West Side Manor Nursing Home

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 23, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cedar Corp. d/b/a West Side Manor Nursing Home and Local 495, Service Employees International Un- ion, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-CA-8401, 1-CA-8456, and I-CA-8527 April 23, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On January 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Ralph Winkler issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 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, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.' ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Cedar Corp. d/b/a West Side Manor Nursing Home, Worcester, Massachu- setts , its officers, agents , successors , and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order. 1 The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to overrule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions were incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544, enfd . 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. The Respondent has also excepted to the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent suffered no legal prejudice arising from alleged noncompliance with Sec . 10056 5 of the NLRB Field Manual . Respondent contends that a determination of lack of prejudice cannot be made in the absence of evidence relating to the information obtained by Board agents, allegedly in violation of the Respondent 's rights The Respondent apparently misunderstood Administrative Law Judge Winkler' s holding , which was that Respondent had no such legal rights ; consequently the Respondent could not have been legally prejudiced regardless of the information obtained in such a manner. Further, contrary to the Respondent's contention , we find nothing in the Administrative Law Judge's Decision indicating that he drew an adverse inference from the failure of Mr Harper or Helen Knight to testify in this proceeding Consequently we need not decide whether or not such an infer- ence would have been warranted Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied since in our opinion the record , including the exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE RALPH WINKLER , Administrative Law Judge: Upon charges filed by the aforenamed Union, a consolidated and amended complaint issued by the General Counsel on Au- gust 18 and September 28, 1972, and answers filed by Re- spondent, a hearing was held , on October 30-31, 1972.1 Upon the entire record in this case , including my observa- tion of the demeanor of witnesses and upon consideration of briefs, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation with its prin- cipal office and place of business in Worcester , Massachu- setts, where it is engaged in the operation of a psychiatric nursing home ; Respondent admits , and I find , that it is engaged in commerce within Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Il THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local 495, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The General Counsel alleges that Respondent has viola- ted Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Sheila Pickett and Lynn Colonero and by transferring and then discharging Debra Barron and that Respondent has other- wise violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in other specified respects . This conduct allegedly occurred at the West Side Manor Nursing Home , herein called the Home . Containing 88 beds , the Home provides psychiatric nursing care, ba- sically for rehabilitation . Mrs. Barbara Hall is administrator of the Home with responsibilities over all operations; Mrs. Rosemarie Greene is director of nurses; and Mrs. Helen Knight and Mrs. Ashe are charge nurses . Respondent con- cedes that these individuals are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(l1) of the Act. A Mr. Harper is Mrs. i At the hearing , Respondent contended that this case be dismissed for purported noncompliance presumably with 1 10056 .5 of NLRB Field Manu- al (June 1971). 1 overruled the contention, without a full litigation of the factual predicate for the contention , for I perceived no legal prejudice even on the basis of Respondent 's offer of proof in such connection Wilbur J. Alhngham, d/b/a Mary Anne Bakeries, 164 NLRB 207 , cf. The Singer Compa- ny, 176 NLRB 1089, enfd . in part 429 F 2d 172 (C A 8). The preface to the manual states that its "purpose is to establish procedural and operational instructions for the guidance of the agency staff in administering the Na- tional Labor Relations Act The instructions are not Board rulings or direc- tives, and are not a form of authority binding upon the Board ." Respondent renews its contention , and I renew my ruling 203 NLRB No. 33 WEST SIDE MANOR NURSING HOME Hall's immediate supervisor in the management structure. A. Sequence of Events Debra Barron initiated organizational efforts among Respondent's employees in early May 1972.2 and spoke to a few employees about having a meeting with union repre- sentatives. She signed a union authorization card on May 12 and handed out cards to other employees on the sidewalk outside the Home. On May16, Mrs. Hall convened a meeting of all nurses aides and charge nurses on the day shift. Mrs. Greene also attended. Hall entered the room with a tape recorder which she said, according to Barron's wholly credible testimony, was "to make sure I get everything down accurately." An- nouncing that she had just "got wind" of union talk, Hall turned to Barron and said that "we all know its you" and she asked what Barron "thought a union could do that she [Hall] couldn't do herself." Hall called for a show of hands by those favoring a union, and no one so indicated, where- upon she asked Barron why the latter would continue pur- suing the matter. Barron replied that "if you gave a union representative an opportunity to talk to these people maybe they would be in more of a position to decide for them- selves ." Hall's comment was that "a union representative is going to enter this Home over my dead body" and that employees could not discuss the Union at any time in the Home, including lunch hours and other breaks, because "these are paid for by us." Hall invited Barron to quit if she wasn't satisfied with her job. Barron said she was "perfectly satisfied to stay," and Hall asked how Barron-who had recently been transferred to the day shift-would like to be returned to the night shift where "you could cause less trouble and reach less people." The next day, May 17, Hall posted a notice to employees which described Barron as a union "infiltrator" who "pre- fers to work behind my back." Among other things, the notice also refers to "new" policies and lists four of them. That same day, according to Sheila Pickett's credible testi- mony, Greene asked Pickett whether she knew anything about the Union. Although Pickett had actually discussed the Union with Barron and signed a union card, she dis- claimed any such knowledge to Greene; she testified she was "scared" by Greene's interrogation and Greene further told her that everyone knew that Barron was responsible for the Union and that "anybody pursuing the ridiculousness of the Union was going to be punished." That same evening, May 17, Mrs. Hall telephoned John Henry, one of the Home's orderlies,3 and inquired whether Henry had any influence with Debra Barron. Explaining, according to Henry's wholly credible testimony, that Bar- ron "wanted to get a union in and she [Hall] wanted her stopped," Hall told Henry that "one way she could handle the situation" would be to reassign Barron to the night shift from which Barron had recently been transferred. Henry shortly told Hall that he didn't want to become involved in this management-Barron situation . A day or two later, a 2 All dates are in 1972 unless stated otherwise 3 Henry had originally recommended Barron's employment by Respon- dent. 101 charge nurse informed Barron that she was reassigned to the night shift beginning on or about May 20. On or about June 18 Pickett was asked by Helen Knight, her nursing supervisor, what "we expected out of the Union" and "what would your folks say." Pickett replied her father had organized unions 30 years ago and he "would be all for a union."4 Pickett was discharged on June 27. On the afternoon of June 30 Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Greene called a meeting of all personnel in the cafeteria . Hall intro- duced her superior, Harper, and said the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Union. Harper had a union leaflet which had been distributed a few days before. Gener- al discussion ensued. Lynn Colonero began asking why the nurses aides were "so understaffed and underpaid," and Harper said it was because the nursing home was in bank- ruptcy. According to Colonero's entirely credible testimo- ny, Harper and Hall said "they had a plan to better the nurses aides, but they could not tell us what that was be- cause the union would think we were using bribery ...." Employee Patricia O'Day also credibly testified that Mrs. Hall said "there was a surprise in store for us, but she couldn't tell us at the moment what it was until the union was cleared up." In the period immediately following the June 30 meeting, Colonero openly espoused the idea that union representa- tives should have a chance to come into the Home and voice their opinion in order, in effect, that employees might be in a better position to form a judgment respecting the merits of union organization. She expressed these sentiments to other employees and in mid-July she stated these same views to Mrs. Greene. Colonero mailed her union designa- tion card to the Union on July 28. In late July Miss O'Day received a written warning, signed by Mrs. Hall, stating "It has come to my attention that you are persuading employees to join the Union. This is against Company policy." O'Day took up the matter with Hall. Hall said that employees, whom she refused to identify to O'Day, had informed her of such activities by O'Day, and O'Day denied to Hall that she had engaged in such "persua- sions ." Hall thereupon retracted the "warning " and said in effect that O'Day should not be upset if she had nothing to do with the Union. O'Day had in fact been discussing the Union with other employees at off-periods. Hall then ad- vised O'Day, as she had instructed Home personnel at the aforementioned May 16 meeting, that union solicitation was not permitted at any time at the Home. On July 27, Barron distributed union literature on the public sidewalk outside the Home. This was during Barron's nonshift period, and at no time did she distribute literature inside the Home. On the basis of Barron's sidewalk distribu- tions on July 27, Hall on that day handed her a warning inscribed on the cover sheet of a typed or mimeographed multipage document entitled "Personnel and General Poli- cies for Employees." The mentioned inscription, written by Harper and signed by Hall and Greene, stated that "This is a written warning for conducting personal business in the building during working hours-see Paragraph on Personal Business ." This mentioned paragraph recites that "No em- ployee shall conduct any personal business on the home's Pickett is a completely trustworthy witness; Knight did not testify. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD property or time. The management will not allow solicita- tion of employees at the home." Then follows in script, written by Harper apparently for this occasion, "Violation shall be cause for immediate dismissal."5 The following morning, July 28, Colonero and her super- visor, Mrs. Ashe, went to see Mrs. Hall. Mrs. Greene also was present . Colonero told Hall that the employees seemed to be "pulling apart" instead of working for the patients and she asked Hall why this was happening. Hall replied that some of the aides "were doubting my [Colonero's] loyalty to the home because I was going for the Union, or they thought I was." Hall admittedly then also told Colonero, "If you are not for the Union, then let it be known. If you are then take the consequences because my day girls do not want the Union any way, shape or manner." Colonero did not then or at an other time disabuse Hall in this regard. At a coffee social attended by employees and patients later that same morning (July 28), Hall stated that much confusion has been caused by the Union trying to "infil- trate" the Home and there could be a strike, but "we could work things out without the aides." While the aides were having lunch in the activities room an hour or so later, Hall came in shouting, "you'll all be out before I will. . . . The Union doesn't care about the patients, all they're thinking about is getting in here ." Then pointing to the younger aides, Hall said , "you younger aides are too ignorant to realize what would happen if the Union got in here." Ref- erring to a matter of strikes, which she had mentioned on other occasions, Hall said that the Union "would probably make us [the younger aides] strike and half of you people would be out of work and what would you do then." Respondent discharged Pickett on June 27, Colonero on August 9, and Barron on August 11. B. Sheila Pickett Pickett was hired as a nurses aide in March and was discharged on June 27. She signed a union representation card on May 16. It is recalled that Mrs. Greene had interro- gated and threatened her on May 17 and that Mrs. Knight, her supervisor, also had questioned her on June 18 about the benefits of unionization and that Pickett told Knight on this occasion that her father would approve her union activity. On June 27, immediately upon notification of her dis- charge, according to Pickett's credible testimony, Pickett had a conversation with Mrs. Knight. Knight told her that Mrs. Hall had called Knight on or about June 20 and in- quired concerning Pickett's competence as a worker and whether Pickett was "a troublemaker for hanging around with Debbie [Barron]." Knight told Pickett that she, Knight, had informed Hall that Pickett was "a very good worker." Knight further told Pickett on June 27 that she, Knight, thought Pickett "might have been in trouble for . . . hang- ing around with Debbie."6 After this conversation with Knight, Pickett called Greene at the latter 's residence . Pickett asked her for exam- ples of "unsatisfactory work" and "lack of courtesy" which her termination notice had stated to be the reasons for her 5 Harper did not testify in this proceeding. 6 As indicated above , Knight did not testify discharge. Greene wouldn't give Pickett any examples in connection with the first cited reason , except to say that "everything wasn't satisfactory," and as for the second rea- son Greene said Pickett was not courteous for calling her up when she, Greene, was off duty. Greene then said she would be willing to discuss the matter the next day. Knight told Pickett sometime later that Knight has signed a statement after the discharge that Pickett was an unsatis- factory worker but that she has been "forced" to sign the statement in order to protect her own job. Hall and Greene denied having any knowledge of Pickett's union activities or sentiments until after her dis- charge . Hall testified that Respondent generally gives three oral or written warnings before discharging an employee, depending on the reason for the discharge . Hall further testified that Greene made the decision to fire Pickett, but that Greene usually discusses such matter with Hall before- hand , and that Pickett was discharged for "starting trouble amongst all the help ," and because Pickett had been making daily complaints to her or Greene. Greene testified that she fired Pickett for leaving a patient unwashed for an entire 24-hour period on two separate occasions and Respondent also adduced a carbon copy of a warning notice signed by Greene and purportedly given to Pickett on June 19. About a week before Pickett's discharge, Day Supervisor Sandy Boisse laughingly asked Pickett if she "done up" a particular bed patient, saying that either Greene or Hall said Pickett had failed to do so. Pickett in effect told Boisse I it was not so and that Boisse could verify this with other named personnel who had been on the shift with Pickett. Greene testified that leaving a patient unwashed on two occasions was grounds for immediate dismissal . Yet the employees on the two other shifts were not dismissed even though guilty of the same purported offense, and Greene could not recall the names of these other employees or why they were not also discharged. Pickett credibly denied being given the aforementioned June 19 warning notice or any other warning, written or oral. Further discussion of the facts and circumstances of Pickett's discharge is unnecessary in my opinion . I conclude that Hall and Greene knew or at least suspected her union sentiments and that they terminated her for that reason. C. Lynn Colonero Colonero's employment began as a cleaning woman in late May and she became a nurses aide a week later. She had gotten along well with Hall at least until mid-July when Hall offered her the opportunity for an internship in psychiatric nursing at the Home; Colonero was a college student at the time. Starting from a position of neutrality at the outset of union activities, Colonero had asked various questions at the aforementioned June 30 meeting and she indicated, as she also had told Mrs. Greene on another occasion, that she was interested in hearing both sides of the union question before resolving the matter for herself. Colonero did resolve the matter when she mailed her designation card to the Union on July 28. This was the same day that Hall informed her that some employees were doubting Colonero's "loyal- Boisse did not testify. WEST SIDE MANOR NURSING HOME ty" because of her prounion sentiments and that Colonero should either declare herself as "not for the Union" or "take the consequences." Hall and Greene testified that Colonero was discharged solely because of an incident on August 9, involving a pa- tient with suicidal tendencies . On that day, Colonero and another aide were having a coffeebreak in a little room adjoining the kitchen ; this room is usually set aside for the aides' relaxation . Two other aides were there with the pa- tient, and these two aides left. The patient appeared in good spirits and , during Colonero 's coffeebreak , went in and out of the kitchen several times to get a sandwich. Patients are generally not allowed in the kitchen , and Colonero quietly asked the patient, "do you have privileges today." The pa- tient became agitated , and she threw a chair against the wall and ran toward Hall's office . Colonero followed the patient and met Hall. Hall told Colonero to get out , "you are now terminated ." Colonero tried to explain the situation to Hall, but Hall wouldn't listen . Colonero then went to the office to see Hall; she waited outside the office door for a half- hour when Greene came out and told her to leave. As Co- lonero stated, "they simply refused to have me come in and talk about it." Mrs. Hall testified that the reason for Colonero's dis- charge was that Colonero had told the patient, "what are you, some kind of privileged character around here," and that Colonero should have known better than to address in this fashion a patient who was on suicide precautions. Mrs. Greene and Mrs. Hall testified in effect that they received this version of the incident from the patient and two other unidentified individuals . Mrs. Greene first testified that Co- lonero did not want to discuss the matter with her, and then testified that she couldn 't remember asking Colonero what Colonero had said to the patient. Colonero was a truthful witness whose recital of events is wholly trustworthy. This credibility resolution, however, does not decide the ultimate question of the reason for the discharge , for Colonero also candidly testified that Mrs. Hall was upset out of concern for the patient's welfare at the time. Why then did Greene and Hall refuse to discuss the matter with Colonero , even a half-hour after the incident by which time Mrs . Hall's momentary disturbance should have subsided? Only 3 weeks before Hall had offered Colonero an internship at the Home . The answer, I find , is in the whole sequence of events outlined above , and particularly in the July 28 incident when Mrs. Hall spoke to Colonero about "loyalties" and the "consequences" of continued un- ion support . Respondent's union animus is amply supported on this record. I conclude that the record also preponder- antly establishes that Respondent knew or suspected Colonero's union sympathies and that Respondent dis- charged her for that reason and no other reason. D. Debra Barron Barron was hired in March by Mrs. Janet Lufkin, the then director of nurses . Barron and Lufkin arranged at the time that Barron would begin work on the 11 p.m.-7 a.m. shift and that Barron would be transferred to the 7 a.m.-3 p.m. shift as soon as an opening arose. It was also agreed at the time that Barron would work every other weekend, 103 and thus have a weekend off every 2 weeks . Mrs. Lufkin credibly testified that she had advised Mrs. Hall and Mrs. Greene of these arrangements . Barron's organizational role and Respondent 's responses to her are recounted above, as are the circumstances of her return to the night shift on or about May 20. In the next 3 months until her discharge Barron was not given a single weekend off despite written requests from Barron and despite the aforementioned ar- rangements at her time of hire. Greene testified she could not remember whether Barron had a weekend off during the 3-month period and was not sure if other employees had also been refused weekends off over so long a period. It would have been a simple matter for Respondent to establish such fact , had it been so through other employees and its employment records. It didn't and, with particular reference to Hall's conversation with Henry on May 17, I have no question and find that Respondent returned Barron to the night shift and thereaf- ter withheld biweekly weekends from her in reprisal for her union activity. Barron was not scheduled to work on August 10. That day on the sidewalk outside the Home she passed out leaf- lets protesting Colonero's discharge the day before. On Au- gust 11, she called in sick about 10:45 p.m. for the night shift beginning at 11 p.m. Mrs. Hall got on the line and notified her that "as of now you are fired for solicitation in the Home-fired for soliciting on the premises during working hours." No other reason was ever given Barron for the discharge . When first asked at the hearing why she fired Barron , Hall replied, "She had been warned more than one time for calling in just before her shift and I happened to be there the last time she called in about three to five min- utes of eleven , stating that she was unable to come in, and I fired her." Hall also testified that she discharged Barron "for soliciting [for the Union] on our time ," which the rec- ord shows as meaning any time during the shift even includ- ing lunch and coffee breaks, as Hall had explained at the aforementioned May 16 meeting and as Respondent's July 27 notice to Barron also stated. Hall gave as another reason for the discharge that her work was "not up to par" which she "thought" would be a nursing problem for Mrs. Greene to answer. In connection with "late calling in," Hall later testified that she had in fact decided to fire Barron before 10:30 p.m. on August 11, and she was then impelled to retract her testimony that Barron's call later that night had anything to do with the discharge decision. Barron did distribute union cards and leaflets on the public sidewalk outside the Home on several occasions, but not during her shift times. Barron denied passing out union literature at any time inside the Home, and there is no evidence that she did. Respondent asserts in this connection that solicitations or distributions in the Home and on the public sidewalk outside the Home, at any times, including nonworking time during "on-the-clock" time and even dur- ing nonshift times are properly prohibited because such activities would tend to have a disturbing impact on the psychiatric patients of the Home . But Greene testified that the patients are allowed to come and go "about everywhere" in the surrounding community on a regular basis-stores, bowling, school, church-and she further testified that 104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD newspaper articles read by patients or solicitation of em- ployees away from the Home would have the same effect on patients. Mrs. Hall further reluctantly admitted that the sale of cosmetics had been permitted in the Home. The record does not establish any valid basis for except- ing this case from application of the principle that it is presumptively unlawful to prohibit union discussion or so- licitation during nonworking time, particularly in nonwork- ing areas ,8 or that union solicitation may not be treated differently from other types of solicitation at such times and places. This record establishes, indeed a contrary inference would be impermissible in my opinion, that Respondent discharged Barron as reprisal for her union and other pro- tected activities under the Act.9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Respondent is an employer within Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging Sheila Pickett, Lynn Colonero, and Debra Barron; and by transferring and withholding biweekly weekends off from Barron. 4. Respondent has further violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees concerning un- ion matters , giving warning notices and otherwise threaten- ing reprisal for engaging in union or concerted activities, promising economic benefits to dissuade employees from union or concerted activities, prohibiting employees from union discussion and oral solicitation during nonwork times (including off-shift periods and also during coffeebreak, meals, and their other rest periods) either in or outside the Home. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action , including reinstating and making whole Barron and Pickett, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act. Colonero had given notice of volun- tary termination effective August 20, 1972; backpay will be ordered as to her for the period from her discharge date until August 20. Respondent will also be required to rein- state Barron on the 7 p.m. shift and to grant her weekends 9 Republic Aviation Corporation v N L R B, 324 U S 793, 801, 803-805 (1945), N.L.R B. v Southern Electronics Co, 430 F.2d 1391, 1392 (C.A 6, 1970), Olin Industries, Inc. v. N L R.B, 191 F 2d 613, 617 (C.A 5, 1951); Republic Aluminum Company v N L R B, 394 F 2d 405, 408 (C A 5, 1968), P R Mallory & Co v NLRB, 389 F 2d 704, 709 (C A. 7, 1967) And see Summit Nursing and Convalescent Home, Inc, 196 NLRB 769. 9 Respondent adduced some warning notices issued to Barron . It would unduly protract this already long decision to take up these items individually and to delineate those portions of the record that establish , as I find they do, that they were part of Respondent 's campaign to harass Barron off on a biweekly basis . All backpay computations shall be in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the foregoing findings , conclusions , and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: 10 ORDER Respondent Cedar Corp. d/b/a West Side Manor Nurs- ing Home , Worcester , Massachusetts , its officers , agents, successors , and assigns , shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Discharging, transferring , withholding weekends off from employees, or otherwise discriminating against them for activities in behalf of Local 495, Service Employees International Union , AFL-CIO, or any other union. (b) Coercively interrogating employees concerning union sentiments or activities , threatening reprisal against employees by warning notices or otherwise for engaging in lawful union activities, and promising economic benefits to dissuade employees from union activities. (c) Prohibiting union discussion and oral solicitation by employees during nonwork times (including off-shift peri- ods and also coffeebreak , meals , and other rest periods) either in or outside the Home. (d) In any manner interfering with, restraining , or coerc- ing its employees in the exercise of their rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer to Debra Barron and Sheila Pickett to their former jobs (to the 7 a .m. shift with alternate weekends off in the case of Barron ) or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges , and make Barron, Pickett, and Lynn Colonero whole as set forth in "The Remedy" section above, for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination against them. (b) Preserve and, upon request , make available to the Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records , timecards, person- nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due and the right of rein- statement under the terms of this recommended Order. (c) Post at its West Side Manor Nursing Home , Worces- ter, 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 Respondent , shall be posted by him immediately upon receipt thereof , and be maintained for 60 consecutive days 10 in the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes 11 in the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." r WEST SIDE MANOR NURSING HOME 105 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 no- tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other mate- rial. Respondent shall also furnish a copy of the notice to each employee at the Home. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government and during rest and meal periods. WE WILL NOT interrogate employees concerning union matters. WE WILL NOT issue warning notices to employees or otherwise threaten discharge or other reprisal, nor will we promise benefits, in order to interfere with or to discourage lawful union activities. WE WILL NOT discharge, transfer, or withhold regular weekends off, or otherwise discriminate against em- ployees to discourage or in reprisal for union activities. Dated By WE WILL reinstate Debra Barron and Shelia Pickett and make them and Lynn Colonero whole for earnings lost since their discharges. WE WILL reinstate Barron to the 7 a.m. shift. WE advise our employees that, when they are not on shift, they have a right to discuss union matters or to engage in such solicitation on the sidewalk in front of the Home or at any other place away from the Home; they also have a right to engage in such conduct in nonworking areas of the Home during coffeebreaks CEDAR CORP. d/b/a/ WEST SIDE MANOR NURSING HOME (Employer) (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 direct- ed to the Board's Office, Bulfinch Building , Seventh Floor, 15 New Chardon Street, Boston Massachusetts 02114, Tele- phone 617-223-3300.