Stafford's Restaurant, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 15, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 474 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Stafford ' s Restaurant , Inc. and Detroit Local Joint Execu- tive Board Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Barten- ders International Union, AFL-CIO and Locals 234, 562, 880 and 705 and Theresa Hunt .'Cases 7-CA-7045 and 7-CB-1860 May 15, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On June 23, 1969, Trial Examiner Frederick U. Reel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Stafford's Restaurant, Inc., here- in called the Respondent Employer, and Respondents Detroit Local Joint Executive Board and Locals 234 and 705, herein called the Respondent Unions, have engaged in and are engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision, As to the Respondent Locals 562 and 880, the Trial Examiner found that they had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged and he recommended as to those Respondents that the complaint be dismissed in its entire- ty. Thereafter, the' General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with a supporting brief,' and the Respondent Unions filed an answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions, in which the Respondent Employer has joined. 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 con- nection, with these cases to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 these cases, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, as modified herein. In the absence of exceptions the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's findings that the Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (3) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing a provision in its collective- bargaining agreement with Respondent Unions requiring its employees to obtain union membership within 7 days following their employment, by requiring employees to sign combined membership applications and dues- checkoff authorizations as a condition of employment, and by deducting dues and initiation fees from an employ- ee who had not signed a dues-checkoff authorization ' The General Counsel has not excepted to the Trial Examiner's dismissal of the complaint as it relates to Respondent Locals 562 and 880 Similarly, in the absence of exceptions, we adopt the Trial Examiner's findings that Respondent Unions violat- ed Section 8(b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act by maintaining in effect and enforcing the unlawful union-security provi- sion referred to above, and by insisting at all times material to these cases on compulsory execution by Stafford's employees of combined membership applica- tions and dues-checkoff authorizations at the time of their hire. THE REMEDY The General Counsel has excepted to the Trial Exam- iner's recommended remedy, contending, as he did before the Trial Examiner, that proper effectuation of the policies of the Act requires, that the Respondents reimburse all employees hired within 6 months preceding the filing of the charges for all dues and fees unlawfully exacted from them., Although the Trial Examiner acknowledged the reasonableness of the General Coun- sel's requested remedy, he concluded, nevertheless, that the Board's decision in Gladys A. Juett2 was dispositive of the issue before him, and, accordingly, recommended that reimbursement be limited to the period when dues and fees could not have been required under a valid union-security clause. For the reasons related below, we find that the violations which gave rise to the Board's limited remedy in the Juett case are distinguishable, both in kind and degree, from the unlawful conduct which gave rise to the instant cases. The Board's remedial order in the Juett case was predicated on findings that an employer engaged in the construction industry violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by entering into and maintaining a provision in a revised collective-bargaining agreement requiring union membership on rather than after the seventh day of employment, which was applied retroactively, and which the employer implemented by requiring applicants for employment to execute union membership or dues- deduction authorizations at the time of hire. In Juett the unlawful union-security provision was entered into by the employer in 1960, shortly after the provisions of Section 8(f) were incorporated into the Act, no charges were filed against the contracting union , and the unlawful union-security provision was modified so as to make it legally enforceable and in conformity with the Act in less than a year after its execution. In the instant cases, by contrast, there is a bargaining history between the Respondents which dates back to approximately 1940, and it is undisputed that at all times since that date they have maintained in effect and enforced a provision in their collective-bargaining agreements requiring Stafford's employees, as a condition of employ- ment, to become union members on the seventh day following their date of hire, notwithstanding that the Respondent Employer is not engaged in the construction industry, and such a requirement has been contrary to the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act for more 2 Gladys A Jueti, Admmutratrir of the Estate of C D Juett, Deceased, 137 NLRB 395 182 NLRB No. 63 STAFFORD 'S RESTAURANT , INC. 475 than 20 years . Coupled with this longtime adherence to an unlawful and invalid union -security provision, is the additional finding that the Respondent Employer has, at least since November 21, 1967,' and at the insistence of the Respondent Unions, required its employees to execute combined union membership and dues-checkoff authorizations as a, condition of employ- ment , even though the collective-bargaining agreement specifies that dues-deduction authorizations are to be "voluntary." Furthermore, the record reveals that prior to the onset of the hearing in these matters , the Respond- ents entered into negotiations and reached agreement on modifications to their June 1,, 1966, agreement, but they did not modify the union-security provision to bring it in conformity with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and there is no evidence that the Respondents have ceased their insistence on the unlawful practice of requir- ing employees to execute union membership applications and checkoff authorizations as a condition of hire. Respondents ' maintenance and enforcement of a void and legally unenforceable union-security provision, when considered in conjunction with Respondents ' equally unlawful practice of requiring new employees to execute membership applications and checkoff authorizations as a condition of employment , warrants our conclusion that it will not properly effectuate the policies of the Act to permit retention of the unlawful exactions.4 Accordingly, we shall order the Respondent Employer and Respondent Local 705, jointly and severally, to reimburse all employees hired after May 18, 1968, who were not members of the Union at the time of hire, for all dues , initiation fees, and assessments exacted from them . We shall impose similar liability , joint and several, on Respondents Detroit Local Joint Executive Board and Local 234 as to all employees hired after September 18, 1968. As recommended by the Trial Exam- iner, the sums due the employees shall bear interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum ORDER Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, as modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent Stafford ' s Restau- rant, Inc., Detroit, Michigan, and Respondents Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO, and its Locals 234 and 705, Detroit, Michigan, and their respective officers, agents, successors , and assigns, 3 The Board is mindful that events which transpired more than 6 months prior to the filing of the charges in these cases may not serve as a basis for finding a violation of the Act However , in conformity with our general practice, we do consider such events outside the 10(b) period in determining the proper remedial measures to counteract the effect of the violations found to have occurred within the 6 months preceding the filing of the charges Lundy Manufacturing Corporation, 136 NLRB 1230, enfd 316 F 2d 921 (C A 2), cert denied 375 U S 895 ' Statchwell Electric Construction Company, Inc , 128 NLRB 1265, 1280 shall take the action set forth in thit Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as herein modified: 1. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the following: "(a) Jointly and severally reimburse all employees hired by Respondent Stafford ' s Restaurant , Inc. after May 18, 1968, who were not members of Respondent Unions on their date of hire , for all • dues, initiation fees, and assessments withheld from their pay on behalf of Respondent Locals 234 and 705, provided that the joint and several liability of Respondents Detroit Local Joint Executive Board and Local 234 shall apply only to employees hired after September 18, 1968 , and provid- ed further that the sums to be reimbursed by Respondent Locals 234 and 705 shall be separately limited to sums withheld on behalf of each." 2. Delete the sixth indented paragraph of Appendix A attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision and substi- tute the following- WE WILL reimburse all employees hired by us after May 18, 1968 , who were not union members on their date of hire , for all dues , initiation fees, and assessments withheld from their pay for the benefit of Locals 234 and 705, Hotel and Restaurant Employees , & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO. Local 705 is jointly and severally liable with us for such reimbursements for all who were hired after May 18, 1968, and Detroit Local Joint Executive Board and Local 234 are also jointly and severally liable with us for such reimbursement" for those who were hired after September 18, 1968 3. Delete the fourth indented paragraph of Appendix B attached to the Trial Examiner's Decision and substi- tute the following: WE WILL, jointly and severally with Stafford's Restaurant , Inc., reimburse employees for all dues, initiation fees, and assessments unlawfully withheld from their pay on our behalf. The liability of Local 705, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union , AFL-CIO for reimbursement applies to employees hired by Stafford's after May 18, 1968 , and the liability of Detroit Local Joint Executive Board and' Local 234 applies to employ- ees hired after September 18, 1968. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE FREDERICK U. REEL: Trial Examiner: These cases, consolidated by order of the Regional Director and heard at Detroit , Michigan , on April 29 , 1969, originated with charges filed against Respondent Stafford's and Respondent Local 705 on November 18, 1968, an amend- ed charge filed against all Respondent labor organizations on March 18, 1969, and a complaint issued April 1, 1969. Essentially the case presents questions as to the appropriate remedial action to be taken ' with respect to a palpably illegal union -security contract . Although issue was duly jcsined by the filing of answers, at the 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hearing before me Counsel for the Respondent Employer amended his answer to " enter a plea of no contest if that is possible in these proceedings." Further explain- ing the position of Respondent Employer, counsel repre- sented that his client would take no further part in the litigation but would abide by whatever result was ultimately reached in the litigation between the remaining parties, and would acknowledge its liability to whatever extent this was determined in the litigation. Upon the entire record and after due consideration of the briefs filed by General Counsel and Respondent labor organizations, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THEiEMPLOYER AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Respondent Stafford's Restaurant, Inc., herein called Stafford's,' is a Michigan corporation, which together with an affiliated corporation operates restaurants in the Detroit area. The annual gross revenue of the restau- rants is approximately $950,000, and they purchased substantial amounts of products and supplies from Michi- gan wholesalers who received such merchandise directly from outside the State. Stafford's is therefore an Employ- er engaged in an activity affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The other Respondents, consisting of the Detroit Local Joint iExecutive, Board, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (herein called the Joint Board), and its four constituent Locals, 234, 562,E 880, and 705, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. In general terms, Local 705 represents' waitresses; Local 234, cooks; Local 562, bartenders; and Local 880, hotel-motel employees. Stafford's has no employees within the jurisdiction of Local 562 or Local 880 II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On June 1, 1966, Stafford's and the Joint Board "repre- senting and acting for" the four constituent locals, execu- ted a contract which included among its provisions 'a requirement that employees had to join the' appropriate union within 7 days after being hired. This provision is, of course, a plain violation of the 30-day requirement contained in Section 8(a)(3) 6f the Act, and' the parties, by maintaining,it (whether or not it was enforced) have violated Section 8(a)(l), (2), and (3), and Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2). Pantlind Hotel Co., 175 NLRB No. 125. In the Pantlind case the Board stated: "We shall not, however, order dues reimbursement . . . because it has not been shown,that any . ... employees joined the Union under coercion rather than of their own volition." The basic issue in the instant case is whether the facts here call for the reimbursement remedy. The contract provided for a checkoff of union dues for arty employee who "has voluntarily signed a waiver card authorizing the,deduction of same! . ." The parties stipulated that, notwithstanding that clause, the dues of the Charging Party were in fact deducted from her pay although she at no time signed such an authorization. In addition, General Counsel urges that the record estab- lishes that the signing of such authorizations by any other employees was not voluntary. For the reasons indicated below, I find merit in this contention. On November 21, 1967, the financial secretary of Local 234 sent the following letter to Stafford's: We are reluctantly refunding to your Company the amount of - $30.00 on a Mr. Carl Price which I can assure you that our organization will not do this in the future. • , In accordance with your present existing labor contract, employees must make application and become a member on the 7th day. We, the Union, have never enforced this clause simply because you have a checkoff system with dues and initiation fees being sent to this Union once each month and I can assure you that we, have no intention ,of disturbing our relations pertaining to the monthly checkoff system. The Union has sent to your Company waiver cards to authorize payroll deductions and it is your obligation to have all new employees sign the waiver cards on their date of hire. We are sorry that a matter of this sort arose but we sincerely hope that it will make no changes in the fine relations between your Company and Local 234. Upon receiving this letter, Dan Vatsis, president of Stafford's, drew a circle around the third paragraph, and sent it to his secretary, Gerry Amo, with the follow- ing note: "Gerry, read this. When they fill W-4 you also have them sign this." ' The ,'waiver cards" in question are captioned "Mem- bership Application and Check-Off Authorization Card." They are addressed to the Employer, and recite that the employee signing the card, requests and accepts membership in the appropriate Local, and authorizes the Employer to deduct membership dues, initiation fees, or reinstatement fees from the employee's first pay of each month and to remit to the Local the sum thus deducted. Vatsis' testified that since receiving the letter quoted above it has been and is Stafford's practice to have the employees sign these cards within the first week of their employment.. Under these circumstances 'I find that the employees who signed the membership application and checkoff card did so because signing of that card was a condition of employment, and hence was not "voluntary." The record establishes that in most, if not all, instances deductions were not made until after 30 days of employ- ment. Relying on this fact and on the Pantlind case, the Respondent labor organizations argue that a dues reimbursement order is not warranted. Moreover, several cases establish that even in the event of a nonvoluntary checkoff, the Board will order dues reimbursement only for the first month's dues. See Cadillac Wire Corp., 128 NLRB 1002„ enfd. 290 F.2d 261 (C.A. 2); Campbell ,STAFFORD 'S RESTAURANT . INC.' , ' 477 Soup Company, 152 NLRB 1645, enfd. 378 F.2d 259 (C.A. 9), cert. denied 389 U.S. 900; Gladys A. Juett, 137 NLRB 395 General Counsel distinguishes the Cadillac and Camp- bell cases on the ground that the contracts in those cases were valid, and the sole illegality lay in the coercion of the checkoff. In essence, therefore, General Counsel concedes that where the contract is lawful but the check- off is coerced (Cadillac and Campbell), or where the contract is unlawful but the checkoff is voluntary (Pant- lind) the full reimbursement remedy is not warranted. But, says the General' Counsel, if both the contract and the checkoff are tainted, as in this case, reimburse- ment of all dues is appropriate. I confess to a certain sympathy with General Counsel's argument. To permit parties to an illegal contract and an illegal checkoff to escape with no liability to the employees whose frights were thus doubly invaded almost invites violation of the statute. In effect it assures the parties that no matter how illegal their contract and their practice, the Board will grant only such relief as is required to put the contract into legal form. On the other hand, to grant full reimbursement may be said to give a windfall to employees who have enjoyed the benefits of represen- tation, and for that reason such a remedy may be more appropriate where the ,labor organization was the beneficiary of unlawful assistance in acquiring its majori- ty status. In any event, I find the,Juett case, supra, dispositive of the matter. In that case the Board had before it both a coerced checkoff and a contract which did not allow the statutory time before requiring union member- ship.' Over the dissent of Member Rodgers, who there espoused the view here urged by General Counsel ('137 NLRB at 397, fn. 6), the Board in Juettlordered dues reimbursed only for the period in which they could not have been required under a valid contract. I therefore reach a similar result here, except as to the Charging Party, who never authorized'any deductions and is enti- tled to full reimbursement. ' ' General Counsel also alleged that Stafford's "threat- ened employees with discharge for failing to join Respondent Unions and authorizing deductions for union dues and fees six days after date of hire." The sole testimony relied on in support of this allegation is that of Stafford's president, describing his conversation with the Charging Party when she complained of the' deduc- tions from her pay. His testimony reads in pertinent part: in a week or two from that' date she was going to Europe. She wanted her money back because she was leaving. I asked her to go to the union and I gave her the address- I believe. That's how we left it. We didn't have an argument or anything. She-said that she would to the best of my recollec- tion. That was the last that I talked to Theresa concerning the matter. In the next day or two I received notification from the National Labor Relations Board notifying me she had lodged a complaint. Q. During this conversation do you recollect tell- ing her that she could have been discharged for not being a member of the union? A. No, I don't believe so, I don't think I said that. Q. What do you recollect saying? A. I don't think I said anything like ' that. I might have told her something like she knew that it" was a union house and that she knew that she had to' join the union. I didn't threaten her or try to intimidate her or anything like that in this conversation. I knew she was leaving our employ- ment within a week or two. This testirony falls far short of sustaining the allegation quoted above. Finally, the testimony establishes - that Respondent Locals 562 and 880 had no members at Stafford's, had Ino irelations with it, and took no part in the unfair labor practices here found except that their names appear on the printed portions, of the contract as members of the Joint Board. I hereby grant the motion to dismiss the complaint as to Locals 562 and•880. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By maintaining in their collective-bargaining agree- ment an illegal union-security clause requiring union membership within 7 days following employment, by requiring employees to sign checkoff authorizations as a condition of employment and by deducting dues and initiation" fees from an employee who did not sign a checkoff authorization, Staffords's has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1), (2), and (3), and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Anyway, she wanted her money back and I told her that I didn't have it and I felt she should go down to the union.' I asked her to go to the union and see if they wouldn't refund her money to her inasmuch as she was leaving to go to Europe, ' The deficiency in the time allowed in that contract was only I day, rather than 23 as in 'the case at bar, but I perceive no legal distinction between the two, and the Board did not indicate in Juett that it was influenced by the technical character of the violation 2. By maintaining in effect the contract described in the foregoing conclusion of law, and by insisting on the compulsory checkoff there described, Respond- ents Joint Board and its Locals 234 and 705 have engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(b)(l)'(A) and (2) and 2(6)' and (7) of the Act. 3. Respondent Locals 562 and 880 have not. engaged in any of the aforementioned unfair labor practices. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY As stated above, I shall recommend in accordance with the Juett case that Stafford's and the Respondent Unions jointly and severally reimburse any employee for union dues deducted from his wages for the first 30 days of his employment (including initiation fees deducted from the wages of employees who worked less than 30 days) and also that they jointly and severally reimburse the Charging Party for all union dues and fees deducted from her wages. Because of the limitations period provided in Section 10(b) of the Act, the liability of Stafford's and Local 705 commences May 19, 1968; the liability of the Joint Board and Local 234 commences September 19, 1968, 6 months prior to the dates the respective charges were served. All sums due under this order shall bear interest as provided in Seafarers International Union; 138 NLRB 1142. Finally, I shall, of course, recommend that the parties cease and desist from their unfair labor practices (including giving effect to any checkoff authorizations which were not voluntarily signed) and post appropriate notices. Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings and conclu- sions, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend, pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, issuance of the following: ORDER Respondent Stafford's Restaurant, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and Respondents Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, , AFL- 'CIO, its Locals 234 and 705, and their respective officers, agents, and representatives, shall- 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Entering into or maintaining or enforcing any con- tract which requires employees to become or remain members of any labor organization, except to the extent that such contract conforms with the requirements of Section 8 (a)(3) of the Act. (b) Insisting as a condition of employment that employees authorize the withholding of union dues and fees (c) Withholding union dues or fees from the pay of employees who were not apprised by Stafford's Res- taurant, Inc., that execution of checkoff authorizations was voluntary and not required (provided, that this paragraph shall apply only to Stafford's Restaurant, Inc.). (d) Assisting or contributing support to Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and its Locals 234 and 705, or to any other labor organization of its employees (provided, that this paragraph shall apply only to Stafford's Restaurant, Inc.). (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act (provided, that the phrase "interfering with" in this paragraph is applicable to-Staffor'd's Restaurant, Inc.). 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Make whole in the manner and for the periods set forth in that portion, of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "The Remedy,"' all employees from whom dues were deducted for the first 30 days of their employment, all employees from whom initiation fees were deducted who worked less than 30 days for Stafford's, and the Charging Party (provided that the liability of Locals 234 and 705 under this provision shall be separately limited to sums deducted on behalf of each). (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 necessary to analyze the amounts due under the terms of this Order. (c) Amend their collective-bargaining contract to the extent that said contract does not conform to the require- ments of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (d) Post at 'their respective' places 'of business the two attached notices marked "Appendixes A and B."2 Each of the Respondents upon receiving copies of the notice appropriate to it on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, shall have its authorized representative duly sign said notices, post copies at its place of business, and return other, copies to the Regional Director for posting by the other Respondent. Copies of both notices shall be posted by the Respond- ents immediately upon receipt thereof, and shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees or members (to who the notice is directed) are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.3 2 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 " 1 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondents have taken to comply herewith STAFFORD 'S RESTAURANT , INC 479 NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES APPENDIX A directly with the Board ' s Regional Office, 500 Book Building , 1249 Washington Boulevard , Detroit , Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3244 APPENDIX B Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam- iner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that WE WILL NOT include , maintain , or continue in our collective -bargaining contract with Detroit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and its Locals 234 and 705, or with any other affiliated local organization , any clauses which provide that employees must become union members in less than 30 days after they are hired WE WILL NOT require that employees as a condi tion of employment authorize us to withhold union dues or fees from their wages WE WILL NOT give effect to any such authoriza- tions which were obtained from employees who were not advised that such authorizations were voluntary WE WILL NOT assist or contribute support to Detroit Local Joint Executive Board , Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, and its Locals 234 and 705, or to any other labor organization of our employees WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act WE WILL, jointly and severally with the above- named Unions , reimburse employees for any dues deducted from their wages for the first 30 days of their employment, and for initiation fees deduct- ed from employees who worked less than 30 days WE WILL, jointly and severally with the above named Unions , reimburse Theresa Hunt for all union dues and fees deducted from her pay without her authorization STAFFORD'S RESTAURANT, 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 NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS AND TO EMPLOYEES OF STAFFORD'S RESTAURANT, INC Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam iner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify you that WE WILL NOT include , maintain , or continue in our collective -bargaining agreement with Stafford ' s Restaurant , Inc , any clauses which pro- vide that employees must become union members in less than 30 days after they are hired WE WILL NOT instruct Stafford's Restaurant, Inc that it must obtain dues checkoff authoriza- tions from employees WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act WE WILL, jointly and severally with Stafford's Restaurant , Inc , reimburse employees for any dues deducted from their wages for the first 30 days of their employment , and for initiation fees deduct ed from employees who worked less than 30 days WE WILL, jointly and severally with Stafford's Restaurant, Inc , reimburse Theresa Hunt for all union dues and fees deducted from her pay without her authorization DETROIT LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO Dated By (Labor Organization) (Representative ) (Title) LOCAL 234, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 480 Dated By DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (Representative ) (Title) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) LOCAL 705 , HOTEL AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) 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. Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele- phone 313-226-3244.