Gillette's, The Country Place

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE
Gillette's, The Country Place and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 200, AFL-CIO. Case 8-CA-9624
November 8, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On June 30, 1976, Administrative Law Judge Paul
E. Weil issued the attached Decision in this proceed-
ing. 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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as herein modified.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Gillette's, The Country Place, Warren, Ohio, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c):
"(c) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
1 In the I1th paragraph of section III of his Decision. the Administrative
Law Judge states , " Day said that she could take a leave of absence but there
would be no guarantee that she would have a job when she came back "
What the record reflects is that Scott asked Day about a possible leave of
absence , to which Day responded that she could not guarantee Scott's job
when she got back
In the fourth line of the 13th paragraph of the same section , the Adminis-
trative Law Judge refers to Mrs Stowe, when he obviously meant Mr Stowe
(Scott's fiance at the time of the events herein) However, in the next sen-
tence, he apparently is relating testimony of Mr Stowe, who in fact did not
testify in this proceeding
Despite these minor discrepancies in the Administrative Law Judge's reci-
tation of the record evidence , we find that the record as a whole supports
the violations found herein
2 When violations found by the Board go to the very heart of the Act as
do the violations of Sec 8 (a)(3) found herein , the Board issues a "broad
order ," proscribing interference with Sec 7 rights " in any other manner."
rather than "in any like or related manner," as the Administrative Law
Judge did here We will therefore modify his recommended Order to this
extent
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
819
PAUL E. WEIL, Administrative Law Judge- On November
21, 1975, Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director of Re-
gion 8 of the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter
called the Board, a charge alleging that Gillette's, The
Country Place, hereinafter called the Respondent, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act
by the termination of two employees, Patricia Johnson and
Deborah Scott, because of their activities on behalf of the
Union. On December 31, 1975, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor, on behalf of the Board's General Counsel, issued a
complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by the termina-
tion of Johnson and Scott, and further violated Section
8(a)(1) by telling an employee that she could not have a
vacation because the Union was "in" and that Respondent
would strictly adhere to its policy book. By its duly filed
answer Respondent admitted the jurisdictional allegations
of the complaint but denied the commission of any unfair
labor practices. On the issues thus joined the matter came
on for hearing before me at Warren, Ohio, on Tuesday,
April 13, 1976. All parties were present and represented by
counsel and had an opportunity to call and examine wit-
nesses and to adduce relevant and material evidence. After
the close of the hearing, briefs were filed by the General
Counsel and by Respondent. On the entire record of this
case and in consideration of the briefs, I make the follow-
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is an Ohio corporation engaged in the oper-
ation of a proprietary nursing home offering extended
nursing care at a facility located in Warren, Ohio. Respon-
dent annually receives gross revenue in excess of $100,000
and receives goods and services valued in excess of $5,000
directly from points located outside the State of Ohio. Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
Respondent operates a nursing home in Warren, Ohio,
employing between 125 and 150 persons. Prior to Septem-
226 NLRB No. 125
820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 1, 1975,1 the Home was owned and operated by Mssrs.
Stein and Potts. On September 1, Kern Enterprises, which
operates six other nursing homes, took over the manage-
ment of Respondent 's Home . Under the agreement pur-
suant to which Kern took over the Home , Mrs. Day, who
was to become the administrator commencing September
1, started working at the Home familiarizing herself with
the staff and plant and preparing for the accession of Kern
Enterprises.
Sometime before July 1, the Union commenced an orga-
nizing campaign at the Home which resulted in a petition
for an election being filed with the Board shortly before
September 1. On October 15, an election was conducted
pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election . The two alleged discnminatees were the Union's
observers at the election? On October 16 Johnson was dis-
charged and on November 4 Scott was discharged . Objec-
tions were filed on October 20 by Respondent . The Re-
gional Director issued a Report on Objections on Novem-
ber 20 recommending that the Union be certified. On No-
vember 26 Respondent filed exceptions to the Regional
Director's report and on February 20, 1976 , the Board
adopted the Regional Director 's recommendations and
certified the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the employees . The discharges of Scott and Johnson
form the central issues in the instant case.
A. The Discharge of Patricia Johnson
Patricia Johnson had been employed at the Home for 5
years, first in housekeeping and in the last year as a nurses
aide , one of 60 to 70. In the 5 years of her employment
prior to September 30, 1975, she had never received any
reprimands or warnings nor had been disciplined for any
reason . On September 29 Johnson, who had asked for that
day off and had been refused , did not show up for work.
Her sister called in well before she was scheduled to go to
work and reported that she had not returned from her trip
out of town and could not make it in on time . The follow-
ing day Johnson was given a written warning.
On October 14 a preelection conference was conducted
by the Board's field examiner , Mrs. Kathryn Ballard, at
which representatives of the Union and Respondent were
present as well as the observers for the election the follow-
ing day. During the preelection conference Johnson in-
formed the union agent , James Pasquay, that she had to
work the following day and asked if she could be relieved
because of the scheduling of the election between 5 and 6
a.m. and 2 to 3:30 p.m. Johnson was scheduled to work
from 3 to 11 p.m. Pasquay suggested to Mrs. Day, the ad-
ministrator , that Johnson be given the shift off the follow-
ing day and according to Pasquay 's testimony Mrs. Day
stated that there would be no problem about getting a re-
placement for Johnson and that she could have the shift
off. Day testified that she said she would try to make ar-
rangements for a replacement but if she could not find
someone to replace Johnson, Johnson would have to work
1 All dates hereinafter are in the year 1975 unless otherwise noted
2
The union organization was accomplished primarily by the efforts of
four employees , the two alleged discriminatees and two others The others
both left Respondent's employ in September
as scheduled . Johnson testified that Day stated that John-
son should have let her know earlier that she could have
the day off. Jack Campbell, another union agent , testified
that Mrs. Day turned to Mr . Kern , the manager of the
enterprise , and they had a conversation among themselves
after which Mrs. Day stated that there would be no prob-
lem about releasing Patricia Johnson from her duties, that
one of the oncall girls would be called in.
I credit the testimony of Campbell who appeared to have
the best recollection of the incident and whom I find other-
wise credible . I specifically discredit Mrs. Day , whose de-
meanor on the witness stand and evasiveness under cross-
examination convinced me that her testimony was worthy
of little or no credit.
After the preelection conference Mrs. Johnson went to
work and worked until about 10 p.m. At this time all of the
patients had been put to bed and all of the work on the
ward had been completed except conducting a bed check
with the employees on the third shift when they arrived.
Johnson went to the floor nurse and asked her if she could
go home , stating that she felt a pain in her left breast. The
floor nurse told her she should see a doctor and Johnson
informed the nurse that she had an appointment with the
doctor the following month , the earliest appointment she
could get . The floor nurse told Johnson she could leave
early and so reported on her evening report . Johnson went
home and returned to the Home at 4:30 the following
morning as a passenger in Miss Scott's automobile to pre-
pare for the election which commenced at 5. After the
morning session was completed Mrs. Johnson stayed
around the nursing home until about 11 , at which time she
left for lunch and returned shortly before 2 when the polls
were to reopen As she and Miss Scott were walking to-
ward the polls Johnson was informed that Mrs. Matson,
the director of nurses, wanted to see her . Johnson went to
Matson 's office , where Mrs. Matson told her that she had
been trying to call her at her home to bring her uniform to
work . Johnson responded that she was scheduled off that
day and that she had to hurry to the election and would get
back to her on the matter . Johnson , together with Scott,
went on to the polling place where they met Campbell and
Pasquay and told them about Johnson 's interview with
Mrs. Matson . Pasquay said "wait until after the election
and we ' ll see about it."
Scott and Johnson assisted in the counting of the ballots
and, when it was determined that the Union had won the
election , hugged each other and otherwise evidenced their
joy. According to their testimony Mrs. Day turned red and
looked angry. When the count was completed and the cer-
tifications of the election signed , Pasquay told Mrs. Day
that Johnson had been told to go to work and reminded
her that she had told Johnson the day before that she could
have the day off. Day answered that she said that if she
could find a replacement Johnson could have the day off
and that she was more concerned about the welfare of her
patients . Pasquay argued that Johnson had been at the
nursing home since 4:30 that morning and had worked the
night before and that she was too tired to work . According
to Day, Pasquay also said that Johnson was sick. At any
rate Day answered that if Johnson did not go to work she
would have to receive a warning slip. This was relayed to
GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE
Johnson by Pasquay; she said that since she only had one
warning she would go home, which she did.
The following day, October 16, when Johnson came in to
work Mrs. Day asked her to come to her office. Johnson
went to Day's office and Day handed her two warning slips
and a termination notice. One of the warning slips, dated
October 15, states "employee left at 10:03 p.m. 10/14-75
c/o Lt. breast pain then later stated to Mrs. Sines `I left
early because I have to get up early.' " The warning slip
also says "falsified report of illness."
The second warning slip stated "did not report off within
3 hours. Employee did not follow policy by reporting off
within 3 hours prior to shift." The separation notice states
"Employee has accumulated three written warnings within
6 months. According to our policy this is automatic termi-
nation." Without saying anything Johnson took the three
slips, left Day's office, clocked out, and went home.
B. The Termination of Deborah Scott 3
In July 1975 Deborah Scott went to the office of Mrs.
Matson and asked for permission to take her vacation
commencing November 30 for 2 weeks. Mrs. Matson in-
quired why she wanted to take it then and Scott stated that
she planned to be married, whereupon Matson agreed that
she could take her vacation at that time. Matson testified
that she told Scott that it was too far in the future for her to
give her any answer and that she did not refuse the request
at that time. The employee handbook provides that re-
quests for vacations are to be made as early as possible to
provide ample time for scheduling.
On August 25 Scott told the new administrator, Mrs.
Day, that Matson had agreed that she could have 2 weeks'
leave in December. Day asked why she wanted leave at
that time and Scott told her that she was being married.
Day said that in that event she could have leave at that
time and she should tell Mrs. Matson so that she could
schedule it. The following day Scott informed Mrs. Matson
that Day had approved the leave for December and that
evening ordered the wedding invitations bearing that date.'
On October 30, when the schedule for the month of No-
vember was posted, Scott found that she was not scheduled
off commencing November 30 and went to Day, reminding
her that Day had agreed she could take off the first 2
weeks. Day informed Scott that she could not take her
vacation in December because Respondent has a rule
against vacations during the month of December, and, ac-
cording to Scott's testimony, said "since the Union was
voted in we have to go by the policy book." Scott expressed
her disappointment and suggested that she could take a
leave of absence. Day said that she could take a leave of
absence but there would be no guarantee that she would
have a job when she came back. Scott then suggested that
she could at least have a 4-day weekend and Day answered
that that could probably be worked out.
Day's story is approximately the same except that she
3 Deborah Scott is now Deborah Stowe, she is referred to herein as Debo-
rah Scott , her name during all of the relevant period of time.
4 Matson also testified that she did not pass on Scott's request for vaca-
tion until the middle of October.
821
denied stating that the fact that the Union was voted in
had anything to do with the decision.
On November 3 Scott was met at the Home by her fi-
ance, who took it upon himself to try to change Day's deci-
sion. He went in to Day's office, leaving Scott in the auto-
mobile, and met with Day who was adamant that leave
would not be granted in December. Mr. Stowe then went
to Kern's office and argued with him. According to his
testimony, Kern also related that Respondent had to en-
force the policy strictly because the Union had been voted
in. When Mr. Stowe did not return, Scott went into the
building and waited outside Kern's office for him. When
Stowe came out he mentioned Kern had said something
about Scott being able to take a vacation during her anniv-
ersary year which runs from May to May. Scott recalled
that the policy book refers to the calendar year and went
and got the policy book. She and her fiance went back to
Kern's office, knocked on the door, and went in. Scott
asked Kern how she could take her vacation in the calen-
dar year if she could not take it in November and was not
allowed to take it during December. Kern answered that
she could take it during the anniversary year and she an-
swered "if you meant the anniversary year you should have
put the anniversary year in the policy book." By this time,
obviously Miss Scott had lost her temper. She turned to
Mrs. Day, who came into the office after her, and asked
her if she went back to work 2 days after she was married.
Mrs. Day did not answer and Scott turned and walked out
of the office slamming the door behind her. She was
promptly discharged for insubordination.
Kern stated that it was his sole decision to discharge her
and that he considered her actions and her slamming of the
door insubordination of the worst kind.
According to Kern's testimony, he made no mention of
the Union during this exchange. According to Scott's testi-
mony, Kern stated that, since the Union was voted in, Re-
spondent had to go by the policy book 100 percent and the
policy was that no vacations were to be taken in December
so she could not take her vacation then. She rejoined, ask-
ing how the Union was getting along over at Imperial and
Kern answered that he had not been over there.' Kern
testified that Scott asked him something about the Union
at Imperial but denied making any statement about the
Union himself.
Discussion and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends that the discharges of
Johnson and Scott were motivated by their union activities
and the Employer's knowledge that they were the union
organizers at the nursing home. Further, the General
Counsel contends that, inasmuch as the representation case
had not been resolved at the time of the discharges, part of
the motivation was to eliminate the two main union sup-
porters remaining in the event a second election was or-
dered.
Respondent maintains that Scott's and Johnson's dis-
charges were unrelated to their union activity and were
5It appears that the Union had won bargaining rights at another of Re-
spondent's nursing homes and Respondent had been found guilty of viola-
tions of Sec 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act with regard thereto
822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
caused by the Employer 's uniform enforcement of work
rules validly adopted.
There is no question that Respondent had work rules
that provided that an accumulation of three written warn-
ings in a 6 -month period would result in the termination of
employment and there is no question that Johnson had
three written warnings within a 6 -month period . However,
this is not the entire story. In the first place , there is a clear
showing that the work rules were not uniformly applied.
The General Counsel adduced evidence from Respon-
dent 's records that in other cases termination was not auto-
matic on the accumulation of three written warnings. Di-
ana Roebuck , for instance , was discharged , allegedly for
four warnings , and the record reveals that between Sep-
tember 16 , 1975, and February 3, 1976 , she actually had
five , and in addition had an absence report on September 5
concerning which no warning was issued .6 This constitutes
a sixth warning within the ambit of Respondent 's regula-
tions before Roebuck was discharged.
Belinda Bradley, who was discharged February 27, 1976,
had four written warnings and a verbal warning between
September 5 and February 12.
Elaine Plant had three warnings , one of them occasioned
by a late call-in for an absence, and was given a fourth on
December 16. When she complained to fellow employees
about the fourth , after she went back to work, she was
given a fifth and discharged.
Karen Roberto, who walked off the job on November
27, 1975, had four written warnings and was reported off
only an hour and a half before her shift on a fifth occasion.
Yet she was not discharged.
Rae Mayers had five warnings before she was terminat-
ed on February 17.
Respondent made no attempt to show that any other
employee had ever been discharged after only three warn-
ings. It appears therefore that Johnson ' s precipitate dis-
charge was completely disparate from treatment accorded
other employees under the same rules.
In addition to the fact that Johnson 's discharge is an
obvious disparity , the manner in which it was accom-
plished revealed a degree of subterfuge that is seldom seen
in cases before the Board . Day admitted that she had heard
Johnson state that she would leave in spite of the fact she
was going to get a warning , inasmuch as she had only one
warning prior to that time . Yet, Day testified she had writ-
ten a second warning to Johnson that very morning with-
out telling Johnson 7 so that she knew that the real decision
Johnson was facing was whether to lay herself open to dis-
charge summarily if she left the nursing home at that time.
No one contends that inhumanity is necessarily unlawful
but, under all the circumstances of this case, Day's inhu-
manity appears more a deliberate stratagem than casual
6 Respondent's employee policy provides that "failure to report off within
at least 3 hours before the shift constitutes a written warning "
r Day testified that she wrote the second warning without consulting the
nurse who had sent Johnson home or confronting Johnson with her suspi-
cions Mrs Sines was not called to testify There is thus no basis for a
finding that the warning was valid From the circumstances I infer that it
was not
brutality. Day knew very well that Johnson had been at the
nursing home at 4 : 30 that morning , had worked the night
before at least until 10 p .m., and must have been very tired.
She knew equally well that Johnson did not have her uni-
form with her and accordingly could not go to work
promptly after the close of the election in any event. In
addition , as I found above, Day did in fact tell Johnson at
the preelection conference that she could take off the fol-
lowing night , her testimony to the contrary notwithstand-
ing I do not credit her denial . Under these circumstances,
there being no other rationale offered by Respondent for
Day's inhumane and deceitful treatment of Johnson, I in-
fer it was because of Johnson 's union adherence. I find
therefore that Johnson was discharged because of her
union adherence and in order for Respondent to rid itself
of one of the two known union adherents in its employ.
With regard to Scott , Respondent 's posture is very little
better than with regard to Johnson. Scott had gotten per-
mission first from Matson in July, then from Day in Au-
gust, to take off for 2 weeks after her marriage. She had
done all that she was required to do under the employee
regulations promulgated by Respondent . She had asked
well in advance for the period of time and secured the
necessary permission to take her vacation. Nevertheless,
shortly after the election , Respondent changed its mind
and denied her the vacation at a point obviously too late
for her to make other arrangements with regard to her wed-
ding. This duplicity must have been exasperating to Miss
Scott to the point of rage. On top of that , when all of her
pleas had failed to move Day and Kern , Scott realized that
under the explicit provisions of the employee handbook
she was liable to lose her vacation completely . Although it
is argued that the handbook is ambiguous , the statement is
of no ambiguity whatsoever .8 When Scott was told by Kern
that the policy provided that vacations were to be taken in
the anniversary year, Scott had no reason at this point to
trust Kern. She was aware of Respondent's treatment of
Johnson and its treatment of her with regard to her vaca-
tion , and had no reason to believe that Respondent would
not come forward at a later time and deny hei her vacation
entirely. It must be noted that Kern did not tell her that he
was granting his approval to postpone her vacation to the
following year. On the contrary, he misinformed her as to
the content of the rule, to no avail since she had the pam-
phlet in her hand. In the face of this Kern chose to become
upset by the fact that Scott lost her temper . I conclude that
the entire vacation matter was contrived by Respondent. I
believe that Respondent considered that rather than give
up the vacation, Scott would quit her job and it would be
well rid of her. Scott, however, lost her temper and slam-
med the door and Respondent jumped on this as an excuse
to discharge her for insubordination . I find that the dis-
charge of Deborah Scott was accomplished because of her
union activities and in order to rid Respondent of the last
remaining union supporter in its employ.
s The handbook states "Vacations must be taken each calendar year and
may not be accumulated A vacation may be postponed the following year
where scheduling of work requires it and only with the approval of the
administrator "
GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE 823
The No-Solicitation Rule
At the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the
complaint to allege that Respondent had a no-solicitation
rule in its employee handbook that forbids any solicitation
for any purpose on the hospital premises at any time Re-
spondent does in fact have such a rule in the handbook
which was promulgated during the Union's campaign
when Respondent took over the management of the Home,
but Respondent contends that the rule was never enforced
and was meant to apply to insurance salesmen and other
such solicitations among the employees during their work-
ing hours. In view of Respondent's peculiar methods of
displaying its union animus, disclosed with regard to the
discharges discussed above, I find that the provision is
clearly unlawful and warrants an order and I so recom-
mend.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
Respondent's violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, occurring in connection with its operations set forth
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 obstruct-
ing commerce and the free flow thereof
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1, Gillette's, The Country Place, is an employer engaged
in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3 By discharging Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott
because of their activities on behalf of the Union, Respon-
dent has discriminated against employees in regard to their
hire, tenure, and terms and conditions of employment,
thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization
in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4 By the discharge of Johnson and Scott and by the
imposition of a no-solicitation rule forbidding solicitation
at any time on Employer's premises, Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced employees, and is inter-
fering with, restraining, and coercing employees, in the ex-
ercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices 1 shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act.
Among other things the recommended Order shall require
Respondent to reinstate and make whole Patricia Johnson
and Deborah Scott in accordance with the rule in F. W
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950) and Isis Plumb-
ing & Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the foregoing findings and the entire record, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following
recommended:
ORDERS
The Respondent, Gillette's, The Country Place, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall.
I Cease and desist from-
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against em-
ployees for engaging in union or other protected concerted
activities.
(b) Promulgating or enforcing a no-solicitation rule that
forbids solicitation on behalf of the Union at any time on
Respondent's premises
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their formerjobs or, if those
jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and priv-
ileges , and make them whole for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them
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 and other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at Respondent's place of business in Warren,
Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 10
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's representatives shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof and be maintained for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith
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, 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
10 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"
824 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had a chance to give
evidence , the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out
the Order of the Board and abide by the following:
The Act gives all employees these rights:
To engage in self -organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT do anything that interferes with, re-
strains, or coerces employees with respect to these
rights.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against employees for engaging in activities on behalf
of Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Local 200, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization.
WE WILL offer Patricia Johnson and Deborah Scott
immediate and full reinstatement to their jobs or, if
these jobs no longer exist , to substantially equivalent
jobs, and make them whole for any pay they lost be-
cause of our discrimination against them.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce a no-solicitation
rule that forbids solicitation on our premises at any
time.
GILLETTE'S, THE COUNTRY PLACE