Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 89 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO.
Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc. and Danny J.
Higgins. Case 6-CA-7230
January 7, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On August 22, 1974, Administrative Law Judge
Phil Saunders issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed
a brief in answer to Respondent's exceptions and
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings,
findings , I 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
Relations Board adopts as its order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that Respondent, Moshannon Valley
TV Cable Co., Inc., Philipsburg , Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents , successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order.
I The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board 's established policy not to
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 (C.A. 3, 1951). We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
However, we agree with the Respondent that there is insufficient
evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the pay
increase to Higgins for the week ending October 13, 1973, was a benefit
given to discourage Higgins' union activity . The record shows that the two
employees in the unit alternate working on Saturdays , and there was no
testimony from either employee that either contradicted the testimony of
the secretary-bookkeeper or that showed that it was necessary for one of
them to go into the office on Saturday to pick up his check. In these
circumstances , and as the record shows that Manager Campomiazi's first
knowledge of union activity was Friday evening, October 12, after the
checks for that week apparently were made out, we conclude that the pay
raise to Higgins for that week was not a violation of Sec. 8 (axl) of the Act.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
89
PHIL SAUNDERS , Administrative Law Judge : Pursuant to
a charge filed on January 21, 1974, by Danny J. Higgins,
herein the Charging Party or Higgins , a complaint was
issued on March 28, 1974, against Moshannon Valley TV
Cable Co ., Inc., herein Respondent or Company, alleging
violations of Section 8(axl) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended . Respondent filed an answer to
the alleged unfair labor practices . A hearing in this
proceeding was held before me, and both the General
Counsel and Respondent filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case , and from my
observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following: t
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation with its sole
place of business located in Philipsburg , Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the operation of a cable television
system in the Philipsburg area . During the 12-month
period immediately preceding the issuance of this Com-
plaint, Respondent derived a gross income in excess of
$100,000, and more than 50 percent of its transmissions
consisted of network programs originating in States of the
United States other than the Commonwealth of Pennsylva-
nia.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union 521, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The amended complaint alleges that Respondent violat-
ed Section 8(aXl) of the Act by interrogations, threatening
loss of employment , discontinuing the practice of allowing
employees to use Respondent's truck for transportation to
and from work , granting wage increases , and not permit-
ting employees to work on a local television station. The
complaint further alleged Respondent violated the Act by
discontinuing the practice of allowing its employees
r At the start of the hearing Attorney Eugene L. Cimino appeared in
behalf of Edward Blakely, the sole remaining employee of the Company.
216 NLRB No. 17
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wednesday afternoons off and by permanently laying off
Danny J. Higgins on or about December 28, 1973.
The Respondent supplies cable television service to
about 3,700 customers in the vicinity of Philipsburg,
Pennsylvania. Richard Campomizzi, an admitted supervi-
sor, was hired in 1960 as a working manager and initially
built the towers and did most of the other work associated
with operating a cable television system. Employee Edward
Blakely was hired in August 1968 as an installer-service-
man and is presently still so employed. On June 18, 1973,
Campomizzi first employed Danny Higgins under a special
training program wherein the Government was to pay one-
half of his salary and Higgins worked about 3-1/2 weeks
and then quit without giving any notice . Higgins was
subsequently rehired on October 1, 1973, as an installer-
technician and worked until December 28, 1973, when he
was laid off and the latter incident is the event in question
here.
It appears that Respondent's two employees, Higgins
and Blakely, discussed the possibility of union representa-
tion and Blakely then contacted William Rauch, business
agent for the Union, and both employees were given
authorization cards . On October 2,2 Blakely and Higgins
signed these cards and Blakely returned them to Rauch.
On October 5, Rauch mailed a letter to John J. Barni,
owner of Respondent, stating that the Union had a
sufficient number of cards to represent Respondent's
employees and requested negotiations with the Company.
On the evening of October 12, Manager Campomizzi
received a telephone call from owner John Barni asking
Campomizzi what was "going on up there," and he also
inquired about the Union and its status . Barni then asked
Campomizzi what the employees wanted and concluded
his call by telling his manager to "take care of it."
Campomizzi immediately called employee Blakely and
informed him of Bart's displeasure and asked him if he
knew anything about the Union , inquired if he and Higgins
had signed cards, and then asked Blakely whose idea it
was. Campomizzi also inquired , "What right does Danny
[Higgins ] have to sign. He was just hired there. He's just
been here on a training program , apprenticeship ." Moreo-
ver, there is credited testimony by Blakely that Campomiz-
zi on this occasion further told him there was "no way in
hell the Union is coming into this company," and that he
would "get rid" of Higgins to have it stopped. Campomizzi
also reminded Blakely that he had been given the use of the
Company truck, and after Blakely inquired if he was about
to lose this benefit , Campomizzi replied , "Well, that's
possible." Campomizzi concluded the call by advising
Blakely that if he was not satisfied with his job he could
"go hunt for another one."
Campomizzi approached Higgins within a few days after
October 12 , while Higgins was working in the area of
Osceola Mills, and asked him if he had signed a card for
s All dates are 1973 unless stated otherwise.
The workweek was arranged so that each installer-technician had
alternate Wednesday afternoons off, but then worked the Saturday morning
of that particular week.
4 Ronald Vaux, formerly employed by Respondent as an installer-
technician , and Blakely had been active in organizing and attempting to
operate Channel 9, a local cable television station . It appears that their
the Union and why he had signed , and also told Higgins
there was "no way in hell" the union was coming into the
Company . Later the same day Campomizzi talked with
Blakely and again asked him who had instigated the union
involvement and the reasons for doing so.
Within a few days after the Osceola Mills conversation,
Campomizzi called Higgins and Blakely into his office and
asked them, "What's this about the Union?" and "What do
you think you're going to accomplish?" After Higgins told
Campomizzi that he was only interested in better wages
and working conditions , Campomizzi asked him what he
thought was a fair wage , but Higgins advised Campomizzi
to contact the Union for that information . Campomizzi
then turned to Blakely and said he blamed him more than
Higgins because he had been with the Company longer.
Campomizzi concluded the conversation by stating , "Well,
I don't like unions , I think they are no damn good."
In October, Campomizzi told Higgins his work was
"pretty good" and he had no complaints , and as a result he
was giving Higgins a pay raise to $2.75 an hour, and also
stated, "Maybe in 4 to 6 weeks, you can get $3.00 an hour."
On the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving, Campomizzi
informed Blakely that he would be required to work on
Wednesday afternoon .3 Blakely inquired if there was an
emergency or need for his presence , and Campomizzi
replied that "two can play this game," and "this is
something that you've got to understand when you seek
union representation ." Blakely then asked Campomizzi if
he had told Ronald Vaux that Blakely was not allowed to
have further involvement with Channel 9 because of his
(Blakely's) union activities , and Campomizzi then affirmed
that he had made this statement .4
In December, the Company contracted with the local
firm of Brown and Simmons to do some residential
hookups or installations on new lines . Upon learning of
this development Blakely and Higgins inquired of Cam-
potttizzi why they would not be assigned this work, but
Campomizzi replied that "you guys [Blakely and Higgins ]
are just too busy," and also told them he had already
committed himself. A discussion then ensued concerning
Higgins' wage rate and concluded when Campomizzi
stated th4t he thought Higgins was already getting $3 an
hqur. After being informed by Higgins that this was not the
case, that he was only making $2.75 an hour , Campomizzi
replied that he would get it "straightened out" right away.
Higgins then asked Campomizzi if he had made the
statement to Blakely that he was going to "get rid" of him
(Higgins), and to this inquiry the manager replied that he
might have made "a lot of statements."
On December 28, Campomizzi called Higgins into the
office and told Higgins he was going to lay him off because
he did not have enough work for two employees and by
letter dated December 31 the Company informed Higgins
that he should consider the layoff as permanent.5
efforts to operate Channel 9 were dependent on cooperation from
Respondent, which controlled the cable system.
5 A petition in Case 6-RC-6677 was filed on November 19 and an
amended petition on December 10. In December the parties hereto also
entered into an agreement for a consent election to be held on January 11,
1974. At the election a challenged ballot was cast by Higgins , and the
MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO.
Respondent maintains that Campomizzi did not make
the statements attributed to him, as aforestated, and
further argues that any statements made were protected by
Section 8(c) of the Act. Based upon the demeanor of the
witnesses and the events and circumstances in this record, I
have credited the testimony produced by the General
Counsel, and, of course, it is well established Board and
court law that in determining whether an employer's
conduct amounts to interference, restraint, or coercion
within the meaning of Section 8(axl), the test is not the
employer's intent or motive, but whether the conduct is
reasonably calculated or tends to interfere with the free
exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Act. From the
demeanor of the witness and for other reasons noted
herein, it is obvious that Manager Campomizzi did not
want to admit to anything that would put him in bad stead
with the Company, and certain aspects of his testimony is
readily indicative thereof.
The foregoing testimony which has been credibly
attributed to Respondent includes numerous instances of
unlawful interrogations by Campomizzi on October 12
when he inquired as to union activities, reasons, sympa-
thies, and the identification of employees who had signed
cards for the Union, and further interrogations of a similar
nature a few days later at Osceola Mills and in the office,
as aforestated. All of these interrogations by Campomizzi
were unlawful inasmuch as the information elicited by
management could serve no legitimate purpose, and
provided no assurances of any kind against reprisals. It is
without need of citation that an employer's threat to
discharge an employee because of his membership in or
activities on behalf of a union is violative of Section 8(axl)
of the Act, and, as pointed out, there can be no clearer
threat than Campomizzi's statement to Blakely on October
12 that he would discharge Higgins in order to stop the
union, and also the manager's statement to employee
Blakely that if not satisfied with his job he could "go hunt
for another one."
It is also clear that in late October Respondent withdrew
from Blakely the benefit of permitting him the use of
Respondent's truck for his transportation to and from
work because of his union activities. From 1968 until
October 1973, Respondent had permitted Blakely to drive
the truck to and from work, but on October 12 Campomiz-
zi forewarned Blakely of the possibility that this benefit
would be lost, as aforementioned, and within a few weeks
of this conversation, the Company began garaging the
truck.6 Respondent argues that it was Campomizzi's desire
to have the truck kept in a garage so the various hydraulic
attachments would not freeze and the truck would be
protected from the cold weather, and that the motive was
to preserve its equipment and not to penalize Blakely for
his union activities. However, even though Campomizzi
Regional Director has deferred ruling on this challenged ballot pending the
outcome of this proceeding.
6 Respondent produced testimony showing that in 1972 both Campomiz-
zi and Blakely made efforts to find a garage to house the truck , but were
unable to locate any facility . During this time, 1972, Campomizu contacted
an operator of a service station about garaging the truck , but the station
manager did not know whether his insurance would cover it, and apparently
did not contact his insurance company until 6 or 8 months later and, when
he found out he could keep the truck , had this information transmitted to
Campomizzi , and the parties then entered into an agreement to store the
91
had made an inquiry into the possibility of garaging the
truck in 1972, it was not until the discussions of union
activities with Blakely in October that Respondent actually
garaged the truck and denied Blakely the use of the vehicle
to and from work. In view of Campomizzi's statement to
Blakely on October 12, as aforestated, and the abruptness
and timing of the decision to garage the truck, Respon-
dent's motivation clearly was to retaliate against its
employees for their union activities.
Higgins received a wage increase for the week ending
October 13, and another wage increase for the week ending
December 8.7 As pointed out, in view of the timing of these
wage increases and the numerous other unfair labor
practices committed by Respondent, the compelling
conclusion is that Respondent was motivated by a desire to
discourage its employees from union representation, and
thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
It appears from this record that several years ago
Respondent entered into an arrangement with a man
named Kepler in order to originate some local TV
programs over Channel 9 running through Respondent's
system, but Kepler was unable to work matters out and
Respondent was forced to invest money in the equipment
and "bail him out." Some while later Campomizzi was
approached by Blakely and informed that he and Ron
Vaux could do the job of running Channel 9 and a
temporary agreement was drawn up permitting Vaux and
Blakely to operate the channel and they would also be
responsible for expenses in connection therewith. A little
later Blakely discovered that financially the venture was
too much, and Respondent had to pick up some of the
expenses . In the summer of 1973 an article of agreement
was submitted to Vaux and Blakely wherein they agreed
permanently to take over the operation of Channel 9, and
although this agreement was duly executed neither Blakely
nor Vaux ever accepted the offer. During the period of this
agreement Vaux and Blakely were continuing to have
financial problems, and Vaux testified he informed
Campomizzi that Blakely was not keeping up his part of
the bills, and Blakely would make the same accusation
about Vaux. Vaux then contacted a third party and
attempted to enter into an agreement with this party, but
Blakely came to Campomizzi and claimed that Vaux and
the third party were trying to force him out, and finally
Vaux came to Campomizzi and stated "either Ed takes it or
I do, this is the end of it."
Respondent argues there is no evidence that Campomizzi
in any way denied Blakely the opportunity to participate in
Channel, 9, and further maintains that the article of
agreement was in the hands of Blakely for signature, and
all he had to do was to sign it, along with Vaux, in order to
complete the contract.
There is no question that these attempts by Blakely and
truck during the cold weather
r Respondent claims that the payroll record for the first pay increase was
made up on the afternoon of October 12-before Campomim had
knowledge of union activity and produced testimony through Respondent's
Secretary Verne Czap in relation thereto , but I have rejected this contention
as I do not credit the testimony in connection therewith . Respondent
maintains that the pay raise in December was in keeping with Campomizzi's
promise made before any knowledge of union activity and was granted at
the employee's request after Higgins complained to Campomizzi that he
could not live on $2 .75 an hour.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Vaux to run Channel 9 were in constant financial
difficulties, and their ultimate success was somewhat
doubtful. However, until the advent of the Union the
possibility still existed and up until a few days prior to
Thanksgiving 1973, the date here in question, Respondent
had never withdrawn its signed article of agreement nor its
refusal to go ahead, but when Blakely specifically con-
fronted Campomizzi and asked him if he had told Vaux
that he (Blakely) would no longer be allowed to have
further involvement with Channel 9 because of his union
activities, Campomizzi then affirmed that he had made this
statement. Under the circumstances this remark and
conduct must be deemed a denial of a benefit, and I so
find.
Respondent argues that Campomizzi had a legitimate
reason in requesting Blakely to work on his regularly
scheduled afternoon off because the Company is normally
busy in November, and Campomizzi was trying to get his
new extensions installed. Respondent also points out this
was a short week since Thursday was Thanksgiving, and on
the following Monday morning Higgins was off for the
opening day of the deer season.
The General Counsel, of course, does not dispute
Respondent's authority to alter its employees' work
schedules where Respondent is motivated by lawful
considerations, but maintains that the rescheduling here in
question was in response to Blakely's union activities.
On Tuesday, November 19, Campomizzi ordered Blakely
to work on Wednesday afternoon even though Blakely was
not scheduled to work that afternoon. There is no adequate
showing that any real emergency existed which justified
this departure from Blakely's schedule, and, furthermore,
Campomizzi's motivation was made plain when he advised
Blakely that "this is something that you've got to
understand when you seek union representation." Such
conduct violates the Act, and I so find.
The Company maintains that union activities played no
part whatsoever in the decision to discharge Higgins,
points out that Respondent has operated its facility at
various times with less than two people , and argues that at
the time in question there was not enough work for two
employees.8
Respondent's contention that it laid off Higgins because
of insufficient work to justify the continued employment of
a second installer-technician cannot be supported, in its
totality, by this record.
In establishing the sequence of events it is noted that in
December the Company contracted with an independent
contractor, Brown and Simmons , to make new installations
or hookups.9 When this decision to employ Brown and
a Vaux had been a full-time employee until the middle of January when
he quit , but it appears that Blakely was the only installer -serviceman from
the middle of January until Higgins was mtially hired in June. During this
period of employment Higgins worked about 3-1/2 weeks and then quit, as
aforestated. A few weeks later Vaux returned on a part-time basis.
9 Camponuzzi testified that in September the Company had extended its
cable lines, and immediately thereafter prospective subscribers started
calling and inquiring if they would be able to get hookups in time for the
up-coming football season and for the holidays . Campomizzi stated that his
boss was also after him to get the hookups done as quickly as possible, but
that even with two men working the new installations on the extension lines
were not yet started He testified that due to these pressures and a desire to
get the installations completed before bad weather, he checked into the
Simmons was communicated to Blakely and Higgins, they
informed Campomizzi they would have liked the work on
an overtime basis. Campomizzi stated he did not know
they wanted any overtime because he had asked Blakely
several times to work overtime and practically all of the
times he had refused to do so.
In the final analysis, Respondent is contending that by
contracting the new hookups to Brown and Simmons it
thereby reduced the number of installations to be per-
formed by its own employees. However, as pointed out, no
mention was ever made to Blakely or Higgins that this
subcontracting was going to occur until after the final
arrangements for subcontracting had been made and after
union activity became well known to Respondent. The
Company had subcontracted work on one prior occasion,
in 1971, but Respondent had employed only one installer
for several months during that year. The circumstances
and situation existing in late 1973 shows an increased and
continued desire and need for the services offered by
Respondent, and while outside help reduced the number of
installations to be made by Respondent's employees, there
still remained numerous other functions and duties to be
performed by employees, and with additional installations
these other maintenance and related jobs and duties would
also increase under normal circumstances.1° Respondent
also subcontracted to Brown and Simmons replacement
work of bad cable and transfers of cable to new poles. This
work was paid for by the Company in February, March,
and April 1974. Higgins stated that he was qualified to do
all the work Brown and Simmons performed on these jobs
and testified he had gained experience in cable construc-
tion from a priorjob with American Electronics.
Respondent cites the decreased number of installations
in the first 4 months of 1974 in order to show a decline in
work sufficient to warrant Higgins' layoff, but these figures
must be evaluated in light of the 44 to 49 installations
made in December by Brown and Simmons and, further-
more, as pointed out by the General Counsel, during
comparable periods of 1971 and 1972, Respondent had
about the same level of installations, extras and discon-
nects, that it had in 1974, and in both 1971 and 1972
Respondent employed two full-time installer-technicians.11
Blakely testified that prior to the discharge here in
question, Manager Campomizzi did not perform any
maintenance work himself unless he did so when Blakely
was on vacation and possibly on a few other occasions.
Blakely further stated that after Higgins was laid off,
Campomizzi did more maintenance work than before the
discharge, and specifically mentioned work on Half Moon
Road, Presqusile Street, at the Presbyterian Home, and at
possibility of hiring an independent contractor to do this work as he had
done once before , and Brown and Simmons were then contacted and
started installation on December I
10 Higgins stated he spent about one-third of his time doing installation
work, about 25 to 30 percent of his time doing repair work, and from 15 to
20 percent of his time splicing and replacing defective equipment . It appears
that the average hookup takes anywhere between 30 minutes to I hour, but
considerably less time for a "reconnect " The industry average states that
seven or eight hookups should be completed in a day . Respondent's own
document reveals that in 1973 the system expanded by 234 installations.
Thus, the installer-technicians had a substantial and consequential increase
in maintenance duties in 1974 See Reap . Exh. 9.
ii Resp . Exh. 7.
MOSHANNON VALLEY TV CABLE CO. 93
the new Sears store . Campomizzi denies that he performed
any additional work than that which he had been doing in
the past, and Respondent Exhibit 8 purports to represent
work performed by Campomizzi for customers from
August 2, 1971, through April 23, 1974. This exhibit and
Respondent Exhibit 7 reveal that from August through
October 1971 Blakely was the only installer-technician
employed and during this period Campomizzi made 17
installations . Through 1972 , when Respondent employed
two full-time installer-technicians, Campomizzi reports
that he did service work on 19 occasions, and reports that
in 1973 he performed service and installation work on
about 14 occasions. For 8 months in 1973 the Respondent
had either two full -time or one full-time and one part-time
installer . In the first 4 months of 1974, Campomizzi
performed work on 13 occasions . From these figures the
General Counsel summarizes and points out the following,
"Thus Campomizzi, who contends that he has not
increased his work level , has in fact performed as much
service and installation work in the first 4 months of 1974
as he did in the entire 12 months of 1973, and is not
significantly below the amount of work he performed
during the entire year of 1972 . Clearly, Campomizzi has
increased his work output since he laid off Higgins, even
though he testified that his work level has remained
constant." I am in substantial agreement with the General
Counsel in his concluding summary.
The General Counsel also points out that the permanent
layoff here in question served the dual purposes of ridding
Respondent of a union sympathizer and also ensuring that
the Union would not be certified as the collective-bargain-
ing representative of the installer-technicians , inasmuch as
the Board will not certify a bargaining agent in a one-man
unit. The General Counsel introduced credited testimony
through Fred Pizzella is to the effect that in February 1974
Campomizzi told Pizzella he had found a loophole, that he
had laid off Higgins, and that a union could not be
certified in a one-man unit . It appears that he had also
informed Pizzella that Blakely and Higgins were "crazy"
for seeking union representation and had further told
Pizzella they would not get a union if he had anything to
do with it.
In summary this record establishes that Respondent,
through its manager, Campomizzi, engaged in extensive
8(axl) conduct after learning of the union activities of its
employees and including a threat by Campomizzi to
discharge Higgins . As pointed out, the timing of the layoff
constitutes further evidence of ' discriminatory motivation,
-Respondent, which heretofore had never laid off any
employee, terminated Higgins less than 2 weeks before the
NLRB-conducted election and after Campomizzi had been
informed that a one-man unit could not be certified. The
record further establishes that the layoff in question
occurred at a time when business was increasing and while
facilities of the Company were being extended to take in
new areas.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. A broad
cease-and-desist order is warranted in view of Respon-
dent's discriminatory conduct and other violations.
It has been found that Respondent unlawfully terminat-
ed Danny J. Higgins on December 28, 1973. It will
therefore be recommended that Respondent offer him
immediate and full reinstatement to his former position, or
if such position no longer exists to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his rights and
privileges, and to make him whole for any loss of earnings
he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against him by payment of a sum equal to that which he
would normally have earned, absent the discrimination,
from the date of the discrimination to the date of
Respondent 's offer of reinstatement , with backpay and
interest computed in accordance with the Board's estab-
lished standards.13 It will be -further recommended that
Respondent preserve and make available to the Board,
upon request, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary and useful to determine the
amount of backpay and the right to reinstatement under
the terms of these recommendations.14
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent 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 discharging or permanently laying off Danny J.
Higgins on December 28, 1973, thereby discouraging
membership in the Union, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing their
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, as enumerated herein, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(axl) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of -
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
is Pizzella is employed as a television and radio repairman at a store
located on the same block as Respondent's office, and he and Campomiui
frequently visit each other.
13 F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950); Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
14 In accordance with my findings the challenged ballot of Higgins
should now be counted.
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER 15
Respondent, Moshannon Valley TV Cable Co., Inc., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Union, or any other
labor organization of its employees, by discharging
employees or otherwise discriminating against them in
regard to their hire and tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union
activities , memberships, sympathies, and the identification
of employees signing authorization cards.
(c) Threatening employees with discharge or loss of
employment because of union activities.
(d) Withdrawing, discontinuing, or cancelling benefits
and privileges because of the union activities of its
employees.
(e) Granting wage increases in order to discourage union
activities.
(f) Denying employees their regular scheduled time off
because of union activities.
(g) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organiza-
tion, including the above-named organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or
to refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which I find
will effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer to Danny J. Higgins immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if such job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority, if any, or other rights and
privileges, and make him whole for any loss of earnings he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision
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,
personnel 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 place of business copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." 16 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director of Region 6, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be
posted by Respondent 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 6, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.
15 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.
is In the event 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 read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate in
regard to the hire and tenure of employment or any
term or condition of employment of our employees
because of their membership in and activities on behalf
of the Union herein or of any other labor organization
of their choice.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning
their union activities, memberships, sympathies, nor
inquire as to the identification of employees signing
authorization cards.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with discharge or
loss of employment because of union activities.
WE WILL NOT withdraw, discontinue, or cancel any
benefits or privileges because of union activities.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases to employees in
order to discourage their union activities.
WE WILL NOT deny employees their regular sched-
uled time off because of the union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist any
labor organization, including the Union herein, to
bargain collectively through a bargaining agent chosen
by our employees, to engage in concerted activities for
the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection, or to refrain from any such activities.
WE WILL OFFER to Danny J. Higgins his former job
or, if such job no longer exists, a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority,
if any, or other rights and privileges, and WE WILL pay
him for any loss of pay he suffered by reason of our
discrimination against him together with interest
thereon.
MosHANNON VALLEY TV
CABLE Co., INC.