E. M. Krovitz, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 12, 1978

238 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
E. M. Krovitz, Inc. and Kenneth Boomhower. Case I
CA- 13287
September 12, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENEL.O, MURPHY, AND TRUESI)ALE
On February 21, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Bernard Ries issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
supporting arguments and the General Counsel filed
a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions, arguments,
and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' 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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, E. M. Krovitz, Inc.,
Somerville, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over-
rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dra Wall Products, Inc., 91
NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have carefullly
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
SIAIEMENI OF TiHE CASE
BERNARD RiES, Administrative Law Judge: This case was
heard in Boston, Massachusetts, on November 14, 1977.
The complaint, denied in all material respects, alleges that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in various
respects. Briefs have been received from counsel for the
General Counsel and counsel for Respondent.
Upon consideration of the briefs, the entire record in the
case, and my observation of the witnesses, I make the fol-
lowing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
I. J.RISI)ICTION
Respondent is a Massachusetts corporation which main-
tains a principal place of business in Somerville, Massachu-
setts, at which it is engaged in common carriage and truck-
ing. In the course and conduct of that business, Respondent
annually derives in excess of $50,000 from services per-
formed for, among others, Rapids Furniture, Peck & Hill
Furniture, and Belmont Furniture, each of which enter-
prises annually receives goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly from points outside the State in which each of said
enterprises is located. I find that Respondent is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act under
the jurisdictional standards applied by the Board.
11. THE ISSUES
On May 26, 1977, Edward J. Krovitz, general manager of
Respondent, discharged nine of his drivers. On that same
day Krovitz reinstated six of the drivers. John Dinitto, Ken-
neth Boomhower, and Terence Gallagher were not reinstat-
ed along with the others.' The complaint alleges that the
brief discharge of the six employees, and the more pro-
longed loss of employment by the other three, was pro-
voked by their participation in protected concerted activi-
ties, and therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1). As amended
at the hearing, the complaint also alleges that Respondent
failed to award vacation pay and grant wage increases to
Dinitto, Gallagher, and Boomhower because of their pro-
tected activity and in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
111. TIHE AI.LEGEI) UNFtAIR LABOR PRA(CTICES
Respondent is in the business of providing common car-
riage by trucks, primarily, it would appear, for furniture
dealers. It employs about 11 or 12 drivers.
The record shows that there had been concern among
some of the drivers as to whether they had been receiving
proper overtime pay. Early in the morning of Wednesday,
May 25, 1977, nine drivers were loading trucks at Rapids
Furniture Company under the direction of General Man-
ager Krovitz. Krovitz found himself alone on the loading
platform, and, having looked for the men, found them in
the garage.
The men had been discussing their overtime problem.
When Krovitz spoke to them about returning to work, John
Dinitto said that they would not work until a meeting was
held. Krovitz objected to having a meeting at the time.
There was a brief confrontation with Dinitto, who acted as
spokesman for the eight other drivers, in which Dinitto
used some vulgar language relating to his suspicion that the
drivers were being cheated out of overtime pay. Krovitz
finally secured agreement from the drivers to postpone fur-
ther discussion about the problem until they could have a
meeting after work on the following day. The drivers then
returned to work. I credit the testimony of General Coun-
'Subsequently, however, Dinitto was rehired on July 18, and Boomhower
was reinstated on September 8. At the time of the hearing, Gallagher had not
bee reemployed.
238 NLRB No. 15
82
E. M. KROVITZ, INC.
sel's witnesses that the whole episode consumed no more
than one-half hour.
On Wednesday night, however, when the drivers called in
to the office for their customary instructions, they were told
to report directly to the office the following morning. At a
meeting which was held at that time, Krovitz told the em-
ployees that he was ceasing operations and that they were
discharged. This action gives rise to the initial legal issue in
the case.
Krovitz testified at the hearing that the employees were
"dismissed for a work interruption, refusal to work on the
previous day and for foul and abusive language to me, their
superior." He further testified that he decided to dismiss the
men because "I felt that I no longer could have the confi-
dence in them to perform the type of job that we do, that
any time that they wanted to they could gather together.
cease operating, and that the type of language used and the
manner used against me in view of the fact that I had a
pretty good personal relationship with my employees was
rather insulting and it was abusive and just personally in-
sulting to me." The reason for discharge later given by Kro-
vitz to the Division of Employment Security, however,
made no reference to the language used by Dinitto: "Dis-
charged for deliberate misconduct. Employee refused after
repeated requests of superior to return to work during regu-
lar working hours leading to the disruption of the compa-
ny's operation."
The brief work stoppage to discuss a common employ-
ment grievance was protected Section 7 activity, N.L.R.B.
v. Serv-Air, Inc., 401 F.2d 363 (C.A. 10. 1968), N.L.R.B. v.
Kennametal, Inc., 182 F.2d 817, 818 (C.A. 3, 1950), Magna
Visual, 213 NLRB 162 (1974). and was not rendered unpro-
tected by the defiance displayed by Dinitto or the mildly
opprobrious language used by him, N.L.R.B. v. Thor Power
Tool Company, 351 F.2d 584, 587 (C.A. 7, 1965); N.L.R.B.
v. Illinois Tool Works, 153 F.2d 811, 815-816 (C.A. 7,
1946). The blanket discharge of the drivers for engaging in
protected concerted activity was thus, on its face, violative
of Section 8(a)(l). But Respondent manfully attempts to
force the unwilling facts of this case into the doctrine of
Textile Workers Union of America v. Darlington Manufac-
turing Co. et al., 380 U.S. 263, 273 274 (1965), that "when
an employer closes his entire business, even if the liquida-
tion is motivated by vindictiveness toward the union [or.
presumably, toward the concerted activities of the employ-
ees], such action is not an unfair labor practice." The con-
tention that Krovitz intended to close his business is, how-
ever, specious.
Krovitz testified that after thinking the matter over on
Wednesday, he called his customers and told them that he
would be unavailable to perform their work. It is quite ob-
vious, however, that he did not state that he was perma-
nently closing his establishment. He testified that he told
them "we were suspending operations," and, in an affidavit
given to the Board, he said, "I notified my customers
Wednesday afternoon that I was temporarily suspending
operations and that I would notify them when I was able to
resume deliveries. I said it was because of a labor problem."
Krovitz further testified at the hearing that he did not con-
sider that two of the men who had not been present during
the grievance meeting on Wednesday morning had been
discharged on Thursday morning, thus clearly implying
that at the latter time he was still in the trucking business
and the only individuals who were out of the trucking busi-
ness were those who had gathered as a group to discuss the
overtime problem with him. There can be no question that
the "temporary suspension" of Respondent's business was
light-years away from the sort of "bona fide" "complete
liquidation" characterized by "permanence" which Dar-
lington contemplates. 380 U.S. at 272.
The dismissal of the nine employees on the morning of
May 26 was, accordingly, an unfair labor practice. Ques-
tions remain, however, as to whether Respondent later
made a valid offer of reinstatement to all the employees
which was, as Respondent claims, rejected by Gallagher.
Boomhower, and Dinitto.
The obviously stunned employees spent the remainder of
Thursday morning discussing their plight, and returned to
Krovitz' office that afternoon. They told Krovitz that they
wanted to return to work.2 It seems fairly well agreed by all
witnesses that after the employees had indicated their desire
to return to work, Krovitz talked about the inability of the
Company to change working conditions. Gallagher testified
that Krovitz said. "There would be possibly worse condi-
tions." Krovitz conceded that he may have said that things
could be better or they could be worse. A synthesis of the
evidence leads me to believe that Krovitz gave the impres-
sion that he could not be certain whether he would recover
the patronage of the customers he had earlier notified about
the work suspension.
The principal disputed item is whether, somewhere in the
course of the meeting. Krovitz made an unconditional offer
to all the employees to return to work. He testified that he
said "that everyone's welcome to come back to work, just
tell me that you wanted to work and as soon as I had work
I would notify you." Other witnesses gave contrary testi-
mony, set out below. In the course of the discussion, three
drivers said, as Gallagher testified, that they "wanted to
come to work." Gallagher further credibly testified that af-
ter one such driver had so declared and had then asked
Gallagher if he would "work tomorrow," Gallagher replied
that he would not.'
The record also indicates that as the meeting broke up. a
number of the other employees went into Krovitz' office
and told him that they wanted to work. It further shows
that, in this afternoon meeting. Dinitto filled out a with-
drawal slip to collect the monies in his pension account, as
Krovitz had that morning suggested that the employees do.
and that at some point before Gallagher left, he shook
hands with Krovitz. Gallagher testified that he shook Kro-
vitz' hand because "After 14 years I was fired. I was going
: Testimony about this meeting was given not on1s by Krovitz Bxoom-
hower. Dinitto, and Gallagher. but also by three dnrivers, Donahue. Hanson.
and Foulds, who testified on behalf of Respondent. Such testimony. given 6
months after what must have been a rather impassioned conference, was not
uniform on either side. All of the witnesses seemed to be reasonably honest
individuals, although I was particularly impressed with B(xmhower and
Gallagher The recollections of Donahue and Foulds were clearly confused
on certain points
3I prefer to rely on Gallagher's recall of his own words rather than the
varying testimony given by other witnesses. I cannot conceive that Galla-
gher. who had come to seek rehire. ahruptls declared an end to his career
with Respondent
83
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to seek my legal advice, but I was going to part friends
anyway."
That evening, having reestablished his accounts, Krovitz
contacted the six employees who had indicated a willing-
ness to work, and they worked on Friday.
A valid offer of reinstatement "must be both uncondi-
tional and an offer of full reinstatement," Hydro-Dredge Ac-
cessory Co., 215 NLRB 138, 139 (1974). In that case, where
the employer had issued an "invitation" to the discharged
employees to apply for work, the Board stated:
For us to hold that some lesser invitation gave rise to a
duty on the part of the employees to respond favorably
to it would jeopardize the effectiveness of our remedies
and invite deliberate violation of the law. Employers
are not free to discharge employees for union activity
and then "invite" them to come back, hat in hand, and
seek favorable consideration as possible employees if
the employer chooses to reemploy them.... All dis-
criminatees have an absolute legal right to restoration
to their former status and pay-a right which we will
not permit to be diluted by the imposition of condi-
tions such as filing an application for employment or
submitting to other screening processes designed to ap-
ply to new job applicants ...
It appears to me that the invitation extended by Krovitz
to the employees on Thursday afternoon was legally sub-
standard. For one thing, Krovitz clouded the possibility of
return by his statement, as testified to by Gallagher, that
"at that time he wasn't sure whether there would be any
work after suspending all business." I believe, furthermore,
that Krovitz did not make the unqualified statement to
which he testified, that "if everybody wanted to come back
to work under the conditions as they were, they were all
welcome to come back to work." General Counsel's wit-
nesses, as well as two of Respondent's witnesses, testified
that Krovitz was more guarded. Boomhower testified, "He
said he was leaving his door open for anyone to come in
and discuss with him work. That anyone could come in
individually and talk to him if they wanted to about coming
to work for him or any problems they had." Dinitto said
that Krovitz stated, "If anyone wanted to come and talk to
him personally about the job, they could."4 Gallagher testi-
fied, "He said we could come in and discuss with him at
any time about our jobs." Donald Foulds, a driver who
testified for Respondent, supported the foregoing version of
the offer:
He had said something in regards to he didn't know
how much business we had lost because of the disrup-
tion ... He just left like an open-that you could talk
to him about coming back like on your own.
Earl Donahue, another witness for Respondent, ulti-
mately remembered that Krovitz said "[i]f they wanted to
talk over what happened or whatever, they could come in
and talk to him, that he would be willing to listen to them."
The thrust of this testimony is that the offer was less then
unconditional, that the employees were only being given
I41 do not read Dinitto's acquiescence in the word "invitation," on cross-
examination, as being inconsistent with his otherwise consistent version of
the statement.
the opportunity of applying. The fact that three employees
announced at the meeting that they wanted to work, and
that others spoke to Krovitz thereafter about returning to
work, is immaterial.5
Having received no valid offer of reinstatement, the em-
ployees could not, as a matter of logic, have rejected such
an offer by their simple failure to apply for reinstatement.
Respondent seems to contend, however, that certain affir-
mative conduct of Dinitto and Gallagher constituted an
abandonment of their reinstatement rights.
I would not conclude that there was an abandonment of
employment to be deduced from the conduct of Dinitto in
filing for withdrawal of his pension monies. Krovitz had
suggested in the morning meeting that employees could
withdraw their pension funds. When Krovitz announced
that he was suspending business, Dinitto probably was at-
tempting to salvage what he could from what may have
appeared to be the end of the enterprise. The Board has
held that even submission of a quit notice by a striker is not
necessarily conclusive of permanent abandonment. The
Fafnir Bearing Company,, 73 NLRB 1008, 1015 (1947);
Guyan Machinery Company, 155 NLRB 591, 593-594
(1965).
As for Gallagher's conduct in saying that he would not
"work tomorrow" and shaking hands with Krovitz when he
departed, such behavior does not, in the circumstances, in-
dicate an unequivocal intention to abandon the job. The
refusal to "work tomorrow" is self-limiting. The handshake,
in the emotional setting which must have existed, quite
likely is attributable to the feelings expressed by Gallagher,
set out above. Plainly, some leeway must be permitted in
judging the actions of an employee whose 14-year associ-
ation with his employer had only hours before been abrupt-
ly and disturbingly severed as a direct response to his statu-
torily protected activity. See Laminating Services, Inc., 167
NLRB 234 (1967), where, in the given situation, an employ-
ee's statement that he did not wish to return "at this time"
was not considered an unequivocal rejection.
That the three employees had not intended to surrender
their employment rights is indicated by an occurrence on
the following Tuesday. 6 On that day, Gallagher, Boom-
hower, and Dinitto sought out Krovitz at a location at
which he was working. Boomhower credibly testified that
he asked Krovitz if "we could have our jobs back." Krovitz
refused the request, saying, "You weren't happy before. I
don't see why you'd be happy now." He said, "I made ar-
rangements to get new people."7
Even if one were to assume that Krovitz had made an
unconditional offer of reinstatement on Thursday after-
noon, it was incumbent upon him to recognize their "funda-
mental right to a reasonable time to consider whether to
A forceful argument could be made that any offer was unlawfully condi-
tioned on Krovitz' statement to the men, as he testified, that they could
return to work if they "wanted to come back to work under the conditions as
they were." To the extent that the reasonable reference here was to a pro-
scription of such concerted activity as that for which they had just been
discharged, the offer would have been an invalid one.
6 Monday had been a legal holiday.
7 The affidavit given by Krovitz substantially supports this testimony, ex-
cept that the affidavit states that the employees did not ask to return to work.
Krovitz did concede in the affidavit that they asked him "what their status
was," and he testified that Boomhower asked, "[Wlell, what about our jobs."
Obviously, the employees were seeking reemployment.
84
E. M. KROVITZ, INC.
return." Penco Enterprises, Inc., Penco of Ohio, and Acousti-
cal Contracting and Supply Corp., 216 NLRB 734, 735
(1975). Krovitz testified that he held the jobs of the three
employees open until Friday evening. It is clear that he did
not convey such a limitation to the three employees. I think
that even if he had done so, the time alloted would on these
facts have been insufficient.
The question of what constitutes a reasonable time natu-
rally depends upon the circumstances. In most of the cases,
there had been a substantial timelag between the discharge
and the offer, and the employees had made new living ar-
rangements which would engender some debate about the
offer, notice to new employers, etc. E.g., Harrah's Club, 158
NLRB 758, 759, 762 fn. 1 (1966); Block-Southland Sports-
wear, Inc.. Southland Manufacturing Companv, Inc.. 170
NLRB 936, 982 (1968). In the present case, we are dealing
with employees just discharged on the morning of the pur-
ported "offer." But we are also dealing here with an em-
ployer so agitated by the concerted activities of his employ-
ees that, to their knowledge, he suspended his business
operations because of those activities. The mass discharge
must surely have shocked and bewildered all the employees.
Holding their jobs open for perhaps no more than 8 hours
after making the alleged reinstatement offer, a time limita-
tion uncommunicated to the employees, was, in my view,
completely unreasonable in the circumstances. Penco Enter-
prises, Inc., supra (I day "totally inadequate"); see also Ry-
bolt Heater Company, 173 NLRB 551, 552 (1968), holding
that a March 2 letter telling strikers to apply by March 6
imposed "an unreasonably short period of time" for such
application.'
I find, accordingly, that no proper offer of reinstatement
was made to Boomhower, Dinitto, and Gallagher on May
26: that even if such an offer had been made, it was unlaw-
fully limited in duration; and that none of these employees
waived his right to reinstatement.
As amended at the hearing, the complaint alleges that
since on or about June 1, 1977, Respondent has refused "to
grant wage increases" to Dinitto, Gallagher, and Boom-
hower, and since May 26. 1977, has refused "to give vaca-
tion pay" to the three employees, in violation of Section
8(a)(1).
In June or July 1977, Krovitz granted a $10 weekly wage
increase to the drivers then on the payroll. He testified. "We
had a little goal set that there was going to be another raise
July 1st if a goal was met between, I believe it was, March
I to July 1, and prior to June 1, we came nowhere near this
goal." However, his drivers did "an outstanding job" during
the month of June, including the "newer inexperienced
help" hired to replace the three discriminatees, and they
were consequently "rewarded with a pay raise for that pe-
riod." Dinitto was reemployed on July 18 and Boomhower
on September 8; Gallagher has not been reinstated. Dinitto
and Boomhower were rehired at their previous wage, and
were not given the $10 raise.
I find it very difficult to believe that some II drivers each
received a $520 annual wage increase based simply on their
performance during the month of June 1977. The raise ob-
s I note, incidentally, that if Krovitz, as he testified, held open the jobs of
the three men until Friday night, he could hardly have believed that Dinitto
and Gallagher had definitively resigned.
viously was a routine increment. There can be no reason for
granting such an increase to inexperienced employees and
denying it to Dinitto (an employee with 3 years of tenure)
and Boomhower (an employee for 5 years) other than their
participation in concerted activities and the appearance of
their names on the charge filed by' Boomhower on June 22.9
Krovitz' attitude toward the three holdouts was exemplified
in his testimony about what he said to them when they
returned to ask about their jobs on the Tuesday following
their discharge: "I said you probably wouldn't be happy
working here, and I probably wouldn't be happy having
you work here." The manifest reason for the sudden onset
of unhappiness with these veteran employees was their Sec-
tion 7 activity. '° I find, therefore, that by failing to pay
Dinitto and Boomhower the $10 wage increase after they
were reinstated, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act."
As for the vacation pay allegation, the record shows that
the employees were entitled to 2 weeks of vacation a year.
Krovitz testified that Dinitto and Gallagher had already
taken I week prior to their discharges. Krovitz further testi-
fied that after the discharges, "they" called the office and
asked about their vacation pay. He replied that "as far as I
was concerned, I felt they forfeited that when they left." He
also stated at the hearing that the two men who had re-
turned to work had not requested vacation leave since their
return, and that if they did so, he would grant them leave
with pay.
From Krovitz' testimony, it appears that the vacation
leave of the three men had accrued prior to their discharges
on May 26. They were thus entitled to receive the pay.
Krovitz' refusal to grant them the accrued pay, on the
ground that they had "forfeited" their entitlement as a con-
sequence of protected concerted activity, violated Section
8(a)(l1).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. E. M. Krovitz, Inc., is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act.
2. By discharging Kenneth Boomhower, John Dinitto,
Terence Gallagher, Peter Hanson, Donald Foulds, Earl
Donahue, Paul Klapchuk, Lee Staskiewicz, and Micheal
Ciufuni, on May 26, 1977, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
3. By refusing and failing to reinstate John Dinitto to
employment until July 18, 1977, by refusing and failing to
reinstate Kenneth Boomhower to employment until Sep-
tember 8, 1977, and by refusing and failing to reinstate Ter-
ence Gallagher to employment, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By failing, in 1977, to grant wage increases to Kenneth
Boomhower and John Dinitto, and by failing to award va-
9 The complaint issued on July 20.
lo I note that in an appeal of Boomhower's claim for unemployment com-
pensation, Krovitz referred to Boomhower as the "primary instigator" of the
May 25 affair. The record shows that Dinitto was the spokesman on May 25.
" I cannot make a similar finding as to Gallagher, since he had not re-
turned to work as of the hearing. However, the increase will be reflected as
an element of his backpay. Similarly, the increase will be incorporated in the
backpay due to Boomhower and Dinitto.
85
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cation pay to Kenneth Boomhower, John Dinitto, and Ter-
ence Gallagher, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
TlE REMEDY
In order to remedy the unfair labor practices found
herein, I shall recommend that Respondent be required to
cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
by discharging the nine above-named employees on May
26, 1977, I shall recommend appropriate remedial relief.
The six employees who returned to work on May 27 have, it
would appear, received full reinstatement; they are, how-
ever, entitled to backpay for the day of May 26, since their
loss of work for that day was a direct result of Krovitz'
reaction to their protected activity. Boomhower and Dinitto
are entitled to backpay, including the wage increase, until
the dates on which they were reinstated. Gallagher is enti-
tled to an offer of immediate and full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent one, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges, and to be made whole for any loss of
earnings and benefits he may have suffered from the time of
his discharge to the date of a valid offer of reinstatement.
The backpay for Dinitto, Boomhower, and Gallagher shall
be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). Interest shall be awarded to all
employees, as prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231
NLRB 651 (1977).2 In addition, Boomhower and Dinitto
are entitled to be compensated, with interest, for the wage
increases that they should have received after reinstate-
ment; and Boomhower, Dinitto, and Gallagher are entitled
to the vacation pay, with interest, requested by them after
their discharges, or in lieu thereof, vacation leave with pay
according to Respondent's practice and the facts obtaining
at the time of compliance.
I shall further recommend that Respondent be required
to post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I issue the following recommended:
ORDER'3
Respondent E. M. Krovitz, Inc., Somerville, Massachu-
setts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, refusing to give pay raises, refusing to
grant accrued vacation pay, or otherwise discriminating
against employees for engaging in protected concerted ac-
"2See, generalily, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
l3 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
tivity for the purpose of collective-bargaining or other mu-
tual aid or protection.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Terence Gallagher full reinstatement to his for-
mer job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights and privileges, and make him and Kenneth
Boomhower, John Dinitto, Peter Hanson, Donald Foulds,
Earl Donahue, Paul Klapchuk, Lee Staskiewicz, and
Micheal Ciufuni whole in the manner set forth in the sec-
tion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security records. timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary or ap-
propriate to analyze the amounts of backpay due the em-
ployees.
(c) Post at its place of business in Somerville, Massachu-
setts, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'4
Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1. after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1' In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of
the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTI Ii- To EMPI.OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAl. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all sides had a chance to give
evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post this notice. We intend to abide by the
following:
The Act gives employees these rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or help unions
To bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing
To act together for collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all these things.
86
E. M. KROVITZ, INC.
WE WILl. NOT discharge, refuse to give wage raises,
refuse to pay accrued vacation pay, or otherwise dis-
criminate against any employee for engaging in con-
certed activity for the purpose of collective bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
their rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL offer Terence Gallagher immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job, or if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent one, and
wE WILL. compensate him, with interest, for any loss of
pay and benefits he may have suffered because we dis-
charged him.
WE WILI make Peter Hanson, Donald Foulds, Earl
Donahue, Paul Klapchuck, Lee Staskiewicz, and
Micheal Ciufuni whole, with interest, for the losses
they incurred as a result of their engaging in protected
concerted activity on May 26, 1977.
WE wni.i make Kenneth Boomhower and John
Dinitto whole, with interest, for the losses they in-
curred until they were reinstated to employment. and
also for the wage increases that were withheld from
them after they were reinstated to employment.
WE WUi. make Kenneth Boomhower, John Dinitto,
and Terence Gallagher whole for the vacation pay that
was withheld from them after they were discharged on
May 26, 1977.
E. M. KROVI1Z, IN(.
87