Yellow Cab Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 13, 1977

229 N.L.R.B. 643 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

YELLOW CAB CO.
The Terminal Taxi Company, d/b/a Yellow Cab Co.
and John Trenchard. Case -CA- 11320
May 13, 1977
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On December 7, 1976, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel
has 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
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge'
and to adopt his recommended Order, as modified
herein.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge as
modified below and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, The Terminal Taxi Company, d/b/a Yellow
Cab Co., New Haven, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b):
"(b) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
l The record shows and the Administrative Law Judge found that Mrs.
Shirley Buckley, Respondent's president, told employees that the Company
could not afford a union and would probably close down if the Union were
voted in. Chairman Fanning and Member Jenkins find Buckley's remarks to
be violative of Sec. 8(aXl). Starkville, Inc., 219 NLRB 595 (1975). Member
Murphy notes that what Buckley actually said was "that, if a union ever
came in and they went on strike, and we could not pay our insurance every
month, then we would probably have to close down." She also notes that the
Respondent presented financial records to support her prediction. Neverthe-
less, like the Administrative Law Judge, Member Murphy finds Buckley's
remarks to be violative of Sec. 8(aXl) when considered in the context of
other violations of the Act.
2 In par. I(b) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
inadvertently omitted the broad injunctive language "in any other manner"
which the Board traditionally provides in cases involving serious 8(a)3)
violations. N. LR.B. v. Entwisle Mfg. Co., 120 F.2d 532, 536 (C.A. 4, 1941).
229 NLRB No. 99
Accordingly, we shall modify his recommended Order and notice to provide
such language.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Act gives all our
employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through represen-
tatives they choose
To act together for collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection
To refuse to do any or all of these things.
WE WILL NOT unlawfully discharge any of our
employees because of their union affection or
because they engage in union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer John Trenchard his job or, if his
job no longer exists, a substantially equivalent
job.
WE WILL restore his seniority and pay him the
backpay he lost because we discharged him.
All our employees are free to remain, or refrain
from becoming or remaining, members of a labor
organization.
THE TERMINAL TAXI
COMPANY, D/B/A
YELLOW CAB CO.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge: On
March 16, 1976, a complaint issued pursuant to a charge
filed December 31, 1975, by John Trenchard, an individu-
al. The complaint alleges three unfair labor practices: that
Terminal Taxi Company (herein the Respondent) violated
Section 8(aX1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act
by terminating taxi driver Trenchard's employment; that
Respondent violated Section 8(aX1) when Shirley Buckley,
president of Terminal Taxi Company, threatened employ-
ees with loss of employment, closure of the terminal, and
other economic retaliation if the Union was selected as the
employees' bargaining representative; and, that Respon-
dent violated Section 8(aX)(1) when Daniel Cicarelli,
Terminal Taxi's vice president, threatened employees with
discharge because of their union activities. Numerous
factual allegations, including the jurisdictional allegations
643
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the complaint have been admitted; the commission of
the above unfair labor practices has been denied.
A hearing in this case ' was held before me on June 7 and
8, 1976, in New Haven, Connecticut. Briefs have been
received from both counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Respondent and have been given serious
consideration.
Upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACIT
Respondent, the Terminal Taxi Company, d/b/a Yellow
Cab Company, is a Connecticut corporation, engaged in
the taxicab service business at its terminal in New Haven,
Connecticut. The complaint alleges, the answer admits,
and I find that, at all times material, the Terminal Taxi
Company has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and
that Teamsters Local 443, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
According to the record, Terminal Taxi was a nonunion
company prior to the present year. In the fall of 1975, after
having been contacted by several of Respondent's taxi
drivers, Teamsters Local 443 conducted an organizational
campaign at Terminal Taxi. Respondent became aware of
the union activity, since company officers discussed the
prospect of a union with their employees. A petition for
election was filed with the Board on December 8, 1975, in
Case I-RC-14171.2
In the latter part of 1975, Shirley Buckley, president and
major stockholder of Terminal Taxi, talked to her employ-
ees in the dispatching room about the Union. Mentioning
high insurance costs, she said "that, if a union ever came in
and they went on strike, and we could not pay our
insurance every month, then we would probably have to
close down."
In early December 1975, Buckley discussed the Union
specifically with Robert J. Kelley, a driver for the
Company. Buckley told Kelly that she thought it unfair
that he had become a union supporter. She stated that she
considered it as "sort of backbiting" or evidence of
disloyalty to the Company, particularly since he had been
able to consult with her husband, an attorney free of
charge, during the previous week. She admitted being
angry and asked Kelley how he'd like it if she charged him
$50 for her husband's time. Attempting to show him
insurance accounts and gasoline bills she commented to
Kelley that due to high gasoline and insurance bills the
Company would close if a union came in.
On December 9, 1975, John Trenchard, a driver and the
Charging Party, visited Buckley's office to discuss the
"money situation." Buckley used the situation to talk about
the Union. Referring to Trenchard as a union "big mouth,"
Buckley explained that Respondent could not afford a
union. She offered him detailed information on insurance,
maintenance, and repair costs. Trenchard examined the
I General Counsel's unopposed motion to correct the transcript of the
hearing is hereby granted.
company books and received copies of financial statements
for distribution to other drivers.
On December 13, 1975, Thomas Hacket, a taxi driver,
was called into the terminal by Daniel Cicarelli, Respon-
dent's vice president. Hacket was known by management
to have been the prime organizer for the Union. Cicarelli
first told Hacket that he had asked to see him because he
might be able to help with a decision. He stated that the
Company's insurance would be canceled if a union came in
and there was a strike. He showed Hacket financial
statements to indicate that Terminal Taxi could not afford
a union. Finally, he directed Hacket's attention to the
driving records of several employees, particularly referring
to the records of Hacket, Richards, and that of John
Trenchard. Both drivers, John Trenchard and Bobby
Richards, had been longtime, good friends of Hacket's.
Hacket noticed that Richards' driving record was the worst
among the three and suggested that perhaps Cicarelli had a
good case against Bobby Richards. Cicarelli ignored the
mention of Richards and focused Hacket's attention on
Trenchard's driving record, pointing to three previous
accidents. Hacket countered that two of the accidents had
been deemed nonpreventable. Cicarelli then proceeded to
show Hacket a written statement of a complaint against
Trenchard. Hacket noted that it was unusual that the
statement had not yet been shown to Trenchard, and
Hacket reminded Cicarelli that he, and not Trenchard, was
the Union's prime organizer. But Cicarelli claimed that he
had "heard differently." Hacket asked Cicarelli if any
threats to discharge his friends were in retaliation for his
own union activity. Cicarelli responded only that he could
have "gotten Hacket" if he had wanted.
Hacket's uncontroverted testimony was that his driving
record was almost flawless and that it would have been
difficult for Cicarelli to justify terminating his employment.
Hacket, who never before had been requested to help in
making a management decision, felt that Cicarelli was after
his friends because of his own involvement with the union
organizational campaign.
During the same day, December 13, 1975, Bill Rosa, the
Saturday night dispatcher, informed Trenchard that his
name was on the "no-car" list. This meant that he was no
longer permitted to drive, and that he had to seek
permission from management to resume driving his taxi.
Accordingly, Trenchard attempted to contact Cicarelli or
the Buckleys on Sunday, December 14. They were
unavailable and not at the terminal. On the morning of
Monday, December 15, Trenchard inquired from Cicarelli
why he was on the no-car list. Cicarelli responded that a
Mrs. Torello had filed a complaint against him about an
incident which occurred on Tuesday, December 9, and
read her written statement to him. When Trenchard asked
why he had not been notified of the complaint on Tuesday,
the same day of the alleged incident, Cicarelli replied that
he had not received the written statement until Saturday
night. Trenchard then informed Cicarelli that he simply did
not recall any incident on December 9. Cicarelli responded
that he would have to review Trenchard's case. About 2
hours later, Trenchard returned to see Cicarelli who was
2 On May 10, 1976, the Board granted the petition.
644
YELLOW CAB CO.
out in the garage. Returning to the office, Cicarelli first
asked Trenchard whether he remembered the name
"Flood." Vividly recalling this conversation with Cicarelli,
Trenchard testified as follows:
I returned again about two hours later and he was out
in the garage and I went out there and he says to me, he
says, "Do you remember the name Flood?" I says, "No
I don't." He says, "Well come up to the office," he says
"I want to show you a similar incident." We proceed up
to his office and he takes out this incident report and
hands it to me and I'm reading along on a similar
incident and then I look at the date and it's dated 1966,
and I says well, "I can't recall this an incident that
happened over nine years ago." He says, "Well," he
says, "due to the fact that you got in two or three
accidents in the last three or four months and this
incident" he says, "I'm going to have to let you go," so
I said to him, I says, "Well, the last three accidents," I
says "two of them were considered non-preventable." 1
says "by the safety supervisor," so he turned around
and said to me he says, "All accidents are preventable."
I says, "Well, then, we don't have any rights at all
then," so then I said to him, I says well, "Is that the
story," I says "you're going to let me go," he says,
"yes," I walked out.
Trenchard began working for Terminal Taxi in July
1966, and prior to his discharge on December 15 has been
continuously employed there for 9 years. He had been
regularly complimented by several of Respondent's officers
as being an asset to the Company. Testimony indicated
that he was regarded as a "high booker," a driver who
turns in large proceeds. In November 1975, Trenchard
signed a union authorization card. He was active in the
organizational campaign, attending several union meet-
ings. Also he was a longtime friend of Hacket, prime
organizer for the Union. Testimony shows that Respondent
was aware of Trenchard's union involvement and his close
friendship with Hacket.
Of the three accidents in the 5-month period, Trenchard
admitted being at fault in the first accident which occurred
on August 21, 1975, at the intersection of Chapel and
Winthrop. The second accident which occurred September
20, 1975, at the intersection of Frank and West was
determined "nonpreventable" by David Hendrickson,
Respondent's safety supervisor. Cicarelli who had gone to
observe the scene of the accident had tried in vain to
persuade Hendrickson and convince him that the accident
was preventable. Nevertheless, in connection with this
incident, Trenchard had signed a statement to the effect
that involvement in future "preventable" intersection
accidents could be grounds for dismissal. At the bottom of
this statement, Hendrickson had noted that "possible
negligence is doubtful." The third accident, which occurred
December 10, 1975, on Chapel, was also considered
"nonpreventable" and Trenchard was not suspended for
the accident.
On December 9, 1975, 1 day prior to the third accident, a
Dorothy Torello complained that Trenchard went through
a red light and almost hit her on Whitney Avenue.
Terminal Taxi requested that Torello file a written
complaint. Because of Torello's age, a company representa-
tive went to her home and took her statement on December
12, 1975. Trenchard's meter card shows that he was in the
area at the time, but it also indicates that Trenchard
probably made a u-turn one block short of the intersection
at which Torello was standing.
Analysis
1. The alleged unlawful discharge: The contention of the
General Counsel is that Trenchard's discharge was motiva-
ted by his union support and his longstanding friendship
with Hacket, the main union organizer at Respondent's
facilities, in violation of Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the Act.
Respondent argues that Trenchard was fired solely for a
legitimate business reason, his poor driving record. I find
that the General Counsel has shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that antiunion motivation triggered Trench-
ard's discharge. See N.LR.B. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.,
388 U.S. 26 (1967).
Trenchard was active in the Union's organizational
campaign during the autumn of 1975. He had signed a
union card in November, attended several of the Local's
meetings, and discussed the advantages of a union with
other Terminal Taxi employees. Respondent was well
aware of Trenchard's union activity. In early December,
Buckley referred to him as a union "big mouth" because he
had talked with other drivers about the Union. And
Cicarelli's remark that he "heard differently" when Hacket
informed him that Trenchard was not the organizer
illustrates Respondent's suspicions about Trenchard's
union support. In addition, it was known that Trenchard
and Hacket, the Union's prime organizer at the terminal,
were close personal friends.
It was no secret that Respondent was opposed to the
Union and its efforts to organize the employees at
Terminal Taxi. Buckley candidly admitted that the idea of
a union coming into the Company made her angry. In her
conversation with Kelley she made it clear that to her mind
union support meant disloyalty to the Company. Further-
more, in his conversation with Hacket 2 days prior to
Trenchard's discharge, Cicarelli threatened to fire employ-
ees for union activity. The discharge of Trenchard followed
the filing of an election petition by exactly I week.
Trenchard had been employed for 9 years by Terminal
Taxi at the time of his discharge. Prior to the 5-month
period in question, he had a good driving record with only
few accidents. Respondent regarded Trenchard as a high
"booker" and an asset to the Company for which the
Company's officers had complimented him regularly
during his tenure. With such a record, his sudden
discharge, I week after the election petition, was too abrupt
to be unrelated to the Union. Although Trenchard
admitted fault in the first accident in August, both, the
second accident in September and the third in December,
were considered nonpreventable. After the second accident
Trenchard was warned that another intersection accident
could be grounds for dismissal. The third accident could
hardly justify dismissal; it was not an intersection accident,
it was nonpreventable and Trenchard was not given any
time off for it. Finally, the handling of the complaint by
Torello was not according to the usual routine and,
645
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore, suspect. Four persons testified that, once a
complaint is lodged, the driver is ordinarily called into the
office to fill out a report. The driver is usually given the
option of confronting the accuser. Trenchard was not
notified of the complaint until almost a week later, and 3
days after the written statement was received. He was not
able to confront Torello and was not allowed to read her
statement.
General Counsel argues that Torello could not have
recognized Trenchard because his driving records indicate
that he was not at that intersection at the time in question.
Torello could have been mistaken, but I have no reason to
doubt Torello's credibility as a witness and her conviction
that Trenchard almost hit her as she attempted to cross an
intersection. Her testimony, as a deponent prior to the
hearing, was unshakable and her demeanor forthright.
However, I find Respondent's reaction to the Torello
report exaggerated and incongruent with its customary
procedure.
Respondent claims that Trenchard was fired for failure
to abide by company rules. Yet, Respondent admits that it
has no firm rules governing discharges for safety reasons.
Accident frequency and intersection accidents do not
necessarily lead to discharge. To be sure, several drivers
were discharged after one accident, but they had been with
the Company only a short time. Several drivers were not
discharged, even though they had been in more than three
intersection accidents. For example, Bobby Richards,
whose driving record was poor and far worse than
Trenchard's, was not discharged. Another employee,
Patricia Sutherland, was involved in two intersection
accidents and one rear end collision in a 3-month period
and was not discharged, even though the reports indicate
that she was negligent in both intersection accidents.
Marianne Davis was not discharged until after she had
accumulated a record of five accidents within a period of 5
months. Frank Raucci was not fired after four accidents.
Only his failure to report an accident finally prompted his
discharge. And Brian Lawler was involved in three
accidents during a 3-month period and suspected of having
been drinking on the job. Yet, he was merely suspended
during the pendency of an accident investigation and
finally left his employment rather than accept the suspen-
sion.
Im my opinion, Trenchard was singled out to serve as an
example to other union supporters, particularly his friend
Hacket, the main union organizer. Trenchard clearly
received disparate treatment which indicates that but for
his union activity he would not have been discharged. Even
if Respondent had succeeded in establishing a good reason
for the discharge, General Counsel has shown that his
union support and his close friendship with the main union
organizer was at least partially a reason for Respondent's
action against him. The Board has held: Where the
discharge of an employee is motivated in any part
whatsoever by the purpose to discourage legitimate union
or concerted activity, the existence of contemporaneous,
legitimate grounds for such discharge affords no defense to
a finding of an unfair labor practice on the part of the
employer. Hugh H. Wilson Corporation, 171 NLRB 1040
(1968), enfd. 414 F.2d 1345 (C.A. 3, 1969); N.L.R.B. v.
Whitefield Pickle Company, 374 F.2d 576 (C.A. 5, 1967);
N.LRB. v. Barberton Plastics Products, Inc., 354 F.2d 66
(C.A. 6, 1965). Thus, the discharge by Terminal Taxi of
Trenchard, which was motivated by his union activities,
was a violation of Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act.
2. Alleged 8(a)(1) threats by Shirley Buckley: Buckley,
president of Terminal Taxi, candidly stated that she was
angry about her employees' union support. She considered
it unfair, in the nature of "backbiting," and evidence of
disloyalty for the employees to vote for the Union. She
unequivocally stated to her employees, especially Trench-
ard and Kelley, that the Company could not afford a union
and would probably close down if the Union were voted in.
She offered and, in certain instances, did support her
statements with documents showing the Company's predic-
ament with the insurance company and the high cost of
gasoline.
Her testimony was forthright, perfectly candid, and
credible. And if I were to examine her conduct separate
and apart from the other allegations in the complaint, I
might have concluded that no violation of Section 8(a)(l)
was shown. An employer is free to communicate to her
employees her general views about unionism and specifi-
cally indicate her preference as long as no threats of
reprisals or force or promise of a benefit is made. Even her
statements, to the effect that the Company would have to
close down if the Union came in and a strike were called,
can be considered a prediction of economic realities,
particularly where, as here, such predictions are accompa-
nied by a revelation of the Company's financial records. In
short, the question here is exceedingly narrow as to
whether Respondent's president uttered threats or mere
factual predictions intertwined with expressions of personal
preferences.
The balance of Respondent's practices swing in favor of
prohibited conduct when all surrounding circumstances
are considered. First and foremost in this consideration is
Respondent's unlawful conduct of discriminatorily dis-
charging Trenchard. This discharge must have created the
intended effect on the employees, particularly to Hacket,
the main union organizer and friend of Trenchard. Second,
the record shows that the Company had no firm and
predictable rules. Under such a system, employees feel
relatively more insecure and are inclined to view their
employer's statements with more suspicion and apprehen-
sion. Third, the statements under scrutiny were made by
Respondent's president and major stockholder which may
have indicated to the employees that these statements were
not meant as idle conversation but meaningful remarks
with obvious design.
For these reasons, I find that Buckley's conduct violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. N.L-RB. v. Gissel Packing Co.,
Inc., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969), rehearing denied 396 U.S.
869.
3. Alleged 8(a)(l) threats by Daniel Cicarelli: General
Counsel contends that Respondent, through its vice
president, Daniel Cicarelli, threatened employees with
discharge because of their union activities. The record
shows that Cicarelli conferred with driver Hacket on
December 13, 1975, about the possible discharge of
Trenchard and the consequences of any organizational
646
YELLOW CAB CO.
attempts by the employees. Cicarelli began the conversa-
tion with a discussion of the Company's insurance costs
and the financial consequences if a union were selected as
the bargaining representative for the employees. Cicarelli,
disclosing financial statements to Hacket, attempted to
convince him that the Company could not afford a union.
The conversation then turned to driving records, and
Cicarelli ignored Hacket's remarks about the poor driving
record of Bobby Richards. Instead, Cicarelli focused
attention on Trenchard's record of three accidents. While
Hacket argued that two of those accidents were regarded as
nonpreventable, Cicarelli merely responded that all acci-
dents are preventable and simply refused to discuss the
details of Trenchard's driving records any further. When
Hacket reminded him that he, Hacket, and not Trenchard,
was the union organizer, Cicarelli said he had "heard
differently."
The record further discloses that Hacket had otherwise
never been consulted on a management decision as to
whether an employee should be discharged on the basis of
a bad driving record. Clearly, since Hacket was both the
Union's prime organizer and Trenchard's good friend,
Cicarelli applied subtle pressure to convince Hacket to
discontinue his efforts on behalf of the Union. The
discharge of Trenchard was solely within the control of the
employer and the remarks about Trenchard's driving
record, the statements about the Company's inability to
afford a union, and the veiled threat against Trenchard,
were threats within the meaning of Gissel, supra, and in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent, the Terminal Taxi Company, is an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) of
the Act.
2. The Union, Local 443, a/w International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By unlawfully discharging John Trenchard on
December 15, 1975, Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. Respondent, by its president, Shirley Buckley, and
its vice president, Daniel Cicarelli, violated Section 8(aX)(I)
of the Act by interfering with, restraining, or coercing
several of its employees because of their efforts to form,
join, or assist a labor organization.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, I
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist from its unlawful practices. I further recommend
that Respondent be ordered to post an appropriate notice
3 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.
and take affirmative action in order to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
In addition, I recommend that John Trenchard be
offered full and immediate reinstatement with backpay,
computed as provided in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138
NLRB 716 (1962).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record and pursuant to
Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend the issuance of the
following recommended:
ORDER3
The Respondent, The Terminal Taxi Company, d/b/a
Yellow Cab Co., New Haven, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in any labor organization
by discriminatorily discharging any of its employees or
discriminating in any other manner with respect to their
hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(b) Unlawfully 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 will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer John Trenchard immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if such position no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, and make him
whole for any loss of pay that he may have suffered by
reason of the Respondent's discrimination against him in
accordance with the recommendations set forth herein
under "The Remedy."
(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,
personnel records and reports, and all other records
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its New Haven, Connecticut, terminal copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by it immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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."
647