Penn Traffic Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 300 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Penn Traffic Company, Riverside Division and Frank
Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr. Case 8-CA-85731
June 6, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On January 17, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Max Rosenberg issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding . Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting 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
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings , fmdings,2 and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Penn Traffic Com-
pany, Riverside Division, Youngstown, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
in Youngstown, Ohio, on October 31 and November 1,
1974, on an amended complaint filed by the General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board and an
answer interposed thereto by Penn Traffic Company,
Riverside Division, herein called the Respondent.2 At issue
is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by discharging
employee Frank Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., on August 17, 1974,
and whether Respondent otherwise independently violated
Section 8(a)(1) by certain conduct to be detailed herein-
after. Briefs have been received from the General Counsel
and the Respondent, which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding,
including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses
as they testified on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with its princi-
pal offices located in DuBois, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the retail sale of groceries and related food products
throughout the States of Ohio and Pennsylvania. It
operates a retail store, the sole one involved herein, known
as Store No. 38, at 886 Midlothian Boulevard, in
Youngstown, Ohio. During the annual period material to
this proceeding, Respondent derived gross revenues in
excess of $500,000, and received at the above-named store
goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Ohio. The complaint alleges,
the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Associated Trades and Crafts, National Union, herein
called the Union,3 is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act .4
I Case 8-CA-8573 was consolidated with Case 8-CA-8490 by the
Regional Director for Region 8 for purposes of hearing; Case 8-CA-8490
was severed from this proceeding at the hearing for purposes of decision.
2 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to
credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence
convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products,
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
However, the Board finds Respondent's exception to the Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge that Kennelly was never confronted at the
hearing with an affidavit to have meet. For this reason we do not rely on the
Administrative Law Judge's finding that Kennelly "changed tack" in his
testimony. Nevertheless, our review of the record convinces us that the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision is correct for the reasons stated
therein.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Administrative Law Judge: With all
parties represented, this proceeding 1 was heard before me
218 NLRB No. 54
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(3) of the Act when , on August 17, 1974,5 it discharged
employee Frank Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., because he had, or
Respondent believed he had, joined and assisted the Union
and/or because he had engaged in other protected
concerted activities . The affirmative pleadings further
I Case 8-CA-8573 was consolidated by the Regional Director for
Region 8 with Case 8-CA-8490 for purposes of hearing. Case 8-CA-8573
was severed at the hearing from Case 8-CA-8490 for purposes of decision.
2 The consolidated complaint, which issued on October 18, 1974, is
based on a charge filed on August 28, 1974, and served on August 31, 1974,
and an amended charge filed on October 10 and served on October 18,
1974.
3 The name of the Union was erroneously styled in the complaint as the
"Arts and Crafts Union."
4 The record establishes and I find that the Union exists for the purpose
of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours , and other terms and
conditions of employment of employees
5 All dates herein fall in 1974.
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY 301
allege that Respondent independently violated Section
8(a)(1) of the statute on August 16 when Ray Kennelly, the
manager of Store No. 38 located at the Midlothian
Boulevard address, interrogated employee John Lasko
regarding the organizational activities of the Union. For its
part, Respondent denies the commission of any labor
practices proscribed by the Act.
It is undisputed and I find that, early in July, Frank
Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., visited the Ohio Bureau of Employ-
ment in search of a job. That agency referred him to
Respondent's district manager, Robert Hockenberry, for
an interview. Pakalnis met with Hockenberry, and the
latter informed Pakalnis that Respondent's hourly rate of
pay amounted to $2.50 and that its employees were
represented by a labor organization known as the United
Food Handlers Union, called the UFHU. Pakalnis testified
that, about a week before he entered Respondent's employ
on July 15, he had occasion to speak with Ray Kennelly,
the manager of Store No. 38. During the conversation,
Kennelly reiterated the information concerning wage rates
and union representation which Hockenberry had previ-
ously given to Pakalnis. According to Pakalnis, on July 16,
Kennelly summoned him to the latter's office - and
proffered Pakalnis a UFHU authorization card for
signature. When Pakalnis inquired, "what if I didn't want
to be in this union," Kennelly replied that "everybody here
was in the union and they didn't have another union."
Pakalrus thereupon signed the UFHU designation on that
day.
It is undenied and I fmd that, on or about July 29, an
individual identified as "Babe" entered the store and
approached Pakalnis. Babe stated that he was an agent of
the Union and asked whether Pakalnis was satisfied with
the collective representation which UFHU afforded. Babe
then inquired whether Pakalnis desired to join another
labor organization, namely, the Union, which he claimed
provided greater employment benefits than those which
Respondent's employees were currently receiving, and
Pakalms responded in the affirmative. Whereupon, Babe
instructed Pakalnis to contact his fellow employees and
ascertain their interest in casting their lot with the Union.
Pakahiis further testified without contradiction and I
find that, at the beginning of August, Babe returned to the
supermarket and handed Pakalnis a number of union
authorization cards and suggested that Pakalnis execute
one and that he solicit the signatures of other employees.
Thereafter, Pakalnis exhorted a few employees to sign the
designations, including John Lasko, Rosemary Hromyak,
and James Duncan, but they declined to do so because
they were ignorant of the Union's history, programs, and
goals.
Pakalnis testified without dispute and I fmd that, on or
about August 3, while he was discussing the Union with
employee John Lasko, Dorothy Howard, a cashier who
was also the chief UFHU representative at the store,
approached the men. At this juncture, Pakalnis jokingly
asked Howard whether she would "back us in a wildcat
strike." According to Pakalnis, Howard apparently took
the exhortation seriously and later reported it to Store
Manager -Kennelly. Pakalnis also testified that, on August
10, he entered into a conversation with Gary Akers, the
head floorman at the store who is concededly not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. During their
colloquy, Pakalnis asked Akers how the latter felt about
the UFHU and whether Akers was in favor of selecting a
different labor organization to represent him. Akers replied
that "You might as well not even try, because you won't
even get this." Rounding out the chronology regarding
Pakalms' employment tenure with Respondent, he was
discharged on August 17, during his probationary period,
because assertedly he was excessively absent from work
and tardy, he failed satisfactorily to perform his duties, and
he violated company rules.
As in the case of Pakalnis, John Lasko was employed at
Store No. 38 as a grocery clerk and worked along with
Pakalnis. Lasko testified that, in early August, Pakalnis
reported to Lasko that a representative of the Union had
appeared at the store who inquired whether Pakalnis was
interested in joining that labor organization in lieu of the
UFHU. After asking whether Lasko would be amendable
to enlistment in the ranks of the Union, Pakalnis sought
out Lasko's advice as to the employees from whom the
former should solicit membership. Lasko provided Pakal-
nis with the requested information. Sometime thereafter,
Lasko was in the company of Pakalnis when the latter
inquired of Rosemary Hromyak, a meatcutter at the
establishment, whether she would be interested in signing a
petition favoring collective representation by the Union.
Hromyak rejoined that "you will have to get more
organized before I put my name on anything."
Lasko further testified that, in early August, he over-
heard a conversation between Pakalnis and Head Floor-
man Gary Akers at the store. Pakalnis queried Akers as to
whether the floorman favored replacing the UFHU with
the Union, to which Akers responded that Pakalnis "might
as well forget it because you can' t get it in anyway."
It is also Lasko's undisputed testimony that, sometime
between August 3 and 13 while Store Manager Ray
Kennelly was on vacation, Lasko heard Pakalnis inquire
whether Dorothy Howard "would support us if we went
out on a wildcat strike." When Howard answered in the
negative, Pakalnis asked Howard if she would be interested
in joining the Union. Lasko further testified that, on or
about August 14, Store Manager Kennelly commenced to
wash the store windows following his return from vacation
and Lasko provided Kennelly with a hose to accomplish
the chore. While they were thus engaged, Kennelly asked
Lasko whether the employee had intended to file a
grievance against him. Lasko disclaimed any such contem-
plated action, at which point Kennelly inquired, "What do
you know about another union trying to come in here?"
Lasko related that some unidentified male had approached
Pakalnis about the matter, but added that "I don't think
nothing is coming out of it . . . ." Finally, Lasko testified
that, on or about August 14, __ he overheard Dorothy
Howard inform Kennelly that "they wanted to go on a
wildcat strike...."
Rosemary Hromyak, a meat wrapper at Store No. 38,
testified that, during Pakalnis' employment at the estab-
lishment, he inquired whether Hromyak "would like to
have another Union." Pakalnis assured Hromyak that the
selection of another labor organization by the employees
302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would "mean more money." On another occasion, Pakal-
nis solicited Hromyak's membership in the Union. Howev-
er, when Pakahiis` was unable to enlighten her as to the
Union's aims, Hromyak remarked that "before you have
anybody sign anything, you better find a little more about
it because you will get everybody in an uproar and there
will be a lot of firing here." In her testimony, Hromyak
acknowledged that she never informed any segment of
management about Pakalnis' statement or activities in this
regard.6
Dorothy Howard, the head cashier at Store No. 38, was
called as a witness by the General Counsel. As chronicled
heretofore, Howard was selected as Local UFHU presi-
dent for that store and served in that capacity during the
times material herein. It is Howard's testimony that, while
Store Manager Ray Kennelly was on vacation from August
3 to 13, she engaged in a conversation near the store
compacter with Pakalnis and John Lasko in earshot of
Gary Akers. Pakalnis opened the discussion by stating,
"Hey, president, how about a wildcat strike to get another
Union?" Howard commented that "You can't do that, you
know," to which Pakalnis replied, "Well, you mean you
won't back us then?" Howard answered, "No. Because you
don't know what you are talking about." 7 Akers interject-
ed and admonished that the employees could not legally
engage in a work stoppage because of the provisions of an
existing contract between Respondent and UFHU. On
further examination, Howard admitted that Pakalnis also
stated on this occasion, "Hey, pres., we want another
Union" and he pointedly made reference to the Union
involved in this proceeding. Before the conversation
terminated, Pakalnis suggested that if enough of the
employees signed a petition seeking representation by the
Union, the Respondent "would have to listen to us."
Howard responded, "Not necessarily. They would just
probably fire a' lot of us." Pakalnis then remarked that he
intended to discuss the matter with certain individuals and
inquired whether Howard would assist him in soliciting
employees to sign the petition. When Howard declined to
do so, the colloquy ended.
Howard further testified that she had occasion to speak
to Store Manager Kennelly when he returned from his
vacation on August 13. In the presence of Akers, Howard
repeated the contents of the entire conversation which she
had with Pakalnis at the compacter; namely, that Pakalnis
had informed her that he and Lasko desired representation
by the Union, that he considered circulating a petition
among his fellow employees to enlist their support for the
Union, and that he planned to induce the employees to
engage in a wildcat strike to oust the UFHU in favor of the
Union. After this conversation, and on August 14,
Personnel Manager Roland Spencer visited the store and
entered Store Manager Kennelly's office. Howard was
summoned to the office and, during an ensuing discussion,
she laid bare to Spencer the statements of Pakalnis that he
favored the Union and that he had suggested the
employees' engagement in a wildcat work stoppage.
Finally, Howard testified that, on August 16, the day
before Pakalnis' discharge, she was called to Kennelly's
office where she met Kennelly and Respondent's district
manager, Robert Hockenberry. These officials questioned
her again about the comments which Pakalnis uttered
during his earlier conversation with her at the compacter,
and Howard repeated each of the statements which
Pakalnis had made. After Howard had responded to the
queries, Hockenberry turned to Kennelly and asked,
"Well, how is he as far as a worker goes?" to which
Kennelly replied, "I don't want to talk about it now."
In defense of this litigation, Respondent claims that it
had no knowledge of Pakalnis' activities on behalf of the
Union prior to his separation from its employment rolls on
August 17, and asserts that the sole reason for his
termination was bottomed in his failure to deport himself
as a satisfactory employee both in the performance of his
duties and in his relationship with fellow employees. I find
no merit in this defense.
Gary Akers testimonially recounted that he was present
during a conversation between Pakalnis and Howard in
early August when Pakalnis "wanted to formulate a
wildcat strike to go out for more wages. He seemed to think
that Dorothy [Howard] was the president of the union at
our store and that she should formulate and get it going. I
said that with another strike clause on your contract, I said,
if you go out you could lose your job and she said she
would back nothing that was illegal and she would have
nothing to do with it." When questioned on cross-examina-
tion by the General Counsel as to when he first became
aware of Pakalnis' interest in the Union, Akers initially
stated that he learned of this activity about a week prior to
Pakalnis' discharge through "rumors" and "hearsay." He
then confessed that he had spoken to Pakalnis in early
August about some union cards which the latter carried in
his pocket. Akers further ^ admitted that, one day while he
and Pakalnis and John Lasko were unloading a truck,
"Frank [Pakalnis] mentioned about the union and John
said something about the union and whether or not I
would be for it or against it. I said they might as well forget
it." Akers also acknowledged that Pakalnis complained
that the wages at Respondent's store were too meager and
Pakalnis suggested that the situation could be corrected by
enlisting the support of another labor organization.
However, Akers steadfastly proclaimed that he did not
impart this -intelligence to any official in Respondent's
hierarchy until the afternoon of August 17, following
Pakalnis' discharge, when he informed Store Manager
Kennelly of Pakalnis' activities on behalf of the Union. I
do not credit Akers' testimony, not only because he failed
to impress me as a credible witness, but also because his
testimony collides with that of Store Manager Kennelly
who averred that he learned about Pakalnis' proposed
wildcat strike prior to the discharge from Akers who was
the "first one to tell me [Kennelly] about it."
Store Manager Kennelly testified that, on August 14,
Personnel Manager Roland Spencer visited the store to
6 Employees Adele Zarisky, Joseph Plakosh, and James Duncan on behalf of the Union.
similarly testified that, during this period, Pakalnis solicited their member- 7 At the hearing, the General Counsel abandoned any contention in this
ship in the Union. As in the case of Hromyak, these employees conceded proceeding that Pakalnis' discharge for engaging in a wildcat work stoppage
that they did not apprise any of Respondent's officials of Pakalms' efforts would have been violative of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act.
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY 303
discuss a civil rights matter with hint and Dorothy
Howard came to his office. At the outset of his testimony,
Kennelly claimed that the only topic of discussion between
the parties dealt with Howard's revelation that Pakalnis
mentioned the prospect of a wildcat strike in order to
escalate wage rates . However, Kennelly then admitted that,
during the same period prior to Pakalniis' discharge, he
learned that the employee had sought to organize his fellow
workers and place them in the halter of the Union rather
than the UFHU. Kennelly testified that the decision to
terminate Pakalnis was made by Personnel Manager
Spencer on August 15 as a result of a cash register incident
involving Pakalnis and Howard. However, Kennelly then
changed tack when shown a sworn affidavit which he gave
to the Board agent in which Kennelly admitted that the
decision to fire Pakalnis was made by District Manager
Hockenberry on August 15 after consultation with Kennel-
ly.
Kennelly also recalled a conversation which he had with
John Lasko when the former began to clean the store
windows after his return from vacation. According to
Kennelly, he asked Lasko whether the employee had
intended to file a grievance against the supervisor and
Lasko disclaimed any such intention. Lasko thereupon
inquired whether Kennelly had heard "about another
union" and Kennelly replied in the affirmative. Lasko then
volunteered that a petition was to be circulated in the plant
to oust the UFHU. Kennelly denied that he had interrogat-
ed Lasko at any time during this conversation regarding
the advent of the Union. Lasko impressed me as an honest
and trustworthy witness, and I credit his testimony and
fmd that, while conversing with Kennelly on August 14 in
the course of cleaning the store windows, Kennelly asked
Lasko, "What do you know about another union trying to
come in here?"
Personnel Manager Roland Spencer testified that he had
learned from Howard during his visit to the store on
August '14 that Pakalnis had urged that the employees
embark upon a wildcat strike, but he vigorously denied
that any mention had been made by Howard concerning
Pakalnis' adherence to and support of the Union. Spencer
further testified that, after learning of Pakalnis' work
shortcomings for the first time on August 15, he instructed
Kennelly to discharge Pakalnis. In Spencer's words, when
he learned of Pakalms' work record from Kennelly, he
commented, "All right. You get rid of him. And you get rid
of him quick. You get with Bob Hockenberry and do it."
Finally, District Manager Robert Hockenberry testimo-
nially recounted that he had a conference with Kennelly
and Howard on either August 15 or 16. When questioned
as to whether, in that conversation, Howard made mention
of any of Pakahuis' union activities other than his desire to
call a wildcat strike, Hockenberry replied, "No, I wasn't
interested ' in any other activities. I wanted to talk to her
about the wildcat strike. This was news to us. We wanted
to find out the particulars on that matter. This was the only
reason she was brought into the office in my presence."
I credit the testimony of Dorothy Howard, whose
interests in this litigation and testimonial tenor were
obviously- more attuned to the UFHU and Respondent
than to the Union or the General Counsel, and find that, in
early August, she learned from Pakalnis that the latter
actively sought to enlist the collective support of the Union
by circulating a petition among the employees to gain
representation by that labor organization and to oust the
UFHU from the plant, and that she conveyed this
information to Store Manager Kennelly, Personnel Man-
ager Spencer, and District Manager Hockenberry, between
August 14 and 16. Accordingly, I find that Kennelly,
Spencer, and Hockenberry were fully apprised of Pakalnis'
activities on behalf of the Union prior to his separation on
August 17.
I place no credence in Respondent's assertion that it
severed Pakalnis from its payroll on August 17 due to
misconduct at work because I believe that the incidents on
which Respondent relies played no compelling role in his
discharge. Thus, Respondent contends that one reason for
the separation involved an incident in mid-August in which
Pakalnis, in Howard's presence, made change at her cash
register without consulting Howard. When Howard com-
plained to Store Manager Kennelly about the matter,
Kennelly visited Pakalnis and simply stated, "Frank, you
know, you should know, you aren't permitted to get into
the register drawer. Dorothy is very shook about it . Please
do not do this again." Kennelly conceded on the stand that
"There was very little said about it. Just that I told him that
it was wrong to do." After Howard reported the incident to
Kennelly, Pakalnis upbraided her for doing so and
remarked that, if she were a man, "he would have punched
her out." Despite the fact that Howard also immediately
related this threat to Kennelly, no disciplinary action was
taken against Pakalnis. Moreover, Respondent claims that
another ingredient in its decision to terminate Pakalnis was
his deliberate falsification of the reason for his absence
from work 1 day. In this connection, Pakalnis had a
Wednesday off from work and, desirous of taking an Air
Force examination in preparation for enlistment, Pakalnis
absented himself from duty on the following Thursday
after telling Kennelly that he had attended a funeral of a
relative. When Kennelly learned the real reason for the
absence, Kennelly's only comment was "The only thing I
said was I would appreciate it very much from now on that
whenever you are going to be off that I would be notified
ahead of time if at all possible. He [Pakalnis] thought that
he would get fired after the Thursday episode and I said for
no reason would a person get fired for going out to join the
Air Force if that is what he wanted to do." Furthermore,
while Pakalnis had absented himself from the job for 1 day
a week in 4 of the 5 weeks of his employment and was
tardy from work, and while he and a fellow employee
stocked ice cream bars in a cooler improperly, Pakalnis
was never officially reprimanded for these deeds.
In short, I find that, in early August, Pakalnis manifested
an interest in assisting the Union in its effort to attain
exclusive representational status at Store No. 38 and he
solicited both Howard and Akers and other employees to
join in this venture. These activities were reported to Store
Manager Kennelly, Personnel Manager Spencer, and
District Manager Hockenberry by Howard and Akers
between August 14 and 16. I find that, armed with this
knowledge, Respondent decided to and did discharge
Pakalnis on August 17, not because of any deficiencies in
304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
his work performance or his personal conduct, but because
Respondent wished to rid itself of a troublemaker who was
bent upon altering the organizational status quo at the
store. By discharging Pakalnis, I conclude that Respondent
offended the provisions of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
Based upon Lasko's credited testimony, I find that, on
August 14, Kennelly interrogated Lasko concerning the
organizational activities of the Union at the Store. In the
context of the circumstances outlined herein, I conclude
that Kennelly's interrogation was coercive and violative of
Section 8(a)(I) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with Respondent's opera-
tions described in section I, above, have a close and
intimate relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow
thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in certain unfair labor practices, I shall order that
it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I have found that Respondent discharged Frank Ludwig
Pakalnis, Jr., on August 17, 1974, for reasons proscribed by
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. I shall therefore recommend that
Respondent make him whole for any loss of pay which he
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
practiced against him. The backpay provided for herein
shall be computed in accordance with the Board's formula
set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum computed in the manner prescribed in Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). I shall also
recommend that Respondent offer Frank Ludwig Pakalnis,
Jr., immediate and full reinstatement to his former job or,
if it no longer exists, to substantially equivalent employ-
ment.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions, and upon the entire record in this case, I
hereby make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging Frank Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., thereby
discriminating in regard to his hire and tenure of
employment, in order to discourage his engagement in
s 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.
activities on behalf of the Union, Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Sectiop 8(a)(3) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing em-
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby
issue the following recommended:
ORDER8
Respondent, Penn Traffic Company, Riverside Division,
Youngstown, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees, thereby discriminating in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment, in order to
discourage their engagement in activities on behalf of
Associated Trades and Crafts, National Union.
(b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning or-
ganizational activities of the Union at Store No. 38.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Offer to Frank Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if it no longer, exists,
to substantially equivalent employment, and make him
whole for any loss of pay which he may have suffered as a
result of the discrimination practiced against him, 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 records, social security record and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due herein.
(c) Post at its Store No. 38 located at 886 Midlothian
Blvd., Youngstown, Ohio, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said- notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 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 insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
9 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY 305
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge our employees, thereby
discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment, in order to discourage their membership
in Associated Trades and Crafts, National Union, or
any other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
about union activities at our Store No. 38.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL make Frank Ludwig Pakalnis, Jr., whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
our discrimination practiced against him, and wE wni-
reinstate him to his old job or, if it no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent one.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining members of the above-named
or any other labor organization.
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY,
RIVERSIDE DIVISION