The Krebs School Foundations

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 1409 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION 1409
The Krebs School Foundation, Inc. and Local 925,
Service Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO. Cases -CA-16076 and 1-CA-16567
August 27, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDALE
On March 28, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
Abraham Frank issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge's Decision. I
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor 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
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
On May 14, 1980, Respondent filed with the Board a request that the
Board receive as an addendum to Respondent's brief and/or take judicial
notice of a decision of the United States District Court, District of Mas-
sachusetts, Wayne Klug, et al. v.The New Perspectives School. Inc. (Civil
Action 78-2402-MA). The General Counsel filed a response in opposi-
tion to Respondent's proffered addendum on May 15, 1980. Respondent
contends that such case supports its argument that The Krebs School
Foundation, Inc., is an exempt adjunct of the Massachusetts public school
system. We take administrative notice of the said district court decision
but do not find it controlling or relevant. We have previously determined
in The Krebs School Foundation. Inc.. 243 NLRB No. 79 (1979), that we
have jurisdiction over Respondent. In addition, the jurisdictional standard
in the district court case-whether the defendant acted "under color of
state law"--is based on entirely different considerations than is the
Board's jurisdiction.
2 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 credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent
violated Sec. 8 (aX3) and (I1) of the Act by failing to renew the contract
of Ann Dickinson. we note in particular that the record shows that Re-
spondent had included laudatory comments as well as wage increases in
its renewal of Dickinson's contracts in the years preceding her union ac-
tivity, that Dickinson has certificates issued by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts to teach elementary education as well as art, that she has
prior experience as a reading tutor, and that she has taught reading under
a federally funded program, and, finally, that Dickinson has had more
teaching experience than many of the teachers hired by Respondent after
Dickinson's contract was not renewed. Thus, even assuming the truth of
Respondent's contention that Dickinson's services as an art teacher
would not have been required in the future because of the elimination of
the art program for nondiscriminatory reasons. the record fully supports
the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that Respondent's failure to
retain Dickinson on the faculty as a classroom teacher or a reading tutor
was discriminatorily motivated
251 NLRB No. 187
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In addition to the various violations of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act by solicitation of employee views
in a manner to imply remedy of grievances, by in-
terrogation, by numerous threats to employee job
security, and by a changed policy of advising some
employees personally of contract renewal to dis-
courage the need for a union, and the violation of
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act by refusal to renew the
contract of Ann Dickinson, all as set forth in detail
by the Administrative Law Judge in his "Analysis
and Final Conclusions of Law" and in his "Dis-
crimination to Discourage Union Membership," we
add the following additional conclusions of law:
1. The Krebs Foundation, Inc., is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Local 925, Service Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act.
3. No violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act was
committed by the ambiguous comment of Respond-
ent's director, Ida C. Krebs, to employee Dickin-
son concerning harassment by Dickinson's ques-
tions at teachers' meetings.
4. No violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act was
committed by Krebs' comment on testimony by
Dickinson at the representation hearing.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent, The Krebs
School Foundation, Inc., has engaged in and is en-
gaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation
of Section 8(a)(l) and (3) of the Act, we shall
order Respondent to cease and desist therefrom
and take specific affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent discriminated
against employee Ann Dickinson by failing to
renew her contract, we shall, therefore, order that
Respondent offer Ann Dickinson immediate and
full reinstatement to her former position or, if that
position no longer exists, to a substantially equiva-
lent position, with the wage rate she enjoyed at the
time she was refused renewal of her contract, plus
any increases, without prejudice to her seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for all losses suffered by her as a result of
the discrimination against her in the manner set
forth by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation,
231 NLRB 651 (1977).3
3 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NI.RB 716 (1962)
Member Jenkins would compute interest on the backpay due in accord-
Continued
E .tw r
1410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, The Krebs
School Foundation, Inc., Lexington, Massachusetts,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order.
ance with his dissenting opinion in Olympic Medical Corporuation, 250
NLRB No. 11 (1980).
DECISION
ABRAHAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The
original charge in these consolidated cases was filed on
May 4, 1979, and the original complaint issued on
August 14, 1979. Amended charges and a second original
charge were filed on various dates from July 5, 1979, to
and including October 12, 1979. The original Order con-
solidating the cases and a further amendment to the com-
plaint issued on October 16, 1979.'
During the course of the hearing the General Counsel
amended the complaint to allege under paragraph 8(p)
that since on or about November 4, 1979, Respondent so-
licited grievances from its employees and made implied
promises to remedy such grievances. At the close of the
hearing the General Counsel amended the complaint to
eliminate paragraph 8(g).
In its final form the complaint alleges violations of
Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act.
The hearing was held on December 19 and 20, 1979,
at Boston, Massachusetts. 2 All briefs filed have been con-
sidered.
At issue in this case are questions of whether Respond-
ent engaged in various acts of interference, restraint, and
coercion and discharged an employee because of her ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union.
FINDINGS Oi FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Preliminary Findings and Conclusions
Respondent, a private nonprofit Massachusetts corpo-
ration, is engaged in providing educational services for
children with learning disabilities. The Board has previ-
ously asserted jurisdiction over this Respondent in a re-
lated representation proceeding. (232 NLRB 601 (1977))
On the basis of the Board's decision in that case I find
that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that
I Prior to the hearing in this case the parties entered into a settlement
agreement relating to that portion of the complaint in Case I-CA-16036
pertaining to the failure of Respondent to renew the contract of James
DeRusha. Accordingly, I granted the motion of the General Counsel to
sever from the complaint the allegations relating to the failure of Re-
spondent to renew DeRusha's contract.
2 The motion of the General Counsel to correct the transcript in minor
respects is granted
it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic-
tion in the instant case.3
The Charging Party, hereinafter called the Union, is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
B. Background
The Krebs School Foundation, Inc., was founded by
Mrs. Ida C. Krebs, its current director. Krebs is in com-
plete charge of the day-to-day operations of the school
and is responsible for carrying out the educational tech-
niques and policies developed by her. She supervises and
directs the school program and all teachers and other
employees. After consultation with the trustees of the
school, Krebs has authority to hire and discharge all em-
ployees, including teachers and secretarial and custodial
help, to establish school policy and curriculum and to
make changes therein; and to control the aims, functions,
and direction of the school. In the event of any disagree-
ment between Krebs and the trustees following consulta-
tion, Krebs' decision governs.
For some time prior to the beginning of union activity
in the spring of 1978, Respondent's teachers had been
concerned with the lack of communication between
them and the administration of the school. Among other
concerns, they were concerned about job security, con-
sistent personnel treatment, and consistent application of
rules. In January 1978, Krebs was hospitalized. It was
not clear to the teachers who, if anyone, was in charge
at the School. During this month Dr. Henry Weinberg,
chairman of the board of trustees, appeared at one of the
teachers' regular Friday evening meetings. He asked the
teachers to open themselves up to him with respect to
their grievances. The teachers did so and gave him a list
of a number of grievances. The teachers urged Dr.
Weinberg to report to them after consulting with the
other Board members so that there would be some reso-
lution of the teachers' concerns. While the record indi-
cates that some months later Dr. Weinberg did inform
the Board of the teachers' concerns, no report was made
to the teachers by Dr. Weinberg and the grievances re-
mained unresolved.
In May 1978, Ann Dickinson, a teacher in charge of
Respondent's art program, contacted the Union to ex-
plore the possibility of organizing the faculty at Re-
spondent's school. Dickinson met with Dorine M. Levas-
seur, the Union's representative. Three other employees,
Karen Tripoli, Mary Clark, and Tricia Morrissey, also
met with Levasseur. Thereafter, the employees met with
Levasseur fairly regularly on a weekly basis. At the
second meeting Joel Rosso, Jeff Baldwin, and Tamar
Kallman joined the group. The employees formed an or-
ganizing committee and allocated to each member a
a Here. as in the representation proceeding, Respondent contests juris-
diction. The General Counsel introduced into evidence pertinent docu-
ments relating to that proceeding. At the request of Respondent I take
judicial notice of the entire record in that case, including the transcript in
the possession of the Board and exhibits, with the understanding that the
entire record will be available to the Board and the courts in any future
proceeding in the instant case.
THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION 1411
number of employees to be contacted for the purpose of
obtaining signed union authorization cards.
Pursuant to a petition filed on July 28, 1978, a Board
hearing was held on August 24, 1978. The election was
held on August 13, 1979, and a certification of results of
election issued on August 22, 1979.
On July 27, 1978, a letter signed by "Members of the
Krebs School Staff in Support of Union Representation"
and Levasseur was sent to Krebs, members of the board
of trustees, and officers of the school's parent-teachers
organization, hereinafter PTO. The letter stated that the
Krebs' staff had taken steps to acquire union representa-
tion. The authors of the letter expressed their belief that
union representation would enhance their job security
and self-respect while insuring a higher quality of educa-
tion of the children.
On August 14, 1978, Dr. Weinberg and Krebs ap-
peared at a staff meeting for teachers. Dr. Weinberg said
he was disturbed that the teachers had found it necessary
to go to the Union, that the board did not want a union
at Krebs because Krebs was a school to teach children to
be independent and a union would go against that philos-
ophy. He also said that the Union would not solve their
problems and the board was hurt because the teachers
had not approached the board before approaching the
Union. Dr. Weinberg then passed out a letter to the
Krebs' employees outlining the board's position against
the unionization of the teachers.
On the evening of the same day during a meeting of a
committee comprised of parents, board members, and
teachers, Dr. Weinberg referred to the fact that the
teachers were trying to organize a union. Some of the
parents were upset and asked why the teachers felt the
need for a union. Dickinson responded by stating that
the teachers wanted better job security, more profession-
al respect, and more input into personnel issues, that the
teachers believed they needed a union because these con-
cerns had not been dealt with satisfactorily in the past.
On September 22, 1978, the Krebs prounion employees
sent a letter to the parents of students at the Krebs
School, enclosing the letter of July 27 to Krebs and
other members of the board. The letter stated that the
Krebs staff wanted a flexible system, fair procedures of
termination, an equitable pay scale, an active role in de-
cisions affecting them, specification of working condi-
tions, and an atmosphere free from the threat of arbitrary
retaliation.
On the same day, following distribution of the above
letter, Krebs confronted Dickinson in the assembly area
at the school. Krebs said, "How dare you send this letter
out?" Krebs also said, "I hope you know what trouble
you are causing for yourself." Dickinson asked, "Do you
mean me personally?" Krebs replied, "Yes."
On September 25, 1978, Dickinson had a conversation
with Dr. Edleff H. Schwaab. Dr. Schwaab, a clinical
psychologist, is a member of the Krebs board of trustees
and a consultant at the Krebs School. Dr. Schwaab came
to Dickinson's classroom and asked if he could talk to
her. Dickinson said, "Yes." Dr. Schwaab asked for a
copy of the letter that had been sent to the parents. He
said, "Of course, you know this means the downfall of
the school. We are going to have to close within a year.
I tried to tell the [b]oard that there needed to be better
communication between the [b]oard and the staff and I
tried to tell the [b]oard that the teachers needed a place
to go with complaints. I hope this Personnel Subcommit-
tee will help the situation." Dickinson asked why Dr.
Schwaab was bringing up the subject with her. Dr.
Schwaab replied, "Well, you seem to be the ringleader.
It is always you or Tammy or Joe who speaks up. There
are a lot of teachers that aren't for the union." Dickinson
responded that a substantial majority of teachers had
signed cards and all they wanted was a legally binding
contract. Dr. Schwaab said that already students were
being withdrawn from the school and they were operat-
ing at a deficit.
In reaction to the employees' letter of July 27, 1978,
advising the board of trustees that the employees had
taken steps to secure union representation, the board es-
tablished a personnel subcommittee to deal with and at-
tempt to resolve the employees' grievances. Sometime in
September 1978, the personnel subcommittee met with
the teachers for the first time. Christine Picariello, a
then-member of the board and chairman of the personnel
subcommittee, 4 and two other board members, Sidney
Wood and Louis Aronson, were introduced by Dr.
Weinberg. About 15 teachers were present. To induce
the employees to speak freely Dr. Weinberg promised
that no one would be terminated for their opinions and
that cases of termination or suspension would be re-
viewed by the personnel subcommittee. s This promise
was also announced during a PTO meeting in October
1978 when the parents of Krebs' students were informed
of such a policy.
4 At the hearing and in its brief Respondent objected to the examina-
tion of Picariello under Rule 61 l(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence on
the ground that she was not at the time of the hearing an agent of Re-
spondent or an adverse witness Picariello was subpenaed by the General
Counsel. At that time Picariello found it necessary to call the office of
the attorney for Respondent to find out what the subpena was about.
Prior to her resignation in March 1979, she had been a member of the
board of trustees for 2 years, treasurer for a brief time, and chairman of
the personnel subcommittee Although Picariello testified that she re-
signed because she "felt" certain teachers were being terminated because
they wanted a union, she was not an entirely cooperative witness for the
General Counsel Her memory failed her at critical points and her testi-
mony was given with apparent reluctance On the basis of her official
status as a member of the board and chairman of the personnel suhcom-
mittee during times material to this case and indications at the hearing
that she was not prepared to testify freely and fully against Respondent. I
find no merit in Respondent's contention that she was improperly ques-
tioned under Rule 6l 1(c)
s While Picariello testified that he personnel subcommittee held Ivo
or three meetings with the employees in the fall of 1978, she was unsure
of the specific dates, but thought that the first or second meeting was on
November 5 or 13. 1978 Kallman testified that the first meeting occurred
in September 1978 and that Dr Weinberg's promise of protection for em-
ployees who spoke out at this meeting was repeated at a PTO meeting in
October 1978. In her letter to Aronson on April 3, 1979, following notifi-
cation that her contract would not be renewed, Dickinson noted that the
policy of protection to employees was announced on September 14, 1978.
I conclude that the first meeting with the personnel subcommittee oc'-
curred in September 1978 and that Picariello's testimony that this meet-
ing or a second meeting may have been held on November 5 or 13, 1978.
is not sufficiently clear to warrant the conclusion that a meeting of the
teachers with the personnel subcommittee occurred specifically on or
about November 4, 1978 Ho,wever, Picariello testified that after the No-
vember meeting a final meeting as held by the personnel subcommittee.
probably in December 1978
. T $
1412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Picariello told the teachers during the initial meeting
that the board was upset that they wanted a union, that
the Board did not have a clear understanding of the
teachers' problems, but wanted to understand them and
hopefully to remedy them. The meeting lasted about 2
hours. The teachers were candid and told the subcom-
mittee that they wanted the rules of the school in writ-
ing, particularly with respect to pregnancy leave. They
were also concerned about job security and they wanted
a representative at board meetings. The subcommittee
members informed the teachers that the information ob-
tained during this meeting would be used by the subcom-
mittee to draft a book of policies so that the rules and
regulations of the school would be in writing. As indicat-
ed below, at least one additional meeting with the teach-
ers was held by the personnel subcommittee in or about
December 1978.
In the middle of September 1978, Tripoli had a con-
versation with Krebs in the landing outside of Krebs'
office. Krebs asked Tripoli what kind of certification
Tripoli had and Tripoli responded that she had elemen-
tary education certification and moderate special needs
certification. Krebs then said, "I can understand why
you got involved with the union. I hope people [who]
get involved with the union realize that although they
might get jobs later in the public school, they probably
wouldn't be able to get a job in another private school if
the private school found out that they were more inter-
ested in unionizing than in teaching."
In October 1978, during a PTO meeting the subject of
the union came up and the parents asked why the teach-
ers were dissatisfied and were interested in a union. Trip-
oli stood up and said that the teachers were interested in
collective bargaining for job security, publicized pay
scales, and better communication. Following the meeting
Tripoli and Dickinson were talking to several parents.
Krebs came running over and appeared to be very
angry. She said that Tripoli and Dickinson were greedy
and selfish, that Krebs knew they were involved with
the Union and were trying to ruin her school.
Tripoli had another conversation with Krebs in the
middle of October 1978 in Krebs' office. Krebs said, "I
realize why you got involved with the union because
you are worried about job security and you have a
family to support, but I don't understand why Ann Dick-
inson would get involved in the union." Krebs said that
she did not think Dickinson could get a job any place
else because she was not a good craftsperson and she had
female problems.
C. Conduct Within the Statutorily Limited Period
from November 4, 1978
The personnel subcommittee met with the teachers in
a final meeting in or about December 1978. Chairman Pi-
cariello and Member Aronson were present for the sub-
committee and spoke to about 15 teachers. The subcom-
mittee members passed out policy papers written for
other schools. Neither Picariello, Aronson, nor Wood
had experience in this area of school administration and
asked the teachers to go over the policies, make notes,
and submit their notes to the subcommittee. During this
meeting the teachers and members of the subcommittee
discussed terms and conditions of employment such as
job security, pay scale, and maternity leave. Although
Picariello and Wood both indicated at subsequent meet-
ings of teachers that the subcommittee was working on a
book of policies for the teachers, no book of policies was
ever issued by the board of trusteees. So far as the
record shows, no further meetings were held by the per-
sonnel subcommittee.
In mid-January 1979, Tripoli had a conversation with
Krebs at the school in the secretary's office. Krebs was
speaking on the phone. When she hung up she said
something about lawyers costing so much she would
have to lay off half the staff. Tripoli said, "Mrs. Krebs
you always say something like that when I am near
you." Krebs became very angry and said that Tripoli
was greedy and selfish and was only interested in more
money and she had spent all her life building up the
school and Tripoli was trying to ruin it.
Prior to the spring of 1979 teachers' contracts, which
were on a year-to-year basis, were renewed by mail,
Teachers whose contracts were to be renewed would re-
ceive in the mail notification that their contracts would
be renewed. Early in March 1979, however, this policy
changed. The board of trustees determined that each
teacher should be interviewed personally for contract re-
newal purposes and that someone should sit in with
Krebs and take notes on a recorder to verify what Krebs
said to the teachers at that time. Dr. Schwaab was desig-
nated to sit in on the interviews. The board was aware of
the teachers' concerns about job security and inconsistent
personnel policies. The new policy of individual inter-
views was intended to calm the faculty so that the em-
ployees would not feel the need to go with the Union.
Tripoli had a conference with Krebs in the latter's
office in March 1979. Krebs introduced Tripoli to Dr.
Schwaab as one of those persons interested in job secu-
rity. Krebs said, "Miss Tripoli is worried about job secu-
rity because she has a small daughter at home to sup-
port." Tripoli said, "No, I have a son at home." Krebs
then said to Tripoli, "Your contract will be renewed for
the following year and next year. But I know you are
not happy here and you would be happier someplace else
and I hope you find a job someplace else." Krebs then
made other statements to the effect that Tripoli should
feel free to look for jobs elsewhere.
At a teachers' meeting on February 9, 1979, referring
to a layoff procedure policy that had been sent to teach-
ers by Dickinson, Krebs said that there was no money,
that donations had stopped coming in because of this
"new mess" and that superintendents were not sending
students, that they were going to wait a year until things
calmed down.
In July 1979, welcoming the staff's return to the
school for the summer session, Krebs gave an impromptu
speech in the assembly room. During the speech Krebs
said that there would never be a union at the Krebs
school, that she would close the school first.
In August 1979, about a week before the above-noted
board election, Carla Yarborough, a speech and language
pathologist at the Krebs School, overheard Krebs talking
to another person in the school's kitchen. Krebs said that
THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION 1413
there would not be a union at Krebs because she would
sell the school or close it down. On two or three other
occasions, passing Krebs in the hallway or in the office,
Yarborough heard Krebs say something to the effect that
if the union came in salaries would be too high and she
could not afford to run the school and would be forced
to sell it or close it down.
Respondent's policy in March 1979 of interviewing
teachers and refusing to renew the contracts of some of
them aroused the teachers' concern for those teachers
whose contracts had not been or might not be renewed.
At the March 30, 1979, teachers' meeting, the teachers
voted to invite the personnel subcommittee to attend a
teachers' meeting as soon as possible. Kallman, represent-
ing the staff, wrote a letter to Aronson asking him to
attend a teachers' meeting. In response Aronson invited
Kallman to attend a board of trustees meeting on May
24. Kallman replied that the teachers wanted him to
attend a teachers' meeting on May 11 and to inform
them of his acceptance by May 8. Not having heard
from Aronson by May 17, 1979, the teachers, as a last
resort, agreed that Kallman would read a prepared state-
ment at the PTO meeting on the latter date. The state-
ment noted that a majority of the faculty had invited the
personnel subcommittee to attend a teachers' meeting to
answer specific questions with respect to actions taken
by the administration. The letter also pointed out that
Aronson's counter-invitation to the teachers to meet with
the board on May 24 was inadequate because the matter
was urgent and required immediate attention.
Kallman, who had prepared the statement with the as-
sistance of Tripoli, was scheduled to read it at the PTO
meeting on May 17. She was sitting in the rear of the
gym with her husband waiting for the meeting to begin.
Krebs approached and asked Kallman, who had yawned,
if she was tired. Kallman replied that she had not been
feeling well. Krebs then said, "That's not why you are
tired. You have been irritable, even your children are
saying that you are irritable. It's all this union business. I
know about the statement that you are going to read this
evening and if you read it, I will suspend you. I hired
you and I will suspend you. This is not the place to
bring up such matters. We have teachers' meetings for
that."
After Krebs left, Kallman informed several staff em-
ployees that she had just been threatened. Kallman was
encouraged to tell Wood what had occurred and to ask
him if the board of trustees would review her case if she
were to be suspended. Kallman had in mind Dr. Wein-
berg's promise that suspension or termination of employ-
ees who spoke out freely would be reviewed by the
board. Kallman showed Wood her statement and told
him what had just happened with Krebs. Although sym-
pathetic, Wood said there was nothing he could do be-
cause he was not there as a board member but as a
parent and guest speaker. Kallman consulted with Tripoli
and Dickinson. When the meeting began, Dickinson read
the statement, prefacing her remarks with the comment
that the individual who was scheduled to read it had just
been threatened.
On January 26, 1979, Joseph Russo, a reading tutor,
and several teachers were having lunch in the classroom
of Jane Ryan. Krebs entered and said something to the
effect, "What is this? A union meeting here?" The em-
ployees said, "No, Mrs. Krebs."
The following Monday, January 29, Russo was in the
teachers' room on his break. Krebs walked in, made an
unrelated comment, and then asked, "What is it that you
teachers really want?" Russo asked what she meant by
that and Krebs responded, "I don't know anything."
Russo said that it bothered him that he couldn't speak to
her and she could not speak to him because they had
been warned of some legal aspects that could not be
mentioned. Krebs said that she had received a letter from
the State that they had lost. Russo said that he had not
received such a notice, but if something was to happen
he would hear about it soon. Krebs said, "My civil lib-
erties are being violated and I will have to countersuit to
return the $20-30,000 I had already put into it." During
the course of the conversation Krebs said she was going
to have to let Dickinson go because Krebs liked to have
teachers leave after 3 years; that Dickinson was consist-
ently out on Mondays, did not attend department head
meetings, and was uncooperative in letting people use
her room. Krebs also said that she had never fired any
teachers except for one, but she would have fired Tricia
Morrissey because she was spreading around this union
"stuff." Krebs also said that Tripoli was a liar and that
"The three heads-I know the three heads are excellent
teachers but they are not going to take the school away
from me." Russo said that no one really wanted to take
the school away from her. Krebs replied that she would
rather close the school than let the union in.
Russo had another conversation with Krebs on March
2, 1979, as they were walking out of the office and down
the hall. Krebs said, "You know, I shouldn't tell you
this, but I received a letter today from my lawyer with a
bill for $750." Russo said that he was sorry she had to
pay that much money, but she knew that her lawyer was
doing his best to get paid. Krebs made some comment
about the money Russo had been paying the Union.
Russo assured her that neither he nor anyone else had to
pay any money to any union. Krebs then told Russo that
she could not work with him any more because he was
deceitful and distrustful. Krebs made some comments
about Russo's academic abilities and finally said that
Russo should go to a place that had a union so he could
be happy; that she wanted her teachers to be successful
and she would write him a good recommendation.
In the latter part of March 1979, Russo had his con-
tract renewal interview in Krebs' office. Krebs stated
that, although she had told Russo she would not rehire
him, she was going to renew his contract with the antici-
pation that he find another job. Krebs said that Russo
knew Krebs was unhappy with his union activities.
Russo said that he felt his reasons for being in the union
campaign were good and that there were some improve-
ments that needed to be made. He thanked her for re-
newing his contract and left.
In the latter part of March 1979, a few days after his
interview in Krebs' office Russo had a conversation with
Dr. Schwaab in the cottage building where Russo was
teaching. Karen Bailor was also present. Dr. Schwaab
1414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said that he did not feel good about the union activity,
that the board had decided to have someone sit in with
Krebs on all the interviews for everyone's safety or well
being; that he had sat in on Dickinson's interview; that
Dickinson had asked very strong questions and that there
was a heated argument. Bailor commented that Dickin-
son was probably upset when she heard that occupation-
al therapists would be replacing the art program. 6
On April 6, 1979, Russo attended a teachers' meeting.
Present were the faculty and Krebs. During the course
of the meeting Krebs stated that she was very upset
about this union and that she did not like it. It aggravat-
ed her and she felt there were plenty of other places in
other schools in other counties that could utilize her
services, and that someone had just come in to offer her
a price for the school. Krebs told the employees, "I'm
tired of this union stuff. We're not going to have it."
Krebs also said, "Think of the damage you've done to
yourselves and the time we've wasted."
In July 1979, Russo had a conversation with Krebs in
the kitchen area of the school. Krebs said that she did
not want the Union there and would close the school if
she had to. Russo said that was fine if that was what she
wanted. Krebs said if the school closed it would be
Russ's fault.
On March 26 or 27, 1979, James DeRusha, an instruc-
tor in the Science Department, asked Krebs during his
contract renewal interview if his contract was not being
renewed because of the Union. Krebs replied, no, be-
cause there was not going to be a union.
D. The Discharge of Ann Dickinson
As indicated above, Dickinson was the employee who
initiated union activity at the Krebs School. Her leader-
ship role in the union movement was well known to Re-
spondent, including Krebs and Dr. Schwaab, both of
whom were hostile to the concept of a union and collec-
tive bargaining.
On January 29, 1979, Dickinson had a conversation
with Krebs in Krebs' office. In the course of the conver-
sation Krebs said, "Listen, why don't you go get your-
self a job in the public schools then you can have the
union and job security and better pay and could fulfill
the financial obligations you are worried about." Dickin-
son said, "What financial obligations?" Krebs said, "The
ones you have spoken of to me in the past. And besides,
I know you don't like me and frankly the feeling is
mutual after what you have done to me." Krebs also
said, "We are getting OT [occupational therapy]." Dick-
inson asked, "You are eliminating the art program?"
Krebs replied, "OT will substitute because it is going to
be craft after school and classroom teachers are qualified
to teach art." At some point Dickinson said, "Is this
your way of telling me that my contract is not going to
be renewed?" Krebs replied, "You'll be informed at the
0 Russo also testified that during this conversation Dr. Schwaab said
that the first time he had heard of the subject of the occupational thera-
pists was at the interview with Dickinson. The parties stipulated that Dr.
Schwaab, who had testified previously, would, if called to the stand,
deny making the statement attributed to him by Russo and would reaf-
firm his previous testimony. In view of my conclusions below I find it
unnecessary to resolve this credibility issue.
appropriate time, people will be informed at the usual
contract renewal time, but I thought you would want to
know now so you could look for a job elsewhere."
On March 16, 1979, Dickinson had a conversation
with Krebs in Dickinson's classroom. Krebs said, "You
union people, I didn't have any money when I started
out, why don't you people go find yourself a place and
get another school started on your own. You could have
a union, you could have things the way you want and
you wouldn't be dividing my staff this way. They come
to me in tears. We are only going to get peace when
they can vote this out in the election. And, you know
you are being terminated." Dickinson said, "I do?"
Krebs replied, "I told you that. OTs are coming in, nine
are coming in and two people are going to leave the
gym and you are going to leave here." Dickinson said,
"You are eliminating the art program?" Krebs said that
there would be a craft program after school and that OT
would replace art. Krebs further said, "So you know you
are being terminated." Dickinson said she would consid-
er herself terminated when she had it in writing.
Dickinson met with Krebs in the latter's office on
March 27, 1979, for Dickinson's contract renewal inter-
view. Krebs said, "We are having this meeting to
comply with the wishes of the personnel subcommittee.
It is to inform you that you are being terminated. There
is going to be a change in the program. OTs are coming
in." Dickinson said, "After five years you are eliminating
the art program?" Krebs said, "Sue Martel and other
people will tell you that I have been planning to let you
go for years and besides you told me once before that
you needed more money." Dickinson said that her evalu-
ations had been good and she would like to go on record
as saying that she thought Krebs was doing this because
of Dickinson's union involvement. Krebs became upset
and said, "Let's put it down to temperament." During
the course of the conversation Dickinson said that there
was every indication that she was doing her job correct-
ly to which Krebs responded, "Yes, your ability to func-
tion as a teacher has been good but you and I can't com-
municate any more and I can't work with you." Krebs
also told Dickinson it was time for Dickinson to "move
on." By letter dated March 29, 1979, Dickinson was in-
formed in writing that her contract would not be re-
newed for the 1979-80 school year.
As a private school for handicapped children, the
Kreb School receives financial aid under Public Law 89-
313, Title 1 and Chapter 766 of the Massachusetts Stat-
utes.
Marie Mulkern, associate director of the day school at
the Kennedy Memorial Hospital in Brighton, Massachu-
setts, had previously been a member of the board of
trustees of the Krebs School, possibly as late as 1976.
She rejoined the Krebs board in May 1979. In the inter-
im she had maintained contact with Krebs and had eval-
uated Krebs' application for a grant of aid for fiscal year
1979.
Mulkern is an ardent advocate of occupational ther-
apy, a program whereby specially trained teachers use
various means to improve the fine motor skills of handi-
capped children. Children who have a learning disability
THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION 1415
sometimes have a breakdown in the process of adjusting
their minds and eyes and hands to what they see and do.
They may see things in reverse and might not be able to
distinguish white from blue. They may write in reverse
because the hand is not doing what the head and eye tell
it to do. The job of occupational therapist is to assist
children with these problems to overcome or compensate
for them. Children handicapped in some areas of learning
may nevertheless be gifted in other areas, such as art.
The skill of a child in art may be used as a substitute or
an aid to develop his oral and written expression. Mul-
kern testified that such a child can be assisted in the use
of his artistic ability by the occupational therapist, the
speech therapist, and the classroom teacher. However,
Mulkern was familiar with the teaching of art only in the
classroom and declined to testify with respect to the abil-
ity of an art specialist to utilize an artistic child's ability
in art to improve his learning skill.
Sometime in 1978 Mulkern and Krebs discussed the
desirability of an occupational therapy program at the
Krebs School. Mulkern suggested that such a program
be added to the School's curriculum. Her suggestion cul-
minated in a decision in February or March 1979 that the
application for a grant include occupational therapy.
Mulkern worked on the evaluation and application for a
grant under Public Law 89-313, Title 1 to add two occu-
pational therapists to the Krebs faculty for fiscal year
1980. The application was submitted on March 30, 1979,
and revised on May 16, 1979. Verbal approval of the ap-
plication was received by the Krebs School on or about
May 1, 1979. Nothing in the application for the grant to
add occupational therapists to the Krebs faculty suggest-
ed that the then-current art program would be replaced
by occupational therapy. According to Mulkern, the
grant was not a replacement for anything, but merely the
addition of a needed program at the Krebs School and
that was her intent. During the period when Mulkern
worked on the evaluation and application for a grant she
had no discussions with Krebs about the art program or
the art teacher.
ANALYSIS AND FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Interference, Restraint, and Coercion
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) of
the Act by the following conduct:
(1) The solicitation of employee views with respect to
terms and conditions of employment of employees at the
Krebs School by the personnel subcommittee in or about
December 1978 with the understanding that the subcom-
mittee would issue a book of policies based, at least in
part, upon the desires of the employees for improvement
in their terms and conditions of employment. The back-
ground evidence, set forth above, reveals that Respond-
ent's motivation in establishing the subcommittee and
meeting with the employees was to counter the Union's
organizational campaign and to wean the employees
away from the Union by resolving some of their griev-
ances. Such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(2) Krebs' statement to Karen Tripoli in mid-January
1979 that lawyers were costing Krebs so much she
would have to lay off half of the staff in the context of
Krebs' further statement that Tripoli was greedy and
selfish and trying to ruin Krebs' School. Tripoli could
reasonably relate Krebs' threat to Tripoli's union activi-
ty. The background evidence, set forth above, reveals
that Krebs knew of Tripoli's active role in the Union and
had made similar comments to Tripoli in September and
October 1978, which statements are relevant to Krebs'
conduct within the 10(b) period for the purpose of shed-
ding light upon such conduct.
(3) Krebs' statement to Tripoli during the latter's con-
ference with Krebs in Krebs' office in March 1979 that
Krebs knew Tripoli was not happy at the Krebs School
and should look for a job elsewhere in the context of
Krebs' knowledge of and hostility to Tripoli's union ac-
tivity, thereby implicitly threatening Tripoli's job secu-
rity because of such union activity.
(4) Krebs' statement to the staff in July 1979, welcom-
ing the staff to the summer session, and then stating that
there would never be a union at the Krebs School, that
Krebs would close the School first.
(5) Krebs' statement in the school's kitchen in August
1979 to a teacher, overheard by Carla Yarborough, that
there would never be a union at Krebs because Krebs
would sell the school or close it down.
(6) Krebs' threat to Tamar Kallman at a teachers'
meeting on May 17, 1979, that Krebs would suspend
Kallman if Kallman read a statement expressing the em-
ployees' concern over the failure of the subcommittee to
meet with the teachers to discuss actions taken by the
Administration. Krebs' threat was directly related to
Kallman's protected right to engage in concerted activity
on behalf of herself and other teachers and violative of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(7) Krebs' interrogation of Joseph Russo and other
teachers while they were having lunch on January 26,
1979, as to whether they were having a union meeting in
the context of Krebs' extreme hostility to the formation
of a union at the Krebs' School and her threats with re-
spect thereto.
(8) Krebs' statement to Russo in the teachers' room on
January 29, 1979, that Krebs would have fired Tricia
Morrissey because she was spreading around "this union
stuff."
(9) Krebs' statement to Russo on January 29, 1979, in
the teachers' room that she would rather close the
school than let the union in.
(10) Krebs' statement to Russo on March 2, 1979, that
Krebs could not work with him any more because he
was deceitful and distrustful and that he should go to a
place that had a union so he could be happy, in the con-
text of Krebs' comment that Russo had been paying
money to the Union, Krebs' hostility to the Union and to
those, like Russo, in favor of the Union, thereby threat-
ening Russo's job security because of his union and pro-
tected concerted activities.
(II) Krebs' statement to Russo in the latter part of
March 1979 in Krebs' office that she was rehiring him
with the anticipation that he find another job, thereby
threatening Russo's future job security because of his
union and protected concerted activity.
1416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(12) Krebs' statement at a teachers' meeting on April
6, 1979, that she was upset about the Union, that other
schools could utilize her services, that someone had just
come in to offer her a price for the school, that she was
tired of this "union stuff" and was not going to have it,
thereby threatening to sell the school because of the em-
ployees' union and protected concerted activity.
(13) Krebs' statement to Russo in the kitchen area of
the school in July 1979 that Krebs did not want the
Union and would close the school if she had to.
(14) Krebs' statement to James DeRusha on March 26
or 27, 1979, in response to his question whether his con-
tract was not being renewed because of the Union that
there was not going to be a union, in the context of
Krebs' hostility to the formation of a union at the Krebs
School and her threats with respect thereto.
(15) Krebs' statement to Ann Dickinson in Krebs'
office on January 29, 1979, that Dickinson should get a
job in the public schools so that Dickinson could have
the union and job security and better pay, that Krebs did
not like Dickinson because of what Dickinson had done
to Krebs, and that Dickinson should look for a job else-
where, in the context of Krebs' knowledge of Dickin-
son's leadership role in the union campaign and Krebs'
hostility to the Union, thereby threatening Dickinson's
job security because of her union and protected concert-
ed activity.
(16) Krebs' statement to Dickinson on March 16, 1979,
that Dickinson was being terminated, in the context of
Krebs' statement that the union people should get an-
other school started on their own, that there would only
be peace when the Union was voted out in the election,
Krebs' knowledge of Dickinson's leadership role in the
union campaign, and Krebs' hostility to the Union, there-
by threatening Dickinson's job security because of her
union and protected concerted activity.
(17) Respondent's change in contract renewal policy
from notification by mail to individual interviews in the
spring of 1979 at which time teachers were informed that
their contracts would or would not be renewed for the
purpose of calming the faculty so that they would not
feel the need for a union, thereby restraining employees
from engaged in union and protected concerted activity.
B. Discrimination To Discourage Union Membership
I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act by failing to renew the contract of
Ann Dickinson.
Respondent contends that Dickinson's contract was
not renewed because the addition of the occupational
therapy program required the elimination of the art pro-
gram and the art teacher. Mulkern testified that in a 5-
hour day there was limited time to develop the skills of
these learning disabled children. In her opinion, limited
funds and limited time were better spent on the chil-
dren's fine motor control than on music and art, "the
frills of education." It was, however, Krebs' idea and not
Mulkern's to eliminate the art program. Respondent also
contends that Dickinson's contract was not renewed be-
cause her classroom was needed by the occupational
therapists. Assuming, without deciding, that Respond-
ent's arguments as to time and space have validity, they
leave unanswered the question why Dickinson, qualified
as a classroom teacher and a reading tutor, was not con-
tinued on the Krebs' faculty in either capacity.
Dickinson has certificates issued by the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts to teach elementary education
and to teach art. 7 She has experience as a reading tutor
and taught reading at a federally funded program under
Title 1. Dickinson's beginning salary in 1974 was $7,000.
By 1978 her salary had been raised on a yearly basis to
$11,000. Each year in renewing her contract Krebs had
included a commendatory letter with respect to Dickin-
son's ability to function as a teacher. Dickinson also was
given a letter from her files at the Krebs School ad-
dressed to Emanuel College, dated June 20, 1978, and
signed by Krebs, recommending Dickinson as a teacher
revered by her charges and respected by the faculty.
The record shows that there are about 37 teachers at
the Krebs School. An undetermined number do not have
certificates for moderate special needs education. Twelve
teachers, including two occupational therapists, were
hired by Respondent in July or September 1979. Of these
hires, six had certificates for moderate special needs edu-
cation. Pauline Baker and Patricia O'Toole have certifi-
cates as reading specialists or reading tutors. Margaret
Balaconis has a certificate as a science specialist. Ruth
Ann Basinki has a certificate for elementary education.
Clearly, Dickinson, an experienced teacher, whose
ability to relate to learning disabled children is outstand-
ing, could have assumed the duties of a reading tutor or
classroom teacher if, as Respondent contends, the advent
of occupational therapy required the elimination of the
art program. No such consideration was given her. In
January 1979, before the decision was even made to seek
a grant for occupational therapy, Krebs informed Dick-
inson that OTs were coming, that they would substitute
for the art program, and that Dickinson should look for
a job elsewhere.
In Dickinson's final interview with Krebs in March
1979, Dickinson was told that her contract was not being
renewed due to "temperament." There is no evidence of
a conflict in temperament between Krebs and Dickinson
prior to the latter's union and protected concerted activi-
ty. Indeed, the evidence is that Krebs found Dickinson a
most satisfactory and desirable teacher in the years prior
to the beginning of union activity. In contrast to the
highly commendatory letters of former years, Krebs'
letter of March 29, 1979, is curt, and abrupt, informing
Dickinson bluntly that her contract would not be re-
newed.
The evidence, which I have set forth above in consid-
erable detail, including background evidence available to
show Respondent's motivation within the 10(b) period, is
overwhelming with respect to Respondent's hostility to
the Union in general and to Dickinson, the initiator of
the Union's campaign, in particular.
7 Although teachers hired under Chapter 766 are required to have cer-
tificates in moderate special needs education. incumbent teachers at the
Krebs School, including Dickinson, are not required by law to have such
certificates to continue teaching at the Krebs School. As indicated below
an undetermined number of Krebs School teachers do not have moderate
special needs certificates and several were hired in 1979 without such
certificates.
THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION 1417
As early as August 14, 1978, Dr. Weinberg had made
it clear to the teachers that the board was opposed to the
formation of a union at the Krebs School. In September
of that year, following the mailing of letters to parents
explaining why the teachers needed a union, Krebs con-
fronted Dickinson and told Dickinson that Krebs hoped
Dickinson knew what trouble Dickinson was causing for
herself personally by sending that letter. During that
same month Dr. Schwaab told Dickinson that Dickinson
seemed to be the ringleader of the union movement. A
personnel subcommittee was established to wean the em-
ployees away from the Union.
Within the 10(b) period to combat the Union, the per-
sonnel subcommittee solicited grievances from the em-
ployees, holding out the hope that they would be reme-
died. Krebs threatened to lay off half the staff or to sell
or close down the school because of the employees'
union activities. Prounion employees were told by Krebs
to look for jobs elsewhere, threatened with suspension,
and called greedy and selfish, all because they sought the
benefits of collective bargaining, guaranteed them under
this statute.
In the context of such background evidence and Re-
spondent's extensive unfair labor practices, particularly
that directed at Dickinson personally, Krebs' motivation
to discriminate against Dickinson as the leader of the
union movement is irrefutable.
I conclude that Dickinson's contract would have been
renewed for fiscal year 1979, if not as an art specialist,
then as a classroom teacher or reading specialist but for
her union and protected concerted activity.
The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
C. Other Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The complaint alleges under paragraph 8(i)(2) that Re-
spondent through Ida C. Krebs violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act by telling an employee that Krebs felt har-
assed because the employee asked certain questions at a
teachers' meeting. The evidence shows Krebs made such
a comment to Dickinson at the latter's interview on
March 27, 1979. Dickinson complained that Krebs had
harassed Dickinson over the past several months and
Krebs responded that harassment works both ways, ex-
plaining that Krebs felt harassed by questions Dickinson
asked at teachers' meetings. Inasmuch as Krebs' com-
ment was ambiguous and made in response to a question
by Dickinson, I conclude that it is not violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act and I shall recommend dismissal
of this allegation of the complaint.
The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(4) of the Act by failing to renew the con-
tract of Dickinson, in part, because Dickinson had filed
charges and gave testimony under this Act. In support of
this allegation the General Counsel relies upon testimony
that on January 29, 1979, Krebs told Dickinson that
Krebs "could have cried when she heard them testify
with misinformation about the school taking emotionally
disturbed children." Such evidence is insufficient to war-
rant the conclusion that Respondent in failing to renew
Dickinson's contract was motivated by Dickinson's filing
of charges or giving testimony under this Act. Accord-
ingly, I shall recommend dismissal of this allegation of
the complaint.
ORDER 8
The Respondent, The Krebs School Foundation, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Soliciting employee views for the improvement of
their terms and conditions of employment with the im-
plied promise to remedy employee grievances as a means
of defeating a union's organizational campaign.
(b) Threatening to lay off employees because of their
union and protected concerted activity.
(c) Threatening employees' job security by suggesting
that they look for jobs elsewhere because of their union
and protected concerted activity.
(d) Threatening to sell or close Respondent's school
because of the employees' union and protected concerted
activity.
(e) Threatening to suspend employees because of the
exercise of their protected right to engage in concerted
activity on behalf of themselves and other employees.
(f) Interrogating employees concerning their union ac-
tivity.
(g) Threatening to fire employees because of their con-
certed activity in spreading "union stuff."
(h) Threatening employees' job security by suggesting
that they obtain employment at a union place or find an-
other job because of the employees' union and protected
concerted activity.
(i) Threatening that there would not be a union at the
Krebs School in the context of Respondent's hostility to
the formation of a union and other threats with respect
thereto.
(j) Threatening to terminate employees because of
their union and protected concerted activity.
(k) Changing its policy of notifying employees as to
the renewal of their contracts for the purpose of calming
employees so that they would not feel the need for a
union.
(1) Discriminating against employees by refusing to
renew their contracts to discourage membership in a
labor organization.
(m)ln any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.9
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Ann Dickinson immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former position, if available, or, if that posi-
tion no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, with the wage rate she enjoyed at the time she was
refused renewal of her contract, plus any increases, with-
a In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall. as provided in
Sec 102 4 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and
become its findings. conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto
shall he deemed waived for all purposes
8 In view of Respondent's extensive violations of the Act a broad
Order is necessary. Hickmort Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979).
1418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
out prejudice to her seniority and other rights and privi-
leges, and make her whole for all losses suffered by her
as a result of the discrimination against her in the manner
set forth by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950); Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977). See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.,
138 NLRB 716 (1962).
(b) Post at its School at 453 Concord Avenue, Lexing-
ton, Massachusetts, copies of the attached Notice marked
"Appendix."'° Copies of said notice on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 1, after being duly
signed by its representative, shall be posted by Respond-
ent 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 notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region I in writ-
ing within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMEND that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that Respondent through Ida
C. Krebs violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by telling an
employee she felt harassed because the employees asked
certain questions at a teachers' meeting; insofar as it al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) of the
Act; and insofar as the complaint alleges violations of the
Act other than those specifically found herein.
'o In the event that this 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 Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit employees views for the im-
provement of their terms and conditions of employ-
ment with the implied promise to remedy employee
grievances as a means of defeating a union's organi-
zational campaign.
WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off employees be-
cause of their union and protected concerted activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees' job security
by suggesting that they look for jobs elsewhere be-
cause of their union and protected concerted activi-
ty.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close or sell the Krebs
School because of our employees' union and pro-
tected, concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to suspend employees be-
cause of the exercise of their protected right to
engage in concerted activity on behalf of them-
selves and other employees.
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning
their union activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to fire employees because
of their concerted activity in spreading "union
stuff."
WE WIl.L NOT threaten employees' job security
by suggesting that they obtain employment at a
union place or find another job because of the em-
ployees' union and protected, concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten coercively that there will
not be a union at the Krebs School.
WE WIL.L NOT threaten to terminate employees
because of their union and protected concerted ac-
tivity.
WE WII.L NOT change our policy of notifying
employees as to the renewal of their contract for
the purpose of calming employees so that they will
not feel the need for a union.
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees by
refusing to renew their contracts to discourage
membership in a labor organization.
WE WILl. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WII.i offer Ann Dickerson immediate and
full reinstatement to her former position, if availa-
ble, or if that position no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position with the wage rate she en-
joyed at the time she was refused renewal of the
contract, plus any increases, and without prejudice
to her seniority and other rights and privileges, and
make her whole, with interest, for all losses suffered
by her as a result of the discrimination against her.
THE KREBS SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC.