Difco Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 76 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dlfco Laboratories , Inc. and Judith M. Smith. Case
7-CA-10930
January 7, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On August 21, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
John M. Dyer issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and Res-
pondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,
and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge
and to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Difco Laboratories , Inc., Detroit,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order except that the attached notice is substitut-
ed for the Administrative Law Judge's Appendix B.
discriminatorily refuse to pay them holiday pay if
they engage in a lawful strike.
WE WILL NOT in the same or any similar
manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make the following striking employ-
ees whole for the loss of pay they suffered as a
result of their suspension and pay each of them
the holiday pay due, both with interest:
Florence Antczak Gary Lumbert
Deborah Barnes Stella Lupinski
Robert Boudreau Gene Moore
Steven Briesch Phyllis Mullinis
Maureen Buckner Robert Peterson
Clarence Burton Patty Rodrigres
Patricia Dangler Doris Rudolph
Vivian Dupuy Joseph Schiros
Dora Dyer Judith Smith
Vivian Fosgate LaRoma Stout
David Gennero Doris Voytovich
Charlene Hansen Albert White
Mary Lawrence Sherry Whitted
Raymond Lock
WE WILL remove and destroy the disciplinary
notices regarding the strike placed in the person-
nel files of the striking employees.
DIFco LABORATORIES,
INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1 No exceptions were filed to the Administrative Law Judge's treatment
of the Collyer issue. Acting Chairman Fanning would not in any event defer
to arbitration for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in Collyer
Insulated Wore, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), and related cases.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing in which the Company, the
Union, and the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board participated and offered
evidence, it has been found that we violated the Act.
We have been ordered to post this notice and to
abide by what we say in this notice.
WE WILL NOT suspend employees or place
disciplinary notices in their personnel files or
JOHN M. DYER , Administrative Law Judge: On February
19, 1974? Judith M. Smith filed a charge against Difco
Laboratories , Inc., herein called the Company or Respon-
dent, alleging that the Company had discriminated against
employees by denying them holiday pay and by suspend-
ing them following a strike. In a complaint issued by the
Regional Director on April 9, 1974, it is alleged that
Respondent violated Section 8(aXl) and (3) of the Act,
both by denying holiday pay to those who engaged in a
strike on September 6 and by suspending those strikers for
a 3-day period , and by inserting disciplinary slips in their
personnel files.
Respondent's April 19, 1974, answer admitted the
requisite commerce and jurisdictional allegations and that
Local Union No. 246 of the International Union of United
Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, herein called the Local or the Union, is the
exclusive representative of the employees in a unit of
production and maintenance employees of Respondent's
two plants located in Detroit and Romulus, Michigan. In
1 Unless specifically stated otherwise , all events herein took place during
1973.
216 NLRB No. 13
DIFCO LABORATORIES , INC. 77
an amended answer to the complaint, filed by its counsel
on June 17, 1974, Respondent admitted that various
employees at its Romulus plant • went on strike on
September 6 and returned to work on or around September
7, and that the employees in the production and mainte-
nance unit of its two plants ratified a new collective-
bargaining agreement,containing union-security provisions
which became effective on September 10, 1973, with a
termination date of March 14, 1976. Respondent denied
the remainder of the allegations of the complaint or that it
had in any way violated the Act. In its amended answer,
Respondent asked that the matter be deferred to arbitra-
tion processes, as provided in the collective-bargaining
agreements referred to in the complaint, in accordance
with the Board -decision in Collyer Insulated Wire, 192
NLRB 837 (1971).
One of the principal issues between Respondent and the
General Counsel is the status of the prior contract. General
Counsel alleges that Re`spondent's prioicontract expired at
12:01 a.m., September 1, and that accordingly there was a
hiatus between that contract and the new agreement which
became effective on September 10. Respondent's answer
denies this and Respondent takes the position that
guarantees "were extended to it that the Union would not
strike in the interim and that accordingly the strike of
September 6 was in derogation of such agreements and was
unlawful.
There are some conflicts in the testimony concerning
what was said on several points, but in essence there is
agreement as to the events. I have concluded that there was
no extension of a no-strike clause and that there was no
contract in existence between September 1 and 10
governing the conduct of the parties and that basically the
parties so agree. I further find that the strike was not
unlawful And that the penalties exacted by Respondent are
violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act because they
were imposed for protected concerted activities and must
be abrogated and the discriminatees made whole.
At the trial of this matter held in Detroit, Michigan, on
June 18, 1974, all parties were afforded full opportunity to
appear, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses, and
to argue orally. General Counsel and Respondent have
filed briefs which have been carefully considered. On the
entire record in this case I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR
ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent is a Michigan corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan, and a
smaller facility in Romulus, Michigan, which is the only
plant involved in this proceeding. Respondent is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of biological and
bacteriological media and related supplies and during the
past year received goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from points outside the State of Michigan,
and during the same period sold and distributed products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Michigan.
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union herein is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
11. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Facts
Approximately 100 people are employed'at the Compa-
ny's Detroit plant-'where the principal manufacturing
process takes place. Basically the Company starts with
frozen meats which are brought from an outside cold
storage plant and are thawed, then ground and cooked in a
solution which is described as a soup, then the soup is
purified, concentrated, and dried, and becomes a stable
powder product. The Company also uses some vegetable
products in the same manner. Its finished product is used
to grow bacteria and is' termed a diagnostic reagent. As
thawing and ground meat and in its liquid soup form, until
it is dried, these materials are subject to spoilage if left
unattended. The process takes from 48 to 72 hours to
complete to the powder form The stable powder is then
shipped to the Romulus plant which is sometimes called
the Metro plant, since it is near the Detroit Metropolitan
Airport. The Romulus plant employs approximately 30
employees and has two departments-the warehouse and
storage function, where the finished products are stored
(some refrigerated) and shipped, and a manufacturing
facility for preparing a liquid diagnostic reagent. In this
process which takes less than a day the powder is placed in
a solution of distilled or iodine water and is then packaged
in bottles and sterilized, and again becomes a stable
product.
The Company and the Union have a history of
negotiations which usually culminated in 3-year contracts.
In 1967 there was a strike during contract negotiations and,
according to Respondent, employees at both plants went
out leaving the production process so that a great deal of
meat and product in process were spoiled, costing the
Company considerable sums of money.
The parties were negotiating in August 1973, and the
negotiating teams had reached an agreement subject to
ratification by the employees. Provisions were made for the
employees to come to work early on August 31 so that they
could leave the plant early and vote on ratification. The
employees did not ratify the agreement and Local Union
President Lessnau, Union Representative Hank Hurlbert,
and three other members of the union negotiating
committee then met with Frank Klemz, who is the director
of materials and head of the company negotiating
committee. After asking if there was a strike pending,
Klemz mentioned that the Company wanted to be assured
of continuous operations because of the problem of
spoilage which they had suffered in 1967. Union Repre-
sentative Hurlbert said that there had been no strike vote
and no strike was pending and that a strike vote would
have to be taken and sanction received from the UAW
before the Union could conduct a strike. He said that the
Company would have adequate notice of a strike since
notice would have to be given for a meeting of employees
78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to vote on a strike and after such a vote the local would
have to get the International 's sanction which would mean
that the Company would have several days' notice before a
strike could commence.
There was no written extension of the contract no-strike
clause nor was there a specific oral extension of it. The
Union told the Company that it would have adequate
notice to prepare itself for a strike if a strike were to be
called by the Union. The Company refers to this as a
guarantee that it would not be faced with the 1967
situation . In his later testimony Mr. Klemt agreed that the
Union was to give him adequate notice of a strike.
Klemz testified that on Tuesday , September 4, a
statement prepared by him was read by the supervisors to
all employees . The message was to the effect that the
Company was conducting business as usual and though
disappointed at the failure to ratify the contract , negotia-
tions would continue and that holiday pay would be paid
provided there were no problems among the employees.
Lois Lessnau , the union president and an employee at the
Detroit plant , stated that in regard to holiday pay the
message was that it would be paid if there were no
stoppages or walkouts. Klemz read this statement to the
employees in her department and she asked him whether
everybody was going to hear the same thing and he
responded yes.
Robert Peterson testified that at the Romulus plant,
Foreman Dick Colson read from a sheet of paper, telling
the employees that if they walked out or if there was a
wildcat strike it would jeopardize their holiday pay.
There is some dispute regarding what was said about a
hospitalization program and whether it would expire or
not, but it is not necessary to resolve that particular issue in
deciding the issues in this case.
On Thursday, September 6, Peterson , together with two
other employees, had a conversation with Foreman Dick
Colson at the Romulus plant. Colson said that the Local's
shop steward wanted to call the main plant and find out
from Union President Lois Lessnau when the bargaining
would continue between the Company and the Union.
Colson said that they did not have a union at that time and
did not have any representation and told them to get back
to work or they would be fired.
Judy Smith , the Charging Party and a union officer,
stated that later that morning she saw people starting out
of the plant and had a discussion with her supervisor,
Timothy Hushen , as to what was going on . Hushen said
that the shop steward had asked permission to call the
other plant and that Foreman Colson would not let him do
so and the people started to walk out and then Colson
changed his mind and allowed him to call the other plant
to find out what was going on concerning when negotia-
tions would be held.
Klemz testified that Colson called him that morning
prior to 9 o 'clock and asked whether it was all right- to
allow the shop steward to call the union president to find
out when the next negotiation meeting would be held, that
the people were asking questions about it . Klemz told
Colson it would be all right and started to talk to the shop
steward about it when Colson grabbed the telephone back
and said that people were walking out of the plant. Klemz
and Lessnau contacted one another and both knew by that
time that employees were walking out at the Romulus
plant and both left to go to the Romulus plant to see what
could be done about it.
When Frank Klemz amved , there were some 15 to 17
people standing around the plant gate with 8 or 10 seated
in their cars inside the plant parking lot. Klemz stopped at
the gate and told the strikers that they were on an illegal
strike , were jeopardizing their holiday pay which would
only be paid if there was no work stoppage so they would
probably not get it, and that they had better get back to
work . Some of the strikers spoke up , complaining about
various things , such as supervisors working overtime on
unit production work which was supposedly prohibited by
the previous contract, and having probationary employees
work overtime when overtime was an optional item.
Complaints were also made about statements Supervisor
Colson allegedly made to employees in the shipping area.
Around that time Lois Lessnau pulled up and Klemz went
into the plant after telling the employees to report in within
15 minutes or leave the premises , and the employees
discussed the same things with Lessnau . Employees moved
their cars outside the plant gate and the one car which had
partially blocked the gate was moved. While Lessnau was
talking to the employees , Union Representative Hurlbert
arrived . The discussion went on and Hurlbert and Lessnau
went in for a meeting with Klemz . They discussed the
problems mentioned to them by the employees concerning
supervisor production work and remarks being made by
Supervisors Hushen and Colson. They were told that the
overtime practice would be stopped and the supervisors
would not do unit work, and they went out to convey this
message to the employees . The employees wanted some
further assurances and Judy Smith went in for a second
meeting with the Company. During this second meeting
Hurlbert stated that most of the complaints concerned
Colson and they would like to confront Colson with them.
Colson was called into the meeting and allegations were
made that he had said that the employees would not get
their insurance and would not get their holiday pay. Klemz
stated that Colson may have been referring to the prepared
statement which he had issued to be read to the employees
and that the statement was not a scare tactic . Colson
denied most of the statements attributed to him . They also
discussed the previous grievances about supervisors doing
unit work on overtime . Klemz stated that if that was
causing so much trouble he would stop those practices.
Klemz testified that the practice of supervisors working
overtime had been stopped in August when the question
was brought up during the negotiation meetings . However,
later during his testimony, Klemz acknowledged that, both
during the week before Labor Day and following Labor
Day, a few people had worked in the Romulus solution
department to finish up material that was then in process,
with the supervisors doing such production work after
hours along with probationary employees.
There is a question as to whether the employees wanted
to return to work or whether management wanted them to
return, since it was then afternoon . In any event, it was
finally stated that the employees would leave the premises
and return to work the following morning and manage-
DIFCO LABORATORIES, INC. 79
ment would consider not taking any retaliatory measures
against them . It was further agreed that the probationary
employees then at work would be able to finish the
solution then in process , and the Union got a truckdriver to
load a truck and move a shipment that was needed to be
sent. The shipment was moved and, following the comple-
tion of the processing, the probationary employees left the
plant and all the strikers left the area around 2:30 that
afternoon.
On the following day all of the strikers returned to work
and some of them were given discharge notices which were
later converted into 3-day layoffs. All of the employees
who engaged in the strike were given 3-day suspensions
and disciplinary warning notices were placed in their
personnel files . On the payday following, the Respondent
refused to pay the employees who had engaged in the strike
the holiday pay that employees felt was due them for
Labor Day but did pay holiday pay to all its other
employees . On September 10, as stated above, the new
contract was ratified by the employees.
Grievances were filed on September 19 and 21 regarding
the denial of holiday pay for the employees at the Romulus
plant . Supervisor Hushen responded to the grievance "No
contract no violation." Supervisor Colson, on September
21, responded to the grievance , "No contract in existence.
Grievance is out of order and denied." To both of these
grievances at the third step, Frank Klemz responded as
follows:
As discussed in the Step III Meeting on 09-25-73,
this grievance has no legal basis as there was no
contract in effect on 09-04-73 when this alleged
violation took place . The Company offered to extend
the contract while negotiations continued; the Union
refused.
Also, the employees were informed on 09-04-73 there
would be business as usual as long as there was no
work stoppage and normal conduct. The employees
were told also if they caused no problems we will
continue to work as usual . Holiday Pay would be paid
after a new Agreement is ratified if there was no work
stoppage . A Wildcat strike occurred on 09-06-73;
therefore the employees who participated were in-
formed that they had lost their Holiday pay.
The employees were forewarned and knew the
consequences of their action, therefore they were fairly
treated.
Finally, since no contract was in effect and the
employees were forewarned, this grievance is out of
order and denied.
In his testimony when asked why the employees were
denied their holiday pay, Klemz replied:
We were under the assumption that we would
operate differently during that time than we operated
under the contract . We thought we had some latitude
in that area , and that we could either pay or not pay,
the holiday pay as negotiated by the union in the final
settlement of the contract ....
B. Positions of the Parties and Analysis
The Company takes the position that the issues set forth
in the complaint are such that they should be taken to
binding arbitration and requests a deferral for arbitration.
If that motion is denied, the Company takes the position
that the complaint must be dismissed since it feels the
wildcat strike violated a no-strike extension agreement that
it had negotiated with the Union on August 31, and that
such agreement made the strike an unprotected activity,
giving the Employer freedom to discipline the employees
for engaging in unprotected activities . Respondent cites
Arundel Corporation, 210 NLRB 525 (1974), as being
identical to the present situation.
It is the General Counsel's position that the case cannot
be "Collyerized" because there was no contract in
existence at the time that the strike took place and, in the
absence of a contract, an arbitrator would have nothing to
construe. Respondent argues that the Union and the
Company could stipulate to a particular contract being in
effect at the time or that certain contract terms would
govern the situation, but this would negate the issue as to
whether a contract was in existence which governed the
conduct of the parties at that time. It is further the General
Counsel's position that the action taken by the strikers was
not in derogation of the Union's position as bargaining
agent and was not an illegal activity and therefore that it is
violative of the Act for the Company to take retaliatory
action for the employees engaging in a concerted activities'
strike. In regard to the holiday pay, it is the General
Counsel's contention that payment of holiday pay to
employees who did not engage in the strike , while refusing
to pay those who did strike, is a discriminatory action
towards those employees who engaged in concerted
activities.
On the question of whether there was an extension of the
contract's no-strike clause, it is clear from the evidence that
there was no contract extension . Respondent's statements
regarding the filed grievances and its other admissions
confirm the fact that there was no contract in existence
between September 1 and 10. If the Union and the
Company were to stipulate the proceeding to an arbitrator,
they would also have to stipulate that a particular contract
covered that time which would be contrary to the facts.
The arbitrator would be deciding issues based on the
existence of a contract which was not in existence at the
relevant time. A synthesis of the testimony demonstrates
that, at most, the Company was told that they would have
adequate notice in case there was a strike called by the
Union so that the problem the Company had a number of
years ago of raw material and product spoilage would not
occur. The Company was told it would have notice because
the Union would have to notify its employees of a meeting
to consider a strike vote and after a strike vote was taken
there would have to be some approval by the International
Union before the strike was sanctioned and called, and in
this manner several days' notice would be provided to the
Company to take whatever measures it needed to protect
itself. Such a statement was particularly germane to the
manufacturing process at the Detroit plant where the meat
processing, as noted above , takes several days.
It appears from the evidence that neither the setting of a
80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
further negotiation meeting nor the statement concerning
strike notification was disseminated to the employees in
the Romulus plant . Instead, the employees at the Romulus
plant were told that they did not have a union and had no
representation and were without a contract and whether
they received their holiday pay was contingent upon their
not having a work stoppage . When the plant steward at
Romulus sought to call Union President Lessnau at the
Detroit plant to find out when the next negotiation meeting
was scheduled , the supervisor apparently refused to allow
him to do so and told inquiring employees to get back to
work or they would be fired. Later the supervisor did call
Mr. Klemz and inquired whether allowing such a call
would be proper or not and about that time the employees
went out . There apparently was some misunderstanding
concerning whether the employees ' hospitalization pro-
gram would continue as it had in the past , and this was
linked in the employees ' minds to their situation in working
without a contract . The employees at the Romulus plant
were also resentful of the fact that supervisors and
probationary employees were working overtime perform-
ing unit work in derogation of a contract term, and
apparently stockpiling the Company 's products in case of a
strike . Mr. Klemz testified at one point that overtime
production work by supervisors had been stopped in
August , but he admitted later in his testimony that
supervisors and probationary employees were still doing
production work on overtime following the Labor Day
holiday.
It seems clear from the recital of the facts above, the lack
of knowledge regarding the next negotiation meeting, the
fact that supervisors were still doing production work on
an overtime basis, and the questions regarding holiday pay
and hospitalization contributed to the Romulus employees'
unrest and led to the strike on September 6. All these items
were discussed by the employees with Klemz when he first
appeared- at the plant and later with Union President
Lessnau and Union Representative Hurlbert , and by them
with Klemz and Colson in the plant on the later occasion,
with Colson being questioned concerning statements
allegedly made by him.
I must conclude from these facts that the strike was not
in derogation of the Union's status as the bargaining agent
but was in furtherance of it as the striking employees then
understood the circumstances .2 There was no contract
extension, and though the promise of adequate notice of a
strike was bent in this particular, it was done without
knowledge of that promise and with no damage to the
materials or products which were then in process at the
Romulus plant . As noted above, that promise was meant
principally for the main production operations which took
place in the Detroit plant . Therefore , I conclude that this
s In Lee A . ConsavJ Ca, Inc., 175 NLRB 547 (1969), the Board said:
One of the principal factors the Board has relied on in deciding
whether an "unauthorized" strike is protected is whether its objective is
in support of , or in opposition to, the objectives of the union. At the
same time , we have indicated that a strike might under some
circumstances be unprotected, even when its objective is in support of
union policies , if it is undertaken in the face of some final action taken
by the Union as bargaining representative and has the purpose or effect
of exerting pressure to modify that final action . We have also bold that
express disapproval of the strike by the Union administrative officials
cannot be termed an illegal strike . Accordingly, I must
conclude that the strike was a protected concerted activity
and that Respondent 's suspending the strikers and placing
disciplinary notices in their personnel files is in derogation
of their rights and is therefore an unfair labor practice.
Since the holiday pay was paid to the other employees who
did not engage in the strike , it is discriminatory to deny it
to employees because they engaged in protected concerted
activities.
Respondent cites Arundel Corporation, 210 NLRB 525
(1974), as being identical to the instant situation , but it is
not. In that situation both the General Counsel and the
parties agreed that there had been an extension of a no-
strike clause , and that is not so in this case . If any blame
must be assessed in this case for the strike which took
place, it would seem it should be shared equally by the
Company and the Union in that the employees were not
informed of the schedule for negotiations meetings and the
Company apparently determined to treat its employees in a
different manner, emphasizing to them that they were
without the protection of a union contract . The combina-
tion of these two things led to the self-help engaged in by
the employees at the Romulus plant.
In summary, I find that Respondent violated Section
8(axl) and (3) of the Act by its actions in suspending the
strikers , placing disciplinary notices in their personnel files,
and by refusing to pay them holiday pay for the Labor Day
holiday.
III. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section II, and
therein found to constitute unfair labor practices in
violation of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the Act, occurring in
connection with Respondent 's business operations as, set
forth above in section I, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relationship to trade , traffic, and commerce
among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in the unfair
labor practices set forth above, I recommend that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act as follows:
Respondent shall remove and destroy the disciplinary
notices placed in the personnel files of the strikers whose
names are set forth in Appendix A. Respondent shall also
make the strikers whole by payment to each of them of a
sum equal to that which each would have earned as wages
does not in itself render the strike unprotected, and that a strike does
not lose its protected status because not called in the manner
prescribed by union constitutions and bylaws. It seems clear to us that
concerted strike action by employees for the purpose of securing
increased benefits may not lightly be characterized as "unprotected"
activity, subjecting them to peremptory discharge. There is no reason
why an employer should have carte blanche in discharging such
employees for engaging in such conduct unless the walkout occurred in
circumstances which indicate actual prejudice to the integrity of the
collective-bargaining relationship.
DIFCO LABORATORIES, INC. 81
for the 3 days that they were suspended and by payment to
each of them of the holiday pay due them , together with
interest at 6 percent per annum to be computed as set forth
in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
Respondent shall make its payroll and other records
available to the Board to facilitate checking the amounts
due each striker.
On the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire
record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(axl) and (3) of the
Act by unlawfully suspending its striking employees for 3
days and placing disciplinary notices in their personnel
files and by discriminatorily refusing to pay them their
holiday pay because they engaged in protected concerted
activities.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceed-
ing, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue
the following recommended:
ORDERS
(b) Remove and destroy the disciplinary notices regard-
ing the strike placed in the personnel files of the striking
employees.
(c) Post at its Romulus, Michigan, plant, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix B.114 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of Respondent, shall be posted by Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and 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 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the finding,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall , as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes.
4 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."
Respondent , Difco Laboratories, Inc., of Detroit, and
Romulus, Michigan , its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending its striking employees and placing
disciplinary notices in their personnel files and discrimina-
torily refusing to pay their holiday pay because they
engaged in protected concerted activities.
(b) In the same or any similar manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make the striking employees listed in Appendix A
whole for the loss of pay they suffered, in accordance with
the recommendations set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "rbe Remedy."
APPENDIX A
1. Florence Antczak 15. Gary Lumbert
2. Deborah Barnes 16. Stella Lupinski
3. Robert Boudreau 17. Gene Moore
4. Steven Briesch 18. Phyllis Mullinis
5. Maureen Buckner 19. Robert Peterson
6. Clarence Burton 20. Patty Rodrigres
7. Patricia Dangler 21. Doris Rudolph
8. Vivian Dupuy 22. Joseph Schiros
9. Dora Dyer 23. Judith Smith
10. Vivian Fosgate 24. LaRoma Stout
11. David Gennero 25. Doris Voytovich
12. Charlene Hansen 26. Albert White
13. Mary Lawrence 27. Sherry Whitted
14. Raymond Lock