Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1969

177 N.L.R.B. 259 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC.
Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc. and Mildred B. Hoback.
Case 20-CA-5001
June 30, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On April 16, 1969, Trial Examiner Herman
Corenman issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
the entire record in this case,' and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Lenkurt Electric Co.,
Inc., San Carlos, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns , shall take the action set
forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order,
as so modified.
Add the following as paragraph 2(b), and reletter
the following paragraphs accordingly:
"(b) Notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United
States of her right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
'Respondent has moved to strike the answering brief of the General
Counsel on the ground that his brief includes matters not limited to the
questions raised in the exceptions Since, in reaching our decision herein,
we have only considered those matters which are part of the record and
which have been raised by the Respondent's exceptions , we deny the
motion.
'We agree with the Trial Examiner 's conclusion that the Respondent's
discharge of Hoback violated Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act, but we find it
unnecessary to decide whether it also violated Sec. 8 (a)(3), as such a
further finding would not affect the remedy herein.
259
Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed
Forces."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HERMAN CORENMAN, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge
filed on May 16, 1968, by Mildred B. Hoback, an
individual, the General Counsel, for the National Labor
Relations Board , issued a complaint on September 19,
1968, against Lenkurt Electric Co., Inc., herein referred to
as the Respondent, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(61 Stat. 136), hereinafter referred to as the Act. An
answer filed by the Respondent denied the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing in this matter was held at
San Francisco on February 19, 1969, before me. Each
party was afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to call,
examine and cross-examine witnesses , to argue orally on
the record, and to file briefs which have been carefully
considered.
The question at issue is whether the Respondent's
termination of Mildred B. Hoback's employment on April
3, 1968, upon her refusal to cross a picket line to work at
the Respondent's plant, violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act.
Upon the entire record, including briefs of the parties,
and my observation of the witnesses, I make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The pleadings establish that the Respondent is a
Delaware corporation with a place of business at San
Carlos, California , where it is engaged in the manufacture
of electronic products . During the past year , Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold
and shipped from the State of California products valued
in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside
California , and received goods and materials valued in
excess of $ 10,000 from points outside California. It is
admitted that the Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce and in operations affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Preliminary Statement of Facts
Mildred B. Hoback had been employed by the
Respondent since June 1966, first as a Xerox operator
until October 1967 , and thereafter as an Itek operator.'
Her immediate supervisor was George Pollock,
supervisor of press production . She was one of
approximately 1,150 employees in the Respondent ' s plant
at San Carlos, California, who were unrepresented by any
labor organization.
On April 1, 1968, the IBEW, a labor organization
which represented approximately 2,650 hourly rated
employees in the plant , called a strike to enforce renewal
'According to the testimony of Personnel Manager Hill , an Itek machine
takes a typed sheet or page of anything and will make a working piece for
a printing machine from which one will copy or punt, much like a
duplicator.
177 NLRB No. 87
260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract demands and placed pickets at all of the gates to
the plant. In contemplation of the April 1 strike the
Respondent, on March 29, issued a memo to all
unrepresented salaried employees as follows:
As you all know, the company is in labor
negotiations with the IBEW. Regardless of the outcome
of these negotiations the company will be open for
operations on Monday, April 1, and thereafter all
employees will be expected to attend work as usual.
Mrs. Hoback rode to work with her husband on the
morning of April 1, 1968, intending to start work at 8
a.m., but on seeing the plant was being picketed , made no
attempt to enter the plant and returned home. Mrs.
Hoback testified that she "refused to cross the picket
line" because she "was in sympathy with the strikers and
fearful of bodily harm." On arriving home, Mrs. Hoback
phoned her supervisor, Mr. Pollack, between 9 and 10
a.m. and told him she "couldn ' t come in because of the
picket line." She also spoke to Mr. Pollack's superior,
Ray Facciano, and told him, too, that she "couldn't come
in" because she "wouldn ' t cross the picket line." Facciano
replied, "Yes, George [Pollack] and I have already talked
about it." Mrs. Hoback drove to the plant about 7:45
a.m. the next morning , April 2, and again refused to cross
the picket lines outside the plant because, as she testified,
"I was in sympathy with the strikers and fearful of bodily
harm." On the afternoon of April 2, she received a
telegram from the Respondent signed by Mr. Hill reading
as follows:
Since you are a salaried employee and not
represented by the union contract, your reason for not
coming to work is not acceptable. If you fail to report
for work by Wednesday, April 3, 1968, you will be
considered to have voluntarily terminated.
After receiving the aforesaid telegram, Mrs. Hoback
phoned Mr. Facciano, manager of the publications
production department, on the afternoon of April 2. Mr.
Facciano reread the telegram to Mrs. Hoback. When,
upon inquiry by Mrs. Hoback, Mr. Facciano told her he
thought the pickets would still be there the following day,
Mrs. Hoback replied that she would report as usual the
next morning, April 3, and would come in to work if the
pickets were gone. Later on April 2, the Respondent
received the following telegram from Mrs. Hoback:
Re yours this date. Stop. Have made efforts to report
for work. However, found pickets blocking entrance
Stop. Am fearful of bodily harm to self and family or
property damage if cross.
Mrs. Hoback went to the Respondent's plant site on
the morning of April 3 and, again observing that it was
being picketed , did not cross the picket line. Mrs. Hoback
testified again that her refusal to cross the picket line was
because she was in sympathy with the strikers and fearful
of bodily harm . She returned to the plant site on the
mornings of April 4 and 5 and again would not cross the
picket line to work for the same reasons testified to by her
for her refusal to cross the picket line on April 1, 2, and
3.
On the afternoon of April 5, Mrs. Hoback received the
following telegram from the Respondent , signed by
Personnel Manager Hill : "Your Lenkurt employment has
been terminated effective 4-3-68 by reason of your failure
to report to work without good cause."
B. Respondent's Contention as to Reason for
Discharging Mrs. Hoback
Mr. Stephen S. Hill, personnel manager , testified that
on April 1 he learned by memo from Mr. Acton, manager
of publications and office services, that Mrs. Hoback had
not come to work.' Mr. Hill contacted Mr. Acton and
instructed him that "should she [Mrs. Hoback] not come
to work as a result of [not] crossing the picket line, that
we should terminate her in three days." The Respondent
contends that Hoback was temporarily replaced by Kathy
Scambia on April 1 through 3, and was permanently
replaced by Scambia on April 4 when Hoback did not
report for work by April 3, the deadline set in the
Respondent's April 2 telegram to Hoback notifying her
that if she failed to report for work by Wednesday, April
3, she would "be considered to have voluntarily
terminated."
Mr. Hill's testimony concerning the replacement is as
follows: That Mrs. Hoback was an Itek operator in the
Press Department; that through the use of the Itek
machine a great amount of published material is
accomplished, as it is a much cheaper method of making
plates; and 60 percent of the flow of work through the
press department is dependent at one stage or another on
the Itek machine. When Mrs. Hoback did not come to
work on April 1, Kathy Scambia, who had had Itek
experience , and was then a trainee in the camera
department, was transferred to take Hoback's place on
the Itek machine during her absence on April 1, 2, and 3.
Hill testified that Scambia was permanently reassigned to
the Itek machine effective April 4. Scambia remained on
the Itek machine April 4 and 5, but on the following
Monday, April 8, she was taken off the Itek machine and
transferred for the duration of the strike to the factory
area where her skills were needed to perform production
work customarily done by union members. In the
meanwhile, the Itek machine work was rotated among
several other employees in the press department. Upon the
termination of the strike, May 16, 1968, Scambia was
returned to the Itek machine where she still remained at
the time of the hearing in this matter. Mr. Hill further
testified that it was not necessary to fill the vacancy in the
camera department occasioned by Scambia's transfer to
Hoback's job because Scambia had been only a trainee in
the camera department.
C. Discussion of Issues and Conclusions
The sole issue involved is whether Respondent violated'
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Hoback,
because she refused to cross the picket line and come to
work during an economic strike called by the IBEW.
I find that Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line to
come to work constituted the exercise of concerted activity
within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act .' Hoback
testified at the hearing that her refusal to cross the picket
line was motivated by two considerations, namely: (1)
sympathy with the strikers and (2) fear of bodily harm. I
have noted that Hoback's April 2 telegram to the
Respondent in reply to Respondent's April 2 telegram
seeks to justify her refusal to cross the picket line on the
ground that "pickets were blocking the entrance" and she
was "fearful of bodily harm to self and family or property
damage if [she] crossed ." It is reasonable to conclude, and
I find, that Hoback's April 2 reply to Respondent's April
2 telegram constituted, in the main, an endeavor by her to
'The April I memo from Acton to Hill reported concerning Mrs.
Hoback: "In the case of M. Hoback, she phoned in at 9 :05 AM stating
she was not reporting because of the picket line "
'Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,
LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC. 261
proffer an excuse which she hoped would be palatable to
the Respondent and perhaps forestall her threatened
discharge inasmuch as the Respondent's April 2 telegram
serviced notice on her that her refusal to cross the picket
line was an unacceptable reason for not coming to work
because, according to the telegram, "You are a salaried
employee and not represented by the union contract."
It is clear from the undisputed evidence produced at the
hearing by the Respondent that there was no picket line
violence. Additionally, Hoback was the only one of
approximately 1,150 nonrepresented salaried employees
who refused to cross the picket line. Whatever fragments
of fear Hoback may have entertained, I am satisfied that
they were minimal and did not control her action in
refusing to cross the picket line. I am convinced, and I
find, that Hoback's refusal to cross the picket line was in
the main based on her sympathies with the union strike.'
It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent
entertained the opinion, based on its observations at the
strike scene, that there was no warrant to Hoback's April
2 telegraphic excuse that she was "fearful of bodily harm
to self and family or property damage "if she crossed" the
picket line.
I am satisfied, and I find, upon the basis of the
Respondent's April 2 and 5 telegrams to Hoback that the
Respondent considered Hoback's refusal to cross the
picket line as an act of insubordination and unacceptable,
since, as the April 2 telegram stated, she was a salaried
employee not in the unit represented by the IBEW, and,
as stated in Respondent's April 5 telegram, she was
terminated because of her failure to report to work
without good cause . I am convinced, and I find, that
Respondent discharged Hoback in reprisal for her conduct
in honoring the picket line which the Respondent believed
was none of Hoback' s business . It is well established by
Board and Court precedent that nonrepresented employees
are engaging in protected, concerted activity in honoring a
picket line at their employer's own establishment. In
refusing to cross the picket line at her place of
employment and come to work, Hoback was assisting the
labor organization then on strike. It did not matter, as the
Respondent erroneously believed, that Hoback was not a
member of the bargaining unit represented by the IBEW.
Difco Laboratories, Inc., 172 NLRB No. 235. Southern
Greyhound Lines, Division of Greyhound Lines, Inc., 169
NLRB No. 148; Cooper Thermometer, 154 NLRB 502;
Canada Dry Corporation, 154 NLRB 1763; Texas
Foundries, Inc., 101 NLRB 1642, 1681; N.L.R.B. v. City
Yellow Cab Co., 344 F.2d 575 (C.A. 6); John S. Swift
Co., 124 NLRB 394, 397, enfd. 277 F.2d 641 (C.A. 7);
N.L.R.B. v. Stepp's Friendly Ford, 338 F.2d 833 (C.A. 9);
N.L.R.B. v. West Coast Casket Company, Inc., 205 F.2d
902, 908 (C.A. 9). See also Truckdriver's Union Local
join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such
activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment in section 8(a)(3)
'It should be noted that in proceedings before the State of California,
Department of Employment , wherein Mrs. Hoback sought unemployment
insurance , she represented to that state agency that she had "informed
management that my husband was an international representative of the
Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and this made my reporting
for work impossible since he is well aware of the dangers and other
reasons." (Emphasis supplied )
No. 413, Teamsters, et a! v . N.L.R.B. ]Brown Transport
Corp.], 334 F.2d 539, 542, 543 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied
379 U.S. 916.
Relying on N.L.R.B. v. Rockaway News Supply
Company, Inc., 197 F.2d 111 (C.A. 2), affd, 345 U.S. 71,
Redwing Carriers, Inc., 137 NLRB 1545, enfd. sub nom
Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 79 v.
N.L.R.B., 325 F.2d 1011 (C.A.D.C.), cert. denied 377
U.S. 905, and L.G. Everist Inc., 142 NLRB 193,
enforcement denied 334 F.2d 312 (C.A. 8), the
Respondent argues that it was privileged to discharge
Hoback in order to replace her with Kathy Scambia in the
efficient operation of its business.
Subsequent to the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the
Respondent, the Board, in adopting the Trial Examiner's
decision in Southern Greyhound Lines, supra, and Difco
Laboratories , Inc., supra, agreed with each of the Trial
Examiners that the Redwing Carriers rule was not to be
applied in cases, such as this one, where the employee is
honoring a picket line at the employer's own
establishment. Attention is directed to the remarks made
by the Trial Examiner in Southern Greyhound Lines,
supra, where she pointed out with Board approval that
Redwing, Rockaway, and Everist:
involved the discharge of drivers who in the course of
making deliveries, refused to cross the picket lines at
the premises of employers other than their own. In
those cases, the employees had not refused to perform
all their duties for their employer. They had even
transported materials to the situs of the struck
employer, but had refused to perform any part of their
duties which would require them to cross the picket
line. In such a situation an employer may find it
necessary to discharge the employee who refuses to
cross the picket line in order to replace him
immediately or soon thereafter with someone who will
perform all the employee' s duties and thereby enable
the employee to continue operating his business.
This, the Board held, the employer may lawfully do where
the need to continue to operate his business overrides in
importance the protected right of an employee to assist a
labor organization by refusing to cross the other
employer's picket line. Indeed , the Court of Appeals in
N.L.R.B. v Rockaway News, supra, in finding no
violation in the discharge of a driver who refused to cross
a picket line at another employer's establishment
condemned the driver's action as an unprotected partial
strike, the Court holding that the employee was
"unilaterally dictating the terms of his employment which
it is well settled he may not do." And the Supreme Court
in Rockaway, supra , while not adopting the partial strike
rationale of the Court of Appeals, concluded nevertheless
that the employee's refusal to cross the picket line was
unprotected because it violated a no-strike clause in the
collective-bargaining agreement governing his working
conditions.
Although the Board has not departed from the general
rule announced by it in Redwing Carriers, supra, that it
will not reach a conclusion only on the basis of the precise
words - "replacement or discharge" - used by the
employer in Redwing Carrier type cases, nevertheless, in
subsequent decisions involving one or more employees'
refusal to cross a picket line at another employer's
establishment, the Board has carefully weighed all of the
aspects to determine whether the discharge is a reprisal
against the employee or whether "the employer's need to
replace the employee is such as clearly to out weigh the
employee's right to engage in protected activity."
262 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Swain and Morris Construction Co., 168 NLRB No.
147, Thurston Motor Lines , Inc., 166 NLRB No. 101,
and Overnite Transportation Co., 154 NLRB 1271, enfd.
sub nom . Truck Drivers Local 728 I.B.T. v. N. L.R.B.,
364 F.2d 682 (C.A.D.C.), the Board concluded that the
Respondent had not met its burden to show that the
employees ' discharge was essential to fulfill an overriding
need in the operation of its business . In Overnite
Transportation Co., supra , in finding that the employer
violated the Act in discharging a truckdriver who refused
to cross another employer ' s picket line, the Board, among
other things, based its finding of violation on the fact that
the employer , by terminating the driver for disobeying
"direct orders" to cross the picket line, equated the
driver's refusal to cross the picket line with an act of
insubordination showing little or no regard for the
countervailing employee rights that were examined and
balanced in Redwing. In like manner, it is reasonable to
conclude that the Respondent ' s action in the instant case,
in terminating Hoback , was motivated by the
Respondent' s conclusion clearly expressed in its April 2
and 5 telegrams that Hoback 's refusal to cross the picket
line was "without good cause" and inferentially
insubordinate.
Additionally , I find that on the date of her discharge,
Hoback had not been permanently replaced. Kathy
Scambia , her replacement, remained on Hoback's
machine only from April 1 to 5; thereafter until the end of
the strike Scambia worked on hourly rated production
work in the unit represented by the IBEW. In the
meanwhile , the Itek machine was operated by a number of
different employees in the Press Department . It was only
after the strike was terminated on May 16 that Kathy
Scambia was permanently placed on the Itek machine.
See Lam- Western , Inc., 170 NLRB No. 186; Marydale
Products , 133 NLRB 1232 , enfd . 311 F.2d 890 (C.A. 5).
Hoback having been previously discharged effective April
3, it would have been futile for her to offer to return at
the strike ' s end . Southern Greyhound Lines , 169 NLRB
No. 148 . She was entitled to reinstatement with the
strike' s termination . N.L.R.B . v. Cowell Portland Cement
Co., 148 F.2d 237, 245 (C. A. 9); Idaho Potato Growers v.
N.L.R.B., 144 F.2d 295, 304-305 (C.A. 9).
But, as I have pointed out earlier in this decision, the
Board has declined to extend the Redwing criteria to
situations where the employee honors a picket line at the
employee ' s own place of work . See Southern Greyhound
Lines and Difco Laboratories , Inc., supra . In those two
cases, the Board did not deviate from long standing Board
and Court precedent, and in each case found that the
discharge of the employee for honoring the picket line at
his own place of work violated the Act.
The Board ' s reason for viewing the matter differently
where the employee refuses to cross a picket line at his
own place of work was stated in Cooper Thermometer,
154 NLRB 502, as follows:
In such a situation [referring to Redwing] the
employee interest in the primary labor dispute is clearly
less than in one, where as here, the same employer and
fellow employees are involved and where the possibility
is more proximate that improved conditions for the
production employees might lead to a reciprocal effect
effect on the office employees ' own conditions."
The Board cited in support of its statement Peter Cailler
Kohler Swiss Chocolates Company, Inc., 130 F .2d 503,
505 (C.A. 2).'
Concluding, therefore, that this case should be decided
on long standing Board and Court precedent reasserted in
Southern Greyhound Lines and Difco Laboratories, Inc.,
supra, I find that Mrs. Hoback, in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, was discharged for refusing to
cross the IBEW picket line. The Respondent thereby
discriminated with respect to her tenure of employment
because she assisted the IBEW by honoring their picket
line and because she engaged in concerted activity with the
striking employees for their mutual aid and protection.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Mildred B . Hoback because she
engaged in the protected activity of assisting a labor
organization, Respondent has discriminated with respect
to her tenure of employment , has interfered with,
restrained , and coerced her in the exercise of her rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act , and has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that Respondent
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Respondent will be required to offer Mildred B. Hoback
reinstatement to her old or substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges, dismissing , if necessary, anyone who may
have been hired to replace her, and to make her whole for
any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of
her unlawful discharge. Since it appears that Hoback
would not have returned to work prior to the termination
of the strike on May 16, 1968, even if she had not been
discharged, Respondent will be required to make her
whole for her loss of earnings by payment to her of the
salary which she would normally have earned on and after
May 16, 1968, to the date Respondent offers her
reinstatement, less her net earnings during that period.
The backpay shall be computed on a quarterly basis in the
manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co.,
90 NLRB 289, and shall include an allowance for interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum to be computed in the
manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, it is hereby ordered that Respondent, Lenkurt
'Judge Learned Hand, speaking for the court in Peter Caller Kohler,
supra, said.
When all the other workmen in a shop make common cause with a
fellow workmen over his separate grievance and go out on strike in his
support, they engage in a "concerted activity" for "mutual aid or
protection," although the aggrieved workman is the only one of them
who has any immediate stake in the outcome . The rest know that by
their action each one of them assures himself, in case his turn ever
comes, of the support of the one whom they are all then helping , and the
solidarity so established is "mutual aid" in the most literal sense, as
nobody doubts."
LENKURT ELECTRIC CO., INC.
Electric Co ., Inc., its officers , agents, successors, and
assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or refusing to reinstate any employee
because he has assisted a labor organization by refusing to
cross a lawful picket line at his place of work.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Mildred B. Hoback immediate and full
reinstatement to her former or substantially equivalent
position , without prejudice to her seniority or other rights
and privileges , and make her whole for any loss of pay
suffered by reason of the lawful discharge and refusal to
reinstate her, in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the
Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all
payroll and other records helpful to analyze and determine
the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its place of business at San Carlos,
California , copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix ."' Copies of said notice, on forms to be
provided by the Regional Director for Region 20 of the
Board , shall, after being signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent , be posted immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter , in conspicuous places, where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Respondent shall take
reasonable steps to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing , within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps it has taken to comply herewith.'
`In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the
words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals , the words "a decree of the United States Court of
Appeals, Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order."
'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read: "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 20, in writing , within 10 dayes from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
263
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to reinstate any
employee for refusing to cross a picket line to come to
work during a lawful strike at our plant.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain , or coerce any employee in the exercise of
his right, guaranteed under the National Labor
Relations Act, to assist a labor organization.
WE WILL offer to Mildred B. Hoback immediate and
full reinstatement to her former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to any seniority
or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by her,
and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may
have suffered by reason of her discharge.
LENKURT ELECTRIC CO.,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note : Notify Mildred B. Hoback if presently serving in
the Armed Forces of the United States of her right to full
reinstatement upon application in accordance with the
Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended , after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 13050 Federal
Building , 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36047, San
Francisco, California 94102 , Telephone 556-0335.