Safety-Kleen Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 602 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Safety-Kleen Corporation and Local 707, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America and
Frank Guillot. Cases 29-CA-9944 and 29-CA-
9944-2
29 March 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND DENNIS
On 28 July 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Howard Edelman issued the attached decision. The
Respondent and the General Counsel filed excep-
tions and supporting briefs.
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,' and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Safety-
Kleen Corporation, Amityville, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
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.
The General Counsel correctly notes that the judge erred in stating
that employee Mulvey told Guillot that employee Santangelo, rather than
employee Canazarro, had informed Supervisor Hayes that Guillot was re-
sponsible for initiating contact with the Union. This error is insubstantial
and does not affect our determination that Hayes' subsequent statement to
Guillot ("Frank, you and I both know who started the Union") did not
violate Sec. 8(aX1) in the circumstances of this case.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
HOWARD EDELMAN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried before me in Brooklyn, New York, on
March 21, 1983.
On September 7, 1982,1 and September 10, Local 707,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union), and
Frank Guillot, an individual, herein called Guillot, filed
unfair labor practice charges against Safety-Kleen Cor-
poration (the Respondent), alleging violations of Section
I All dates herein are 1982 unless otherwise specified.
269 NLRB No. 110
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. On October 22, following a
Regional investigation, a complaint issued alleging that
the Respondent had threatened its employees with dis-
charge, gave the impression to employees that it was
keeping their union activities under surveillance, and dis-
charged employee Guillot because of his activities on
behalf of the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) of the Act.
Briefs were filed by counsel for the General Counsel
and counsel for the Respondent. On consideration of the
entire record, the briefs, and my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation, duly organized
under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of
Wisconsin. The Respondent maintains offices and places
of business throughout the United States, including a
principal office and place of business in the city of Elgin,
State of Illinois, and a facility in the town of Amityville,
county of Suffolk, State of New York, herein called the
Respondent's Amityville facility, where it is and has
been at all times material herein engaged in the business
of cleaning industrial equipment and the sale of related
cleaning materials. During the past year, which period is
representative of its annual operations generally, the Re-
spondent in the course and conduct of such operations
purchased and caused to be transported and delivered to
its Amityville facility chemical solvents and various
other cleaning materials, valued in excess of $50,000, of
which goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
were delivered to this facility in interstate commerce di-
rectly from States of the United States other than the
State of New York.
The Respondent admits and I find that it is, and has
been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Respondent admits and I find that the Union is,
and has been at all times material herein, a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE RESPONDENT'S OPERATION
As set forth above, the Respondent is engaged in the
business of cleaning industrial equipment for various in-
dustrial customers. In this connection, the Respondent
installs industrial washers, and services this equipment on
a regular basis. The Respondent also sells various clean-
ing materials to its industrial customers. The Respond-
ent's customers in large part consist of gasoline service
stations, repair shops, automobile dealers, and machine
shops.
The Respondent has approximately 165 branches locat-
ed throughout the United States. Tom Masters, regional
manager for the New York region, an admitted supervi-
sor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, is in
overall charge of seven facilities located throughout the
602
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
New York metropolitan area, including the Respondent's
Amityville facility.
Timothy Hayes, an admitted supervisor, is the manag-
er and in overall charge of the Respondent's Amityville
facility.
As of May, the Respondent, at its Amityville facility,
employed a total of five sales service representatives.
The representatives are assigned various routes encom-
passing Nassau and Suffolk Counties in Long Island,
New York. Their duties in connection with these routes
include servicing the Respondent's leased equipment
which involve cleaning the equipment and replacing the
old solvent with fresh solvent. Additionally they sell to
the customers on their routes various cleaning powders
and other cleaning solvents, and attempt to obtain new
customers in their route area. The service representatives
are paid a base weekly salary and a commission for the
units serviced, sales of industrial cleaners, and new instal-
lations.
At the time of hire, the Respondent's representatives
are given a brief period of training. This training includes
viewing films and slides designed to orient them to the
job. The representatives are also furnished a booklet enti-
tled, "Why Should I Choose Safety-Kleen," which ex-
plains the opportunities afforded representatives for con-
tinued growth. This booklet includes a section setting
forth performance standards. These performance stand-
ards set forth are: "(a) Placement of 15 to 25 new ma-
chines per period. [A period is defined by the Respond-
ent as every 4 weeks.] (b) Service 3,000 to 3,500 ma-
chines per year. (c) Sales of $35,100 in allied products
per year. This figure comes to approximately $135 per
day based on a five day work week."
However, these performance standards are not rigidly
adhered to. In this connection, Regional Manager Tom
Masters testified that these figures are goals to strive for,
rather than fixed quotas which must be reached. For ex-
ample, Masters testified that concerning the standard that
representatives sell $135 a day worth of industrial clean-
ers, he was happy if the representatives in his region sold
$80 a day. Moreover, the Respondent's booklet does not
indicate that failure by the representatives to meet these
so-called "performance standards" will result in their ter-
mination.
IV. UNION ORGANIZATION
Guillot was hired by the Respondent on May 5 as a
sales service representative. During the hours of 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. the representatives service the customers on
their route. At the end of the day they return to the
office where they spend a brief period of time perform-
ing necessary paperwork. Following this paperwork,
they spend several hours in the warehouse cleaning ma-
chines and unloading trucks. Guillot testified that the
representatives generally grumbled about working in the
warehouse following completion of their paperwork,
complaining that they were not being paid for this time.
On or about June 5, Guillot contacted the Respond-
ent's main office in Elgin, Illinois, and spoke with Man-
ager Dale Vranik. Guillot told Vranik that the represent-
atives employed at the Respondent's Amityville facility
felt that they should be paid for working time spent in
the warehouse following the completion of their run.
Vranik replied that he would get back to Guillot.
In mid-June, Vranik visited the Respondent's Amity-
ville facility and met with the sales representatives.
During this meeting, Vranki explained that the employ-
ees' commission covered the additional hours spent
working in the warehouse.
Sometime in early July, Guillot and representatives
Tony Santangelo and Tony Canazzaro were unloading a
truck in the Respondent's warehouse when Canazzaro
suggested that the employees needed union representa-
tion. Guillot spoke with the truckdriver, employed by
the trucking company then unloading, and asked him
what labor organization he was represented by. The
driver replied that he was represented by the Union.
Guillot gave the driver his name and phone number and
asked if the Union would contact him concerning repre-
sentation of the sales service representatives.
Several nights later, union representative Gene Hain-
ley telephoned Guillot and set up a meeting of the repre-
sentatives for some time during the following week. This
meeting took place as scheduled in a nearby local diner.
During the meeting, Hainley obtained signed authoriza-
tion cards from Guillot, Canazarro, and Santangelo. On
July 12, the Union filed a petition with the National
Labor Relations Board seeking to represent the Respond-
ent's representatives employed at the Amityville facility.
A stipulation was entered into by the parties and an elec-
tion scheduled for August 26.
Following the filing of the petition described above,
the Union held several other meetings of employees. At
one of these meetings, unit employee Bruce Mulvey, a
senior representative, informed Guillot that he was
present during a conversation between Tim Hayes, Re-
spondent Amityville manager, and unit employee Tony
Santangelo, wherein Santangelo apparently voluntarily
informed Hayes that Guillot was responsible for initially
contacting the Union.
Sometime shortly before the election scheduled for
August 26, Supervisor Hayes came over to Guillot at the
end of the workday and stated, "Frank, you and I both
know who started the Union."2 Guillot did not reply.
On August 26, the National Labor Relations Board
election was conducted. Guillot acted as the Union's ob-
server. The Union won the election and was ultimately
certified. The Respondent and the Union thereafter en-
gaged in collective-bargaining negotiations which result-
ed in a collective-bargaining agreement executed be-
tween the parties in November.
Within minutes after the election had been completed,
and the Board agent conducting the election had left the
Respondent's facility, Regional Manager Tom Masters
assembled the representatives. According to the testimo-
ny of Guillot and Santangelo, Masters began the meeting
by stating, "Unfortunately, this is America, it's a free
country and you do have the right to vote." He followed
this opening statement by informing the employees that
from now on, the Respondent would enforce its "pro-
duction quotas," a reference to the performance stand-
' Hayes did not testify in this hearing.
603
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ards described above and that employees not meeting
these "quotas" would be terminated. Guillot testified that
the meeting was a brief one, lasting 1 or 2 minutes while
Santangelo testified the meeting lasted for perhaps 15
minutes.
Both employees testified that prior to this meeting no
respondent representative had ever discussed "produc-
tion quotas" with them, nor had they been advised that if
they did not meet specified "production quotas" or "per-
formance standards," described in the Respondent's
booklet, that they would be terminated.
Masters testified that he had decided to meet with the
representatives immediately following the election be-
cause the Amityville facility's performance had gone
down during the union campaign and he wanted to talk
to them about it. Additionally, he had observed some
filter bags in the dumpster, which was contrary to the
Respondent's established procedure. Masters met with
the employees immediately following the election and
told them that they had had the opportunity to cast their
ballots, this was America, the election was over, and it
was time to get back to business. He pointed out to them
that their sales of cleaners had been declining lately and
made reference to the "performance standards" set out in
the Respondent's booklet. He advised the employees that
he had not pressed these "quotas" during the campaign
because he knew they were under a lot of strain con-
cerning the election. He then spoke briefly to the em-
ployees concerning the filter bags. He testified the meet-
ing lasted approximately 15 minutes.
I credit the testimony of Guillot and Santangelo con-
cerning the events taking place at the meeting described
above. The testimony of Santangelo and Guillot corrobo-
rated each other. Moreover, Masters' statement as de-
scribed by Guillot and Santangelo impressed me as an
angry and spontaneous and believable reaction to the
union victory.
V. THE DISCHARGE OF GUILLOT
Sometime on or about the beginning of June, prior to
any union activity, Guillot was preparing to commence
his route for the day, Hayes asked him to collect a delin-
quent account from Amityville Volkswagon, one of the
Respondent customers on Guillot's route that day. When
Guillot arrived at Amityville Volkswagon, he went in to
the office where a secretary was engaged in conversation
with an unidentified man. Guillot testified that he in-
formed the secretary that the Respondent's balance was
overdue and asked for a check to cover this overdue bal-
ance. The secretary informed him she would give him a
check for a partial balance which she did. When Guillot
completed his route that day and returned to the Re-
spondent's facility, Supervisor Hayes asked him what
happened at Amityville Volkswagon that day. Guillot re-
plied nothing. He had serviced the shop and got a check.
Hayes informed him that the secretary had called him up
after he left and was upset with his treatment of her. Ac-
cording to Hayes, the secretary complained that Guillot
had cursed at her. Hayes informed Guillot at this time
that he was going out to Amityville Volkswagon the fol-
lowing day to talk to the secretary and straighten out the
situation, but in view of his complaint he did not want
him servicing this account any longer. Following this in-
cident, the Amityville Volkswagon stop was taken off
Guillot's route. Guillot did not receive a written warning
for this incident.
In late August, several days before the National Labor
Relations Board election was scheduled, Guillot stopped
at Al & Al Amoco, a gas station, and a customer of the
Respondent, to service the Respondent's equipment. He
parked his truck in the station near the gas pumps. At
this point, the dealer came over and told Guillot to move
his truck. Guillot testified that he informed the dealer
that there was no place in the street where he could park
his truck. Guillot testified the dealer told him to "Stick it
up his ass," but to get the truck out. Guillot drove off
without servicing the stop. When he returned to the Re-
spondent's facility, Tom Masters was there on a routine
visit. Masters asked him casually how things went that
day and Guillot testified that he told Masters what had
taken place at the Al & Al Amoco station stop. Masters
told him they would send representative Bruck Mulvey
down to the gas station the following day to straighten
the matter out. Masters also informed Guillot that he
would not receive his commission in view of his failure
to service the stop.
Masters testified that the following day he assigned
Mulvey to service the Al & Al Amoco station and that
when Mulvey returned, he told Masters that the dealer
was very upset with Guillot's treatment of him. Masters
then asked Hayes to contact the dealer and find out what
the problem was. Hayes visited Al & Al Amoco and re-
turned with a signed statement from the dealer dated
August 31, which read:
One of your drivers block [sic] my gas pump. I
asked him to move which resulted in an argument.
Then he threatened to pull the machine out.
Masters testified that in view of the fact that this was
the second similar incident involving a customer com-
plaint concerning Guillot's conduct and treatment of cus-
tomers, he decided to issue a written warning. Accord-
ingly, a disciplinary notice was prepared on the Re-
spondent's standard form for such warnings. The warn-
ing stated: "Your conduct is not with Company practices
and policies for the following reasons": The reason set
forth was: "Driver refused to move his truck from block-
ing gas pump-asked to park the truck by the curb while
servicing the machine-driver refused to comply with
customer request-argued with him and then threatened
to pull the machine. Customer has asked that this man
never service him again." The warning then concluded:
"The following improvements are required .... Atti-
tude with customer must improve-antagonistic re-
marks-threat of pulling machines are to stop immediate-
ly." The warning was signed by Masters in the space at
the bottom designated supervisor's signature. On Septem-
ber 1, Guillot reported for work. As he was setting up
his route for the day, he was summoned into Hayes'
office. He went into the office and met with Hayes and
Masters. Masters handed him the disciplinary warning
described above and asked him to sign it on the line next
to his signature, which stated: "Copy received by: [Em-
604
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
ployee's signature]." Guillot read the disciplinary warn-
ing. Hayes asked him to sign it. Guillot testified that he
informed Hayes and Masters that he would not sign the
warning unless he could insert his version of the inci-
dent. Masters reminded him that this was the second
such incident. Hayes then asked him again to sign the
warning, stating to him, "and what we're going to do,
we're going to change your territory to avoid this possi-
bility happening in the future." Guillot testified that he
again informed Hayes and Maters that he was not going
to sign the warning and that Hayes said okay. Guillot
left the office and returned to his truck. Guillot then tes-
tified that Hayes and Masters approached him at the
truck and Masters stated, "You're refusing to sign this,"
Guillot replied, referring to the warning, that if they put
down his version he would sign it. Masters told him that
if he did not sign he would be terminated. Guillot re-
plied, "I'm terminated?" Masters stated that he was ter-
minated.
Masters' testimony in connection with this entire con-
versation is substantially different from that of Guillot. In
this connection, Masters testified that Hayes explained to
Guillot the results of his investigation concerning the in-
cident at Al & Al Amoco station. He then showed him
the statement executed by the dealer, and told him this
was his second such incident involving a customer. He
said that as a result, the Respondent had prepared a dis-
ciplinary warning. The warning was then handed to
Guillot who read it. Masters asked him to sign the warn-
ing. Guillot threw down the warning and stated, "This is
bullshit .... the guys a fucking liar" and refused to
sign. Masters told him this was a serious matter and
questioned him as to why the customer would lie. He
told Guillot that the Respondent would assign him to an-
other route, and asked him again to sign the warning.
Guillot told Masters and Hayes that they were conjuring
up a "bullshit" excuse for writing him up; that they were
"a couple of assholes"; and that they could "go fuck"
themselves. At this point, Masters took out another disci-
plinary notice from his briefcase and told Guillot that if
he did not sign the first warning, he could sign the
second one for insubordination. Guillot replied, "Fuck
you," got up, slammed the door, and left. Masters testi-
fied that following this exchange he looked at Hayes and
stated he was not going to let an employee talk to them
in this manner and told Hayes to terminate him immedi-
ately. Hayes followed Guillot out the door and terminat-
ed him.
Masters testified that the sole reason Guillot was dis-
charged was his gross insubordination during the course
of the meeting concerning issuance of the disciplinary
warning. This gross insubordination consisted of Guil-
lot's adamant refusal to sign the disciplinary warning,
coupled with the profanity and abusive language direct-
ed to Masters and Hayes.
Masters further testified that the signing of the discipli-
nary warning was required so that the Respondent could
establish in the future, if necessary, that the employee
had received such warning.
IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The General Counsel contends that Hayes' statement
to Guillot, "Frank, you and I both know who started
this union" constitutes creating the impression of unlaw-
ful surveillance. However, Guillot testified that prior to
this statement by Hayes, employee Bruck Mulvey had in-
formed him that Mulvey had overheard employee Santa-
gelo tell Hayes during a casual conversation that it was
Guillot who.had first contacted the Union. There is no
evidence that Santangelo's statement was not voluntary.
The essential gravamen in connection with creating
the impression of unlawful surveillance is that the em-
ployee had reasonable cause to believe that his union ac-
tivity is being spied on by the employer. Brooks Shoe
Mfg. Co., 259 NLRB 488 (1981). In the instant case,
Guillot had no reason to believe his union activities were
being spied on by the Respondent. He was aware that
Hayes knew of his initial contact with the Union and he
was also aware that such knowledge was the result of an
apparently voluntary statement by his fellow unit em-
ployee, Santangelo. In these circumstances, it could
hardly be contended that Guillot reasonably felt that the
Respondent was spying on his union activities. Accord-
ingly, I conclude that Hayes did not create the impres-
sion of surveillance by his statement to Guillot. Palby
Lingerie, Inc., 252 NLRB 176 (1980).
The credited evidence established that within minutes
following the election, which the Respondent lost, Mas-
ters assembled employees together and informed them
that from now on the Respondent would enforce "pro-
duction quotas" and that if the employees did not meet
their "quotas" they would be "terminated." The evi-
dence further established that while the Respondent did
have "performance standards," such standards were
merely goals that employees should aspire to, rather than
quotas which were mandatory, and would result in their
discharge if they were not met. In this connection, both
Santangelo and Guillot testified that the Respondent's
representatives had never informed them prior to this
speech of such mandatory quotas. The Respondent's
booklet does not establish that such "standards" were
mandatory. Moreover, Masters conceded that he had
considerably relaxed the Respondent's suggested "per-
formance standards."
In view of the timing of the Respondent's statement,
and in view of the absence of such mandatory quotas
prior to the election, I conclude that the Respondent's
statement was made in retaliation for the employees'
vote, and constitutes an unlawful threat of discharge in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The Discharge of Guillot
The evidence established that Guillot was responsible
for initially contacting the Union and acted as the
Union's observer during the election. However, the evi-
dence also established that, throughout the union cam-
paign up and until the election, the Respondent commit-
ted no unfair labor practices nor engaged in any other
actions displaying union animus. The single unlawful
threat by the Respondent occurred immediately follow-
ing the election. I conclude such threat was an angry,
605
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spontaneous outburst, rather than being reflective of an
intention by the Respondent to actually retaliate against
prounion employees.
On the other hand, the evidence concerning Guillot's
job performance established that within a 4-month period
commencing on his employment in May, Guillot was in-
volved in two separate, but similar incidents with the Re-
spondent's customers, involving abusive language by
Guillot directed at the Respondent's customers and a
threat by Guillot to pull the Respondent's machine out
of a customer's facility (Al & Al Amoco service station).
In both of these incidents the customer requested that
Guillot not service their facilities again. This second inci-
dent, involving Al & Al Amoco station, took place just a
few days prior to the election on August 26 and was not
fully investigated until August 31, following the election.
In view of the serious nature of these complaints, the
Respondent could hardly be expected to leave them un-
remedied. Although Guillot did not receive a written
warning after the first incident, a written warning after a
second similar incident within a 2-1/2-month period is, in
my opinion, clearly justified. I note that the issuance of
such warning is not alleged in the complaint as an unfair
labor practice.
An examination of the warning itself established that it
was constructive in nature. In this regard, the warning
did not call for any discipline, nor did it warn of possible
future discipline. It merely set forth the nature of the
complained of conduct and set forth the areas of per-
formance in which Guillot must improve.
The evidence established clearly that the Respondent
did not intend to discharge Guillot during the September
I meeting. This is established conclusively by the con-
tents of the warning letter and by the testimony of Guil-
lot and Masters that during the meeting Hayes and/or
Masters told Guillot that they would assign him to a dif-
ferent route. It is therefore clear that something unex-
pected took place during this meeting which precipitated
Guillot's termination. In this connection, Masters testified
that these unexpected circumstances consisted of Guil-
lot's adamant refusal to sign the warning coupled by his
extreme profanity directed at Masters and Hayes. Guillot
admitted that he would not sign the warning notice
unless he could insert his version of the Al & Al Amoco
service station incident. I credit the testimony of Masters
concerning Guillot's use of profanity during the Septem-
ber I meeting. In this connection, Guillot was not re-
called as a witness to rebut Masters' testimony concern-
ing such profanity. Moreover, such use of profanity by
Guillot was consistent with the conduct complained of
by the Respondent's customers. Further, Masters' testi-
mony that it was only after Guillot unleased a barrage of
profanity directed at Masters and Hayes that Masters
told Hayes to terminate Guillot is believable. Indeed in
these circumstances, termination would be expected. On
the other hand, Guillot's testimony that after he refused
to sign the warning notice Hayes said it was okay, that
Guillot then left the office and headed for his truck, and
that it was only at this point that Hayes thereafter fol-
lowed him out, requested once more that he sign the
warning, and terminated him when he refused is simply
not believable. I therefore conclude that the Respondent
discharged Guillot solely because of his insubordination
during the September I meeting which consisted of re-
fusing to sign and acknowledge receipt of a warning
letter, coupled with extreme profanity directed against
Masters and Hayes. I further conclude that the Respond-
ent by discharging Guillot did not violate Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act by threatening its employees with discharge if they
became and remained members of the Union or if they
gave any assistance and support to it.
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 the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(l) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and
desist from engaging in such unfair labor practices and
take affirmative action provided in the recommended
Order below, designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. On the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, I issue the following recom-
mended3
ORDER
The Respondent, Safety-Kleen Corporation, Amity-
ville, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening its employees with discharge or other
reprisals if they become or remain members of the Union
or any other labor organization, or if they give any as-
sistance and support to it.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its place of business in Amityville, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 29, after being signed by
the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and
3 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.
4 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."
606
SAFETY-KLEEN CORP.
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(b) 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
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge
or other reprisals if they become or remain members of
the Union or any other labor organization, or if they
give any assistance and support to it.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION
607