International Baking Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
International Baking Company, Inc. and Miscella-
neous Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers, Local
986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica. Case 21-CA- 17294
September 24, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO
AND TRUESDALE
On June 21, 1979, Administrative Law Judge Rich-
ard J. Boyce issued the attached Decision in this pro-
ceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and
a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an
answering 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 briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.2
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, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
International Baking Company, Inc., Vernon, Cali-
fornia, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following paragraph I(b):
Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative 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
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). Furthermore, as Judge Learned
Hand observed in N.LR.B. v. Universal Camera Corporation, 179 F.2d 749,
754 (2d Cir. 1950), "nothing is more common in all kinds ofjudical decisions
than to believe some and not all" of a witness' testimony. We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing the Administrative Law
Judge's findings.
2 In par. I(b) of his recommended Order, the Administrative Law Judge
provided that Respondent shall cease and desist from "liln any other man-
ner" infringing upon employee rights guaranteed in Sec. 7 of the Act. How-
ever, the Board recently determined to use the narrow injuctive language "in
any like or related manner" in cases of this kind. See Hickmott Food-, Inc.,
242 NLRB 1357 (1979). We shall modify the recommended Order accord-
ingly.
"(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
No n( I To ENPILOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF IHlI
NAI()ONAI. LABOR REllATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Following a hearing at which all parties had an op-
portunity to present evidence and cross-examine wit-
nesses, the National Labor Relations Board has
found that we violated the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, and has ordered us to post this no-
tice.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act
gives all employees the following rights:
To organize themselves
To form, join, or support unions
To bargain as a group through a representa-
tive they choose
To act together for collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
To refrain from any or all such activity, ex-
cept to the extent that the employees' bargain-
ing representative and employer have a collec-
tive-bargaining agreement which imposes a
lawful requirement that employees become
union members.
WE WIl.l. NOTI discharge or otherwise discrimi-
nate against employees for engaging in union ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Jesus Jiminez immediate and
full reinstatement to his former job or, if that job
no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent job,
without prejudice to his seniority or other rights
and privileges, and WE wILL.. make him whole for
any loss of earnings or benefits he may have suf-
fered by reason of his unlawful discharge, plus
interest.
INTERNAIIONAI. BAKING COMPANY, INC.
DECISION
SIAIEMENI () IHIt CASL
RI(HARD J. BOY(T, Administrative l.aw Judge: This
matter was heard before me in Los Angeles. California, on
245 NLRB No. 23
220
INTERNATIONAL BAKING COMPANY
April 12, 1979. The charge was filed on November 20, 1978,
by Miscellaneous Warehousemen, Drivers and Helpers, Lo-
cal 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (herein
called Teamsters). The complaint issued on January 18,
1979, and alleges that International Baking Company, Inc.
(herein called Respondent), violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the National Labor Relations Act (herein called the Act).
Post-hearing briefs were filed for the General Counsel
and for Respondent.
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the
production and nonretail sale of bakery products. Its princi-
pal products are pocket breads, so called, carrying the Pita
trademark. Among its facilities are a bakery and a distribu-
tion depot in Vernon, California, and distribution depot in
Walnut, California. It annually ships goods of a value ex-
ceeding $50,000 across state lines.
Respondent is an employer engaged in and affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7)
of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
The Teamsters and Local No. 37, Bakery, Confectionery
& Tobacco Workers' International Union, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Bakers) both are labor organizations
within Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ISSUES
The complaint alleges and the answer denies that Re-
spondent fired Jesus Jiminez on November 10, 1978, be-
cause of his union sympathies and activities, thereby violat-
ing Section 8(a)(3) and (1), and that it engaged in
surveillance of its employees' union activities on November
14, 1978, thereby further violating Section 8(a)(l).
IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Discharge of Jesus Jimine:
Evidence. Jiminez was a route saleman for Respondent
from June 23, 1978, until discharged the afternoon of No-
vember 10. His duties included the delivery of fresh bread
to grocery stores and the removal of bread that was about
to be "out of code"-i.e., whose shelf life was nearing expi-
ration as revealed by a date-coded tag at the neck of each
wrapper. He made 16 or 17 stops daily and visited a given
store about three times weekly. He worked out of the Ver-
non depot until the Walnut depot became operative on No-
vember 6. He and about 13 other salesmen than were
shifted to the new facility.
In late October 1978 Jiminez telephoned an official of the
Bakers, Rudy Ochoa, about obtaining union representation
for the salesmen, and on about November I Ochoa and
another Bakers official met with him at his home. Jiminez
received a batch of blank Bakers authorization cards at that
time and gave Ochoa a list of the salesmen's names and
telephone numbers.
Ochoa soon after called John LeFlore, an organizer for
the Teamsters, describing the situation and suggesting that
the Teamsters might more appropriately organize Respon-
dent's salemen. LeFlore being agreeable, he and Ochoa and
two other union officials met with Jiminez at Jiminez' home
on about November 8.' It was decided during this meeting
to have an organizational meeting of the salesmen on No-
vember 14, at Carrow's Restaurant, near the Walnut depot.
In addition, LeFlora gave Jiminez some Teamsters authori-
zation cards for distribution to the drivers, cautioning him
not to "let the management know ... because that is the
best way to get fired."
On November 9 the Walnut salesmen were delayed sev-
eral hours in starting their routes because of the late deliv-
ery of bread from the Vernon bakery. They spent much of
the lost time in Carrow's Restaurant, which gave Jiminez
opportunity to pass out the Teamsters cards and publicize
the organizational meeting to be held there on the 14th. He
distributed cards in the restaurant to all but one of the
salesmen, reaching the remaining one at the depot later in
the day.
As above stated, Jiminez was discharged the afternoon of
the next day, November 10. Earlier on the 10th, according
to Richard Pollard, Respondent's sales manager. and Ara
Bailozian, manager of the Walnut depot, the two of them
visited a number of stores serviced by Respondent. Pollard
testified that this is a routine practice. to see what the com-
petition is doing and "to make sure your product ... is in
code," and that he tries "to hit" 200 stores per month. One
of the stores he and Bailozian supposedly hit on the 10th
was Albertson's No. 941, in LaPalma, which happened to
be on Jiminez' route. While there. their story continued,
they found three loaves of bread which went out of code as
of November 6 and, being Hawaiian sweet bread, were not
supposed to be in the store in any event.2 They reputedly
removed the three loaves from the store, obtaining the store
manager's signature on a credit memorandum as they did
so.' and returned to the Walnut depot.
Pollard testified that it was only after the stale loaves
were detected that he learned, from Bailozian. that the store
was on Jiminez' route. Bailozian disclosed at the same time,
according to Pollard, that Jiminez previously had received
"several warning letters," prompting Pollard to decide that
"we had to let him go." Pollard continued that after he and
Bailozian left the store, he "looked in the records to see the
other warnings that he [Jiminez] had received and wrote
him a letter explaining to him that we couldn't keep him.[]
and figured up the reason that I was going to let him go."
Pollard repeated, later in his testimony, that. after leaving
the store, he and Bailozian "had gone back and looked in
I Jiminez signed a Teamsters authorization card on the November 8. sug-
gesting that this meeting probably was on that date.
I Pollard testified of a November 2 conversation with an official of Albert-
son's. Barton Wyles, in which Wyles was "quite upset" over the unautho-
rized placement of merchandise in Albertson's stores, such as Hawaiian
sweet bread, and in which Pollard promised that such items would he "taken
out immediately." Thereafter, according to Pollard. he made a point, by both
posted notices and meetings, "to alert the salesmen of the problem.'"
Respondent place in evidence a credit memorandum purporting to reflect
the retrieval of the three loaves and purportedly signed by the store manager.
one Rose. The store manager did not testify.
'This letter, unaccountably. is not in evidence.
221
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the record," which assertedly revealed two prior warnings
to Jiminez.
On the afternoon of the 10th, Jiminez was summoned
before Pollard and Bailozian upon returning from his route
and told he was fired. While the three remember this con-
frontation somewhat differently, it is evident that Pollard
did most of the talking, citing the out-of-code, unauthorized
bread. Pollad then presented Jiminez with the letter he had
prepared, enclosed with which were three code tags
stamped "11 6," and showed him a copy of the credit
memorandum.' Pollard pulled three loaves of Hawaiian
sweet bread from the stalebread bin, as well. Jiminez pro-
tested that stale bread was not the real reason for the dis-
charge: that he was victim of a "double set of standards"
because he is of Mexican rather than Arabian ancestry. 6
Pollard responded, as he recalled, that this was a third of-
fense, which would have precipitated the discharge of any-
one. Neither Pollard nor Bailozian mentioned Jiminez'
union activities. Jiminez testified that he raised that as the
real reason for the discharge and that Bailozian replied.
"Shut up, you stupid Mexican."
Pollard testified that "leaving out-of-code product in
Albertson's" was the "only reason" for the discharge,
quickly amending that it was that in combination with two
previous warnings. Pollard stressed that "out-of-code prod-
uct [is] the worst offense that we have in this company."
As noted above, Pollard twice testified that after leaving
Albertson's with the stale bread, he looked at Respondent's
records and saw Jiminez' earlier warnings. He testifed yet
elsewhere that he "saw both of the warnings," that they had
been written by one Ben Rodditto, and that he could not
recall their dates or the nature of the offenses. Still later,
Pollard testified that the records are kept in Vernon, not
Walnut, and that he could not recall seeing the warnings
before the discharge--"l don't believe we went back to
L.A. [i.e., Vernon] first." Further on, Pollard testified that
Bailozian had told him that Jiminez "had had two warn-
ings" and that he "didn't particularly pull out" Jiminez' file
for confirmation.
At that point counsel for the General Counsel placed
Jiminez' personnel file before Pollard on the witness stand.
The file contained only one written warning, dated August
2 and signed by Bailozian. That warning states:
This notice is to inform you that your behavior is unfa-
vorable to that expected of an International Baking
Company employee. As this is your second complaint
regarding your conduct, a third complaint will warrant
justification for immediate termination.
Faced with this, Pollard conceded that he was "not posi-
tive" that he saw Jiminez' first warning, speculating that
perhaps he "just assumed the first one was in there" be-
cause of the reference to an earlier one in that of August 2.
Pollard testified of an unwritten policy that after two
written warnings, an employee will be discharged on the
Jiminez testified that the credit memorandum shown to him did not con-
tain the store manager's signature. He further testified that the next day, he
spoke with the store manager about what had happened and that the man-
ager denied any knowledge of it. This latter, of course, is nonprobative hear-
say. The store manager, as previously mentioned, did not testify.
Respondent apparently has a number of employees of Arabian descent.
third offense. He added that it is left to the depot managers
to inform the employees of this policy and that the employ-
ees are to receive copies of their warnings, but are not asked
to sign them. Bailozian testified of a similar policy of two
warnings and out, but was less clear that the warnings need
to be in writing. He stated that, ordinarily, no file entry is
made of oral warnings. The record contains evidence con-
cerning other discharges. Without setting forth that evi-
dence in detail, it plainly is not conclusive of a consistent
discharge policy or practice.
Bailozian testified that Jiminez' August 2 warning was
occasioned by a conflict between Jiminez and an unspeci-
fied store manager on his route. The manager reputedly
asked that Jiminez call on the store every day; Jiminez sup-
posedly resisted, prompting the manager to remove Re-
spondent's bread from the shelves; and Jiminez assertedly
accused him of prejudice against persons of Mexican heri-
tage. Bailozian asserted, and Jiminez denied, that Jiminez
received a copy of this warning. Jiminez, for that matter,
denied any knowledge of the incident. The store manager
did not testify. Jiminez' first warning, according to Bailo-
zian, was oral and was triggered by the discovery of out-of-
code bread in two stores in July.
Jiminez testified that Pollard telephoned him on Novem-
ber 15, stating that he had "had no choice" in the dis-
charge; that it had been ordered by Simon Mani, Respon-
dent's president. Jiminez related that he then asked if it was
because of his union activities and that Pollard said that he
had no knowledge of such activities. Pollard remembered a
post discharge telephone conversation with Jiminez, but de-
nied most of Jiminez' version. According to Pollard, he
voiced regret about the discharge, but said he would fire
anybody for out-of-code product, and that he then offered
Jiminez a job at an affiliate of Respondent's in Pasadena,
California which was declined.
In October Respondent held a meeting of its route sales-
men to introduce Pollard, newly installed as sales manager.
This made the salesmen unhappy, according to Jiminez,
because they were required to remain past quitting time.
Jiminez continued that some of the salemen raised the sub-
ject of unions, causing Simon Mani to announce that the
employees would get no benefits and would lose their jobs if
a union got in, after which he "walked out angrily." Bailo-
zian, also present at the meeting, denied that unions were
mentioned or that Mani left in anger. Mani, although pre-
sent throughout the trial, did not testify.
Both Pollard and Bailozian testified that they knew noth-
ing of the organizational ferment at the time of the dis-
charge. Their story is that they learned of it on November
14, when Krikor (Koko) Yeressian reported to Bailozian
that Jiminez had just approached him about attending the
union organizational meeting set for the 14th, at Carrow's.
Yeressian testified that he, too, first learned of the organiza-
tional activity on the 14th, coincident with Jiminez' ap-
proach to him. Jiminez testified, in contrast, that Yeressian
was among those given an authorization card at Carrow's
on the 9th and that when he approached Yeressian on the
14th, he reminded Yeressian of the meeting and asked if he
had signed the card.7
? Yeressian was a relief driver at the time, meaning that, because of his
familiarity with the various routes, he filled in when the regular salesmen
222
INTERNATIONAL BAKING COMPANY
In International Baking Company', Inc., 240 NLRB 230
(1979), the Board concluded that one of the Respondent's
Vernon supervisors, Jose Campos, had violated Section
8(a)(1) in the summer of 1977 by interrogating employees
concerning their union activities, by threatening employees
with discharge to discourage their engagement in union ac-
tivities, by offering certain benefits to employees to induce
them to inform his regarding the union activities of their
coworkers, and by creating the impression that the employ-
ees' union activities were under surveillance.
Conclusion. It is concluded that Jiminez' discharge vio-
lated Section 8(aX3) and (1) as alleged. He was the instiga-
tor of the union drive, and the discharge occurred only I
day after his wholesale distribution of cards to the salesmen
at Carrow's. Beyond that, Pollard's and Bailozian's recitals
concerning the discovery of the out-of-code bread the
morning of the discharge reeked of contrivance, and Pol-
lard's testimony about the warnings Jiminez was supposed
to have received-first that Pollard did, then that he did
not, see them, etc.-was such a shambles of contradictions
and evasions as to be fundamentally discrediting. More-
over, Pollard's and Bailozian's testimony of a defined dis-
charge policy, and that Jiminez' situation fit that policy,
was singularly unconvincing. Finally, Pollard's postdis-
charge offer of another job to Jiminez, at another location.
belies poor job performance as the moving cause.
As for the contention that Pollard and Bailozian did not
so much as know of the union drive until after the dis-
charge, it is established that Yeressian told Bailozian about
it upon first being approached by Jiminez. Less clear is
whether this happened on November 14, as Yeressian and
Bailazian would have it, or on the 9th, when Jiminez
avowedly gave Yeressian a Teamsters card. Jiminez, while
in general no more imposing a symbol of probity than the
other principal witnesses,' is credited in this regard. Logic
distares that had he seen fit to invite Yeressian's attendance
at the November 14 organizational meeting, which he un-
questionably did, he would have seen equally fit to include
Yeressian in his card distribution activities on the 9th.'
Remaining is whether Respondent harbored an anti-
union animus capable of influencing a discharge decision.
Jiminez, it will be recalled, testified that Simon Mani had
said in October that the employees would get no benefits
and would lose their jobs if a union got in, after which
Mani "walked out angrily." Mani, although present
throughout the trial, chose not to refute this testimony,
leaving the task to the oft discredited Bailozian. It is con-
cluded in these circumstances, and again acknowledging Ji-
minez' doubtful reliability overall, that Jiminez was telling
the truth in this instance.' 0
were absent. He also trained most of the new salesmen, filled in for Bailozian
when the latter was away, and sometimes investigated customer complaints
because-in Pollard's words-"he knew all the customers." Yeressian testi-
fied that when he had nothing else to do. he would "just ride with somebody
to spend my day."
' In this connection, see the discussion to follow on the surveillance issue.
t It having been concluded that Yeressian learned of liminez' union activi-
ties on the 9th and thereupon told Bailozian, it is unnecessary to pass on the
General Counsel's contention, disputed by Respondent, that Yeressian was a
statutory supervisor at the time.
1 No weight is given to International Baking Company, Inc., supra. as
indicative of antiunion animus in the context of the present case.
B. The Alleged Surveillance
Evidence. Upon completing their routes, Respondent's
Walnut salesmen refuel their trucks at a Mobil station near
both the Walnut depot and Carrow's Restaurant. About 2
p.m. on November 14, in anticipation of the organizational
meeting to be held at Carrow's that afternoon, Jiminez went
to the Mobil station to solicit the salesmen's attendance at
the meeting as they came in from their routes. Meanwhile,
LeFlore and another Teamsters official, Bob Hanna. waited
at Carrow's.
About 2:45 p.m., no one having appeared at Carrow's
LeFlore and Hanna made the short walk to the Mobil sta-
tion. They spoke briefly with Jiminez and with a salesman
or two; then LeFlore, Hanna, and Jiminez walked to Car-
row's together. After a few minutes inside with the other
two, Jiminez went outside to await the others in the restau-
rant parking lot. At 3:30 p.m., still no one having come,
LeFlore and Hanna said their farewells to Jiminez and left.
Jiminez testified that when he got to the Mobil station at
about 2 p.m., Bailozian was having his car fueled. Jiminez
assertedly directed Bailozian to "get the hell out" because
there was going to be a union meeting and commanded the
station attendant to remove the hose nozzle from Bailo-
zian's car, after which Bailozian is said to have driven off in
haste. Jiminez' story continued that during the balance of
his time at the station, he saw Bailozian "going up the street
three or four times slowly in a silver Granada" and then in
three other cars, "going up and down North Brea Canyon
Road slowly watching." He stated that those cars bore the
license plates PITA 1, PITA 2, and PITA 5.
In his later testimony Jiminez shifted the vantage point of
his observations to a corner of the restaurant parking lot,
averring that he saw Bailozian drive by in three different
cars in "the course of an hour." Elaborating, he said that he
saw Bailozian in a Granada first, then in a red LTD 15
minutes later, then in a Pinto wagon 30 minutes after that,
then again in the Granada 5 minutes later. He also claimed
to have seen Bailozian go by in a Thunderbird. He identi-
fied the LTD as having the PITA 2 plate, the Pinto wagon
as having the PITA 5 plate, and the Granada as having a
PITA JR plate.
Bailorzian admitted seeing Jiminez at the Mobile station
that afternoon, but denied that Jiminez in effect chased him
off as claimed by Jiminez. He testified that he left the sta-
tion of his free will at about 2:30 p.m., going to the Walnut
depot, where he remained continuously until about 6 p.m.
He further testified that while he was at the depot, Yeres-
sian brought word that Jiminez had approached him con-
cerning the meeting at Carrow's and that this was his first
knowledge of any organizational activity. He denied engag-
ing in any of the vehicular surveillance activities of which
Jiminez testified.
LeFlore testified that Jiminez never mentioned to him
and Hanna, either when they went to the station at 2:45
p.m. or when they gave up on the meeting at 3:30 p.m.,
anything about Bailozian's driving back and forth LeFlore
also testified that when he and, Hanna got to the station,
Jiminez indicated to them that the Walnut manager-
Bailozian, presumably-was there and that this person
drove away shortly afterwards.
223
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bailozian, Pollard, and Yeressian all testified that Re-
spondent has no car with a PITA I license and no Granada,
that PITA 2 is a red Chevrolet Caprice assigned to Bailo-
zian, and that PITA JR is a Mercedes coupe. Bailozian and
Yeressian testified that PITA 5 is a red LTD assigned to the
manager of the Vernon depot, and Pollard testified that
Respondent has a Pinto wagon with either a PITA 5 or a
PITA 7 plate. Pollard testified that he is assigned a Thun-
derbird with a PITA C plate and that it was not in the area
at the time."
Conclusion. It is concluded that nothing like the events
described by Jiminez happened. Not only was his story con-
fused and inconsistent-most notably when he placed the
vantage point of his observations first at the Mobil station
and then at the restaurants parking lot-but he conveyed
the distinct impression that he was making up his story as
he went along. Further, it defies belief that Jiminez would
not have reported Bailozian's carryings-on to LeFlore and
Hanna were they even remotely akin to Jiminez' grandiose
assertions.
This allegation is without merit because of the failure of
its evidentiary premise.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Jesus Jiminez as found herein, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
2. This unfair labor practice affects commerce within
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent did not otherwise violate that Act as al-
leged.
ORDER'2
The Respondent, International Baking Company, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
.i Pollard's office is several hundred miles away. in Foster City. California,
near San Francisco.
1 All outstanding motions inconsistent with this recommended Order
hereby are denied. 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.
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against its
employees for engaging in union activities.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in their exercise of rights under the
Act.
2. Take this affirmative action:
(a) Offer to Jesus Jiminez immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a
substantially equivalent job, without prejudice to his senior-
ity or other rights and privileges, and make him whole for
any loss of earnings or benefits suffered by reason of his
unlawful discharge, plus interest."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay and benefit owing under
the terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its depot in Walnut, California, the notice
which is attached and marked "Appendix."" Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 2 1, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized
representative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
That portion of the complaint found without merit is dis-
missed.
' Backpay is to be computed in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest to be computed in the manner set
forth in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See, generally, Isis
Plumbing & Heating CO., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
14 In the event this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
224