Fluid Chemical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 26, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 244 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fluid Chemical Company, Inc. and Teamsters Union, Local 158 . Case 4-CA-6069 April 26, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On January 26, 1973 , Administrative Law Judge Robert E . Mullin issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter , Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three -member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Fluid Chemical Company, Inc., Lakewood , New Jersey , its officers , agents, suc- cessors , and assigns , shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. operations , but it denied all allegations that it had commit- ted any unfair labor practices. At the trial , all parties were represented by counsel. All parties were given full opportunity to examine and cross- examine witnesses , and to file briefs . A motion to dismiss, made at the close of the hearings , was taken under advise- ment . It is disposed of as appears hereinafter in this Deci- sion . The parties waived oral argument . On December 1, 1972, both the General Counsel and the Respondent sub- mitted briefs . Upon the entire record in the case , including the briefs of counsel , and from my observation of the wit- nesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent , a New Jersey corporation , with its prin- cipal office in Newark , New Jersey, is engaged in the manu- facture of cosmetics and in the contract packaging of such products . Only its plant located in Lakewood , New Jersey, is involved in this proceeding . During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, the Respondent 's sales exceeded $500,000 . During that same period , the Respondent 's sales and its performance of services directly to customers out- side the State of New Jersey exceeded $50,000 . Upon the foregoing facts, the Respondent concedes , and I find, that Fluid Chemical Company , Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Teamsters Union , Local 158 (herein called Teamsters or Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ROBERT E. MULLIN , Administrative Law Judge : This case was heard on October 31 and November 1, 1972, in Phila- delphia , Pennsylvania , pursuant to a charge duly filed and served ,' and a complaint issued on September 29, 1972. The complaint presents questions as to whether the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended . In its answer , duly filed , the Respon- dent conceded certain facts with respect to its business 1 The charge was filed on July 3, 1972 A. Background and Sequence of Events The Respondent opened its Lakewood plant in January, 1972.2 The building , a large structure covering almost 5 acres, all under one roof, is located in an industrial develop- ment a short distance from the Garden State Parkway. Ac- cess is had on what is known as Airport Road . At the time in question , the Lakewood plant had about 250 employees. Late in March , the Respondent added a second shift that worked from 3:30 p.m. to midnight . This had about 25 employees , 3 of whom were men and the rest women. Rob- ert Meyers , the alleged discriminatee , worked on this shift. At all times material , Vincent Cimino was the plant supervi- sor at Lakewood , and Andrew Catanzaro was the personnel director and production coordinator . Harry Kondakjian, known as a line supervisor , was Meyers' immediate fore- man? Late in April, Edgar Stewart , a Teamsters official, and Frank Lentino , a vice president of the Charging Party , initi- ated an organizational campaign at the Respondent's plant. 2 All dates that appear hereinafter are for the year 1972. 7 The supervisory status of these three individuals is not in issue. 203 NLRB No. 44 FLUID CHEMICAL COMPANY Shortly thereafter, employee Meyers was discharged, ac- cording to the General Counsel, in violation of the Act, but, according to the Respondent, for cause. B. The Teamsters Organizational Campaign Stewart testified that on about April 21, the union head- quarters received a telephone call from one who identified herself as a female employee of the Respondent and who asked that the Teamsters start an organizational campaign among her coworkers. That afternoon Stewart and Lentino went to the entrance of the Lakewood plant. Stewart parked his car about 100 feet from the guardhouse at the plant gate and thereafter he and Lentino spent some time during the change of shifts endeavoring to contact employees as they entered or left the Respondent's premises. According to Stewart, shortly after he parked his car, the sentry at the Respondent's gate came out, checked the car license number on Stewart's, vehicle, and thereafter returned to his post at the guardhouse where he was seen making a telephone call. Stewart testified that a few minutes thereaf t- er Personnel Director Catanzaro came out to their car and questioned them as to what they were doing in the area. Lentino's response to this query was "we're minding our own business." 4 Cantanzaro left after a few minutes with- out either of the union organizers having identified himself 5 On the afternoon of April 26, Stewart and Lentino re- turned to the area of the plant gate. Marie Lentino, wife of Frank Lentino, was also with them. This time they parked about 500 feet away from the entrance. For a period of about an hour and a half, the three union representatives passed out leaflets to the employees who were entering or leaving the plant during the change of shifts. Both Stewart and Lentino testified that Catanzaro drove up to where they were, parked his car, and for some time thereafter remained on the scene with a camera that he used to take pictures of them as they passed out handbills to the Respondent's em- ployees. Frank Lentino testified that at one point that af- ternoon he handed his business card to Catanzaro and that the latter accepted it. At the hearing, Catanzaro testified that during the course of each day he frequently drove from the Respondent's plant to a nearby warehouse, but that he had no recollection of having stopped on April 26 or at any other time to observe any pamphleteering in which the Teamsters might have been engaged. He denied having tak- en any pictures of the organizers or of the employees either on April 26 or at any other time. Robert Meyers was one of the employees whom the or- ganizers met on April 26. On April 30, Stewart and Lentino had a meeting with Meyers at the employee's home. Stewart testified that at that time he designated Meyers as the head of an employee organizing committee. The union officials gave Meyers a supply of cards and thereafter the latter 4 The quotation is from Stewart's testimony 5 Ronald Bennett , vice president of manufacturing for the Respondent, testified that, from the time the Lakewood plant opened, its isolated location had given rise to vandalism , pilferage, and related problems. According to Bennett , and in this connection he was completely credible, as a result of these difficulties , the guards were under instructions to check on all strangers who appeared on Airport Road and near the premises. 245 began distributing them among his coworkers at the plant. On the afternoon of May 3, Stewart, the Lentinos, and another organizer returned to the area on Airport Road where they had engaged in their pamphleteering the preced- ing week. The union representatives again sought to enlist the support of the Respondent's employees by distributing their handbills. Meyers testified that for a brief period prior to reporting for work he assisted the organizers in handing out leaflets. After going on duty in the plant, he contacted as many as possible of his coworkers to inform them of an organizational meeting scheduled at his home the following Monday, May 8.6 Stewart, Frank Lentino, Meyers, and employee Mildred Piekinski testified that prior to 3:30 that afternoon Person- nel Director Catanzaro was in the area and that he had a camera with which he appeared to be taking pictures. Lenti- no testified that after Meyers had been passing out hand- bills for only a few minutes he advised the employee to quit because he "was more valuable to us inside [the plant] than outside, due to the fact that he was being observed by Mr. Andy Catanzaro." Catanzaro acknowledged having seen Stewart and Lentino outside the plant with leaflets during this period,7 but he denied ever having seen Meyers in their company and he denied having taken any pictures of the employees outside the Respondent' s premises. All of the General Counsel' s witnesses who testified as to this issue were subjected to an extended interrogation by able counsel for the Respondent. Stewart, Meyers, and Pie- kinski remained credible throughout their cross-examina- tion. Lentino did not fare as well. On direct examination he testified that for a time on May 3, Plant Supervisor Vincent Cimino was with Catanzaro. On cross-examination, howev- er, and after being confronted with a pretrial affidavit which he had given, Lentino conceded that he did not see Cimino until after Meyers was discharged. Catanzaro was an unper- suasive witness. During his cross-examination he was hesi- tant, evasive, and unconvincing. Consequently, I cannot, and do not, credit Catanzaro's categorical denials. Accord- ingly, it is found that, on both April 26 and May 3, Catanza- ro observed the union organizers outside the plant while they passed out leaflets to the employees, that he had a camera with him on each of those occasions, that he ap- peared to be using the camera to take pictures while he was there, and that for a short while on May 3 employee Robert Meyers was with the organizers, passing out leaflets while Catanzaro was nearby.8 6 Meyers' testimony in this connection was credible and it was corroborat- ed by Mildred Piekinski and Margaret Jane Anderson, two fellow employees, who testified that while at work on the afternoon of May 3 Meyers discussed the Union with them and the proposed meeting at his home. 7 Catanzaro testified that he had seen these union organizers so engaged at a date that, in his own words, was "probably before" Meyers ' discharge. 8 Stewart , Lentino, and Meyers were interested witnesses , as was , indeed, Catanzaro. Only Mrs. Piekinski , who corroborated the first three named and who was a former employee of the Respondent , could be described as disin- terested. In his brief, counsel for the Respondent attacks her credibility on the ground that there is a conflict between her testimony about Meyers' presence outside the gate on May 3 and the timecards in the Company's possession. Thus, although Piekinski testified that she saw Meyers outside the gate and in the presence of the union organizers before reporting for work, her timecard for that date indicates that she clocked in at 3:20 p.m ., whereas Meyers' card indicates that he reported for work at 3:15 p.m. As found earlier, on the afternoon in question , Meyers was in the presence of the union Continued 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On May 5, the following Friday, and shortly after Meyers reported for work, Catanzaro summoned him to the plant office and notified him that he was being discharged, effec- tive at once .9 C. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act; Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in unlawful surveillance of concerted activities by the conduct of Personnel Director Catanzaro on April 26 and May 3. The evidence adduced by the General Counsel sustained this allegation. At the time in question , the plant official had a camera and was either using it to photograph the union organizers and the employees who were present , or was giving the impression that he was using the camera for that purpose. This has been held a violation of Section 8(a)(1). N. L. R. B. v. Frick Company, 397 F.2d 956, 960-961 (C.A. 3, 1968); N.L.R.B. v. Associated Naval Architects, Inc., 355 F.2d 788, 791 (C.A. 4, 1966); N. L. R. B. v. Rybolt Heater Co., 408 F.2d 888, 891 (C.A. 6, 1969). In May Department Stores Company, 184 NLRB 878, the Board held "Respondent's display of a camera at the employees ' entrance during handbilling activ- ities , irrespective of whether pictures of employees were taken , would inevitably tend to have a coercive and re- straining effect upon the employees . The employees would have no knowledge why a camera would be displayed ex- cept to gather evidence to be used against them . . . ." See also: Simplex Time Racorder Co., 165 NLRB 812, 816; Puri- tania Mfg. Corp., 159 NLRB 518, 519, fn. 2; and Tennessee Packers Inc., 124 NLRB 1117 , 1123. Consequently, I con- clude and find that Catanzaro 's activities on the aforesaid dates , as found above , interfered with , restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of their rights and that, in so doing, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. D. The Alleged Violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act; Findings and Conclusions With Respect Thereto The General Counsel alleged that Meyers was discrimi- natorily terminated for his activities on behalf of the Team- sters. This allegation is denied by the Respondent, whose witnesses testified that the employee was dismissed for cause and that, in any event, they had no knowledge of organizers for only a few minutes when they sent him away on the ground that, with a company official such as Catanzaro observing their activities outside the gate , Meyers would be more useful to the organizational effort if he was among the employees inside the plant While the timecards would tend to prove that Meyers was at work 5 minutes before Piekinski reported, this discrepancy by itself is not so great as to destroy the credence of Piekin- ski, who was an otherwise credible witness 9In pretrial affidavits , Catanzaro , Cimino, and Kondakjian averred that May 8 was the date of Meyers' termination . This date also appeared on some of the documents filed by Respondent with the State of New Jersey in connection with Meyers ' subsequent claim for unemployment compensation However, at the trial the three aforesaid witnesses conceded that they had been in error as to the date in question and that Meyers, in fact, was dis- charged on May 5 Meyers' activities on behalf of any union. Meyers was hired on March 27, 1972, at the outset of the evening shift which began on that date. He was employed as a production worker on the assembly line and his duties included moving boxes from the line onto skids as well as other heavy manual labor that was reserved for the three male employees. When I of the approximately 22 women employees on the line was absent, whether temporarily or for the entire shift, Meyers was asked to take her place. He was paid $2.74 an hour which, for 40 hours, totaled $110 a week. Meyers first met Stewart and Lentino when the latter were distributing handbills outside the plant on April 26. After this initial contact, the union organizers met with Meyers at his home on April 30 and, as found earlier, at that time Stewart designated him as the head of the employee organizing committee. In that capacity, Meyers was given a supply of authorization cards and thereafter solicited his coworkers to join the Teamsters. On May 3, when the union representatives came back to the plant area to resume their distribution of campaign literature, Meyers assisted them for a short while before proceeding to work on the afternoon shift. As found above, during this activity on the employee's part, Personnel Director Catanzaro was on the scene with a camera. On reporting for work on May 3, and on the next day, Meyers resumed his solicitation on behalf of the Team- sters. He also invited several of the employees to an organi- zational meeting that lie proposed to hold at his home on the following Monday, May 8. Shortly after coming to work on Friday, May 5, Catanzaro called Meyers to the plant office and dismissed him, effective immediately. Meyers credibly testified that prior to his termination he had never been absent or tardy. This in itself would seem to have been a mark of distinction on the night shift as it was constituted during the course of his employment. This shift was in operation for only 6 weeks, and during that period it experienced an extraordinarily high personnel turnover. Catanzaro testified that during this period the Respondent hired from 60 to 70 employees for work on the night shift and that of this number only about 25 remained. According to Foreman Kondakjian, the turnover rate was such that the shift lost from 8 to 10 employees each week and that occasionally as many as 3 employees quit on a single evening. He also testified that at the same time the absentee rate was a matter of serious concern to the Respon- dent. Catanzaro conceded that Meyers presented no prob- lem to the management as to either absenteeism or tardiness.10 He further acknowledged that because of the exceedingly high rate of turnover and absenteeism that Meyers was frequently called upon as a substitute on the assembly line for one of the missing production workers. Meyers credibly denied that he had ever been reprimanded for poor work, for misconduct, or for being officious or overbearing to the female coworkers on the line. 11 10 Catanzaro testified " as far as being late and being there every day, he (Meyers) was dependable yes" i i Meyers testified that, late in March and 4 days after being hired , the then plant manager (not Catanzaro or Cimino) told him that he would have to work the following Saturday and that when he declined the plant manager told him that he was fired According to Meyers, whose testimony in this connection was credible and uncontradicted, after leaving work that day, Harry Kondakjian, his foreman, telephoned to advise him that he should FLUID CHEMICAL COMPANY Foreman Kondakjian conceded that early in his employ- ment Meyers was the best male employee on the production line. He described Meyers during this period as "a good worker," "willing," and "capable." Notwithstanding the praise which Kondakjian had for Meyers during the first few weeks of his employment, the foreman testified that thereafter he became dissatisfied with him. Kondakjian's complaints, however, were vague and lacking any convinc- ing particularity. Thus, according to Kondakjian, he spoke to Catanzaro about Meyers on three different occasions. The first time occurred when Meyers complained about having to help the other men on the line with their work. Kondakjian testified that in this instance he explained to Meyers that all the men had to work together and help one another. There is no indication that, after this discussion with his foreman, Meyers ever again complained about hav- ing to help the other male employees on the line.12 The second instance cited by Kondakjian allegedly occurred about 2 weeks before Meyers' discharge. According to the foreman, during this period he knew that Meyers was hav- ing what Kondakjian described as "domestic personal prob- lems" and on one occasion the employee left his station on the line during work time to make a telephone call. The third instance occurred during the last week of Meyers' employment, when, according to Kondakjian, some of the women on the line complained because, as the foreman put it, Meyers "was being a little bossy ...." Kondakjian acknowledged that all he did on this occasion was to suggest that if Meyers was having any trouble with his female co- workers the matter should be referred to him (Kondakjian) for disposition. Although Kondakjian testified that five or six women complained about Meyers, when undergoing cross-examination, he could not recall the names of any of the women who allegedly complained. Kondakjian also conceded that, although he received the alleged complaints from these women 5 to 7 days before May 5, it was not until the latter date that he reported the matter to Catanzaro.13 As found earlier, almost immediately after the shift began on May 5, Catanzaro summoned Meyers to the plant office and discharged him on the spot. Kondakjian acknowledged that he never warned Meyers that any of the foregoing alleged transgressions might result in his dismissal and that he never made any file or record of these complaints against Meyers. Plant Supervisor Cimi- no likewise conceded that Meyers had never been warned that he might be terminated and that nothing had ever been written up on Meyers for his personnel file. Cimino also testified that notwithstanding the extraordinarily high turn- over rate on this second shift he could recall no employee other than Meyers who was discharged. ignore the dismissal notice because no one else was working on Saturday Kondakjian concluded the conversation by telling Meyers that he should return to work the following Monday. Meyers credibly testified that thereaf- ter nothing was ever said to him about the occasion when he had refused to work on a Saturday The Respondent did not contend that this incident was in any way related to Meyers' dismissal on May 5 12 On cross-examination , Kondakpan conceded that Meyers was faster in accomplishing his assigned duties than either of the two other men who worked with him. 13 This would indicate that, although Kondakpan knew of these com- plaints prior to May 3, he said nothing to Catanzaro about the matter until after the latter witnessed Meyers passing out handbills for the Teamsters 247 Catanzaro's testimony about his decision to terminate Meyers was vague and confused. While conceding that Meyers had been a good worker at the beginning of his employment, Catanzaro referred to a change in Meyers' performance which he ascribed largely as a change in the employee's "attitude." 14 He conceded that he was "not very familiar" with Meyers' work record.15 When asked how many conversations he had had with Supervisor Kondakji- an about Meyers, he replied, "one, probably two." Yet he could not recall whether in any such conversation Kondak- jian recommended that Meyers be fired. It is apparent from the record that, on May 5, Kondakjian did not anticipate that Catanzaro was about to discharge Meyers. The latter testified that shortly after his shift began that day, Kondakjian told him that Plant Supervisor Cimino wanted to see him in the plant office. Meyers testified, credi- bly and without contradiction, that as he left for that office Kondakjian told him, "If you need my assistance in any way, just call me and I'll come to your aid." On reporting to the office, Meyers found both Cimino and Catanzaro waiting for him. After the latter told him he was being discharged, Meyers left the room. Thereafter Catanzaro fol- lowed him out and, as Meyers proceeded to the timeclock, the employee sought to speak with Kondakjian who was nearby. Catanzaro acknowledged that when this occurred he ordered Meyers to punch out immediately and leave the premises. At the hearing, Catanzaro testified that Meyers had vio- lated plant rule number 15 which appears in the Respondent's employee handbook (along with 35 other rules the employees must follow). The handbook provides that the violation of any of the numbered rules may result in disciplinary action or dismissal . Rule number 15 reads as follows: Deliberate idling , inattention to duty, withholding work effort, entering another department without per- mission (other than necessary trips to the rest room). Another section of the handbook provides for an appeals procedure whereby any employee who feels aggrieved by the application of an adverse management action is assured of an opportunity to discuss the matter first with his imme- diate supervisor and ultimately, if necessary, with the plant superintendent. Notwithstanding his testimony that Mey- ers' discharge arose as a result of violating rule 15, Catanza- ro had no explanation for the subsequent denial to that employee of his right to discuss the matter with Kondakjian, Meyers' immediate supervisor. Earlier herein, it was found that on May 3 Catanzaro engaged in unlawful surveillance of the Union's handbilling outside the plant gate. During the period that Catanzaro was so engaged, employee Meyers was, for a short time, assisting the union organizers in passing out the Teamsters campaign literature. From this it is evident , and I find, that the Respondent was aware, at least by May 3, that Meyers was engaged in union and concerted activities. The evidence adduced by the General Counsel estab- lished: that Meyers had a good work record for the greater 14 Thus, Catanzaro testified , " I guess it is hard to explain exactly how he (Meyers ) changed other than I would have to say his attitude seemed to change." is The quotation is from Catanzaro's testimony. 248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD part of the 6 weeks that he was an employee; that, notwith- standing an extremely high rate of turnover among the per- sonnel on the Respondent 's night shift, Meyers was admittedly never tardy or absent; that the complaints about Meyers' work, as voiced by Kondakjian and Catanzaro, were vague and lacking in specificity ; that Catanzaro's prin- cipal objection to Meyers related to an alleged change in the employee's "attitude"; that Meyers ' failings, whatever they were , had never resulted in his being warned that he was risking discharge ; that Kondakjian , the employee 's immedi- ate foreman , never recommended that Meyers be terminat- ed; and that , within 48 hours after Catanzaro , the personnel director and production coordinator , was present near the plant gate when Meyers was engaged in passing out hand- bills for the Teamsters, Catanzaro peremptorily and without warning dismissed the employee. On the foregoing findings, and those set forth earlier herein, most particularly Meyers' satisfactory work record, his prominence in the Union 's attempt to organize the plant, the Respondent's knowledge of that activity, the abruptness of Catanzaro's declaration to Meyers that he was being terminated, 16 and the illegal surveillance of employee con- certed and union activity which Catanzaro practiced out- side the plant gate on May 3, I conclude and find that the motivating cause for Meyers ' termination was his activities on behalf of the Teamsters . By this conduct , the Respon- dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. minated Robert Meyers on May 5, 1972, the Administrative Law Judge will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to offer Meyers immediate and full reinstatement without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he may have suf- fered from the time of his discharge to the date of the Respondent's offer of reinstatement . The backpay for the foregoing employee shall be computed in accordance with the formula approved in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, with interest computed in the manner and amount prescribed in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716, 717-721. It will also be recommended that the Respondent be required to preserve and make available to the Board , or its agents , on request , payroll and other rec- ords to facilitate the computation of backpay due. As the unfair labor practices committed by the Respon- dent are of a character striking at the root of employee rights safeguarded by the Act, it will be recommended that the said Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941). Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and the Union is a labor organization , all within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of Robert Meyers , thereby discouraging membership in the Union , the Respondent has engaged , and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 3. By interfering with , restraining , and coercing its em- ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged , and is engaging, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) 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. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices , it will be recommended that the Re- spondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that the Respondent discriminatorily ter- Fluid Chemical Company, Inc., Lakewood, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist: (a) Discharging, or otherwise discriminating against, any employee because of activity Qn behalf of Teamsters Union, Local 158, or any other labor organization. (b) Engaging in surveillance of its employees with respect to their union or concerted activities. (c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing , or engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid, or to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Robert Meyers immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and make him whole in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti- tled "The Remedy." (b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board , or its agents , for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per- sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary, 17 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the 16 "The abruptness of a discharge and its timing are persuasive evidence Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, as to the motivation ." N L R B v Montgomery Ward & Co, 242 F 2d 497, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 502 (C.A 2, 1957), cert denied 355 U.S 829 . See also N L R.B v. Dorn 's of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its Transportation Company, Inc, 405 F 2d 706, 713 (C A. 2. 1969), N L R B v findings , conclusions , and Order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed Symons Mfg Co, 328 F 2d 835, 837 (C.A. 7, 1964) waived for all purposes FLUID CHEMICAL COMPANY or appropriate, to analyze the amount of backpay due. (c) Post at its plant in Lakewood, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."18 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 4, after being duly signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, in- cluding all places where notices to employees are custom- arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov- ered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 4, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 16 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Teamsters Union, Local 158, or any other union, by discharging, or otherwise discriminating against our employees be- cause of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees 249 with respect to their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT in any other manner, interfere with, restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of their right 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 concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities. WE WILL offer Robert Meyers immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or , if that job no longer exists , to a substantially equivalent position , without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. Dated By FLUID CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. (Employer) (Representative) (Title) 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, 1700 Bankers Securities Building , Walput & Juniper Streets, Phil- adelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone 215-597-7601.