New York Post

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 2008

353 N.L.R.B. 343 (N.L.R.B. 2008)

NEW YORK POST
353 NLRB No. 30
343
NYP Holdings, Inc., d/b/a The New York Post and
Local 94-94A-94B, International Union of Oper-
ating Engineers. Case 2–CA–38209
September 30, 2008
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN SCHAUMBER AND MEMBER LIEBMAN
On February 8, 2008, Administrative Law Judge Ray-
mond P. Green issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respon-
dent’s exceptions, as well as cross-exceptions and a brief
in support. The Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with
this Decision and Order.1
The judge found no merit to the General Counsel’s
contention that the Respondent discharged Ernest Grant
for his union and protected concerted activities on Febru-
ary 28 and April 18, 2007,2 in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The judge nevertheless found
that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by
terminating Grant in retaliation for sabotage of its print-
ing presses a month earlier by persons unknown but per-
ceived by the Respondent to be union members. As ex-
plained below, we reverse this finding because the
judge’s reliance on an unlitigated theory of violation de-
prived the Respondent of its right to due process.
Facts
The Respondent publishes a daily general circulation
newspaper in the New York metropolitan area. The Un-
ion represents the Respondent’s operating engineers.
The Union’s contract with a multiemployer association
of which the Respondent was a member expired on De-
cember 31, 2006. The parties continued to negotiate and
entered into a series of contract extensions, the last of
which expired on February 28. The Respondent was
notified that if there was no resolution to the issues being
negotiated, there would be a strike on March 1.

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Schaumber and Member Liebman constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act.
2 All dates hereafter are 2007, unless otherwise indicated.
On February 28, the eve of the strike, Grant and a co-
worker refused to accept a new assignment and claimed
they were being locked out when Director of Distribution
Ken Chiarella did not assign them their usual tasks dur-
ing their shift. Both employees left the premises shortly
after midnight and the Union established a picket line at
the facility, which remained up until some time on March
1. Certain employees refused to cross the picket line and
the Respondent was unable to deliver a significant num-
ber of its papers.
On April 7, the Respondent discovered that the ink
tanks for its printing presses were blocked by two bowl-
ing balls. The Respondent increased security in the facil-
ity and reviewed security tapes in an effort to determine
the saboteur(s). On April 18, Security Director Lloyd
Vasquez was conducting a videotaped interview of one
of Grant’s coworkers. Grant was called over by the co-
worker and told him not to worry, to do his job,and that
everything would be okay. Grant was later suspended
for directing “menacing glares” at Vasquez. After an
investigation, the Respondent revoked the suspension
and reinstated Grant with backpay on April 21.
Around May 1, Chiarella was informed that a review
of the security tapes revealed Grant removing a water
cooler from the facility on April 8. He was suspended
pending an investigatory review. On May 8, Chiarella,
along with other officials, interviewed Grant. During the
interview, Chiarella and Grant first discussed the water
cooler. Grant claimed that Willie Clavijo, his then su-
pervisor, gave him permission to take the water cooler;
that he had repaired it at the plant; that he then took it
home; and that he had not asked permission to remove it
because Clavijo had given it to him. Chiarella then ques-
tioned Grant regarding the bowling ball incident. The
Respondent terminated Grant later that day for theft and
for repairing the water cooler during work hours with
company parts and equipment.
Judge’s Findings and the Respondent’s Exceptions
The judge rejected the General Counsel’s theory that
the Respondent terminated Grant for his alleged union
and protected concerted activities on February 28 and
April 18. According to the judge, there was no basis for
believing that the Respondent blamed Grant for the
picket line or the employees’ refusal to cross it on March
1. The judge additionally found that the April 18 inci-
dent involving the videotaped interview was inconse-
quential and did not entail any concerted activity on
Grant’s part.
Having rejected the General Counsel’s theory of the
violation, the judge nonetheless continued his analysis
and interposed a new basis for finding Grant’s termina-
tion unlawful. Specifically, the judge concluded that the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD344
Respondent’s stated reason for Grant’s termination was
pretextual, and that the true reason was to retaliate
against the Union for the sabotage of the ink tanks. The
judge inferred, from the way Chiarella interviewed Grant
on May 8, that Chiarella was not actually concerned
about the water cooler theft; rather that Chiarella focused
his inquiries on the bowling ball incident and did not ask
about the water cooler at the outset of the interview.3
According to the judge, the Respondent blamed the Un-
ion and its members for placing bowling balls in its ink
tanks.4 When the Respondent’s investigation into the
incident proved inconclusive, the Respondent was frus-
trated. As a result, the judge found, the Respondent
made Grant a scapegoat for its frustrations with the Un-
ion because he was the first union member whose actions
“could be a reasonable basis for retaliation.” On this
basis, the judge concluded that Grant’s discharge vio-
lated Section 8(a)(3) and (1).
The Respondent excepts, arguing inter alia that it had
no notice that it should defend against the judge’s theory
of violation and therefore that its due process rights were
violated.5 We find merit in this exception.6
Analysis
The Board has indicated that “[t]o satisfy the require-
ments of due process, an administrative agency must
give the party charged a clear statement of the theory on
which the agency will proceed with the case. Addition-
ally, an agency may not change theories in midstream
without giving respondents reasonable notice of the
change.” Lamar Advertising of Hartford, 343 NLRB
261, 265 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). In determining whether a respondent’s due
process rights were violated, the Board has considered
the scope of the complaint, and any representations by
the General Counsel concerning the theory of violation,
as well as the differences between the theory litigated
and the judge’s theory. See generally Sierra Bullets,
LLC, 340 NLRB 242, 242–243 (2003) (violation based

3 Contrary to the judge, the Respondent questioned Grant about the
water cooler prior to questioning him about the bowling ball incident.
4 In so finding, the judge apparently relied on an e-mail from the Re-
spondent to the Union suggesting a postponement of contract negotia-
tions due to unsuitable circumstances. The Respondent cites to the
following “circumstances”: sabotage by union members, continuing
misconduct, and “an issue that we are investigating now.” Chairman
Schaumber would not infer antiunion animus from the e-mail.
5 The Respondent further excepts to the merits of the judge’s theory
of violation. We find it unnecessary to reach those exceptions in light
of our disposition of the case.
6 We also reject the General Counsel’s cross-exceptions and affirm
the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not terminate Grant for
his activities on February 28 for the reasons stated by the judge in his
decision. The General Counsel has not excepted to the judge’s findings
regarding the April 18 incident on which he earlier relied.
on broader theory improper and violates due process
when General Counsel expressly litigated case on narrow
theory).
In the present case, the General Counsel’s complaint
and representations reasonably led the Respondent to
believe that it was defending Grant’s termination on the
grounds of Grant’s actions on February 28 and April 18.
The complaint alleged that the Respondent discharged
Grant because he engaged in “union organizational and
other protected concerted activities. . . .” The General
Counsel represented at the hearing that the “General
Counsel will argue that the discharge was, quite simply,
retaliation for Grant’s union activities. . . .” (emphasis
added), which the General Counsel later identified as
Grant’s specific actions on February 28 and April 18.
Reflecting the General Counsel’s representations, the
judge’s decision stated that “[t]he General Counsel con-
tends that the Respondent discharged Grant because he
engaged in union and protected concerted activity on
February 28 and April 18, 2007.” These representations
indicate what the General Counsel alleged to be unlaw-
ful, “and the Respondent should not be expected to de-
fend against other theories that are not part of the Gen-
eral Counsel’s case.” Sierra Bullets, supra at 243.
Plainly, the judge’s theory of violation was not part of
the General Counsel’s case. As noted above, the General
Counsel litigated the case under the theory that the Re-
spondent discharged Grant in retaliation for his union
and alleged protected concerted activities. In contrast,
the judge concluded that the Respondent blamed the Un-
ion for the sabotage, and sought to make a scapegoat of
Grant as the first union member “who came along and
did something that could be a reasonable basis for re-
taliation.” These matters were irrelevant to the theory of
violation advanced by the General Counsel and the Re-
spondent had no notice that they were at issue in this
case. See Champion International Corp., 339 NLRB
672, 673 (2003) (“It is axiomatic that a respondent can-
not fully and fairly litigate a matter unless it knows what
the accusation is.”). Thus, the judge’s theory of a viola-
tion deviated from the General Counsel’s theory and the
judge’s theory (and the underlying facts) were not liti-
gated at the hearing.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that the General
Counsel chose to proceed on the specific theory of viola-
tion that Grant’s union activities motivated his discharge.
The General Counsel’s representations on the record
reasonably led the Respondent to believe that it would
not have to defend Grant’s termination on other grounds,
and the complaint was litigated based on the General
Counsel’s representations. Nevertheless, the judge pro-
NEW YORK POST 345
ceeded to find a violation of the Act on an alternate and
unlitigated theory, thereby denying the Respondent due
process. The violation predicated on the judge’s theory
cannot stand on the present record. We therefore reverse
his finding and dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Paul Mueller Co., 332 NLRB 1350 (2000).
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Simon-Jon H. Koike, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jordan Lippner and Elliot S. Azoff, Esqs., for the Respondent.
Michael J. D’Angelo, Esq., for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RAYMOND P. GREEN, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this
case in New York, New York, on December 11 and 12, 2007.
The charge and the amended charge were filed on April 19 and
June 19, 2007. The complaint was issued on October 26, 2007.
In substance, the complaint alleged that the Respondent dis-
charged Ernest Grant because of his union and/or other pro-
tected concerted activities. As will be seen below, this case
primarily involves bowling balls, bargaining, and water coolers.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed, I
make the following
I. JURISDICTION
The parties agree and I find that the Company is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
NYP Holdings, Inc., publishes the New York Post as a daily
general circulation newspaper in the New York metropolitan
area. For a very long time and before the present employer
acquired this newspaper in 1993, there has been a collective-
bargaining relationship with nine labor organizations represent-
ing various categories of employees. For many years, the
Charging Party, Local 94, has represented a unit of operating
engineers who perform various tasks within the Bronx plant.
Upon acquisition, the Respondent continued to recognize and
bargain with Local 94 as well as the other labor organizations.
At the time of the events herein, the unit represented by Local
94 consisted of 13 employees.
Until the end of 2006, the Respondent was a member of the
Realty Advisory Board (RAB), a multiemployer association,
through which it maintained a contract with Local 94. The last
RAB/Local 94 contract expired on December 31, 2006. Prior
to its expiration, the Respondent decided to engage in direct
bargaining with Local 94 and to that end, withdrew from the
Association. Bargaining for a new contract to cover the 13
operating engineers began in August or September 2006. The
main union representative was its president, Kuba Brown, and
the main company representative was Ken Chiarella. The al-
leged discriminate, Ernest Grant, testified that he attended one
of the bargaining sessions but did not participate in the negotia-
tions.1
Not having reached a new contract by December 31, 2006,
the parties entered into a series of contract extensions, the last
of which was to expire on February 28, 2007. On February 20,
2007, the Company made an offer to Local 94 which it charac-
terized as a final offer. The Union’s representatives told the
Company that they would present the offer to the members but
would recommend against its acceptance. The Company was
notified that if there was no resolution, there would be a strike
on March 1, 2007.
Anticipating the possibility of a strike, the Company brought
in operating engineers from another newspaper that it owed.
These people came into the plant, while the Local 94 members
were still working, and watched the jobs that had to be done.
Soon thereafter, the Company sought to obtain assurances from
the other unions that in the event of a Local 94 strike, they
would continue to work. According to Chiarella, all the unions
except for the NMDU (representing delivery drivers), assured
the Company that their members would go to work. According
to Chiarella, as the deadline approached, he felt certain that
Local 94 would strike at midnight. He also testified that based
on viewing the Union’s website, he saw that Local 94 members
were told that in the event of a strike they were to shut off all
equipment and lock all doors and cabinets.
On February 28, 2007, at about 11 p.m., the replacements
began performing work in the engineering department. At the
same time, Ernest Grant (the alleged discriminate) and Luvenci
Bonneau arrived at the plant to start their shift. Instead, they
were told by Chiarella that they were to work in the lobby,
monitoring the security television, instead of reporting to their
normal jobs. They were told that they could take their normal
breaks and that they would be fully paid for the shift. After
talking on his cell phone to union representatives, Grant in-
sisted that the two employees were being locked out and
Chiarella told them that this was not the case. The two em-
ployees waited in the lobby until midnight whereupon Grant
got up to leave. After some give and take, Chiarella stated that
if Grant left the building he would be engaging in a strike. (In
this regard, there was some testimony by Grant and Bonneau
that Chiarella told them that they would be terminated if they
left. But this assertion, which is denied by Chiarella, seems to
me to be far fetched since he is knowledgeable about labor law
and no doubt is aware that strikers can only be replaced but not
fired.) In any event, Grant and Bonneau decided to leave the
premises whereupon Local 94 set up a picket line at the facility.
The evidence shows that upon setting up the picket line, the
drivers represented by NMDU refused to take their trucks out
to make deliveries. (Although it was asserted by NMDU repre-
sentatives that they refused to man the trucks because of safety
concerns, it is pretty obvious that they refused in respect for
Local 94’s picket line.) There then ensued a series of conversa-
tions between the Company, the NMDU, and the permanent

1 Grant testified that he was an assistant shop steward but there is no
evidence that he ever acted as a union representative in a grievance
situation. Chiarella testified that he was not aware that Grant was an
assistant shop steward.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD346
arbitrator for that contract which resulted in the arbitrator issu-
ing a cease-and-desist order based on that contract’s no-strike
clause. When that failed to get the NMDU drivers on the road,
the Company agreed, at around 3:30 a.m., to meet further with
Local 94. The parties also agreed that Grant and Bonneau
would return to work with full pay, that the picket line would
be withdrawn and that the NMDU drivers would make the
morning delivery of the newspapers. As a consequence of the
picket line and the refusal by the NMDU drivers to cross the
picket line for about 4 hours, the Company failed to make de-
livery of approximately 125,000 papers.
On April 7, 2007, the Company discovered that one of its ink
tanks was not sending ink to the presses. When the engineering
department employees were trying to clean up the mess, they
discovered that two bowling balls had been dropped into the
tank which resulted in an obstruction of the lines to the presses.
The Company then launched an intensive investigation in an
attempt to discover who caused the problem. There is no ques-
tion but that management was really steamed about what it (and
I), consider an act of sabotage. Moreover, since this area of the
plant is visited by the operating engineers, it was suspected that
it was one or more members of Local 94 who were responsible.
By letter dated April 12, 2007, from Joseph Vincent to Kuba
Brown, he stated:
[T]his week we endured a major act of sabotage in an area
under the supervision of the Engineer’s unit—the ink room.
The perpetrator(s) had a working knowledge of the Post’s ink
tanks. Bowling balls were dropped into both tanks. Given
that the tanks operate on gravity, the bowling balls ultimately
disrupted operation of the tanks by preventing ink from reach-
ing the presses. Only yeoman work by staff saved the night’s
production.
The aftermath in terms of clean up of hundreds of gal-
lons of ink and investigation to identify the saboteurs has
been and continues to be the focus of my work. I must
bring closure to the investigation as quickly as possible. I
do not have the time this week or next to consider and cost
out proposals which I must do prior to meeting with you. I
would suggest that we meet the afternoon of Thursday,
April 26th. I truly hope that you will be willing to meet
the Post half way in terms of the remaining issues. We do
need to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution.
The Company’s investigation into the incident failed to dis-
cover the culprit or culprits.
On April 18, 2007, Grant and Bonneau had some kind of run
in with Lloyd Vasquez, the director of security. As a result,
Gary Fescine, then the director of operations issued a suspen-
sion to both employees. However, when Chiarella reviewed the
report and interviewed the two employees, he revoked the sus-
pension of Grant.2 On April 30, 2007, Grant submitted a letter
to the Company stating that he was filing a grievance.
As part of the Company’s investigation of the bowling ball
incident, it started reviewing security tapes. Serendipitously, a
review of the tapes showed Grant removing a water cooler from
the facility. The water cooler tape was then brought to the at-

2 Grant had been given a suspension for “menacing glares.”
tention of Chiarella and Grant was suspended on May 3 pend-
ing an investigatory interview. The reasons for the suspension
were not given.
On May 8, 2007, Grant was interviewed by Chiarella in the
presence of Steve Grossman, the security manager and John
Kramer, the Union’s business agent. Near the outset of the
interview, and before telling Grant that he was being accused of
stealing a water cooler, Chiarella asked about the bowling ball
incident. And it seems to me that what he was doing was trying
to get Grant to admit that he was involved in that incident.
When Grant denied that this was the case, Chiarella then started
asking, in a somewhat roundabout way, about taking company
property out of the building. The bottom line is that Grant vol-
unteered that he had removed a water cooler but asserted that it
had been given to him some time ago by his then supervisor,
Willie Clavijo. Grant stated that he had kept it at the plant and
fixed it up there because he had no room at his home until he
recently got another apartment. Grant told Chiarella that he had
not sought permission to remove the water cooler because it
had been given to him. (Indeed, the photos showed Grant with
the water cooler in the presence of a security officer; hardly the
actions of a man trying to steal something.)
Grant was fired on May 8, 2007, by Chiarella. The reason
given was that Grant had stolen company property and had
repaired it on company time with company equipment and
parts. Chiarella did not check out Grant’s story with Clavijo,
who no longer worked for the Company. According to
Chiarella he did not do so because he did not consider Clavijo a
reliable person.
After Grant’s discharge, the Union filed a grievance on his
behalf. However, the Company refused to arbitrate the griev-
ance because there was no contract in effect at the time.
Contemporaneously with the events involving Grant, the
Company postponed a couple of bargaining sessions. On one
occasion (May 3, 2007), Joseph Vincent, the Company’s vice
president sent an e-mail to the Union stating inter alia;
I am also concerned that the circumstances are not now suit-
able for effective good faith negotiations. There continue to
be problems at the plant from members of you Union. There
has been prior sabotage and, in my view, appropriate disci-
pline. However, rather than working cooperatively with me
to resolve those matters, you have chosen to file complaints.
The misconduct by members of your Union has not stopped.
There is an issue that we are investigating now and, to be
honest, I cannot be talking with you about a contract at the
same time I am attending to matters of misconduct by your
members. There are only 24 hours in a day.
With respect to the water cooler incident, the credited testi-
mony of Grant and Clavijo is that at some point the Company
decided to stop using all of its water coolers except for the one
in the gymnasium. As a consequence, except for the cooler in
the gym, Clavijo removed all of the water coolers and put them
into the storage area. In 2005 or 2006, Clavijo was instructed
to clean out the storage area because new boilers were being
installed in that area. Clavijo credibly testified that he was
instructed to give away anything in the storage area that em-
ployees might want and that Grant chose the water cooler in
NEW YORK POST 347
question. It appears that the other water coolers were thrown
away as they had been, for some time, simply discarded surplu-
sage. According to Grant and Clavijo, Grant kept the water
cooler in a storage “cage” because he had no room at home.
This “cage” is an area where employees sometimes store their
personnel belongings. Grant also testified that when he had
time, he cleaned the water cooler and credibly testified that
other employees did similar things when they were unoccupied.
III. ANALYSIS
The General Counsel contends that the Respondent dis-
charged Grant because he engaged in union and protected con-
certed activity on February 28 and April 18, 2007.
The February 28 incident involved the refusal by Grant and
Bonneau to accept the lobby assignment for the night shift
which was coincident with the picket line and the refusal of the
NMDU drivers to make their deliveries.
The April 18 incident involved a situation where Grant was
called by Bonneau to come downstairs and where he allegedly
saw Security Director Vasquez videotaping and interrogating
Bonneau. According to Grant, he simply told Bonneau not to
worry; to do his job; and that everything would be okay. There
is no indication that Grant actually intervened on behalf of
Bonneau or that he tried to perform any representational role in
the incident. All that one can say about this incident is that
Grant apparently gave Vasquez a dirty look and that Vasquez
was offended.
In essence, the Respondent contends that it did not take any
actions against Grant because of his union or protected activity.
It contends that it discharged Grant because Chiarella reasona-
bly believed that Grant was stealing company property (the
water cooler), and was caught removing it from the facility.
It is my opinion that neither the February 28 or April 18 in-
cidents had anything to do with the decision to discharge Grant.
As to the February 28 incident, there is no basis for believing
that the Company blamed Grant (or Bonneau) for the picket
line that was established at midnight and the consequential
refusal by the NMDU members to do their jobs. If manage-
ment was angry at anyone, it would have been the NMDU and
not Grant. I also do not believe that Grant and Bonneau were
threatened with discharge on that occasion. The other incident
was also, in my opinion, relatively inconsequential, did not
really involve any concerted activity on the part of Grant and
Chiarella immediately retracted the suspension that had been
given to him.
There is, however, no question in my mind that management
was extremely angry about the bowling balls being dropped
into the ink tank. And I have to agree that this was an act of
sabotage.
In my opinion, when the Company couldn’t determine which
individual or individuals were responsible for dropping the
bowling balls in the ink tank, Chiarella, out of frustration, was
willing to make a scapegoat out of the first Local 94 member
who came along and did something that could be a reasonable
basis for retaliation. And Grant happened to fit that bill.
There can be no doubt that if the Company had concluded
that Grant or anyone else had caused the sabotage, it could have
discharged that person without any question of liability. But in
this case, the Company had no basis for concluding or even
believing that Grant was responsible, in whole or in part, for
putting the bowling balls into the ink tank. At the same time, it
is clear that the Company blamed Local 94 and its members
generally, for the bowling ball incident. But as the Company
could not affix blame to Grant, on any basis at all, it follows
that the motivation for Grant’s discharge can only be because
of the fact that he was a member of the Union. That is, it is my
opinion, that the Company’s motivation in discharging Grant
was because he was a member of Local 94 and that he was the
convenient scapegoat that allowed the Company to play tit for
tat against what it believed to be the Union’s act of sabotage.
The Respondent argues that Chiarella’s decision to discharge
Grant was based on his belief, mistaken or not, that Grant was
stealing a water cooler from the Company. But I don’t think
that this was the case at all. From the way that Chiarella inter-
viewed Grant on May 8, is clear to me that his real purpose was
not to talk about the water cooler, but rather to gain information
or an admission about the bowling ball incident. Thus, at the
outset of the interview, Chiarella didn’t ask about the water
cooler or even accuse Grant of taking the water cooler. Instead
his inquiries were focused on the bowling ball incident, thereby
indicating that this was his real point of interest. In short, it is
my conclusion that Chiarella was not really concerned about
the water cooler, which at that point was just an abandoned
appliance, but was using the cooler as a means to talk about
bowling balls.
As it is my opinion that the Company’s motivation for dis-
charging Grant was not because he took a discarded water
cooler out of the facility, and was not because it could be
proven or even reasonably suspected that he engaged in the
bowling ball incident, I conclude that the only remaining moti-
vation was because he happened to be a member of Local 94.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Ernest Grant because of membership in
Local 94-94B International Union of Operating Engineers, the
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not violated the Act in any other
manner.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have concluded that the Respondent illegally discharged
Ernest Grant it must offer him reinstatement to his former posi-
tion of employment or if that position is no longer available, to
substantially an equivalent position of employment and make
him whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, com-
puted on a quarterly basis from the date of such refusal less any
net interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]