Colders Furniture

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 941 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

COLDERS FURNITURE
Henry Colder Co, Inc d/b/a Colders Furniture and
Steven Wasechek Case 30-CA-9854
February 9, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEVENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On August 18, 1988, Administrative Law Judge
Marion C Ladwig issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief and the General Counsel filed an answering
brief to the exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
as modified 2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Henry Colder Co, Inc, d/b/a Colders
Furniture, West Allis, Wisconsin, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b)
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act "
2 Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find
mgs The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
Further we find without merit the Respondents contention in Its ex
cepttons that the judge s decision demonstrated bias against the Respond
ent After a careful examination of the entire record we are satisfied that
this allegation is without ment There is no basis for finding that bias and
partiality existed
2 We shall modify the judge s narrow cease and-desist language in par
1(b) of his recommended Order to conform to that traditionally used by
the Board
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
941
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against any of you for engaging in protected
concerted activity
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL offer Steven Wasechek immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent posi-
tion, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE
WILL make him whole for any loss of earnings or
other benefits resulting from his discharge, less any
net interim earnings, plus interest
WE WILL notify him that we have removed from
our files any reference to his discharge and that the
discharge will not be used against him in any way
HENRY COLDER CO, INC D/B/A
COLDERS FURNITURE
Gerald McKinney Esq, for the General Counsel
Fred G Groiss Esq (Quarles & Brady), of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin for the Respondent
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge This
case was tried in Milwaukee Wisconsin on May 4 1988
The charge was filed December 2, 1987,1 and the coin
plaint was issued January 28, 1988
The Company s commission furniture salesmen were
working a 9 1/2 hour day, extending from 10 am to
9 30 p m with 2 hours off for lunch Since February or
March they had been required to report at 9 45 a in for
a sales meeting When a new sales manager in October
advanced the starting time to 9 30 a in and later required
them to come in at 9 a in for a training meeting and at 8
a in for a special meeting-without any compensation
before 10 a in -there was much complaining of hardship
and unfairness Steven Wasechek, one of the top sales
men, was the most outspoken and led the protests On
November 4 when he took the complaint about the 8
am meeting to the vice president, the Company dis
charged him purportedly because he (like others) failed
to clock out for lunch that day
' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise indicated
292 NLRB No 103
942 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The primary issue is whether the Company, the Re-
spondent, unlawfully discharged Wasechek for engaging
in protected concerted activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
On the entire record,2 including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, a corporation, sells furniture and appli-
ances at retail at its West Allis, Wisconsin store where it
annually derives over $500,000 in gross revenues ad re-
ceives goods valued over $50,000 directly from outside
the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Concerted Activity
1. Protesting 9:30 a.m. starting time
The Company's approximately 35 furniture sales repre-
sentatives were "paid on a straight commission basis"
(Tr. 16-17). They were assigned to work 9-1/2 hours a
day, extending from 10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., with 2 hours
off for lunch (Tr. 116-117, 240). Beginning in February
or March they were required to attend a sales meeting at
9:45 a.m. (Tr. 117).
About the second week in October a new sales manag-
er, James Wilke, announced at one of the 9:45 sales
meetings that the salespeople were required to arrive by
9:30 a.m., a half hour before the 10 o'clock store opening
(Tr. 118-119, 186-187, 222, 242). This required them to
be present 10 hours a day over a 12-hour period (from
9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.), with the 2-hour lunchbreak. On
October 20, in a memo to each of them (announcing "Ef-
fective October 21, 1987 all salespeople should punch in
and out when arriving and when leaving the store" for
lunch), Vice President Robert Felker added: "Please re-
member, all salespeople are to arrive at least one-half
hour before store opening" (R. Exh. 1). I discredit, as a
fabrication, Wilke's denial that he made any change in
the starting time and his claim that "As far as I know,
that was always the policy" that the "people were sup-
posed to be there at 9:30" (Tr. 19).
Employee grumbling and complaining immediately
began when Sales Manager Wilke announced the 9:30
a.m. starting time at the sales meeting . Salesman Steven
Wasechek was the most outspoken. Wasechek (who im-
pressed me most favorably as an honest, forthright wit-
ness) credibly testified (Tr. 118-120):
Q. What if anything occurred after this an-
nouncement was made by Mr. Wilke?
2 Excluding the proposed correction at Tr. 140, the General Counsel's
unopposed motion to correct the transcript, dated June 7, 1988, is grant-
ed and received in evidence as G.C. Exh. 3.
A. We said that we didn't like the earlier starting
time and we didn't feel it was necessary. I specifi-
cally asked Mr. Wilke why we had to come in 15
minutes earlier than we were doing in the past . .. .
Then I asked him what about the responsibilities
we have and the long hours we are working, and he
said this is just the way it is going to be. I contin-
ued to pursue him as far as whose responsibility I
was for the change . . . and why this change as a
whole, when what we were doing in the past was
working fine. I was asking him what was wrong
with the past system, why do we need more than 15
minutes. Mr. Wilke became upset and pointed his
finger at me and said, "If you have got a problem
with this, Steve, you can take it up with me later."
I left it at that. [Emphasis added.]
A number of other people were speaking up. In
fact, the more I spoke up, the more other people
would speak up along. . . . I was speaking up lead-
ing this discussion with Mr. Wilke and then others
were pitching in, putting in their points on how
they felt about the situation. There was so much
coming out that [Wilke] became upset and kind of
shut me down and pointed the finger at me.
Other employees confirmed that Wasechek was the
most outspoken and that Wilke reacted angrily (Tr. 189-
190, 222, 242-243). Wilke, although denying that he an-
nounced any change in the starting time, testified (Tr.
30-31) that several employees spoke up when he "re-
minded" the employees in October about the 9:30 a.m.
starting time. He named three of the complainers, but
omitted Wasechek's name. I discredit, as another fabrica-
tion, Wilke's claim, "I don't recall" that Wasechek ever
voiced any protest concerning this policy. (By his de-
meanor on the stand, Wilke appeared willing to fabricate
any testimony that might help the Company's cause.)
In Salisbury Hotel, 283 NLRB 685, 687 (1987), the
Board found that "the employees were engaged in a con-
certed effort to convince the [employer] to change its
lunch hour policy" when, as the office manager testified,
"everybody balked" at the new policy and was "all up in
arms" and the "employees complained among themselves
and most, including [the discharged employee], brought
the complaint directly" to the manager. As the Board
held, the discharged employee's "complaints to other
employees, as well as her individual complaints to the
[Employer], were part of that concerted effort." I there-
fore find that salesman Wasechek and other employees
were engaged in concerted activity when they com-
plained to Sales Manager Wilke at the sales meeting
about the 9:30 a.m. starting time. In the Board's language
in Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497 (1984) (Meyers
I), Wasechek's activity was "engaged in with . . . other
employees, and not solely by and on behalf of the em-
ployee himself' and was therefore "concerted."
Moreover, Wasechek's use of the pronoun "we" in his
protests at the meeting clearly apprised Wilke that Wase-
chek was speaking not solely on his own behalf but also
on behalf of other employees. As held in Meyers Indus-
COLDERS FURNITURE
tries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986) (Meyers If), our definition
of concerted activity in Meyers I encompasses those cir
cumstances" of individual employees bringing truly
group complaints to the attention of management
2 Protesting 9 a m training meeting
The concerted protest continued at a sales meeting in
late October when Sales Manager Wilke announced a
training meeting with May & Company representative on
November 4 at 9 am (Tr 22) There was much grum
bling and several of the employees spoke up in protest
They said they felt the past training procedure was very
effective, dividing the salesmen into two groups and
starting the first training meeting around 10 am, during
store hours (Tr 121-124, 189-190, 244)
Wasechek was the most outspoken (Tr 190) As he
credibly testified (Tr 124-125)
I started asking Mr Wilke what about our personal
responsibilities and the long hours we were working,
and the strain that this is putting on us And for
what reason did we have to have it at 9 in the morn
ing when the other system had worked very effec
tively
I said , Who is responsible for this change, and
why do we have to have the change? Were you part
of the change? Did you create the change?' He
said , 'No " [Salesman ] Bob Raffel asked him a
number of questions on this and we were bombard
ing him very hard with questions Other people
were jumping in on this and asking him different
questions as far as the responsibility and the un
necessanness of it , and why it had to be so much
earlier , and the long hours we were working [Em
phasis added ]
When Wilke was asked on the stand if there were `any
complaints registered about that announcement by
anyone he answered , There may have been I don't
recall anybody in particular ' I discredit the denial
Again Wasechek was taking a leading role in the em
ployees protected concerted activity
3 Protesting 8 a in special meeting
On November 4, when the Company announced a
meeting at 8 a in -on the salesmen s own time , 2 hours
before the store opening-Wasechek went further in
leading the protests taking the group complaint to the
vice president
After the 9 am May & Company training meeting
that morning , Sales Manager Wilke placed a memo
(signed by Vice President Felker) in the salesmen s
lunchroom -mailboxes announcing the early meeting The
memo required all the salespeople to attend the 8 am
meeting either on Monday or Tuesday of the next week
(November 9 or 10) whether they were scheduled to be
off those days or not (Tr 22-23, 134 ) Wasechek and
seven other salesmen were off both days (Tr 132-133 R
Exh 3) The memo did not disclose the purpose of the
special meeting (The meeting was being called to intro
duce a new credit card program (Tr 47) )
943
Some of the employees became very upset and began
gathering in the lunchroom area around 11 or 11 30 a in
(Tr 131-132, 191-192, 246-249) When Wasechek read
his copy of the memo , as he credibly testified (Tr 135-
136)
Many of [the salesmen ] were holding copies of the
memos and talking about how they felt , that this
was getting to be ridiculous We are starting at 9 30,
9, and now 8 , and people were talking about how it
was affecting their lives There was no explanation
whatsoever to this , and people were very upset
A number of people in that area were complain
ing Dietrich , a fellow salesperson , was saying she
felt that this is getting ridiculous and she had some
personal problems with it herself, with the starting
times changing earlier and earlier Then I heard
somebody say, Somebody has got to do something
about this ' I thought it was Thea [Dietrich], but it
could have been somebody else
I decided I was going to go to Mr Wilke and find
out what this thing was all about
Salesperson Dietrich credibly testified (Tr 247-248)
The salespeople that were in there were talking
about it , what were we going to do about this Not
only this , but about the early starting times, the
[May & Company] mattress meeting , and the con
tinual short notices for meetings, et cetera
And then we said something has to be done about
this We have to do something
Wasechek left the lunchroom and approached Sales
Manager Wilke who was standing alone near the end of
the sales counter Wasechek credibly testified (Tr 136-
137, 139)
I had the memo in my hand and I said , Why does
this have to be this way? He said , Do you want
to tell Mr Felker that? And I said, 'I don't know
I just want to know why this has got to be this
way " He said, All right, let s go He started es
corting me to Mr Felker s office
[Upon arriving outside the office] Mr Wilke said to
me, Are you sure you want to go through with
this?" I said , We [emphasis added] just want to
know why this has got to be this way " He said
Well, then maybe you shouldn t work here then,
Steve if that is the way you feel
I said , "Are you threatening to fire me?' And he
didn 't respond
Wilke acknowledged his awareness that Wasechek was
speaking also for other employees by recalling (Tr 39,
58) that Wasechek asked , ` Why do we [emphasis added]
have to have this meeting?"
944 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Salesman Robert Raffel, with salesman Craig Reicher,
had been walking behind Wasechek and overheard both
the conversation near the sales counter and the conversa
tion outside Vice President Felker s office (Tr 192-195,
200-201) On the way to the office Reicher told Wilke
that 'I had prior commitments , that I was going to go
deer hunting with my father,' and Wilke responded that
it could be worked out after everything was over with'
(Tr 216) Outside the office Raffel told Wilke, I would
like to talk to [Felker] also, ' and Wilke answered,
Don't worry, you will get your turn (Tr 195) Raffel,
however, did not follow through and take the complaint
to the vice president (Tr 206)
When Wilke and Wasechek entered Vice President
Felker's office, where family members were gathering
for lunch, Wilke told Felker that Wasechek had 'a prob
lem coming in at this 8 am meeting , and he doesn't
think he should have to come in to this meeting " In the
discussion that followed, Wasechek explained that we
were working very long hours and I felt that it was un
necessary and there should be some kind of explanation
as far as why we are all required to come in at 8 in the
morning ' (emphasis added) Wasechek then said, I have
got a couple of kids at home that I have to babysit for,
and that is causing me some personal problems He then
repeated that we [emphasis added] wanted to know why
this had to be this way ' (Tr 139-140) (Wilke admitted
that Wasechek alluded to the group complaint by testify
ing that Felker asked what was the problem and Wa
sechek answered that He felt the people worked long
hours, much less coming in for an early meeting (em
phasis added) (Tr 45) )
Vice President Felker responded that this was a spe
cial meeting, that the people coming to the meeting were
from out of town and that the meeting could be sched
uled only at that time (Tr 181, 265) Wasechek said I
can see your point" (Tr 180) Felker testified that Wase
chek told him There is no way I am coming in to a
meeting for those two days (Tr 89) Later however
when asked if Wasechek said he would or would not
come to the 8 am meeting Felker testified, He didn t
say (Tr 91) Wasechek credibly testified that he never
said he would not attend the meeting (Tr 157) (By his
demeanor on the stand Felker, like Wilke, appeared will
ing to fabricate any testimony that might help the Com
pany s cause )
Outside Vice President Felker s office after the confer
ence there were about 10 salesmen waiting (Tr 48) As
salesman Raffel credibily described the scene (Tr 197-
199)
At that point I would say that things were the most
out of control as I have ever seen them in that
store
It started with people airing their complaints
Q To who?
A To Jim Wilke about, You are making us
come in early for training You are making us come
in early for these meetings You moved up our
starting time Everybody was talking to him at
once
The customers at this point were being ignored
Finally Wilke said there were supposed to be two
people at the greet station If you are not supposed to be
greeting , then break it up Wasechek and the others re
turned to work (Tr 141 )
The Company was fully aware that Wasechek and the
other salesmen were engaged in protected concerted ac
tivity that morning , bringing the group complaint to its
attention Wasechek referred to the complaint of other
employees as well as himself when telling Sales Manager
Wilke, before entering Vice President Felker s office,
that 'we wanted to know why this had to be this way"
(emphasis added) In the conference with Felker, Wase
chek again made this clear by explaining we were work
ing very long hours and I felt that it was unnecessary
and there should be some kind of an explanation as far as
why we are all required to come in at 8 in the morning"
(emphasis added) (I discredit Felker s claim (Tr 98) that
he did not believe Wasechek was protesting on behalf of
anyone else) Then outside Felker s office, following the
office conference, the employees were engaged in a
concerted effort to convince" (Salisbury Hotel, above,
283 NLRB at 687) the Company to change its early re
porting policy Their complaints confirmed the fact that
Wasechek s protests to Felker were part of that con
certed effort
I discredit Vice President Felker s denial that he was
aware of Wasechek's earlier complaints about any early
morning meetings He did admit (Tr 84, 92-93) that
before making the decision on November 4 to discharge
Wasechek, he met with Sales Manager Wilke (who, as
found, was fully aware of Wasechek s concerted activity
at the two October sales meetings and the concerted
complaint of other salemen outside Felker s door after
the office conference that morning) Felker also admitted
that before Wasechek s discharge he was aware of a
problem that other salespeople were having with the 8
a in meeting But when asked how he found this out, he
claimed-after a long pause- I don t recall specifically
(Tr 95) (He appeared to be seeking a plausible answer
rather than candidly admitting what happened )
B Wasechek s Summary Discharge
Salesman Wasechek worked the rest of the day on No
vember 4 after leaving Vice President Felker s office
about noon Then about 9 25 p in Sales Manager Wilke
handed him a message to see Wilke in his office before
leaving There , as Wasechek credbily testified (Tr 143),
Wilke said
Sorry, Steve, we got to let you go Nothing per
sonal " I said , What do you mean , you got to let
me go? What are you talking about? And he said,
Sorry, you are terminated
I said Why am I being terminated? And he
said, You didn t punch out for lunch did you? I
said 'No I didn't A lot of people don't " He said,
Sorry Steve that is the way it is
COLDERS FURNITURE 945
Wilke testified that Felker had told him we were
going to have to let Steve go that night, giving as a
reason That Steve had left that day [for lunch] and had
not punched back in (Tr 52-53) Wilke recalled that
when he mentioned the timeclock violation Wasechek
asked, Isn't this kind of a drastic decision for punching
a timeclock later or not punching it? Wilke claimed that
he also gave Wasechek two other reasons for the dis
charge the other discussion that day concerning the
future meeting' and `the incident with the customer in
September" (Tr 54-55 )
Wasechek had been employed since September 1985
and was one of the Company s top salesmen In 1986 his
commission earnings were $40,000 and in 1987 , before
his November 4 discharge, he had already earned over
$44,000 (Tr 113-115, 171 ) It is undisputed, as Wase
chek expressed his belief at the trial, that he was about
7 out of the 35 salesmen (Tr 184) He had never been
given any oral or written warnings (Tr 115), and about
2 weeks before his discharge Wilke had told him he was
a very good employee and a very good producer
(Tr 145)
Why would the Company want to discharge such a
valuable employee in this summary fashion
As found, Wasechek and other salesmen were engaged
in protected concerted activity twice at sales meetings in
October and again on November 4 when they brought
the group complaint about the early reporting policy to
the Company s attention Wasechek was leading the em
ployees in making the complaint on all three occasions
Sales Manager Wilke revealed his displeasure toward
Wasechek s leadership role at the first October incident
when he angrily pointed his finger at Wasechek and said
'If you have got a problem with this, Steve, you can
take it up with me later During the third incident on
November 4, after giving Wasechek permission to take
the complaint to Vice President Felker, Wilke made
what Wasechek considered to be an implied threat of
discharge As discussed above, Wilke asked, `Are you
sure you want to go through with this? When Wase
chek responded, We just want to know why this has
got to be this way" Wilke stated that maybe you
shouldn t work here then, Steve, if that is the way you
feel
After weighing all the evidence I find that the General
Counsel has made a prima facie showing sufficient to
support the inference that Wasechek s protected concert
ed activity was a motivating factor in the Company s de
cision to discharge him Wright Line 251 NLRB 1083,
1089 (1980)
and abusive manner in front of customers in his con
frontation with Mr Wilke on the sales floor later that
morning (when Wilke gave Wasechek permission to take
the 8 a in meeting complaint to Felker)
Concerning (1), the September incident involved an
irate customers putting on a scene in the store to get
his money back from Wasechek, who had no authority
to make a refund (Tr 149, 152-155, 163-166) After the
incident, as Wasechek credibly testified, Wilke gave him
instructions on how to handle such an irate customer
(Tr 165), but did not tell him he had done anything
wrong (Tr 154) and did not give him any kind of
warning whatsoever Although Wilke initially claimed
(Tr 49) that he warned Wasechek about his conduct, he
later admitted that he neither orally told Wasechek that
this is a warning' (Tr 64) nor wrote him up in any
formal disciplinary manner' (Tr 51) I find that this mci
dent is clearly a mere pretext for the discharge
Concerning (2), Felker conceded (Tr 100) that Wase
chek s conduct at the 9 a in May & Company training
meeting on November 4 was Not as serious" as his con
duct in the September incident (for which Wasechek re
ceived neither an oral nor a written warning) The sup
plier s sales representative, accompanied by the supplier s
president, was demonstrating its mattresses to the furni
ture salesmen All the salemen were sitting on or leaning
against the displayed mattresses except Wasechek, who
lay back with his hands behind his head, watching the
demonstration He sat up when Wilke told him to and
Wilke said nothing to him about it after the meeting (Tr
127-130, 157, 161-163) I agree with the General Coun
sel that this was nothing more than a momentary indis
cretion at worst ' and a transparent pretext for the dis
charge
Concerning (3), there was no loud and abusive con
duct on Wasechek's part before noon on November 4
when he asked Wilke about the 8 a m meeting and
Wilke gave his permission to talk to Felker about it as
discussed above Even Wilke s conflicting account (Tr
39-43, 69-70) does not support Felker's claim If there
had been this purported misconduct on that occasion
Wilke undoubtedly would have reported it to Felker in
the office conference where it was not mentioned I find
that this purported reason for the discharge is a pure
afterthought
Having rejected these defenses, I find that the Compa
ny has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that it
would have discharged Wasechek in the absence of the
protected conduct Wright Line, above, 251 NLRB at
1089
C The Company's Shifting Defenses
By the time of trial the Company had shifted positions
and developed the defense that neither the timeclock vio
lation nor Wasechek s taking the complaint to Vice
President Felker on November 4 was a reason for the
discharge
Instead, Felker claimed (Tr 99-101) that he decided to
discharge Wasechek for three reasons (1) his confronta
tion with a customer in front of the sales counter in Sep
tember (2) his disrespect shown to a major supplier at
the training meeting on November 4 and (3) his loud
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By discharging Steven Wasechek on November 4,
1987, for engaging in protected concerted activity, the
Company engaged in an unfair labor practice affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an
unfair labor practice, I find that it must be ordered to
946 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unlawfully discharged an em-
ployee, it must offer him reinstatement and make him
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits, com-
puted on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to date
of proper offer of reinstatement, less any net interim
earnings , as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in New Ho-
rizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these fmdings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed3
ORDER
The Respondent, Henry Colder Co., Inc. d/b/a
Colders Furniture, West Allis, Wisconsin, its officers,
agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ty.
(b) In any like or related manner coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Steven Wasechek immediate and full rein-
statement to his former job or, if the job longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the unlawful dis-
charge, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of
the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge and notify the employee in writing that this
has been done and that the discharge will not be used
against him in any way.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to ananlyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in West Allis, Wisconsin, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."4 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 30, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102.46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
4 If 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 Nation-
al 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."