Continental Distributing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1981

256 N.L.R.B. 654 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

654 I)ECISIONS OF NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS 13)ARD
Continental Distributing Co., Inc. and Richard
Strom. Case 13-CA-19482
June 18, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 24, 1980, Administrative Law
Judge Frank H. Itkin issued the attached Decision
in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed with the Board its brief to the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order,2 as
modified herein. 3
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
The Administrative Law Judge found that Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act by discharging employee Richard Strom
on January 14, and by reinstating him on February 14 to a job perform-
ing more onerous tasks, excluding him from the warehouse where he for-
merly worked, and forbidding him to have conversations with other em-
ployees in the warehouse.
Respondent does not except to the finding that Strom was discharged
on January 14 in violation of the Act. However, Respondent conltends
that Strom's reassignment to more onerous tasks upon reinstatement was
justified because it learned after his discharge, but before his reinstate-
ment, that Strom Strom was a security risk In this regard, Respondent
contends that the Administrative law Judge erred by crediting the testi-
mony of the General Counsel's witnesses over the testimony of its wit-
nesses Specifically, Respondent contends that the Administrative I aw
Judge erred by stating that Strom's testimony concerning his alleged mis-
conduct was corroborated by his father, Roy Strom.n and by William
Davis.
Generally, the Board accords considerable weight to an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions, and those resolutions will niot be over-
ruled unless the clear preponderance of all relevant evidence indicates
that those resolutions were incorrect Applying this policy to the instant
case, we find no basis for overruling the Administrative Law Judge's
credibility determinations. Sandard Drywall Produciv, Inc., 91 NLRII 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
It is true that the testimony of Roy Strom and William Davis was not
directed to Richard Strom's statement regarding his alleged misconduct
However, Roy Strom's testimony was corroborative of Richard Strom's
statements regarding his discharge and William Davis' testimony was cor-
roborative of Strom's statements regarding the nature of his duties upon
reemployment. We further find that the record supports the Administra-
tive law Judge's crediting of Richard Strom and his discrediting of Re-
spondent's witnesses on the basis of their demeanor, certain flaws in the
testimony of employee Swachig, inconsistencies in the testimony of l'resi-
dent Cooper, and the admission that theft was a widespread problem be-
lieved to involve other employees both before and after Strom's dis-
charge.
2 Member Jenkins would provide interest oin the backpay award in ac-
cordance with his partial dissent in Olympic Medical Corporation, 250
NLRB 146 (1980).
3 The Administrative Law Judge in his Decision erroneously refers to
the Union as the Liquor and Allied Workers Union f the Distillery,
Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers International Ulnion, AFL-CIO.
The correct name of the Union (which is not named as a charging party
herein) as it appears in the complaint is Liquor and Allied Workers
Union, Local No, 3 of the Distillery. Rectifying, Wine and Allied Work-
ers International Union, AFL-CIO
256 NLRB No. 91
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Continental Distributing Co., Inc., Rosemont, Illi-
nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(a):
"(a) Discouraging membership in Liquor and
Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of the Distill-
ery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO, or in any other labor or-
ganization, by discriminatorily discharging or dis-
criminatorily reinstating any of its employees, by
discriminatorily imposing more onerous terms and
conditions of employment upon any of its employ-
ees, or by in any other manner discriminating
against its employees with respect to their hire or
tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in
Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No.
3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and
Allied Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, or in any other labor organization, by
discriminatorily discharging or discriminatorily
reinstating any of our employees, by discrimin-
atorily imposing more onerous conditions of
employment upon any of our employees, or by
in any other manner discriminating against our
employees with respect to their hire or tenure
of employment or any term of condition of
employment.
WE WILL. NOT discharge or otherwise dis-
criminate against any of our employees be-
cause they have sought the assistance of the
National Labor Relations Board or have filed
charges or given testimony under the National
Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT prohibit our employees from
speaking to their coworkers in order to pre-
CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 655
vent or discourage them from engaging in
union or other protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer employee Richard Strom im-
mediate and full reinstatement to his former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privi-
leges, and make him whole for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered due to the dis-
crimination against him, with interest.
CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO.,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
FRANK H. ITKIN, Administrative Law Judge: The
unfair labor practice charge in this case was filed by
Richard Strom on January 16, 1980. The complaint
issued on February 28, 1980. A hearing was conducted in
Chicago, Illinois, on July 21, 1980. The General Counsel
alleges that Respondent Employer violated Section
8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, herein called the Act, by discharging em-
ployee Richard Strom on or about January 14, 1980; by
imposing more onerous terms and conditions of employ-
ment upon employee Strom on or about February 14,
1980, when the employee was reinstated by the Employ-
er; and by prohibiting employee Strom from speaking to
other employees on or about February 14, 1980. Re-
spondent denies that it has violated the Act as alleged.
Upon the entire record, including my observation of the
witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs of
counsel, I make the following findings of fact and con-
clusions of law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent Employer is engaged in the wholesale sale
and distribution of liquor and related products. Respond-
ent is admittedly an employer engaged in commerce as
alleged. Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3
of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, has, at all times perti-
nent to this case, represented certain of Respondent's em-
ployees and is admittedly a labor organization as alleged.
In June 1976, Richard Strom was hired by Respondent
as a part-time worker in its warehouse facility. Later,
about September 1977, Richard Strom became a full-time
employee of Respondent. Richard Strom's immediate su-
pervisor was, until on or about January 1980, his father
Roy Strom.' Richard Strom's duties included working in
I Roy Strom was then Respondent's warehouse manager
the "split room" in the warehouse, where orders for less
than full cases of liquor are filled; unloading trucks; deli-
vering goods; and performing in season, and weather
permitting, gardening duties on Respondent's grounds.
Richard Strom testified that, during 1979, he "asked"
Company President Fred Cooper, "if I [Strom] could
join the Union." Fred Cooper responded: "[W]e'll wait
and see." Later, on or about January 14, 1980, Richard
Strom again asked Fred Cooper about joining the Union.
Richard Strom recalled this conversation, as follows:
He [Cooper] asked me what is it I [Strom] want. I
started talking to him, and I said, "I'd like to join
the Union because things are bad, and money is get-
ting bad, and, you know, I need the money to make
ends meet." He told me that "you're not reliable,
you screwed off when your father went on vaca-
tion. You're not reliable, and I can't have this, and
there is no way I'm going to put you in the Union."
I asked him one more time. I said, "why," and he
said, "I'm sorry, I am not putting you in the
Union," and that was it.
Shortly after the above conversation, on January 14,
Richard Strom, as he testified, "called up the Labor Re-
lations Board." Richard Strom "placed" this telephone
call from the Employer's "routing room." He had the
following conversation with a Board representative:
I [Strom] asked them [the Board agent], who was
supposed to put you in the Union. They told me
that the Company doesn't put you in the [Union]
.... They told me that the Company is not re-
sponsible for putting you in the Union. That the
Union is supposed to put you in the Union.
Richard Strom recalled that Warehouse Superintendent
Jack Poland "was standing in the hallway" some 20 feet
away while he was making this telephone call.
Richard Strom thereupon telephoned the Union. After
speaking with a representative at the Union's office, he
went to coworker Debbie Fiorito and "asked her where
the slips were to join the Union." She told Richard
Strom that "the slips were downstairs in the desk" used
by union steward Ron Nurkey. Richard Strom then
"went downstairs" and obtained "one of the slips." Rich-
ard Strom partially "filled out" the union "slip" and
"called the Union back" to ascertain certain information
in order to complete "the form." Richard Strom later
gave the completed "form" to coworker Fiorito who
agreed to turn it over to union steward Nurkey. 2 Later
that evening, Richard Strom was advised by his father,
Roy Strom, not to return to work because Fred Cooper
"doesn't want [him] in the Company."
2 In addition, Richard Strom testified that before hi, shift cllded that
day. January 14, Superintendent Poland stated to him "I Pl'oland] heard
what you [Strom] ere talking about I ll go alpstairs and talk to
Fred [Cooper] fr you"
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Roy Strom testified that he had asked Fred Cooper
"about Richard joining the Union" during June 1979.
Cooper responded that he "would let [Strom] know."
Thereafter, during the evening of January 14, 1980, as
Roy Strom further testified, Cooper telephoned him at
his home and
said that Rich was up to see him [Cooper] early
that morning and asked to be placed in the Union.
He told Rich that Rich was not ready to go into the
Union. .... Later that afternoon . . . Mr. Jack
Poland . . . told him [Cooper] that a couple of
girls, or something like that, had overheard Rich
calling the N.L.R.B ..... He [Cooper] said, "Roy
I cannot have that. Find him another job. I do not
want him here anymore."
Roy Strom agreed to advise his son Richard that he
was terminated.
Counsel for Respondent, in his post-hearing brief (pp.
1-3), states: "At the hearing, Respondent offered no evi-
dence on the discharge allegations. Nonetheless, it is Re-
spondent's position that the General Counsel has failed
to meet his burden of proving the discharge allegations
by competent, credible and substantial evidence." Coun-
sel for Respondent further states (pp. 3-4):
Respondent admits that it altered Strom's job duties
upon his reinstatement on February 14, 1980. . .. It
is Respondent's position that evidence of Strom's
misconduct, learned by it subsequent to his dis-
charge on January 14, 1980, and prior to his rein-
statement on February 14, 1980, made it necessary
to restrict Strom's access to merchandise and hence
to restrict [his] access to certain areas of the ware-
house.
This specific evidence of misconduct, learned by
Respondent after the discharge and prior to the re-
instatement, involved Strom's drinking of merchan-
dise and Strom's stated intentions and actual remov-
al of merchandise.
The evidence pertaining to these and related assertions is
discussed below.
Richard Strom testified that on February 14, 1980,
when he was reinstated by the Employer, Company
Agent Austin Preston instructed Strom that, "from now
on, his job" included "pumping gas," "cleaning up out-
side," "taking care of the warehouse," "sweeping," and
"emptying out garbage cans." Richard Strom testified
that, before his discharge, he had not performed these
duties. Further, Richard Strom testified:
He [Preston] told me that I'm not allowed in the
warehouse. That I'm not allowed to talk to any of
the kids in the split room. He told me that I was not
allowed to talk to anybody in the split room and
I'm not allowed to handle any merchandise. That
was all they told me. 3
Nadia Swachig has been employed by Respondent as a
shipping clerk since September 1979. Roy Strom, Rich-
ard's father, was her "boss" until late January 1980. Swa-
chig claimed that, "during the Christmas rush" of 1979,
she observed "an unusual circumstance involving Rich-
ard Strom and one of the Company salesmen." She asser-
tedly observed Richard Strom, while filling an order for
"one case of liquor," load "two cases instead of one" and
the "salesman put his hand into his coat pocket . . .
pulled out money . . . put his hand out to Richard
Strom . . . [and] Richard Strom looked in his hand and
put his hand into his pocket." According to Swachig,
Richard Strom later boasted to her, "I just made $50 off
one of the salesmen." In addition, Swachig testified that,
while there was construction work in progress at the
warehouse during October or November 1979, Richard
Strom said to her "how easy it would be to slip whiskey
out through the entrance that the construction men"
used. Further, Swachig testified that about "Christmas
time" of 1979, when Richard Strom was instructed to de-
liver an order in his own van, he stated to her "that this
was a good time to make some extra dollars" and then
loaded three extra cases into his van. Swachig also
claimed that Richard Strom had acknowledged to her
that he was "drinking" liquor in the "split room" and
"goofing off."
Swachig testified that she never reported the above
misconduct to her "boss" Roy Strom, Richard's father.
She then added that she had observed Roy Strom
"punching" Richard Strom's timecard "in and out" when
Richard was not at work. Swachig assertedly first relat-
ed the above misconduct involving Richard Strom to
President Fred Cooper "after Richard Strom was dis-
charged." On cross-examination, Swachig recalled that
she had never reported to "anybody," prior to Strom's
discharge, the incident involving the "salesman"; that a
security guard had been posted at the "construction"
door "because of theft" and there were "many [construc-
tion] workers going in and out"; and that all the "split
room workers" told her that "they used to goof off."
Company President Fred Cooper testified that he had
"several" conversations with employee Nadia Swachig
between January 14 and February 14, 1980; that these
"conversations" were "in the shipping office"; that he is
"not sure" "if she initiated it or [he] did . . ."; and that
she then "informed" him "of the situation with the sales-
man" and Richard Strom. Cooper added that Swachig
also told me about the way he [Richard Strom]
used to brag about drinking in the warehouse and
the fact you could steal merchandise out of the new
addition . . . which was not secured at that point
. . .[and] the fact that he used to brag he had out-
fitted his van with whiskey that he had taken from
' Employee William Davis testified that Richard Strom, upon his rein-
statement by the Employer, "was doing maintenance work"-"sweep-
ing." Dasis had never seen Richard Strom perform "that kind of work
hefore-" later. according to )avis, Richard Strom started "working out-
side" after "the grass started growing"
CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 657
the Company . . . [and] that he would goof off in
the warehouse.
Cooper also claimed that, "during this period" between
Strom's "termination and reinstatement," he became
"aware of the fact that" Richard "had a problem as he
was growing up"-"I [Cooper] found out that he had a
long juvenile record."
Company President Fred Cooper asserted that he
therefore "changed" Richard Strom's duties when he
"reinstated" the employee and that he "instructed our
people not to let him have access to any merchandise
. . . because of security reasons .. ." Cooper, as he tes-
tified, relied "upon what Nadia told me." Cooper then
added:
In fact, last year the situation occurred when a rela-
tive of mine had one of their kids working there,
and he also reported that Richard Strom was drink-
ing at that time.
On cross-examination, Cooper acknowledged that theft
was a widespread problem at the time, that a security
guard was posted at the construction door after Richard
Strom was discharged, and that, as stipulated, "the Com-
pany had reason to believe that other people had been
stealing .... " Cooper also acknowledged that employ-
ee Swachig was unable to identify the "salesman" in-
volved in the above incident.4
On rebuttal, Richard Strom explained that on one oc-
casion a salesman "gave me a dollar" because he, Strom,
carried one case of liquor to the salesman's automobile.
Strom denied telling coworker Swachig that he had
"made $50 off a salesman." He recalled making a deliv-
ery in his van for the Employer. He explained that he
then delivered six cases as invoiced by the Employer. He
acknowledged that "some" employees "often drink" at
work. Further, he denied that anyone from Respondent
has ever accused him of "drinking" or "stealing." And,
he assertedly told Swachig that "it would be easy for
those on [the] construction [workers] to go ahead and
take what they want because nobody is back there ....
That's the only things I said to her about that." Further,
Roy Strom denied punching Richard's timecard.
I credit the testimony of Richard Strom and Roy
Strom as recited above. Their testimony is in significant
part mutually corroborative. Their testimony is also cor-
roborated in part by the testimony of William Davis and
is substantiated in part by the testimony of Fred Cooper.
Further, relying on demeanor, I am persuaded on this
record that the testimony of Richard and Roy Strom is a
truthful, complete, and trustworthy account of the se-
quence of events attending Richard Strom's firing and
4 Austin Preston, operations manager for Respondent, acknowledged
that Richard Strom, when reinstated, was instructed on his new duties, as
follows:
[W)e wanted him to sweep the warehouse, keep it clean We also
wanted him to stay away from the split room which is the open
bottle area . . . Just clean the floor, throw the garbage out and
things of that type
Preston denied telling Richard Strom "that he was not allowed to talk to
other employees." Preston added: "I constantly told him to stay out of
the split room."
subsequent reinstatement. Insofar as the testimony of
Fred Cooper and Austin Preston differs with the testimo-
ny of Richard and Roy Strom, I credit the testimony of
the latter as more reliable and trustworthy. As discussed
below, I find here, and Respondent does not seriously
controvert, that Richard Strom was summarily terminat-
ed because he was attempting to assert his Section 7
rights and seek the assistance of the National Labor Re-
lations Board. I also find that Respondent, in reinstating
the employee after unfair labor practice charges were
filed, assigned the employee different and more onerous
duties and, further, attempted to keep him from speaking
with his coworkers in the split room. I find here that Re-
spondent, in discharging and later reinstating the em-
ployee in this manner, was attempting to punish the em-
ployee because of his efforts to join the Union and seek
the assistance of the Board. I reject as pretextual the as-
sertions of Fred Cooper, and Nadia Swachig, to the
effect that employee Richard Strom was reinstated to
different duties because of "drinking," "stealing," and re-
lated acts of misconduct. I do not credit these assertions.
Further, I note that Fred Cooper, when pressed, also at-
tempted to rely on Richard Strom's alleged "problem as
he was growing up" and incidents of "drinking" which
were reported long before the employee's termination.
Richard Strom credibly testified that management had
never accused him of "stealing" or "drinking" its prod-
uct. On this record, I am persuaded that management
would not, and did not, reinstate an employee who, as
claimed, drank and stole its product. Rather, I find here
that management reinstated the employee to a more
onerous and limited job in an attempt to get rid of the
employee in retaliation for his having engaged in protect-
ed Section 7 activities and having sought the Board's as-
sistance. 5
Discussion
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects
the right of an employee to join a labor organization.
Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair practice for an employ-
er to interfere with, restrain, or coerce an employee in
the exercise of his Section 7 rights. Section 8(a)(3) bars
employer discrimination to "discourage membership in
any labor organization .... " And Section 8(a)(4) for-
bids an employer "to discharge or otherwise to discrimi-
nate against an employee because he has filed charges
. . . under the Act." Moreover, employee "utilization of
the Board's remedial processes" is protected by Section
7. Cf. .L.R.B. v. Local 294, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America [August Bohl Contracting Co.], 470 F.2d 57, 60-
61 (2d Cir. 1972). For, a "healthy interplay of the forces
governed and protected by the Act means that there
should be as great a freedom to ask the Board for relief
' In discrediting management', asserted reasons for reinstating employ-
ee Richard Strom to different joh duties, I do not credit the cited acts of
misconduct attributed to the employee by coworker Sachig I find n-
credible her explanation why she first wvent to upper management ith
recitals of "stealing" and "drinking" after the employee's discharge. I
find, instead, that upper management enlisted her assistance here after re-
peated discussions in an attempt to justif' its unlawful conduct.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as there is to petition any other department of govern-
ment for redress of grievances .... " Cf. N.L.R.B. v.
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers
[United States Lines Co.], 391 U.S. 418, 424 (1968). Also
see General Nutrition Center, Inc., 221 NLRB 850, 855
(1975), and cases cited.
The essentially undisputed and credible evidence of
record makes it clear here that Company President Fred
Cooper summarily terminated employee Richard Strom
on January 14, 1980, because the employee was attempt-
ing to become a member of the Union and because he
had sought the assistance of the Board. Employee Rich-
ard Strom had asked Company President Fred Cooper
"to be placed in the Union." Cooper refused. Strom was
later overheard by management talking to a Board repre-
sentative. Cooper thereupon instructed Richard Strom's
father, "Roy, I cannot have that. Find him another job. I
do not want him here anymore." I find and conclude
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and
(4) of the Act.
Employee Richard Strom filed an unfair labor practice
charge some 2 days later, on January 16, 1980. Thereaf-
ter, on February 14, 1980, about 2 weeks before the com-
plaint issued in this case, management admittedly rein-
stated the employee to different job duties which in-
volved in large part cleaning and sweeping chores. Man-
agement claims that it changed employee Strom's job
duties because, during the 30-day interval between his
unlawful firing and reinstatement, it had learned that he
was, inter alia, "stealing" and "drinking" its product. I
reject this assertion as pretextual. I do not believe that
management would reinstate, under the circumstances
present here, a thief and a person who drank its product.
Management, by assigning the employee different and
more arduous duties, was attempting to get rid of him al-
together, in further violation of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and
(4). And management's efforts to isolate the employee
and restrict him from talking to his coworkers also
tended to impinge upon the employee's Section 7 rights
as alleged.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce as
alleged.
2. Liquor and Allied Workers Union, Local No. 3 of
the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers In-
ternational Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization as
alleged.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of
the Act by discharging employee Richard Strom on or
about January 14, 1980; by imposing more onerous terms
and conditions of employment upon employee Strom on
or about February 14, 1980, when he was reinstated by
the Employer; and by prohibiting employee Strom from
speaking to other employees.
4. The unfair labor practices found above affect com-
merce as alleged.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that Re-
spondent cease and desist from engaging in such conduct
or like or related conduct and post the attached notice.
Having found that Respondent in discharging and later
reinstating employee Richard Strom to more arduous
work violated Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (4) of the Act, it
will be recommended that Respondent offer to employee
Richard Strom immediate and full reinstatement to his
former or substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and
make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered by
reason of this discrimination, by making payment to him
of a sum of money equal to that which he normally
would have earned from the date of Respondent's dis-
crimination to the date of Respondent's offer of reinstate-
ment, less net earnings during such period, with backpay
and interest thereon to be computed in the manner pre-
scribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).6 Further, it will be recommended that Respond-
ent preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board, all payroll records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary and useful to determine the amount of
backpay due and the rights of reinstatement under the
terms of these recommendations.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record of the case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issued the following
recommended:
ORDER 7
The Respondent, Continental Distributing Co., Inc.,
Rosemont, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in Liquor and Allied
Workers Union No. 3 of the Distillery, Rectifying, Wine
and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or
in any other labor organization, by discriminatorily dis-
charging or discriminatorily reinstating any of its em-
ployees, by discriminatorily imposing more onerous
terms and conditions of employment upon any of its em-
ployees, or by in any other manner discriminating against
its employees with respect to their hire or tenure of em-
ployment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any of its employees because they have sought the assist-
ance of the National Labor Relations Board or have filed
charges or given testimony under the National Labor
Relations Act.
(c) Prohibiting its employees from speaking to other
employees in order to prevent or discourage the employ-
ees from engaging in union or other protected concerted
activities.
' See, generally, Iis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
7In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the find-
ings, 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 he deemed waived for all purposes
CONTINENTAL DISTRIBUTING CO., INC. 659
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act:
(a) Offer employee Richard Strom immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority
and other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of pay sustained as a result of his discriminatory
discharge and discriminatory reinstatement, in the
manner set forth in this Decision.
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its facilities in Rosemont, Illinois, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."8 Copies of said
I 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
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent, 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 13, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "