Forest City Containers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 38 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Forest City Containers , Inc. and Cynthia Underwood.
Case 8-CA-7884
June 26, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(29 U.S.C. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act, by discharging
Underwood on or about September 14, 1973, and thereafter
refusing to reinstate her. The Company filed an answer
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices. Fol-
lowing the close of the hearing, General Counsel and the
Company filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, from my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses, and upon careful consid-
eration of the briefs, I make the following:
On March 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions 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 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 and brief
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 Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby
orders that Respondent, Forest City Containers, Inc.,
Berea, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the said recom-
mended 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 overrule
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 Dry Wall Products, Inc, 91 NLRB 544
enfd 188 F 2d 362 (C A 3) We have carefully examined the record and find
no basis for reversing his findings
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge: A
hearing in the entitled proceeding was held before me on
January 15 and 23, 1974, at Cleveland, Ohio, on the com-
plaint of the General Counsel against the Respondent, For-
est City Containers, Inc., referred to hereinafter as the
Company. Upon a charge and an amended charge filed by
Cynthia Underwood' on September 17 and October 31,
1973, respectively, the complaint issued on October 31,
1973, alleging that the Company violated Section 8(a)(3)
i The name of the case appears as amended at the hearing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND THE LABOR ORGANIZA-
TION INVOLVED
The Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of corrugated cartons and displays at the plant
involved in the instant proceeding, located at Berea, Ohio.
In the course and conduct of its business, the Company
annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly
to points located outside the State of Ohio. I find that the
Respondent Company is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Local No. 634, United Paperworkers International
Union, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as Local 634, is it labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11 THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts 2
Toward the end of August 1973, Cynthia Underwood,
who was then unemployed, asked her fiance's mother, com-
pany employee Ruth Buckwald, about job openings at the
plant. Buckwald was also president of Local 634, which
labor organization had a 3-year collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the Company's Berea plant employees until
December 5, 1973. Upon Buckwald's advice, Underwood
filed ajob application with the Company on August 27. On
the first page of the Company's application form, next to the
caption "Names of Friends With This Company," Under-
wood inscribed "Ruth Buckwald " In its answer to the com-
plaint, the Company admitted "that prior to hiring Miss
Underwood it was aware that she was engaged to the son
of the then President of the local Union. . . .
After interviewing Underwood on August 28, Company
Personnel Manager George Mark gave her application to
Plant Manager Ernest J. Drda, Sr. The plant manager was
hesitant about hiring Underwood and told Mark "he want-
ed to think it over because . . . if she were anything like her
mother-in-law, she would be another thorn in his side, or
something to that effect." Within the next 2 days, Drda
instructed Mark to call Underwood and "give her a try."
The Company offered Underwood employment on its
second shift (from 3:30 p.m. until midnight) Although she
preferred the first shift (from 7 a.m until 3:30 p.m.), Under-
wood accepted the job offer and reported for work at 2:45
2 Except as otherwise specifically indicated, the facts are based upon a
compendium of the testimony of witnesses Cynthia Underwood, George
Mark, and Ruth Buckwald
212 NLRB No. 16
FOREST CITY CONTAINERS, INC. 39
on the afternoon of September 4.
When Plant Manager Drda went to Buckwald's work
station and announced, "We dust hired Cynthia Under-
wood," Buckwald' expressed satisfaction. However, when
Drda added that Underwood would be on the second shift,
Buckwald objected because of the inconvenience to Under-
wood. Drda replied that there was no opening on the first
shift "right now," but that as soon as there was one, Under-
wood could bid for it.
On the afternoon of September 4, after Underwood ap-
peared for work, Personnel Manager Mark gave her a brief
orientation. He gave her a memorandum addressed to new
employees which welcomed her to the plant, set forth work-
ing hours, and explained some basic plant rules. Under-
wood and Mark discussed her request for a job on the first
shift. When Mark asked if she would be interested in an
office job which he expected to be available in about 2
weeks, Underwood said she would. Underwood also
learned that for the first 30 days she would be a probation-
ary employee .3 Ten minutes before the beginning of the
second shift, Mark introduced Underwood to the shift fore-
man, William E. Knight. Underwood was assigned to scrap-
ping boxes, a production task which required the use of a
hammer and chisel to "beat out the perforated lines so the
boxes fold up." She remained in this job until her discharge
on September 14.
On Friday morning, September 7, after 3 days of scrap-
ping, Underwood awoke with a sore wrist. After visiting a
physician, she telephoned Buckwald and complained to her
about her sore wrist and sought advice about a possible
reassignment. Buckwald's advice was to report for work and
take the matter up with Foreman Knight.
That afternoon, Underwood reported for work at 3:30
and immediately complained to Knight about her wrist
which was swathed in an Ace bandage. When she pressed
him about a less strenuous job, Knight asked if she could
work with her left hand. When Underwood replied that she
would try, Knight took her to the scrapping area , and she
began to work with her left hand.
As Underwood worked, her pain continued. At the 7:30
dinner break that evening, Knight sent Underwood home,
after he discovered her crying at her work station. Before
leaving, Underwood complained to Knight about the scrap-
ping, adding "it seems to me you could put me on another
job." The foreman responded that nothing else was avail-
able. Underwood also complained that while others had
been hired on the first shift, she "had been overlooked." She
asked, "What is it?" Knight replied that he had "nothing to
with the hiring" and to take the matter up with Plant Man-
ager Drda. In the exchange, Underwood pointed out that
she had taken her cause to Local 634 through Buckwald.
Early in the week of September 10, Buckwald learned of
3 Art V, sec. 1, of Local 634 s contract with the Company provided in
pertinent part as follows:
Employees shall be considered on probation and they shall not have
seniority until they have been in the employ of the Company for thirty
(30) days, at which time seniority shall date from the most recent date
of hire. The Company shall have no responsibility to recall probationary
employees if they are laid off during such thirty (30) day period, and
during said period the Company shall have the unrestricted right to
discharge or transfer such probationary employees.
a posted opening for an air scraper on the first shift. On
September 11 or 12, she advised Underwood to bid for the
opening. However,, Underwood reported back "they had
taken it off the board and put it on at night."
At work on September 13, Buckwald requested Local
634's day-shift steward, Madeline Wells, to investigate the
removal of the air scraper job to the night shift. Steward
Wells reported back that Plant Manager Drda's response to
her inquiry was, "That was the way it was going to be."
Upon receiving this report, Buckwald went to Drda to raise
the matter anew. It was about 2 p.m. and Drda said "he
didn't have time." He added that he would meet with her
when he had time.
About 10 minutes before the end of the shift, Plant Man-
ager Drda came to Buckwald's work station. Buckwald and
others were cleaning the floor and she complained that this
was an inappropriate time for Drda to launch a discussion
of the matters troubling her. Drda responded by asking
Buckwald to state what it was she wished to see him about.
At this Buckwald asked, "Why did you put the job on
nights?" Drda answered, "I am going to put it there regard-
less of whether you like it or not." Buckwald protested,
saying that he was "taking people's rights away" and that
older people with more seniority would lose a chance at a
job paying "11 cents more an hour." She gave herself as an
example. At this, Drda pointed out that she and others
could "go on nights." After protesting that her seniority
entitled her to be on the day shift, Buckwald asserted that
Drda's action was in retaliation for the letters she had writ-
ten to Company President Sheard. Drda responded, "Yes,
more of your letter writing." Buckwald then recalled that
she had previously warned him that "when there isn't any-
thing accomplished about the things that you said you
would do in the plant, I would write a letter to Mr. Sheard."
When she reiterated her charge of retaliation, Drda an-
swered: "That is my damn prerogative."
Buckwald's letters to the company president, numbering
three or four, resulted from her dissatisfaction with Drda's
treatment of Local 634s complaints about plant working
conditions. Such complaints were raised by Local 634's rep-
resentatives, including President Buckwald, at meetings
with Drda, who would assure them that "he would try to get
at [them] or ' he would see about [them]." Buckwald dis-
patched her last letter to President Sheard on or about Sep-
tember 7, complaining about working conditions in the
Glue Department. Buckwald also wrote similar letters to the
Company's owners during 1973.
Following her exchange with Drda, at the end of her shift,
Buckwald clocked out, went home, and, in a telephone con-
versation with President Sheard, renewed her complaint
about the rescheduling of the air scraper job and
Underwood's loss of an opportunity to bid on a day-shift
job. Sheard disclaimed knowledge and said he would "get
back" to her after consultation with Drda. Sheard never
answered Buckwald's complaint.
About 15 minutes after Cynthia Underwood reported for
work on September 14, she "became quite sick." She applied
cold towels to her face and neck and was otherwise assisted
by fellow employees. She reported the situation to Foreman
Knight and asked for permission to go home. Knight con-
sented. However, when he declined her request for a ride
40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
home, Underwood telephoned her fiance. When
Underwood's fiance arrived and she was about to leave,
Knight handed her a final check. Underwood asked: "Does
this mean I am fired?" Knight answered, "Sort of." He
added that scrapping "is a man's work and it is hard on a
woman," and that her "percentages ° were not what they
should be." 5
Soon after her departure from the plant Underwood tele-
phoned Foreman Knight to inquire further about her dis-
charge. Knight referred her to Personnel Manager Mark
who answered her. Mark told her that she was "let go"
because she was "incompatible to thejob." When she asked
about a secretarial position, Mark said he could not tell her
anything at that time. Underwood had no further contact
with the Company.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
It is well settled that the discharge of an employee be-
cause he or she has a familial relationship with a union
activist is violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Champion Papers, Inc (Ohio Division) v. N.L.R B., 393 F.2d
388, 394-395 (C.A. 6, 1968), enfg. 158 NLRB 978 (1966);
Ridgely Manufacturing Company, 207 NLRB No. 17 (1973);
Golub Bros. Concessions, 140 NLRB 120, 121 (1962).
Here, the General Counsel contends that Cynthia
Underwood's discharge on September 14 was in retaliation
for the union activity of her fiance's mother, Ruth Buck-
wald, and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the
Act. The Company challenges that contention, urging that
it has demonstrated Underwood's discharge to have been
lawful. I agree with the General Counsel's contention and
find the Company's defense to be wholly without merit.
The Company concedes that it hired Underwood with the
knowledge that she was engaged to Ruth Buckwald's son.
Plant Manager Drda, who dealt with employee Buckwald
on union matters in her role as president of Local 634,
manifested reluctance to hire Underwood because "if she
were anything like her mother-in-law she would be another
thorn in his side...." Plant Manager Drda's vivid lan-
guage reflected considerable displeasure with Buckwald's
letters to Company President Sheard seeking satisfaction of
According to Plant Manager Drda's credited and undisputed testimony,
"percentages" refers to the production efficiency of a scrapper The basis of
the percentage is "[t]he number of pieces or cartons that a person was able
to manufacture in a given time "
5 Contrary to Underwood, Knight testified that in response to her request
for an explanation of her discharge, he replied that the reasons were lateness
and her apparent dislike of her work Underwood testified fully and in a
relaxed straightforward manner In contrast , Knight was an uneasy and
reluctant witness under cross-examination . When pressed , he admitted that
in his affidavit given to a Board agent in October 1973 he had declared
emphatically that tardiness was the sole reason he gave Underwood on
September 14 When asked to account for this inconsistency, he testified
"Yes I remember saying this was it I didn't think you wanted every single
" I find it difficult to accept Knight's explanation that he felt no
compulsion to recount in its entirety so important an event as his confronta-
tion with Underwood at the very moment of the very discharge under investi-
gation by the Board, particularly when he recognized that he was being
pressed to give a full account As I find Knight to be an unreliable witness,
I do not credit his version of his conversation with Underwood at the time
of her discharge on September 14 Nor have I credited him at other points
of conflict between his testimony and Underwood's
Local 634's demands regarding plant conditions. Beyond
question, therefore, Drda was further alienated by
Buckwald's disclosure in an already heated discussion on
September 13 that she had gone to the Company's president
the previous week regarding Local 634's complaint about
the glue department's working conditions. Coupled with
this background of hostility, the timing of Underwood's
abrupt discharge the day following Buckwald's disclosure is
persuasive evidence that the discharge was the Company's
unlawful response to Buckwald's union activity. N.L.R.B v.
Elias Brothers Big Boy, Inc., 325 F.2d 360, 366 (C.A. 6,
1964).
The Company seeks to defend its conduct by showing
that Plant Manager Drda's decision to discharge Under-
wood was made for nonunion reasons during the second
shift on September 13, after consideration of Foreman
Knight's recommendation, a memorandum from Foreman
Thomas R. Jackson, and a review of Underwood's record.
At the outset, the Company's defense is weakened by the
shifting and inconsistent reasons offered for Underwood's
discharge. Thus, at the time of discharge, Foreman Knight
told Underwood that the reason for her discharge was that
"scrapping is a man's work and it is hard on a woman" and
that her "percentages were not what they should be." Yet
Underwood's timecard bears the following inscription:
TERMINATED PROBATIONARY PERIOD
CONSTANTLY LATE, WAS WARNED OF THIS BY SUPERVISOR
The Company's answer to the complaint declares only "that
Cynthia Underwood was discharged for continued and ex-
tended tardiness in arrival at work." Similarly, a summary
prepared by the Company from its records and entitled
"PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES HIRED IN 1973
WHO WERE TERMINATED" reports that the reason for
Underwood's discharge was "TARDINESS." However, ad-
ditional grounds were offered at the hearing, when Drda
testified as to his "mental process" in deciding
Underwood's fate on September 13, as follows:
Well, one being the frequency or the lateness in com-
ing in succession, which would bring to mind a pattern,
an established pattern. Secondly, the note from Mr.
Jackson stating the fact that she wasn't taking instruc-
tions as she should have been.
I think, to cross my mind, also the fact that Miss
Underwood probably should have had an office job, if
that would have been available I think she is out of
caliber of an employee such as Forest City needs out
in the plant. This went through my mind. I mean there
were a number of things, the percentage or the efficien-
cy, this was a factor also.
Finally, in its brief (pp. 11-12) the Company offers yet
another admixture consisting of lateness, leaving her work
station, mediocre efficiency, failure to "do the work she was
instructed to do by her foreman," and expressed displeasure
with herjob as the reasons for her discharge. Such inability
to settle upon a reason for Underwood's discharge strongly
suggests that the proffered defense is pretextual. A. J. Kra-
jewski Mfg Co. v. N L R.B., 413 F.2d 673, 676 (C.A. 1,
1969); N L.R.B v. Georgia Rug Mill, 308 F.2d 89, 91 (C.A
FOREST CITY CONTAINERS, INC. 41
5, 1962).
The Company's defense is further impaired by Drda's
patently false testimony, on direct and cross-examination,
that on September 13, the day of his decision to terminate
Underwood, he had before him a memorandum from Fore-
man Jackson complaining that Underwood "does not listen
to orders and does not carry out her work load like she was
instructed to." The falsity of Drda's testimony in this regard
was established beyond doubt by the memorandum itself
which is dated "9-27/73" and Foreman Jackson's credible
testimony that he wrote it on September 26. Drda's resort
to such a falsehood does not assist the Company's cause,
but, rather, is further evidence of the unlawful design.
N.L.R.B. v. Milco, Inc., 388 F.2d 133, 139 (C.A. 2, 1968),
enfg. 159 NLRB 812 (1966).
Nor did Drda assist the Company when he testified to
reviewing Underwood' s nine daily production records on
January 21, 1974 (2 days before resumption of the trial of
this matter), and adjusting three of them down and one
them up. Drda made these changes at a time when he well
knew the records were under subpena by the Board for this
proceeding. His excuse was that he wanted to be sure of
their accuracy before turning them over to the Government.
However, in light of his proven willingness to fabricate rea-
sons for Underwood's discharge, I reject his explanation.
The more likely explanation for Drda's alteration of the
records is his zeal to shore up the Company's defense.
Examination of the stated reasons and other circum-
stances reveals a disparity in Underwood's treatment which
negates the Company's attempt to justify her discharge on
lawful grounds. Thus, of the 24 probationary employees
hired and terminated by the Company in 1973, the
Company's own records show only Underwood as having
been discharged for tardiness. It is also remarkable that, of
the Company's 19 probationary scrapping employees em-
ployed in 1973, only Underwood was discharged. Further,
although the Company's stated policy is to reflect tardiness
on an employee's attendance record, the attendance records
of 15 probationary employees do not reflect any tardiness
shown on the-timecards. Also, the Company had no atten-
dance records for five other probationary employees whose
timecards showed tardiness in 1973. Yet Underwood's at-
tendance record meticulously reflects the five instances of
tardiness shown on her timecard for the week of September
10.
As for her tardiness, Underwood's timecard shows that
she was 3 minutes late on September 10, 9 minutes, late on
September 11, 1 minute late on September 12, 37 minutes
late on September 13, and 1 minute late on September 14.
According to former Personnel Manager Mark's credited
and uncontradicted testimony, employees on Underwood's
shift are often a minute or so late because they must share
the Company's single timeclock with the first-shift employ-
ees who "stampede" the clock in their desire to leave the
plant. According to Underwood's credited testimony, this
daily collision between the first and second shifts at the
timeclock accounts for Underwood's two 1-minute and one
3-minute violations. Underwood was 9 minutes late on Sep-
tember 11 because she took dinner to her fiance who was
working near the Company's plant. On September 15, the
day she was 37 minutes late, Underwood called Drda at
3:25 p.m. and told him that she would be late but that she
was on her way. He said, "All right, fine." When she finally
appeared at the plant, Underwood apologized to Drda for
being late. Without more, Drda told her to see Foreman
Knight, who also received her apology without response
and simply put her to work scrapping. In any event, I find
from Underwood's credible testimony that at no time dur-
ing her brief tenure with the Company did Drda, Knight, or
any other company official warn Underwood about her
tardiness. It was not until after Drda's encounter with Lo-
cal 634's president, Buckwald, on September 13, that
Underwood's tardiness became important to the Company.
At that juncture, the Company inscribed: "Constantly late,
was warned of this by Supervisor," on her timecard, as the
reason for Underwood's discharge, an assertion not borne
out by the credited evidence.
Finally, the Company complains that Underwood's pro-
duction percentages were low. However, Personnel Manag-
er Mark testified credibly that Underwood's production was
average among' probationary employees. Also, the
Company's records show that while Underwood's produc-
tion efficiency fluctuated, she progressed from 31 percent
on the first day of her scrapping, and achieved 66 percent
on September 13 and 57 percent on September 14. Accord-
mg to Drda, the 30-day probationary period is accorded to
a new employee "as a proving ground" and that with respect
to, acceptable performance during that period "there should
be a definite progression upwards" in production. The sharp
contradiction between Drda's recitation of company policy
and the abruptness with which the Company terminated
Underwood's employment, after only 2 weeks, during which
her production showed definite improvement, further dra-
matizes the pretextual nature of the Company's defense.
In sum, I reject the Company's defense and find instead
that Underwood's discharge was in retaliation for her in-
tended mother-in-law's union activity as president of Local
634. Accordingly, I further find Underwood's discharge was
violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging employee Cynthia Underwood on Sep-
tember 14, 1973, because of the union activity of her fiance's
mother, Ruth Buckwald, the Company engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Company has violated the Act in
certain respects, it will be recommended that the Company
be ordered to cease and desist from such conduct and take
affirmative action to remedy the effects of its illegal con-
duct.
The Company having discriminatorily discharged Cynt-
6 For reasons previously stated, I do not credit Kmgbt's testimony that he
warned Underwood about her tardiness
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hia Underwood, I find it necessary to order the Company
to offer her full reinstatement to her formerjob or, if that
position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent fob,
without prejudice to her seniority and other rights or privi-
leges. Underwood shall be made whole for any loss of earn-
ings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination
against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal to
that which she normally would have earned from the date
of her unlawful discharge (September 14, 1973) to the date
of the offer of reinstatement, less net earnings, if any, during
such period to be computed in the manner prescribed in
F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
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:
ORDER7
tive , shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall
be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not
altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision , what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Respondent Forest City Containers, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging, refusing to employ, or otherwise dis-
criminating against employees in regard to hire and tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment
because of their or any present or prospective relative's
membership in, or activities on behalf of, Local No. 634,
United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, or
any other labor organization.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Cynthia Underwood immediate and full rein-
statement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists,
to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make her
whole for such loss of pay as she may have suffered as a
result of the Respondent's discrimination against her, in the
manner set forth in the section entitled "The Remedy."
(b) 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.
(c) Post at its plant at Berea, Ohio, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after
being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representa-
7 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
E 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
Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
After a trial in which all parties participated, it has been
found that we have violated the National Labor Relations
Act in certain respects. To remedy these violations of the
law, we advise you that:
WE WILL NOT discharge employees because of their or
any present or prospective relative's membership in or
activities on behalf of Local No. 634, United Paper-
workers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any other
union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of their right to join or support Local No. 634, United
Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO, or any
other union, or to refrain from such activity.
WE WILL offer to Cynthia Underwood immediate and
full reinstatement to her former position or, if thatjob
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalentjob, with-
out prejudice to, and with restoration of, all seniority
and other rights and privileges.
WE WILL pay to Cynthia Underwood who we dis-
charged on September 14, 1973, any wages she may
have lost from the date of her discharge to the date of
our offer of reinstatement, less any intermediate earn-
ings she may have had, and with interest at 6 percent
on any wages that we may owe her.
FOREST CITY CONTAINERS. INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
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 altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. Any questions concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions may be direct-
ed to the Board's Office, Suite 1695, Anthony J. Celebrezze
Federal Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44199, Telephone 216-
522-3725.