Electronic Research Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1971

190 N.L.R.B. 778 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Electronic Research Co. and International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW). Case 17-CA-
4367
June 8, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND KENNEDY
On February 8, 1971, Trial Examiner Alvin Lieber-
man issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent
filed exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief.
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 powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the
entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner with the following modifications.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by denying
a perfect attendance incentive award to employee Betty
Colton, who was absent from work in obedience to a
Board subpena, while granting the same award to an
employee who appeared at the same Board unfair labor
practice hearing at Respondent's request.'
The Trial Examiner also found that Respondent fur-
ther violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by its
failure to pay their regular wages for time lost from
their work to the three employees, including Colton,
who attended the Board unfair labor practice hearing
pursuant to Board subpenas, although Respondent
paid their regular wages to employees who were present
at the same hearing at its instance. We find merit in
Respondent's exceptions to this finding.
Under Section 11(4) of the Act, witnesses who testify
under subpena are entitled to the same fees that are
paid witnesses in Federal courts. The record shows that
three employees of Respondent, Colton, Freida Robin-
son, and Shirley Waterman, who attended the earlier
unfair labor practice proceeding in compliance with a
Board subpena procured and served by the Union and
who testified against Respondent, were paid witness
' Electronic Research Co., 187 NLRB No. 100
fees by the Union in the required amount. However, we
are asked in addition to require Respondent to pay
these employees their regular wages for the time during
which they were present at the Trial on behalf of the
Union, simply because Respondent paid the employees
who testified voluntarily on its behalf their wages, but
not witness fees.
The earlier unfair labor practice proceeding was an
adversary one in which each side subpenaed or called
its own witnesses and compensated them for their time.
In these circumstances to order Respondent to pay the
employees for time lost from work in testifying against
it is to require a litigant in effect to subsidize its oppo-
nent. In our view, Section 8(a)(4) was never intended
by Congress to impose such burden upon a respondent
employer.
Moreover, in the instant case, those who appeared
for the Union got their prescribed witness fees from the
Union. Those who appeared voluntarily for Respond-
ent got their wages, which were less than the witness
fees. In our view what Respondent chose to call the
payment to its witnesses is irrelevant. The critical ques-
tion is how were the Union's witnesses disadvantaged.
We are asked to say that those who got less got prefer-
ential treatment and those who got more have been
discriminated against and should receive still more.
This we cannot countenance. For these reasons, we find
no violation with respect to this conduct.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of
the Trial Examiner as modified herein, and hereby or-
ders that Respondent, Electronic Research Co., Over-
land Park, Kansas, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer's recommended Order as so modified:
1. Delete paragraph 1(c) and renumber paragraphs
1(d) and 1(e) accordingly.
2. Delete paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c) and renumber
paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) accordingly.
3. Substitute the notice to employees attached hereto
for that recommended by the Trial Examiner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis-
missed insofar as it alleges that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by failing or refusing
to pay their regular wages to employees for time during
which they were absent from work as a result of com-
' Member Fanning agrees with his colleagues that Respondent did not
further violate Section 8(a)(4) of the Act by this conduct, but solely on the
ground that the Union' s witnesses were not discriminated against as the
record shows that the witness fees received by them exceeded that amount
which they would have received had Respondent paid them for the time
they were away from work testifying against it.
190 NLRB No. 143
ELECTRONIC RESEARCH CO
pliance with National Labor Relations Board sub-
penas.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which all sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the law and has or-
dered us to post this notice and we intend to carry out
the Order of the Board and abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT deny perfect attendance credit
for purposes of our Perfect Attendance Award
Program to otherwise eligible employees who are
absent from work as a result of complying with
National Labor Relations Board subpenas or any
other process for giving testimony under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act or for compelling at-
tendance at National Labor Relations Board hear-
ings , while allowing such credit to employees who
give testimony under the Act or who attend Board
hearings at our request.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in making perfect
attendance awards under our Perfect Attendance
Award Program against otherwise eligible em-
ployees who are absent from work as a result of
complying with National Labor Relations Board
subpenas or any other process for giving testimony
under the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT discriminate in any manner
against any employee for giving testimony under
the National Labor Relations Act or for filing
charges under the Act with the National Labor
Relations Board.
WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with
your rights of self-organization and mutual aid
guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act.
WE WILL give Betty Colton the award or
awards, or their cash equivalent as she prefers, to
which she would have been entitled during 1970
had she not been absent from work on May 25,
1970, when she attended, under subpena, a Na-
tional Labor Relations Board trial.
ELECTRONIC RESEARCH
Co.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
779
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions may be directed to the Board's
Office, 610 Federal Building , 601 East 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106, Telephone 816-374-
5181.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALVIN LIEBERMAN, Trial Examiner. The trial in this pre-
ceeding, with all parties represented, was held before me in
Kansas City, Missouri, on November 3, 1970, upon the Gen-
eral Counsel's complaint' dated September 18, 1970,2 and
respondent's answer . In general the issue raised by the plead-
ings is whether respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (herein called
the Act). Particularly, the questions for decision are as fol-
lows:
1. Did respondent violate Section 8(a) (1) and (4) of the Act
by denying a perfect attendance award to an employee who
was absent from work in obedience to a subpena issued at the
request of International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) (herein called the Union) requiring her attendance at
a trial held pursuant to the Act, while granting such an award
to an employee who appeared at the same trial at respond-
ent's request?
2. Did respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act
by not paying their regular wages to three employees for the
time during which they were absent from work in obedience
to a subpena issued at the request of the Union requiring their
attendance at a trial held pursuant to the Act, although two
employees who appeared at the same trial at respondent's
request were paid their regular wages by respondent for the
time during which they were absent from work for that rea-
son?
Upon the entire record,' which includes a stipulation of
facts entered into by the parties during the trial and an exhibit
jointly offered in evidence by the parties, and upon matters
as to which I may take official notice,4 I make the following:
During the trial the General Counsel amended the complaint by delet-
ing paragraph 9
The complaint was issued on a charge and an amended charge filed,
respectively, on July 20 and September 8, 1970, by International Union,
United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW).
The General Counsel 's motion to correct the stenographic transcript of
this proceeding in certain respects is hereby granted Issued simultaneously
is a separate order correcting the obviously inadvertent errors in the tran-
script called to my attention by the General Counsel's motion as well as
other errors of a similar nature
To the extent permissible , as set forth in West Point Manufacturing
Company, etc , 142 NLRB 1161, 1163, Plant City Welding and Tank Com-
pany, 123 NLRB 1146, 1150 , reversed on other grounds 133 NLRB 1092;
and National Electric Products Corporation, 87 NLRB 1536, affd 182 F 2d
940 (C A 3), I have taken official notice of the proceedings in two prior
cases ( 17-RC-6226 and 17-CA-4145), in both of which the Union and
respondent participated
780 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACTS
I JURISDICTION
Respondent, whose principal place of business is located in
Overland Park, Kansas, is engaged in the manufacture and
wholesale distribution of electronic components and tempera-
ture controls. Respondent annually sells and ships to custom-
ers located outside the State of Kansas goods valued at more
than $50,000. Accordingly, I find that respondent is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that the
assertion of jurisdiction over this matter by the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called the Board) is war-
ranted. Electronic Research Co., 187 NLRB No. 100; Sie-
mons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81, 85.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Introduction
This case concerns itself with the manner in which re-
spondent dealt with two groups of employees who left their
work in order to be present at a trial conducted upon an
earlier complaint (17-CA-4145) issued by the General Coun-
sel against respondent on a charge filed by the Union . Broadly
stated , it is asserted in the instant complaint that respondent
penalized one group whose members' attendance at the trial
was required by subpenas issued at the request of the Union
and did not similary disfavor the other group whose members
appeared at the trial at respondent 's request . Because of the
disparate treatment accorded the two groups the complaint
alleges that repsondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the
Act.'
B. Preliminary Findings'
1. Respondent's Perfect Attendance
Award Program
In 1969 and 1970 respondent maintained an incentive plan
to reduce absences and tardiness by employees. Under this
system, known as the Perfect Attendance Award Program
(herein called Award Program),' merchandise prizes of in-
creasing value were given for monthly, bimonthly,' half-
yearly, and yearly perfect attendance. To be eligible for an
' Respondent 's motion to strike from paragraph 6(c) of the complaint the
names "Robinson" and "Waterman" made during the trial, upon which
decision was reserved, is disposed of in accordanpe with the findings and
conclusions set forth in this Decision
° In pertinent part these sections provide
Sec 8 (a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(1) to interfere with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7,
(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee be-
cause he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act,
Section 7 insofar as relevant , is as follows
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self-organization , to form,
join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
7 The purpose of these findings is to furnish a frame of reference within
which to consider the facts relating to respondent's alleged unfair labor
practices The findings made here may again be considered in other con-
texts
' The published award program for 196,9 and a separate one for 1970 were
received in evidence as Joint Exhibits (Jt Exhs) 1 and 2, respectively
° A bimonthly prize was provided for only in the 1969 Award Program
award for any of these periods an employee was required to
work, with exceptions not here material, "a full 40-hour
week, normal 8-hour [day] Monday through Friday." 10
2. The earlier proceedings
a. The representation case
In November 1969 a hearing was held upon a petition for
certification (17-RC-6226) filed by the Union. Several em-
ployees of respondent were present at this hearing. Some,
including Luther Brandenburg, were there in obedience to
subpenas issued at the request of, and served upon them by,
the Union. Two other employees, Deanna Summerskill and
Helen McCorkle, were there at respondent's request.
Except for their absence from work to attend the represen-
tation hearing Brandenburg, Summerskill, and McCorkle
were otherwise elegible for awards under respondent's Award
Program. Notwithstanding the similarity in their status for
purposes of the Award Program, Summerskill and McCor-
kle, who were present at the hearing at respondent's instance,
received perfect attendance prizes, but Brandenburg, who
attended in compliance with the Union's subpena, was not
given an award.
b. The complaint case
Respondent having denied a perfect attendance award to
Brandenburg because he left his work to attend the represen-
tation hearing, although such awards were given to Summer-
skill and McCorkle despite their absence from their jobs for
the same reason , a complaint (17-CA-4145) issued against
respondent in April 1970" alleging that it violated Section
8(a)(4) and ( 1) of the Act.12 In its defense to this complaint
respondent contended that it was justified , because of the
different reasons which prompted their attendance at the
hearing , in treating disparately for purposes of its Award
Program the two sets of employees who went to the hearing
instead of remaining at work. In this regard, respondent's
argument , as summarized in the decision" of Trial Examiner
Plaine who presided at the trial in the proceeding here under
consideration , was "that [Brandenburg who attended the
hearings , under government subpoena [was] not at work,
while those [employees] who attended the hearings at [re-
spondent 's] request were 'at work' and hence their work at-
tendance suffered no interruption."'°
Trial Examiner Plaine rejected this defense . He concluded
that:
Respondent 's denial of perfect attendance awards to
otherwise eligible employees , who appear at Board hear-
ings and trials in compliance with Board subpoenas at
the call of the Union or the General Counsel , and allow-
ance of such awards to employees who appear at the
same hearings and trials at the request of the Respond-
ent, is a discrimination against employees who obey
Board process and an unfair labor practice within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
In overruling respondent 's exceptions to Trial Examiner
Plaine 's decision insofar as it related to Brandenburg, the
Board stated , "We agree with the Trial Examiner that the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act by
denying a perfect attendance incentive award to employee
10 Jt Exhs 1 and 2
" All dates subsequently mentioned without stating a year fall within
1970
" Like the instant complaint , the complaint in 17-CA-4145 was based
upon a charge filed by the Union
" TXD-539-70
" Respondent makes a similar argument in the instant proceeding
ELECTRONIC RESEARCH CO.
Luther Brandenburg, who was absent from work in obedi-
ence to a Board subpena, while granting the same award to
employees who appeared at the same Board hearing at the
Respondent 's request ." Electronic Research Co., 187 NLRB
No. 100 (January 7, 1971).
C. Facts Concerning the Unfair Labor Practices Alleged in
the Instant Complaint
The trial in the earlier complaint case, 17-CA-4145, was
held on May 25, 1970. Three employees of respondent, Betty
Colton , Frieda Robinson, and Shirley Waterman, were
present at the teal in obedience to Board subpenas issued at
the request of, and served upon them by , the Union. At
respondent 's request two other employees , Lela Downen and
Kenneth Richardson , were also present at the trial.
Except for their absence from work to attend the trial
Colton and Downen were otherwise eligible for awards for
the month of May under respondent's Award Program. Not-
withstanding this similarity in their status, Downen, who
appeared at the trial at respondent 's instance , received a per-
fect attendance prize for May, but Colton , who attended the
trial in compliance with a subpena served by the Union, was
not given an award for that month.
Not only was Downed given a perfect attendance award for
May despite her absence from work to attend the trial, but
she also received her regular wages for the time during which
she was away from respondent 's plant to be present at the
trial. Richardson , respondent 's other employee who, like
Downen , attended the trial at respondent 's request , also re-
ceived his regular wages for the time during which he was
away from his work for this reason . On the other hand,
Colton , Robinson , and Waterman were not paid their regular
wages for the time during which they were absent from the
plant to attend the trial pursuant to the subpenas.15
D. Concluding Findings Concerning the Unfair Labor
Practices Alleged in the Instant Complaint
Insofar as they relate to respondent 's denial of a perfect
attendance prize to Colton and its awarding such a prize to
Downen , the facts of this case are on all fours with those in
the earlier complaint case, 17-CA-4145. Accordingly, the
Board 's decision there16 finding violations of Section 8(a)(4)
and (1) is controlling here.
I conclude , therefore , that by denying a perfect attendance
award to Colton , who was absent from work on May 25,
1970, in obedience to a Board subpena requiring her attend-
ance at a trial conducted by a Trial Examiner of the Board,
while granting such an award to Downen who appeared at
the same trial at respondent 's request , respondent engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4)
and (1) of the Act.
Conduct by respondent which was not before the Board in
the earlier case is also alleged in the complaint as being viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(4) and ( 1) of the Act. This consists of
respondent 's payment of wages to the employees who at-
tended the trial on May 25 at its instance for the time during
which they were absent from their jobs and respondent's
denial of similar benefits to the employees who appeared at
the trial in compliance with subpenas served by the Union.
While in this regard the two cases differ factually , this factual
difference does not, upon analysis, dictate a different result.
In the earlier case the Board 's decision turned upon the dispa-
" In accordance with Section 102 32 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions , Colton, Robinson , and Waterman were paid witness fees by the Union
in the required amount
11 Electronic Research Co, 187 NLRB No 100 (January 7, 1971)
781
rate treatment accorded two sets of employees under similar
circumstances. Respondent's rewarding one group by a prize
and penalizing the other by the deprivation of a like prize was
held by the Board to be discriminatory and, hence, violative
of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
Conduct by respondent which was not before the Board in
the earlier case is also alleged in the complaint as being viola-
tive of Section 8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act. This consists of
respondent's payment of wages to the employees who at-
tended the trial on May 25 at its instance for the time during
which they were absent from their jobs and respondent's
denial of similar benefits to the employees who appeared at
the trial in compliance with subpenas served by the Union.
While in this regard the two cases differ factually, this factual
difference does not, upon analysis, dictate a different result.
In the earlier case the Board's decision turned upon the
treatment accorded two sets of employees under similar cir-
cumstances. Respondent's rewarding one group by a prize
and penalizing the other by the deprivation of a like prize was
held by the Board to be discriminatory and, hence, violative
of Section 8(a)(4) of the Act.
Applying this rationale to the matter here under discus-
sion, I find equally discriminatory respondent's failure to pay
their regular wages for time lost from their work to those
employees who attended the trial pursuant to subpenas pro-
cured and served by the Union although respondent paid
their regular wages to employees who were present at the
same trial at its instance . "Discrimination consists in treating
like cases differently." Frosty Morn Meats, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,
296 F.2d 617, 621 (C.A. 5).
Accordingly, I also conclude that by failing to pay their
regular wages to Colton, Robinson, and Waterman for the
time during which they were absent from work on May 25,
1970, in obedience to Board Examiner of the Board, while
paying their regular wages to Downen and Richardson for
time during which they were absent from work to appear at
the same trial at respondent 's request , respondent engaged in
further unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
Respondent's unfair labor practices, as found above, occur-
ring in connection with its operations set forth in section I,
above, have a close, intimate , and substantial relation 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.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4) and ( 1) of the
Act, my recommended Order will require respondent to cease
and desist therefrom and to take such affirmative action as
will effectuate the policies of the Act. In the latter category
will be a requirement that respondent make Colton , Robin-
son, and Waterman whole for any loss of earnings they may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination practiced
against them . Any backpay found to be due to them shall
include interest computed in the amount and manner set
forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The Union urges that my recommended Order provide
that it be reimbursed by respondent for its expenses occa-
sioned by the instant litigation . In the earlier complaint case,
17-CA-4145 , the Union 's request for like relief was denied
and no reason appears for different treatment here. Moreover,
in my opinion , such a remedy would be punitive. It being well
settled that the Board 's "power to command affirmative ac-
782 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion is remedial, not punitive,"" the Union's reimbursement
proposal must, regardless of any other consideration, be re-
jected on this ground.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2) of the Act and is 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. By denying a perfect attendance award to Colton be-
cause she was absent from work on May 25, 1970, in obedi-
ence to a Board subpena requiring her attendance at a trial
conducted by a Trial Examiner of the Board, while granting
such an award to Downen, who appeared at the same trial at
respondent's request, respondent has engaged, and is engag-
ing, in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(4) and (1) of the Act.
4. By failing to pay their regular wages to Colton, Robin-
son, and Waterman for the time during which they were
absent from work on May 25, 1970, in obedience to Board
subpenas requiring their attendance at a trial conducted by
a Trial Examiner of the Board, while paying their regular
wages to Downen and Richardson for time during which they
were absent from work to appear at the same trial at respond-
ent's request, respondent has engaged, and is engaging, in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(4)
and (1) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices engaged in by respondent, as
set forth in Conclusions of Law 3 and 4, above, affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act,
I hereby issue the following recommended:1e
ORDER
Respondent , Electronic Research Co, its officers , agents,
successors , and assigns , shall:
I Cease and desist from-
(a) Denying perfect attendance credit for purposes of the
Perfect Attendance Award Program to otherwise eligible em-
ployees who are absent from work as a result of compliance
with National Labor Relations Board subpenas or any other
process for compelling attendance at trials or hearings con-
ducted pursuant to, or for giving testimony under , the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended , while allowing such
credit to employees who, at its request , attend trials or hear-
ings conducted pursuant to, or give testimony under, said
Act.
(b) Discriminating in making perfect attendance awards
under the Perfect Attendance Award Program against other-
wise eligible employees who are absent from work as a result
of compliance with National Labor Relations Board sub-
penas or any other process for giving testimony under the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Republic Steel Corporation v N.L R B, 311 U S 7, 12
° In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in
Section 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
(c) Failing or refusing to pay their regular wages to em-
ployees for time during which they are absent from work as
a result of compliance with National Labor Relations Board
subpenas or any other process for compelling attendance at
trials or hearings conducted pursuant to, or for giving tes-
timony under, the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, while paying their regular wages to employees for
time during which they are absent from work at its request
to attend trials or hearings conducted pursuant to, or to give
testimony under, said Act.
(d) Discriminating in any other manner against any em-
ployee for giving testimony under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, or for filing charges under said Act
with the National Relations Board.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, or to refrain from any or all such
activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which, it is found,
will effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended:
(a) Give to Betty Colton the award or awards, or their cash
equivalents as she prefers, to which she would have been
entitled furing the year 1970 under the Perfect Attendance
Award Program, but for her absence on May 25, 1970, when
she was in attendance under subpena at a trial conducted
pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
(b) Make Betty Colton, Frieda Robinson, and Shirley Wa-
terman whole, in the manner set forth in the section of this
Decision entitled "The Remedy," for any loss of earnings
they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, person-
nel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this
recommended Order.
(d) Post at its premises copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."" Copies of said notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 17 of the National
Labor Relations Board, after being duly signed by respond-
ent's authorized representative, shall be posted by respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing within 20 days
from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.20
" 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 be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN OR-
DER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "
30 In the event that this recommended Order is adopted by the Board
after exceptions have been filed, this provision shall be modified to read
"Notify the Regional Director for Region 17, in writing, within 20 days from
the date of this Order, what steps the respondent has taken to comply
herewith "