report this
conversation to fellow employees,
Cruz testified that on September 14 Morales spoke to
Cruz and three other checkers-Elia Pena, Maria Esco-
bedo, and Promila Tiegi-in her office. Morales asked
their opinion of the Union. Pena said she did not want
anything to do with the Union, that she was content.
Cruz said it would be okay, that if the Union came in,
they would take it, why not? Cruz then asked Morales
her opinion about the Union. Morales said she could not
give her opinion about anything because, as the bosses,
"we, cannot take [or accept or bring in]51 the union."
Morales further said that Perry did not want the Union
and if Perry did not want the Union, it was not going to
come in. Cruz said, "Fine, then it's on Perry's head that
the Union won't come in. Then what are you worried
about." Morales said, "What Mr. Perry gets pissed off
about is that these old ladies are arranging things on
their own." Cruz said, "Well, everyone fights for them-
selves." Morales said Perry was capable of closing down
the hotel before the Union came in. She said since 'the
Union had wanted to come in for so many years and had
not accomplished it, they would not be able to accom-
plish it now.
Later that same day, according to Cruz, Morales again
spoke to her, Pena, Tiegi, and perhaps Escobedo in Mo-
rales-office. Morales said Perry wanted reports for any-
thing the maids forgot to do or did wrong. Cruz also tes-
50 In its argument that the affidavits should not be used for impeach-
ment purposes, Respondent relies, inter aha, on Shepard's testimony that
the Board agent who took the affidavit warned Shepard concerning the
possibility of physical violence against her However, there is no evi-
dence as to the context of this alleged warning and Respondent's attor-
ney was present I do not credit Shepard in this regard, but even if she
were credited, I reject Respondent's argument in the absence of a show-
ing that such statement could reasonably coerce Shepard into making
false, statements to the Board agent
s' There was some difficulty in the translation of this phrase It can be
translated as "cannot take" or "cannot accept" or "cannot bring in "
Cruz testified that she understood Morales to mean that the bosses cannot
have a union
tified that a few days earlier, perhaps August 31 or the
first week in September, Perry called her into his office
and told her he wanted her and all the checkers to make
reports on the maids for everything they forgot--one
soap, one towel, one cup, everything.52 Further, accord-
ing to Cruz, although technically this was not a change
in procedure, previously they had not noted such minor
things on the daily activity report if the maid corrected
the omission.53 Later, about the first week of September,
Cruz personally gave Perry such reports.
Cruz also testified that on this same day Morales told
her and other checkers they had to watch the maids, that
if they saw any maids talking about the Union, not to say
anything to the maid, to just call Morales on the tele-
phone.-14 Morales further said, "I know who wants the
union. First, they wanted a raise. It was given. Now,
what do they want? Oh, but I'll solve that." About 10 or
15 minutes later, Cruz told Hillabrand, Naranjo, and Ra-
mirez what Morales had said and warned them to be
careful. She does not recall whether she also spoke to
Erbert and Brito.
Ramos testified that about a week before September
16, in Morales' office, Morales asked her who was the
one who was organizing the Union, who was the "rat."
Ramos said she did not know anything. Morales said the
ones who signed union cards would be fired.
Morales was not questioned with regard to specific al-
leged conversations. However, she denies that she ever
asked any questions of any employees at the hotel con-
cerning the Union, that she ever promised an, employee
anything if they would reject the Union, that she ever
asked any employee to get information concerning the
union, or that she ever discussed Immigration with em-
ployees. She further denies that Perry ever said anything
to her about the Union or that she discussed the Union
with him at all. She also testified that she was never told
by anyone at the hotel to talk to employees regarding
the Union.
2. Conclusions
I do not credit these general denials by Morales. She
did not testify as to specific conversations, and I have
previously discredited her in other regards. On the other
hand, I found Cruz to be an honest and reliable witness
who testified for several hours in a straightforward
manner. I also credit Ramos and Martinez. The state-
ments made to them by Morales follow the same pattern
of threats and coercion manifested by the statements to
Cruz.
In view of these credibility findings and my finding
above that Morales is a statutory supervisor, I find that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling
Martinez that Perry had a lot of money to fight the
52 According to Cruz, Perry had never previously spoken to her re-
garding the daily activity reports prepared by the checkers as they in-
spected the work of the maids
11 Morales described a three-step procedure followed by checkers of
telling the maid about the reassigned duty, putting it on the assignment
sheet, and then on the daily activity report
54 Cruz testified that she did not observe any maids talking about the
Union thereafter, and never told Morales that she had
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
Union so the Union would not come in ; by telling Cruz
and other checkers that Perry did not want the Union
and if he did not want the Union it was not going to
come in; and further by telling them since the Union had
wanted to come in for many years and had been unable
to accomplish it, they would not be able to accomplish it
now. Such statements unlawfully convey the impression
of futility of engaging in union activity. Scotch & Sirloin
Restaurant, 269 NLRB 436 (1984); Quality Engineered
Products, 267 NLRB 593 (1983).
I also find that Respondent, through Morales, violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by asking Cruz and other
checkers their opinions of the Union. Such interrogation
which seeks an expression of employees' hitherto unre-
vealed sentiments toward a union is coercive and, there-
fore, violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, particularly
in the context of threats that Respondent did not want
the Union and would close before the Union came in. Cf.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984). This clearly
conveys Respondent's displeasure with employees' union
activity and thus discourages such activity in the future.
Brigadier Industries, 267 NLRB 1559 (1983). Similarly
coercive is Morales' interrogation of Ramos as to who
was organizing the Union.
I further find that Respondent, through Morales, cre-
ated the impression of surveillance of employees' union
activity by telling Martinez that Perry knew they were
organizing the Union and telling Cruz and other check-
ers she knew who wanted the Union. In the context of
Morales' solicitation of these employees to engage in sur-
veillance of the union activities of other employees and
to report thereon, I find that Respondent thereby violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that by solic-
iting the checkers to watch the maids, and to report to
Morales if they saw any maids talking to the Union, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. South-
land Knitwear, 260 NLRB 642 (1982); United Oil Mfg.
Co., 254 NLRB 1320 (1981).
Finally, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act by Morales' statement that Perry was capable
of closing down the hotel before the Union came in.
H. The Discharges
1. Facts
On September 16, Respondent terminated 15 maids,
the alleged discriminatees herein Naranjo, Ramos, Rami-
rez, and Garcia testified that Lee gave them their checks
and told them they were being terminated because the
inspection had not been passed. Erbert testified that Lee
gave her a check but gave her no reason for her termina-
tion. Antonia Morales testified that when Lee told her
she was terminated, she asked if she had done something
wrong. He said, "No, you just don't have a job any-
more."
Martinez, Sevillano, and Chavez did not work on Sep-
tember 16. Sevillano and Chavez testified that Shepard
telephoned them at home and told them they were termi-
nated. When Sevillano asked why, Garcia came on the
telephone and said, in Spanish, "because the inspection
had come out bad." Chavez testified that Shepard asked
if she understood. When Chavez said no, Garcia came on
1271
the telephone and spoke to her in Spanish. Chavez asked
why she was being discharged. Garcia said, "Mrs. She-
pard says that the inspection came out bad , that the in-
spection found the hotel dirty."
Martinez testified that Janett Garcia telephoned her at
home and told her she was terminated because the in-
spection did not come out well. Vivanco testified that on
September 15, Shepard told het' the maids were being
discharged because the inspection had not come out
well 55
Shepard testified that she made the final decision to
discharge the 15 employeessa 2 or 3 days prior to the
discharges which would have been September 13 or 14.
According to Shepard, she had worked with the employ-
ees for almost a month. The dischargees were the ones
with whom she constantly had problems. They were ex-
tremely rude, intentionally rude both to Shepard and to
the guests . They had been warned many _ times to use the
service elevators , not the guest elevators . They were
rude to Shepard whenever she tried to talk to them, to
show them how to do something, or try to correct them
on different things on their job performance. They were
extremely negative. They did not want to learn. They
used abusive language. They did not want to cooperate
and the other maids were taking advantage of this and
were carrying on the same way.
Shepard testified that it was her impression that it was
impossible to retrain them , that she had spent enough of
her time with them so she had to let them go. She felt if
she discharged , at the same time, the 15 maids whom she
considered the worst and hired new maids , she would be'
able to straighten out the department. Shepard denies
that union activities played any part in her decision or,
as set forth above, that she had any knowledge of union
activity at the time of the discharges. According to her,
she had pretty much decided ' which maids to discharge
and she personally checked their work that week. Fur-
ther, earlier in September she asked Morales to give her
a written evaluation of the work performance of individ-
ual maids by indicating on a sheet opposite each name
whether she would rate the maid as a poor, fair, good,
very good or excellent worker. Morales did this and
Shepard did refer to this evaluation in making her deci-
sion. According to Shepard, based on her personal expe-
rience, corroborated by Morales' report, there were 24
or 25 maids whose work was very poor.
On September 16, according to Shepard, she filled out
termination slips, attached them to the timecards, and
gave them to Maria, the person in charge of the payroll
ss The inspection was on September 13 Respondent 's deficiency
points and rating were
Policy 60 (2 8 percent)
Maintenance/Cleanliness 1150 (53 .9 percent)
Capital expenditure 925 (43 percent)
Total per room 142.3
Rating Average
51 The original charge herein alleges that 19 employees were dis-
charged on September 16, 1 on September 9, and 1 on September 6 In
their prehearmg affidavits, both Shepard and Perry speak of discharging
21 employees on September 16 but testified herein that the affidavits are
incorrect and only 15 employees were discharged on that date
1272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department. Maria said, "All these?" Shepard said yes,
and that she would like to have the checks prepared that
day. Maria said she would have to talk to Perry. She-
pard said , "Well, you do what you have to do." Shortly
thereafter, Perry approached Shepard. Shepard told him,
"This is it, I just can't put up with this anymore." Perry
said , "Do what you have to do, this is your department.
If you think this is going to help you out, if you want to
get rid of the people that don't do the job, okay." She-
pard said she needed some assistance , 59 and requested
that Perry send a man to distribute the checks. Perry
said he would. When the checks were ready, Shepard
telephoned for Perry to send someone to issue the
checks. Perry was not in so she asked Gary. Gary and
Operational Manager Lee came over to the housekeeping
office to' distribute the checks. Janett Garcia and Vi-
vanco were present during the termination interviews.
Garcia translated.
Perry testified that about a week after Shepard began
work he- discussed with her the poor condition of the
hotel . `Shepard said she thought she could get things
straightened out but it would take time. Perry said,
"Mrs. Shepard, please, we're desperate. Something has to
be done. Please do something." Shepard said, "I'll do the
best I can. If I have your support and understanding and
I can hire and fire and run the show and do it the way I
do, well , I'm sure that I can get it straightened out be-
cause I did run the one in Hollywood, the Holiday Inn,
and that's a tough one." Perry said , "Now I want to talk
to you again in approximately a week and I want to see
if you have any type of recommendation, a week or ten
days." Shepard said fine, and again asked if she had his
support. He assured her she did, "one hundred percent."
On September 12, according to Perry, he told She-
pard , "Please get rid of those maids that are screwing
this property up. It's unbelieveable. We've got to do
something and it's got to be done now." Shepard said
she would take appropriate measures immediately.
Perry testified that on September 12 he also spoke to
Morales. He said he wanted to see all the daily activity
reports for the previous 30 days. He also asked for writ-
ten evaluations of maids who consistently were not per-
forming their jobs properly. According to Perry, he
read, studied, and analyzed the daily activity reports that
were written in English and evaluations given him by
Morales and the Holiday Inn report cards58 in an effort
to determine any pattern as to what the maids were
doing wrong. The situation came to a head on Septem-
ber 11 when a guest was checked into three consecutive
dirty rooms.
According to Perry, on the following day when he re-
lated this occurrence to Shepard, she said:
Well, that's because the Maids are putting Do Not
Disturb signs on the rooms and showing them in
our Housekeeping Report as cleaned. And she said,
"That's extremely dangerous, `cause somebody's
5 ' According to Shepard , she was expecting some violence and did not
want "to get stuck with all those paychecks " She does not explain why
she expected violence
5s Evaluation of the hotel sent by guests to Holiday Inn, Inc on forms
provided in each guest room
going to get their head shot off because of it."
That's the type of stuff happens. You cannot do that
in hotels.
And she said, "I can't get it stopped." That's the
reason why Ruth is complaining all the time that
she comes to work with four dirty rooms that the
Southern Pacific Railroad crew had just happened
to leave at 6:00 o'clock, or maybe five rooms, and
we end up with 20, 'cause we thought they were all
cleaned . That's the kind of stuff's going on here. I
never seen nothing like it.
According to Perry, he decided that night that he was
going to have to shut the hotel down in approximately 3
weeks and lay everyone off; and then, in approximately
30 days, try to get reorganized and start over again. But
first he decided to "give it one more shot" and try to see
if he could get rid of the "troublemakers and problems
makers."59 He decided to check on the information he
had received from Morales and , within a period of 1 of 2
days, he personally inspected a minimum of three rooms
cleaned by each of the maids considered to be problem
maids, and found something wrong with each room.
On September 14 or 15, according to Perry, he decid-
ed to fire approximately 21 maids. He did not communi-
cate the decision to either Shepard or Morales. Then on
September 16, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Maria tele-
phoned him and said Shepard had just laid off a group of
employees and asked him to come down and okay it.60
Maria gave him the timecards of the 15 maids Shepard
wanted to discharge. Perry checked the reports and eval-
uations that Morales had given him and concluded that
he, Shepard, and Morales all agreed as to the maids She-
pard wanted to discharge. He then approved the dis-
charges.
Perry testified that one of the reasons it was necessary
to discharge so many employees at once was that he
ceased making any discharges when the Union began or-
ganizing . So instead of discharging about one person a
week, Respondent did not discharge anyone for about 5-
1/2 months. He further testified that mass discharges
such as those herein are not unique in his businesses. In
April, according to him, he discharged all eight persons
employed in the bar because they had been overcharg-
ing, and in August he discharged the housekeeper and
approximately 16 maids at the Burbank hotel because he
had the same problems there that he was having in the
Glendale hotel. 61
2. Conclusions
I credit the employee witnesses that they were told
they were being discharged because Respondent had not
passed the inspection. Their testimony is mutually cor-
ss Perry testified that by troublemakers he meant those who made ob-
scene finger motions to each other in the corridors, used Spanish obsceni-
ties, slept in guest beds, watched television, caused sabotage problems,
and carved initials in elevator walls He denies any reference to union
activities
so Perry testified that it is Respondent's policy to notify him if two or
more employees are laid off.
si I note that these discharges took place after Bettis told Perry that
union representatives were talking to the maids at Burbank
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
roborative and I have previously found Shepard' to be an
unreliable witness. Respondent does not contend that the
dischargees were the worst maids in its employ or even
that they all performed their work poorly. Rather, Re-
spondent contends, Shepard selected for discharge maids
she considered as not retrainable. I reject this argument.
Insubordination was listed as the reason for their dis-
charges on the individual termination slips in Respond-
ent's personnel files, no specific acts of insubordination
were related to the` dischargees during the discharge
interviews, nor were any allegations of specific acts of
insubordination described in the testimony herein. No
predischarge written warnings or notations of oral warn-
ings appear in the dischargees' personnel files. There was
no testimony as to specific incidents of counseling with
dischargees with regard to acts of insubordination or re-
calcitrance as to retraining.
Several dischargees were told they were being dis-
charged because Respondent had not passed the inspec-
tion. Yet Respondent received an average rating as to
guest rooms on the September inspection and, as in all
the 1983 inspections, the rise and fall of Respondent's
ratings seem more closely related to deficiencies as to
capital expenditures than to the work performance of the
maids. Such shifting reasons have been found by the
Board as an indicia of unlawful motivation. Further, the
inspection report and the Holiday Inn report cards show
that there were problems throughout the hotel. Yet the
brunt of Respondent's displeasure fell solely on the
maids, the group of employees responsible for the resur-
gence of union activites.
In view of (1) the shifting reasons given for the dis-
charges; (2) Respondent's knowledge of the resurgence
of union activities; (3) the timing of the discharges-
within 2 weeks after the union activities, 3 days after the
union meeting and the signing of the union authorization
cards by the dischargees, and 2 days after Morales re-
ported this activity to Perry and Shepard; (4) the lack of
specific, rather than general, testimony as to the alleged
work and attitudinal deficiencies of the dischargees; (5)
the animus displayed with regard to the earlier union ac-
tivity and the affirmative steps-threats of reprisals,
promises of benefits, and grants of benefits-taken to dis-
courage such activity:, and (6) the threats of reprisals, if
employees persisted in their support of the Union; (7) the
coercive interrogations of employees as to their union
activities and those of fellow employees; and (8) the so-
licitations of employees to engage in surveillance of the
union activities of fellow employees, I find that the Gen-
eral Counsel has established a prima facie case that the
September 16 discharges were unlawfully motivated by
the employees' union activities. I further find that Re-
spondent has failed to rebut this prima facie showing.
Accordingly, I find that by discharging the 15 maids on
September 16, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act
1. The Alleged Postdischarge Conduct
1. Facts
Rosa Garcia testified that on September 16, following
her discharge, the manager of the apartment building,
1273
owned by Perry, where she lived gave her a 30-day
notice to vacate the apartment. The manager said, for-
give me, but I have to give you the paper. He further
said Joe Perry sent the notice. Later the manager gave
her a 2-week notice to vacate. Still later, she received a
notice that she did not have to vacate the apartment.
Salazar testified that on the morning of September 17,
when she went into the housekeeping office to clock in,
Vivanco asked what she was doing there, if she had been
one of those who left the day before. Vivanco then said
that in 2 weeks the ones that were left were going to
leave but in the meantime they would train the new em-
ployees.
Cruz testified that on' September 118, her first workday
after the' discharges, Morales told her and the other
checkers that Perry wanted another list like the one she
gave, that "you people have to make reports about all
maids for everything." Morales further said that Perry
would take out everyone that was in favor of the Union.
Cruz said she would not make out reports that were not
true.
Cruz further testified that on September 18 Vivanco
asked her if she knew about the discharges. Cruz said she
did and asked Vivanco to explain to her what happened.
Vivanco then showed Cruz a list of the maids who were
discharged. Cruz asked why they discharged some who
had worked there a while and worked well. Vivanco
said it was because of Morales and because the employ-
ees wanted a union. Vivanco further said they had a list
of the next girls to be discharged, that Perry wanted new
personnel because he "wanted to get rid of all that."
Cruz asked if she was included on the list. Vivanco said
she could not tell her. Vivanco testified that she showed
Cruz a paper that had the names of the girls that worked
well and the girls that worked badly. This was a list that
Morales had brought into the housekeeping office. Ac-
cording to Vivanco, Cruz asked why girls who worked
well were discharged as well - as those who worked
badly. Vivanco thinks she responded that maybe it was
because of the Union. Vivanco also said she did not
know what was happening, but maybe the next ones
would be them. She does not recall whether she said
anything about another list of employees.
Otanez testified that on September 17 Vivanco told
her Shepard had another list of more people to be dis-
charged within a week because they were in the Union.
Oianez further testified that on September 20 Vivanco
told her if she had known what was going to happen in
Glendale, it would have been better if Otanez had stayed
at the Burbank hotel.62
Hillabrand testified that on September 19 Morales told
her the girls had not been discharged because of the in-
spection, that she was tired of the girls not paying atten-
tion to her and that she had told Perry. Hi'llabrand fur-
ther testified that on one occasion, the date of which she
cannot recall , Morales told her, Carmen Naranjo, and
some other employees that the Union was not good for
62 Otanez is the employee Vivanco transferred from the Burbank hotel
to the Glendale hotel
1274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
them, that it was not going to function, and if they did
not attend the meetings the Union would fine them $100.
Again Morales was not questioned with regard to spe-
cific alleged conversations. However, she denies that she
ever had any kind of list of employees to be discharged;
that she ever told any maid or checker that she had; that
she was going to make a second list of employees to be
discharged; or that a person whose name was on such a
list would be discharged. According to Morales, she
does not know if such a list exists.
2. Conclusions
As indicated above, I found Morales to be an unreli-
able witness and I do not credit her general denials. I
credit Cruz and Hillabrand as to their conversation with
Morales. Accordingly, I find that Respondent, through
Morales, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threaten-
ing to discharge prounion employees. Further, in the
context of the threats made to, and the coercive interro-
gation of, checkers by Morales within a 3 or 4 day
period prior there, the unlawful discharge of 15 maids
within a day or two following Morales' earlier solicita-
tion of these checkers to engage in surveillance of the
maids as to union activities and to report every small
thing the maids did wrong, and the threat to discharge
prounion employees made during the same conversation,
I find that Morales' statement to the checkers that Perry
wanted another list like the one she had previously given
him, and the checkers would have to make reports about
all maids for everything, could reasonably be interpreted
by these employees as a solicitation of their assistance in
gathering information regarding union activities and re-
garding mistakes in work performance, which mistakes
would be used as a pretext to discharge employees be-
cause of their union activities. I therefore find that Re-
spondent thereby has restrained and coerced employees
in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act
and, accordingly, has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Penn Color, Inc., 261 NLRB 395 (1982).
I also find, in the context of the unlawful conduct by
Morales, including the solicitation of surveillance of the
union activities of fellow employees, and the statements
regarding giving lists to Perry, that Respondent, through
Morales, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling
Hillabrand the maids had not been discharged because of
the inspection, but because of something Morales told
Perry In the circumstances herein, I further find viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act Morales' statement to
employees that the Union was not good for them, that it
was not going to function, and if they did not attend
union meetings the Union would fine them $100.63
As to the notice to Garcia to vacate her apartment,
Respondent adduced no evidence as to why this notice
was issued. The manager gave Garcia no reason other
than he was doing it on Perry's orders Since Respond-
ent's employees paid reduced rents based on their status
as employees, the privilege of occupying one of Perry's
apartments is, at-the very least, a work-related benefit. In
view of the timing, the absence of any showing of a le-
63 There is no testimony that Morales had any information regarding
the Union's policy as to fining members
gitimate reason, and Respondent's conduct found unlaw-
ful herein, I find that Garcia was issued the notice to
vacate her apartment because of her union activities. Ac-
cordingly, I find that Respondent thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Since I have found that Vivanco was not a statutory
supervisor after Shepard became Respondent's executive
housekeeper, and in the absence of any other showing of
agency, I find that Respondent did not violate the Act
by Vivanco's conduct.
J. The Reinstatement of the Discharged Employees
On November 2 the Union won the election. Accord-
ing to Perry, about 3 days later he congratulated Nuck-
olls on winning and said to show his good faith with the
Union he wanted the 15 discharged employees to return
to work all at once. Perry further said he wanted Nuck-
olls to personally march down the corridor with the fif-
teen dischargees behind him and tell all the employees in
the hotel, particularly the housekeeping department, that
the Union got their jobs back. Nuckolls said thank you
very much. They agreed on a date for reinstatement and
thereafter Respondent sent certified letters to all the dis-
chargees telling them their jobs were available. On No-
vember 9, Nuckolls marched all the dischargees down
the corridor at 8:30 a.m.
Perry testified that for the first 2 weeks the discharg-
ees worked 7-1/2- to 8-hour days. However, Respondent
retained the replacements hired after the discharges so
the housekeeping department was overstaffed and the
other employees worked whatever hours were left over,
which averaged about 5 hours a day. About 10 days
after returning to work, according to Perry, Rosa Garcia
told him she had been threatened and the dischargees
were going to need physical protection as long as they
were working 8 hours and the other employees were
only working 5 or 5-1/2 hours.
Perry testified that he related this conversation to
Nuckolls. Nuckolls suggested that he lay off some em-
ployees so the others could work 8-hour days. Perry said
he was afraid of a class action suit if he did that because
he had read in the paper that an employer who had laid
off replacements following a strike had such a suit filed
against him and was liable for backpay. Perry said there
was a risk because he did not tell the replacements there
was a labor dispute and they assumed they had a perma-
nent job Nuckolls said, "Well, I wouldn't worry about
it." Perry said, "Well, sure, you don't worry about it be-
cause it's not your money." Perry said he did not have
the heart to lay off 15 people before Christmas.
Thereafter Perry divided the work equally so that all
the employees worked 5 to 6 hours a day except those
who requested that they work only 20 hours a week so
they could' receive unemployment benefits. This contin-
ued until he received a letter from Nuckolls and Joe
Criscione, dated February 3, 1984, the body of which
reads-
The Union is requesting that all of the Housekeep-
ing Dept. be returned to eight (8) hours per day.
We understand that in doing so, the work force will
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
have to be reduced. This is agreed to be done on a
seniority basis, last hired to be first let go if any em-
ployee has to be removed. This will show good
faith to your employees, and that you are trying to
be fair with all, and in conformance with Agree-
ment signed 1-23-84.
According to Perry, this letter superseded the previous
agreement to put everyone on a 5-hour day 64 Thereaf-
ter, Perry increased the work hours to 8 hours a day and
laid off the replacements as necessary.
K. Other Alleged Unlawful Conduct
1. The interference with the Board investigation
Hillabrand testified that in October Morales ap-
proached her when she was cleaning a guest room and
asked her to give a statement to an NLRB agent. Mo-
rales told her that if the representative of the Govern-
ment asked her anything about the Union she should say
that she did not know anything, that the bosses had not
told her anything. By such interference with a Board in-
vestigation, Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act. See Brigadier Industries, 267 NLRB 559 (1983).
2. The prehearmg interrogation of Vivanco
During the course of the hearing, the complaint herein
was amended to allege that in June 1984, Respondent,
through Perry and Morales, interrogated an employee
concerning her union activities. In support thereof, Vi-
vanco testified that about 2 weeks before she testified in
the hearing herein on June 27, 1984, she was called into
one of the offices. At the time she was working as a
checker. Perry, Morales, and Daniel Berkley, counsel for
Respondent, were present. Morales was translating.
Counsel told her she might be called to testify in the
hearing herein and asked her some questions about
'whether she attended union meetings and conversations
with Cruz. During the course of the discussion, Morales
asked her something which Vivanco does not recall, but
'which made her angry. Vivanco said they did not trust
her and it was someone else who took the copies, that
Cruz had taken some papers and made copies.65 Morales
asked why Vivanco had not told her that Cruz had taken
She papers. Vivanco said she had only recently found
out. Vivanco left following this interchange.
Morales testified that Berkley said "welcome" in Span-
ish. Vivanco asked, "What do you need me for." Berkley
said, "You are welcome to stay if you want, or other-
wise if you do not want to stay here you can go back to
work and this conversation won't interfere in your job."
Berkley said he would probably use Vivanco as a wit-
ness . Berkley tried to speak in Spanish but he could not
finish in Spanish and used English. Morales rendered
64 Nuckolls denies that he ever agreed to dividing the work between
the replacements and the other employees, but admits that Joe Criscione,
secretary-treasurer of the Union, did so I shall leave for a supplemental
proceeding the question of what effect, if any, this has on backpay,
ss Vivanco testified that she did not see the papers that Cruz took and
does not know what they were but she thinks maybe it was the list of the
girls that were discharged or were going to be discharged
1275
some assistance in that regard by translating some words
that Vivanco could not understand.
Morales testified that Vivanco suddenly started saying
that what Morales should know was that Cruz got some
papers from her desk and made two copies of them. Mo-
rales asked , "Why are you telling me that now." Vi-
vanco said, "Well, that's what I want to tell you." Mo-
rales said she supposed Cruz could get copies of what-
ever she wants if Morales was not there. Vivanco said in
Spanish that she saw a list on Shepard's desk. Morales
asked what she was talking about. Vivanco said yes,
about the list of us on Shepard's desk. And Morales
asked if she knew what that paper was. Vivanco said she
saw the list of the maids that were to get fired. Morales
asked, when? Vivanco said, "you came walking through
housekeeping and put the sheet in Mrs. Shepard's desk."
Morales laughed and said, "Did you know what it was9
That was an evaluation that Mrs. Shepard asked me to
do, asked me to make." Vivanco said, "is that what it
was." Morales said, "Jeannie, if you don't know any-
thing, you better don't -talk about things you don't
know." Vivanco asked again, "Is that what it was?" Mo-
rales said , "If you don't know what you're talking about,
just don't talk." Vivanco did not say anything else.
Perry testified that during the meeting Vivanco was
told that her discussing or talking to Berkley was strictly
voluntary and there would be no difficulties and it had
nothing to do with her job status and there would be no
type of reprisals taken and she could leave or stay or talk
or listen or do anything, or so on.
The parties stipulated that if Berkley was called to tes-
tify, he would testify:
Sometime in late May or early June 1984, employee
Ginannia Vivanco came to the housekeeping office
of Mrs. Shepard at the employee's premises some-
time after 6:00 p.m. Berkley, Josefina Morales and
Joseph Perry were present. Berkley first informed
Vivanco in English that her presence was entirely
voluntary, that the purpose of her presence was to
assist in preparing for the hearing in this matter, and
potentially calling Vivanco as a witness regarding
the pending NLRB case. Further, Berkley informed
Vivanco that if she chose not to stay and talk with
Respondent, no reprisals of any kind would result
and there would be no effect of any kind regarding
her job, terms and conditions of employment or any
other matters. Berkley also recited the above in
Spanish to the best of his ability.
The Board has long held that an employer may lawful-
ly interrogate employees on matters involving their Sec-
tion 7 rights where such interrogation is pertinent to the
investigation of facts concerning issues raised in an unfair
labor practice complaint and the employer's preparation
of a defense thereto. However, to avoid incurring 8(a)(l)
liability, the employer must follow specific safeguards
designed by the Board to minimize the coercive impact
of such interrogation. These safeguards, as set forth in
Johnnie's Poultry Co., 146 NLRB 770 (1964), are:
1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[T]he employer must communicate to the employee
the purpose of the questioning , assure him that no
reprisal will take place, and obtain his participation
on a voluntary basis, the questioning must occur in
a context free from employer hostility to union or-
ganization and must not be itself coercive in nature;
and the questions must not exceed the necessities of
the legitimate purpose by prying into other union
matters, eliciting information concerning an employ-
ee's subjective state of mind , or otherwise interfer-
ing with the statutory rights of employees. When an
employer transgresses the boundaries of these safe-
guards, he loses the benefits of the privilege.
In view of Vivanco's admitted poor recollection of
what Berkley said and of Berkley 's representation as to
what he said, which is embodied in the stipulation above,
I find that the interrogation of Vivanco was accompa-
nied by the appropriate safeguards . In the absence of de-
tails as to Berkley's interrogation of Vivanco , I cannot
conclude that his questioning was coercive in nature or
exceeded the necessities of the legitimate purpose of trial
preparation . ss Further , in view of the fact that at the
time of the interrogation the discharged employees had
been reinstated , the replacements had been discharged,
the Union had,been certified as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees , collective bargaining
had commenced , and the complaint alleges no contempo-
raneous unlawful conduct , I cannot conclude that the in-
terrogation was unlawful because it was conducted in the
context of unremedied unfair labor practices. According-
ly, I find that this interrogation of Vivanco did not vio-
late Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has committed unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by:
a. Telling employees the Union would have them de-
ported.
b. Telling employees the Union is not good for them
and would fine them $100 for not attending union meet-
ings.
c. Telling employees that their efforts on behalf of the
Union were futile by informing them that Respondent
would never allow the Union to enter its facility for rep-
resentation purposes.
d. Threatening employees that if the Union got in Re-
spondent would raise the monthly rents paid by certain
employees who lived in housing owned by the Respond-
ent.
66 In this regard , I note that although Vivanco was not a supervisor at
the time of the interrogation , she was a supervisor at times material to
the proceedings herein Thus , questions as to union activities, which
might not ordinarily be appropriate when directed toward employees,
might well be appropriate when the questioning is• directed toward a
period of time critical to the allegations of the complaint when the em-
ployee was a supervisor
e. Threatening to discharge employees because of their
union activities.
f. Threatening employees that if the Union got in Re-
spondent would decrease their pay and/or work hours.
g. Creating , posting, and soliciting employees to sign a
"No Union" list.
h. Threatening employees that the employee who had
removed the "No Union" list from the wall would be
discharged when the employee's identity became known
to Respondent , and promising weekends off to the em-
ployee who informed Respondent of said identity.
i. Promising employees an hourly wage increase if
they would sign the "No Union" list.
j. Threatening employees that if the Union got in Re-
spondent would take away the apartments lived in by
certain employees and owned by Respondent.
k. Threatening employees that if the Union got in Re-
spondent would lower their wages.
1. Threatening employees with deportation , discharge,
and/or rent increases if they failed to sign a "No Union"
list.
in. Telling employees that they would not receive
wage increases because of their support for the Union,
n. Telling employees that other employees had re-
ceived a wage increase because they withdrew or with-
held their support from the Union.
o. Telling employees that Respondent would rather
close down its operations than allow the Union in.
p. Interrogating employees about the Union or con-
certed protected activities of fellow employees and
making promises of benefits to employees conditioned
upon the reporting of said union or concerted protected
activities to management.
q. Soliciting employees to report to Respondent the
union activities, union sympathies, and/or work perform-
ance mistakes of fellow employees , and implying that
mistakes in work performance would be used as a pretext
to discharge employees because of their union activities.
r. Telling employees that owner Joseph A. Perry re-
quested a list of employees engaged in union activities
and that such employees would be discharged.
s. Creating the impression of surveillance of the union
activities of the employees.
t. Interrogating employees with regard to their union
activities and sympathies and those of fellow employees.
u. Interfering with a Board investigation by telling an
employee that if asked by a Board agent, the employee
should deny that Respondent had ever talked to said em-
ployee about the Union.
v. Threatening its employees for having engaged in
union activities by sending a recently unlawfully dis-
charged employee a written notice and order to vacate
the apartment she rented from Respondent.
w. Granting its employees an hourly wage increase in
order to discourage them from engaging in union activi-
ties.
4. Respondent has committed unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by dis-
charging the following employees because they engaged
in union activity:
Isabel Brito Antonia Morales
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
Dora Cano
Helena Chavez
Olga Maria Delgado
Rosanna Erbert
Rosa Maria Garcia
Gilma Isaza
Laura Martinez
Carmen Naranjo
Ana Ramirez
Liliana Ramos
Silvia Rios
Susana Sevillano
Maria Valdiviezo
5. The above-described unfair labor practices are
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. Respondent has not committed unfair labor prac-
tices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by the
conduct of its assistant housekeepers or by the prehear-
ing interrogation of Ginannia "Jeannie" Vivanco.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respond-
ent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
I have found above that on September 16, 1983, Re-
spondent unlawfully discharged the following employees:
Isabel Brito
Dora Cano
Helena Chavez
Olga Maria Delgado
Rosanna Erbert
Rosa Maria Garcia
Gilma Isaza
Laura Martinez
Antonia Morales
Carmen Naranjo
Ana Ramirez
Liliana Ramos
Silvia Rios
Susana Sevillano
Maria Valdiviezo
Accordingly, I shall recommend that, to the extent it has
not already done so, Respondent be ordered to offer
each of them immediate and full reinstatement to her
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to her se-
niority or any other right or privilege previously en-
joyed, and make each of them whole for any loss of
earnings suffered by reason of the discrimination against
her, plus interest , in the manner prescribed in F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).67
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recornmend-
ed68
ORDER
The Respondent, Joseph A. Perry, d/b/a Holiday ][nn-
Glendale, Glendale, California, its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Telling employees the Union will have them de-
ported.
67 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
68 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
1277
(b) Telling employees the Union is not good for them
and will fine them $100 for not attending union meetings.
(c) Telling employees that their efforts on behalf of the
Union are futile by informing them that Respondent
would never allow the Union to enter its facility for rep-
resentation purposes.
(d) Threatening employees that if the Union gets in
Respondent will raise the monthly rents the employees
who live in its housing.
(e) Threatening to discharge employees because of
their union activities.
(f) Threatening employees that if the Union gets in Re-
spondent will decrease their pay and/or work hours.
(g) Creating, posting, and soliciting employees to sign
a "No Union" list.
(h) Threatening employees that the employee who re-
moved a "No Union" list from the wall would be dis-
charged when the employee's identity became known to
Respondent, and promising weekends off to the employ-
ee who informs Respondent of said identity.
(i) Promising employees an hourly wage increase if
they signed the "No Union" list.
(j) Threatening employees that if the Union gets in Re-
spondent will evict employees from the apartments
owned by Respondent.
(k) Threatening employees that if the Union gets in
Respondent will lower their wages.
(1) Threatening employees with deportation, discharge,
and/or rent increases if they fail to sign a "No Union"
list.
(m) Telling employees they will not receive wage in-
creases because of their support for the Union.
(n) Telling employees that other employees have re-
ceived a wage increase because they withdrew or with-
held their support from the Union.
(o) Telling employees that Respondent would rather
close down its operations than allow the Union in.
(p) Interrogating employees about the Union or con-
certed protected activities of fellow employees and
making promises of benefits to employees conditioned
upon the reporting of said union or concerted protected'
activities to management.
(q) Soliciting employees to report to Respondent the
union activities, union sympathies, and/or work perform-
ance mistakes of fellow employees and implying that
mistakes in work performance will be utilized as a pre-
text to discharge employees because of their union activi-
ties and sympathies.
(r) Telling employees that Owner Joseph A. Perry re-
quested a list of employees engaged in union activities
and that such employees would be discharged.
(s) Creating the impression of surveillance of employ-
ees' union activities.
(t) Interrogating employees with regard to their union
activities and sympathies and those of fellow employees.
(u) Interfering with a Board investigation by telling an
employee that if asked by a Board agent, the employee
should deny that Respondent had ever talked to said em-
ployee about the Union.
(v) Threatening its employees for having engaged in
union activities by sending a recently unlawfully dis-
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charged employee a written notice and order to vacate
the' apartment she rented from Respondent.
(w) Granting its employees an hourly wage increase in
order to discourage them from engaging in union activi-
ties.
(x) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) To the extent it has not already done so, offer to
each of the employees listed below immediate and full
reinstatement to her - former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist , to substantially equivalent positions , without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and make each of them whole for
any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of
the discrimination against them , plus interest:
Isabel Brito
Dora Cano
Helena Chavez
Olga Maria Delgado
Rosanna Erbert
Rosa Maria Garcia
Gilma Isaza
Laura Martinez
Antonia Morales
Carmen, Naranjo
Ana Ramirez
Liliana Ramos
Silvia Rios
Susana Sevillano
Maria Valdiviezo
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharges and notify the employees in writing that this
has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against [them, him, her ] in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request , make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at Glendale, California, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix ." 69 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 31,
after being signed by the Respondent 's authorized repre-
sentative , shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced , or covered by any other materi-
al.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it alleges that the conduct of Respondent's as-
sistant housekeepers and the prehearing interrogation of
Ginannia "Jeannie" Vivanco are violations of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
ss If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals , the words to the notice reading "Posted by Order ' of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
In recognition of these rights, we hereby notify our
employees that
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any employees for supporting Hotel Employees
and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local
531, AFL-CIO or any other union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees the Union will have
them deported.
WE WILL NOT tell employees the Union is not good
for them and will fine them $100 for not attending union
meetings.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that their efforts on
behalf of the Union are futile by informing them that we
will never allow the Union to enter our facility for rep-
resentation purposes
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if the Union
gets in, we will raise the monthly rents paid by certain
employees who live in housing owned by us.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge employees be-
cause of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if the Union
gets in, we will decrease their pay and/or work hours.
WE WILL NOT create, post, or solicit employees to
sign, a "No Union" list.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that the employee
who removed a "No Union" list from the wall will be
discharged when the employee's identity becomes known
to us, or promise weekends off to the employee who in-
forms us of said identity.
WE WILL NOT promise employees an hourly wage in-
crease if they will sign a "No Union" list
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if the Union
gets in, we will evict employees from the apartments
owned by us.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees that if the Union
gets in, we will lower their wages.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with deportation,
discharge, and/or rent increases if they fall to sign a "No
Union" list
WE WILL NOT tell employees they will not receive
wage increases because of their support for the Union.
HOLIDAY INN-GLENDALE
WE WILL NOT tell employees that other employees
have received a wage increase because they withdrew or
withheld their support from the Union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that we would rather
close down our operations than allow the Union in.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about the Union
or concerted protected activities of fellow employees or
make promises of benefits to employees conditioned
upon the reporting of said union or concerted protected
activities to us.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees to report to us the
union activities , union sympathies, and/or work perform-
ance mistakes of fellow employees, and imply that mis-
takes in work performance will be utilized as a pretext to
discharge employees because of their union activities and
sympathies.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that our employ-
ees' union activities are undersurveillance by telling an
employee that we know which employees favor the
Union.
WE WILL NOT tell employees that Owner Joseph A.
Perry requested a list of employees engaged in union ac-
tivities and that such employees will be discharged.
WE WILL NOT create the impression of surveillance of
the union activities of ouremployees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees with regard to
their union activities and sympathies and those of fellow
employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with a National Labor Rela-
tions Board investigation by telling an employee that, if
asked by an agent of the National Labor Relations Board
the employee should deny that we had ever talked to
said employee about the Union.
1279
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees for having en-
gaged in union activities by,sending a recently unlawful-
ly discharged employee a written notice and order to
vacate the apartment she rented from Owner Joseph A.
Perry.
WE WILL NOT grant our employees an hourly wage in-
crease in order to discourage them from engaging in
union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related matter interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to each of the employees named below
immediate and full reinstatement to her former job, or if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent po-
sitions, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed, and make each of
them whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from their discharge , plus interest , less any in-
terim earnings:
Isabel Brito
Dora Cano
Helena Chavez
Olga Maria Delgado
Rosanna Erbert
Rosa Maria Garcia
Gilma Isaza
Laura Martinez
Antonia Morales
Carmen Naranjo
Ana Ramirez
Liliana Ramos
Silvia Rios
Susana Sevillano
Maria Valdiviezo
WE WILL notify each of them that we have removed
from our files any reference to her discharge and that the
discharge will not be used against her in any way.
JOSEPH A. PERRY D/B/A HOLIDAY INN-
GLENDALE