Pottsville Bleaching And Dyeing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1985

275 N.L.R.B. 1236 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pottsville Bleaching and Dyeing Company and
Joseph Sullivan . Case 4-CA-14512 _-
30 July 1985
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 12 February 1985 Administrative Law Judge
James L. Rose issued the attached decision. The
Respondent and the General Counsel each filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering brief to the Respond-
ent's exceptions.. -
The-National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-'
member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings', I and
conclusions as modified, 2 and to adopt the recom- '
mended Order. -
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
Judge and orders that the Respondent, Pottsville
Bleaching and Dyeing, Company, Port-Carbon,
i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of- all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect. Standard. Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing"
the findings -
We note the Respondent's contention that the judge omitted from his
decision a "critical" portion of the testimony of George Alton, one of the
two employees with whom•Charging Party Joseph Sullivan was talking
at the time of the 18 May 1984 incident We have examined this testimo-
ny, and find that it does not contradict the judge's ultimate conclusion
that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3) Alton's omitted testimony does
not corroborate the testimony of Richard Horton, the Respondent's plant'
manager who confronted Sullivan in the 18 May 1984 incident More- -
over, the judge discredited Horton's testimony on the basis of Horton's
demeanor Thus, there is no credited evidence that it was Sullivan rather
than Horton who first became loud and•botsterous as urged by the Re-
spondent In such circumstances, we find the Respondent's reliance on an
alleged October 1983 incident, which the judge did not discuss,,to be ir-
relevant -
2 We find it unnecessary to rely on the Judge's comments in par 4 of
sec 11,B, "Analysis and Concluding Findings," of his decision regarding
what "experience" demonstrates We also find it unnecessary to rely on ,
the judge's conclusion that Sullivan was known to be the "principal em;
ployee" active in the 1983 organizational campaign, but rather we find it
sufficient to note that he'was known by the Respondent to be one 'of the
most active employees in that campaign We further find 'it' unnecessary =
to rely on the judge's finding that the Respondent's admonition to its su-
pervisors to keep Sullivan off the "wet floor" and from talking to other
employees was motivated by union animus
We note that the Respondent's supervisor George Hosler resigned on 6
February 1984, although the judge's decision states that he resigned on 4
February 1983 Finally, we correct the judge's inadvertent error of omit-
ting the word "not" between the words "does vindicate" in par • 19 of _
sec ILB, "Analysis and Concluding Findings," of his decision -
Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns , shall take the action set "forth in the Order.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative 'Law Judge This
matter was tried before me on November 29 and 30,
1984,1 at Pottsville , Pennsylvania , o_ n the General Coun-
sel's complaint2 alleging that about May 18 the Respond-
ent discharged its employee Joseph 'Sullivan in violation
of Section' 8(a)(3) and ( 1) of the National Labor Rela-
tions_ Act, 29 U.S C. § 151 et seq The Respondent gener-
ally denied that it violated the Act contending that Sulli-
van "engaged in conduct justifying his discharge "
On the record as a whole, including my observation of
the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs
and arguments of counsel , I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. JURISDICTION -
The Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation en-
gaged in the bleaching and dyeing of tubular fabrics at
various facilities, • including one at Port Carbon, Pennsyl-
vania, the facility involved in this matter During the
course of its business the Respondent annually sells and
ships directly to points outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania products valued in excess of $50,000. I
therefore conclude' the Respondent is, an -employer en-
gaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2); (6), and (7) of the Act.. -
The parties stipulated that Teamsters Union Local No.
115, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen. and Helpers of Amer-
ica (the Union), at all times material has been a labor or-
ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
-A. Background and' Undisputed Facts -
The Respondent operates two plants in the Pottsville
vicinity, one at Port Carbon and the other at Schuylkill
Haven. From about 1953, employees of both plants com-
prised one bargaining unit represented by Local 273, In-
dependent Bleaching -and Dyeing Union. In 1979 these
employees apparently determined to affiliate with an
international organization and at that time contacted an
official of the Union (or one of its sister locals) Howev-
er, because of some trade jurisdiction problem,' the Union
declined the opportunity to . represent them and they
went to Roofers, Local 30. An organizational campaign
was begun, but before the representation matter was re-
solved Local 30'ceased the campaign due to the death of
its .president. •
Then ihere was organizational activity on behalf of the
United Food and Commercial Workers - as well as the
i All dates are in 1984 unless otherwise indicated
2 The charge was-filed on July 12 and -the complaint was issued on
August 24 •
275 NLRB No. 175
POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO
Textile Workers as a result of which the multiplant unit
was split and employees at the Schuylkill Haven plant
became 'represented by the United Food and Commercial
Workers. The Textile Workers Union was rejected by a
majority of the employees at Port Carbon.
In 1982 Port Carb on employees again contacted the
Union, and this time the Union indicated that it could
represent them. An organizational campaign began in
early 1982 and an election was held sometime in August
with employees voting against representation by the
Union Objections were filed and a rerun election was
held in December 1982 with the Union again failing to
receive a majority of the'votes. Some employees and the
Union determined to start organizing again in the fall of
1983.3
The parties stipulated that on November 30, 1983, a
petition was filed in Case 4-RC-15505 and an' election
was held on January 26 and 27. The tally of ballots
shows that 65 votes were cast for and 66 against the
Union with no challenged ballots. Objections were filed
but were overruled and a certification of results was
issued on March 29
Joseph Sullivan started work for the Respondent at
the Port Carbon plant on August 16, 1965, and during
the incumbency of the independent union served in vari-
ous steward capacities. During the organizational cam-
paigns, particularly including the one in 1983, Sullivan
was one of the employees most active on behalf of the
Union, a fact which was known to various responsible
management officials. At the election he was a union ob-
server Indeed, even after the Union lost the 1984 elec-
tion, Sullivan purchased and wore at the plant a jacket
with the Union's name and logo on the back of it. Only
in argument did the Respondent deny knowledge. of Sul-
livan's principal role in campaigning for the Union The'
Respondent's witnesses did not dispute the testimony of
Sullivan and others establishing such knowledge-pass-
ing out literature in view of management officials and
statements by them.
On March 29 Sullivan injured his back while at work
and was off for approximately a month. At the sugges-
tion of his doctor, when Sullivan returned to work he
changed jobs to one involving less lifting. He became a
utility man whose duties are to take work to employees
operating machines.
On May 14, shortly after returning to work, Sullivan
was called into the office of Plant Manager Richard M.
Horton, who stated, "You're in here for missing Satur-
days." Sullivan said that as a result of his injury, he had
difficulty working 5 days a week much less 6. Horton
stated that he had spoken to the doctor, who indicated
that there were no restrictions on Sullivan's release to
return to work
On May 17, Sullivan had an appointment with the
doctor, at which time he received a note 'which states:
"The patient should work for fourty hours per week for
next four weeks." - '
9 This history is based on the undisputed testimony of Joseph Sullivan
His testimony covers events of a rather complex nature occuring some
years ago and is therefore not particularly definitive However, it suffices
for purposes of background to the events at issue
1237
On arriving for work on May 18; Sullivan submitted
this note to his immediate supervisor; James Walsh: Ac-
cording to Sullivan's undenied testimony, Walsh looked
at the note, shrugged,'and`returned it to him.
Later that morning, Sullivan was observed by Horton
talking to two machine operators, George Alton and
Marty Dross. Horton approached them telling Dross to
return to his machine, and would have told Alton also,
but he already had done so. Then began a confrontation
between Sullivan and Horton Which-resulted in Sulli-
van's discharge.
The above outline is based on Sullivan's undenied and
generally credible testimony. What transpired following
Horton's approaching the three employees on May 18,is
in dispute and indeed forms the gravamen of this contro-
versy. The Respondent generally contends that Sullivan
immediately began to act in a, disruptive and insubordi-
nate manner, and his continued behavior in such fashion
was the sole cause of his discharge,
On May 25 and three subsequent times Sullivan met
with representatives of management as well as the "prob-
lem solving committee." The result of these meetings
was to ratify Horton's determination to discharge Sulli-
van on May 18.
While there appears to be some question as to whether
Sullivan was actually discharged on May 18 or May 25,
there is no question that he was sent home by Horton on
May 18 and was not allowed to work,thereafter.
B. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The General Counsel alleges that Sullivan was dis-
charged because of his known activity as a leader on
behalf of the Union's organizational campaign. The Re-
spondent contends'that the sole=basis of Sullivan's termi-
nation was his acts of insubordination on May 18.4
As will be set forth in more detail below, the credible
evidence establishes that the Respondent, and particular-
ly Horton, knew of Sullivan's "activity on behalf of the
Union having observed him passing out leaflets at the
plant gate, which activity 'Sullivan did not abandon fol-
lowing the election as shown' by his wearing the union
jacket; that the Respondent, and particularly Horton,
harbored animus against Sullivan for this 'activity; that
Horton's discharge of Sullivan occurred in close proximi-
ty to the end of the' most recent organizational campaign,
when one considers Sullivan was off from ,work'for ap-
proximately a month immediately following the -certifi-
cate of results; that Horton initiated the confrontation ac-
cusing Sullivan of dereliction of duty but without investi-
gation; that Sullivan's reaction to Horton's accusation
was not of the character testified-to by Horton, that Sul-
livan' is the only 'employee ever discharged by Horton
for "insubordination' ; and, f pally, that Sullivan was an'
employee with nearly 19 years' service who undeniably
was competent even though he had a reputation for
being "loud." - '. " .
4 The Respondent brought forth some evidence of prior alleged acts of
misconduct by Sullivan which were not offered as a basis for his dis-
charge but rather to support the credibility of the Respondent's witnesses
and as an attack on Sullivan's credibility
1238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finding these facts, I conclude that the reason ad-
vanced by the Respondent is pretext to disguise Horton's
true motive in discharging Sullivan. I,conclude that Sul-
livan was discharged for his union activity, absent which
Horton would not have initiated the confrontation nor
would he have discharged Sullivan.
The Act, does not prohibit an employer from discharg-
ing an employee for any reason, or indeed no reason at
all, other than where motivated by that employee's union
or other protected 'activity., Thus, the Act does not pro-
scribe unreasonable or irrational management decisions
affecting the tenure of employees. However, experience
has shown that managers do not precipitately discharge
long-term , competent employees. Experience demon-
strates that where an employee of Sullivan's tenure and
competence is discharged such is based on a sound
reason . However, where-the stated cause is unreasonable
under the circumstances, that fact is itself evidence that
the employer is seeking to disguise its true motive. Shat-
tuck Denn Mining Corp. v. NLRB, 362 F 2d 466 (9th Cir.
1966).
During the organizational campaign in the fall of 1983,
one morning prior to' their shift, 'Sullivan and others
were outside the plant passing out union literature.
Horton walked by, looked at Sullivan, and went in the
building . Sullivan then punched in ' at his regular 'time
and went to his job. Horton came over to him and said,
"You need your ass kicked good." This event was cor-
roborated by employee Ron Downey and was undenied
by Horton. s
Demonstrating animus against unions in general, one
morning when employees were handbilling the 'plant, a
leaflet was offered, to Walsh, who stated, "If anybody. at
my house . .' . belonged, to the union, I'd throw them
the hell out." This testimony of Sullivan was corroborat-
ed by Downey and was not denied by Walsh
As to animus, against Sullivan specifically, in Decem-
ber 1983 Walsh told employee Daniel Daubert, "Well, I
told management that •I would take a punch, to aggra-
vate Joe Sullivan enough that a punch in the mouth from
him, so they can get rid of him, and management said so,
they'd handle it themselves." This testimony of Daubert
was generally credible and was not denied by Walsh..
Employee Kevin Jefferson testified that shortly after
Sullivan was "suspended" he saw Supervisors Walsh,
Charlie Rubright, and Frank Broadhead talking. Walsh
said to Broadhead, about Sullivan, "We've got to get rid
of him," and, "Got rid of the union guys, and we're.
going to get rid' of some more. union guys now." This
testimony of Jefferson was credible and was undenied by
Walsh. Broadhead was called as a witness in.surrebuttal
denying. that Walsh had made a different statement or
that he himself had said, "We'll try to get rid .of the
union guys ." He did not specifically deny the instant to
which Jefferson testified.' Thus, upon Jefferson's, general-
ly credible -demeanor, absent denial of this event by
Walsh, and at-best a negative pregnant denial by, Broad-
5 A reprimand of Sullivan by Horton during , this period was offered by
the Respondent as background In this context the reprimand is suspect
In any event, , such does not serve to support an adverse finding on Sulli-
van's credibility
head, I find that following. Sullivan's discharge Walsh
made a statement to fellow supervisors the essence-of
which was that Sullivan was discharged for union activi-
ty.
Finally, in the fall of 1983 at a meeting of supervisors
conducted by a management relations firm, Sullivan
along with Downey and Dross were singled out as lead-
ers of the organizational campaign. Supervisors were in-
structed to keep Sullivan, off the wet floor and from talk-
ing to other employees. This is from the generally credi-
ble testimony of the Respondent's former assistant super-
visor Darryl Linebar. The fact that such a meeting took
place was not denied by the Respondent, Horton testify-
ing, only in vague terms that he did not remember the
statements relating to Sullivan On balance, I accept the
testimony .of Linebar and conclude that in fact supervi-
sors were instructed that Sullivan was the leader of the
organizational campaign and to take action to see that he
not talk to other, employees.
The overwhelming credible evidence in this matter,
undenied in material respects by, the Respondent, is that
Sullivan was known to be the principal employee active
in the 1983 organizational campaign and that manage-
ment representatives of-the Respondent,'particularly in-
cluding-Walsh and Horton, harbored animus against Sul-
livan for his activity. And following the election, Sulli-
van demonstrated that he had not given up. He bought
and wore a union jacket.
Nevertheless, , the Respondent, through the testimony
of Horton and. Walsh, sought to establish that Sullivan
acted in such insubordinate manner on May 18 and his
discharge was for cause. However, the credible evi-
dence, including admissions, by Horton, establishes that
at best, Sullivan's insubordination occurred after Horton
had commenced an unlawful discipline of him.
Thus, Horton testified that he observed Sullivan talk-
ing to employees Alton and Dross, both of whom were
machine operators. According to Horton, he approached
them and told Dross to return to his machine and turned
to Alton but Alton had already done so Horton testified
he said:
"Joe, I don't want you keeping people from their
work. I don't want you keeping them talking with
them so that they can't get their jobs done " And,
at that moment, he just became very boisterous. His
arms 'flew up in the air and he says, "That's the
second time that you've threatened me this week."
-While admitting that Sullivan's job was such that he
reasonably could have been where he was on May 18
talking to employees about work related matters, Horton
did not inquire as 'to whether this was the fact. Thus,
from Horton's own testimony when he saw the three
employees talking, he told two of them to return to their
work and reprimanded the third, the known union activ-
ist. In short, Horton determined that Sullivan was en-
gaged in misconduct (which was not obvious from his
observation) without the slightest investigation -
And from ,the Respondent's witness Alton, Horton
went further-he told- Sullivan to report to the office.
Thus, Alton, 'testified on his direct examination that he,
POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO
Dross, and Sullivan were talking and, "Just at that time,
around the front of the machine, Mr. Horton walked
around and said to Joe, `Come' down • to the office. I
want to talk to you."'
The principal basis'of the Respondent's contention that
Sullivan was discharged for cause is Horton's testimony
concerning Sullivan's reaction-that he became loud,
boisterous, and was ranting and raving. Sullivan denied
he did so. I credit Sullivan's denial primarily because a
more reliable witness to this event-one less involved
and with the least stake in the outcome-corroborates
Sullivan. Alton further testified:
Q. What happened when Mr. Horton arrived on
the scene?
A. Well, Mr Horton came around the machine,
in front of the machine, walked up to Joe and said,
"Joe come down to the office. I want to talk with
you." So, just-
Q. Did Mr Horton make a statement to Marty
Dross at that time?
A. And, then he turned to Marty Dross and said,
"Well don't you work at that dryer over there. To
get over there." And, Marty turned and went over
to the dryer, and Mr Horton and Joe walked away
at that time, and that's about all I would know be-
cause there is big high racks there and they were
behind the racks before I could see anything more.
Q. How far-what's the distance between the
machine where you were and the last time you saw
Mr Horton and Mr. Sullivan? -
A. Oh, I would say about three foot, four foot.
Q. Could you describe the demeanor of Mr.
Horton'during that period of time that you were_a
witness to the two of them.
A. Well, mostly all I heard was "Joe, come down
to the office. I want to talk to you." And that's
about all I could really hear, except when he turned
around and said to Marty, "to get over to the dryer.
That's where you job is."
Q. And, what was the level of his [Horton's]
voice?
A I wouldn't say it was rather hard.
Q. What was the level of Mr. Sullivan's voice?
A. I don't think Joe said anything right at that
time. . -
Q. Did. you hear Joe say-Did Mr. Sullivan say
anything?
A. No, I didn t hear. Joe say anything.
Horton, in effect, testified that immediately upon con;
fronting Sullivan, Sullivan flew into a boisterous; rage.
Alton's testimony in this very material respect,contra-
dicts Horton'! Twice Alton testified that Sullivam'said
nothing. I believe Alton and'therefore discredit Horton.
Alton is still an employee who was called as a witness by
the Respondent. He has no apparent stake in the' out-
come of this matter. There is no reason to believe-he
would make up a story adverse to his employer. In addi-
tion, I found Horton's demeanor unpersuasive. ,
No doubt at some point after Horton reprimanded Sul-
livan, Sullivan reacted and they exchanged words. I 'do
1239
,not credit Horton's 'self-serving assertion that' he at all
times was in "complete control" and calm whereas Sulli-
van was loud, boisterous, and insubordinate. I believe
Horton's version of this event is exaggerated: Neverthe-
less, I believe Sullivan may have subsequently acted in a
less than submissive manner . But the confrontation was
initiated by Horton's unlawful determination to discipline
Sullivan because of his known activity on behalf of the
Union. Thus, Horton's subsequent decision to discharge
Sullivan arose out of this unlawful act and was violative
of Section 8(a)(3) notwithstanding that Sullivan may
have demonstrated displeasure when he was told that he
would have to punch out and leave the plant. Tu. nbull
Cone Baking Co., 271 NLRB 1320, 1339 (1984), and cases
cited therein:
It might be noted that on being shown the door,
Horton undeniably told Sullivan, "Ha, ha, I , got you
Sully. You did me a big favor." Such a statement clearly
indicates that Horton had been waiting for some excuse
to, discharge Sullivan and is consistent with my conclu-
sion that the entire confrontation was initiated by Horton
to discipline a known union activist upon the pretext, of
his having talked to'other employees.
Therefore, the Respondent's contention that it met its
burden of proving that. Sullivan would have been dis-
charged notwithstanding his-,union activity is without
merit. Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980).. Finally, that
Sullivan may have made some opprobrious remark -to
Horton upon leaving the plant, under these circum-
stances, does vindicate Horton's unlawful conduct.
I conclude, that when Horton discharged Sullivan on
May 18, 1984, the -Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act and I shall recommend an appropriate
remedy.
Following the May '18 incident, on four occasions, Sul-
livan met with management,. representatives. and . the
"problem, solving committee" during which.Horton's de-
cision was affirmed The -fact of such meetings in -no way
exonerates:the Respondent's unlawful act and:is at best a
self-serving gesture.- It is clear that these meetings were
never meant to constitute a forum-in which,:Sullivan
could reasonably have expected to be retained in his job.
For instance, Sullivan • was not even notified by, the Re-
spondent of the scheduled -June 10:meeting. Sullivan ap-
peared only because a fellow employee, advised him, that
his case would be considered on that day;
As noted above, the Respondent submitted evidence of
prior events involving! Sullivan,. arguably -for,the-purpose
of negating- his, credibility: While -these matters ,do 'not
impugn Sullivan's credibility;' I have-not •ih any ` material
respect relied on such testimony- of Sullivan. which. was
denied and -not corroborated by an independent witness.
Nevertheless, a comments concerning these' instances of
Sullivan's alleged 'aggressive Behavior is in order because
they may arguably relate to the remedy of reinstatement.
Horton testified that-on March -31,' 1983; Sullivan had
interrupted a meeting that Horton and other management
representatives were having with employees, stating that
the machines were running without being attended to.
Hoiton approached Sullivan' after'this'and'said 'fie- was
correct, that it was a bad situation, but went-on to"'say
1240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
never to interrupt a meeting of his again . Horton testi-
fied, "As we were talking, Mr. Sullivan reaches over and
picks up a rod, a little steel rod, which is used, I believe,
to turn valves on and off, and he is holding it in front of
him." The Respondent argues that this was a threatening
act. Aside from the fact that there is no basis to suggest
why Sullivan would pick up a steel, rod and ,threaten
Horton, I believe Sullivan's version of this event. The
rod in question was used to open and,close valves and
was attached to the machine and could not easily be
picked up by him with his right hand in any event The
incident concerning Sullivan interrupting the meeting to
tell management that 'the machines were being left unat-
tended no doubt occurred. The testimony of Horton to
the effect that Sullivan threatened him with a steel rod is
an exaggeration.
The other incident involves Former Supervisor
George Hosler, who resigned on Febriiary 4, 1983, be-
cause, according to his resignation letter, he could no
longer take the pressure of being, a' supervisor. In his
letter he mentioned an event which had occurred in Jan-
uary involving Sullivan wherein Sullivan was out of his
work area sharpening his knife and Hosler told him to
return to his job, although Hosler was not Sullivan's su-
pervisor. Hosler testified that Sullivan became upset and
"pointed his knife" at him. On cross-examination it was
learned that the knife in question was one issued to all
the employees involved in cutting fabric and is curved.
Though Hosler mentioned this in his' resignation letter',
the Respondent' did not confront Sullivan about the
matter, which suggests-that the Respondent-did not take
Hosler's statement seriously. Immediately following
Hosler's telling Sullivan to return to his work area, Sulli-
van talked to his supervisor Frank Broadhead. Broad-
head told Sullivan he understood what had gone on.
Broadhead did not deny Sullivan's testimony.
In short, I conclude that the -evidence concerning
these two alleged incidents of violent aggressiveness
show them to be too insignificant to affect the remedy in
this matter. Further, inasmuch as the incidents occurred
many months prior to Sullivan's discharge and admitted-
ly had no bearing on his discharge, they are immaterial.
111. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
"UPON COMMERCE
The unfair labor practice found above , occurring in
connection with the Respondent 's business , has a' close,
intimate , and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and
commerce among - the several States and tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Joseph Sullivan on May 18, 1984, I shall recom-
mend that it cease and desist from engaging in such ac-
tivity, and offer Sullivan full and immediate reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position of employment, and
make him whole for - any, loss of wages or other rights
and benefits he may have suffered as the result of the dis-
crimination against him in accordance with the formula
-set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest as provided for in Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 65,1 (1977) 6 The Respondent will also be ordered
to expunge from its records any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharge of Joseph Sullivan and notify him in writ-
ing that this has been done and that evidence of his un-
lawful discharge will not be used against him in any
way.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed7
ORDER
The Respondent, Pottsville Bleaching and, Dyeing
Company, Port Carbon, Pennsylvania, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discharging or otherwise discriminating against
employees because they engage in any activity on behalf
of Teamsters Local Union No. 115, affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America or • any other
labor 'organization.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer immediate reinstatement to Joseph Sullivan
to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a sub-
stantially equivalent position of employment, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights. and privileges,
and make him whole for any loss of pay or any other
benefits he may have suffered, as a result of the discrimi-
nation against him in accordance with the provisions of
the remedy section above.
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
discharge of Joseph Sullivan and notify him in writing
that this has been done and that the discharge will not be
used against him in any way . -
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this.Order.
(d) Post at its Port Carbon, Pennsylvania facility
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."8
6 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962)
7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules , be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
8 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of
Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
POTTSVILLE BLEACHING CO
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 4, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are- not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations 'Act and has or-
dered us io post and abide by this notice.
1241
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate
against our employees because they engage in any activi-
ty on behalf of Teamsters Local Union No. 115, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America or any
other labor organization.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, re-
strain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL offer Joseph Sullivan immediate reinstate-
ment to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to
a substantially equivalent position of employment, and
WE WILL make him whole for any loss wages or rights
and benefits he might have suffered as a result of our dis-
crimination against him , with interest.
WE WILL remove from our files any reference to our
unlawful discharge of Joseph Sullivan and WE WILL
notify him in writing that this has been done and that
evidence of his unlawful discharge will not be used
against him in any way.
POTTSVILLE • BLEACHING AND DYEING
COMPANY