Micro-Chart Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

1064 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Micro-Chart Company and Linda J. Johnson and
Teresa Stan . Cases 9-CA-23251-1 and 9-CA-
23251-2
19 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On 17 December 1986 Administrative Law
Judge Marion C. ' Ladwig issued the attached deci-
sion . The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board had dele-
gated its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the' judge's rulings , findings," and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Micro-Chart
Company, New Carlisle, Ohio, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board 's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951).
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings.
2 Members Johansen and Cracraft, who did not participate in Meyers
Industries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986), agree that the activity was concerted
and protected.
James E. Horner,- Esq., for the General Counsel.
Gary L. Maxton , for the, Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARION C. LADWIG, Administrative Law Judge.
These cases were tried at Dayton, Ohio, on 17 Septem-
ber 1986.1 The charges were filed by two discharged
employees on 24 June, and the complaint was issued 1
August and amended at the trial.
In a meeting on 23 May employees Teresa Stan and
Linda Johnson led protests that the Company was failing
to pay the employees on time four paydays in a row. On
18 June, on the completion of a large overdue microfilm-
ing job, President Gary Maxton summarily discharged
them.
1 All dates are in 1986.
The primary issues are whether the Company, the Re-
spondent, (a) unlawfully threatened Stan with discharge
for questioning the delayed pay at the meeting, (b)
threatened to close the facility if the employees sought a
union, and (c) discharged employees Stan and Johnson
for engaging in protected concerted activity at the meet-
ing, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
The Company, an Ohio corporation, microfilms
records at, its facility in New Carlisle, Ohio, where it an-
nually provides over $50,000 in services to nonretail en-
terprises that annually meet the Board's jurisdictional
direct inflow standard. The Company admits and I find
that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Threats
On 23 May, about 30 minutes after Supervisor Sharon
Fugate conducted the employee meeting, employee
Teresa Stan told Fugate that "we're not trying to cause
problems. We just want to know why we're not getting
paid on time." Fugate first responded that employee Dee
Gantt had "come back here and told me that you girls
were getting upset because you weren't getting paid, and
that [Fugate] ought to go out there and say something to
them or go get [President] Gary Maxton." As credibly
testified by Stan (who impressed me most favorably as
an honest, forthright witness) (Tr. 34):
Sharon Fugate also said that "if Gary finds out
about today's meeting, you'll get fired."
And I said, "Why? Just for asking questions
about our pay?"
And she said, yes, that Gary considers that
grounds for dismissal, and that when I was hired, I
was told "You do not ask questions."
Fugate claimed to the contrary (Tr. 174-175) that after
the employee meeting Stan apologized for her conduct
and that although she accepted Stan's apologies, she told
her that her conduct "could possibly be grounds for dis-
charge." I discredit Fugate's version of the conversation.
(By her demeanor on the stand, Fugate appeared less
than candid.)
I find that Supervisor Fugate's statements to employee
Stan constitute a threat to discharge her for engaging in
what I find was protected concerted activity at the meet-
ing. The threat clearly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
About 3 weeks earlier microfilm camera operator
Debra Sipe was talking to Supervisor Fugate about the
film and footage on one of the jobs. As she credibly tes-
283 NLRB No. 158
MICRO-CHART CO.
tified, she asked Fugate what would. happen if someone
"called up a union and asked them to come in . Fugate
answered, "Well, Gary would shut it down." Sipe asked
why and Fugate answered, "Because he wouldn't . . .
pay us all equal pay." (Tr. 68-69, 72, 74-75.) I discredit
Fugate's denials (Tr. 170, 176). (Sipe appeared to be an
honest witness.)
I find that this threat to close the facility if the em-
ployees sought a union also clearly violated Section
8(a)(l).
B. The 18 June Discharges
1. The protected concerted activity
Teresa Stan and Linda Johnson were microfilm
camera operators who were summarily discharged at
quitting time on 18 June. The General Counsel contends
that they were discharged for engaging in protected con-
certed activity at the employee meeting on 23 May.
At noon on 23 May, after employee Gantt had
checked the incoming mail, she told, other employees
that no checks had come in and it "looks like we're not
getting paid again." About 1:30 p.m. employees Stan and
Johnson were discussing not getting paid on time with
Gantt and employees Sipe and Alicia Jones. Stan sug-
gested drawing up a petition to get a meeting to discuss
why they were not getting paid on time . She did so and
she, Johnson, Sipe, and Jones signed it. But when she
turned to hand it to Gantt to sign, she saw Gantt walk-
ing toward Supervisor Fugate. (Tr. 28-29, 33, 65, 83-84,
183.) (The General Counsel contends that Gantt "appar-
ently has a tendency to play both sides against the
middle.")
In a few minutes Fugate came ' and called a meeting.
She told the employees,, "You're not getting paid today.
No checks came in the mail, and "I don't know what else
to tell you." She asked for questions and Linda Johnson
asked: "When is this going to stop? This is four paydays
in a row that we haven't been paid on time." Teresa Stan
then said that Dee Gantt had told the employees that a
$5000 check had ' come in the previous Saturday from
Christ Hospital "and it seems" that if a check 1"does,not
come in ' on our payday, no matter how many come in
during the week, we don't get paid." Fugate explained
that Maxton has a small business, that he had just paid
$1500 for film, and that-other obligations, such as light
bills, "come first before he can meet the payroll." John-
son asked, "Why doesn't Gary come down and tell us
himself" a few days ahead of time so "we would know
what to expect on payday" and "could juggle our bills."
Stan said, "When- I was hired, I was told that it would
happen once in awhile"' but "this is four paydays in a
row that we're being paid late." 'Other employees also
spoke up, but'Stan and Johnson led the protests. It was
an orderly meeting. (Tr. 22, 30-32, 55, 65-68, 84-88, 1,84,
201.)
Although Supervisor Fugate claimed, (Tr. 173) that
employees Stan and Johnson were "harsh and bitter" and
employee Gantt claimed (Tr. 150) that Stan and Johnson
were "pretty loud," I find that their conduct at the meet-
ing was protected concerted activity. (Gantt appeared
willing to fabricate anything to help the Company's
1065
cause.) Fugate was obviously aware that $tan and John-
son were protesting the late pay both on their own
behalf and on behalf of other employees.
About 30 minutes after the meeting, as found above,
Fugate told Stan that asking questions about their pay
was- "grounds for dismissal" and that if Maxton "finds
out about today's meeting , you'll get fired."
President Maxton did find out about the meeting. But
at that time, the Company was behind schedule in com-
pleting a large microfilming job for Christ Hospital be-
cause of the lack of film. He discharged Stan and John=
son on completion of that job.' (Tr. 38-40, 68, 71, 88-90.)
2. The discharges
a. Teresa Stan
Stan was one of the Company's best microfilm camera
operators. She was often praised by Supervisor Fugate
on her roll book for doing work that was "Good!!"
"Super Great!!!!" "Great! Great! Great!" and (twice in
the week before her discharge) "Super Duper Good!"
(G.C. Exh. 3, Tr. 45-48). It is undisputed that "on many
occasions" Fugate told her "She was' surprised that I
could put out the footage as fast as I have" (Tr. 44). It' is
also undisputed that Fugate had offered, and Stan had
agreed to take, the job of assistant supervisor when that
position would be vacated in, September (Tr. 50). Stan
was never reprimanded or ,disciplined) or given any
warning of any kind (Tr. 51, 180) except on 23 May,
after the employee meeting, when Fugate threatened her
with discharge for asking questions about not being paid
on time.
On 17 June Supervisor Fugate told Stan and employ-
ees Johnson and Gantt that "we're all caught up" on the
Christ Hospital microfilming job. About 4 p.m. the next
day, in the office with Fugate and Supervisor - Sandra
Wiley, President Maxton told Stan (in her words, Tr.
41-43):
"Teresa, I am terminating your services as of today
because you have been making several complaints
about your pay."
And I said, "No, sir. I made only one complaint."
And he said, "Well, one complaint-that's all it
takes." And shrugged his shoulders.
And I said , "I don't understand why you're firing
me .... I've always been a good employee. I've
come to work on time. I've always gotten . . . my
footage. I did above-average than anybody else."
And he says, "Yes, you are a good worker."
And I said, "And ... when I was hired, I was
told . . . that getting paid late would only happen
once in awhile."
And Sharon Fugate said, "Yes, once in awhile."
I said "Gary Maxton,
fired?"
is Dee Gantt getting
And he said, "Well, I can't tell you that."
I said , "Well, she was complaining about pay just
as much as anybody else was, and she was checking
1066 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the mail to see if any [checks] had come in, and was
getting everybody else upset."
And he said , "Well, I can 't tell you that."
And I turned around and walked away.
Supervisor Wiley did not testify , and Supevisor Fugate
did not dispute Stan 's testimony about what was said.
President Maxton claimed at, the beginning of the trial
(Tr. 18-19) that when he discharged Stan , "I said it ap-
peared that she was unhappy at Micro-Chart Company."
He did not testify later to deny Stan 's account of .what
was said . I credit Stan 's testimony about the meeting.
Maxton claimed (Tr. 19) that he drew the conclusion
that Stan was unhappy because Supervisor Wiley report-
ed that Stan had been "harassing" employee Gantt. He
claimed that he "asked - what ' generated this, and they
said that Mrs. Stan was unhappy with Mrs. Gantt be-
cause [Gantt] had supported the Micro-Chart Company
during a meeting that was held on May 23rd." (To the
contrary , -Stan's and ' Gantt's immediate supervisor,
Fugate, admitted (Tr. 175) not being aware of any prob-
lems between Gantt - and the other employees after the
meeting; "I` would check the girls, and there didn't seem
to,be any dispute going on.") Regarding the 23 May
'meeting, Maxton testified - (Tr. 19) -that he learned that
Stan and Linda Johnson "had requested a meeting with
Mrs. ` Fugate" 'and -"that apparently there was a lot of un-
,dercurrent , maybe loud talking, -general disruption on the
23rd." He acknowledged (Tr. 20) that the main topic of
the meeting was "that the company had not received any
payments , from the customer and the payroll would have
to be delayed." - -
I note that despite the evidence that the Company fre-
quently paid the employees late or' not in full (Tr. 24, 79-
82; G.C. Exh. 2); President Maxton testified (Tr. 15) that
he would . say "90 percent of - the time" in the last 12
months he had been able to pay the employees "in full
and on time." (He impressed me as a witness who was
less than candid.)
b., Linda Johnson
Johnson was in good health when she started working
8 February. She had a cyst on her arm, 'but'it did not
cause her, any trouble, on the job until early May when it
became swollen. On 28 May she picked up a heavy box,
causing much pain , and Supervisor _ Fugate sent her
home . She had surgery on 30 May and was off a total of
6 days and .1, partial day after that. She worked 5 hours
Saturday, .14 June, to make up part of the time and told
Fugate she would work 5 hours , again Saturday , 21 June
(not knowing that she would be discharged that Wednes-
day). Fugate "said_ that was fine." (Tr. 94-100, 105-107,
125; G.C.' Exh. 6.)
Sometime in April Supervisor Fugate had held a meet-
ing and told the employees that President Maxton said
there had'been too much 'absenteeism , that it had to stop,
and that if it continued , "you would be warned verbally
first, then would be given a written warning, and then
you would receive a three-day suspension without pay"
(Tr. 101). Similarly a notice near the'timeclock provided
for progressive discipline : - an oral warning , a written
warning , and then a 3-day suspension without pay for
unexcused absences (Tr. 105). None of Johnson's- ab-
sences, however,' -were "unexcused" (G.C. Exh. 6; Tr.
140-144). Fugate gave Johnson permission each time to
be absent. -Fugate never indicated that her sick leave
would be a problem and Johnson never received any
warning for her absences or any reprimand or discipline
for any reason . (Tr. 95, 98, 100-101.)
Supervisor Fugate showed only concern for Johnson.
As` Johnson credibly testified , "every day that I was
absent, I called [Fugate] every morning around 8:00
o'clock and told her, and she was very concerned about
the cyst; and `what did the' doctor say,' and `what is he
doing,' and `how ,are you , feeling,' and `we're all worried
about you here,' and `we want you to get better.' It was
all concern . There was never 'anything negative." (Tr.
97.) -
On one occasion , as employee Stan credibly testified,
Supervisor Fugate said, "Just as long as Linda Johnson
calls in and lets me know what's going on, she doesn't
have to worry about her job ."' On another occasion
Fugate was , standing with President Maxton 's wife Gerry
in the processing room when Stan walked ' up. Fugate
asked about Johnson and told Stan , "that Gerry - Maxton
s a i d that
,
anything about, a l u m p scares me ... and she
really felt for . Linda and that Linda Johnson didn't have
to worry about her job, when she comes back. She didn't
have - to film ; that we could have her prep . . . . We
could find something for her to do." (Tr. -217.)
When Johnson returned to work , Fugate told her not
to do anything that would cause her any pain or , trouble
"and that if that did, to _ let her know, and I ' could do
something else." Johnson resumed her microfilming
work and never requested other work . (Tr. 107.)
On the morning of 18 June (the date that Johnson was
summarily discharged at quitting - time) Gerry .Maxton
again showed some concern for her . When checking the
roll books (showing production , the day before) Gerry
Maxton asked Supervisor Fugate whether the fast job
that -Johnson was on should be given to employee, Alicia
Jones, who was on a slow job that would be easier, on
Johnson's arm . As Fugate reported to- Johnson, she told
Gerry Maxton that -Johnson had , requested to stay on
that job to build up her speed (after working on a slow
index card job), and "Linda knows that if any job ..
causes her any pain or, discomfort to her arm , all she has
to do is tell me" and she can "either slow down or prep,
or whatever" she needs to do. (Tr. 77-78,91.)
Instead of slowing down that day, Johnson "was
trying to see how fast" she could ,go and ran 315 feet of
film., Going above 300 feet was unusual for her. When
she took off the last roll of -film she went back and jok-
ingly told Supervisor Fugate she "`expected a party the
next day for doing that." But-"Fug "te acted real funny at
the time. She wouldn 't look me ,in the-face." (Tr. 91-92,
108.)
At 3:55 p.m.,' a few minutes ' later, Johnson was called
to the office (with employee Stan) and discharged with-
out any prior warning. In the presence of-, Supervisors
Fugate and Wiley, President' Maxton ' told her, "I'm ter-
minating your employment here as'of today due to your
health . . . when you applied here, on your application,
MICRQ-CHART Co.
you stated that you were in good health, but you had
[known] about the cyst for the past two years." Johnson
insisted that "it never caused me any trouble until it
became inflamed in May," but Maxton responded that
"you're missing too much work by going to the doctor."
She asked if that was all and she left. (Tr. 92-93.) This
testimony is undisputed.
3. Contentions and concluding findings
Relying on Meyers Industries, 268 NLRB 493, 497
(1984), reaffirmed 281 NLRB 882 (1986), the General
Counsel contends (a) that employees Stan and Johnson
were engaged in protected concerted activity at the 23
May employee meeting, (b) that President Maxton knew
at the time he discharged them that they were the lead-
ing protagonists at the meeting, complaining about the
Company's pay practices, and (c) that his motivation for
discharging them was this protected concerted activity.
As proof of this motivation, the General Counsel
points out that Maxton terminated Stan and Johnson at
the same time, that Supervisor Fugate told Stan after the
23 May meeting that if Maxton "finds out about today's
meeting, you'll get fired" for asking questions about the
pay, and that Maxton told Stan she was being discharged
for "making several complaints about your pay." The
General Counsel argues that Maxton could not discharge
the two employees immediately for their protected con-
certed activity at the 23 May meeting because the Com-
pany "was behind in its production due to the absence of
microfillm." But on 18 June, the very next day after com-
pletion of the Christ Hospital job, he summarily fired
them "for the rankest of pretextual reasons." She points
out that "nowhere is there any testimony that any super-
visor made any recommendation to Gary Maxton that
these two women be summarily discharged for any trans-
gression." She also cites their good work records, the ab-
sence of complaints toward them by any supervisor
before their discharge, and the favorable comments and
offer to promote Stan as additional factors, establishing a
prima facie case of unlawful discharge.
The Company contends in its brief that Stan and John-
son were discharged for "good and proper reasons .. .
not connected with the events of May 23." Disregarding
the evidence to the contrary, the Company also con-
tends: "It should be noted that Counsel for the NLRB
made no attempt to relate the discharge of June 18, 1986,
with the events of May 23, 1986."
When summarily discharging employees Stan and
Johnson at quitting time on 18 June without any prior
notice or warning, President Maxton revealed to one of
them that he was motivated by the complaining at the 23
May meeting. He informed Stan that he was discharging
her for making several complaints, and when she re-
sponded that she made only one complaint (at that meet-
ing), he stated "that's all it takes." As found, Stan and
Johnson led the protests about the late pay at that meet-
mg, and the Company was aware that they were protest-
ing both on their own behalf and on behalf of other em-
ployees, engaging in protected activity. Also as found,
Stan was warned after the 23 May meeting that "you'll
get fired" if Maxton finds out about the meeting. Maxton
did find out, but as the General Counsel contends, he
1067
waited until the Christ Hospital job was completed
before discharging the two leaders of the protests at the
meeting.
The evidence is clear that Fugate, the two employees'
immediate supervisor, was not recommending their dis-
charge. Fugate was praising Stan for her high produc-
tion and was planning to promote her . Fugate gave as-
surances that Johnson's sick leave, caused by the remov-
al of the cyst, would not affect her job, and Johnson was
working again at top speed and on Saturdays. None of
her sick leave was considered unexcused absences, and
she had not been given any oral or written warning or
suspended for 3 days as required by the rule before dis-
charging an employee for excessive absences, even if her
absences had been unexcused.
I agree with the General Counsel that she has estab-
lished a,prima facie case under Meyers that the protests
about late pay made by Stan and Johnson at the 23 May
meeting on their own behalf and on behalf of other em-
ployees were "concerted," that the Company knew of
the concerted nature of this activity, that the activity
was protected by the Act, and that their discharge was
motivated by this protected concerted activity. I also
find that the Company has failed to rebut the prima facie
case by carrying its burden to demonstrate that it would
have discharged them in the absence of their protected
conduct. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1089 (1980),
enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S.
989 (1982), approved by the Supreme Court in NLRB v.
Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983).
Accordingly I find that the Company unlawfully dis-
charged Stan and Johnson in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By discharging Teresa Stan and Linda Johnson on
18 June 1986 for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ty, the Company engaged in unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By threatening to discharge an employee for engag-
ing in protected concerted activity, the Company violat-
ed Section 8(a)(1).
3. By threatening to close the facility if the employees
sought a union , the Company further violated Section
8(a)(1).
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I find it necessary toy order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having unlawfully discharged two
employees, it must offer them reinstatement and make
them whole for any loss of earnings and other ,benefits,
computed on a quarterly basis from date of discharge to
date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any interim
earnings, as prescribed 'in F W. Woolworth , Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as computed in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
1068 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed2
ORDER
The Respondent, Micro-Chart Company, New Car-
lisle, Ohio , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
any employee for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ty.
- (b) Threatening to discharge any employee for engag-
ing in protected concerted activity.
(c) Threatening to close the facility if the employess
seek a union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer Teresa Stan and Linda Johnson immediate
and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those
jobs no- longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights
or privileges, previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them , in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharges and notify the employees in writing that this
has- been done and that the discharges will not be, used
against them in any way. -
(c) Preserve and, on 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 other records nec-
essary to, analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its facility in New Carlisle, Ohio, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."3 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent's author-
ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent
2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
2 If 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the Umted States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations `Board."
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days . in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply. To determine or secure
compliance with the Order, the Board or any authorized
representatives may obtain discovery from the respond-
ent, its officers, agents, successors, or assigns or from any
person having ' knowledge of any compliance matter, as
provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. The
discovery shall be conducted under the supervision of
the United States Court of Appeals enforcing the Order
and may be on any matter reasonably related to the com-
pliance. -
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency-'of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the-National' Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against any of you,for engaging in protected concerted
activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to discharge any of you for en-
gaging in such activity.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close our facility if you seek
a union.
WE WILL NOT-in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise `of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer Teresa Stan and Linda Johnson imme-
diate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent po-
sitions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and WE WILL
make them whole for any loss of earnings, and other ben-
efits resulting from their discharge, less any net interim
earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL notify them that we have removed from our
files any reference to their discharge and that the dis-
charge will not be used against them in any way.
MICRO-CHART COMPANY