St. Christopher's Hospital for Children

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 3, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 686 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DI)F('ISIONS OF NA'l(IONAI. I.ABOR RLI.ATIONS BOARI)
St. Christopher's Hospital for Children and Teamsters
Union Local No. 115, International Brotherh}ood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America. Case 4-CA 9742
December 3, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CIIAIRMAN FANNING ANI) M MIII RS J NKINS
AND PNI.TO()
On August 9, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
James L. Rose issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of' the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Iabor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of' the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu-
sions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt
his recommended Order, as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent. St.
Christopher's Hospital for Children, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraphs (a). (h),
and (c):
"(a) Interrogating employees concerning their in-
terest in or activity on behalf' of any labor organiza-
tion, including Teamsters Union ocal No. 115, In-
' The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent was aware of the
Charging Party's organizing efforts at its premises and based his findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order and notice on that premise. I he rec-
ord shows however, that although Respondent was fullv aware tlt the exis-
tence of the organizing drive and of l)aniels' parlicipation therein. it knew
only that a union. rather than the (Charging Party specificalls. was the union
involved. The record further shows that the events herein occurred in that
context, and that Respondent engaged In the unlawful conduct iound herein
on that basis. We hereby amend the Administralive I.aw Judge's indings
and conclusions accordingly, and we shall similarly Imodily his recoimmend-
ed Order and notice.
Respondent has excepted to certain credihility lindings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibiliht unless
the clear preponderance of all ofr the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dn Wabll Products', Inc., 91 NlIRB 544
11950), enlfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d ('ir. 1951) We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters. ('haufleurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
"(b) Threatening employees with reprisal because
they engage in activity on behalf of any labor organi-
zation, including the above-named labor organiza-
tion.
"(c) Suspending, discharging, or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees because of their inter-
est in, or activity on behalf oft any labor organization,
including the above-named labor organization."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
II IS FUR IItl:R ORDIERED) that the complaint be, and
it hereby is, dismissed insofar as it alleges violations
not found herein.
APPENI)IX
No-li( ' To EM'I.OYIIiS
Posill) BY ORDEI)IR () 111
NATIO()NAI LABOR RHi.ATIIONS BOARI)
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all parties participated and
were given the opportunity to call witnesses, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence, it
has been found by the National Labor Relations
Board that we have violated the National Labor Re-
lations Act. We have been ordered to stop such ac-
tivity, to post this notice, and to abide by its terms.
WU WII.I. NOI interrogate employees concern-
ing their interest in or activity on behalf of any
labor organization, including Teamsters Union
I.ocal No. 115, International Brotherhood of'
Teamsters, ('hauffeurs. Warehousemen and
Helpers of America.
WE WVII.I. NI threaten employees because of
their interest in or activity on behalf of any labor
organization, including the above-named labor
organization.
WE WiLl. NOI suspend, discharge, or otherwise
discriminate against employees because of' their
interest in or activity on behalf of any labor or-
ganization, including the above-named labor or-
ganization.
WI wIL.. NOl in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of' the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of' the Act.
Wl wi.li. offer John Daniels full reinstatement
to his former job or, if' that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position of employ-
ment without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
Wi wili. make John Daniels whole for any
loss of' wages or benefits he may have suffered as
246 NLRB No. 125
686
Si. CHRISTOPHER'S HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN
a result of the discrimination against him, with
interest.
ST. CHRISTOPHER'S HSPIAI. FOR CHIt.-
DREN
DECISION
STAIEMENI oI ite CAS
JAMES L. ROSE. Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard before me on May 9, 1979. in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, upon the General Counsel's complaint which
alleged that John Daniels was suspended and subsequently
discharged because of his activity on behalf of the Charging
Party in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151, et veq. It is also
alleged that Respondent interrogated an employee, threat-
ened employees, and subjected Daniels to extraordinarily
close supervison and scrutiny, all in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Respondent admits that it suspended and discharged
Daniels but denies that it thereby violated the Act or in any
other manner committed the violations alleged.
Upon the record as a whole, including my observation of
the witnesses, briefs, and arguments of counsel, I hereby
make the following:
FINDIN(iS OF FAcI AND CONCUI.SIONS OF LAW
I. JURISDICTION
St. Christopher's Hospital for Children is a nonprofit cor-
poration organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania engaged in the treatment and care of pediat-
ric patients at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, facility. Dur-
ing the preceding calender year Respondent's gross volume
of business exceeded $250,000, and during that period it
received directly from points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania goods valued in excess of $25,000. Respon-
dent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), 2(6), and 2(7)
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOIVE D
The Charging Party, Teamsters Union Local No. 115.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America (herein the Union). is
admitted to be and I find is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE AI.IEGED UNFAIR L.ABOR PRA(T I(ES
A. Background Facts
During the early part of 1978' an organizational cam-
paign by the Union was commenced among Respondent's
employees.2 This campaign was led by Rober Kallish, who
All dates in 1978 unless otherwise indicated.
2There had been two previous organizational campaigns among these em-
ployees. one in 1972 or 1973 and the other in 1974. These involved different
labor organizations and were apparently short-lived.
was a part-time employee of Respondent and also worked
for the Union as an organizer in connection with his doc-
toral studies. John Daniels was an employee in the respira-
tory therapy department, who Kallish recruited to function
as the principal in-plant contact for the Union.
During the course of the organization campaign in 1978
Daniels received from Kallish some 400 authorization cards
which he apparently passed out to the employees. While
Kallish testified that the employees began first talking
about organizing in March, apparently not much happened
until early fall. The first organizational meeting among em-
ployees occurred in late September or early October with a
second meeting in mid-November.
On August 6 Robert L. Tridico came to work for Re-
spondent as the technical director of the respirator therapy
department. According to Frederick Hollender, the vice
president and chief administrative officer of Respondent.
when Tridico was hired he was told that the department
had a number of problems with delivering services. and that
his job was to solve these problems.
At some point (at least by September 5), Tridico began
holding weekly meetings with the four supervisors in his
department. During the course of the supervisory meetings
Tridico would make certain statements concerning how he
felt that the department should operate as well as general
statements concerning basic policy matters involving,
among other things, the organizational campaign and em-
ployees John Daniels.
Although the record is unclear on this point, apparently
the supervisors were encouraged, if not actually expected.
to keep notebooks in which they would write down impor-
tant comments made by Tridico. At least evening-shift Su-
pervisor Steven Gibson kept such a notebook.
Gibson did not store his notebook in a locker or have it
otherwise secured; thus, it was seen by employees around
the department. Sometime in September Daniels was ad-
vised that he might be interested in certain information
contained in Gibson's notebook. On reading the notebook
Daniels discovered that there was a reference to him. Thus.
Daniels testified, because he and Gibson were very close
friends' one day in September he asked Gibson to his truck,
where they discussed the contents of the notebook, Daniels
telling Gibson that he had it. According to Daniels and
undenied by Gibson, Gibson stated that he had jotted dow n
a few notes just to keep Tridico "off his back." In any
event, Gibson did not ask that Daniels return the notebook
nor did Daniels offer to do so. In fact, Daniels had photo-
copies of the notebook made which he turned over to the
Union's attorney. He then threw the book away. Two days
later Gibson asked Daniels for the book, and Daniels told
him that he had "chucked it." Gibson said that such did not
surprise him.
According to Gibson. he did not think that the contents
of the book were very important. Nevertheless. he was up-
set with Daniels for having taken the notebook which he
considered to be his personal property. Gibson testified that
about I week after this event he told Tridico that his note-
book was missing (denying that he named Daniels). but
Tridico's reaction to this was so insignificant that Gibson
could not remember what it was.
Gibson testified that Daniels "was" his friend
687
DIC('ISIONS OF NATIONAL. ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At some point following the notebook incident Gibson
recommended Daniels for the open job of the day-shift su-
pervisor, and indeed Daniels was considered for this job by
Tridico. However. Samuel Beloff was hired as the day-shift
supervisor in October.
On a number of occasions in the fall Daniels discussed
the need for a union with Tridico, most of which occurred
in the context of Daniels supporting a grievance of some
employee in the department. In any event, the fact that
Daniels was to an extent a spokesman on behalf of other
employees and was leading the drive to organize on behalf
of the Union was known to Tridico at least shortly after he
started with Respondent. This is undenied by Tridico.
Although Tridico was told by Gibson that the notebook
was missing shortly after Daniels took it, it appears that
Tridico did not know Daniels had it until October 27. Nev-
ertheless, based upon the composite testimony, particularly
that of Gibson whom I found to be credible if reluctant,
Tridico was unconcerned about the notebook having been
taken. Indeed, he expressed no particular reaction to this
event until October 27 when Daniels, while presenting a
grievance on behalf of another employee, told Tridico that
he had taken the notebook.
I specifically discredit the testimonies of Beloff and
Tridico to the contrary. In effect they testified that during
an orientation session in Tridico's office (Beloff had been
employed I week) Tridico "off the cuff" asked if Beloff had
seen or heard of the notebook. Beloff said no. But Daniels,
who was standing outside Tridico's office, said that he had
the notebook. Tridico responded that he wanted it back.
This sequence of events is too unlikely to be credible, even
though Beloff may have witnessed a conversation between
Tridico and Daniels. There is no evidence that the missing
notebook was a subject of any concern to Tridico until after
he learned that Daniels had taken it. Thus it is incredible
that Tridico would inquire of a new employee if he knew
anything about it. Rather I conclude that the subject of the
notebook came up during the course of a conversation
which Daniels and Tridico were having involving another
employees' grievance about working conditions. Only then
did the notebook having been taken become a matter of
importance to Tridico.
On October 27 Tridico told Daniels to return the note-
book, and he gave Daniels a deadline of 6 p.m. to do so.
Daniels stated that he did not have the notebook as he had
thrown it away, although he did have a copy which he
would try to get from the Union's attorney. He did secure a
copy from the Union's attorney and did return it to the
hospital at or about the time stipulated by Tridico.'
Tridico testified that upon receiving the copy of the note-
book he determined that it was not complete and thereupon
suspended Daniels. One week later he called Daniels and
told him that they, meaning Respondent's management,
had discussed the matter and had decided to discharge him.
Daniels was not told at this time why he was suspended or
discharged nor was he given a discharge letter, although
there is some indication in the record that a discharge letter
4 Tndico testified that he gave Daniels until 6 p.m.. while Daniels said that
he was given until 6:30 p.m. Tridico does not deny that Daniels n fact
returned the copy of the book to him within the time limit set.
was written. If such was the case its contents were not of-
fered in evidence by Respondent.
Basically Respondent contends that Daniels was sus-
pended and discharged because he stole the notebook and
disseminted it to a third party, the Union, that he was in-
subordinate in refusing initially to return it, and that when
he did return the copy it was incomplete. Stealing hospital
property is a dischargeable offense under the hospital rules.
Although the notebook belonged to Gibson. he had re-
duced to writing concepts which were Respondent's: hence
for Daniels to have taken the notebook was tantamount to
stealing hospital property. Also it is alleged that the note-
book contained confidential material.
B. Analhsis and Concluding Findings
I. The discharge of John Daniels
It is fundamental that without violating the Act an em-
ployer may discharge an employee for any reason or for no
reason at all, except where motivated by union or other
protected activity. And the burden of proving the unlawful-
ness of the discharge is on the General Counsel. However,
this burden may be met by circumstantial evidence and
inferences, particularly of motive. See Shattuck Denn Min-
ing Corporation (Iron King Branch) v. N.L. R B., 362 F.2d
466 (9th Cir.. 1966).
While an employer may discharge an employee for a bad
reason or for no reason, when it does that fact may be
considered as some evidence that the true motive behind
the discharge was not that asserted. See, e.g.. 4merican
Thread Company. Sevier Plant, 242 NLRB 27 (1979). That
is, experience demonstrates that businessmen do not hire
and fire without a reason. Thus where the alleged cause of
the discharge is irrational then such may permit an infer-
ence that it has been put forth to disguise the true and
unlawful motive.
I conclude that Respondent's claim that Daniels was sus-
pended and then discharged for having stolen hospital
property is such a pretext. First, the notebook was not in
fact hospital property, but rather it belonged to Gibson
even though he may have been required to keep it. While
Respondent contends that the notebook contained "confi-
dential" material, such has not been demonstrated to be the
case. And the hospital rule relating to confidential matter,
relied on by Respondent to justify the discharge, concerns
information relating to patients not the sort of thing
Tridico told supervisors.
The confidential material agrument is just that, an argu-
ment, and was not, I conclude, a real reason for the dis-
charge. It may well be that Respondent objects to having
notes taken at supervisors meetings become common
knowledge among employees. But the notebook had been
out for all employees to see and many did. Nor was its
being taken considered serious by Respondent, a fact which
I infer from the 4-week delay between Gibson's report to
Tridico and any other inquiry or act concerning it, nor did
Gibson ever ask Daniels to return it.
Gibson testified that he did not consider the contents to
be of particular significance. And even Tridico testified that
688
SI. ('tIRISIOPII R'S II)S I AI. IOR ('1111 D)RIN
his decision to discharge [)anitels ua;s hased -in "principle"'
rather than the conltents ot Iih notebook. testiollis hich
tends to confirm the oh,,ious flact that the notebook s as
essentliallx \valueless.
Ilhere i soime sggestion h Iridico lilhi \1 hell )anicl'
returned the contents iit the notebook, albeit in photocoll
formll, i as inot comletel. dltl Ilis as an additional e.i-
son for the discharge. In adldition to testilonial evidcltcc
disputing this I note that there are notes tlor Septcmbet 5.
12, and 16. Since I ridico did n(:t come tiio siork until Augnist
6 and the notebook as takeni in late September. it is probh-
able that Gibson in fact took notes ait onl. three nieetiigs.
Abrahamnl Kurian,. a former suIperisoir nrlo onL a Iclae otf
abhsence, testified that the mecelings hbegai in Septelllcr.
I:urther, I ridic \'.tas unahble io estit th;it lie Lkne '. or siure
Daniels hd not reluriled the I hole notleboiok. nr s a s iiI'
reason ad aIncCd why l)aniels would not. And in this re-
spect I discredit the teslilnlon ,1 (ierlid ( orelick. the
assiSalilt vice president lo \Rhoml l)aniels appealed. to the
effect that Daniels said lie had more pages. Ihere i no
reason ofifered -r ndicalioln Ill the record hr, D;iniels
WOulJd dr-ie across tovn tro get the cop,. demaIlned h
Iridico and not submit it all.
Finally, e en if taking the notebooi k was an ollense ner-
iting discipliine unexplained is why Respondent did not fl-
low its progessive discipline is stem. I)anieis ;ias a -sear
emploiee of better than aerage competenc. according to
personnel appraisals, who had never been disciplined.
From these facts. I conclude that it is ust not helievable
that D)aniels would hase been suspended or discharged for
having taken Gibson's notebhook absent some additiona
factor. I accordingl conclude that taking the notebook uas
seized upon h Respondent as a pretext to disguise the true
motive in suspending and then discharging Daniels.
The additional factor the true moti, e I conclude w;as
)Daniels' union activit. First. the LUnion ri was eng;ged i an
organizational campaign. and I)aniels was the principal in-
plant organizer. Second. )aniels was well known to I ridico
as well as to supervision generally to be an outspoken ad o-
cate on behalf not onl' of the nion but of employees'
rights generally. Indeed he talked to Tridico on many occa-
sions about the necessit) lor a; union as well as representing
other employees in connection with their grievances involv-
ing working conditions. Third. Kurian testified that during
the supervisor meetings Tridico stated that they were to try
to keep the ULnion out of the hospital and particularly out
of his department. Further, according to the credible testi-
mony of Kallish, Tridico referred to Daniels as a "hot-head
and troublemaker, because John always really took up ftr
the other people in the department."
Given Tridico's knowledge of Daniels' union and other
protected activity, the timing of the discharge with Daniels'
union activity, the organizational campaign generall., and
the fact that the discharge was pretextual, I conclude that
Daniels was discharged because he was engaged in union
and other protected activity. Respondent therebh violated
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
' As iutlined hs Fredrlck Itllender, the sice presidenl Iur administration.
it is "'al verhal warning, ,rliien .arnng, suspension and ultimalels Iermina-
tion."
2. I e Sta)( I) alleca;Itlol
It is alleged hiat in Julk I rdico interrogated in enl-
plOei cteriilg that crlIp!O)\cs S lpit;llhes to ,al-ds the
II IIn, III s pprc-ntl refter to h e cs ent lich occuirred
s)IiittIIIIT II1 tile ILc l t 111111ci r cl l i;ll. .\ccoI)rdill to tile
Itstlnlonl ot Slllal n 1aItc rdlci stopped her one tinie
all s'.ork. askcdl her Ihtk ie. tlh ;ict oul tlc I 'nlion il ad altkcd
s. lCtIIe 1 sie st\ O ld support tile I t-t t.
lIil- I t gh I i l I ;o ipplaretl, dI-tis tha I, such a co .l sa-
tion took placc I genrall I credit Parrer o ser I rilIc e. p lT-
tlc il;rl x n ting Itl h1pl itl\ c denlic ntri- aailll SI I rdico'
htirh I tund t bhe gentiril unrelahble. I coltiClde that in
ltc tic on, ersation, in uhtaince, took placc as te stilid to
h PaIlic , anid th t I ridic did interrogate anr mpl)r ee in
\io,latito1 o Seeteon (l) i of the Act.
While the complaint llges that this tlook pl;cell l Jul
ci1al-I it ould not ha c taken plcC until sonIctlrtilC I oI
at'tcr Augtust. inailu.lth is I ridico as inot ciipl'.cd r
Rcspl uidneit in Jul. Nertheriess. I find that thie ci el has
been full Iili ild id that the complaint was suflicienlls
definite s) as to put Respondent on notice ofl the alleigttilon
I conclude theretfIr that Respondent, through ridico. did
iolatc Section 8t)(l) of the Act h interrogatilng anr em-
ploece concrning her interest in and actis it-l on behalf of
th eI nion.
I)uringe one el the conversations etween Iridico and
I)aniel concernirlg the nion, Iridico stated that if Dan-
iels did nol curtail his union actiities the admrlini ration
would pop" him. 'I ridic denies making this or an, similar
statement or that hlie csr usetd the iord p " to melan
discharge. I credit Daniels over T ridico. I base this in part
upon their relatie demeinanor. Ii addition. given ridico's
demonstrated animus. /ql)rl it is proba;he that during the
course of tie discussiotn het een )anies and Tridic) con-
cerninr te Lni ol ;isd s'ariOLus eri plo Lec grie'. ances ,hich
Tridico does not denr.. that Tridico would make a state-
ment of the t pe attriluted to him. Accordingl I conclude
that sometime in fall 1978 ridico did in fact threaten Dan-
iels wAith discharge should he continue his activity on behalf
of the nion in violation of Section 8(a)f 1 .
FinalINs .as violative of Section S(a)(l I) it is alleged that
Frederick lollender, Gerald Gorelick, and Calvin Bland.
all administrative officers of Respondent, subjected Daniels
to extraordinarily close supervision and scrutiny. The only
testtmon in support of this allegation is that of Daniels
wherein he stated that in October he saw these individuals
on more than one occasion in the hallway of the hospital,
having not seen them lor some 6 months previousl.
Each denies that he was engaging in surveillance of Dan-
iels or otherwise scrutinizing his work ut that during the
course of the f rounds each makes as a normal part of his
daily routine he max erv ell have seen [)aniels and vice
versa. he fact that Daniels did not see these administrators
in the hallv as for a period of 6 months previousl_ does not
prove the' did not make regular rounds during that period.
It is reasonable that administrators ould occasionall>
make rounds of the phxsical plant. Since l)aniels' testimnon)
is at best agule w ith regard to the number olf times each is
alleged to have close scrutinized him and for how long on
each occasioI. I conclude that when Daniels saw them in
I)('ISIO()NS (OF NAI IONAI I ABOR R A I'O()NS OARI)
Oclober he was mierel seeing hoslital ;ihdilinisralors en-
gaiced in Iheir normal ork acli ot n 1i ikinl rOmunlds. I
conclude that thie General (unsel Ihas not pirl-elli this alle-
gation h ;a prleponderai nce ot tlhe credible evi dece and wL ill
recolnlmilend thatt paragraph 6(a) ol the comphint. as
aCeiindd. e Cdisnlissed.
1\. 1111 II ( IS (11 1111 NIAIR I \B(oR PR\ I I P)N
( ItMMI Rt I
I hc aclii\ ies of Respondent stl oIth aiboI .itCCurlrinig it
cOrilllectioll v.lll Its operatliolS. have a1 close. ilitilille. arld
subsMtItial rl'altionshill to ti lc. tiallic. ad Ctolrllerce
alloli tile secl-al S.tatls indl tld it lead c Ito liblrr disputles
bhu-irdlili arld obltrUcl t 11lCt CorlrC l lhr Il e ife 1tos of
Crlllllcce.
\ I 1I1 RI MII 1)
liarill conciluded thaill Respondent has enr aged Il cer-
tain unltir labor practices. I will recommend that It cease
and desist therefrom and taken certain aIlfirntlaive action.
including olff'ering reinsttlelnenl to John l)aniels to his tor-
Inle- joh or. if that h nlonger eists to a substantlliall
equtivalenl posItion olf eiip)lNlltrll \ithout prejudllice to Ills
seniorit or o lher rightss atid pri. ileges a d niake hitl whole
to) a losses he nmar have sulllrcld as the result of the
discrimination against lill in accordance witll the ormula
set forth in 1: 14. 'ool/itor/l (C'ooti)vIlo', 9 NI.RB 2X'9
(1950)). and Florida Sltc/ ('oloralonol, 231 NI.R B 6(51
(1 77).
Upon the toregoing findings of acl. conclusions of la:.
the entire record in this matter, and pursuanl to thie provi-
sions of Section 10(c) of the Act I herehs issue tilhe following
recommended:
OR [)ER
The Respondent St. Christopher's tHospital ior Children,
Philadelphia Pennslvania, its officers agents. successors.
and assigns, shall:
'See, generally, Im Plubin)sg & JIlealig (½C. 138 NlRB 716 (1962) he
General (Counsel has asked for interest to be set at 9 percent per annum. As
this mailter is now pending helbre the Board I decline to make any recolm-
mendatilon concerning it.
7 In the evenl no exceplions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 ofl the
Rules and Regulations of the National L.abor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived or all purposes.
i ('ease a nd desist flroIm:
(a) I1nterrogating eiplo)es concerning their interest in
or ;tictivit on behalf of the I nion or an other labor or-
gan1iz11 loll.
(h) I'hreatening cmplliorees with reprisal because theN
engage in activit, on behall'ot' Ihe I nion or anr other labor
organization.
(c) Suspending. dischlargilg. or otherwise discriminating
against emploees because of their interest in or activit on
behalt' of the I nlion ln cother labor orga;ization.
(d) In anr like or related manner interlering with, re-
str-inillg. or coercing enlploees in the exercise of the rights
gularariteed them hb Section 7 of thie Act.'
2. lake the following affirmative action designed to el-
fectu;le the policies of the Act:
(a) ()ier John I)aniels immediate ad full reinstatement
to his ormer job or, it' that job ino longer exists, to a sub-
st;intiall? equivIlenlt position of emplo ment and make
hill whole or an losses he ma have suftlered pursuant to
thie provisions set ftorth in "''I lie Remed' section above.
(h) Preserve atid, upon request, mlake available to the
Botird or its agentls, for examination and copying. all pa-
roll records. social securi tl pa;lmenlt records. timecards,
persollnel records and reports, and all records necessar to
in;all.e the atmoulit o' backpas clue under the terms of' this
()rder.
(c) Post at its Philadelphia. 'ennslvania, facility copies
oft the attached notice marked "Appendix."' ('opies of said
notice. on lorms provided bh the Regional D)irector for Re-
gion 4. after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representatisle, shall be posted bh it iinmecdiatel l upon re-
ceipt thereof' and he maintained hb it tfor 60 consecutive
days thereater. in cotispicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Reason-
able steps shall be taken h Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered. defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notif' the Regional I)irector or Region 4. in writ-
ing. within 20 das from the date of' this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to compl) herewith.
T'he allegations in the complaint not specifically found
herein are dismissed.
Ihe unlair labor practices found were principally the acts nof a single
supervisor and do nol suggest a proclivily n the part of Respondent to
commit unfair labor practices. lence. the narrow injunctise language is ap-
propriate. ikmot Foodi,s Inc., 242 NI.RB 1357 1979)
* In the event that this Order is enfotrced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals. the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
Natiional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant t a Judgment
of the nited States Court of Appeals infiorcing an Order of the National
.ahbor Relations Board "