Murraysville Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 1144 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Murraysville Telephone Company and Federation of
Telephone Workers of Pennsylvania. Cases 6-CA-
10221 and 6-CA- 10327
April 25, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On November 27, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Youngblood issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, the General Counsel and
the Charging Party filed briefs in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision, and the Charging
Party filed a brief in opposition to Respondent's ex-
ceptions.
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.
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 and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Murraysville Telephone
Company, Export, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in said recommended Order, as so modified:
I. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
"Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Robert
Murtland to his former job or, if that job is no longer
available, then to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority, or other rights and
privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
for any loss of pay or other compensation he may
have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him in the manner set forth in that portion of this
Decision entitled 'The Remedy.'"
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
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 discrimi-
nate against our employees because of their
union activities on behalf of the Federation of
Telephone Workers of Pennsylvania, or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Robert Murtland immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority and
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE Wl.L make him whole for any loss of pay
he may have suffered by reason of our unlawful
discrimination against him, with interest.
MURRAYSVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. YOUNGBLOOD, Administrative Law Judge: On
August 30, 1977, a consolidated complaint and order con-
solidating cases issued against the Murraysville Telephone
Company (herein Respondent or Company). That com-
plaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(I ) of the Act by discharging Robert Murtland, on or about
April 27, because of his activities on behalf of the Union,
because of his concerted, protected activities, and in order
to discourage membership in the Federation of Telephone
Workers of Pennsylvania (herein called the Union). In ad-
dition to these 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations relating to Robert
Murtland, the complaint alleges that Respondent engaged
in other unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1). (3), and (5) of the Act. A hearing in this matter
was held on October 31. Prior to the hearing. the parties
reached a partial informal settlement of the consolidated
case, which disposed of all issues involved in the consoli-
dated complaint except the alleged unlawful discharge of
Robert Murtland. In that settlement, the parties agreed that
the General Counsel could introduce evidence at the hear-
ing which was the subject of the settlement and which bore
on the allegations of the complaint which was a part of that
settlement. The parties also agreed that the foregoing settle-
ment could be considered by the Administrative Law Judge
and that he might take judicial notice thereof and draw
from such documents whatever inferences he feels are war-
ranted. As a result of this informal settlement agreement
I Unless otherwise specified all dates refer to 1977.
241 NLRB No. 176
1144
MURRAYSVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
the only issue left unresolved was the alleged discrirfiinatory
discharge of Robert Murtland. On March 2, 1978, while
this matter was pending before me, the General Counsel
filed a motion stating that this settlement agreement was
not being complied with and requesting that the hearing in
this matter be reopened for the purposes of taking testi-
mony in the related cases which were settled prior to the
hearing on October 3 1, and that a hearing date be set. After
consideration of the arguments of Respondent, the Charg-
ing Party and the General Counsel, I set a hearing date of
June 13, 1978, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to reopen this
record and hear the testimony covering the unfair labor
practices that were covered by the informal settlement
agreement. On June 9, 1978, the hearing was postponed
indefinitely pending settlement discussions. On August 25,
1978, the General Counsel filed a motion stating that in
Case 6-CA-10327 the parties were entering into a formal
settlement agreement and requesting that it be severed from
Case 6-CA-10221. That request for severance was granted,
and there remains for consideration in this Decision only
the alleged discriminatory discharge of Robert Murtland.
As indicated, this matter was heard before me in Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, on October 31. All parties filed briefs
which have been duly considered.
Upon the entire record in this case and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, and their demeanor, and the briefs, I
hereby make the following:'
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation with its of-
fices located in Murraysville, Pennsylvania, is engaged in
the service and operation of telephone systems in Export,
Pennsylvania. During the 12-month period immediately
preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint, Re-
spondent received in excess of $100,000 gross annual rev-
enue.
Respondent admits, and I find, that at all times material
herein it has been an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
At the hearing Respondent stipulated, and I find, that the
Union is now, and has been at all times material herein, a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. HiE AL EGEID) UNFAIR LABOR PRA(II'1
Robert Murtland was hired by Respondent in September
1972 as an installer-repairman. In January 1973 he became
O2n November 22 counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion to
correct the transcript in certain respects. There being no objection, that mo-
tion is granted.
'The Respondent called no witnesses in its defense but rested its case on
the basis of the lestimon) of the witnesses of the General Counsel and its
cross-examination of those witnesses.
a test desk man at Respondent's service center. In this job,
he would receive reported subscriber trouble from repair
clerks in the service center. It was his duty to test, analyze,
and determine whether the trouble was in the office, outside
of the customer's premises, or somewhere in between. He
would then dispatch the appropriate person to do the neces-
sary repair. He remained in this position until his discharge
in April 1977. The record reflects that Murtland received
wage increases, compliments on his work, and no repri-
mands or warnings with respect to his work during his en-
tire employment with Respondent. Prior to working for Re-
spondent, Murtland was employed in the telephone
industry for about 20 years by both Bell Telephone Com-
pany of Pennsylvania and Southern Bell of Florida. While
working for Bell of Florida he was a member of the IBEW,
and while employed by Bell of Pennsylvania he was a job
steward for the Union. Murtland was hired by Robert
Payne, Respondent's vice president of operations. His im-
mediate supervisor was Robert Thomas.
Beginning in the fall of 1976, Murtland first began to
explore the possibilities of obtaining union representation.
In this connection he contacted George N. Engles, pres-
ident of the Union, and thereafter began, on behalf of the
Union, an organizational campaign at Respondent's facil-
ity. Murtland began discussing the Union with his fellow
employees, some of whom told Murtland that they would
assist him in organizing while others refused for fear of
Company reprisals. Around the end of February, Murtland
again contacted George Engles and was informed by
Engles that they needed an address list of all the employees
that might be involved in the organization. Engles asked
Murtland to obtain such a list so that the Union could
communicate by mail with Respondent's employees. Murt-
land already possessed an incomplete list of employees
names and addresses, which he had compiled from tele-
phone books and notices on the bulletin board. Murtland
asked fellow employee, Ted Ramsey, if he had an address
list. According to Murtland, he believed Ramsey had such a
list because Ramsey was involved in a 1972 attempt to or-
ganize the employees at Murraysville. Ramsey informed
Murtland that he probably had the list but it would not be
current. Ramsey suggested that Murtland contact Janice
Baker in payroll. Murtland did not contact Baker. How-
ever, he contacted James Sansonetti, Jr., a computer opera-
tor in the data processing department, around the last of
February or the first of March and asked him for a current
list of the names and addresses of Respondent's employees.
Sansonetti readily agreed to supply such a list. When the
list was not forthcoming from Sansonetti, during the month
of March, Murtland renewed his request on several occa-
sions. Finally, around the end of March 1977, Sansonetti
gave Murtland the list at a time when both individuals hap-
pened to meet in the hallway at Respondent's service cen-
ter. Murtland took the list, which was limited solely to the
names and addresses of employees, and placed it on the hat
shelf on the coatrack of the service center. The shelf on
which the list was placed was at eye level and visible to any
individual of average height. This list consisted of brown
translucent paper, and labels were attached to this paper
1145
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which contained the names and addresses of the employees
of the Respondent. 4
On the same day that he received the list, after 5 p.m.,
Murtland contacted Engles by telephone, and the two com-
pared the list provided by Sansonetti with the one Murt-
land had already given Engles, making corrections where
necessary. Murtland then placed the list back on the hat
shelf and after a week or two he threw it into his supervi-
sor's wastebaskets At no time was the list ever removed
from the service center or Respondent's premises.
Around the end of March, Murtland received a letter
inviting him and other interested employees to attend a
union meeting to be held on April 2, 1977, at Ernie's Es-
quire, in Butler, Pennsylvania. Murtland and nine other
employees of Respondent attended this meeting. Also in
attendance were approximately 50 officers of the Union
from various locals throughout Pennsylvania. Murtland ad-
dressed the assembly and introduced Respondent's employ-
ees. He briefly explained Respondent's business and the
employees' interest in being organized. He also collected
authorization cards and asked for the Union's help in orga-
nizing at the Respondent's facility. Murtland was the only
employee of Respondent who spoke or addressed the group.
Robert Payne testified that around 6 o'clock in the eve-
ning on April 2 he received a telephone call from Ray Ves-
nik, a line-crew foreman of Respondent, who asked Payne
if he knew that there was union activity. When Payne re-
plied that he did not know, Vesnik said, "for what it's
worth, I understand that there is a meeting to be held" and
that he did not have any other information regarding this
meeting. Payne admitted that he interrogated employees
John Gorton and Bernard Morelli at Respondent's Harri-
son City central office and questioned them about the April
2 meeting.
Between April 4 and 27, Murtland solicited union autho-
rization cards from about 20 employees at the facility dur-
ing lunch and breaktimes which he turned over to the
Union. Murtland testified that he did not discuss the Union
with any of his supervisors but he felt that Respondent
knew about his union activities because, beginning almost
immediately after the April 2 meeting and continuing until
the day he was terminated, he noticed that Robert Payne
stopped saying good morning to him and he observed
Payne standing in the hallway staring at him while he spoke
with other employees.
Robert Payne also testified that on April 8 he received
telephone calls from Dave Cole, a retired employee of Tele-
phone Utilities of Pennsylvania, and I.ine-Crew Foreman
Vesnik informing him that the Union had sent out letters to
employees. He was also informed that the Union had sent
authorization cards along with the campaign literature. On
April 11 they showed Payne the union letters.
In the second week of April, Murtland telephoned Sanso-
netti and Sansonetti informed him "if you used the list for
4 There is some dispute as to whether this contained the employees of the
Murraysville 1 elephonrc Company or whether it included all of the employ-
ees oif Telephone Utilities of Pennsylvania, which is a holding company fior
eight telephone subsidiaries, one of which is the Respondent company As
this is not important to this Decision. I do not resolve this conflict.
' Murtland testified that he would have destroyed the list sxooner. but that
he was keeping it for a fellow employee who was planning a wedding and he
thought that he might he able to use the list for the purpose of sending out
wedding invitations.
what I think you used it for, I am in trouble," meaning
himself. Murtland asked Sansonetti to notify him if he
heard anything further about the list.
After learning that a number of employees had received
authorization cards and campaign literature from the
Union, Respondent admits that a meeting was held to find
out how the Union had obtained such current employee
addresses. On April 11, John Dunbar, who is in charge of
data processing, asked Accounting Manager Joe Volpe and
Larry Clauson, operations supervisor in the data processing
department, to conduct an investigation to find out how the
Union had obtained the employees' names and addresses.
On April 12, Clauson informed Dunbar that he discovered
that Sansonetti had run a current list of employees' names
and addresses and that Sansonetti wanted to talk to Dun-
bar. At 8:15 April 13, Sansonetti told Dunbar that he had
run a list of employees' names and addresses and had there-
after given the list to Murtland. Thereafter Dunbar and
Clauson began an intensive investigation in the data pro-
cessing department and as a result discovered the employ-
ees' names and addresses labels had been run off. That
same day, Dunbar informed Dan McWilliams, executive
vice president and secretary-treasurer of Respondent, and
they i turn informed Robert Payne that Sansonetti had
confessed to giving Murtland a list of employees' names
and addresses and that the Union had used this list to in-
dividually mail employee union authorization cards and
campaign literature which the employees had recently re-
ceived. Payne admitted that between April 13 and April 27
a number of employees told him that Murtland had talked
to them and informed them what a good deal the Union
was. Payne admits that on April 25 he learned there was to
be a union meeting held on April 29 with Communications
Workers of America as well as with the Union.
Respondent at no time prior to his discharge discussed
the matter of the list with Murtland, but Dan McWilliams,
nevertheless, decided to discharge both Murtland and San-
sonetti. On April 27. around 4:45 p.m.. Murtland was sum-
moned to Payne's office where Payne told Murtland in
McWillaims' presence that on the advice of company coun-
sel, and due to Murtland's implication in the theft of com-
pany property, he was being fired. Payne informed Murt-
land that he was implicated in the use of confidential
material. When Murtland asked what property, Payne re-
plied. "the list," and Murtland asked, "what list." Payne
then became irrational and said. "oh, come on Bob ... one
person has already lost his job over this, and you know
what list .... " Murtland asked Payne what he had done
with the list and Payne replied, "I think we both know what
you used the list for." Murtland asked Payne if he was
accusing him of stealing the information, and Payne replied
that he was not accusing him of anything but informed him
that he was implicated and implicated very strongly. Payne
then told Murtland that before the company could take
criminal action against him he had to be fired. Murtland
then asked for and was given his paycheck and was in-
formed that he could get his pension. Murtland then left the
facility. Sansonetti was terminated the same day for giving
unauthorized confidential information.
On April 27 the Union filed a representation petition in
Case No. 6-RC-7839 seeking to represent the 147 nonman-
agement employees at the Murraysville Telephone facility.
1146
MURRAYSVILLE TELEPHONE COMPANY
On June 15. the Regional Director for Region 6. certified
the Union as the collectie-bargaining representative of all
of Respondent's plant, warehouse, and business office em-
ployees employed b Murraysville Telephone Company at
its Export. Pennsylvania, facility.
During the first week in May. John Dunbar wrote Sanso-
netti a letter, which is referred to as a letter of' introduction,
in which Dunbar fails to mention that Sansonetti had been
terminated for stealing company information or for provid-
ing unauthorized confidential material. Respondent wrote
no such letter for Murtland. Additionally, on May 10, San-
sonetti provided Respondent with a letter in which he
stated:
To whom it may concern:
On or about March 20. 1977. Bob Murtland asked me
for a list of employee names and addresses. I gave this
list to him on March 29. 1977. an action I sincerely
regret.
Employee Carl Hedges testified that about a week prior
to the election in June he had an occasion to discuss the
Union with Robert Kline. an admitted supervisor, who in-
formed him that there would be cutbacks if the employees
voted for the Union. About 2 days before the election,
Kline told Hedges that he had asked several other employ-
ees why they wanted the Union and said they could not
really come up with an answer. Kline stated that it seems as
though Bob Murtland started this union business and ev-
erybody else jumped on the bandwagon.
On June 8, the day after the election, Harold Payne. the
president of Telephone Utilities of Pennsylvania and the
president and owner of Murraysville Telephone, stopped
employee Gerald Kosic, while Kosic was working, and
asked him how the party. that had been held at Murtland's
house the night of the elction, had been and what the peo-
ple really wanted. He then stated that the employees had
been letting Bob Murtland lead them around by the nose.
Bernard Morelli testified that following the April 2 meet-
ing he had a conversation with Robert Payne in the Harri-
son City central office. He said that Payne asked him about
the union meeting. At first he was startled and, apparently
because of the expression on his face, Payne told him that
he had been very informative. Morelli stated that he had
another conversation with Payne a few weeks later at the
new Alexandria company. He said they were talking about
the Union again and Payne said. "that there was a certain
individual that couldn't obtain any authority in the Com-
pany . . . from the Company. so he decided to start the
Union to gain authority." Robert Payne also testified that
between April 13 and April 27 a number of employees told
him that Murtland had talked to them and had told them
what a good deal the Union was.
Discussion and Conclusions
This record is replete with facts which amply demon-
strate that Respondent engaged in conduct which, but for
the settlement agreement. would constitute unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act. In this connection,
there is undenied testimony that Respondent threatened
possible discharge of employees if they selected the Union
as their collective-bargaining representative: Respondent's
agents admitted interrogating employees concerning their
sympathies for and activities on behalf of the Union: there
is evidence indicated that Respondent created the impres-
sion of surveillance among its employees and their union
and/or protected activities: and there is evidence indicating
that Respondent would not bargain with the nion if the
Union became the bargaining representative.
As a part of the settlement agreement, counsel for the
General Counsel, Respondent, and the Charging Party at-
tached to the settlement agreement a stipulation which
reads as follows:
We, the parties hereto, agree to the introduction in
evidence of the "Settlement Agreement" and "Notice
to Employees Posted Pursuant to a Settlement Agree-
ment Approved by a Regional Director of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board," in lMurravsville Tele-
p/hone Companv, Case No. 6-CA 10327, so that the
National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law
Judge may take judicial notice of such documents and
draw from such documents whatever inference he or
she feels is warranted.
The General Counsel reserved, with the approval of Re-
spondent to itself, the right to introduce any testimony of
any witness which had a bearing on the 8(a)(3) allegation of
unlawful discharge of Robert Murtland and any other evi-
dence which might show that Respondent did in fact dis-
charge Murtland for union activities, rather than as claimed
for his unauthorized use of company property. While I do
not feel that I am free to make any findings of unfair labor
practices upon this evidence, I do feel that I may draw
inferences from this evidence to show hostility on the part
of Respondent towards Robert Murtland and the fact that
Respondent had animus towards any union that attempted
to organize its employees. I draw such inferences and find
that Respondent was hostile to Robert Murtland, and that
Respondent was dead set against having its employees or-
ganized. and that its animus is demonstrated by the facts
contained in this record, which I have outlined above.
Respondent argues that the discharge of Robert Murt-
land was solely for the unauthorized taking of confidential
company information and in no way related to his activities
on behalf of the Union, and that it did not in any manner
commit an unfair labor practice in the discharge of Murt-
land. The General Counsel, on the other hand, contends
that the reason assigned for the discharge of Murtland was
a pretext by Respondent and therefore it makes no differ-
ence whether the material was confidential or not. The
General Counsel also argues that the material was not con-
fidential and that the activity engaged in by Mlurtland in
obtaining the information was union activity and thereby
protected by the Act.
There is nothing in this record which would indicate that
the material obtained by Murtland was confidential. All of
the witnesses who testified stated that the company had no
policy, written or oral, making the names and addresses of
its employees confidential. This record also adequately
demonstrates that Murtland did not steal or otherwise ob-
tain this material by unauthorized means. The record
clearly establishes that he requested an employee in the
data processing computer section to obtain him such a list.
The employee readily agreed and after several weeks pro-
1147
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cured the information and gave it to Murtland. He did not
remove it from Respondent's premises and merely used it
for the purposes of updating a list of employees' names and
addresses that he had already obtained from phone books
and information contained on the company bulletin boards.
In my view there is nothing confidential about this kind of
material. The list contained nothing but the names and ad-
dresses of employees. It did not contain any confidential
information such as social security numbers, earnings, tax
information, savings information, health and welfare insur-
ance information. Moreover, there is nothing in this record
that would indicate that the obtaining of this information
by Murtland would in any way destroy his usefulness on
the job.
On the other hand, the record is replete with evidence
which indicates that Respondent was opposed to the union-
ization of its employees. This factor is definitely significant
in determining whether the discharge was for antiunion mo-
tives or not. Furthermore, the discharge of Murtland was
sudden and without affording him an opportunity to ex-
plain his actions or versions of the events. This makes the
discharge suspect, particularly as it occurred during the
peak of his union activity.
The record is clear that immediately following the April
2 meeting, which was the beginning of the union organiza-
tional campaign, Respondent admittedly interrogated two
employees about their attendance at this meeting. Accord-
ing to Robert Payne, Respondent knew at that time that
Murtland was a union adherent. However, it is not clear
whether at that time Respondent knew that Murtland was
the chief union adherent and actively participated in the
meeting of April 2. There is no doubt that Respondent was
aware of Murtland's union activities after April 2 because
of the way in which he was treated by Robert Payne, in
refusing to return his morning remarks, and by Payne's en-
gaging in surveillance of Murtland from thereon. Respon-
dent learned of Murtland's obtaining the list of employees'
names and addresses on April 13. However, knowing that
Murtland had obtained this information from Sansonetti,
Respondent did not then discharge Murtland. Had it dis-
charged Murtland at this time, its case might have been
somewhat better. However, on April 27, only 2 days after
Respondent first learned that another union meeting was
scheduled to be held on April 29, did Respondent take its
precipitous action and discharge Murtland without any dis-
cussion with him or anyone else about his conduct. What
better way could an employer use to dissuade the remaining
employees from voting for the Union than to discharge the
chief union spokesman and leader just 2 days prior to the
next union meeting. That Respondent knew that Murtland
had started the ball rolling on the organizational campaign
is amply demonstrated by the remarks of its agents, set
forth above, made after the discharge of Murtland.
It is my conclusion that Respondent's assigned reason for
discharging Murtland was pretexual and used only as a
means of ridding itself of the leading union adherent. It is
clear to me, and I so find, that Respondent discharged
Murtland because of his activities6 on behalf of the Union
6 In view of my finding that Murtland was discharged because of his union
activities and that Respondent's assigned reason was prctextual, I deem it
unnecessary to determine whether the obtaining of the list by Murtland was
protected activity.
in order to dissuade its other employees from joining the
Union. Such conduct certainly discourages union member-
ship and is clearly violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act,
and I so find.
IV. TIlE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR I.ABOR PRACTICES UPON
(OMMERCE
The activities of Respondent, set forth in section Ill,
above, occurring in connection with the operations de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relationship to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
CoNCLUSIONS OF' LAW
I. The Respondent, Murraysville Telephone Company,
is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Federation of Telephone Workers of Pennsylvania is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By discriminatorily discharging Robert Murtland on
April 27, 1977, and failing and refusing to reinstate him
because of his union activities and protected, concerted ac-
tivities, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair la-
bor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to affectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging Robert
Murtland and failing and refusing to reinstate him, I shall
order Respondent to offer immediate and full reinstatement
to his former job or, if that job is not available, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his se-
niority or other rights and privileges, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of
the discrimination against him, by payment to him of a sum
of money equal to that which he normally would have
earned as wages from April 27, 1977, to the date of Respon-
dent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings during
such period, with backpay to be computed in the manner
prescribed by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest thereon computed in the
manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB
651 (1977) 7.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclu-
7 Generally, e Isis Plumbing Healing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
1148
MURRAYSVILLE TEI.EPHONE COMPANY
sions of la., and the entire record in this proceeding, and
pursuant to the provisions of Section 10(c) of the Act. I
hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER"
The Respondent. Murraysville Telephone Company. Ex-
port. Pennsylvania. its officers. agents. successors, and as-
signs, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discouraging membership in the Federation of Tele-
phone Workers of Pennsylvania or any other labor organi-
zation. by discriminatorily discharging or otherwise dis-
criminating against its employees in regard to hire or tenure
of employment or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer immediate and full reinstatement to Robert
Murtland to his former job or, if that job is no longer avail-
able. to a substantially equivalent position. without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
In the event no excetions 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.
him whole for any loss of pay or other compensation he
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth in that portion of this Decision
entitled "The Remedy."
(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 all other records necessary to ana-
lyze and determine the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(c) Post at its Export. Pennsylvania. facility, copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice,
on forms furnished by the Regional Director for Region 6.
shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's autho-
rized representatives, be posted immediately upon receipt
thereof. and maintained by it for 60 consecutive days there-
after, in conspicuous places, including all places where no-
tices 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 writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board."
1149