Jim Bradley's Bucks Co. Country House

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 1163 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

JIM BRADLEY 'S BUCKS CO. COUNTRY HOUSE 1163
J.D.B., Inc., d/b/a Jim Bradley's Bucks Co . Country
House and Rita Marie Young , Marie McLaughlin,
and Robert J. Maloney. Cases 4-CA-7437, 4-CA-
7441, and 4-CA-7465
April 29, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On January 20, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Joseph I. Nachman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in answer to the exceptions filed
by the Respondent.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that the Respondent, J.D.B., Inc., d/b/a Jim
Bradley's Bucks Co. Country House, Cornwells
Heights, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
' The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
consolidated complaint 2 pursuant to Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein Act),
which alleges in substance, that during and subsequent to
an organizational campaign by Local 274, Dining Room,
Catering, Delicatessen, Food Service & Preparation Em-
ployees & Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO (herein Union,
J. D. B., Inc., d/b/a Jim Bradley's Bucks Co. Country
House (herein Respondent or Company), interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights; and on May 26, discharged its em-
ployee Rita Young because of her sympathy for and activi-
ties on behalf of the Union. By answer duly filed, Respon-
dent admitted certain allegations of the complaint, but
denied the commission of any unfair labor practice. For
reasons hereafter more fully stated, I find the allegations of
the complaint sustained by the evidence, and recommend
an appropriate remedial order.
At the hearing all parties were permitted to introduce
relevant and material evidence, to examine and cross-ex-
amine witnesses , to argue orally on the record, and to sub-
mit briefs. Oral argument was waived. Briefs submitted by
the General Counsel and Respondent, respectively, have
been duly considered. Upon the pleadings, stipulations of
counsel, the evidence, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses while testifying, and the entire rec-
ord in the case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
Respondent is engaged at Cornwell Heights, Pennsylva-
nia, in the operation of a restaurant and bar. In late 1974,
the Union launched a campaign to organize Respondent's
theretofore unorganized employees. Following the statuto-
ry procedure, the Board conducted an election on Febru-
ary 28, which resulted in a certification that the Union was
not the collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the unit petitioned for. No issue concerning the elec-
tion or its validity is involved in this proceeding.
A. The Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
The General Counsel contends that during and after the
Union's campaign Respondent interfered with its employ-
ees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. The incident
upon which the General Counsel relies are:
1. Waitress Rita Young was on duty the night of New
Year's Eve, and a bar had been set up in the kitchen from
which the employees were permitted to order drinks for
themselves, without charge. While having a drink at the
bar, Mrs. Bradley, the wife of the owner and an admitted
supervisor, approached Young and said, "Rita, it's a shame
all you nice girls are going to lose your jobs." Young asked
what she meant. Mrs. Bradley replied, "Rita, you know
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOSEPH I. NACHMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This pro-
ceeding , heard before me at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
October 28,' with all parties duly represented, involves a
1 This and all dates hereafter mentioned are 1975, unless otherwise indi-
cated.
2 Issued August 28, based on three separate charges. In Case 4-CA-7437,
the charge was filed June 10 and amended August 18. In Case 4-CA-7441,
the charge was filed June 12. In Case 4-CA-7465, the charge was filed June
23, and amended August 8.
3 No issue of commerce or labor organization is presented . The complaint
alleges, and the answer admits, facts which establish those jurisdictional
elements. I find those facts to be as pleaded.
223 NLRB No. 185
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
you belong to that Union ." When Young hesitated, Mrs.
Bradley called attention to the hesitation , and Young, dis-
claiming any knowledge of the Union , left the room.4
2. Sometime in March , a notice was posted directing all
waitresses to attend a meeting the following Sunday to
meet Rose Sharp , the new head hostess , and all the wait-
resses attended . Following the meeting , Company Presi-
dent Bradley opened the bar and invited all for drinks.
During this period Bradley approached Young and said, "I
intend to get everyone of you that were in the Union."
Young commented , "Will you please let it drop?" but
Bradley responded , "No, I don 't intend to." 5
3. Sometime in January , the Union held a meeting at a
local restaurant known as "The Shack ," which was attend-
ed by a number of Respondent's employees, including
waitress Marie McLaughlin who had some activity in the
organizational campaign. Before this union meeting at The
Shack, Bradley asked McLaughlin if Giles 6 had called her
about joining the Union . When McLaughlin replied in the
negative, Bradley accused her of lying to him . McLaughlin
then asked Bradley if Giles had called any of the other
girls, and Bradley replied that Giles had not done so. Mc-
Laughlin then asked what made Bradley think Giles had
called her . Bradley then stated that there was no use talk-
ing to McLaughlin ; that she would only lie to him, and
with that he walked away.
4. Also prior to the union meeting at The Shack, Brad-
ley, in a conversation with McLaughlin , accused her of
taking a financial report from his office and making it
available to the Union.8
5. Shortly after the union meeting at The Shack, Bradley
engaged McLaughlin in conversation and asked if she had
attended that meeting . McLaughlin replied that she had,
and added that she had done so openly, and didn't care
who knew it. Bradley then asked what other employees had
attended the meeting. McLaughlin replied that except for
the fact that she had attended , she would provide him with
no other information . Bradley then accused McLaughlin of
being the "ring leader" in the organizing campaign?
6 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Young. Mrs.
Bradley did not testify.
s Based on the credited testimony of Young . Although Bradley denied
that he threatened any employee because of union activity , he did not deny
this specific statement attributed to him by Young. To the extent that his
testimony may be regarded as in conflict with that of Young. I do not credit
him.
6 Giles was a former employee of Respondent who had been discharged
and was probably the leading force in the effort to organize Respondent's
employees.
Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of McLaughlin.
Although Bradley testified in quite some detail , he did not deny this conver-
sation with McLaughlin . In his affidavit given to the Board , Bradley admit-
ted he may have had such a conversation with McLaughlin , but said he did
not actually recall.
6 Based on the credited testimony of McLaughlin and the admission of
Bradley . In his affidavit, Bradley claims he did not accuse McLaughlin of
stealing the report and meant only to say that she or someone had made it
available to the Union . He admitted that he told McLaughlin that if the
Union wanted his financial records, he would provide them , and they would
then see that he could not afford a union.
9 Based on the credited testimony of McLaughlin. Bradley admitted in his
affidavit that he knew McLaughlin had attended the meeting , claiming that
he was so informed by another employee . He did not deny the remarks
attributed to him by McLaughlin nor did he deny that he asked McLaugh-
6. On a date not disclosed by the record, but apparently
during the Union's campaign, McLaughlin and another
waitress were seated at a table in the restaurant. Bradley
approached, showed McLaughlin a photograph and asked
if she knew the individual depicted therein. McLaughlin
replied that to her knowledge she had never seen the indi-
vidual. Bradley then stated that she should know the man
because "he is the leader of your union," and added that
no gangster or mobster was going to take over his business;
that he would padlock it first.10
7. About a week following the election, Bradley and
McLaughlin had another conversation concerning the
Union. The discussion opened with Bradley's assertion that
McLaughlin was not a dedicated employee. After some
discussion of Bradley' s assertion , which McLaughlin de-
nied, Bradley asked if McLaughlin had signed a union
card. McLaughlin denied that she had done so. Bradley
then asked if McLaughlin knew what other employees had
signed cards. McLaughlin admitted that she knew, but that
she would not reveal this information to Bradley and add-
ed that his questions indicated that he regarded her as a
leader in the union movement. Bradley then stated that it
was a good thing the Union lost the election, because had
it won he would have closed his establishment."
8. Robert Maloney was employed by Respondent as a
bartender. According to his uncontradicted testimony, he
contacted the Union, distributed authorization cards, and
participated in at least three union meetings. After the
union cards had been signed, and apparently after the
Union's representation petition had been filed,'2 Bradley
went to Maloney and said "you gave out pledge cards."
Maloney admitted this was true. Bradley then asked why
Maloney had done so, and the latter replied that he
thought a union necessary.13
lin what other employees had attended the union meeting . Bradley did deny
that he accused McLaughlin of being the "ring leader" of the campaign, but
J do not credit his denial.
10 Based on the credited testimony of McLaughlin . As a witness, Bradley
gave no testimony regarding this incident . In his affidavit given the Board
during the investigation of this matter, Bradley stated that the photograph
had been given him by a customer who stated that this was the man who
was trying to organize his establishment and that the man was involved in
criminal activity . He admitted that he showed the photograph to McLaugh-
lin, but claims that he just said "He is one of the fellows in the Union who
may be leading you" He did not deny that he threatened to padlock the
place.
11 Based on the credited testimony of McLaughlin. Testifying as a wit-
ness, Bradley gave no evidence relating to this incident.
12 Maloney fixed the time of this incident as having occurred after Brad-
ley had been notified about the Union. Bradley testified that he learned of
some communication sent to him by the Board during the Christmas-New
Year period. I assume this refers to the representation petition which the
Union filed , and which resulted in the Board-conducted election on Febru-
ary) 28.
3 Based on the credited testimony of Maloney and the admissions of
Bradley . As a witness, Bradley gave no evidence regarding this incident,
other than his admission that when he learned of the union movement, he
went to the employees and asked why they did this, although he claimed
that even as late as February, the only one he knew definitely to be connect-
ed with the union movement was Giles . However, in his affidavit given the
Board , Bradley admitted that he learned Maloney was in the kitchen hand.
ing out cards (although he did not in this sentence fix the time he learned
this), and in a later portion of his affidavit admitted that in January, after
receiving notice of the Union 's petition from the Board , he went to Maloney
and asked if the latter knew anything about the Union "trying to get in
here." and later told Maloney that he (Bradley) understood Maloney had
been distributing union cards.
JIM BRADLEY 'S BUCKS CO . COUNTRY HOUSE 1165
9. About a week before the union meeting at The Shack,
Mrs. Bradley engaged Maloney in conversation stating that
she did not want the Union; that anyone attending union
meetings was against her and would have to go; and that if
the Union came in she would close the place.14
10. During the union campaign, head hostess, Wiles, an
admitted supervisor, told Maloney that the Bradleys did
not want a union, and if it came in, they would close the
restaurant."
11. The General Counsel contends that by an undated
letter, but admittedly circulated among its employees dur-
ing the election campaign, Respondent threatened to close
its restaurant if the employees selected the Union as their
bargaining representative. In pertinent part, the letter
states:
Before this union election I would like to speak to
every employee straight from the shoulder.
I want you to know that I love this restaurant busi-
ness but I don't love it enough to operate in the atmo-
sphere of fear and dissension which crept into
Bradley's when these outsiders moved in to do what
they call "organization."
up her drinks at the bar, she noticed that there was seven
drinks on the tray instead of the six she ordered. Informing
the bartender of the error, she removed one drink from the
tray and placed it on the counter. Bradley was standing at
the bar and observed this. As Young then began to move
away from the bar, Bradley asked her where the "dupe"
was. Young explained that the drinks would be paid for by
a customer at the bar. Bradley then told the bartender to
add the drinks to the bar check immediately and to bring
the check to him. Bradley then turned back to Young and,
referring to the fact that there had been seven drinks on the
tray said, it's just like that brandy you didn't charge for 2
weeks ago. Young asked if Bradley was calling her a thief.
Bradley's only reply was "get out of here and serve those
drinks, and I will watch every drink you take from the bar
from now on." 11 Bradley admits that he questioned Young
about the "dupes," but he did not deny that the told Young
to serve the drinks, and that he would thereafter watch her
whenever she took drinks from the bar.
After completing her shift at 2 a.m. on May 23, Young
was not scheduled to work again until 5 p.m., May 28.
However, during that morning Young received a telephone
call at her home from head hostess Sharp, who stated that
she had discussed the situation with Bradley, that the latter
did not like her attitude, and that her services were no
longer required."
A house divided against itself cannot stand. If we at
Bradley's remain UNDIVIDED, we can all look to a rosy
future-if we are DIVIDED-just call me Old General
McArthur.
B. The Discharge of Rita Young
Young began working for Respondent as a waitress on
March 21, 1971, and continued in that capacity until her
discharge on May 26, 1975. There is no evidence, nor does
Respondent contend that prior to the incidents hereafter
referred to, that Young's work performance was other than
satisfactory. Indeed, Young credibly testified that she had
been complimented for her work by head hostess Sharp, as
well as by customers in the presence of Mrs. Bradley. As
heretofore found, Young was one of the employees interro-
gated by Respondent and threatened with discharge be-
cause of her support of the Union.
The last day Young actually worked was May 23, when
her shift was from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. During this shift Young
was serving a party of eight, and was told by a man at the
bar that he was a friend of the group and wished to buy
drinks for them. After informing the group of the situation
and obtaining orders for six drinks, Young gave the orders
to the bartender, and in accordance with established proce-
dure, told the latter to put the charges for the drinks on the
tab of an identified guest at the bar.16 When Young picked
14 Based on the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Maloney. As
indicated, Mrs. Bradley did not testify.
15 Based on the credited testimony of Maloney. Wiles was not called as a
witness, nor was the failure to call her explained.
16 The evidence is uncontradicted that when customers order drinks at the
table, these are billed on a separate check (known as a "dupe"), which at the
proper time is attached to the restaurant check, and the customer pays the
C. Contentions and Conclusions
Upon consideration of the entire record, I find and con-
clude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
by the following conduct:
1. The statement by Mrs. Bradley to Rita Young, made
total. However, when the drinks are ordered or are to be paid for by a
customer at the bar, the charge is made directly to the bar check, and no
"dupe"is prepared.
1 The reference to the brandy 2 weeks earlier, referred to an incident
where Young served a table of four. One man in the party ordered a brandy
on the rocks, which she served and made the usual charge of $1.50. On the
second round the customer ordered another brandy, but no ice. Realizing
that this called for a large amount of liquor, Young asked bartender Sandy
to whom she gave the order, what she should charge for such a drink, and
was told the proper charge was $3. The customer then ordered another
brandy, again without ice. This time bartender Maloney filled her order and
asked what she was charging for such a drink. Young stated that she had
been told by Sandy that $3 was the proper charge. Maloney replied that it
was not sufficient , and the charge should be $5. Young then corrected the
"dupe" to show a charge of $5 for each of the two drinks without ice, and so
far as the evidence shows the customer paid the bill without question. Brad-
ley admits that he observed all this, wondered what charge was being made
for the drinks referred to, and looked through the "dupes" but saw nothing
to cover this, and that he said nothing to Young about the matter. He claims
that he asked the bartender (whom he did not identify) about it, but could
obtain no information. I do not regard Bradley's testimony as being in
conflict with that of Young, but to the extent that it may so be regarded, I
credit Young.
18 Sharp testified that as head hostess she made the decision to discharge
Young, and that she did so without consulting Bradley. Although Sharp
gave considerable testimony about Young's inefficiency as a waitress, she
did not deny the testimony of Young, which I credit, that Sharp had com-
plimented her on her work. Moreover, Sharpe admitted that Young's al-
leged unsatisfactory performance as a waitress played no part in the deci-
sion to discharge her and claimed that the real reason for the discharge was
because the incident over the "dupes" and the drinks, and her failure to tell
Bradley that she was sorry, but instead told other employees that Bradley
had accused her of being a thief. Sharp did not impress me as 'a witness
whose testimony I could accept with any confidence.
1166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the New Year's Eve party, that it was a shame that all
the girls were going to lose their jobs because they be-
longed to the Union. This was a clear threat to discharge
employees because they were seeking union representation.
As Respondent admitted in its answer that Mrs. Bradley
was a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, I must and
do reject the contention that it should not be held responsi-
ble for her conduct because she allegedly exercised very
little authority in the management of the business.
2. Bradley's statement to Rita Young, made shortly fol-
lowing the election , that he intended to get everyone of the
employees that supported the Union, and that he had no
intention of letting the matter drop. This was also a plain
threat to discharge employees because of their union activi-
ties.
3. Bradley's interrogation of employee McLaughlin as
to whether she had been contacted about joining the
Union , his interrogation of McLaughlin as to whether she
had attended the union meeting at The Shack , and what
other employees had attended, and his charge that she was
the "ring leader" of the movement , as well as his accusa-
tion made to McLaughlin that she had taken a financial
report from his office for the purpose of making it avail-
able to the Union . By these questions, as well as by his
accusation , Bradley placed McLaughlin in the position of
being called upon to declare whether or not she supported
the Union . The accusation concerning the financial state-
ment also created the impression that Bradley was engag-
ing in surveillance of the union activities of Respondent's
employees.
4. Bradley's statement to McLaughlin that the individu-
al depicted in the photograph he exhibited to her was a
leader in the Union , that he would not permit him to take
over his business , and would padlock the place before he
would permit this to happen . This was a threat to go out of
business if the employees succeeded in obtaining union
representation.
5. Bradley's interrogation of McLaughlin as to whether
she had signed a union card , and the identity of other em-
ployees who had done so, as well as his statement on this
occasion that had the Union won the election he would
have closed his establishment . Although this incident oc-
curred after the election , I nonetheless find , under the cir-
cumstances of this case , that the conduct violated the Act,
because Bradley continued his unlawful conduct stating, as
found above, that he would get every employee who sup-
ported the Union, and in fact discharged Young on May
26, a discharge which for reasons hereafter stated, I find to
have been discriminatorily motivated.
6. Bradley's interrogation of Maloney as to whether the
latter had distributed union authorization cards , and why
he had done so. Such interrogation of an employee by his
employer is , absent some legitimate reason-evidence of
which is entirely lacking here-and without adequate as-
surance against reprisal , is inherently coercive and consti-
tutes interference with the statutory rights of the employee,
and hence violates Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. Long Island
Limousine Co., 191 NLRB 94 (1971).
7. For reasons heretofore stated, Mrs. Bradley's state-
ments to Maloney, just prior to the meeting at The Shack,
that any employee who attended union meetings was
against her and would have to go, and that if the Union
became the collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees she would close the establishment, constituted in-
terference with the Section 7 rights of the employees, as
well as restraint and coercion which that Section prohibits.
For the same reason, the statement by Wiles, then head
hostess, and whose supervisory status is admitted in
Respondent's answer, that if the Union became the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees, the Brad-
leys would close the restaurant.
8. The letter which Respondent circulated among the
employees during the election campaign which contained
the statement that, if we at Bradley's remain undivided we
can all look to a rosy future-if we are divided just call
me old General McArthur, when considered in context,
was a threat to close his establishment if the Union were
successful in its campaign to become the representative of
the employees. The statement does not stand in isolation,
and was quite plainly put in writing to impress on the em-
ployees what they had been theretofore told by the Brad-
leys and by Supervisor Wiles. For this reason,
Respondent's letter must be regarded as a threat of reprisal
against the employees if they selected the Union to repre-
sent them and hence violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
Sinclair Refining Co. v. N.L.R.B., 395 U.S. 575, 618-620
(1969).
Additionally, I find and conclude that the discharge of
Rita Young was discriminatorily motivated and hence vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. I reach this conclu-
sion based on the totality of the following considerations:
(1) Young worked for Respondent for something over 4
years without complaint concerning her job performance.
Indeed the uncontradicted evidence is that she was com-
plimented for her work by head hostess Sharp, and the
latter admitted that Young's job performance was not the
reason for her discharge.
(2) The Section 8(a)(1) violations herein found clearly
establish the union animus of the Bradleys.
(3) Young was told by the Bradleys that she would be
discharged because of her assistance to and support of the
Union.
(4) Young's discharge was abrupt and without prior
warning, except for Respondent's unlawful threats. The
only reason given Young for the discharge was that Brad-
ley did not like her attitude.
(5) The reason given by Sharp for her discharge of
Young was that the latter, instead of expressing her regrets
for the incident involving the absence of the "dupe," told
her fellow employees that Bradley had accused her of
being a thief.
(6) What all this adds up to is that a theretofore satisfac-
tory employee who was known to be a union supporter,
and against whom Respondent had openly stated that it
would retaliate, is suddenly discharged without prior notice
or warning. In these circumstances it is appropriate to in-
fer, as I do, that union antipathy was the motivating cause
of young's discharge. As the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit stated the principle in Shattuck Denn Mining
Corporation v. N.L.R.B. 362 F.2d 466, 470 (1966):
If he [the trier of fact] finds that the stated motive for
a discharge is false, he certainly can infer that there is
another motive. More than that, he can infer that the
JIM BRADLEY 'S BUCKS CO . COUNTRY HOUSE 1167
motive is one that the employer desires to conceal-an
unlawful motive-at least where, as in this case, the
surrounding facts tend to reinforce that inference.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the entire record in
the case, I find and conclude that Young was discharged
because of her assistance to and support of the Union, and
hence her discharge violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire rec-
ord in the case , I state the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2) of the Act and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the conduct set forth in section I, C, 1-8 hereof,
Respondent interfered with , coerced , and restrained its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
4. By discharging Rita Young on May 26 because of her
assistance to and support of the Union , Respondent dis-
criminated against her in regard to her wages , hours, and
terms and conditions of employment to discourage mem-
bership in the Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by the Act, it
will be recommended that it be required to cease and desist
therefrom and to take the affirmative action set forth be-
low, designed and found necessary to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent interfered with, coerced,
and restrained its employees in the exercise of rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act and discriminatorily
discharged Rita Young , I conclude from the totality of that
unlawful conduct that Respondent should be required to
cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights . N. L, R. B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d
532 (C.A. 4); California Lingerie, Inc., 129 NLRB 912
(1960).
To remedy the discharge of Rita Young, it will be rec-
ommended that Respondent be required to offer her imme-
diate , full, and unconditional reinstatement to her former
or substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges or working condi-
tions, and make her whole for any loss of earnings suf-
fered , by paying to her a sum of money equal to the
amount she would have earned from May 26 , 1975, to the
date it offers her reinstatement as aforesaid , less any
amounts she may have earned as wages during said period.
Such backpay shall be computed in accordance with the
formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289 (1950), with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum,
as provided in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962). It will be further recommended that Respondent be
required to preserve and, upon request, make available to
authorized agents of the Board, all records necessary or
useful in determining compliance with the Board's Order
herein, or in computing the amount of backpay due.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recom-
mended:
ORDER 19
Respondent, J.D.B., Inc., d/b/a Jim Bradley's Bucks Co.
Country House, Cornwell Heights, Pennsylvania, its offi-
cers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Coercively interrogating any employee concerning
his or her sympathies for or activities on behalf of Local
274, Dining Room, Catering, Delicatessen, Food Service &
Preparation Employees'& Bartenders Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization of its employees.
(b) Threatening to close its business if its employees are
successful in obtaining representation by a labor organiza-
tion.
(c) Threatening its employees with discharge because
they seek or obtain union representation.
(d) Engaging in any conduct from which its employees
may reasonably infer that their activities on behalf of a
labor organization is under surveillance by it.
(e) Coercively interrogating employees as to whether
said employee, or other employees, had signed or distribut-
ed an authorization card for any labor organization.
(f) Discouraging membership in the above-mentioned or
any other labor organization of its employees, by discharg-
ing or otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment or any other term or condition of
employment of its employees.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed and
found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Rita Young immediate, full, and unconditional
reinstatement to her former job or, if such job no longer
19 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
1168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exists, to a substantially equivalent one, without prejudice
to her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for any loss of earnings suffered by reason of the
discrimination against her in the manner prescribed in the
section hereof entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to au-
thorized agents of the National Labor Relations Board, for
examination and copying, all payroll records, social securi-
ty payment records , timecards , personnel records and re-
ports, and all other records necessary or useful in de-
termining compliance with this Order, or in computing the
amount of backpay due as herein provided.
(c) Post at its establishment in Cornwell Heights, Penn-
sylvania , copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix" m Copies of said notice , on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 4 (Philadelphia, Pennsylva-
nia), shall , after being signed by an authorized representa-
tive, be posted as herein provided immediately upon re-
ceipt thereof, and be so maintained for a period of 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places , includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the aforesaid Regional Director, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps it
has taken to comply herewith.
20 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall 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
After a hearing at which all parties had the opportunity to
present their evidence , it has been decided that we, J.D.B.,
Inc., d/b/a Jim Bradley's Bucks Co. Country House, vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act, and we have been
ordered by the National Labor Relations Board to post
this notice. We intend to carry out the order of the Board,
the Judgment of any court enforcing the same, and abide
by the following:
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with our em-
ployees in the exercise of the aforesaid rights . All our
employees are free to become or remain members of
Local 274, Bartenders Union, or not to become or re-
main members of that or any other union.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate any employee
regarding his or her sympathies for or activities on
behalf of any union.
WE WILL NOT discharge or threaten our employees
with discharge because they seek or obtain union rep-
resentation.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our business because
our employees seek or obtain union representation.
WE WILL NOT engage in any conduct from which our
employees may reasonably infer that their union activ-
ities are being watched by us.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees as to
whether they, or any other employees, have signed or
distributed authorization cards for any union.
WE WILL offer Rita Young immediate, full, and un-
conditional reinstatement to her former or substantial-
ly equivalent position, without prejudice to her senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and make her whole
for any loss of pay suffered by reason of her discharge
together with 6 percent interest.
J.D.B. INC., d/b/a JIM BRADLEY'S BUCKS CO.
COUNTRY HOUSE