Reno's Horseshoe Club, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 19, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 268 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the poli- cies of the Act: (a) Post in conspicuous places at its plants in Lexington , Tennessee , including all places where notices to employees customarily are posted , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 2 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20, after being duly signed by the Respondent 's representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for at least 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said notices shall not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Notify said Regional Director , in writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith .3 2In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , the words "a Decision and Order of the" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the" in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals , the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order of the." ' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate or warn our employees concerning their union activities. WE WILL NOT Solicit our employees to report to us concerning the union activities of themselves or other employees. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice and to engage in union activities , or not to join a union and not to engage in such activities. SALANT & SALANT, INCORPORATED, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board' s Regional Office, 746 Fed- eral Building , 167 North Main Street, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, Telephone 534- 3161. Reno's Horseshoe Club, Inc. and American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees . Case 20-CA-3754. December 19, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On September 14, 1966, Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as 162 NLRB No. 21. RENO'S HORSESHOE CLUB, INC. 269 amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Ile further found that Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the com- plaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Decision and supporting briefs, and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and supporting briefs. 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 [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria]. 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, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations 1 of the Trial, Examiner with the additions noted below. [The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order with the following modifications: [1. Amend paragraph 1(d) to read as follows : ["(d) Changing work shifts of employees or discharging employ- ees because of their membership in or activities on behalf of the Union." [2. Add the following paragraph as paragraph 1(e), the present paragraph, 1 (e) being relettered as 1(f) : ["(e) Requiring completion of or using an employment applica- tion form which contains an inquiry as to the applicant's union affiliation." - - [3. Amend paragraph 4 of the notice to read as follows : [EVE WILL offer Nona Dettori, without prejudice to her senior- ity 'and other rights and privileges, immediate and full rein- statement to her former or substantially equivalent position, and make her whole for any loss of earnings, including interest, she has suffered from the discrimination against her. 1 The complaint alleged and the parties stipulated that the Respondent used an employ- ment application form which contained an inquiry as to the applicant ' s union affiliation The Respondent discontinued the use of this form in September 19(,5 when it was advised that it was unlawful and thereafter destroyed all the forms . The Trial Examiner found for this reason that a remedial order would not serve any useful purpose We do not agree The record is devoid of evidence that such information has been obliterated from existing application records and of any assurances that the Respondent sill not use this emplo}- ment form in the future Accordingly , we view a remedial order as necessary not only to cure the unfair labor practice committed , but to prevent a subsequent occurrence. The Trial Examiner inadvertently failed to include bacl:pay provisions in the notice portion of his Decision . We shall amend the notice accordingly. 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [4. Add the following paragraph as paragraph 5 of the notice : [WE WILL NOT change the Work shifts of our employees or dis- charge our employees because of their membership in or activi- ties on behalf of the Union. [5. Add the following as the last indented paragraph of the notice : [WE WILL NOT require completion of or use an employment application form which contains an inquiry as to the applicant's union affiliation.] TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a charge filed August 23 , 1965 , and amended charge filed December 1, 1965, ' by American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees (hereinafter referred to as the Union), a complaint was issued against Reno 's Horseshoe Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ), on December 13, 1965. The com- plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and ( 3) of the Act.2 The Respondent 's answer admits certain allegations of the complaint , but denies Board jurisdiction over its operations or that the Board should assert jurisdiction, and denies the commission of any unfair labor practices . This case was heard by Trial Examiner Gordon J. Myatt at Reno, Nevada, on May 3 and 4 , 1966 , and briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent .3 Upon the entire record in this case, including my evaluation of the witnesses based on my observation of their demeanor and on the evidence contained in the record , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS Reno's Horseshoe Club, Inc., is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of operating a gaming casino , restaurant , and bar in Reno, Nevada . In the course of its business operations , the Respondent annually receives a revenue in excess of $500,000 . Further, the Respondent annually purchases goods and other commodities valued in excess of $50 ,000 from suppliers within the State of Nevada , who obtain such goods and other commodities directly from points located outside the State of Nevada . The Respondent concedes these facts in its answer , and it is *evident that the Board has statutory jurisdiction over the Respondent 's operations. The Respondent contends , however, that the Board lacks jurisdiction in this case because its business is "wholly intrastate in character" and subject to detailed State regulations . The Respondent further contends that even if the business is not considered intrastate , the Board should nonetheless decline to assert jurisdiction over the gaming industry as it has so declined in similar cases involving the horse- racing industry.4 Similar arguments were presented to the Board and were rejected in El Dorado, Inc., 151 NLRB 579. There the Board held that the gaming industry in Nevada was closely related to and substantially dependent upon interstate activity , and the i Unless otherwise noted, all dates herein refer to 1965. 2At the hearing the General Counsel moved to dismiss paragraph VII of the complaint, which alleged that Respondent refused to hire an individual because of union activities. This motion was granted. 3 Subsequent to the hearing, the General Counsel and the Respondent submitted a joint motion for the correction of certain errors In the transcript of the testimony. The joint motion is granted and is hereby made a part of the record. 6 In this connection , the Respondent relies on the following • Walter A. Kelley, 139 NLRB 744; Meadow Stud, Inc., 130 NLRB 1202; Hialeah Race Course, Inc, 125 NLRB 388; Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, Inc , 114 NLRB 1363; and Resort Concessions, Inc, 148 NLRB 208. RENO'S HORSESHOE CLUB, INC. 271 detailed State regulations safeguarding the industry were not for the purpose of governing employer-employee relationships , but rather, for the purpose of prevent- ing "undesirable elements" from encroaching into the industry . In El Dorado, Inc., the Board ruled that the cases pertaining to the horseracing industry did not require it to decline jurisdiction over gambling casinos.5 Therefore , in accordance with the Board 's established policy of asserting juris- diction over gaming operations where the elements of statutory jurisdiction are present, I find that the Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction in this matter. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Respondent disputes the fact that the Union is a bona fide labor organiza- tion. On the basis of the record before me there is no evidence to substantiate this contention. Indeed, the general secretary-treasurer of the Union, Donald Emery testified that the Union admits to membership casino employees for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and conditions of employment, and the Respondent presented no evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in El Dorado, Inc., supra, the Board expressly found that American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Accord- ingly, I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The 8(a)(1) conduct The Union's organizing campaign among the casino employees of the various gambling establishments in Reno began in April 1965. Nona Dettori, a "21" dealer in the Respondent's casino, met union organizer Virginia McKeehan in the Nugget Casino and signed an authorization card. The Nugget is located next to the Respondent's casino. Dettori was given blank authorization cards, and she solicited signatures of her coworkers on behalf of the Union. Dettori confined her solicita- tion to times when her fellow workers were in the Nugget, and she made no effort to solicit on behalf of the Union while in the Respondent's establishment. On May 13, the Union filed a representation petition requesting a unit of all the Respondent's casino employees. This petition was consolidated for hearing with several other petitions requesting similar units in other gambling establishments in Reno. On August 10, the Acting Regional Director for Region 20 issued a Decision , Order, and Directions of Elections in which the petition involving the Respondent was dismissed on the ground that certain of the authorization cards supporting the petition were solicited by supervisors. Shortly thereafter, Dettori signed another authorization card for the Union and again solicited signatures among her coworkers. In keeping with her past practice, Dettori confined her activi- ties to times when her coworkers were in the Nugget. The testimony indicates that during the months of August and September, the Respondent's officials made a number of remarks to the employees about the Union. Dettori attended a union meeting during the afternoon of August 10. The meeting was held for the purpose of electing officers for the Reno Local. At work that evening, Bradford Hewins, Respondent 's president and general manager, asked Dettori, "who was elected?" Dettori replied, "no one." Later that same evening, Hewins again questioned Dettori concerning the results of the union election. Dettori told Hewins that if he wanted to know what was going on, "he should have watched TV earlier." She was making reference to a television appearance by an official of the Union earlier that evening.6 Delores Chapman, a "21" dealer, testified that for a period 2 months after she signed a card in August,7 the "atmosphere was real bad with the Union [through- 5 See also, the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in N.L.R B. v. Harrali'8 Club, 362 F 2d 425 (CA. 9), where the court affirmed the Board's assertion of jurisdiction over a gambling casino operation. 9 The above encounter between Dettori and Hewins was not controverted by the Respondent. 7 Chapman signed a card for Dettori in April and again in August while in the Nugget Club. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD out] the entire club." Chapman stated that while she was working in the "pit" 8 during this period , Hewins told her that "he couldn 't understand why [the employ- ees] had done this to him ." Chapman testified that on another occasion Hewins mentioned to her about the girls joining the Union and she said to him, "Yes, Brad . I joined . . . you know why I did , and who [sic] I did." Hewins replied, "Yes, I do ." According to Chapman , she overheard Hewins say to Regina Reagan, another "21" dealer , that he could not understand why the employees had joined the Union because he had planned to give them a raise and a vacation , "which now he couldn 't do." On two occasions during the months of August and Septem- ber, Hewins asked Chapman , "What do you hear from your union today, Dee?" On another occasion while working in the pit, Chapman overheard Morris Man- dell9 ask employees Ramsey and Patronzi if anyone had approached them con- cerning the union cards.1° Finally, Chapman testified that she had an argument with Mandell when he asked her to change to a later shift ." When Chapman refused to make the change , Mandell stated , "You girls think that you have pro- tection of the Union , but we are running this business." Carmen Sandoval , also a "21" dealer , testified that she and several other female dealers were talking to Hewins shortly after she signed an authorization card in August. Hewins stated that he did not care whether the employees joined the Union, but that the men who were running the Union were "sort of racketeers ," and prob- ably had police records. According to Sandoval, Hewins also stated to the employ- ees that he had been thinking about granting pay raises and vacation pay, but that he did not "dare give it" as the Union might file unfair labor practice charges. Hewins told the employees that "joining the Union would not help [the] girls, as [the Union] would bring in men, and [the girls] would be out of work." 12 During the first week of September, a delegation from the Union paid a visit to the Respondent 's casino. This delegation - consisted of Thomas Hanley ( general business manager of the Union ), Virginia McKeehan , Joe Woods , Glen Haerron, Don Emery, and John Radigan. According to Hanley, the purpose of this visit was to deliver an envelope containing a letter claiming a majority and requesting bargaining.13 This method of delivery was used because the Respondent had refused to accept mail from the Union in the past. The letter was given to Hewins and Mandell in the pit, and they immediately returned it to the union people. This exchange was apparently repeated several times and in the process the envelope was thrown to the floor. It was then picked up by someone in the union group, and the delegation proceeded to the cashiers ' cage outside of the pit and made an effort to deliver the envelope to Irene Marich , another coowner of the casino . Marich threw the envelope to the floor and told the delegation, "You stick the letter in your ass and get out of here. Your union organizers are not wanted in here , or any union people. We will get rid of all of them." The security guard then told the union delegation to get off the premises or he would call the police. Both Hewins and Mandell testified in regard to the above incidents . In many material respects , their testimony did not conflict with the accounts given by the General Counsel 's witnesses . For example , Hewins admits saying to Sandoval and several other female employees that the union officials were racketeers and had police records . While he denies telling these employees that if the Union got in the female dealers would be replaced by men, he admits saying that "it is very possible if they send a man or two here to deal `21,' I might have to put them to work." Similarly, Hewins admits that he "might have" asked employee Chapman what she heard from her union , but he denies saying to employee Reagan that he could not understand why the girls joined the Union . Although Hewins denies telling the s "The pit" is the area in the casino where the gaming tables are located In the Re- spondent's casino the pit contains 2 crap tables, 11 "21" tables, and 1 roulette wheel The gaming tables are located on either side of an aisle which runs the length of the pit The Respondent's owners and supervisors constantly walk up and down the aisle over- seeing the play at the various tables and exercising close supervision over the entire gaming operation. 0 Mandell is one of the coowners of the Respondent's casino In addition to supervising the play at the tables, Mandell arranges the schedules of the employees working in the pit 16 Both Ramsey and Patronri are "21" dealers. 11 The matter of the switch in shifts will be discussed in greater detail, infra 11 All of the Respondent's "21" dealers were females 13 Hanley and Haerron testified that this incident took place somewhere between 11 a in and noon RENO'S HORSESHOE CLUB, INC. 273 girls that management had intended to give them a raise, he does admit that he and the other coowners had discussed the possibility of a raise. According to Hewins, the employees were the ones who brought up the issue of raises, sick bene- fits, and "so forth," and he told them that he could do nothing until he was "straightened up with this Union." Likewise, Mandell admits that he "may have" asked employees Patronzi and Ramsey whether they had been approached to sign cards for the Union. Mandell also acknowledges that he and the other coowners did not approve of the Union, and that he may have informed the employees that management had nothing against any union coming in if it were a "good legitimate" union. Concerning the visit by the union delegation in September, both Hewins and Mandell place the time of the visit as occurring at approximately 6 p.m. rather than midday. They both state that it was not their custom to be in the club until approximately 3 p.m. However, their recital of what took place in the pit when the union officials arrived coincides with the account given by the union witnesses. Neither Hewins nor Mandell left the pit when the union group attempted to deliver the letter to Marich, and the latter individual was not called as a witness. CONCLUDING FINDINGS It is evident from the above, that Respondent's officials strongly disapproved of the Union and they did not hesitate to make this fact known to the casino employ- ees. By their own admissions, Hewins and Mandel interrogated employees about the union meeting and other activities, and about signing cards on behalf of the Union. Similarly, Hewins' conversation with Sandoval and the other dealers clearly indicates that the Respondent was attempting to convince the employees that the advent of the Union was responsible for the failure to grant increases in wages and other benefits, and, indeed, that acceptance of the Union would result in loss of employment for the female dealers. In those areas where the testimony of Hewins and Mandell conflict with the testimony of the General Counsel's witnesses, I do not credit the former. My observation of these witnesses and my assessment of their partial and somewhat toned down admissions to what I consider to be unlawful conduct, lead me to reject their testimony except where corroborated by other credible witnesses or evidence. It is apparent from this record, that rather than assuming an attitude of forebear- ance in the face of what the Respondent characterizes in its brief as "harassment" by the Union, the Respondent adopted an attitude of extreme hostility as typified by the comments of Irene Marich to the union delegation in September. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by unlawfully interrogating employee Dettori concerning the union meeting of August 10, and by unlawfully interrogating employees Chapman, Ramsey, and Patronzi concerning their union membership and activities. Such inquiries served no legitimate purpose, and were merely attempts to ascertain and inquire into the loyalties, extent of participation, and sympathies of the employees on behalf of the Union. S. S. Logan Packing Company, 152 NLRB 421, 424; Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. Cf. Gal-Tex Hotel Corporation, 154 NLRB 338. I also find that by attempting to convey to the employees the impression that the Union was responsible for the failure of the Respondent to grant increases in wages and other benefits and by suggesting that the Union would require the Respondent to replace the female dealers with men, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in conduct which tended to interfere with the exercise of rights of its employees guaranteed under Section 7. Hermann Equipment Manufacturing Com- pany, Inc., 156 NLRB 716. American Freightways Co., Inc., 124 NLRB 146, 147. B. The employment application form The parties stipulated that the Respondent used an employment application form which contained an inquiry as to the applicant' s union affiliation. This form was first utilized by the Respondent in June 1965, and its use was discontinued in September when the Respondent was advised that the question on the form was unlawful. The General Counsel relies on Clark Printing Company, Inc., 146 NLRB 121, 123, for the proposition that discontinuance of the use of the forms does not render .the unlawful conduct moot. In the circumstances of this case, however, I do not feel that any useful purpose would be served by addressing a remedial order to conduct which has already been remedied. But for the fact that 264-047-67-vol. 162-19 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the'Respondent destroyed all of'the forms containing the question concerning union affiliation, I would hold otherwise. Moreover, there is no evidence in this record that any applicant was refused employment because of union affiliation or failure to answer the question concerning union affiliation . Therefore, I shall not recommend a,remedy for this conduct. C. The discharge of Nona Dettori - Dettori, the employee most active on behalf of the Union, worked from 8 p.m. until 4 a.m. on one of the "swing" shifts at the casino.14 On August 18, at approximately 12:20 a.m. Dettori was sitting in the coffee shop when Mandell came up and told her that she was to report to the 2 a.m. graveyard' shift beginning the following day. Dettori stated, "You know I can't work that shift." Mandell then said, "Do you mean•you are not coming in?", and Dettori replied, "I can't work= it." Mandell then told Dettori that the new shift was all he had .available for her.15 Mandell then left Dettori and reported the conversation to Hewins. Hewins instructed Mandell to replace Dettori. Dettori returned to the pit from the coffee shop and asked Hewins, "Since when did 'Babe' [Mandell] do the firing and hiring?" Hewins' replied that Mandell had not fired her, but that she had quit. Dettori denied that she had quit and asked Hewins what seemed to be going on in the casino. Hewins then stated, "Well, why should I tell you anything what is going on, when you don't tell us anything?" The following morning Dettori reported for work at 2 a.m. and was told by the pit boss that there was no room for her. Dettori then spoke to Hewins who told her that she was not on the payroll. Several days later, Dettori called Hewins on the telephone and asked if she could come in on her regular shift. Hewins denied her request, and stated that she was "too busy on the outside." 16 Hewins testified that because of certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Respondent had to "straighten up the house" and eliminate the shifts of the employees who were working 2 to 3 days a week. According to Hewins, the objective was to attempt to put everyone on a 40-hour, 5-day week. Compliance with the FLSA requirements was the result of lengthy negotiations between the Respondent and wage and hour officials dating back to 1963. As a consequence of these negotiations, a progressive schedule for payment of overtime to the employees was established. Thus, in September 1963, the Respondent was required to pay casino employees overtime for all time worked over 44 hours; in Septem- ber 1964, the Respondent was required to pay overtime for all time over 42 hours; and in September 1965, 'all hours over 40 were to be compensated at the overtime rate. Concluding Findings The Respondent 's contention that Dettori quit her job and was replaced when she refused to accept the assignment to the graveyard shift is not supported by the facts in this case. That Dettori was considered a valued employee is evidenced by the fact that she was reemployed each time that she was forced to stop work for personal reasons.17 It is also apparent that Dettori's short workweek was not solely an accommodation for her family situations but, rather, it was equally beneficial to the Respondent. Thus, her shift coincided with the Respondent's peak periods of business ; i.e., the weekends. Hewins was quite proud of the fact that he employed the "best" casino employees and he maintained that "it was good 14 The peak volume of business at the casino 'occurred during the summer months, be- tween June and October. For this reason the Respondent utilized two "swing" shifts and two "graveyard" shifts. One swing shift was from 6 p m. until 2 am, the other was from 8 p in. until 4 a m. The graveyard shifts were from 2 a in. until 10 a m. and 4 a m. until 12 noon. Dettori averaged 3 to 4 days a week, and worked mainly on the weekends when the casino was experiencing its greatest volume of business. 15 Dettori credibly testified that when she was first hired and on several occasions there- after she informed Hewins and Mandell that she was available to work days or on the swing shifts, but not on the graveyard shifts. Dettori's limited availability was due to the fact that she had five children, and she had to achieve some sort of accommodation be- tween her family needs and her working hours 10 The above is taken from the credited testimony of Dettori. 17 Dettori had been in and out of the Respondent's employ since 1963 On one occasion she left because of pregnancy and on another occasion she left because she injured her foot. Each time that she was able to return to work, the Respondent reemployed her. RENO'S HORSESHOE CLUB, INC. 275 business to keep them." There is no evidence in this record to indicate that Dettori fell below this standard. Moreover, Hewins and Mandell were aware of the limi- tations on Dettori's availability to work the various shifts, and, prior to August 18, were willing to work out an accommodation for her. I find this to be true in spite of the denials to the contrary of Hewins and Mandell. Indeed, such a denial on the part of Hewins is patently inconsistent with his statements that he was "very close to all of his employees" and was "very close" to Dettori. On the basis of the above, it is reasonable to conclude, and I do, that the pend- ing change in overtime compensation under the FLSA regulations was used as a pretext by the Respondent's officials to enable them to order Dettori to change to a shift which she would in all likelihood reject. It is also reasonable to con- clude, and I do, that the change in shifts was prompted by a desire on the part of the Respondent's officials to rid themselves of the leading union adherent among the casino employees. My conclusions in this regard are based on the Respondent's pronounced hostility toward the Union, and the fact that the Respondent was fully aware of Dettori's activities on behalf of the Union.18 Moreover, any doubts that I may have entertained concerning Dettori's discharge are dispelled by the treatment accorded another employee when she was subsequently ordered to trans- fer from the swing shift to the graveyard shift. This employee, Chapman, refused to make the change and the Respondent did not discipline or replace her.19 It is significant that prior to her refusal, Chapman informed Hewins that although she had signed a card for the Union she did not intend to pay dues nor did she intend to become a member of the Union. Thus, I am persuaded that the Respondent's officials seized upon Dettori's rejection of the change in her working hours as a means of effectuating her removal because of her union activities. Bernhard Con- rad Embroidery Company, 156 NLRB 1056; Fab's Famous Foods Company, 152 NLRB 826, 832. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by ordering employee Dettori to change to the graveyard shift and by discharging her when she rejected the change. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices viola- tive of Section 8(a))(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. As the nature of the Respondent's conduct goes "to the very heart of the Act," I shall recommend a broad cease-and-desist order. N.L.R.B. W. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4). I shall recommend that the Respondent offer employee Nona Dettori immediate and full reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her, by payment to her of a sum of money equal to the amount she would have earned from the date of her discriminatory discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, and in a manner consistent with the Board policy set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. Interest on backpay shall be com- puted in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. 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 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. is Hewins admitted on cross-examination that he was aware of Dettori's union activities. 10 Chapman's husband, a dealer at another casino, was transferred from the swing to the graveyard shift, and Chapman requested that she be given a like transfer at the Respond- ent's casino. Before the change was made, her husband was returned to the swing shift. When Mandell later ordered Chapman to switch to the graveyard shift, she refused. Angered by her refusal, Mandell made the comment concerning the Union previously set forth herein. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. By interrogating its employees concerning their union membership, sym- pathies, and activities , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By informing employees that they would not receive increases in wages or other benefits because of the Union , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 5. By informing employees that the Union would require the replacement of female dealers by male dealers , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. By discharging an employee because of membership in and activities on behalf of the Union , the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case , I recommend that Reno 's Horseshoe Club, Inc., its officers, agents , successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Interrogating employees concerning their union membership , sympathies, or activities in a manner violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. (b) Withholding increases in wages and other benefits from employees, and informing employees that such increases cannot be granted because of the Union. (c) Informing female employees that the Union will cause them to be replaced by male employees. (d) Discharging employees because of membership in or activities on behalf of the Union. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form , join, or assist the above- named Union , or any other labor organization , 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 as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Nona Dettori immediate and full reinstatement to her former or to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and privileges , and make her whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy," for the discrimination against her. (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying , all payroll records , social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports , and all other records relevant to a determination of backpay due under the terms of this Decision. (c) Post at its casino in Reno, Nevada , copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix ." 20 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 20 , shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent , be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees 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. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in writing , within 20 days from the date of the receipt of this Decision , what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 21 20 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice. In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 21 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." HAGOPIAN & SONS, INC. 277 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the allegations in the complaint alleging unlawful conduct other than found unlawful in this Decision be dismissed. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT question you about your membership in or your activities on behalf of American Federation of Casino and Gaming Employees , or any other union. WE WILL NOT withhold wage increases or other benefits , or tell you that we are withholding increases and benefits because of the Union. WE WILL NOT tell our female employees that the Union will cause them to be replaced by male employees. WE WILL offer Nona Dettori immediate reinstatement to her former position. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named Union , or any other union , or to refrain from such membership. RENO'S HORSESHOE CLUB, INC., Employer. Dated------ ------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal Building , 450 Golden Gate Avenue , Box 36047 , San Francisco , California 94102 , Telephone 556-0035. Hagopian & Sons, Inc. and John Mason. Cases 7-CA-5415 and 7-CA-5415(2). December 20, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On August 3, 1966, Trial Examiner Sidney Sherman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond- ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac- tices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Exam- iner's Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief, cross-exception, and a brief in support of the cross-exception. 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 these cases to a three-member panel iMembers Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. 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 162 NLRB No. 12.