Waitresses' Union No. 276

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 9, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Waitresses' Union No. 276, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO (Tri-Metro, Incorporated , d/b/a Presi- dent Motor Inn) and Alberta Schoborg. Case 9-CB-1729 November 9, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On May 28, 1970, Trial Examiner Max Rosenberg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting 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, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein. The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that on and after December 12, 1969, Respondent failed and refused to refer or clear Alberta Schoborg for work at the President Motor Inn solely because she "offended" Respondent's intraunion rules which prohibit union members from working at Stouffer's, a nonunion restaurant. Although the Trial Examiner stated that he would order Respondent to refer or clear Schoborg for employment as a banquet waitress at the Inn on a nondiscriminatory basis, the affirma- tive portion of his Recommended Order does not contain such a provision. Similarly, the cease-and- desist portion of said Order does not explicitly require Respondent to refrain from discriminatorily declining to refer or clear Schoborg for employment as a banquet waitress at the Inn because of noncompli- ance with intraunion rules which prohibit Respon- dent's members from working at a nonunion restau- rant. We shall therefore clarify the Order and the notice in the manner indicated below. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Board, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examiner, as herein modified, and hereby orders that Respondent, Waitresses' Union No. 276, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, its offi- cers, agents, and representatives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as so modified. 1. Substitute the following for 1(a): "Causing, or attempting to cause, Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, to refuse to employ Alberta Schoborg as a banquet waitress by discriminatorily declining to refer or clear her for employment with said employer because of her noncompliance with intraunion rules which prohibit Respondent's members from working at a nonunion restaurant." 2. Reletter paragraphs 2(c) and (d) as 2(d) and (e) and insert the following as paragraph 2(c): "Refer or clear Alberta Schoborg for employment as a banquet waitress at the President Motor Inn on a nondiscriminatory basis regardless of her noncompli- ance with Respondent's intraunion rules which prohibit its members from working at a nonunion restaurant." 3. Substitute the following for the first indented paragraph in the Appendix: WE WILL NOT cause, or attempt to cause, Tri- Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, to refuse to employ Alberta Schoborg as a banquet waitress by discriminatorily declining to refer or clear her for employment with that Company because of her not obeying the Union's rules which do not allow its members to work at a nonunion restaurant. 4. Insert in the Appendix the following as the second indented paragraph: WE WILL without discrimination refer or clear Alberta Schoborg for employment as a banquet waitress at the President Motor Inn even if she does not obey the Union's rules which do not allow its members to work at a nonunion restau- rant. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: With all parties represented, this proceeding was heard before me in Cincinnati, Ohio, on March 11, 1970, on complaint of the 186 NLRB No. 75 WAITRESSES' UNION NO. 276 General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an answer filed thereto by Waitresses' Union No. 276, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Respondent or the Union.' The pleadings raise the issue of whether Respondent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by causing Tri- Metro, Inc., d /b/a President Motor Inn, herein called the Inn, to refuse employment to Alberta Schoborg, the Charging Party, for reasons other than her failure to pay the initiation fee and dues uniformly required as a condition of membership in Respondent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties waived oral argument. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and the Respondent, which have been duly considered. Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and my observation of the witnesses, including their demeanor while on the stand, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Inn is a Kentucky corporation which is engaged in the business of operating a motel and restaurant facility at Fort Mitchell, Kentucky. Since August 1969, to date, a representative period, the Inn had a direct inflow of goods and products in interstate commerce valued in excess of $50,000 which it purchased and caused to be shipped directly to it in the State of Kentucky from points outside said State. During the same span of time, the Inn had a gross volume of business in excess of $500,000. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Inn is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES It is undisputed and I find that, at all times material herein, Respondent has been a signatory to a collective- bargaining agreement with the Inn covering the conditions of employment I for I banquetI waitresses1 employed I the reat.2 In pertinent part, the contract recites that 1. In order to facilitate the employment of new employees, to assure employers of a regular source of available skilled labor, to assure culinary craft employ- ees an efficient system of locating employment and protecting job rights accrued while in the employ of various employers in the trade in this area, each Union herein undertakes to operate a job referral system for employees within their respective jurisdictions, as hereinafter set forth. In all cases, except emergencies, the management shall call the job referral system of the appropriate union for employees... . I The complaint, which issued on January 28, 1970, is based on charges and amended charges which were filed on December 18, 1969, and January 19, 1970, respectively, and served on December 23, 1969, and January 21, 1970, respectively 485 2. It is understood and agreed by the individual unions, signatories to this agreement, and the employer, that the selection of applicants for referrals to jobs shall be on a non-discriminatory basis and shall not be based on, or in any way affected by, union membership, by- laws, rules, regulations, constitutional provisions or any other aspect or obligation of union membership policies or requirements... . 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any employer may request an individual by name who was formerly employed by him in the same or related classification requested within a period of 150 days preceding the date of request, and said employee shall be referred, notwithstanding his or her order of registration. It is also uncontroverted and I find that, in October 1967, Alberta Schoborg, the Charging Party herein, made a direct application to the Inn for employment as a "banquet waitress." A banquet waitress, as the classification implies, serves only at banquets and is not scheduled to work each day with a given number of productive hours. Because the Inn was under contract with Respondent, Schoborg was required to and did join its ranks at the inception of her employment. From 1967 until the times immediately material herein, she regularly worked at the Inn, which catered to most of the banquets in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area, on an average of four times per month. During the holiday seasons in December, Schoborg's work engage- ments escalated markedly. In addition to her employment at the Inn, Schoborg also was referred by the Union to other hotels in the locality, as well as to private clubs. Schoborg testified and I find that it was the normal practice, after she started working for the Inn, for the head waitress or some other representative of management to telephone her directly and schedule her work days and hours, and that she in turn would simply communicate this intelligence to the union hiring hall. Hilda Schneider, catering manager at the Inn, testified that she coordinates all the banquets at the Inn and schedules the waitresses, a position which she assumed in July 1969.3 Prior thereto, she was employed by the Holiday Inn in Cincinnati in the same capacity. It is undenied and I find that, during her tour of duty with Holiday Inn, she maintained a seniority list of "steady" banquet waitresses which she utilized to procure help. According to Schneider, Holiday Inn was a signatory to the above-cited contract with Respondent and, when she was in need of waitresses, she telephoned the girls directly and scheduled them for work without clearing the matter with the Union. Schneider recounted that, when she assumed her duties at the Inn, she had a seniority list of "steady" waitresses which, based on seniority, contained the names of Chris Clark, Jessie Shouse, Judy Delk, and Alberta Schoborg and which she used to summon the girls directly for employment as the occasion arose. On October 1, the President Motor Inn was acquired by Tn-Metro, Incorporated. Shortly thereafter, officials of the constituent locals in the Cincinnati Joint Executive Board, including Fay Bryant, Respondent's secretary and business manager, 2 Respondent is but one of five labor organizations affiliated with the Cincinnati Joint Executive Board, all of whom executed this contract 3 Unless otherwise indicated , all dates herein fall in 1969 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD visited the Inn and spoke with the Inn's general manager, Bellagamba, concerning the administration of the labor agreement which the new management elected to honor. Following this visit, Bellagamba instructed Schneider to communicate with the Union to ascertain whether any change in the manner of obtaining banquet waitresses was contemplated. Schneider placed a call to Donna Rose, Respondent's general bookkeeper who is in charge of banquets, and the former told Rose that Schneider maintained a seniority roster from which she directly telephoned the girls for work. Schneider read off the names of the waitresses on the roster in order of seniority and Rose remarked that the list coincided with that which she herself had kept. The conversation terminated with Rose assuring Schneider that the latter's method for obtaining personnel was satisfactory with Respondent. Schneider thereupon continued to employ banquet waitresses pursuant to the established procedures by telephoning the most senior girls, including Schoborg, whenever their services were required, until early December, when the procedures were altered under circumstances to be chronicled hereinafter. Upon joining the Union in 1967, Schoborg attended several meetings of that organization. During the course of these gatherings, she learned from Fay Bryant that it was permissible for members to seek employment at Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn, despite the fact that this restaurant was nonunion. The Union's apparent purpose in allowing its girls to work at Stouffer's was to create an organizational core at the installation upon which to base an ultimate claim as the majority representative of Stouffer's waitresses. Because work was slack at the Inn in April, Schoborg made an application with the banquet manager at Stouffer's for employment at the end of April and was instructed to report for duty early in May. When she commenced serving Stouffer's patrons in the latter month, four other banquet waitresses who were members of Respondent were already employed and, thereafter, five additional members were retained by that management. Following her employment at Stouffer's, Schoborg continued to serve at the Inn and other hotels. Having failed to organize Stouffer's from within, the Cincinnati Joint Executive Board adopted a resolution on August 4 placing Stouffer's on its "unfair list" and directing the members of the constituent locals not to work for that company or patronize it. The resolution further advised that the members must "comply with the resolution and cease their employment with Stouffer's by September 1. Members who continue to work for Stouffer's after September 1, will be subject to having charges placed against them for violation of their obligations under the Constitution of our International Union. If found guilty of these charges, a member could be fined, suspended and/or expelled from the Union." Schoborg received this intelli- gence on August 27, 1969, and dutifully quit her job at Stouffer's. In November, while observing a newscast on television, Schoborg noted that some union officials had attended a banquet at Stouffer's. Believing that Stouffer's could no longer be on Respondent's "unfair list" if its officers patronized the establishment, and feeling the need for earning more money due to the advent of Christmas, Schoborg once more applied for a job at Stouffer's on November 18, and was told to report on November 21. Meanwhile, she telephoned the Union to relay this information. Schoborg testified and I find that, when she placed the call, she asked for Fay Bryant, the secretary-business manager . Because Bryant was not available at the time, Schoborg spoke with Carol Momper, Bryant's daughter, who works in Respondent's office. Schoborg related to Momper that, due to financial circumstances occasioned by lack of jobs, she felt the necessity of resuming her relationship with Stouffer's. Momper inquired whether Schoborg planned to continue working at the Inn. Schoborg replied that the reason for her telephone call was to ascertain whether she would be permitted to do so, to which Momper remarked that "we can't stop you." Momper added that Schoborg should make timely remissions of her union dues, but then cautioned that "You won't be considered a good member, but you will have to use your judgment " Hilda Schneider credibly testified and I find that, on December 1, she telephoned Rose to notify the latter of the names of the waitresses which she had scheduled for work the following week in conformity with past practice. Rose informed Schneider that, under instructions from Bryant, Schneider could independently schedule Chris Clark and Jessie Shouse but that thereafter Respondent's officials would unilaterally determine when and if Schoborg could be employed at the Inn. After Schneider read off the list of prospective waitresses to Rose, including the name of Schoborg, Rose remarked, "I don't think Alberta will be sent out-Fay-we will send somebody else out, because they [the Union] had a grievance against her." Following this conversation, Schneider commenced to receive waitresses selected by Respondent. Because these girls proved to be unsatisfactory, Schneider decided to contact Bryant in an effort to work out some agreement for obtaining the services of Schoborg. Schneider reached Bryant on December 12 or 13 and complained that Schoborg's replacements did not perform their duties in a satisfactory manner. Bryant retorted, "Well, it is none of your concern. All you have to do is call in to me the number of girls you need and when you need them, and I will take care of the rest." Schneider further testified and I find that, after the date of this conversation, the Union did not refer Schoborg for employment with the Inn until early March 1970. Schoborg was directly hired by Schneider for work during this period, but only on an "emergency" basis. Continuing the narrative, Schoborg testified and I find that, on December 8, she received a telephone call from Rose during which the latter stated, "This is Donna. Have you got a pen or pencil ready? I have the lineup for the [Inn]." Schoborg replied that she had pencil and paper in hand, at which juncture she overheard Bryant remark to Rose, "I told you not to call her yet." " Whereupon, Rose informed Schoborg that "I am sorry, Alberta, I will have to call you later," and the discussion ended. Rose did not fulfill her promise, in consequence of which Schoborg telephoned the union hall the following day and spoke to Momper. When Schoborg complained that she had not received her work schedule for the Inn, Momper rejoined that "Donna takes care of that, and you'll just have to WAITRESSES' UNION NO. 276 487 wait." Two days later, Schoborg placed a call to Schneider to inquire whether the latter had been contacted by the Union regarding Schoborg's referral for employment at the Inn. Schneider responded that she had not heard from Respondent and advised Schoborg to report for work at the Inn on December 12 despite the Union' s silence. When she appeared for work on December 12, Schneider informed her that the Union had dispatched another waitress to serve that evening and that the Union made it clear that Schoborg could not be employed at the Inn for that engagement. Schoborg testified and I find that, from December 12 until March 3, 1970, after the complaint in this proceeding issued , she worked at the Inn on an "emergency" basis but was not referred or cleared for "steady" employment at this restaurant as had been the custom in the past. She also testified and I find that Respondent did not refer her for work at other restaurants between the period of December 12 and February 20, 1970. Schoborg filed the initial unfair labor practice charges against Respondent on December 18. By letter dated January 13, 1970, and over the signature of Fay Bryant, Schoborg was notified that intraunion charges had been lodged against her pursuant to the International Union's constitution for having worked at Stouffer's Cincinnati Inn after September 1 in defiance of the resolution adopted by the Cincinnati Joint Executive Board on August 4. In this document, she was further notified that a hearing on the Union's charges was scheduled for January 26, 1970. The parties stipulated and I find that, on March 9, 1970, 2 days before the hearing herein, the Union's trial committee rendered its findings and recommendation. The recommen- dation called for the imposition of a fine upon Schoborg in the sum of $150, payable over a 1-year period. However, Bryant then moved to increase the fine to $300, payable immediately. Finally, the committee voted to declare Schoborg ineligible to hold office in Respondent for 2 years, or to attend meetings or vote for a similar period. The General Counsel contends that Respondent refused to refer or clear Schoborg for employment at the Inn on or after December 12 because she had defied the Respon- dent's ban on working for Stouffer 's, a nonunion restau- rant. Respondent asserts that Schoborg did in fact toil at the Inn on nine occasions between December 12 and March 3, 1970; that Respondent telephoned five different times to refer her but no one answered the calls at her home; and that, in any event, the catering business was slack during the months of December, January, and February.4 With respect to the first assertion, the record shows that Schoborg worked for the Inn on December 13, 19, 20, 29, and 31.5 However, it is uncontroverted and I find that these jobs were garnered, not through the good offices of the Union, but from Schneider who telephoned 4 Respondent argues that it decided in early November to enforce the exclusive hiring clause in its contract with the Inn and preclude that employer from dealing directly with its members because the Inn, as well as other management signatories to the agreement, tended to disregard its strictures; that this decision was made long before Schoborg reentered Stouffer's forbidden employment; and, that the enforcement of the clause against her therefore bore no discriminatory motivation. Assuming, arguendo, that I were to embrace this argument, Respondent can find scant solace in it. The gravamen of the charged offense against Respondent is that it discriminatorily utilized its power of exclusivity to deprive Schoborg of gainful employment at a time when jobs were available at the Inn and Schoborg directly. Moreover, these jobs were concededly of an "emergency" nature, i.e., last minute increases in the number of guests at a banquet which required more girls than originally been scheduled by the Union, and, pursuant to an understanding between the parties, Schneider was empowered to hire waitresses independent of the Union in the event of such an emergency. With regard to the second assertion, Schoborg testified credibly and I find that she has six young children at home, one of whom resides there and takes a correspondence course in the house, and that someone "is at home all the time." In this connection, I would note that Respondent failed to demonstrate any inability to contact Schoborg at her residence before she ran afoul of Respondent's ban on working for Stouffer's which created the "grievance" against her. Finally, concerning the third assertion, Respondent's general bookkeeper, Rose, conceded that most of the banquets in Cincinnati were held at the Inn. Moreover, the record indicates that work was available on at least five occasions in December, and on several occasions in January and February, but the Union failed to refer Schoborg to the Inn. In sum, I find that, on and after December 12, the Respondent failed and refused to refer or clear Schoborg for work at the Inn solely because she offended Respon- dent's intraunion rules which prohibited union members from working at Stouffer's and was the recipient of union charges for having done so. Accordingly, I find that Schoborg was denied referrals or clearances through Respondent's exclusive hiring hall agreement with the Inn for reasons unconnected with her failure to tender and pay the periodic dues and initiation fees required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership in Respondent. I therefore conclude that, by the foregoing conduct, Respon- dent violated Section 8(b)(2) and (1XA) of the Act .6 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE the activities of Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Employer described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. I have found that Respondent attempted to and did cause when her services were desired by that restaurant, for reasons unconnected with her obligations to pay dues and initiation fees. Moreover, Respondent's witnesses admitted that the Union did not invoke the change in referrals and clearances until December , at which time Respondent already had a "grievance" against her. 5 Schoborg also worked at the Inn on December 2, 6, and 7, apparently on referral of the Union. However, these dates antecede the date of the alleged discrimination , December 12. 6 Cf. International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union Local 17, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen 's Union (Associated Metals Company of California), 173 NLRB No. 95. 488 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, to refuse to employ Alberta Schoborg, for reasons other than her failure to pay the initiation fee and dues required as a condition of membership in Respondent, by discriminatori- ly refusing to refer or clear her for employment as a waitress at the Inn. To right this wrong, I shall order the Respondent to refer or clear Schoborg for employment at the Inn on a nondiscriminatory basis and to notify the Inn, in writing, that it has no objection to the employment of Schoborg as a banquet waitress, with a copy of such notice to Schoborg. I shall also order Respondent to make Schoborg whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her. Loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest to be accorded in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, and upon the entire record made in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Waitresses' Union No. 276, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By causing and attempting to cause the Employer to refuse employment to Alberta Schoborg, by discriminatori- ly refusing to refer or clear her for work with the Employer for reasons unrelated to her failure to tender or pay the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership in Respondent, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I recommend that Respondent, Waitresses' Union No. 276, Hotel & Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL-CIO, its officers, representatives , and agents, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing or attempting to cause Tri-Metro, Incorpo- rated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, to refuse to employ Alberta Schoborg by discriminatorily declining to refer or clear her for employment with said employer for reasons unconnected with her failure to tender and pay the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership in Respondent. (b) In any other manner restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its offices and meeting halls, in conspicuous places , where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice , to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 9 , after being duly signed by Respondent 's official representative , shall be posted immediately by it upon receipt thereof and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter . Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Make whole Alberta Schoborg for any loss of pay she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced against her . Loss of earnings shall be computed in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Notify Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, in writing, that Respondent has no objection to the employment of Alberta Schoborg, with a copy of said notice to be provided to Schoborg. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 9, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith .8 7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions , recommendations and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 8 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify the 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 MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn, to refuse to employ Alberta Schoborg by discriminatorily refusing to refer or clear her for employment with that Company for reasons unconnected with her failure to tender and pay the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership in Respondent. WE WILL NOT in any other manner restrain or coerce employee-members in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. WE WILL pay Alberta Schoborg for any wages which she may have lost because we refused to refer or clear her for employment with Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a President Motor Inn. WE WILL notify Tri-Metro, Incorporated, d/b/a WAITRESSES ' UNION NO. 276 489 President Motor Inn, that we have no objections to the employment of Alberta Schoborg , and WE WILL provide a copy of this notice to her. Dated By (Representative) (Title) WAITRESSES ' UNION No. 276, HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board 's Office, Room 2407 Federal Office Building , 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 , Telephone 513-684-3686.