Morrison Cafeteria Co., Inc., of Tallahassee

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY 523
Morrison Cafeteria Company, Inc., of Tallahassee and
United Hotel , Motel, Restaurant and Lounge Em-
ployees Union and Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Em-
ployees and Bartenders International Union, Local
Union No. 737, AFL-CIO. cases 12-CA-6304 and
12-CA-6305
October 31, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND
KENNEDY
On July 18, 1974, Administrative Law Judge Da-
vid S. Davidson issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent and United Ho-
tel, Motel, Restaurant and Lounge Employees Union
filed exceptions and supporting briefs and the Gener-
al Counsel filed an answering brief.
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
after referred to as United, on March 18 , 1974. The charge
in Case 12-CA-6305 was filed by Hotel , Motel , Restaurant
Employees and Bartenders International Union, Local
Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as Local
737, on March 19 , 1974, and was thereafter amended on
March 29 , 1974. Pursuant to these charges , a consolidated
complaint issued on May 9 , 1974, alleging that Respondent
unlawfully suspended employee Kenneth Lipscomb for 30
days and engaged in other acts of interference , restraint,
and coercion . Respondent filed an answer denying the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
On June 17, 1974, a hearing was held before me in Talla-
hassee , Florida . Respondent did not appear at the hearing
by counsel or otherwise . Upon being satisfied that Respon-
dent had notice of the time and place of hearing , I proceed-
ed to hear evidence in support of the complaint from the
parties present . At the conclusion of the hearing , oral argu-
ment was heard, and the parties were given leave to file
briefs or memoranda . A brief has been received from Re
spondent , and a memorandum has been received from
United.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent , a Florida corporation , is engaged in the op-
eration of a cafeteria in Tallahassee, Florida . It has annual
retail sales in excess of $500,000, and annually purchases
goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which it
receives indirectly from points outside the State of Florida.
I find that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effec-
tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
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 Respondent, Morrison Cafeteria Compa-
ny, Inc., of Tallahassee, Florida, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
i 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 (CA 3, 1951) We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DAVID S. DAVIDSON, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in Case 12-CA-6304 was filed by United Hotel,
Motel , Restaurant and Lounge Employees Union, herein-
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 737 is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act.'
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Beginning of the Union Activity and the Alleged
Independent Violations of Section 8(a)(1)
1. During late 1973, one or two employees at
Respondent 's cafeteria became dissatisfied with some of
the working conditions at the cafeteria and spoke about
their concerns with John Stephens , an insurance agent and
a friend.' Stephens said he would speak to some people he
i The complaint does not allege that United is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. The question of United 's status as a labor organiza-
tion is at issue in a related representation case, and the General Counsel has
taken the position that resolution of that question is not necessary to a
decision in this case
1 The findings of fact which appear herein are based on the uncontradict-
ed and credited testimony of Carl Ford, Annie Lanier, Mary Washington,
Zandra Harper, and Kenneth Lipscomb . In its brief Respondent contends
that it was unreasonably denied postponement of the hearing by the Re-
gional Director and was thereby denied an opportunity to be represented
and cross-examine the witnesses It contends for that reason the "testimo-
Continued
214 NLRB No. 80
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knew, and shortly thereafter a meeting was held at Ste-
phens' house which was attended by about half of
Respondent's 60 employees and two representatives of Lo-
cal 737. At the meeting the Local 737 representative spoke
about the advantages of belonging to a union and made
authorization cards available. During the meeting one of
the Local 737 representatives asked if there were any su-
pervisors present. Number one waiter Willis Barber and
number two waiter Ira Miller stood and identified them-
selves as supervisors. A number of employees signed au-
thorization cards at the meeting, and a few employees so-
licited signatures from others thereafter. At some point fol-
lowing the meeting United was formed and Stephens
became its secretary. Some of the employees who had at-
tended the meeting at Stephens' house joined and began to
work on behalf of United rather than Local 737.
The General Counsel contends that the presence of Bar-
ber and Miller at the meeting at Stephens' home constitut-
ed surveillance of employee union activities. Respondent
contends that their presence at the meeting did not consti-
tute surveillance because they freely and openly revealed
their presence, because a majority of the employees present
signed cards, and because there is no evidence that Barber
and Miller were secretive, furtive, or disruptive, or that
they were asked to leave.3 There is no question that Barber
and Miller were present at the meeting and in a position to
observe the identity and activity of others present. A find-
ing of surveillances does not depend on a showing of in-
tent, secretiveness, disruption, or impact on all employees
present. It is the tendency of the presence of supervision at
such meetings to inhibit the free exercise of employee
rights which causes the Board to view such conduct as un-
lawful surveillance .4 While extenuating circumstances,
such as a specific invitation to attend the meeting, may be
shown, there was no explanation offered for the presence
of Barber and Miller at the meeting at Stephens' house.
Accordingly, I find that by their attendance at the meeting,
Respondent engaged in surveillance in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
roes of the witnesses are mere bald assertions which have not been tested or
developed under the adversary process " Respondent has not shown that
the Regional Director abused his discretion in denying Respondent's re-
quest for a continuance . See Interurban Gas Corporation, 164 NLRB 1072
(1967) Moreover, Respondent did not appear at the hearing by any attor-
ney or otherwise and did not seek a continuance at that time . Accordingly,
its contention that it was denied an opportunity to be represented and cross-
examine witnesses is rejected , and there is no reason to discount the testimo-
ny adduced at the hearing because of Respondent 's absence
3 Respondent also contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish
that Barber and Miller were supervisors within the meaning of the Act
However, Respondent's answer admits that Barber and Miller are supervi-
sors as alleged in the complaint No further evidence was necessary to estab-
lish their supervisory status
4 Colo Well Service, Inc, 163 NLRB 707, 713 (1967)
5 Respondent contends that Lancer 's testimony as to the date of the meet-
ing at Stephens ' house is in conflict with testimony of other witnesses and
raises a serious question as to the credibility of her testimony concerning her
conversation with Dennis . However, the discrepancies as to the timing of
the meeting between Lanier and other witnesses are not as great as Respon-
dent asserts, and it is common for the recollections of otherwise credible
witnesses to vary as to timing of past events I find nothing in Lancer's
testimony which gives cause to discredit or disregard it
2. About 2 weeks after the meeting at Stephens' house,
Cafeteria Manager Milton Dennis called Annie Lanier into
his office.5 Dennis asked her if she knew that the Union
was supposed to be in. She said that she didn't know. Den-
nis told her that he would tell her what the Union was for
and that it was to try to get money from the employees for
union representatives to drink and party with. Lanier said
she didn't know that. Dennis said he wasn't going to stand
for that and asked if she was sure whether she knew any-
thing about the union. She again said she didn't know.
Dennis said that union had tried to get in before and that
he was going to stop it. Dennis also told her that if she ever
heard anything she should be sure to let him know.
Contrary to Respondent's contention, Dennis' statement
to Lanier amounted to more than mere expression of oppo-
sition to a union. Dennis questioned Lanier once, ex-
pressed opposition to a union, and then questioned her
again indicating disbelief of her initial answer. When Lani-
er repeated her denial of knowledge, Dennis said he was
going to stop the Union from coning in and asked Lanier
to let him know if she heard anything. This was not casual
questioning of an employee, but deliberate interrogation in
coercive circumstances. I find that Dennis' interrogation of
Lanier violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. Sometime in February 1974, after the meeting at Ste-
phens' house, Dennis called Mary Washington into his of-
fice. Dennis told her that he was aware of the union activi-
ty, that a union had tried before and didn't get in, and that
he would do "all in his power to keep it out." Dennis told
Washington that the union representatives only wanted
dues and would do nothing for the employees because they
were never in town. Dennis said that he knew who was
pushing the Union and that he was not going to tolerate
that going on. Dennis also said that he knew Washington
was in with the Union because he had a call from the
Hilton Hotel, where she had previously solicited employees
to sign cards for United, and that he knew that she was
pushing the Union there. Dennis told Washington that he
hated to see her get in it because she was one of his good
employees.
Dennis' statements to Washington not only indicated
strong opposition to a union, but that he would do "all in
his power to keep it out" and was not going to tolerate
union activity. These statements convey that Dennis would
take reprisals against employees, if required, to stop a
union from gaining representation rights. I find that Den-
nis' statements to Washington contained implied threats of
reprisal in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The fact
that Washington May have been engaged in activity on
behalf of United rather than Local 737 does not afford any
protection to Dennis' statements, for whether United is or
is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act,
the statements of Dennis were directed at concerted activi-
ty of employees protected by Section 7 of the Act.
4. On or about February 15, 1974, Zandra Harper was
hired to work at the cafeteria. At her prehire interview with
Manager Dennis and Assistant Manager Judd Boyer, Boy-
er told her that if anyone approached her with a union card
she should not sign it because the Union wanted cards
signed to get in the cafeteria, and management did not
want a union at the cafeteria. On the next day Boyer told
her not to forget their conversation and added that if any-
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY
one approached her with a card to sign she should let Boy-
er or Dennis know who had approached her. Later Harper
spoke to Washington who solicited her to sign a card for
United, and Harper signed.
Although Harper apparently did not comply with
Boyer's request, it is well settled that a request to an em-
ployee to report on the union activity of other employees is
unlawful.6 I find that Boyer's request to Harper violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Carl Ford had attended the initial meeting at Ste-
phens' house and had solicited employees to sign union
authorization cards thereafter. At some point he became
an officer of United. On one occasion in February or early
March 1974, number one waiter Barber told Ford that Caf-
eteria Manager Milton Dennis knew "who all is in the
union and who all is pushing the union, so you better stay
on your P's and Q's because he's after you, and the least
little thing you do, you gonna be gone."
Barber's remarks to Ford conveyed a clear impression
that the activities of the cafeteria employees were under
surveillance in violation of the Act.7 Moreover, Barber
directly threatened that Dennis was seeking to find a rea-
son to discharge Ford in reprisal for his activities. Respon-
dent contends that because Ford may then have been act-
ing in behalf of United rather than Local 737 and because
the complaint fails to allege that United is a labor organi-
zation, these statements are not properly before the Board.
However, as in the case of Dennis' threats to Washington,
a finding that Barber's statements and threats to Ford in-
terfered with employee rights does not depend on a show-
ing that United was a labor organization within the mean-
ing of the Act. I find that Barber created an impression
that the union activities of the cafeteria employees were
under surveillance and threatened Ford in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
6. Before the union activity started employees were re-
quired to pay for food which they ate at regular cafeteria
prices, although employees were occasionally permitted to
drink iced tea or eat rolls that had become hard without
being required to pay for them. After the union activity
started, employees were required to pay for all food they
consumed, and Respondent instituted a rule imposing a $5
fine on anyone found consuming food for which he had
not previously paid. A notice was posted to that effect.
The complaint alleges that the imposition of the $5 fine
was a change in working conditions which was instituted in
reprisal for employees' union activities.
Contrary to Respondent's contention, the evidence is
clear that the fine was not imposed until after the union
activity started.8 Moreover, it will be recalled that the first
union activity among the employees was their attendance
at the meeting at Stephens' house to which Local 737 rep-
resentatives had been invited. That meeting was attended
6 Stoner Lumber, Inc, 187 NLRB 923, 929 (1971), Michael Bednasz, d/b/a
Hamburg Delivery, 190 NLRB 282 (1971)
7 Keystone Casing Supply, Inc, 196 NLRB 920, 921 (1972)
8 Kenneth Lipscomb so testified . While Annie Lanier indicated some un-
certainty as to whether there were fines before the union activity, she also
testified that she first heard of fines after the union activity started On the
basis of the testimony of Lipscomb and Lanier taken together , I find that
the fines were imposed after the union activity started
525
by supervisors Barber and Miller. Thus, from the very start
Barber and Miller had knowledge of the union activity,
and that knowledge is imputable to Respondent. The evi-
dence also shows that Respondent expressed strong oppo-
sition to unionization of its employees and threatened re-
prisals against them. While there is no direct evidence
showing a linkage between the imposition of the rule con-
cerning fines and the union activity, in the absence of evi-
dence of any other reason for the imposition of the fine,'
there is sufficient evidence from the timing of the charge
and Respondent's hostility to union representation of its
employees to infer that the employees' union activities
were the cause of the change in Respondent's rules. To be
sure, Respondent might have been able to show a reason
for the rule unrelated to union or concerted activity, but
having not appeared or presented any evidence, the infer-
ence raised by the General Counsel's evidence stands unre-
butted. Accordingly, I find that Respondent instituted a
rule providing for a $5 fine against employees who con-
sumed food for which they had not paid in reprisal for
employee union and concerted activities and thereby vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
B. The Suspension of Kenneth Lipscomb
On March 9 waiter Kenneth Lipscomb was assigned to
work in close proximity to dining room steward Mack Ben-
nett, a supervisor. According to Lipscomb's uncontradict-
ed testimony, Bennett required Lipscomb to perform a lot
of Bennett's work during the morning, and Bennett both-
ered and antagonized Lipscomb all morning. At some
point, Lipscomb, who was not feeling too well, went to
number two waiter Ira Miller and asked him to change
Lipscomb's working position. Miller said that he did not
have time to make a change. Lipscomb then said that he
was going upstairs to use the restroom, left the cafeteria
floor, and started upstairs. On the way he stopped to get a
match from another employee to light a cigarette. Miller
came to him and told him that if he was going to work he
should come back out on the floor. Lipscomb again said he
was going to the restroom and went there where he stayed
for about 5 minutes. When Lipscomb returned to the cafe-
teria floor, Miller told him, "You can go and take a day
off." Lipscomb then went to punch out but found his time-
card missing from the rack. He went to the office, where
Assistant Manager Boyer told him he heard that Lipscomb
had a 30-day vacation. Lipscomb asked what Boyer meant,
and Boyer said that Miller had laid him off for 30 days.
Lipscomb went back to the dining room and asked Miller
if that were true. Miller replied, "Yeah, we don't give away
weeks any more, we give away months now."
As Lipscomb started to leave the cafeteria, Carl Ford,
who was working nearby, called him over to give him a
card with Stephens' name and number and told Lipscomb
to contact Stephens. Miller walked up to Ford and asked
9 Although Respondent contends that the testimony of Annie Lanier
shows that the fine was a response to "repeated infractions of the rule
regarding food consumption," the testimony of Lanier relied on was vague
and ambiguous , was not responsive to the quesiton asked her , and was not
pursued when the witness ' attention was directed to the question asked It
does not support Respondent's contention
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him if he wanted to go with Lipscomb. Lipscomb told Ford
to keep cool and he would leave by himself. Lipscomb left
and nothing further was done to Ford. Lipscomb remained
on suspension for 30 days after which he returned to work
for Respondent.
Lipscomb had never previously been suspended. His
work had never previously been criticized, but he had re-
ceived compliments. Lipscomb testified that to his knowl-
edge no one had ever been suspended for as long as a
month, that suspensions were usually for a week at the
most, and that employees were usually in fact told to re-
turn to work after 2 days of suspension. Lipscomb testified
that he did not believe that anyone had ever remained out
of work for a whole week on suspension.
Lipscomb was one of those who initially spoke to Ste-
phens and attended the meeting at Stephens' house. At that
meeting he spoke in favor of trying to bung in the Union.
After the meeting he spoke to a few other employees about
it, and at the time of the hearing he was a member of
United.
The General Counsel contends that Lipscomb was given
severe discipline for what would otherwise have been at
most a minor infraction because of his union and concert-
ed activities. Respondent contends that there is no showing
that it had knowledge of Lipscomb's union activities, that
there was a long gap between the time of such activity and
his discipline, that there is no evidence to show a casual
connection between his union activity and the discipline,
and that the evidence shows only that Lipscomb was disci-
plined for leaving his work station and ignoring his
supervisor's orders.
There is ample evidence to establish both Respondent's
knowledge of Lipscomb's union activities and its union an-
imus. Thus Miller and Barber both attended the initial
union meeting at which Lipscomb spoke in favor of organi-
zation. Later in February, Manager Dennis told Mary
Washington he knew who was pushing for the Union and
at the same time threatened to do everything in his power
to keep it out. In late February or early March, but before
March 9, number one waiter Barber told Carl Ford that
Dennis knew who was in the Union and who was pushing
it. At that time Barber added that Ford, who was actively
supporting unionization, had better watch himself, because
Dennis was after him and "the least little thing you do, you
gonna be gone." Indeed, there was a suggestion of imple-
mentation of this threat when Miller asked Ford if he
wanted to go also as Ford spoke briefly to Lipscomb fol-
lowing Lipscomb's suspension.
The testimony of Lipscomb himself leaves unclear
whether in absence of any organizational activity effort his
conduct might have resulted in some disciplinary action
against him. But his testimony also establishes that the di-
cipline meted out to him was unprecedented in its severity.
Thus, Lipscomb testified that a week was the longest sus-
pension ever previously given and that he did not believe in
fact that anyone remained out for more than 2 days before
being told to come back. Moreover, Miller in his statement
to Lipscomb at the time of the suspension acknowledged
the unprecedented severity of the suspension when he said
that they didn't give away weeks anymore but were giving
months.
On the record before me the only explanation which cir-
cumstantially appears for the severity of the suspension
imposed on Lipscomb is his union and concerted activity.
While Respondent might have refuted Lipscomb' s testimo-
ny as to Respondent's disciplinary practices or have shown
cause for imposing more severe discipline on Lipscomb
than was its practice, it chose to present no evidence at all.
In these circumstances, I find the record evidence suffi-
cient to warrant the inference that Lipscomb was treated
more harshly than he would have been treated otherwise
because of his union and concerted activity. Accordingly, I
find that Lipscomb's 30-day suspension violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.10
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur-
dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Kenneth Lipscomb was unlawfully
suspended on March 9, 1974, for a 30-day period, I shall
recommend that he be made whole for the pay lost by him
during the period of his suspension, with interest to be
computed at the rate of 6 percent per annum in accord
with the formulae set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962). I shall further recommend that Respon-
dent be ordered to expunge the suspension from
Lipscomb's record and to rescind the rule imposing a $5
fine on an employees who consumes food without having
previously paid for it.
United requests as extraordinary remedies that Respon-
dent be required to bargain with United and to reimburse
it for its litigation and organizing expenses. Apart from the
failure of the complaint to allege that United is a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, the record
contains no foundation for ordering Respondent to take
the actions requested by United. United also asks that
either it be named in the order along with Local 737 or that
neither organization be specifically named in the order and
notice. As it has not been established in this proceeding
that United is a labor organization within the meaning of
10 As Lipscomb 's early union activity at least was in behalf of Local 737 1
find the evidence sufficient to support the allegation that the suspension
violated Sec . 8(a)(3) of the Act But even assuming that the discrimination
was based on Lipscomb ' s more recent activity on behalf of United, his
suspension would still violate Sec 8 (a)(1) and the remedy would be the
same
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPANY
the Act it cannot be named as such in the order. Converse-
ly, as at least some of the employee activities with which
Respondent interfered were in support of organizational
efforts of Local 737, its name would ordinarily appear in
the order. Any possible fears of United that Local 737 will
gain an organizational advantage over United by being
named in the order do not furnish sufficient cause to omit
mention of Local 737. It is not the purpose of the order to
favor Local 737 in relation to any other labor organization;
it is its purpose to protect employee rights to engage in
union activity on behalf of Local 737 or any other labor
organization without reprisal. Accordingly, the special
remedial requests of United are denied.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
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. Hotel, Motel, Restaurant Employees and Bartenders
International Union, Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By engaging in surveillance of employee unit activi-
ties, coercively interrogating an employee concerning
union activities, threatening reprisals against employees
because of their union or concerted activities, requesting
an employee to report on the union activity of other em-
ployees, creating the impression that employee union activ-
ities were under surveillance, and instituting a rule impos-
ing a $5 fine on any employee who consumes food or drink
without having previously paid for it in reprisal for em-
ployee union activities, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Sections 8(a)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily suspending Kenneth Lipscomb
because of his participation in union and concerted activi-
ties, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(3)
and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act
Upon the foregoing finding of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in these proceedings, and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following rec-
ommended:
ORDER11
Respondent, Morrison Cafeteria Company, Inc., of Tal-
lahassee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Engaging in surveillance of the union activities of its
11 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided in 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
527
employees by attendance of its supervisors at union meet-
ings.
(b) Coercively interrogating its employees concerning
employee union activities.
(c) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals for their union or concerted activities.
(d) Asking employees to report to its manager or super-
visors on future union activity which they may observe.
(e) Creating the impression that employee union activi-
ties are under surveillance.
(f) Imposing more onerous work rules in reprisal for em-
ployee union or concerted activities.
(g) Discriminating against employees in regard to hire,
tenure of employment, or any other condition of employ-
ment because of their membership in Hotel, Motel, Res-
taurant Employees and Bartenders International Union,
Local Union No. 737, AFL-CIO, or any other labor orga-
nization or because they engage in protected concerted ac-
tivities.
(h) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
right to engage in or refrain from engaging in any or all
such activities specified in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
ary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind the 30-day suspension imposed on Kenneth
Lipscomb on March 9, 1974, and expunge it from
Lipscomb's work record.
(b) Make Kenneth Lipscomb whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered as a result of his suspension in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled
"The Remedy."
(c) Rescind its rule imposing a $5 fine on any employee
who consumes food without having previously paid for it.
(d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payments records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amounts of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(e) Post at its Tallahassee, Florida, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Cop-
ies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 12, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notice to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 12, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
12 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 "
528 DECISIONS OF 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 trial at which all sides had a chance to give evi-
dence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that
we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post this notice. We intend to carry out the
Order of the Board and abide by the following:
The Act give all employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with or
restrains or coerces employees with respect to these
rights.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of union activi-
ties of our employees by the attendance of our super-
visors at union meetings.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
concerning employee union activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with dis-
charge or other reprisals for their union or concerted
activities.
WE WILL NOT ask our employees to report to their
managers or supervisors on future union activities
which they may observe.
WE WILL NOT create the impression that employee
union activities are under surveillance.
WE WILL NOT impose stricter work rules on our em-
ployees in reprisal for their union or concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against any of our em-
ployees in regard to their hire, tenure of employment,
or any other conditions of employment because of
their membership in Hotel, Motel Restaurant Employ-
ees and Bartenders International Union, Local Union
No. 737, AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization
or because they engage in protected concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL rescind the 30-day suspension imposed on
Kenneth Lipscomb on March 9, 1974, and WE WILL
expunge it from his work record.
WE WILL make Kenneth Lipscomb whole for any
loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of his
suspension, with interest.
WE WILL rescind our rule imposing a $5 fine on any
employee who consumes food without having previ-
ously paid for it.
MORRISON CAFETERIA COMPA-
NY INC. OF TALLAHASSEE