I-O Services, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 566 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1-0 Services , Inc. and International Union , United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW). Case 7-CA-
11071
June 17, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On December 27, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Jennie M. Sarrica issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions and a supporting brief. The General
Counsel filed a brief answering the Respondent's
exceptions and supporting the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached 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 her recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, 1-0 Services, Inc.,
Lathrup Village, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's
refusal to order the General Counsel to make available to counsel for the
Respondent the pretrial affidavit of witness Vikki Kapanowsla. The request
was made after the Respondent's counsel was well into his cross-examma-
tion of the witness. Thus, the request was viewed as untimely. See Walsh-
Lumpkin Drug Company, 129 NLRB 294, 295-296 (1960). In the circum-
stances of this case, we do not fmd that the Administrative Law Judge
exceeded the bounds of her discretion in so ruling . The Respondent does
not specifically allege in what manner it was prejudiced by the ruling.
Assuming that the Respondent proposed to use the affidavit for purposes of
impeachment, we note that the witness' testimony was in many respects
merely cumulative and fully corroborated by other witnesses, including
witnesses presented by the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JENNIE M. SARRICA, Administrative Law Judge: Upon
due notice, this proceeding under Section 10(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act as amended (29 U.S.C. 151,
et seq.), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was tried before
me at Detroit, Michigan, on July 25, 26, 30, and 31 and
August 1, 1974.1 Based on a charge filed on April 15, a
complaint issued on May 31, presenting allegations that 1-0
Services, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Respondent,
committed unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The
Respondent filed an answer denying that it committed the
violations of the Act alleged. Representatives of all parties
were present and participated in the hearing.
Based on the entire record, including my observations of
the witnesses and after due consideration of the arguments
presented at the close of the hearing and in the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following:.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Michigan corporation, with its principal
office and place of business at Lathrup Village, Michigan,
and a second place of business located at Livonia,
Michigan, is engaged in providing keypunch services to
customers. During the year ending December 31, 1973,
which period is representative of its operations during all
times material herein Respondent, in the course and
conduct of its business operations, performed services
valued in excess of $250,000, of which services valued in
excess of $50,000 were performed for businesses which in
the course and conduct of their operations manufactured,
sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $500,000
of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped
from facilities in Michigan directly to points located
outside the State of Michigan.
At the hearing Respondent amended its answer to admit,
and I fmd, that at all times material herein Respondent has
been, and is, an employer as defined in Section 2(2) of the
Act, engaged in commerce and in operations affecting
commerce as defined in Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Respondent admits, and I fmd, that at all times material
herein International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), the Charging Party, hereinafter called the Union,
has been, and is, a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' All dates are in 1974 unless otherwise indicated.
218 NLRB No. 91
I-0 SERVICES, INC. 567
M. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Contentions and Issues
It is asserted in the complaint and the General Counsel
contends that Respondent coercively interrogated its
employees, and terminated and failed and refused to
reinstate six named employees because they had engaged
in protected concerted activities.
Respondent denies that it committed any unfair prac-
tices . With respect to the five named employees, it
contends that they had either voluntarily quit their jobs or,
in the alternative, had walked out placing a condition on
their return and at no time have made a clear and
unconditional offer to return even though they were
offered available jobs with the Company on the basis of
seniority and competence. With respect to the sixth named
discriminatee, Respondent contends that she was dis-
charged because of acts of "disloyalty to her responsibili-
ties as a supervisor."
The issues presented are whether: (1) Respondent
violated Section 8(axl) of the Act by President, H.
Vaughan Organ's, interrogation of employees at the
meeting on April 8, 1974; (2) the five employees who left
their jobs on April 4, quit or went on strike; (3) if they
struck,, whether those employees made an unconditional
request for reinstatement or stated and maintained a
requirement that their demands be met as a condition to
their resuming their jobs; (4) the five employees were
discharged by Respondent on April 8; and (5) Myrtle
Andrus was a supervisor when she was demoted on April 8,
and whether she was discharged on April 9 for conduct she
engaged in while a supervisor.
B. Supervisory Status
The General Counsel does not concede that Myrtle
Andrus was a supervisor before April 8, and referred to her
as the lead operator. Andrus was promoted from key tape
operator to a position bearing the title of day-shift
supervisor at Respondent's Lathrup Village office in
August or September 1973. She received a raise but
continued to punch the timeclock and receive hourly pay
in contrast to the salaried status of the (lay shift supervisor
at Respondent's Livonia office and the overall Operations
Manager, Brenda J. Mason, whose office was located at
the Lathrup Village facility.
Evidence presented reveals that in this position Andrus
handled customer telephone communications in the ab-
sence of the manager . She logged in the. work, divided it in
to work batches and ticketed the batches. There were
specific deadlines for the completion of various jobs and
Andrus assigned the work so as to meet those time
requirements. In furtherance of this objective Andrus had
authority to take one job from an operator and assign
another job. Andrus was responsible for maintaining
discipline in the office and had authority to give orders but
2 On one occasion Andrus discussed with the manager a production
problem she was having with one employee. Andrus was given authority to
discharge the operator if the problem were not rectified. Andrus discussed
the employee's problem with her and they were able to resolve the difficulty
without discharge . This was the only instance in which discharge authority
based on her judgment was given to Andrus.
executed her responsibilities by asking employees to
perform what she required.
Andrus made regular evaluations of the work of the
operators in connection with improvement raises, and kept
records on their key strokes and production. This latter, in
part, related to the basis for the charge made to the
customer for the service rendered but was also used in
determining the individual operators skill and perfor-
mance. Andrus also verified the work and kept a record of
the number of key stroke errors made. Periodically Andrus
was required to complete evaluation forms on the perfor-
mance of operators. Andrus had no continuing authority to
discharge operators2 and has never sent an employee home
as a disciplinary measure but instead refers such problems
to the manager.
Applicants for jobs were tested on the equipment by
Andrus who assisted the manager in evaluating the tests.
Applications were taken and interviews were held by the
manager. On several occasions Andrus was asked for her
recommendations concerning the hire of applicants whom
she had tested. Andrus discussed with the manager any
need for more or fewer operators according to her
scheduling requirements. New operators were trained by
Andrus who evaluated and reported on their progress.
Operators looked to Andrus for answers to any questions
concerning work being performed. If Andrus wished to
train an operator on a new type of work the manager's
permission was required. If an operator wished to take a
day off prospectively and told Andrus, she would relay the
information to the manager. Any request for extended time
or a vacation had to be arranged with the manager directly.
Andrus began work at 8:30 by arrangement3 with the
manager, and the assistant supervisor, who arrived early,
made any necessary work distribution before Andrus
arrived.
Eileen Bagley was manager when Andrus became
supervisor. After Mason assumed that position in January,
she countermanded Andrus' directions to employees,
changed work assignments made by Andrus and, giving
time and cost as the reason, would not permit Andrus to
train additional incumbent operators on new types of
work. However, employees who testified identified Andrus
as the person who made their work assignments and as
their immediate supervisor through April 8.
The supervisory status of Andrus is a close question, in
view of the fact that most of her admitted authority and
duties arguably fall within the area of the routine or utilize
superior skill and knowledge requiring little exercise of
independent judgment. There is no indication as to the
weight given the recommendations solicited from Andrus
regarding the hire of applicants she had tested. -However, I
believe the weight of the evidence establishes, and I find,
that Andrus did possess supervisory authority within the
meaning of the Act. Mason's instruction to Andrus in the
one instance given, when Andrus consulted her, indicates
that Andrus had authority to fire ' based on her own
3 The day shift officially started at 8 a.m. but the beginning time was
flexible and variations therefrom were individually arranged with the
manager. Some of the employees began work at 7 and 7:30 a.m. for their
own convenience and worked until they had completed 8 hours or until the
days work in the office was finished. Frequently there was insufficient work
to provide an 8-hour day,
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
judgment without requiring the independent evaluation of
the manager. Although a single instance does not prove the
general existence of such authority, I note further, on the
basis of other evidence, that the criticism of Andrus by
Mason which played a part in precipitating the events
herein involved was that Andrus was failing to adequately
and affirmatively exercise her supervisory authority. This
would suggest that Andrus possessed sufficient authority to
affect employees' working conditions if she chose to
exercise it. The test of supervisory status is not how the
authority is exercised but whether that authority has been
given and in fact exists. I find that Andrus possessed
authority to responsibly direct, to discipline, to discharge,
and to effectively recommend hire of the keypunch
operators on the day shift at Respondent's Lathrup Village
Office until April 8, and that at all times material herein
until that date Andrus was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act.
C. Background
Disregarding any purported reasons therefor after
Mason assumed the function of operations manager a
conflict developed between her and supervisor Andrus
focusing on performance of the supervisory duties. Mason
instituted changes directly affecting employees in areas
within Andrus' supervisory functions and engaged in
actions which displayed her disfavor if not rejection of
Andrus, such as physically and literally bypassing Andrus
and consulting with and giving orders to the assistant
supervisor concerning matters within Andrus' area of
authority. Such an incident occurred when Mason arrived
at the office on April 4. Andrus had communicated to the
operators her displeasure with the treatment she believed
was being accorded her and the employees had accumulat-
ed some dissatisfactions of their own which they had
unsuccessfully attempted to have rectified through Mason
at the beginning of the year. To the best of their knowledge
those complaints never were presented to President Organ,
the only other management official, and did not otherwise
receive consideration . Thus, when Andrus followed Mason
into her office on the morning of April 4, after the
bypassing incident and employees heard loud voices from
behind the closed door, the employees began speculating
among , themselves as to what had precipitated this
encounter. When Andrus emerged from the office and,
without replying to inquiries from operators, left for the
restroom in tears , the speculations of the employees, whose
sympathies and loyalties obviously were with Andrus,
turned from concern about the treatment being accorded
4 Now Cathy Hooven Creedon.
5 Organ testified that in his absence Mason had authority to make any
business decision except for matters related to certain funds other than
payroll funds.
6 After the discussion was in progress Andrus returned to the work area.
Andrus attempted to explain to Mason that the girls had no knowledge of
Organ's absence but was told by Mason to "shut tip," that she could not
handle her supervisory job and that she, Mason, would talk to Andrus later.
Employees placed this incident at this stage of the discussion while Mason
places it at the end of the meeting.
T The list submitted by employees to Mason read:
Humane treatment of workers and supervision (explained as having
reference to Mason's personal attitude); 6 months, calendar day for one
their supervisor to compliments about their own working
conditions. One of the employees suggested that they write
out their grievances and present them to management. At
this point they stopped operating their machines and
engaged in compiling their list of complaints.
D. The Events Involved
1. Grievance presentation to Mason
Mason heard the talking among the employees and told
Andrus to tell them to quiet down. After Andrus left the
office Mason noticed less talking but also became aware
that the machines had stopped. Mason emerged from her
office and told the operators their 15-minute break was up
and to get back to work. Keypunch operator, Cathy
Hooven,4 stated that the employees were not on their break
but were writing out a list of their grievances and
suggestions . Mason told employees they could write these
out on their time; to go back to work and they would have
another 15-minute break in the afternoon to finish their list
if they wished to do so. Vikki Kapanowski who had been
writing down the list of grievances stated that it would be
better to "take care of it now." Mason asked for and was
handed the list. After an exchange, which conveyed to
Mason that the operators were serious and did not regard
their grievances as a laughing matter, Mason asked
whether they believed they were really going to gain
anything by this action. Kaponowski replied that they
hoped to and at least they wanted to discuss their working
conditions. Mason replied "all right, let's discuss them."
Mason told employees she had no authority to make any
changes in the office or make financial commitments5 and
that she had no way of contacting Organ who was out of
the city.6 Operator Janet Crews expressed doubt that any
man would leave his business without even leaving a
number where he might be reached. Mason indicated that
she did not care whether the employees doubted this or
not. Mason then proceeded to take-up each item on the list,
asking for clarification of the various items listed.?
At one point in the discussion Kapanowski told Mason
that employees did not expect to get everything that was on
the list, they were presenting these as. suggestions they
wanted to discuss with the Company. When Mason
reiterated she had no authority to "spend money,"
Kapanowski told Mason they were not asking her to spend
money, they were only asking for the opportunity to
discuss these matters and if she had no authority on money
matters, they wanted the assurance that changes in the
office would be discussed with them and that they could
week (explained as referring to vacation pay entitlement); 12 daysper
year (explained as having reference to sick leave); new wage scale;
lunch area or 1 hour lunch paid; any weekend work over-time pay.
Mason told employees that a 40-hour work week was out of the question;
that Organ could not afford to give them sick days; and that 2 weeks'
vacation was too much but possibly Organ would consent to work out their
vacation entitlement based on a calendar-day basis rather than on hours
worked. With respect to wage scales employees pointed out that trainees
were paid the same or more than some of the experienced girls. Mason told
them that perhaps Organ would be willing to review this, and any change
would be up to him. Regarding estabhshment -gf a schedule of periodic
raises, Mason commented that their work was based on key strokes.
1-0 SERVICES , INC. 569
talk to Organ. Mason replied "Well, you go back to work
now and I'll give your list of grievances to Vaughan
[Organ] Monday and he can take care of them if he feels
like he can . . . ." Mason added that if Organ wanted to
talk to them he would. Operator Crews reminded Mason
that in January they had given her a list of grievances and
nothing had been taken care of. She expressed the view
that the employees should not be satisfied with Mason's
"say-so" and that some real assurance that Organ would
see their list was needed. Mason replied, "if you don't want
to take my word for it then I'm not going to pay you for
sitting here. You just clock out and go home and come
back and talk to Vaughan yourself on Monday."8
Keypunch Operatofs Kapanowski, Crews, Hooven, Stella
Madry, and Susan Moore, after a brief discussion9 among
the operators, clocked out. The seven other keypunch
operators and trainees remained. The group that left asked
Andrus whether she was coming with them. Andrus
indicated she was remaining to talk to Mason further.
2. Interim events
When the five operators punched out between 9:30 and
10 a.m. they went to a nearby establishment where they
reviewed the events of that morning, discussed their
grievances further and decided to contact the Union
(UAW) to ascertain whether they could organize the office.
They returned to, the office area at or about lunch time to
contact Andrus and to see if they could pick up their
checks which normally would be distributed the following
day (Friday) as they were not to return until Monday.
Mason told them` they would have to wait until Friday for
their checks. Andrus told Mason she was leaving work for
the afternoon and joined the five operators who engaged in
further discussion of their plans for contacting the Union
the following day. They asked Andrus to accompany them
when they went to the union office. Andrus was noncom-
mittal.
On Friday morning, April 5, the five employees appeared
at the office to pick up their paychecks which they were
given when Mason arrived. At that time Moore turned her
office key over to Andrus who in turn gave it to Mason.
Employees told Andi'us the time of their appointment and
again asked her to accompany them to the union office.
Andrus informed them that if she decided to go she would
meet them there. The five then went to a nearby restaurant,
then to Kapanovtfski's home to try to reconstruct the
grievance list, which Mason had kept, preparatory to their
consultation with Union Organizer Omer Dillingham at
Solidarity House (the Union's office) at 11 o'clock that
day.
8 Mason testified she told the employees that "either they go back to
work and wart until Vaughan Organ comes back Monday, or clock out."
9 Kapanowski recalled that she approached the other employees and
repeated Mason's "Offer... either we would go back to work and trust our
grievances to Miss Mason or we should go home and talk to Vaughan
Organ about it personally on Monday, and the general concensus was that
they weren't going to take her say so for it. They wanted some real
assurances that the changes were going to be discussed ." Crews testified that
employees left with the intentions of going back to work after they had
discussed the grievances with Organ on Monday.
10 Mason testified she instructed the secretary not to place timecards for
After the employees departed, Andrus confronted
Mason concerning several additional matters which had
occurred in connection with her supervisory authority and
asked Mason whether she wanted Andrus to "step down."
Mason was noncommittal and countered by telling Andrus
she and Organ knew "what the girls were up to." Andrus
told Mason that the girls had asked her to go with them.
Mason advised Andrus she would consider such action by
Andrus childish. Andrus returned to her work then decided
to join the employees in their visit to the union office. She
so informed Mason and left.
3. Employee meeting with Organ
Monday morning, April 8, Moore, who normally
reported to work early, arrived at the office between 7
o'clock and 7:15 a.m. She found no timecard and the
timeclock was not in its usual place. She commented to the
assistant supervisor, Leach, that it appeared they no longer
had to punch in. Leach shrugged her shoulders, so Moore
took work front the table and started working. After about
10 minutes Leach called Moore into the office. There
Leach informed Moore that Mason had said she had quit
on Thursday. Moore said, "well, in that case I guess I
should put the work back." Leach agreed that she should.
Moore returned to her car to wait for the arrival of the
other employees. When three of them arrived around 8
o'clock Moore told them of her experience in trying to
work that morning. The four entered the work area and
likewise found their cards missing from the time rack and
the timeclock gone from its place near the entrance.io
Organ was in his office. The four employees asked and
received permission to enter." They observed the time-
clock on the floor at Organ's feet. No explanation was
offered by Respondent for the location of the timeclock.
Kapanowski asked Organ whether he was aware of the
events of Thursday, April 4. Organ replied that he was.
Kapanowski asked whether he had their list of grievances.
Organ said he had not seen them. Organ _ accused
employees of taking advantage of his absence. Employees
replied that their actions had been spontaneous resulting
from dissatisfactions which had been building up, and of
which he was aware, and that they did not know of his
absence. They also told him they wanted to discuss their
grievances with him as they had been instructed by Mason
on Thursday to do. Employees volunteered from their
memory the areas of concern contained on the list. There
followed a rather loose exchange in which Organ kept
returning to the expression of his concern that employees
had "been unfair" and "let him down" and had "taken
advantage" of his absence in response to which Andrus,
who was then present, assured him that although she had
the five employees in the rack. She also directed withholding the card for
Andrus assertedly because she intended to fire Andrus for insubordination.
11 A few minutes later Hooven arrived and , finding no timekeeping
equipment, inquired concerning this of Leach who made no reply. She then
asked Leach whether she should go to work. Still receiving no reply she
asked where everyone was. Leach stated they were in Organ's office. She
asked Leach if she should go into Organ's office . Again Leach made no
reply, so she knocked on the door and entered . When Andrus arrived and
found no time card or time clock she went to Mason s office. Mason told
Andrus to go to Organ's office.
570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
knowledge of his absence she had seen no need to so
inform employees . Kapanowski told Organ that Andrus
was not in the room when they wrote their grievance.
While discussing the various problems raised by the
employees Organ admittedly, on several occasions, ques-
tioned why, if they were so unhappy with working
conditions there, they did not obtain work elsewhere.
Employees told Organ they wished to work for him and
improve their working conditions. Organ responded "Well,
I'm not so sure I want a group of girls like you working for
me anyway." 12 Someone asked "Does that mean you are
firing us?" and Organ admittedly stated "As far as I'm
concerned, you quit on Thursday." Kapanowski said "No,
we didn't. Miss Mason told us to go home and to talk to
you Monday, and that's why we are here." Other
employees affirmed this denial. Organ then left the meeting
to get Mason and returned with her and the grievance list.
Mason maintained that, employees had quit when they left
work and the employees maintained they had no intentions
of quitting on Thursday or then but had merely followed
Mason's instructions.
After about 2 hours of discussion with respect to the
grievances and management's problems, Organ repeated
the comment that he could not understand why employees
wanted to do this to him and why they did not just find
work elsewhere . According to employee witnesses, Organ
then raised the question "what ' is this union talk."
Kapanowski responded that if he did not wish to talk with
them, perhaps he would feel better about talking with the
Union. Organ asked employees to give him a few hours to
think about it and he would let them know what his
decision was. Kapanowski said , "fine, we'll go back to
work then and you call us when you're ready ... when
you have decided." Organ said, "No, go home and I'll call
one of you:' He asked which one to call and after a
discussion among themselves employees decided he should
call Kapanowski . Organ told the employees he would make
his decision by 3 o'clock that afternoon. Organ denied that
he mentioned the Union at this meeting. He admitted that
employees did ask whether they should return to work
while he considered their discussion, but testified he did
not tell employees they would be retained as employees.
Instead , Organ stated he told employees he would consider
what they had done to him on the preceding Thursday and
would decide whether he would rehire them or not.
4. Organ's reply to the operators
At 3 p.m. Mason called Kapanowski on Organ's
instructions and reported his decision to offer them jobs.
Kapanowski interrupted with "What do you mean by that?
We are still working for you the last I heard." Mason said,
"No, you quit on Thursday." Kapanowski insisted that
employees had not quit. Mason told Kapanowski to listen
to Organ's decision. She stated it was based on key strokes
and hours worked since the first of the year and informed
Kapanowski that Crews and Moore would work at the
Lathrup Village office on days and Madry, Hooven, and
Kapanowski would be sent to the Livonia location to work
on the afternoon shift. Kapanowski told Mason that the
employees would "get back to her on this." 13 Kapanowski
relayed the message to Crews and Madry who were with
her waiting for this call. Those present decided to consult
with the union organizer before making any response to
the offer. Kapanowski called Dillingham and reported
what had occurred. Dillingham promised to telephone
Organ and to call her back. Dillingham called Kapanowski
later and told her that he had spoken with Organ and
advised him that the employees should be returned to their
same positions at the same office and that Organ told
Dillingham he would "get back" to him. Kapanowski so
advised the other employees. Organ did not speak to
Dillingham again as promised.14 Awaiting further advice
from Dillingham, none of the employees contacted
Respondent on Tuesday with respect to the offer.
On Wednesday, April 10, Crews called Dillingham who
suggested that she call Respondent and make an uncondi-
tional offer to come back to work. Crews did so, telling
Mason that she understood from Kapanowski that her job
was available. Mason told her she had quit; Crews asserted
she had not. Mason admittedly replied to Crews that her
job was not available; that all the positions were filled; and
that there were no machines open. Mason also testified she
told Crews she had accepted Kapanowski's rejection of the
job offers for all of them. That afternoon Crews informed
the other members of their group of Mason's statement
that there were no longer any jobs available.
5. Andrus' meeting with Organ
Andrus, who had with one exception maintained silence
throughout Organ's meeting with employees on April 8,
remained in the office after the employees departed and
spoke with Organ for about 15 minutes. In this conversa-
tion she attempted to explain what had brought about the
12 Another witness recalled this comment as "anyway, I don't think I like
you working here as a group," while a third testified that Organ said he "was
not sure if he wanted us as a group anymore." The evidence indicates that
variations of this comment was '-repeated several times during the meeting.
rs Mason testified she told Kapanowski that Organ had decided they
had only two positions available and the others would have to go on the
afternoon shift at Livonia, that Kapanowski said, "in other words my
position is gone" and she answered "yes, we do not have machines
available"; Kapanowski said, "No," or words to that effect, and hung up.
Kapanowski denied that Mason said anything about when employees
should report to work but merely stated what the offer was. Other witnesses
testified that they had intended to return to work that morning as a group
but were not permitted to do so; that they did not state this as a condition to
their returning to work; and that they felt the offer of work on the night shift
at Livonia was intended as punishment for their activity.
14 Organ testified that he received a call from Dillingham about 3:30 that
afternoon. Dillingham identified himself and advised Organ that his
employees had been in to see him and had taken application cards.
Dillingham did not tell Organ that Kapanowski had just called him.
Dillingham suggested that Organ "bring the girls back to work, just as if
nothing had happened, to avoid prolonged expense and a situation that was
not profitable to either of us." Organ told Dillingham that he would
consider whether he would rehire them and "would get back to him." In
that conversation Dillingham also suggested that Organ talked with a
named individual at the NLRB Regional Office. Organ testified that he did
not call Dillingham. Mason called about 4 :30 p.m. but did not reach
Dillingham.
1-0 SERVICES, INC. 571
actions of the employees. According to Andrus, whom I
credit,15 Organ asked her if she had gone to the union hall
with the girls and she admitted that she had. He asked
whether she had signed any papers and she told him she
had not. Organ expressed his disappointment that Andrus
had not been able to get the employees back to work and
that they had left without completing the work on
Thursday.
Andrus asked Organ "what about" her job and whether
he wanted her to step down from her supervisory position
to operator. Organ indicated he would consult with Mason
about Andrus taking an operator's position. Andrus asked
whether she should go out and work until he decided and
Organ told her to go out and have a cup of coffee and he
would have an answer in an hour.
6. Andrus' demotion
Andrus extended the time during which she met with
employees who had left the meeting earlier, then called on
a competitor of Respondent, referred to herein as Ma-
comb, seeking a job offer which she received and took
under consideration until she could learn Organ's decision
on her job status. When Andrus returned to the office
Mason informed her of Organ's decision to take her back,
not as a supervisor but as a keypunch operator with a 25-
cent cut in pay. Andrus told Mason she would accept the
position but requested an explanation for the cut in wage
rate in view of the fact that another supervisor who had
accepted a similar demotion had not had her pay cut.
Mason told Andrus the latter would have to speak to
Organ as it was his decision . Andrus asked Mason when
she was to begin. It was agreed that Andrus would start as
keypunch operator the following morning, April 9. Andrus
then departed.
7. Andrus' discharge
Because of automobile trouble, Andrus did not report to
work on Tuesday, but called at 7:30 a.m. and advised
Leach that she would be late. Then when the repairs were
not completed by 12:30 p.m. Andrus again called Respon-
dent's office and advised Mason that she would be unable
to report that day. Mason reminded Andrus that it would
be necessary for her to work before the, Holiday (Good
Friday) in order to receive Holiday pay and Andrus
assured Mason she would be there the next morning.
At 8 p.m. that evening Andrus received a call from
Mason advising her that she did not have to come to work
"tomorrow or any other day." Andrus asked whether this
meant she was fired and Mason replied, "You no longer
have a job with us." Andrus asked for the reason and
Mason advised "Organ said you said you were going to
make him sweat." Andrus inquired who had reported this
and Mason stated she did not know.
Organ testified that Tuesday after 6 p.m. he received a
phone call from Eileen Bagley who related to him a lengthy
conversation she had with Andrus covering the events at
Respondent's office reported that Andrus was in a quandry
as to what to do. Bagley stated she "felt" that "they" were
out to get him or "make him sweat." 16 After his
conversation the telephone rang again and it was Mason
reporting problems she was having in preparing the
payroll. Organ instructed Mason to fire Andrus. Organ
stated that the reason for his decision was the fact that he
was at that moment tired of hearing Andrus' name. It had
come up in his customer situation,17 it had come up at the
office, it had come up in his home over family problems,
and at this point he could not take any more of Andrus'
conversation or Andrus' anything. Disloyalty, in the form
of telling Bagley and, assertedly, competitor Macomb of
Respondent's labor problems, according to Organ, was
only one of the reasons for his decision to discharge
Andrus.
Mason testified that in her conversation with Organ, in
which she was instructed to fire Andrus, he told her he did
not appreciate the fact that Andrus was keeping up
dissension among the employees and it would be best for
the Company if Andrus were not accepted back as a key
punch operator. Organ admitted telling Mason that a
reason for discharging Andrus was the complaints he
received from employees concerning phone calls received
from Andrus.18 Mason further testified that Organ told her
he had received a call from Bagley and that customers were
aware of their labor situation because of what Andrus had
told a competitor.
Organ admitted that during that day Leach had told him
of receiving calls from Kapanowski and Andrus on the
previous evening; that employee Susan Temple had told
15 Andrus gave further details of their conversation relating to union
activity which are omitted here because of my finding as to her supervisory
status. Organ, at first, denied the existence of any labor union discussion
with Andrus but changed his testimony after his recollection was refreshed
by reference to his sworn affidavit given the Boaid agent at the time the
charges herein were being investigated , and admitted some discussion of
union activity with Andrus including the fact that Andrus told him of the
possibility of the girls filling out membership application cards.
16 Bagley, the former operations manager, testified that she received a
telephone call from Andrus between 4 and 6 p.m. on April 9, in which
Andrus reported events thatshad occurred at the office beginning on the
previous Thursday, including her having gone to the union hall on Friday,
and what happened in Organ's office on Monday both with the operators
and thereafter, and of Mason's offer to Andrus of an operator's job with a
cut in pay. They discussed "problems" of unions generally, and after this
conversation she called Organ and attempted to relate to him everything
Andrus had said . Later that evening she received a call . from Andrus stating
she had been fired and asking whether Bagley had talked to Organ. Andrus
admitted the call to Bagley telling the latter she had been fired and that she
may have talked to Bagley the previous evening and related to her what had
occurred at Respondent 's office, but could not recall a specific conversa-
tion.
17 Organ recalled an incident during that day when he went to a
customer to pick up some work only to learn that the work had been given
to Macomb because of a report of labor problems at his plant.
18 Under examination by the General Counsel and after referring to his
affidavit Organ testified as follows:
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q•
Would it be April 9,1974?
Yes, very definitely.
In the evening?
Yes.
And you did make such a call by telephone?
Yes, I did.
To Brenda Mason?
Yes.
Now, on that occasion of the telephone call to Brenda Mason,
did you tell Brenda Mason to tell Myrtle Andrus not to report for work
because of complaints you had received from employees of I-O Services
that they had received phone calls from Myrtle Andrus?
A. I did.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
him that day of receiving such calls ; that he was aware that
employee Delphine Nowak had received calls from
Kapanowski and Andrus as he had heard her so state; and
that in such calls Kapanowski and Andrus were requesting
their fellow employees not to report to work . Organ denied
however that reports of these calls was the reason for his
decision to discharge Andrus.
8. Applications for reinstatement
In addition to any request for reinstatement and any
offer thereof indicated above , it appears that on July 5,
Kapanowski wrote to Respondent a letter signed by
herself, Madry, and Moore requesting reinstatement to
their former positions . By letters dated July 11, Respon-
dent advised each that there were no positions available
and that their requests would be kept on file . In addition,
Moore called Respondent's office regarding returning to
work on July 3 and was told to come in on July 5 and fill
out an application. She did not do so . Madry called
Respondent's office around the same date and was
connected with an answering service . She left her name
and phone number but received no call in return. Hooven,
who applied at the same time as Andrus , accepted
employment with Macomb Computer Service on April 15,
and has never received an offer to return to work at
Respondent 's office . She has contacted Respondent a
number of times regarding her vacation pay but has not
made inquiry regarding reemployment . Crews was offered
employment with Respondent beginning July 11 but
requested and received permission to delay her return until
July 15 to enable her to complete personal arrangements.
Andrus was offered employment on July 2, and reported to
work by arrangement on July 8.,
9. Replacements
Since 1973 , Respondent has had capacity facilities for 16
keypunch stations per shift . These are equipment stations
or established work areas requiring one operator each.
Apparently Respondent 's work requirements are erratic
and when a day's work is completed operators are sent
home. Organ told employees on April 8 that he could
guarantee only 20 hours - of work per week because of this
business characteristic . Organ stated that he had never
disciplined an employee for absenteeism , although that is a
serious operating problem, because there was a shortage of
"good help ." During the week ending April 6 , excluding
supervisors and the office secretary , but including the
assistant supervisor , there were 18 operator positions filled.
Mason's recollection that 7 remained after the five walked
out, suggests that 12 of these were assigned to the day shift.
The following week one additional name appears on the
payroll records and that person Charlotte M. Johnson,
worked only 8.3 hours that week. Respondent's records
give as her starting date , April 13 , 1974. In addition, the
name of Vickie Martin, with an employment date of
February 18, worked only 12.9 hours in the week ending
'April 6, and the records show that she is credited with no
hours thereafter although she was not among the employ-
ees who engaged in the walkout. Respondent 's records
further disclose that between April 13 and July 6,
Respondent has added 10 names to its Lathrup Village
operator payroll and that only for the weeks ending May 4
and 11 did as many as 16 operators perform work.
Mason testified that on April 4 she received a call from
the Michigan Employment Security Commission asking if
she had any openings and she stated she had . She was
given the names of three people the commission would be
sending over to fill out applications . Mason told the
commission she needed the employees 'as soon as possible
and to have them come in on Friday. Mason also called the
Livonia Business School and was promised that they would
send over a graduate. She did not contact employees on the
afternoon shift to come in early to meet the delivery
schedules, and did not talk to them about coming in on
days, assertedly because they had already arranged to
merge the shifts and eliminate the afternoon shift. Mason
also testified that it was planned to merge the day and
afternoon shift starting on April 15 because they did not
have enough work for two shifts but that she called persons
on the afternoon shift individually on Friday and request-
ed that they start coming in on days beginning Monday as
they were having trouble getting the day work out at that
point, "because of what had happened." At another point
Mason testified she discussed consolidating the shifts with
the afternoon shift supervisor on Friday afternoon.
Mason asserted that on Friday she replaced three of the
five employees who had walked out. As replacements she
named Charlotte Johnson and Lori Nicolai who were
referred to her by the Michigan Employment Security
Commission and whom she claimed were interviewed on
April 5 and reported to work on April 8 , and a week later
respectively. Respondent's records gives Johnson 's employ-
ment date as April 13 and Nicolai's date as April 10,
although the latter did not actually perform work until the
week ending April 27. The third alleged replacement, the
graduate from the business school , could not be identified
on the payroll records and Mason was not sure that she
ever showed up for an interview. Mason testified that she
told all applicants they would be probationary employees
for the first 90 days . Mason further testified that she did
not attempt to recruit employees for the second shift at
Lathrup Village during that period and that she had no
second shift for the period from April 8 through May 18.
At another point in her testimony, Mason stated that it was
before noon on April 8 that she had made arrangements to
fill the keypunch machines with operators. On the basis of
internal inconsistencies in her testimony some of which are
set forth above, her demonstrated memory failure, and my
observation generally, I do not find Mason's testimony
generally reliable.
Organ, on the other hand, testified with his recollection
refreshed by his sworn statement that consolidation of the
shifts and elimination of the second shift was never
considered prior to the walkout , that Mason had to
consolidate the shifts because of the walkout, and that it
was restored as a separate shift sometime in June.
With respect to the offers which Organ decided to make
the five employees on April 8, Organ testified that he took
into consideration the fact that with the consolidation of
the shifts and hiring Andrus they would have 14 operators,
leaving only two positions open . In determining which of
1-0 SERVICES, INC. 573
the five to offer those two positions to, Organ stated he
took into consideration "the people that were more
adamant about supervision, the supervision they received,
or the training they did not receive .... " With respect to
Kapanowski, Organ testified that he didn't know what to
do with her. Organ further testified that after she made the
call at 3 p.m. Mason told him Kapanowski had declined
the job offers. He also testified that when none of the five
showed up on Tuesday morning Mason so advised him but
that to the best of his knowledge no action was taken to fill
those positions.
E. Analysis and Findings
It is clear that in writing out and presenting their
grievances to manager Mason, Respondent's employees
were engaging in protected concerted activity.19 Mason's
ultimatum that they either go back to work or clock out
was neither a discharge nor a suspension, but was a lawful
requirement.20 When the employees chose to clock out,
absent assurance that Organ would see and consider their
grievances, they engaged in a concerted walkout or
economic strike,21 which is also protected concerted
activity. In doing so they did not lose their status as
employees under the Act. Respondent, therefore, was and
is in error in its contention that when they clocked out they
quit their jobs Z2 As economic strikers, the employees could
be permanently replaced before they offered uncondition-
ally to return to work. Such an unconditional offer to
return was made at the end of the Monday morning
meeting with President Organ on April 8, when employees
made clear to Organ their willingness and desire to go
directly back to their jobs while he considered the matters
they had discussed. Organ rejected this unconditional offer
to return to work out of hand without hesitancy or effort to
ascertain whether their jobs were available. Organ's refusal
to permit striking employees to resume their jobs, his
insistence throughout the meeting that they had quit, and
Respondent's actions in removing their timecards and the
time clock, together reveal that he had discharged the
strikers before they appeared for the Monday morning
meeting. Such a discharge constitutes inherent interference,
restraint, and coercion proscribed by Section 8(aXl).
Accordingly, I find, as urged by the General Counsel, that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
discharging Kapanowski, Hooven, Crews, Madry, and
Moore on April 8, before their meeting.23
Of course, striking employees who have been unlawfully
discharged need not request reinstatement 24 However, the
evidence establishes that the five striking employees made
such a request, which I find was unconditional, at the end
19 Floyd Epperson, 202 NLRB 23 (1973); The Masonic and Eastern Star
Home of the District ofColumbia, 206 NLRB 789 (1973).
20 See Farah Manufacturing Company, Inc, 204 NLRB 173 (1973).
21 See Astro Electronics, Inc, 188 NLRB 572 (1971).
22 See ABC Prestress & Concrete, 201 NLRB 820 (1973).
23 See Roemer Industries, Inc., 205 NLRB 63 (1973).
24 See Shelly & Anderson Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc, 199 NLRB 250 (1972),
and cases cited therein at fn. 13.
25 N.LRB. v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333; McGwter
Co., Inc, 204 NLRB 492 (1973).
26 See N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Ca, 389 U.S. 375, 378; and NLRB.
v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.'26, 34 (1967). Also see Los Angeles Chemical
Co., 204 NLRB 245 (1973); 4liday Inn of Henryetta 198 NLRB 562 (1974
of that Monday morning meeting when they asked to go to
work while Organ considered the matters they had
discussed. And Organ refused their request. Therefore,
even absent their prior discharge, the striking employees
were entitled to immediate reinstatement to their old jobs
unless they had been permanently replaced.25 The evi-
dence shows that none of the striking employees had been
permanently replaced. The merging of the second shift
with the morning shift clearly was not a permanent
arrangement. Indeed, the second shift was reactivated in
late May or early June after further recruitment of
operators which is revealed by Respondent's records.
Credited testimony of Respondent's witnesses establishes
that the shifts were merged only that morning as a direct
result of the strike in order to meet the morning schedules,
and had not been planned previously for business reasons.
The merger had been arranged by mere notice on the
previous work day and Respondent has presented no
business reason why those employees could not as readily
return to the second shift 26 Further, I cannot credit
Mason's assertion that she had committed three of the five
jobs to new hires, as Respondent's own records establish
the contrary to be the fact and, in any event, all new hires
were for a 90-day probationary period, and would not
qualify as permanent replacements.27 Finally, an addition-
al job was opened commencing that week by an operator
who was not among the strikers but who did not again
perform work for Respondent, and the job given Andrus
was not committed to her until after the employees
requested and were refused immediate reinstatement. I
find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act 28 Organ's comment to the employees at the end of
the meeting that he would consider the matters discussed
at the meeting and also what they had done to him, and his
further testimony that he did consider who among them
had complained most about supervision and the lack of
additional training during the meeting, clearly reveals the
motive behind each of his actions as retaliation against the
employees for their having engaged in the protected
concerted activity of striking. These admitted considera-
tions together with his statements at the meeting that he
was not sure that he would want the five of them working
for him as a group, convince me, and I find, that the job
offers relayed by Mason to Kapanowski at 3 p.m. were
based on unlawful considerations and therefore that none
of them were valid offers of reinstatement 29
With respect to Myrtle Andrus, the record reveals that
when she arrived at the office at her normal time she, like
the striking employees, found her timecard and the
timeclock missing. Mason testified that the card was
27 See CYR Bottle Gas Co., 204 NLRB 527 (1973).
28 See Imco Poultry, Division of International Multifoods, 202 NLRB 259
(1973). Also see cases cited in fns. 24 through 27, supra.
29 In this respect, although employees need not respond to invalid offers
of reinstatement , I do not credit Mason's assertion that Kapanowski
rejected the offers on behalf of all five employees or any of them. Further I
find that no time limit was , stated in the oflèr, and that Mason's advice to
Crews on April 10 that the jobs were no longer available amounted to a
total withdrawal of the offers. The actions of some employees in
subsequently engaging in I day of protest picketing does not establish that
they remained on strike after they were refused reinstatement See Shelly &
Anderson Furniture Mfg. Ca, fn. 24, supra.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
missing because of her intent to discharge Andrus.
Similarly, at the end of her meeting with Organ, which
followed immediately after Organ was finished with the
employee meeting, Andrus asked whether she should
return to her normal duties while he made his decision
about permitting her to work as a keypunch operator and
Organ instructed her not to do so but to leave the premises.
I conclude therefrom that Andrus also was discharged that
morning. Since Andrus was a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, her sympathy and participation with
the employees in their concerted and union activities was
not protected by the Act, and Respondent could, for that
reason, with impunity, take such action with respect to her
job status as it chose, including discharge,30 which I find it
did.31 After Andrus left, Organ discussed Andrus with
Mason and decided to permit Andrus to work as a
keypunch operator as she had indicated a willingness to
do. Mason made the offer to Andrus which she accepted
and it was specified that she would report for work as an
operator the following morning. Thus Andrus became an
employee when she accepted the Respondent's offer.32 She
was discharged the following evening, April 9.
From Organ's own testimony, and that of Bagley, I
conclude that the reason for discharge given Andrus by
Mason was not the only reason . Organ who alone made the
decision characterized his reason as merely a reaction to
hearing Andrus' name, indicating it had come up at the
office, in his home, and in customer relations and he
"could not take anymore Andrus conversation or Andrus
anything." Admittedly, Organ had learned from the
assistant supervisor the evening before and from two
employees that day of telephone calls made on the evening
of April 8 and on April 9 by Andrus and Kapanowski
asking fellow employees not to, report to work. To this is
added Mason's recollection that in the conversation in
which Organ told her to discharge Andrus, Organ stated he
did not appreciate the fact that Andrus was keeping up
dissension among the employees and that customers were
aware of their labor situation because of what Andrus had
told a competitor. All of these events relate to activity
engaged in by Andrus after initial discharge as a supervisor
on the morning of April 8, for it was while Organ was
considering whether he would permit Andrus to work as a
keypunch operator that she arranged a job interview with
the competitor and therein revealed the reason that she was
seeking other employment. All other events occurred after
Andrus was rehired as an employee.
Although an employer may take actions affecting
employment status against a former supervisor for engag-
ing in union activity which was unprotected because of his
supervisory status at the time of such activity, and such
30 Bechtel Corp., 201 NLRB 475 (1973), fn. 13, Gibbs Automatic Division,
Pierce Industries, Inc., 129 NLRB 196 (1960).
31 Mason's failure to permit Andrus to complete the day as a supervisor
confirms the conclusion that her status as supervisor was terminated before
she reported to work that morning. That Respondent's knowledge that
Andrus had accompanied employees to the union hall preceded its decision
to discharge Andrus is inferred not only from Masons knowledge of such
'activity but also from the questions of Andrus by Organ.
32 A delay in starting work does not negate the employee status
established by commitment (See H. F. Birch Co., 188 NLRB 720 (1971)).
Therefore, I fmd no change in that status effected by Andrus' failure to
work the next day, which , in any event, was executed by Mason's
action may be taken when he is no longer a supervisor,33
and that immunity has been extended to a discharge based
on an employee's efforts, after becoming an employee, to
grieve his discharge as a supervisor,34 I do not fmd in the
applicable precedent reason to extend the area of privilege
to permit discharge for union and concerted activity
engaged in as an employee after the supervisory status has
been terminated. Accordingly, I fmd that Respondent's
discharge of Andrus on April 9 violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
There remains the question of whether, as alleged in the
complaint, Respondent coercively interrogated its employ-
ees on April 8. The only incident covered by the testimony
which would fall within the characterization of interroga-
tion relates to the purported question by Organ, "Well,
what is this Union talk?" All employee witnesses recalled
this question and Kapanowski's reply. Organ's flat denial
of such a question in view of his candor generally would
seem believable, except for the fact that he also flatly
denied any conversation with Andrus concerning the
Union but changed his testimony after being confronted
with his affidavit. In these circumstances, reluctantly I
must credit the testimony of the employees and find that
Organ did make this inquiry. In the context this would
appear much less coercive than some of the statements
which he admittedly made in that meeting but which the
General Counsel has not alleged to be independent
violations of the Act, and one might venture that Organ
was more coerced by Kapanowski's response than employ-
ees were by his question. Nevertheless, such interrogation
is unlawful, and I so find.
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
Respondent described in section 1, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce in the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discharged striking
employees Vikki Kapanowski, Janet Crews, Cathy Hooven
acceptance of her reported excuse and ,urging that she be sure to come to
work the succeeding day.
33 See Gibbs Automatic Division, Pierce Industries, Inc., 129 NLRB 196
(1960) (Discharge after demotion to employee status for union activity as a
supervisor); Vail Associates, Inc., 186 NLRB 139 (1970); Texas Company v.
N.L.RB., 198 F.2d 540 (CA. 9), reversing 93 NLRB 1358, and N.L R.B. v.
Columbus Iron Works Company, 217 F.2d 208 (CA. 5), reversing 107 NLRB
1354 (1954), (refusal to hire an applicant as a rank-and-file employee
because of union activity engaged in while 'he was a supervisor, whether or
not his employment as a supervisor was terminated for reasons related to
such activity).
34 See Bechtel Corporation, 201 NLRB 475 (1973), fn. 3.
I-0 SERVICES, INC. 575
Creedon, Stella Madry, and Susan Moore on April 8, 1974,
and Myrtle Andrus on April 9, 1974, in retaliation for their
having engaged in protected concerted activities and
further discriminated against its employees by failing and
refusing to reinstate the striking employees upon their
unconditional request on April 8, 1974, I shall recommend
that Respondent be ordered to offer each of said
employees immediate and full reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent positlonS35 without
prejudice to their seniority or other rights and benefits
dismissing, if necessary, any replacement 'hired. I shall also
recommend that Respondent make all of the aforesaid
employees whole from the date of discharge to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement under this order. Such
backpay to be computed in the manner provided for in
F.W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with
interest at the rate of 6 percent as provided for in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices
committed, the commission by Respondent of similar and
other unfair labor practices may be anticipated. I shall,
therefore, recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from infringing in any manner on the rights guaranteed
employees in Section 7 of the Act.
equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make them each whole for
any loss of earnings, as set forth in `The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records and reports, and all other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right of
reinstatement under the terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Lathrup Village,
Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix." 37 Copies of said notice to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 5, shall, after being duly
signed by Respondent's representative be posted by
Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof and
maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
had taken to comply herewith.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Acct.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees as found herein in the exercise of rights
guaranteed by. Section '7 of the Act, Respondent has
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER36
Respondent, 1-0 Services, Inc., its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights, by
interrogating them about their union activities, by dis-
charging employees for engaging in protected concerted
activities, and by failing and refusing to reinstate striking
employees upon their unconditional request, or in any
other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement in conformity with
Section 8(aX3) of the Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Vikki Kapanowski, Janet Crews, Cathy Hooven
Creedon, Stella Madry, Susan Moore, and Myrtle Andrus
immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions,
or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially
35 Certain of the named employees have resumed employment with
Respondent. However, any question of whether such reinstatement has met
the requirements of this Order was not litigated and such matters are
deferred to the compliance stage of this proceeding.
36 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.
37 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial at which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to
post this notice; and we intend to carry out the Order of
the Board, and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees about their
union activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge employees for striking or for
otherwise engaging in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to reinstate striking employees
upon their unconditional request.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL offer to reinstate the employees listed Vikki Kapanowski Stella Madry
below to their former jobs or give them substantially Janet Crews Susan Moore
equivalent jobs, and pay them for any earnings which Cathy Hooven Creedon Myrtle Andrus
they lost because of their discharge, plus 6-percent
interest :
I-O SERVICES, INC.