Pittsburgh Press Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1978

234 N.L.R.B. 408 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pittsburgh Press Company and Jesse Walker, Sr.
Case 6-CA-9953
January 24, 1978
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS PENELLO, MURPHY, AND
TRUESDALE
On September 14, 1977, Administrative Law Judge
Claude R. Wolfe issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed
limited cross-exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge, to
modify his remedy,3 and to adopt his recommended
Order, as modified herein.
Respondent contends at length that the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's finding that it discriminatorily
suspended employee Walker in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) is legally deficient for lack of evidence
of independent union animus. This contention is
clearly without merit. Respondent concedes that
Walker was suspended for his statement, "As long as
I'm Acting Shop Steward and when I become Shop
Steward I will not let you work the men short."
Respondent would have it that this statement was
insubordinate. Contrary to Respondent, we agree
with the Administrative Law Judge that Walker's
statement was clearly an expression of Walker's
intention to be an active union representative of the
employees, and thus this statement was protected by
the Act. Penalizing an employee for union-related
conduct protected by Section 7 of the Act such as
that considered here is inherently destructive of
important employee rights and thus requires no proof
of antiunion motivation. N.L.R.B. v. Great Dane
Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26 (1967).
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, as
modified below, and hereby orders that the Respon-
dent, Pittsburgh Press Company, Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
234 NLRB No. 83
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order, as so modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraphs 1(b)
through (d):
"(b) Assembling employees, in the absence of any
union representative, for the purpose of encouraging
them to select a steward to represent them in matters
related to collective bargaining.
"(c) Threatening employees with retaliation be-
cause they have engaged in union and protected
concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
"(d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Make whole Jesse Walker, Sr., for any loss of
earnings he may have suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him. Backpay is to be comput-
ed in the manner prescribed in the remedy as
modified in the Board's Decision."
3. Add the following as paragraph 2(b) and
reletter the subsequent paragraphs:
"(b) Remove all references to the suspension of
Jesse Walker, Sr., from his personnel file and other
records."
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
I 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 credibili-
ty 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.
2 Respondent also contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in
finding that it violated Sec. 8(aXI) of the Act when Night Foreman Harry
Carter assembled the janitorial employees, in the absence of any union
representative, for the purpose of encouraging them to select a steward. We
do not agree. The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aXI)
because Carter threatened the employees with discharge for engaging in
protected and concerted activities on behalf of the Union. The facts
developed at the hearing showed that Supervisor Carter told the employees,
at an employee meeting called by Carter on February 23, that he thought
they should have a night steward and implied that the employees should not
select Walker as steward because Respondent was "out to get him."
Inasmuch as all the facts surrounding this event were set forth on the record,
and the witnesses were examined and cross-examined without objection
from Respondent, we find the issue to have been fully litigated, and as the
finding clearly relates to the finding that Respondent discriminated against
Walker because of his conduct as acting steward, we adopt the Administra-
tive Law Judge's finding. Monroe Feed Store, 112 NLRB 1336 (1955).
3 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently specified interest to be
paid at 7 percent; however, interest will be calculated according to the
"adjusted prime rate" used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service for interest
on tax payments. Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See Isis
Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962), for rationale on interest
payments.
We shall also modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly
and correct certain inadvertent errors contained therein
408
PITTSBURGH PRESS COMPANY
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT suspend our employees because
they have engaged in union or other protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT assemble our employees, in the
absence of any union representative, for the
purpose of encouraging them to select a steward.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with
retaliation because they have engaged in union
and protected concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section
7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Jesse Walker, Sr., for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result
of our discrimination against him, together with
interest.
WE WILL remove all references to the suspen-
sion of Jesse Walker, Sr., from his personnel file
and other records.
PITTSBURGH PRESS
COMPANY
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAUDE R. WOLFE, Administrative Law Judge: This
proceeding was heard before me at Pittsburgh, Pennsylva-
nia, on June 1, 1977, pursuant to a complaint issued on
April 22, 1977,1 based on charges filed on February 14 and
amended on April 21. A motion to strike one allegation of
the complaint was made by General Counsel at the hearing
and was granted. The remaining allegations of the com-
plaint allege that Pittsburgh Press Company, herein called
the Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(I) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by suspending
Jesse Walker, Sr., for 3 days, and by threatening employees
with discharge for engaging in statutorily protected activi-
ties. Respondent duly denied the commission of unfair
labor practices.
Upon the entire record,2 including my observation of the
demeanor of witnesses as they testified, and after due
consideration of the parties' posttrial briefs, I make the
following:
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged
in the publication of a daily newspaper known as The
Pittsburgh Press at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, facility.
The Respondent, during the 12 months immediately
preceding the issuance of the complaint, a representative
period, received gross revenues in excess of S500,000 in the
operation of its business, has been a member of national
news services, advertised nationally sold products, and has
published nationally syndicated features. The Respondent
is, and has been at all times material to this case, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
n. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Service Employees International Union, Pittsburgh Lo-
cal No. 29, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
m. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
At all times material to this case, the Respondent and the
Union have been parties to a collective-bargaining agree-
ment covering the employees involved herein, including
Jesse Walker, Sr.
Walker, the Charging Party, is a daylight janitor at the
Pittsburgh facility, and has been an active union member
for 12 years. At the time of the controversy, the Union's
steward was employee Edward Griffin. In the latter part of
the week prior to his vacation, Griffin posted a notice that,
in his absence, he was appointing Walker as acting
steward. The week of Griffin's vacation commenced on
February 7.
On February 8, Walker's foreman, Marion Johnson,
called the plant and left word for Walker to call him at
home when he came in. Walker did so. There is a dispute
between Walker and Johnson as to what was said during
the conversation. Walker testifies that all Johnson told him
was that he would not be coming in because he was ill, and
asked Walker to take his place as foreman in his absence.
Johnson denies that he told Walker he would be the
foreman or acting foreman in Johnson's absence. He states
that he told Walker that he was sick and would not be in,
that all the men that were needed were working and they
knew their assignments, but he wanted to be sure Walker
knew that because he did not need any men and did not
want any called in.
According to Walker's uncontroverted testimony, after
he talked to Johnson he called employee Mixon, who was
not scheduled to work that day, in to take Johnson's place
as a janitor because Building Superintendent Richard
Lauth had earlier said that he did not want working
foremen. Walker did not change into his normal work
clothes but wore a tie, leisure trousers, a sweater, and
I All dates herein occurred in 1977, unless specifically noted otherwise.
APPENDIX
409
z Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
highly polished shoes throughout the day, and spent his
time checking to see that the work was going well and the
employees were contented.
On February 9, Walker again returned a call from
Johnson at the beginning of the shift. Again, their respec-
tive accounts of what was said differ. Walker says that
Johnson said his back was hurting, asked Walker to replace
him as foreman for that day, and told him that men had
been standing around not doing their work, specifically
naming an employee who had been seen sleeping on the
job and one who was just standing around on an occasion
when Lauth passed by. According to Walker, he told
Johnson he would take care of it and the conversation
ended.
Johnson testified that, when he talked to Walker on
February 9, he asked how things had gone and Walker
replied there had been no problems. Whereupon, Johnson
told him there was "only one thing" that he had heard from
Lauth3 via telephone on February 8, and that was that
Lauth had seen one of the janitors in the truckdrivers' area.
Johnson avers that he told Walker this was no big thing
because that was where janitors sit when they have nothing
to do. On cross-examination, Johnson amplified this
testimony and stated that, in addition to this janitor out of
his work area when Lauth saw him, another employee was
doing nothing but sitting down in the service room. This
latter employee is the same one that Walker says was
reported to him by Johnson as sleeping on the job. Johnson
terms the conversation about the two employees as just
"general talk with Mr. Walker," and denies telling Walker
that he was to act as foreman in Johnson's absence that
day.
After this conversation with Johnson on February 9,
Walker called in Herman Frazier, who was not scheduled
to work, to perform Walker's work. Throughout the day, he
wore the same attire that he had the previous day, and
performed none of his normal janitorial work. At or about
7:15 a.m., he was informed by another janitor that there
was a desk to be moved. Walker went to Building
Superintendent Lauth and told him that he had employee
Mixon to wash the desk and assist Lauth and his helper in
moving it. There was no further conversation between him
and Lauth at the time.
It appears from the record that it had been the practice in
the past to post a notice informing employees when anyone
was going to serve as acting foreman in the absence of the
regular foreman. It also appears that the Respondent has
s Lauth did not testify.
I Although there was considerable evidence adduced about the route
followed to the office, the layout of the office, where they each were
positioned in the office, and the possibility of being overheard by someone, I
find it of no probative value and will not further allude to it.
I According to Johnson, he overheard Walker tell another janitor,
Gilmore, on February 7, that if he was assigned to some place other than his
regular assignment on the fourth floor he was to refuse. Johnson asked what
was the matter and Walker repeated that he was telling the employee that if
he was working on the fourth floor, Walker wanted him to work there, and
no place else. Johnson told Walker that he was not the foreman and could
not tell men where to work. Walker replied that it was his place to protect
the men (an apparent reference to his duty as an acting steward), and if
Johnson did not have enough men in he should hire some and not move
men all over the place. Johnson repeated, in substance, that it was up to the
foreman to control the work force.
Walker denies talking to Johnson at all on February 7. Gilmore did not
testify.
"floaters" regularly employed, at least two of whom were
on the job at 7 a.m. on February 8, whose duty it is to fill in
whenever they are needed, such as in the case of an absent
employee.
At or about noon on February 9, according to Johnson,
Lauth called him and reported that Walker had told Lauth
that he had called Herman Frazier in to work on his off
day after talking to Johnson about it. Johnson assured
Lauth that he had not talked to Walker about anything like
that. After ascertaining that Johnson would be in to work
on February 10, Lauth said, "[W]ell, when you come in
tomorrow, you have a meeting with him and make sure you
get him straight on the rules, that he is not to call people in
on his own." Walker acknowledges that he consulted with
no one before calling Frazier in.
Johnson returned to work on February 10. Walker was
performing his regular duties as a janitor, at or about 7:15
a.m., when Johnson called him into the pressroom chair-
man's office where the two of them had a private
discussion.4 They agree that Johnson asked Walker who
authorized him to call men in, and that Walker conceded
that no one had. Then, according to Walker, Johnson
remarked that Lauth was going to jump on Johnson about
that, and Walker said, "Mr. Johnson, let's get one thing
straight right now. As long as I'm Acting Shop Steward and
when I become Shop Steward I will not let you work the
men short." Then, testifies Walker, Johnson said, "[Y]ou
are suspended as of now." Walker concedes he then told
Johnson that he must be out of his mind. Johnson's
testimony agrees with that of Walker, with certain varia-
tions. Johnson's version is that, after Walker admitted no
one had authorized him to call men in, the following
conversation ensued: "I said to him, I told you on
Monday5 that you are not the foreman and you have no
authority to hire people in, or to direct work forces and
what not. I said now if you can make me, if you can assure
me that you understand this, and won't repeat it, I can let
the matter drop.... he says to me, now let me get you
straight . . . when I'm acting shop steward, and when I
become shop steward, he says I don't ever intend to let you
work this crew short. By then we had been talking softly
then, and then his voice got loud and he began to shake his
finger at me and he said that he wanted to get me straight.
In the future, he intended to make sure that I didn't work
the people short. I said to him, now, if this is going to be
your attitude, I'll tell you what, you take three days off, you
come back on Tuesday, and we'll discuss it at that
Although I am somewhat disabled by the absence of any testimony of
Gilmore on the matter, and the demeanor of Walker and Johnson when
testifying on this subject gave me no clues as to which was the more credible
on this conversation, I am persuaded that it is unlikely that Walker did not
talk to his foreman Johnson at all on February 7, and the conduct of Walker
described by Johnson is not inconsistent with both Walker's express
objection, on February 10, that Johnson not try to overwork men, and
Walker's expressed intent, on February 10, to prevent such occurrences.
While I might not credit Johnson on other matters, I cannot conclude from
either the record or his demeanor that he is incredible on all counts as
General Counsel contends, and I credit Johnson's testimony with regard to
the February 7 events. Although I credit Johnson in this instance, I do not
agree with Respondent's contention that Walker is completely incredible. I
am of the opinion that the parties' arguments on credibility are far too broad
and give me little assistance in resolving testimonial conflicts.
410
PITTSBURGH PRESS COMPANY
time..... His response to me was I'm not going anywhere,
you must be out of your mind. I was acting shop steward."
Thus, both are in agreement, except for immaterial and
miniscule differences in wording, as to what Walker said
and the fact that his suspension immediately followed.
Johnson acknowledges that he would not have suspend-
ed Walker (whom he concedes is a very satisfactory
employee) because he called in Mixon and Frazier to work,
and that he suspended Walker because of Walker's
statements with regard to what Walker intended to do.
Johnson states that he considered that Walker's statements,
combined with the tone and manner in which they were
delivered, constituted insubordination. That Johnson sus-
pended Walker solely for his statements at the February 10
meeting and not because he had called men in is borne out
by the testimony of Union Secretary-Treasurer Ralph
Terry, called as a witness by the Respondent, who credibly
testified that during the course of a grievance meeting on
February 11, when he tried to settle the dispute informally
between Johnson and Walker, Johnson said, "I don't give a
damned [sic] about him calling the men in, it's the fact that
it was the insubordination," and that he does not recall
Johnson indicating that there would have been any form of
discipline had Walker not made the statements Johnson
deemed insubordinate. Indeed, the record is clear that
Johnson had no intention of levying any discipline, even a
reprimand, on Walker when the conversation of February
10 began. By Johnson's own testimony, Lauth merely told
him to make sure Walker understood the rules relating to
calling people in. This instruction by Lauth carries no hint
of reprimand or other adverse action, and I do not believe
that Johnson was going beyond these instructions and
doing anything other than instructing Walker on the rules
and making sure Walker understood them. That there was
no intention to reprimand at the outset is evident from the
statement of Johnson to Terry, quoted above, that he did
not care about Walker calling the men in.
I credit employee Frank Taylor's uncontradicted testi-
mony that subsequent to Walker's 3-day suspension, on
February 23, Foreman Harry Carter called a meeting of
the night janitors wherein he told them that he thought the
employees should have a night steward. There was none at
the time. Carter stated that he had talked to Ralph Terry,
who was not at this meeting, and it had been decided to ask
the men if a lady shop steward would be acceptable. Carter
mentioned a Mrs. Crawford, and the night janitors agreed
she would be acceptable. Carter then explained the
convenience of having a night steward right there to settle
any differences that might arise, and added that "he didn't
want to come up under the aggravation with Walker,
because the company was out to get him, and he didn't
want to be into that aggravation."
Walker had come with Steward Griffin in 1976 to assist
the night employees in getting contract proposals together,
and the record shows that Walker had been a candidate for
steward in the past, had filed grievances, and had taken an
active part in preparing and submitting contract proposals
to the Union in past negotiations.
e The Respondent's contention that Walker was indicating that he would
continue to hire men in is rejected. Rather, Walker's remarks were clearly
directed at what he would prevent Johnson from doing. I see no basis in the
B. Conclusions
I conclude and find that Johnson did tell Jesse Walker,
Sr., to act in his place as foreman on February 8 and 9.
During these 2 days Walker did no janitor work, dressed in
a manner clearly indicating he was not performing his
regular work, was told by Johnson to watch for certain
employees' derelictions of duty, spent the 2 days observing
the janitors to see that the work was done, and told Lauth
that he had assigned Mixon to wash a desk and assist in
moving it. There is no evidence that Lauth objected to
either his attire or his actions in assigning work. Walker did
not impress me as one who would deliberately, without any
authorization from Johnson, assume the role of acting
foreman and dress and function as one in the presence of
the building superintendent. That he called in Mixon and
Frazier was, in my opinion, consistent with the statement
made to him by Johnson on February 7 that it was the
foreman's job to determine how many men should work,
where they were to work, and what they were to do. All
that Johnson was really telling him in this regard on
February 7 was that stewards could not do these things, but
foremen could. Walker impressed me as more straightfor-
ward and direct in his testimony regarding his telephone
conversations with Johnson, and Johnson's testimonial
demeanor on the topic was not as convincing as that of
Walker. I therefore conclude and find that Johnson did tell
Walker to act as foreman in his place and did not give
Walker all the cautions about hiring in men on February 8
that Johnson claims he did. That Walker may have been
mistaken in his comprehension of the scope of his authority
when filling in for Johnson, and may have exceeded it by
calling in Mixon and Frazier, does not militate against a
finding that Johnson told him to act as foreman but, rather,
reinforces it.
The only question of substance to be resolved with
regard to the suspension is whether or not Walker's
remarks which precipitated his suspension were protected
activity under the National Labor Relations Act. I am
persuaded that they were. That Johnson considered them
to be insubordinate does not make them so. Walker was
not refusing to do anything, but was announcing his
intention to be an active union steward making every effort
he could to prevent Johnson from working a crew without
what Walker considered a sufficient number of employ-
ees, 6 which clearly implies the probability grievances would
be filed. This, in my view, is protected union activity.
Walker was an acting steward who had a right to protest
what he conceived to be improper allocation of personnel
and/or workload. Even if he were wrong in his interpreta-
tion of what the collective-bargaining agreement permits or
requires, Walker's activity was protected, e.g., Robert
Martin Construction Co., Inc., 214 NLRB 429 (1974). The
language used by Walker was temperate, contained no
threat or offensive language, and cannot reasonably and
objectively be viewed as insubordinate. Furthermore, the
Board has long given union agents engaged in grievance
credible evidence for any conclusion that Walker was, in his capacity as
acting steward or steward, planning to hire in or call in anybody.
411
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
processing wide latitude in the selection of language they
use in the course of such activity,7 and there is no
requirement that a steward be servile, or even polite, in his
presentation of complaints about his employer's conduct
with regard to wages, hours, or other working conditions. I
can comprehend no reason why Walker may not be just as
aggressive in expressing his intention to function as a
vigilant steward as he is permitted to be when actually
engaged in that function as the Union's agent for purposes
of enforcing the contract.8 Accordingly, I find that the
suspension of Jesse Walker, Sr., for 3 days was motivated
by his protected activity as a union steward on February
10, 1977, and is violative of Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the
Act.9
Similarly, I find that the statements by Respondent's
foreman, Harry Carter, an admitted statutory supervisor,
on February 23 after Walker had been suspended, could
not help but convey to his listeners that the Respondent
did not want a steward as aggressive as Walker and was
going to retaliate against Walker because of his activities as
a steward. I find the calling together of employees, in the
absence of any union representative, by a supervisor for the
purpose of encouraging them to select a steward o to be
interference with the employees' Section 7 rights in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. I further find that
Carter's statements with reference to the Company's
intention to "get" Walker, who was known to the employ-
ees as a very active union adherent, were calculated to
impress upon them the Respondent's aversion to union
activists and thereby restrained and coerced them in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The implied threat
to do unto others as was done unto Walker if they became
activists is readily apparent. My conclusion in this latter
regard is supported by the Respondent's acknowledgment
that Walker was a very good worker. This being the case it
could not be his work performance that aggravated the
Respondent, and the only other real "aggravation" shown
by the record is Walker's union activity for which he was
suspended.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent, Pittsburgh Press Company is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Service Employees International Union, Pittsburgh
Local No. 29, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By suspending Jesse Walker, Sr., because he engaged
in protected activity and in union activity, the Respondent
herein violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7 Thor Power Toot Company, 148 NLRB 1379(1964).
S If it were otherwise, any steward, acting steward, or employee would be
in peril of disciplinary action each and every time he or she expressed an
intention to file a grievance, to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement, or
to engage in other protected activity without first politely securing
permission to so do from an agent of his or her employer. Such a result
would render the guarantees of Sec. 7 of the Act meaningless.
I See Clara Barton Terrace Convalescent Center, 225 NLRB 1028 (1976),
an analogous case.
to Union Agent Terry characterizes such a procedure as illegal. There-
fore, I cannot find that Carter's actions were with union permission.
4. By the acts of Harry Carter, its supervisor and agent,
in restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of
their Section 7 rights, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)( ) of the Act.
5. The unfair labor practices cited above have a close,
intimate, and substantial effect on the free flow of com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
THi ReMeDY
I have found that the Respondent has committed certain
unfair labor practices, and I will recommend that it be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other
appropriate actions to remedy its unfair labor practices. I
therefore recommend that the Respondent be required to
make Jesse Walker, Sr., whole for wages lost by reason of
the 3-day suspension levied upon him, with interest
computed thereon at 7 percent per annum in accordance
with Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 1
further recommend an order that all references to said
suspension be totally expunged from all of Respondent's
personnel and other records wherein the suspension is now
noted, and that the Respondent be required to post the
usual notice advising its employees of their rights and of
"The Remedy" in this case.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record herein considered as a whole, and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I make the following
recommended:
ORDER "
The Respondent, Pittsburgh Press Company, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Suspending employees because they engaged in
protected activities.
(b) Discouraging union or other protected activities by
suspending employees.
(c) Restraining and coercing employees to refrain from
fully exercising their Section 7 rights.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Make Jesse Walker, Sr., whole for any loss of pay he
suffered by reason of his unlawful 3-day suspension,
together with interest thereon at 7 percent per annum.
(b) Post at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, facility copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 12 Copies of said
" 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.
12 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
412
PITTSBURGH PRESS COMPANY
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 6, after being duly signed by the Company's
authorized representative, shall be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ-
ing 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.
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."
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll and other records necessary to compute the
backpay due under this Order.
(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.
413