Motel 6, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 6, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

MOTEL 6, INC
Motel 6 , Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant Employees
and Bartenders International Union , Local 247,
AFL-CIO. Case 18-CA-2737
November 6, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
On August 1, 1969, Trial Examiner E. Don
Wilson issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had not
engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the
complaint, and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief, and the Respondent
filed an answering brief
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision and the entire record in this
case, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
hereby orders that the complaint herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
E. DON WILSON, Trial Examiner : A charge in this case
was filed by Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders International Union, Local 247, AFL-CIO,
herein the Union, on February 24, 1969, and amended on
April 1, 1969. Upon the charge as amended, the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board , herein
the Board , issued a complaint ' on April 29, 1969, alleging
that Motel 6, Inc.,, herein Respondent , violated Section
8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended , herein the Act.
Pursuant to due notice , a hearing in this matter was
held before me at Des Moines, Iowa, on May 27 and 28,
1969 The parties fully participated . Briefs have been
'Later amplified by a bill of particulars
'Name as corrected at the hearing
5 09
received and considered.'
Upon the entire record4 in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, excepting Copple and Watts,
I make the following.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
At all material times, Respondent has been a California
corporation engaged in the multistate operation of
nonresidential motels Respondent's Des Moines, Iowa,
motel is the only motel involved in this proceeding.
Respondent, during the past 12 months, which period is
representative of all material times, in the course and
conduct of its operations, had a gross revenue in excess of
$500,000. At all material times, Respondent has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
At all material times, the Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Issues
The issues include whether Respondent unlawfully
discharged one Lucile Dawson and illegally threatened and
interrogated employees, required a prospective employees
to agree not to cross a picket line, told employees it would
never sign a union contract, changed Dawson's working
hours and forbade her from eating lunch with or talking
to other employees
B. Background
Employee Viola Hibbert was the leading protagonist for
the Union She was the one who contacted the Union in
early August 1968.6 She arranged for the union meeting
where employees signed up for the Union. Shortly
thereafter 9 of about 13 employees attended a meeting at
the union hall and signed union cards On August 14, the
Union filed a representation petition with the Board On
October 4, there was an election which the Union won, 9
to 4 The Union was certified on October 1 l Negotiations
for a contract began on October 24 There were about
nine negotiation meetings and in May 1969' Respondent
and the Union signed a collective-bargaining contract
Dawson, a laundry employee who was discharged with
another laundry employee, Nellie McCarty,' on November
29, participated with two other employees,' in all
bargaining sessions, even those after her discharge
It is important to note that under Section 10(b) of the
Act, the cutoff date for any violations by Respondent was
August 24.
'Respondent's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is granted. it
is marked TX Exh I
'On June 11, 1969, 1 received a letter from counsel for the General
Counsel enclosing a stipulation by him and Respondent The stipulation is
accepted and the letter and stipulation are received in evidence as TX Exh
2
'Calvert
'Hereinafter all dates refer to 1968, unless otherwise stated
'Before the hearing
°A nonunion member
'Hibbert and Aller
179 NLRB No. 82
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Alleged Threats
Dawson'° testified that in the "latter part of August,"
after August 24," Respondent's manager, Willie Watts,
told her Respondent didn't need a union, "and to be sure
to think it over before we continued into it " She then
testified that after a similar statement, just before the
election, Watts, while talking about the Union, said,
"some of the girls were going to be fired " In a three
page, detailed, excepting for dates, affidavit given to the
Board on March 12, 1969, Dawson swore, "Watts didn't
do any talking about the union " In response to the Trial
Examiner's questions, Dawson testified that all Watts
talked about in his conversations about the Union was
that "he thought the employees would be better off
without the union ." While Watts didn't say so, according
to her, she gathered this was his personal opinion She
later testified, in answer to a question by the Trial
Examiner, that Watts simply told her he didn't think she
needed a union and they could iron out their own
difficulties. When asked if Watts said anything else to her,
she testified, "No." Certainly Dawson's testimony" does
not establish an unlawful threat by Watts
Dawson further testified that in the latter part of
August, "after the 24th," head maid Mildred Paulson told
her Respondent's area supervisor, Harry France, was very
angry about the Union and wasn't going to have anything
to do with it and "some of the girls were going to get
fired over it if we continued with it " Paulson denied
making such a statement In her affidavit, Dawson fixed
the time of this statement as "after the meeting" where
the employees signed cards." In response to the Trial
Examiner's question, Dawson testified that Paulson made
this statement about France and some of the girls getting
fired, "before August 24 " Thus, based on Dawson's own
testimony, there is no evidence that Paulson threatened
her within the 10(b) period and no violation can be found.' °
Employee Emma Coons testified that on the afternoon
of the election," Watts asked her if she was holding a
union card and when she replied she was, he told her she
had better withdraw it or she would be fired Viola
Hibbert testified that she began taking notes of
Respondent's conduct on August 14, as reported to her by
Coons and the other employees and made a notation of as
many as she could from that time forward.'6 Coons
testified she told Hibbert of unlawful actions by
Respondent from the time she found out Hibbert was
taking notes She told Hibbert everything she thought was
important She certainly must have considered Watts'
alleged threat to fire her to be important. Hibbert's notes
were shown to Coons and while there was a notation for
October 4, there was no reference to the alleged threat by
Watts I found Coons to be an evasive witness on
cross-examination, particularly as to when she first
"I was unfavorably impressed by her demeanor She frequently
contradicted herself In important respects , her pretrial affidavit to the
Board was in contradiction of her testimony I find she knowingly falsified
her claim for unemployment compensation to the State of Idaho in an
effort unlawfully to obtain unemployment payments after her discharge I
do not credit her testimony
"I find Dawson was acutely aware that no violations could be found
based upon Respondent ' s actions before August 24
"Especially in the light of her affidavit
"Before August 14
"Note that I do not credit Dawson 's testimony at all
learned Hibbert was keeping notes," and her demeanor
impressed me unfavorably. I do not credit her testimony.
I do not credit Coon's testimony that during September
and October, Paulson told her apparently repeatedly that
if the Union wasn't forgotten the girls would be fired or
Paulson would work them to death. I do not credit Coon's
testimony that Paulson kept reminding her that she was
supporting her family and that she had better withdraw
her union card if she had one filed, or that if she wanted
to keep her job she should forget about the Union. Coons
testified that the acts of Respondent as testified to by her
on direct examination were related to Mrs. Hibbert on the
evening of the time they occurred She knew whether
events occurred before or after August 24, because she
had read Hibbert's notes on the Thursday before she
testified 'S She testified that Hibbert wrote down the dates
that Coons had the conversations with Watts and Paulson
and she used Hibbert's notes to refresh her recollection on
the Thursday before she testified. She implied that she
told Hibbert of every conversation she had with
management from the time she knew Hibbert was taking
notes.19 I credit Paulson's denial that she told Coons the
girls would be fired if they did not forget the Union. I do
not credit Coon's testimony that Paulson told her right
after the election that Dawson was a no good
troublemaker and all she did was talk Union and they
would not allow that
D Alleged Interrogation
General Counsel alleges that at various times, various
agents of Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees
Coons testified that "about a week or two" after the
petition was filed, Watts asked her why they needed a
union and if she had joined the Union.20 A week after the
petition was filed was August 21, outside the 10(b) period
Her testimony is too vague to permit a finding that it was
within the 10(b) period, during which a violation could be
found.
In General Counsel's complaint, he alleges that on or
about the week of December 2, Respondent required
prospective employee Maxine Calvert "to agree" to cross
any future picket line as a condition of employment. I
find on the basis of the deposition of Executive
Housekeeper Claudia Copple that she was not in Des
Moines after November 28.21 This is part and parcel of
alleged unlawful interrogation by Copple and Paulson, of
Maxine Calvert
There is no contention that Mrs Watts was a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act and I ignore all
testimony of Calvert as to what Mrs Watts may have
said to her as evidence of a violation. It appears from
"Apparently after the election
"It has been noted that Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union She
was the union observer at the election I find it to be a reasonable
inference that Coons was aware that Hibbert was maintaining this record
since or shortly after Hibbert began taking notes
"She admitted on one occasion that she learned Hibbert was keeping
notes "before the election "
"She knew things happened on certain dates within 2 weeks after the
petition was filed because "we ( Hibbert ) had taken down some different
things that happened and some of the dates were on them she kept
track of everything "
"When she had a conversation with management , she told Hibbert about
it and she put down the details and the date
"She testified that the incidents she described on direct were related by
her to Hibbert
"Given by deposition with the approval of the Regional Director and
with cross-examination by a representative of the General Counsel
MOTEL 6, INC.
Calvert's testimony that she was hired by Respondent in
early December She quit after a couple of weeks.
Calvert testified that in November she was interviewed
by Copple for employment. According to Calvert, Copple
asked her if she knew a union was going in and asked how
she felt about it Calvert allegedly replied that she didn't
know a union was going in. Copple then allegedly asked
her if she would join the Union if she were hired and she
said she didn't know According to Calvert, Copple asked
her if she would cross a picket line if one were put up
Calvert said she would because she needed the money
Copple, according to Calvert, said they would call her the
following week to come to work Calvert added that she
didn't hear from Respondent and about 2 weeks later, she
called and talked to Paulson.22 Calvert then testified that
Paulson said they were putting the Union in down there.
Paulson asked her if she went to work, would she cross a
picket line. Calvert testified she replied in the affirmative
Paulson allegedly told her they were not going to hire
anybody that was going to go union Paulson allegedly
hired her and told her to come to work the following day.
Paulson denied asking Calvert if she would cross a picket
line, or belonged to a union or that Respondent was hiring
only nonunion people. Paulson credibly testified that
before Calvert was hired, she had no conversation with
Calvert She specifically and credibly denied that she ever
asked Calvert to agree not to cross a picket line as a
condition of employment She impressed me as truthfully
stating that she did not know Calvert until after she was
hired. She had no conversation with Calvert before
Calvert was hired
I was unfavorably impressed by Calvert's demeanor and
find she testified untruthfully. On March 13, 1969, only
about 2 months before the hearing herein, Calvert gave an
affidavit to a Board agent about the events of her hiring
by Respondent She never mentioned in her affidavit any
dealings with Paulson which allegedly resulted in her
hiring. I am convinced that the reason Calvert did not
mention Paulson's name in her affidavit was because she
never spoke to Paulson in connection with her hiring.
Calvert reread her affidavit at the hearing and said it
"reflects everything that was told to you and the
interviews you had " With respect to General Counsel's
allegation that Calvert would have to "agree" to cross a
picket line to be hired, Calvert testified that this was not
said, but she "assumed that." In her affidavit, she swore
that Copple said she "would have to agree to cross a
picket line if I was hired." (Emphasis supplied.) She
testified that Copple did not say this, but she "assumed
that " According to Calvert, her conversation with
Paulson lasted 20-30 minutes. There is no reference in her
affidavit to this or any other conversation with Paulson.
I find that Calvert concocted her testimony about her
interview with Paulson and Copple for the purpose of this
trial. Her demeanor impressed me unfavorably. I do not
credit her testimony.23 She testified definitely that her
affidavit reflected everything that was told to her by
Respondent's agents, and the interviews she had. As
noted, the affidavit makes no reference to her alleged
fairly long interview with Paulson who allegedly hired her.
She would have told this to the Board agent, if it had
happened, because this would have occurred on or about
December 2, as General Counsel alleges. I find no
substantial or probative evidence of a violation of the Act
through or by the noncredited testimony of Calvert.
"On the basis of Paulson ' s credited testimony , I find she had no
authority to hire
511
Coons testified that 2 weeks after the petition was filed,-
Paulson asked her if she had a union card and she
replied in the affirmative. Paulson allegedly told her she
had better forget about the Union and Paulson would give
her the head housekeeping job and Paulson was going to
be the executive housekeeper and would take Coons on a
trip to Fort Wayne, Indiana, all expenses paid She added
that Paulson told her that if she didn't forget the Union
she would be fired and since she was supporting her
family she "had better think it over " She further testified
that during September and October, Paulson told her that
if the Union wasn't forgotten the girls would be fired or
worked to death. She testified that on two occasions
Paulson promised her a promotion She testified that
Paulson told her that if she had signed a union card and
wanted to keep her job, she had better withdraw it. Again
Hibbert's notes didn't reflect these conversations,
according to Coons 25 As I have previously found, I do not
credit the testimony of Coons, whose demeanor impressed
me unfavorably The credited testimony is that none of
Respondent's supervisors are trained at Fort Wayne,
Indiana, and head maids, to which Coons was allegedly
offered a promotion, are trained on the job I find Coons
concocted this testimony out of whole cloth
While this may be out of context with this subsection, I
find I do not believe Coon's testimony that on October 4,
Paulson angrily told her, after her vote had been
challenged, that she would find out who had gone to the
Board and have her fired.36 This allegedly happened on
October 4 and she testified she told Hibbert of
conversations with management representatives at least
before October 4.27 There was nothing in Hibbert's notes
about these incidents 28 I find it inconceivable that
Paulson, who was merely a head maid, would promise an
employee an all expense 2 week trip out of town to a
place where no training was given.39
E Alleged Statements That Respondent Would
Never Sign a Contract With the Union
General Counsel alleges that area supervisor Harry
France told Respondent's employees that Respondent
would never sign a contract with the Union.
It has been noted that since May 1969, Respondent and
the Union have had a collective-bargaining contract and,
of course, there is no 8(a)(5) allegation herein involved
There is no suggestion of bad faith bargaining.
I have previously noted that I do not credit Dawson's
testimony in any respect. She testified that France told
her the employees were going to get a drop in pay and
Respondent was not going to sign a contract for anything
over $1 25 an hour. Dawson further testified that it was
"General Counsel did not contend that Mrs Watts was an agent of
Respondent and I disregard any statements allegedly made by her
"The 10(b) period is so important
"She testified that she knew whether acts occurred before or after
August 24 , because Hibbert kept track of everything
"She testified that whenever she had a conversation with management,
she told Hibbert who put down the details and the date
"I find she knew Hibbert was keeping notes at least as early as August
14 If the small plant rule applies to employers, it should apply to union
members whose leader openly kept a list of alleged misdeeds of
management from August 14
"Hibbert testified she noted the incidents reported to her by other
employees as much as she could
"Coons implied under cross -examination that Hibbert "had notes of all
these conversations and the dates of them " She added that Hibbert wrote
"down the dates (she) had these conversations with Mr Watts and Mrs
Paulson "
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
before August 24, that France allegedly made this
statement to her. Consequently, even on the basis of
Dawson's uncredited testimony, Section 10(b) prevents a
finding of a violation She also fixed the time of this
conversation with France as shortly after her hours were
changed 30 As I shall subsequently find, her hours were
changed on August 19, before the 10(b) period
I do not credit Dawson's testimony that on the
afternoon of the election, France told her the Union
wasn't going to do the employees any good and that he
would not sign any contract that provided for pay higher
than $1.25 or that he would never sign a contract with the
Union. McCarty was allegedly present when these
statements were made by France. McCarty was not called
to corroborate' Dawson 11 I credit France's denial of such
statements.
F Alleged Unlawful Change i n the Work Schedule of
Dawson and Alleged Unlawful Forbidding of Dawson
to Eat Lunch With or Talk to Other Employees
General Counsel alleged that on or about August 24,
(the cutoff date) Respondent, in violation of Section
8(a)(1), changed Dawson's work schedule and forbade her
to eat lunch with or talk with other employees. In his
opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss and for a
bill of particulars, General Counsel alleged that France
and Watts changed Dawson's work schedule so that her
quitting time was 6.30 p.m. rather than 4 p.m and that
they were the ones who forbade her to talk.
Dawson admitted that during August and September,
she never worked as late as 6 p m. As I have noted, I find
she was very aware of August 24 as the 10(b) date. She
testified that on September 5, her hours were changed
from 7:30 to 4 to 8 to 4:30, and that Watts changed the
hours 32 She further testified that on this date her lunch
hour was changed from 12 to 12 3013 to 12 30 to I She
testified that until September 5 she ate lunch with the
maids but that after that, she ate by herself. She said that
when she ate with the maids they talked about the Union
most of the time in the presence of Paulson. She added
that almost every lunch hour until September 5, she spoke
in favor of the Union Yet, she testified that her
mother-in-law, Florence Dawson, worked part time with
her in the laundry, and three or four times a week she
drove her mother home during the lunchbreak She
further testified that it was France, the day after the
petition was filed,30 who changed her hours from 7 to 4:30
to 8 to 5 30 She implied in her affidavit that this was
done to prevent her from going to beauty school at night.
She admitted to the Trial Examiner that it was before
August 24 that France changed her hours so that they
would begin at 7:30. The fact is that Dawson's timecards
are in evidence and establish beyond question that the
changes in Dawson's working hours applied equally to
Florence Dawson and that "her starting time was changed
from 7.30 to 8.30 a m on Monday, August 19, 1968 71
This was, of course, beyond the 10(b) date Her lunch
hour was changed on the same date from 12 30 to 1. The
maids' lunch hour was from 12 to 12.30. General Counsel
has failed to prove a violation within the 10(b) period in
this regard.
With respect to General Counsel's allegation that on or
about August 24, Respondent through France and Watts
forbade Dawson to eat lunch with or talk to other
employees, Dawson testified she was never forbidden by
Respondent to talk to any employees during lunch time.
She testified merely that if she wanted to talk to the other
employees she "could talk to them on my own time." She
testified she was told not to talk to the other employees,
"on working time." She didn't know whether the other
employees talked with one another during working time
since she was "away from them."
It is evident from the record that Dawson certainly
didn't eat lunch with the other employees after August 19,
yet she testified about Paulson and the other employees
discussing the Union during the lunch hours at least until
September 9. As noted, Dawson's testimony is not
credited
I find General Counsel has not proved these allegations
of the complaint by a preponderance of the probative and
substantial evidence. The maids and laundry help for good
efficient reasons did not eat lunch together because they
started work at different times . Dawson admitted she did
not eat lunch at Respondent's motel 3 or 4 days a week
because she drove her mother-in-law home When she
didn't drive her home she ate either in the maids' room or
in her car. I specifically do not believe Dawson's
statement in her affidavit that Watts told her she couldn't
eat her lunch in the maids' room with the other girls.
Dawson's work schedule and her lunch time were changed
5 days before the 10(b) period and I find no credible
evidence that Respondent was aware of her union
activities, if any, at that time. The work schedule of
Dawson and her lunch time with the other employees were
changed before the 10(b) period. Hence, I find General
Counsel has not proven a violation of the Act by such
changes. I find Dawson deliberately fabricated her
testimony in saying that her hours were changed on
September 5 and then changed her testimony to say it was
on September 9. 1 specifically do not credit Abby Peck's
testimony that about a week after the election, Paulson
told Peck that Dawson was not eating in the maids' room
with the maids because Dawson had been talking about
the Union The demeanor of Peck impressed me
unfavorably and I do not credit her additional testimony
that Paulson told her there was more than one way of
getting rid of the girls besides firing them She did not
remember the context in which the remark allegedly was
made and had no idea what led up to it She couldn't say
whether they were discussing the Union at the time. With
respect to Dawson's change in hours, Peck first fixed her
conversation with Paulson as after the election, October 4,
and then on cross as a day or two after Dawson's hours
were changed, August 19. General Counsel in his brief
states that Dawson's timecards "show that the change in
Dawson's schedule occurred on August 19 " I accept these
timecards as authentic, as stipulated to by General
Counsel, and do not understand how General Counsel
continues to argue that the change in Dawson's work and
lunch schedule was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) since the
change was outside the 10(b) period.36 Any testimony
contrary to the authentic documentary evidence is simply
not credited.37 It may be noted that while Dawson testified
"She testified this happened on September 5
"No explanation was offered for not calling McCarty
"Her calendar , never offered in evidence , allegedly so showed
'The maids ' lunch hour
"August 15
"See letter of General Counsel and stipulation attached, marked TX
Exh 2, as well as the timecards in evidence
"Note that the credited documentary evidence shows that her lunch
period before August 19 was 11 30 to 12
"Dawson testified she filled in her hours
MOTEL 6, INC.
that until her hours were changed, she ate with the maids
from 12 to 12.30, her timecard for the period beginning
August 12 shows that she ate lunch from 11:30 to 12 and
her other timecards show that from August 19 through
September 30, she ate lunch from 12 30 to I Thus,
especially considering the fact that she drove her
mother-in-law home during her lunch period three or four
times a week, there is no credible evidence that Dawson,
as she claimed and as General Counsel claims, ever ate
lunch with the maids. Dawson made her own entries on
her timecards I credit Paulson's testimony that Dawson
never had the same lunch hour as the maids, which was
from 12 to 12 30, while she was employed in the laundry.
I specifically discredit Dawson's testimony that until
September 5, she almost always discussed the Union with
the maids during lunch hour, in the presence of Paulson
who admittedly ate with the maids from 12 to 12 30 On
cross-examination, Dawson said she did eat lunch in the
laundry room and was sure of that A few lines later, she
testified, "I did not eat lunch in the laundry room."
(Emphasis supplied ) There is credible testimony which I
need not elaborate on, that Dawson did eat lunch in the
laundry room prior to August 19.
G The Discharge of Dawson
General Counsel alleges that Dawson was discharged on
November 29 because of her union and other protected
concerted activities 38
As has been noted, contract negotiations began between
Respondent and the Union on October 24 Dawson, along
with Hibbert and Aller,39 were the employee
representatives in the bargaining sessions As has also
been noted, Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union
and, aside from being the union observer at the election,
became job steward.
Dawson began her employment with Respondent in
April 1967 as a maid and soon became a clerk She was
transferred to the laundry by Watts, at her request, in
April 1968, and continued there until her discharge When
she took the job in the laundry she was the only employee
there. France told her there was a possibility they might
give her a slight increase in wages, 15 cents an hour He
also told that to Watts, who was a new manager She got
the increase in a couple of weeks and not in a couple of
months as Dawson testified She received $1.75 an hour
and the maids $1.60.
I find no credible evidence that Dawson engaged in any
union activities before or between the election and her
discharge other than her attendance at the negotiating
meetings on October 24, November 19 and 24 Dawson
testified she and France had several heated discussions
during the course of the bargaining. Union Representative
Eugene A. Schueller testified that each of the three
employee negotiators engaged in "heated discussions,"
with management. Hibbert wouldn't say that she engaged
in heated discussions but testified she, Aller and Dawson
spoke up on behalf of the Union I credit France's
testimony that Dawson was no more outspoken for the
Union than Hibbert. I find no evidence to support
General Counsel's opening statement that Dawson "was
an outspoken advocate at the bargaining session prior to
her discharge " I find no particular evidence to the
bargaining conference which preceded Dawson's discharge
"Note that nonunion McCarty, a part-time laundress , was discharged at
the same time
"A maid
513
Aside from being on the bargaining committee, I find no
credible evidence that Dawson was particularly active for
the Union. There is no credible evidence that Respondent
knew Dawson was a union sympathizer prior to October
16 In considering Dawson's discharge, I note that her
testimony is unworthy of belief and I do not credit it
unless corroborated by otherwise credited testimony.
I have previously noted that Copple and Watts testified
by deposition under the direction of the Regional
Director, with cross-examination by a representative
attorney for the General Counsel. These depositions,
during which exhibits were introduced, were given before
the hearing in this case opened and I did not have the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of either Copple or
Watts I evaluate their testimony in light of the entire
record, particularly the fact that the testimony of Dawson
is unworthy of belief.
I credit France's testimony that in April of 1968, he
learned from Watts that Dawson had been given a 15-cent
raise because of the workload in the laundry.'" I credit
Watts' testimony that she was given the raise to keep her
satisfied and because the workload was heavy. I do not
credit Dawson's testimony that the raise was given 2 or 3
months later because she was doing a good job I credit
Watts' testimony that Dawson's work performance was
bad. Hibbert, the union instigator, observer, negotiator
and job steward, was obviously biased in favor of the
Union herein. Having carefully observed her demeanor, I
do not credit her testimony that Watts said at a
bargaining session that Dawson was making more money
than the other girls, "because she was doing such a good
job." Union Field Representative Schueller at first
testified on direct examination that at a bargaining
session, Respondent stated that Dawson was getting more
money than the other girls because "her work called for
more money and the responsibility " He repeated that
those were the "two reasons " It was not until further
questioning that he added "good work" as a reason she
was getting more money. I find that she was given the
increase because of the workload in the laundry and not
because her work was so good.
I credit the testimony of Patricia Porter, a clerk of
Respondent and within the bargaining unit, and covered
by the union contract. She was a maid from April 1 to
June 1. She testified that while she was a maid the hand
towels that were placed in the linen room, presumably by
Dawson, were damp and could not be used. She further
testified that some of the sheets were stained or dirty "like
they had been dropped on the floor" and they were not
used but put in the "dirty linen. " She testified that all the
maids complained about the damp towels. She did not
know whether another maid might have caused the sheets
to fall to the floor and become dirty and replaced on the
shelves
Paulson testified in detail about Dawson's bad work
over a long period of time. While I do not discredit all of
her testimony, I do find that she tended to exaggerate and
unduly magnify Dawson's alleged faults I ignore her
testimony as to Dawson's alleged faults.
A detailed chart of instructions, describing exactly how
to operate the laundry equipment, was located in the
laundry room I credit Watts' testimony" that in June he
told Dawson the "laundry room"" didn't look right, it
"She was apparently the only laundress then employed
"1 credit none of Dawson ' s unless corroborated by otherwise credited
testimony
"I correct the transcript to read "laundry" from the sense of the
testimony
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was getting dingy and gray and wasn't white like it should
have been Watts told her finally, after some
experimentation, to stick to the chart schedule.
Copple, Executive Housekeeper for Respondent's
western area, credibly testified after cross-examination
which shook her direct examination in no way She was at
the Des Moines location for several days beginning on
July 22 to instruct and assist the maids and laundry
employees and the manager She observed the laundry
facilities and observed that they were being run very
poorly She tried to show Dawson how to correct her
mistakes and put up a new chart and tried to instruct
Dawson. Dawson did not follow her instructions.
Dawson's work performance was "very poor" Watts
credibly testified that Copple recommended to him at that
time that Dawson be replaced due to her work
performance. Watts agreed that the laundry wasn't
properly being taken care of He began to look for
another laundress but could not find one then. On August
23, Copple wrote a memo to her superior, Brockett, that
she had recommended that the laundry help at Des
Moines be replaced as soon as possible. She added that
the laundry help was overloading the equipment and
overusing soap and bleach and would not listen to
directions There is no credible evidence that Copple was
aware of Dawson's union activities, if any, at this time
After Copple recommended to Watts in late July, that
Dawson be terminated, Watts again spoke to Dawson
about her work habits in August. He also spoke to
McCarty Neither Dawson nor McCarty followed his
instructions McCarty said they didn't go by the rules on
the chart. In August, France observed that Dawson was
using a measuring cup for bleach which was not in
keeping with policy and she had no control over the
amount of detergent used Also in August, France had to
replace the washing machine agitators because bleach and
detergent was being overused, which pitted and put holes
in them Also he found that the laundry employees used
too much grease on the spindles of the agitators, causing
block spots to appear on the laundry
France is area supervisor for seven of Respondent's
motels in the Eastern Division, including the one here
involved. It is part of his job to take inventory of linen
At Respondent's Des Moines location there are 100 units
At the Fort Wayne location there are 120. From July
through December, 492 pieces of linen were discarded at
Des Moines and only 189 at Fort Wayne. Thirty percent
of rejects are due to ordinary wear and tear. In July, 54
sheets were discarded in Des Moines and France
considered this an extremely high number He observed
stained and discolored linen at the Des Moines motel He
advised Copple of these figures in November when she
came back to Des Moines as will be subsequently
discussed. France testified that by observing the condition
of the linen, Dawson and McCarty were not following the
instructions for laundering
Beginning on November 6, Copple was at the Des
Moines location for about 16 days, with visits to other
locations, until November 28 During this time, she
observed the laundry and found it in the same condition
as July, "very poor." She was surprised that Dawson was
still there. The condition of the laundry room was the
worst she had ever seen Dawson improperly folded the
linen . "To some extent" the linen was damaged because of
overuse of soap and bleach and not enough rinse time
She worked with Dawson for a day and for several days
thereafter, Dawson started to show a marked
improvement, and then began to slip again, and Copple
again recommended to Watts that she be replaced. She
told France that the laundry situation should have been
cleaned up by then and said it would be impossible to
keep McCarty and Dawson in the laundry any longer
France agreed with her 41 On one occasion in November,
as an experiment, Copple redid some torn up towels which
were used to wash windows, etc., and showed Dawson that
they had not been properly rinsed of soap Copple had an
opportunity, as of November, to observe the work done
throughout Respondent's chain and she considered
Dawson's work to be one of the worst she had ever seen.
Aside from the few days when Dawson improved and
followed Copple's instructions, she disregarded anything
she was asked to do. Copple urged Dawson's discharge
because of her poor work performance. Copple credibly
testified Dawson's union activities had nothing to do with
her discharge She recommended McCarty's discharge
because her work, also, was "very poor." Copple's
testimony in no way was successfully attacked by the
representative attorney for the General Counsel.
Watts testified he discharged Dawson because of her
work performance on November 29, and so advised her
He credibly testified her union activities had nothing to do
with her discharge He testified that McCarty also failed
to follow the laundry instructions and was discharged with
Dawson for the same reason He specifically testified that
Dawson's work performance was "bad " He was unable to
find anyone to replace Dawson after Copple recommended
her termination in July Watt's testimony was not
successfully attacked on cross-examination by General
Counsel's representative Hibbert testified, in effect, that
on November 29, Dawson called her and told her she was
fired, because of "dirty linen "°"
I have found no inteiference, restraint, or coercion by
Respondent with respect to any employee's union or
otherwise protected concerted activities I have found
Respondent bargained apparently in good faith with and
entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union I find no probative and substantial evidence of
antiunion animus on the part of Respondent. I recognize
that Respondent kept Dawson, a poor employee, at work
for a long time after it became aware of her unsatisfactory
work General Counsel has failed to prove that Watts was
able to obtain a replacement for Dawson after Copple
first recommended her discharge in July. Dawson was
jointly fired with an apparently nonunion employee,
McCarty Of the other two employee negotiators, Hibbert
is still employed and is job steward. Aller has been
promoted to a supervisor's position.05
I have considered the timing of the discharge, that is,
within about a month after Dawson became a union
negotiator.
Suspicions do not suffice for proof 46 I find and
conclude that General Counsel has failed to establish by a
preponderance of the substantial and probative evidence
that Dawson was discharged because of her union or other
"As noted, there is no evidence that McCarty was a union sympathizer
"1 have noted that Hibbert was the prime mover for the Union and I
find, based upon all her testimony , and her demeanor , that she was biased
in favor of the Union and Dawson I have considered her testimony in this
light
"I have considered that this would take her out of the unit
"As- I have found, there is no probative substantial proof of union
animus
MOTEL 6, INC.
protected concerted activities . She was an at least poor
employee who was discharged for that reason and not for
her union or other protected concerted activities I realize
that I, through the Regional Director ' s direction, at the
request of Respondent , never had an opportunity to
observe the demeanors of Copple and Watts However,
their respective testimonies were not successfully attacked
on cross-examination and were not contradicted by
credited testimony.47
I conclude that General Counsel has failed to prove or
establish any part of his case by a preponderance of the
probative and substantial evidence
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record, I make the following conclusions
of law-
1. At all material times, Respondent has been an
515
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act
2. The Union, at all material times, has been a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act.
3 The record does not establish that Respondent has
engaged in the unfair labor practices , or any of them,
alleged in the complaint as amended and amplified by the
bill of particulars
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law and the entire record, it is
recommended that the Board enter an order dismissing
the complaint , as amended.
"Florence Dawson and McCarty , fellow laundry employees, were not
called to testify