Arby's

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 53 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

have suffered due to the discrimination practiced
against them by paying each of them a sum equal to
what he would have earned, less any net interim
earnings, plus interest."
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
American Diversified Foods, Inc., d/b/a Arby's and
Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria Employees and Bartenders'
International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 58. Case
25-CA-10077
January 3, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDALE
On September 14, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed an answering brief.
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, to
modify his remedy,' and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Ameri-
can Diversified Foods, Inc., d/b/a Arby's, Blooming-
ton, Indiana, its officers agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said
recommended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph (b):
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer John Fry and Carl Steffes immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions or, if such
positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and
make them whole for any loss of earnings they may
I Member Jenkins sees no need to reach the issue of. and does not rely on.
the absence of subjective indicia of supervisory status as discussed in the
section of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision entitled "Analysis."
'See Isis Plumbing d Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), for rationale on
interest payments.
We hereby modify the recommended Order to include both the full cease-
and-desist and reinstatement language traditionally used by the Board, which
the Administrative Law Judge inadvertently omitted.
247 NLRB No. 9
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing at which all parties had an
opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses, The National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this
notice.
The National Labor Relations Act gives all
employees these rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain as a group through representa-
tives 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 discharge any employees, in-
cluding shift managers, because they engaged in
union activities protected by Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer John Fry and Carl Steffes
immediate and full reinstatement to their former
positions or, if such positions no longer exist, to
substantially equivalent positions, without preju-
dice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make
them whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered due to the discrimination practiced
against them by paying each of them a sum equal
to what he would have earned, less any net
interim earnings, plus interest.
All our employees are free to become or remain, or
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of a
labor organization.
AMERICAN DIVERSIFIED FOODS, INC.,
D/B/A ARBY'S
ARBY'S 53
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARl_ H. B ;CHMANN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case arose upon the filing of an unfair labor practice charge
against Respondent American Diversified Foods, Inc.,
d/b/a Arby's, by Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria Employees and
Bartenders' International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 58
(herein called Local 58). The resulting complaint, dated
September 12, 1978, charged Respondent with violations of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (herein called the Act). Respondent timely filed
an answer on September 22, 1978, denying all substantive
allegations concerning unfair labor practices' and asserting
that the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the complaint.:
The complaint was the subject of a hearing held before me
on January 11, 1979, at Bloomington, Indiana. Post-hearing
briefs were filed by both sides.
Upon the entire record of the case, including the hearing
transcript and the briefs, and from my observation of the
witnesses, I make the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, American Diversified Foods, Inc., d/b/a
Arby's, is, and was at all times material, an Indiana
corporation with its principal offices located at Blooming-
ton, Indiana. It is engaged in the operation of a chain of
Arby's fast-food restaurant franchises in three districts, five
stores in the Indianapolis area six in central Indiana, and
several in the Bloomington area. During the past year,
Respondent received at its Indiana facilities goods and
materials valued in excess of $50,000 from States other than
Indiana, and sold and distributed products with a gross
value exceeding $500,000. Respondent is, and was at all
times material, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria Employees and Bartenders' Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 58, is admittedly a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
Respondent is charged with violating Section 8(a)(l) and
(3) of the Act by interfering with, restraining, and coercing
its employees' exercise of rights guaranteed them under
Section 7 of the Act. Specifically, it is alleged that on August
4, 1978, Respondent, through its executive vice president,
Paul W. Mobley, discharged employees John W. Fry and
Carl Curt Steffes because of their union organizing activities
at Respondent's Bloomington East facility located at 2713
East Third Street, Bloomington, Indiana. The single issue to
be resolved concerns the employment status of Fry and
Steffes as "shift managers." Unless they were supervisory or
managerial employees without protection under the Act for
Respondent subsequently stipulated to the complaint's allegation that
employees John W. Fry and Carl Curt Steffes had been discharged because of
their union organizing activities.
Respondent's position expressed in its answer was that employees Fry and
their organizing activities, their discharges constituted clear
violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
The personnel at each of the Arby's restaurants generally
include a store or unit manager, one or two assistant
managers, three to five shift managers, and approximately
25 counter employees. Some units also include management
trainees.
The unit manager is a salaried managerial employee, hired
by corporate management. He is the person primarily
responsible for the store unit and oversees all aspects of its
operation, including the hiring, firing, and discipling of unit
employees, the setting of salaries and wage increases, the
establishing of employee work schedules, the evaluating of
employee performance, the issuing of written reprimands
and warnings, the ordering and maintaining of inventory
bookkeeping functions, and miscellaneous other responsibili-
ties. The assistant manager is also a salaried employee, who
aides the manager in carrying out his responsibilities. He
may perform any number of the manager's functions. There
is no question that unit and assistant managers are supervi-
sory, managerial employees. In addition to their salaries,
these employees receive life and hospitalization insurance
benefits, bonus opportunities, paid vacations and holidays,
and 30-percent food discounts. The unit managers are also
entitled to the use of a company car.
Counter employees are generally part-time workers and
students in many cases. They prepare and sell the food and
perform any number of other routine work tasks, such as
cleaning and maintaining the store during a particular shift.
They are hired by and work under the direct supervision of
the unit and/or assistant managers. Counter employees are
paid on an hourly basis; they receive no paid vacations,
holidays, or work breaks; and they are not eligible for
company health or life insurance benefits. Theytare entitled
to a free meal every 4 hours, receive a 20-percent food
discount, and are eligible for Christmas bonuses.
Shift managers are generally part-time senior employees
who started working for Respondent as regular counter
employees. Once promoted, they still work shifts as counter
employees 40 to 60 percent of the time and on such shifts
perform the same tasks as all other counter employees.
During the remainder of their working time, usually evening
and weekend shifts in the absence of unit or assistant
managers, these employees function as "duty managers."
Shift managers are paid on an hourly basis at a rate of 35
cents an hour more than counter employees in their role as
duty managers and only 20 cents more when they are
working as counter employees. In addition to receiving the
benefits granted to regular counter employees, shift manag-
ers receive paid work breaks and a week's paid vacation after
I year. They are also eligible for monthly performance
bonuses of up to $30.
In July 1978 employees at Respondent's Bloomington
East store began a union organizational effort. John Fry, a
shift manager at the unit, had obtained union authorization
cards from a representative of Local 58 and was spearhead-
ing the organizing drive. Carl Steffes, another shift manager
Steffes were supervisors and that therefore their union organizing activities
were not protected by the Act. At the hearing Respondent was granted
permission to amend its answer to assert that the employees involved were
managerial employees.
54
ARBY'S
at the facility, was also actively involved. Respondent
subsequently learned of the organizational effort and of the
involvement of Shift Managers Fry and Steffes. On August
4, 1978, Fry and Steffes were called to Respondent's home
office where they met with Respondent's president, Steven
Hughes, Vice Presidents Paul Mobley and Charles Peelle,
the director of Arby's operations, Wayne Shanower, and the
unit manager of the Arby's East store, Patrick Wright. Fry
and Steffes were told that they were being terminated
because they were involved in union activities while em-
ployed as supervisors. Both Fry and Steffes later testified
that this was the first time that they had been told that they
were considered to be supervisors. In letters to Fry and
Steffes, dated August 3 and 4, respectively, Respondent's
Executive Vice President Paul W. Mobley formally notified
the employees of their discharges: "[Ylou are terminated
from American Diversified Foods, Inc., on the grounds that,
while you have acted in a supervisory capacity, you have
been instrumental in soliciting signatures on union cards for
the purpose of organizing employees at various Bloomington
Arby's units."' There is no indication that any other of
Respondent's employees were fired because of the union
activities.
The typical shift of a shift manager assigned to work as a
duty manager would proceed as follows: The shift manager
would "clock in" to work for an evening shift at 4 p.m. He
would have been assigned to work as the duty manager by
the unit manager. The unit manager or assistant manager
who had worked the day shift would still be there and would
remain until approximately 5 p.m. The shift manager would
first check the work schedule for the day, which was made
up by the unit manager, and make necessary changes.
Changes required the approval of the unit manager.' The
shift manager would next fill in a work assignment sheet,
using the information on the schedule. The positions
available include four cash register positions, two meat slicer
positions, one employee to clean up, and one general
position. The determining factors in assigning the employees
to their positions were the employee's age and the length of
his or her scheduled shift. After posting the work assign-
ments, the shift manager would check the amount of food
prepared. One of the shift manager's primary responsibilities
involved cooking the roast beef, the main ingredient of food
products at the restaurant. The shift manager would next
assist the counter employees whose shifts were ending in
checking out register drawers. After the counter employees
had counted the money and compared the amount with the
revenue report from the cash register, the shift manager
would doublecheck the count and record any discrepancies
between the count and the revenue report. Under company
policy, employees were subject to reprimands from the unit
manager for cash shortages or overages. The shift manager
would next return $85 to the cash drawer and issue the
drawer to the employee assigned for the next shift. The
excess cash receipts were placed in a safe or later deposited
at the bank. Shift managers were frequently responsible for
filling out deposit slips and making the bank deposits.
'G. C. Exhs. 2 and 3.
' Shift managers or counter employees occasionally had to replace no-shows
on the shift by contacting other employees.
After the shift had started, the shift manager continued
with his primary responsibility; namely, to insure that the
shift ran smoothly. To this end, shift managers spent
between 60 and 80 percent of their time doing manual labor,'
filling in for employees on breaks, helping out during busy
periods, washing dishes, cooking, and cleaning.
Serious problems which might develop during the shift
were reported to the unit manager. In the event business was
slow and the unit manager had given permission, shift
managers were authorized to ask employees if they wished to
leave earlier than their scheduled times. Generally, the
employees scheduled to work the shortest shifts were asked
first, but usually someone would volunteer to leave early.
Shift managers excused counter employees from duty occa-
sionally when there were no volunteers. Likewise, when an
employee complained of illness and requested to leave, the
shift manager was authorized to grant permission. In most
cases the decision on whether to leave was generally left to
the employee himself.
Shift managers were responsible for closing the store at
the end of the shift. All shift managers had keys to the store
and were assisted in the closing by counter employees.
Closing involved a number of routine cleaning and prepara-
tory functions to have the store ready for the following day's
operation. There is no indication that the counter employees
involved required any direction from the shift manager in
completing the closing operation.
The shift manager's other duties near the end of a shift
involved the taking of inventory and filling out a daily log
form. In accomplishing this task the shift manager obtained
reports from the counter employees as to the amount of
supplies depleted during the shift. The information was then
turned over to the manager responsible for ordering any
needed supplies. The shift manager, however, was not
authorized to order supplies; only in an emergency could a
shift manager call another unit and borrow needed supplies
under a company interunit plan. The daily log form
contained comments relating to the volume of business,
smoothness of shift operation, and any problems or unusual
occurrences. It also included comments on the performance
of some employees. The employee comments were general in
nature, indicating, for example, whether an employee had a
good or bad day, was fast or slow, or had acted improperly.
They did not include recommendations designed to effectu-
ate employee action or the resolution of employee problems.
Analysis
Viewing the factual circumstances of this case within the
context of relevant statutory and case law, I am mindful that
the issue is narrow and that the question is a close one. But I
have concluded that the shift managers at Respondent's
Arby's facilities are nonsupervisory, nonmanagerial employ-
ees within the meaning and protection of the Act.
Respondent is correct in asserting that the Act excludes
supervisors and managerial employees from the protection
of the Act. The definition of "employee" contained in
Section 2(3) of the Act excludes "any individual employed as
' John Fry and Carl Steffes testified that 80 percent of their time as duty
managers was devoted to manual labor, while Patrick Wright estimated the
same to be 60 percent.
55
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a supervisor." Section 2(11) of the Act defines the term
"supervisor" as:
[A]ny individual having authority, in the interest of
the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other
employees or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to recommend such
action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise
of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.
Under this definition one or more of the enumerated
powers must be exercised "in the interest of the employer";
persons who exercise such power in their own interest are
not supervisors under the Act. See Stop & Shop Companies,
Inc.. Medi Mart Division v. N.L.R.B., 548 F.2d 17, 19 (Ist
Cir. 1977).
Although the Act does not expressly exclude managerial
employees, the Supreme Court in N.L.R.B. v. Bell Aerospace
Co., Division of Textron, Inc., 416 U.S. 267, 286-287 (1974),
concluded that managerial employees-those who formulate
and effectuate management policies by expressing and
making operative the decisions of their employer-are also
excluded from the Act's coverage.
A careful analysis of the shift manager's authority
indicates, however, that he possesses none of the above
enumerated indicia sufficiently to fall within the definition of
a supervisor or a managerial employee. The record shows
that the shift manager is without effective authority to hire,
fire, transfer, or discipline employees. Shift managers do
occasionally recommend that certain people be hired, and on
one occasion Carl Steffes told the unit manager that an
employee should be fired; but it is also true that all
employees were encouraged to recommend friends or ac-
quaintances who might become good employees, and that
frequently employees made such recommendations. Steffes'
recommendation to management that a probationary em-
ployee who failed to show up for work be fired involved a
unique situation where all employees felt overworked as a
result of the failure of this employee to report for work. The
remark appeared to have been made in anger and was a one-
time occurrence. Neither the recommendations to hire
friends or acquaintances nor Steffes' remark can be consid-
ered as indicative of supervisory authority, since all such
recommendations were still subject to the independent
investigation and decision by the unit manager. Butler's Shoe
Corporation, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Zale Corpora-
tion, 208 NLRB 404 (1974). Similarly, the fact that on one
occasion Steffes told an employee that he was "out of line"
after the employee made a disparaging statement concerning
one of the store's products did not show that shift managers
possessed and exercised authority to discipline or reprimand
counter employees.
The duty of shift managers to fill out work assignment
sheets also does not indicate the independent exercise of
supervisory authority. There were seven or eight counter
employee positions to be assigned on each shift. Four of
these were cash register positions, involving similarly routine
work functions of taking orders and recording sales. Two
other positions involved meat slicing and microwave oven
operations. These jobs could only be performed by employ-
ees who had reached a minimum age under state law. The
remaining assignment involved general cleanup and utility
work.
In addition to the age restrictions applicable to some
positions, the shift managers were also confined in their job
assignment functions by the employees' work schedules,
which were established by the manager. The length of a
particular employee's scheduled shift appeared to have been
the determining factor in an employee's work position. The
nature of the store's operation required that certain positions
be staffed until either closing time or the end of the shift, and
only employees scheduled to work the entire time could be
assigned to those positions. With such restraints on their
assignment function, it cannot be said that shift managers
exercised any meaningful discretion in assigning jobs.
Rather, the indication was that shift managers operated
within very narrow and specific company policies and
guidelines.
In the absence of any primary indicia of supervisory
authority, it becomes necessary to balance the secondary
factors relating to an employee's supervisory authority.
Under this test, shift managers function like leadmen in the
absence of management, and "merely insure that their shifts
function within established guidelines." Howard Johnson
Company, 236 NLRB 1206 (1978). In Howard Johnson,
supra, the Board found "relief managers" at a restaurant to
be nonsupervisory employees under the Act. The relief
managers were hourly paid employees who received essen-
tially the same company benefits as other employees and
whose names appeared on a weekly work schedule. They
insured that the shifts ran smoothly by assisting other
employees with their work, allowing sick employees to leave
work, taking customer complaints, checking employees'
timecards, and contacting the manager in emergencies. In
addition, they made recommendations as to hiring and firing
subject to independent examination by the manager. The
Board found that these functions, which in many ways
parallel those of the shift managers here, did not indicate
that the relief managers responsibly directed the work of
employees or otherwise exercised the independent judgment
of a supervisor. Similarly, in Pneurno Corporation, d/b/a
P& C (Cross Co.), 228 NLRB 1443 (1977), the assistant
manager of a retail food store was found to be a nonsupervi-
sory employee. In that case, as in this one, the employee in
question maintained the store in the manager's absence, was
hourly paid at a rate higher than other employees but lower
than salaried management, had keys to the store, made bank
deposits, trained new employees, and permitted employees
to leave work early. In addition, unlike the present case, the
employee in P & C participated in the hiring of one employee
and the firing of another. It was held that, on the whole, the
employee merely exercised authority in a routine manner. In
Butlers' Shoe Corporation, supra, a salesman who also
functioned as assistant manager was found to be nonsupervi-
sory. He had been charged with insuring that the store ran
properly in the manager's absence. A store manual provided
clear guidelines for the operation of the store, and the
employee had never been given specific instructions defining
his supervisory responsibility. He had no authority to hire,
fire, or discipline the other salesmen. He received 10 percent
more pay than other salesmen who were familiar with their
work and required little or no direction from the assistant
56
ARBY'S
manager. He was responsible for the cash in the register and
depositing it at a bank, and he closed the store at the end of
the day. He also had recommended the disciplining of an
employee on one occasion, was instructed to report any
incidents to the manager, and was authorized to handle
customer complaints. See also Footes Dixie Dandy. Inc., 223
NLRB 1363 (1976), and Plastic Industrial Products, Inc.,
139 NLRB 1066 (1962).
The record is somewhat ambiguous on the question of
how shift managers were perceived by counter employees
and management. One counter employee testified that she
felt shift managers were not supervisors, but she then went
on to indicate that they did "supervise." The same witness
also testified that counter employees were told to cooperate
with shift managers, who were to help the counter employ-
ees "work more smoothly."
There is evidence that Respondent viewed shift managers
as separate and distinct from salaried management. such as
the unit and assistant managers. Shift managers were subject
to a different hiring process and pay benefit plan. They were
not included in Respondent's management meetings, al-
though they did meet biweekly with the unit management;
and shift managers were not included in Respondent's list of
management personnel (G.C. Exh. 5). In a carefully worded
speech to counter employees made during the union orga-
nizing effort, Respondent-when urging employees to dis-
cuss their problems with management-included unit and
assistant managers, but did not include shift managers (G.C.
Exh. 7).
The record indicates that shift managers Fry and Steffes
did not consider themselves to be supervisory or managerial
personnel. Aside from the fact that they spearheaded the
union organizing effort, the picture that emerges of their
dealings with counter employees reflects a relationship
where shift managers, as senior, more experienced employ-
ees familiar with the store's operational routine, helped the
counter employees to work smoothly in a cooperative rather
than a controlling spirit, frequently performing the same
work function as the counter employees and working regular
shifts as counter employees themselves. Shift managers Fry
and Steffes were at most leadmen, who, in the manager's
absence, insured that their shifts operated smoothly within
narrow confines of specific company policies. They clearly
had no role in formulating or affecting management policy,
nor did they have sufficient discretion to perform outside of
Respondent's established policies. To the contrary, shift
managers were held personally accountable for rule infrac-
tions to the same extent of severity as if they had committed
the violations themselves (Resp. Exh. 4), which clearly
shows the lack of their own discretion vis-a-vis company
policy.
Unlike Chart House, Inc. d/b/a Burger King, 223 NLRB
100 (1976), where an assistant manager was held to be a
supervisor, or cases relied upon by Respondent, such as
Colorflo Decorator Products. Inc., 228 NLRB 408 (1977),
finding leadwomen to be supervisors, or Shop-Rire Foods,
Inc. d/b/a Jif-E-Mart, 205 NLRB 1076 (1973), finding store
managers to be supervisors within the Act, I cannot find that
I 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
shift managers fall within this category. Accordingly, I
conclude that John Fry and Carl Steffes were not supervisors
within the purview of Section 2(1 1) of the Act and that they
were entitled to the protection of the Act.
CONCI.USIONS OF LAW
1. American Diversified Foods, Inc., d/b/a Arby's, is, and
was at all times material, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Hotel, Motel, Cafeteria Employees and Bartenders'
International Union, AFL-CIO, Local No. 58, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. John Fry and Carl Steffes, employed as shift managers,
were not supervisors within the definition of Section 2(1 1) of
the Act.
4. By discharging John Fry and Carl Steffes on August 4,
1978, because of their union organizing activities, Respon-
dent engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
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
therefrom. I further recommend that Respondent be ordered
to take affirmative action and to post an appropriate notice
in order to effectuate the policies of the Act.
In addition, I recommend that Respondent be ordered to
(1) offer John Fry and Carl Steffes immediate reinstatement,
without prejudice to their seniority rights and other privi-
leges, and (2) provide Fry and Steffes with backpay and
interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in
F W. Woolworth Company. 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and
Florida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
sions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I recommend the issuance of the following:
ORDER,
The Respondent, American Diversified Foods, Inc.,
d/b/a Arby's, Bloomington, Indiana, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging its employees, including shift managers,
because of their union activity.
(b) Unlawfully interfering with, restraining, or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer John Fry and Carl Steffes immediate and full
reinstatement to their former positions or, if such positions
no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, and
make them whole for any loss of pay that they may have
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.
57
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suffered by reason of Respondent's unlawful conduct in
accordance with the recommendations set forth herein in the
section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Provide the Regional Director, upon his request, with
all written and oral information relevant to the computation
of backpay and the requirement for reinstatement of John
Fry and Carl Steffes.
(c) Post at its Arby's stores in Bloomington, Indiana,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's autho-
' In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
rized 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. Reason-
able 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 25, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."