Waukegan North Chicago Transit

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Waukegan North Chicago Transit and Warren Hook,
An Individual . Case 13-CA-9338
May 25, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS BROWN,AND
JENKINS
On February 13, 1970, Trial Examiner Laurence A.
Knapp issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged inland
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that Respond-
ent had not engaged in other, unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, Respondent filed
timely exceptions, and a brief in support thereof, to
the Trial Examiner's Decision. i
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief,' and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that Respond-
ent, Waukegan North Chicago Transit, Waukegan, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order.'
Modify the third indented paragraph of the notice to read as follows-
We WILL offer to Warren Hook immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
for any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LAURENCE A. KNAPP, Trial Examiner: I heard `this
case in Chicago, Illinois, following prehearing proceed-
ings in compliance with the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, (Herein called the Act).' Following
the hearing, briefs were filed by counsel for the General
Counsel and for Respondent. Also following the hearing,
counsel for Respondent filed with me a motion to correct
the record in one particular, a motion which counsel
for the General Counsel opposes and which I later
in this Decision deny.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from my
observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make
the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find
that Respondent, an Illinois corporation with its head-
quarters in Waukegan, Illinois, operates a passenger
transit system by motorbus and that during the last
calendar or fiscal year Respondent (1) had a gross volume
of business in excess of $250,000 and (2) purchased
goods and materials from Illinois' suppliers' valued in
excess of $50,000 which were shipped to those suppliers
directly from points outside the State of Illinois.
Respondent is engaged in commerce and in activities
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
11. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Issues
' The General Counsel filed a motion to disregard Respondent's excep-
tions on the asserted ground that they do not comply with Section
102.46(b) and (c) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended The Respondent filed opposition thereto The Respondent's
exceptions set forth specifically the questions of fact and law to which
exceptions are taken, identify those parts of the Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion to which objection is made , and the supporting brief designates
by precise citation of page the portions of the record relied upon,
and states the grounds for the exceptions and cites authorities. According-
ly, we find that Respondent's exceptions, as amplified by its supporting
brief, are in substantial compliance with the Board's Rules We therefore
deny the General Counsel's motion to disregard the exceptions
s Modify paragraph 2(a) of the Recommended Order to read as follows-
Offer to Warren Hook immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job, or if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him, in the manner set forth in the section above entitled
''The Remedy."
Warren Hook, the Charging Party, was a bus driver
for Respondent for some 26 years prior to his discharge
on August 6, 1969. The questions presented are whether
the evidence sustains the General Counsel's ^ charges
that (1) Respondent discharged Hook because of (a)
his prior union activities, (b) his prior protected concerted
activities, or (c) his prior filling of a charge with the
Board; and (2) Respondent, after discharging Hook,
refused to reinstate him because he filed a charge con-
cerning his discharge. The essence of the General Coun-
sel's case is that Hook's discharge was the culmination
' An initial charge filed on September 8, and an amended charge
filed on October 23, 1969, were duly served on Respondent ; the complaint
issued on October 29 (and was thereafter amended at the hearing),
and Respondent filed an answer to the complaint on November 7,
1969
182 NLRB No. 102
WAUKEGAN NORTH CHICAGO TRANSIT
of a series of events beginning in 1968 and I will deal
with the evidence in that chronological order.
Events Preceding Hook's Discharge
The General Counsel contends that certain union and
protected concerted activities in which Hook engaged
in the fall of 1968 and in June 1969 and Hook's filing
of a charge in the fall of 1968 were resented by Respond-
ent and were utilized by Respondent as bases for Hook's
discharge. Respondent's answer to the complaint denies
any such violations but, in the main , Respondent did
not attempt at the hearing to refute the General Counsel's
evidence as to these events preceding the discharge.
Respondent's employees are (and apparently for some
prolonged period have been) represented by Division
900, Amalgamated Transit Union (herein called the
Union). A provision of the agreement between Respond-
ent and the Union in effect in October 1968 required
employees covered by the agreement to become members
of the Union after 60 days' employment. Subject to
this provision was a Mrs. Meza, a part-time cleaning
lady whose duties included cleaning Respondent's buses.
At all material times Hook was secretary-treasurer of
the Union. On October 11, 1968, Hook told two of
the drivers, Donald Fredbeck and Lester Eveland, who
were union officers, to give an application for union
membership to Mrs. Meza, whose 60-day period was
about to expire. Fredbeck did so and thereafter Mrs.
Meza quit her job.
On the morning of October 21, presumably upon
Respondent's initiative, Fredbeck met with Respondent
President O'Brien, Vice President and General Manager
Mordhorst, and Superintendent Roche. At this gathering,
O'Brien asked Fredback what he had had to do with
Mrs. Meza's resignation. Fredbeck explained that he
did not know Mrs. Meza had resigned but all he had
done was to give her an application and tell her that
she had to join the Union. O'Brien replied that "if
you have to force a woman to join a union we don't
want you around here . . . Get out of here . . . You're
through . . . If I need you I'll call you." O'Brien
also said that he would "get" or "take care" of Hook
and Mixon (the latter a driver who was then the Union's
president) when they came in from their driving runs
that day. When that happened O'Brien called them
to his office and asked them what they had had to
do with the Meza matter. O'Brien's question as he
put it to Hook was what had he had to do with " telling
Mrs. Meza she has to join up with the union when
she only makes small money and she's got to pay
$50 initiation fee and $7 a month dues, and you guys
got to make her pay that kind of money out of her
wages?" Hook replied that under the agreement Mrs.
Meza had to join the Union after 60 days' employment
and that he had told Fredbeck to give her the application
card. After some further talk on this subject, O'Brien
told Hook and Mixon that they were fired.2 Mixon
' O'Brien testified that he did not tell Mixon on October 31 that
he was fired but merely told him to leave the office, that Hook also
709
then asked O'Brien for what reason and O'Brien then
assigned specific and different reasons for the two dis-
charges having nothing to do with the sole matter he
had been criticizing the union officials about, the Meza
incident.'
On the day of their discharges, Hook, Mixon, and
Fredbeck filed a single charge with the Board's Regional
Office in Chicago alleging that they had been discharged
because of their union or protected concerted activities.
About a week thereafter in the cases of Fredbeck and
Mixon, and on December 15 in the case of Hook,
Respondent reinstated these three employees with back-
pay.
The next significant event involving Hook took place
in June 1969. In addition to its normal public transporta-
tion operations, Respondent provides "charter" and
"tripper" services for hire4 and Respondent's agreement
with the Union contains some provision, not set forth
in the record, for equitable division of this additional
work among Respondent's drivers. As part of its proce-
dure for assigning charter and tripper engagements
among regular and extra drivers, Respondent has an
assignment "board" upon which the names of the men
assigned to such engagements are written, usually on
the afternoon preceding the engagements in question.
On an occasion in June 1969, Hook complained to
Mr. Woodard, the "cashier" who has some responsibili-
ties for trip assignments, that he had been improperly
passed over on the day's charter assignments. Woodard
replied that the assignments had been made as instructed
by Mr. Mordhorst, Respondent's vice president and
general manager. A little later that afternoon Mordhorst
asked Hook what his trouble was and there ensued
a conversation in which Hook claimed that charter work
he was entitled to was being assigned to others and
Mordhorst explained that Hook had not been given
an assignment because he had previously declined charter
assignments . Toward the end of • the discussion Mor-
dhorst told Hook he was not going to get an assignment
that day and that rather than his (Mordhorst) dealing
with Hook, Hook should take his complaint to his union
representative. Hook then pointed out that the proper
union representative, Fredbeck, was present and had
heard their conversation, whereupon Mordhorst and
Fredbeck adjourned to Mordhorst's office to discuss
the matter.5 All that we further know about this matter
was not fired on this occasion; that Mixon and Fredbeck merely assumed
that they were fired; and that all three did not show up for several
days, i e , until General Manager Mordhorst told them to come back
to work Because of my preceding and succeeding findings , I discredit
this testimony completely
J The reasons O'Brien gave appear at p 59 of the transcript of
testimony I do not spread them on the record because they cast
serious reflections on Hook and Mixon , because they were stated in
the direct testimony of the General Counsel's witness, Mixon, as part
of his account of what O'Brien said at this meeting , and because
Respondent sought in no way at the hearing to establish by its evidence
that these were reasons for the discharges
"Charter" service means mainly out-of-town travel, while "tripper"
service mainly comprehends private local transport.
' The record contains testimony concerning Respondent's procedure
for making such assignments as among regular drivers and so-called
"extra" men , and concerning other facts bearing upon the question
whether Hook's complaint was justified or not But there is no need
to resolve this question since the General Counsel's theory is only
(Cont )
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is that in their ensuing discussion Mordhorst told Fred-
beck that Hook was "aggravating" him and that the
matter was "dropped" during this conversation.
Events Surrounding and Following Hook's Discharge
Hook ' s bus was damaged about 6 a . m. on the morning
of August 4, as he started to drive it out of Respondent's
garage preparatory to going out on his day's run.
Respondent asserts that the damage was the result of
negligence on Hook ' s part and assigns as the reasons
for Hook's discharge his causing the damage and his
failure to report this "accident."
Buses of the type Hook was driving have an air
pressure system for body suspension and for the airbrake
and door operations. The suspension system involves
air bellows located in the area of the front and rear
wheels which, when filled with air, raise the bus body
front 'and rear (presumably from its axles). The general
procedure followed is that before moving a bus in the
morning the driver operates the air system of the bus
so as to pump the necessary amount of air in the
bellows. A main guide for determining the necessary
amount of air is an air pressure gauge' (presumably
located in front of the driver's seat). The gauge bears
an inscription not to operate the bus with less than
60 pounds pressure but it is the practice of Respondent's
drivers to obtain about 100 pounds as a safety measure.
Buses parked overnight in Respondent's garage after
the day's operation lose the air pressure in the air-
suspension bellows system , giving rise to the necessity
of filling them and raising the bus the following morning
as described above. As the air pressure is lost from
the bellows' suspension system during the night, the
rear of the bus, presumably the axles, rests on railroad
ties on the floor of the garage."
On the morning of August 4, Hook started the bus
motor and then brought the air pressure up to 100
pounds. He then started the bus forward and, noticing
that the bus was moving hard, discovered that the bus
was pulling the railroad ties with it. He then stopped
the bus, which had travelled some 6 to 10 feet. It
is not questioned that the air bellows over the rear
of the bus lacked the air pressure or inflation necessary
to raise the rear of the bus to a sufficient level to
clear the ties. The result was to cause minor damage'
to the radiator (located under the rear of the bus).
Superintendent Roche witnessed the incident and after
questioning Hook as to what had happened, was given
another bus which he drove out on his day's run. Roche
made some report of the incident to General Manager
Mordhorst who decided to relieve Hook from duty
"pending an investigation;" Hook was relieved on his
run when it was half completed by another driver who
told him he was relieved "until further notice."
On August 6 President O'Brien called a meeting of
Respondent's officials and staff concerning Hook. Pres-
ent, in addition to O'Brien, were Vice President Mor-
dhorst, Superintendent Roche, cashier Woodard and
Woodard's wife (a bookkeeper). According to Mor-
dhorst, Roche made a report regarding the damage inci-
dent and the group discussed it and decided by unani-
mous vote to discharge Hook because of his negligent
damaging of the bus and his failure to report this "acci-
dent." According to O'Brien's direct testimony he ques-
tioned these "department heads" and all voted to dis-
charge Hook . Amplifying regarding this questioning in
his cross-examination, O'Brien testified that Woodard
stated Hook had treated him "very unkindly, he [Hook]
accused him of doing wrong things, like misassigning
of charters"-that Hook had been "absolutely nasty
in his treatment" of Woodard. According to O'Brien,
when he asked Roche his feeling, Roche replied:
Mr. Roche said, "I don't want him." He said,
"Just like the morning of the accident, he just
walked away from me and he called upstairs, `Give
me another bus, this bus is broken."'
And Roche said , "Well, you broke the bus," and
he said, "Nobody can get along with him because
he has the Labor Relations Board in the palm
of his hand."
Turning then to Mordhorst, O'Brien testified that Mor-
dhorst said "he didn't want him [Hook] around." Then,
O'Brien testified, he told the group "Well, that's enough.
We will not put him back to work." Further in his
cross-examination, O'Brien- testified that failure to report
the "accident" was one of the 'reasons for Hook's
discharge.'
On this same day, August 6, Union Officials Fredbeck
and Griffin met with O'Brien, Mordhorst, and Roche.
O'Brien informed them (after Griffin had said he was
there concerning, Hook's being' taken out of service)"
that Hook was discharged and, according to Fredbeck,
went on io say, referring to Hook, ". . . he's cost
us a lot of money around here. He goes to the Board,"
he raises heck with Woodard. He's a troublemaker."
Griffin's version of O'Brien's remarks is that after
announcing that Hook was discharged O'Brien said Hook
"was nothing but a troublemaker and he had been
down to the Board and it cost him money and they
had something on him this time and they were going
that Hook ' s complaint was protected concerted activity and that, in
the light of other evidence hereinafter considered , it was one of the
bases upon which Respondent later discharged Hook
'' The rear wheels stop against these ties in horizontal fashion so
that the ties serve the additional purpose of preventing the rear body
of the bus from hitting the garage wall
' One union official , Fredbeck, testified that General Manager Mor-
dhorst told him the repair cost was $14, another, Griffin, testified
that Mordhorst said the repair time was 21h hours Superintendent
Roche testified that the repairs took the time of two mechanics for
half a day at $9 per hour per man.
" In inquiring of Mordhorst the previous day concerning Hook's
status; Mordhorst had told Griffin (and Fredbeck ) that Hook had been
taken out of service "pending an investigation "
" Respondent filed with me a motion to correct the transcript, that
is, to have this capitalized word changed to read "board," meaning
the driver assignment board (involved in the June 1969 incident surround-
ing Hook's complaint to Woodard and Mordhorst regarding charter
assignments ) In the light of all the evidence , I think the reference
was to "Board ," meaning the National Labor Relations Board, and
-accordingly I hereby deny the motion
WAUKEGAN NORTH CHICAGO TRANSIT
to make it stick " I credit this testimony of Fredbeck
and Griffin, which O'Brien did not contradict
In a meeting between O' Brien and Griffin on Septem-
ber 8, when neither them knew that Hook had that
same day filed a charge relative to his discharge with
the Board's Regional Office, O'Brien agreed to reinstate
Hook without backpay Hook informed Griffin of his
having filed the charge when Griffin notified him that
evening of O'Brien's reinstatement offer Hook told
Griffin that he would not accept this offer, stating that
he was going to let the Board handle the matter Griffin
and, Fredbeck rliet again with O'Brien (and Mordhorst)
at about I or 2 p in the next day, September 9, at
which time, according to Griffin, he told O'Brien what
Hook had said the night before, t e , that he had turned
the case over to the Board for handling According
to Griffin, O'Brien's response was "Well, he's all done
for sure now " According to Fredbeck, after Griffin's
opening remarks, O'Brien said he would not take Hook
back, that Hook was a troublemaker, that Hook had
filed with the Labor Board again and that made Hook
automatically "through" where O'Brien was concerned,
and that Hook "jumps" all over Woodard I credit
the testimony of Griffin and Fredbeck and find that
at the September 9 meeting O'Brien made the statements
attributed to him by Griffin and Fredbeck "'
The explanations O'Brien made to Griffin and Fred-
beck on August 6 and September 9 represent evidence
of the most cogent character that (1) Hook was dis-
charged on August 6 because of his filing of the October
1968 charge and because of his June 1969 complaint
relative to charter assignments and (2) on September
9 Respondent refused to reinstate Hook because he had
filed the September 8 charge I so find," and further
find that Hook's complaint that charter assignments
were being made otherwise then required under Respond-
ent's agreement with the Union was protected concerted
activity Quite obviously, I conclude that Respondent
utilized the "accident" of August 4 merely as a pretext
This is strongly indicated by O'Brien's own statement
at the August 6 meeting that "they had something on
Hook this time and they were going to make it stick "
[Emphasis supplied ] Moreover, the damage was minor
and Respondent's proof of negligence far from conclu-
"' On his direct examination 0 Brien testified that at this meeting
he did not tell Griffin that Hook would not be rehired because he
had filed with the Board and added I knew nothing about the Labor
Board But on his cross examination 0 Brien testified at one juncture
that he did not recall and at another that he did not know whether
Griffin had informed him at this meeting that Hook had gone to the
Board and admitted that when Griffin told him that Hook would not
accept his reinstatement offer Griffin also told him that the Union
was not going to back Hook at the Board This varying testimony
an the part of 0 Brien is one of the bases upon which I credit the
estimony of Griffin and Fredbeck concerning 0 Brien s references on
ieptember 9 to Hook s filing of the September 8 charge Hence I
ind that when 0 Brien talked to Griffin and Fredbeck on September
he knew that Hook had filed a charge on September 8
11 In making the above findings relative to the filing of charges
rely also on 0 Brien s further revelations of hostility to Hook on
us score in his testimony that Hook was behind those fellows [meaning
tixon and Fredbeck] going to the Board in October 1968 and that
e knew Hook was behind this
711
sive 12 Finally, Respondent's defense is seriously under-
mined by its heavy reliance upon Hook's asserted failure
to make a "report" of the "accident," when Respondent
had immediate knowledge of it so that the purposes
of a report (presumably meaning a written one) were
in substance satisfied, as the testimony of Mordhorst
goes far to show 13
On the other hand, the evidence reviewed and findings
made above do not warrant a finding that Hook was
discharged because of the Meza-union membership inci-
dent Accordingly, the corresponding allegations of the
complaint should be dismissed
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By discharging Warren Hook because of his pro-
tected concerted activities and by refusing to reinstate
him because he filed charges under the Act, all as
hereinabove found, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and Section 8(a)(4) of the Act
2 The aforesaid are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act
3 Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint not specifically found
herein
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(4)
of the Act, my Recommended Order requires it to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Having found that Respondent's discharge of Warren
Hook violated the Act, my Recommended Order pro-
vides that Respondent offer to Hook immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or a substantially equiva-
lent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges and make him whole for any loss
of earnings he may have suffered by reason of his
discharge by payment to him of a sum of money equal
to that which he would normally have earned as wages
from the date of his discharge to the date of Respondent's
offer of reinstatement , less his net earnings during such
period, with backpay and interest thereon computed
in the manner prescribed in F W Woolworth Company,
90 NLRB 289 and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co , 138
NLRB 716 My Recommended Order also provides that
Respondent post the customary notices
12 Respondents position seems to be that Hook should not have
relied on the air pressure guage alone but should have noticed the
lack of sufficient pressure in the rear suspension bellows in some
other way But there is no proof of any such instructions to or correspond
mg regular practice of drivers
13 Respondents case is further weakened by its offering evidence
in an effort to show that (1) Hook called 0 Brien a son of a bitch
in October 1968 and that (2) Hook was responsible for a delay on
a basketball trip to Champaign in March 1969 when it is clear on
Respondent s other evidence that neither of these incidents had anything
to do with its decisions to discharge and not to reinstate Hook
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in the case,
I hereby issue , pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
the following:
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Waukegan North Chicago Transit,
Waukegan, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging employees because they have engaged
in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid
or protection.
(b) Discharging or refusing to reinstate employees
because they have filed charges under the Act.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Warren Hook immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former or substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed and make him whole for
any loss of pay he may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him in the manner set forth
in the section above entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the said Warren Hook, if at present serving
in the Armed Forces of the United States, of his rights
to full reinstatment upon application, in accordance with
the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge
from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records relevant and necessary to analyze the amounts
of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended
Order.
(d) Post at its Waukegan, Illinois, . plant copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix. 1114 Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 13, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the 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
" In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board "
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision,
what steps have been taken to comply herewith."
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not
found herein. .
" In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board , this provision shall be modified to read - "Notify the Regional
Director for Region 13, in writing within 10 days from the date of
this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge any employee because
he engaged in concerted activities for the purpose
of mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT discharge or refuse to reinstate
any employee because he has filed a charge under
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
WE WILL offer to Warren Hook immediate and
full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniori-
ty or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make him whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him.
WE WILL notify the above-named employee, if
at present serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States, of his rights to full reinstatement,
upon application, in accordance with the Selective
Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from
the Armed Forces.
WAUKEGAN NORTH
CHICAGO TRANSIT
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by any-
one.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse & Federal Office Building,
219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Tele-
phone 312-353-7572.