NLRB v. Coachman's Inn

• Decision Date: 03 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 18003.,18003.
• Citation: 357 F.2d 134
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The COACHMAN'S INN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

357 F.2d 134 (1966)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The COACHMAN'S INN, Respondent.

No. 18003.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

March 3, 1966.

William J. Avrutis, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Glen M. Bendixsen, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

C. J. Lincoln, of House, Holmes & Jewell, Little Rock, Ark., Robert B. Hill, of House, Holmes & Jewell, Little Rock, Ark., for respondent.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and MEHAFFY, Circuit Judges, and VAN PELT, District Judge.

VAN PELT, District Judge.

The case is before the court upon the petition of the National Labor Relations Board, hereafter called Board, for enforcement of its order of June 5, 1964, pursuant to § 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160. The decision and order of the Board are reported at 147 N.L.R.B. No. 278.

The Board in adopting the Trial Examiner's findings and conclusions held that the respondent, an Arkansas corporation which operates a motel-restaurant serving transient guests, was in violation of 29 U.S.C.A. § 158 §§ 8(a) (1), 8(a) (3), and 8(a) (5) of the Act in these particular respects:

1) Interrogated employees concerning their intentions to vote and union activities;

2) Promised economic benefits if they refrained from supporting the union in the election;

3) Threatened the employees with economic and other reprisals if they voted for the union;

4) Fired one man, a Mr. Solomon D. Hopes, for union activities; and

5) Practiced intimidating and coercive conduct at a bargaining session.

Respondent was ordered to cease and desist from the alleged unfair labor practices; to post appropriate notices; to bargain collectively with the majority representative of its employees; and to reinstate Mr. Hopes with back pay and interest without prejudice to his seniority rights and other privileges.

The petition for enforcement of the Board's order does not presently apply to the violation of § 8(a) (3), concerning Mr. Hopes, as that portion has been settled and is thus not pertinent to the issues raised here. Despite the settlement, reference is made to Hopes' testimony in the Board's brief. However, such testimony will not be discussed as the enforcement requested does not stand or fall on its use.

The events leading to the controversy show that the Board on March 18, 1960 had certified the union, officially known as Hotel-Motel, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 200, Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, AFLCIO, as bargaining representative of the Coachman's Inn motel employees. On May 25, 1960, respondent and the union entered into a three-year contract expiring May 31, 1963. This latter date was also the date designated in the Spring of 1963 for an election after an assistant to the assistant manager of the respondent had filed a petition for a decertification election alleging that the union was no longer the employees' bargaining representative. The union won this election.

Events occurring prior to the election are the basis for the charges involved in this case. Specifically the charges, so far as now material, concern the action of Vance Thompson, Coachman's president, and conversations with three employees, to-wit: Donald Frazier, a porter; Lawrence Tippen, a bus boy; and George T. Brown, a cook.

The issue for this court's determination is whether the testimony offered by the three employees and the evidence as to Thompson's activities are sufficient to sustain the Examiner's findings, which were adopted by the Board, that respondent was in violation of §§ 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) of the Act. Examination of the testimony is requisite in such a determination.

Donald Frazier testified as to conversations with different supervisory personnel of Coachman's about the election and to his discharge under conditions which, if Frazier is believed, were the result of his vote for the union at the election. His testimony, which will not be set forth, was denied by five Coachman witnesses. However, two of Coachman's witnesses conceded that Frazier had been told that if he voted for the company, "it would be appreciated." In Coachman's brief, Frazier's testimony is dismissed with the statement that the "conversations were a product of Frazier's imagination."

Lawrence Tippen testified that the day before the election he had a conversation with the dining room hostess who was seated at a table with the Coachman manager. The hostess asked him how he was going to vote and in response he stated that it was a secret and he would tell her after he had voted and when "it was over." Tippen testified that the Coachman manager said nothing during this conversation. Tippen's testimony was undenied.

George T. Brown, a union committeeman who attended the bargaining sessions with the company, testified as to a meeting around April 1, 1963 in "The Coach Room", at which five persons, whom he named, were present for the union. Vance Thompson, the Company's president and a stockholder, came in and "asked for the floor, and it was given to him."

"* * * He asked me what was my name, and he asked me if I was satisfied with my salary, and I said, `Yes\'. He went on down the line and asked the rest of the committeemen was they satisfied with their jobs.

"Trial Examiner: What did they say?

"The Witness: `Yes\'.

"Trial Examiner: Was anything else said by him or by anybody else?

"The Witness: No."

Other employees testified similarly although not in identical language as to the questions asked of them and others by Thompson at this meeting. Thompson did not testify and the testimony concerning his activity at this meeting was not denied by other witnesses called by Coachman.

This conduct of Vance Thompson the Examiner found "in effect constituting intimidating conduct by him" and that

"12. Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by the intimidating and coercive conduct of its president Vance Thompson at a bargaining session held between Respondent and the Union on May 1, 1963 hereinabove more specifically set forth."

Brown also related a conversation with two of Coachman's managing personnel on May 27th in "the Coach kitchen" as follows:

"Well, Mr. Davis asked me how did I like the broiler, and I said `Okay\'. He said they were trying to make everything convenient for the employees. Then, he told me he wanted to talk with me the next week, and I told him I wouldn\'t be there because I would be on vacation. Then, Mr. Barrentine said, `George is just about as hard to keep pleased with getting raises as Hopes is to keep dead\'."

Brown also testified that on Thursday or Friday before the election, James Williams talked to him in the Coach Room:

"He came in and he told me — I knew that the chef had mentioned that I could get another job, and I knew that I could handle the kitchen employees, and he kept talking. He asked me what I wanted, and I pretended I didn\'t know what I was talking about. He hollered, `You know what you want,\' and I said, `Raise in salary\'. He

...