Scranton Lace Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1989

294 N.L.R.B. 249 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

SCRANTON LACE CO
Scranton Lace Company and District Lodge 128,
International ' Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers , AFL-CIO. Cases 4-CA-
16194 and 4-CA-16359
May 25, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS JOHANSEN, CRACRAFT, AND
HIGGINS
On September 23, 1988, Administrative Law
Judge Karl H. Buschmann issued the attached deci-
sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup-
porting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief
in opposition.
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, Scranton
Lace Company , Scranton , Pennsylvania , its offi-
cers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall take the
action set forth in the Order.
' In agreeing with the judge that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(3)
and (1) by changing its past practice with respect to compensating em-
ployees who served on jury duty, we note that employee Goonan was
notified of this change in policy prior to the Union's victory in the repre-
sentation election
Nevertheless, in the circumstances, we find that the Respondent's
denial of a jury duty pay differential to employee Goonan was in retalia-
tion for the employees' support for the Union during the organizational
campaign
Timothy Brown and William Slack, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
Sheldon Rosenberg, Esq. (Rosenberg & UJberg), of Scran-
ton, Pennsylvania, for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge
This case arose on a charge filed on November 5, 1986,
in Case 4-CA-16194 and a charge filed on February 2,
1987, in Case 4-CA-16395, as amended on April 4, 1987,
by District Lodge 128, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union).
Based on these charges, the General Counsel of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued complaints which
resulted in the issuance on April 6, 1987, of an order
consolidating cases, consolidated complaint and notice of
249
hearing The, consolidated complaint alleges that Scran-
ton Lace Company (the Respondent) violated Section
8(a)(1), (3), and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act). The Respondent filed an answer on April 16,
1987, in which the jurisdictional allegations and certain
factual allegations are admitted.
The case was tried before me on April 22 and 23,
1987, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where all parties were
given an opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to make oral
argument. Briefs were filed by the General Counsel and
the Respondent in June 1987. Based on the whole record
in this case and from my observation of the demeanor of
the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Scranton Lace Company is a Pennsylvania corporation
engaged in the manufacture and nonretail distribution of
lace tablecloths and other products at its plant located in
Scranton, Pennsylvania. It is admittedly an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
The Union, District Lodge 128, International Associa-
tion of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. THE ISSUES
1. Whether certain statements made by Jim Bird and
Bill Cameron during employee meetings amounted to un-
lawful threats, coercive interrogation, illegal solicitation
of grievances, and promises of benefits.
2. Whether the Respondent unlawfully granted certain
benefits to its employees.
3. Whether the Respondent imposed more onerous
working conditions because of the Union.
4 Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated
against the employees by refusing to compensate Linda
Goonan for jury duty.
5. Whether the Respondent gave Carol Romich a dis-
ciplinary warning and informed Carol Jones that her
leave was unexcused after they participated in a repre-
sentation hearing.
Background
The Scranton Lace Company manufactures lace prod-
ucts, some apparel, placemats, and shower curtains and is
located in Scranton, Pennsylvania. After experiencing fi-
nancial difficulties for a number of years, it became a
productive operation when management reduced em-
ployment, improved the production facilities, and made a
better product. Since March 1983 James Bird has been
the president and chief executive officer of the Company
with the overall responsibility for its operation and man-
agement. William Cameron was the second in command
with the title of plant manager. Although the Respond-
ent denied in its answer that these two officers of the
Company were "supervisors," their respective responsi-
bilities, including the right to hire and fire employees,
294 NLRB No. 19
250 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demonstrate that they were supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act. Under the guidance of James Bird and
William Cameron the Company engaged in certain con-
duct and practices which are alleged as unfair labor
practices in connection with the Union 's organizational
campaign in September 1986. The Union filed a represen-
tation petition on October 6, 1986, for all production and
maintenance employees at the plant. Following a Stipula-
tion for Certification Upon Consent Election on October
29, 1986, and an election on December 12, 1986, where
the majonty of the employees voted in favor of the
Union, it was certified on December 13, 1986, by the
Board as the collective-bargaining representative for
most of the Company's regular production and mainte-
nance employees (G C. Exhs. 2, 5, 6, & 10).
III. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A The Alleged Threats, Solicitation of Grievances,
Promises of Benefits, and Grants of Benefits
It is uncontested , as alleged in the complaint , that the
Respondent conducted several employee meetings in the
office of Plant Manager William Cameron on November
28 and December 1-4, 1986 . James Bird , Respondent's
president, presided at each of the meetings, the contents
of which were similar. Bird stressed the new profitability
of the Company, emphasized that the Union would not
benefit the employees, stated that if the Union were
voted in, negotiations would start from a blank sheet of
paper, and solicited comments from the employees about
their working conditions.
Contested, however, is whether the essence of the
message included threats to reduce wages and benefits,
solicitations of grievances, and promises to remedy such
grievances or to grant benefits. The testimony of several
employee witnesses was that Bird's statements included
such message. Employee Carol Romich, who attended
the meeting on December 1 with other employees, testi-
fied that Bird told them that "if the union came in the
first of the year, we would start with a blank sheet of
paper" and that wages would be changed, "[s]ome
would be the same, some would be less" (Tr. 46-47, 85)
She also recalled Bird's comments that the employees
would lose their Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance.
During cross-examination she agreed with counsel's
questions that Bird also said the wages or benefits could
"increase , decrease or remain the same" (Tr. 80).
Romich testified that when Bird asked the employees if
they had any complaints or problems, she replied that a
warning which she had received was unfair. According
to Romich: "He said he thought it was fair and that he
had known that it was given to the IAM and I told him
yes, because I had done it. And he proceeded to ask me
why it was given to them and I proceeded to tell him"
(Tr. 48).
Maxine Hughes attended the first meeting on Novem-
ber 28 along with several other employees. In addition to
Bird , present were also Plant Manager Cameron and his
secretary. Hughes testified that Bird first wanted to
know if the employees had any complaints. Following a
discussion of several complaints , Bird said "that if this
union came in he would start right from the beginning
with a blank sheet of paper. That he would start every-
body off at $3.50 an hour and that4there would be no se-
niority" (Tr. 181). When asked by counsel whether he
could have said that they might retain what they had or
get more or less, she replied that she did not recall such
a statement
The December 2 meeting was attended by Carol
Jones. She testified as follows about the substance of
Bird 's comments (Tr. 121-122):
Mr. Bird opened , explaining that during the past
few years he had cleaned the plant up. He also ex-
plained about he had made a modest profit for the
year, and then he proceeded to tell us that he didn't
care whether we voted for the new union coming
in or we didn't vote for the new union coming in.
But if we did vote the union in, some of the pays
would be cut to $3.50 an hour. Others would
depend on what department you worked in on what
your pay would be. Our benefits would be taken
away, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, vacation, holidays,
and that he would start with a blank piece of paper
and that when he was negotiating, we'd have to get
it back He also told us if we went on strike he
would replace us with outside people.'
When asked whether Bird might have indicated that
wages and benefits could increase , remain the same, or
be less, she testified that she did not recall him saying
that.
Another employee, Patricia Hannon, testified about
the December 3 meeting in the plastic department. She
testified that Bird "started off saying- asking if we had
any problems in our department" (Tr. 154). She men-
tioned trouble with the heat and requested another kero-
sene heater. Bird promised that he would supply one.
The group of employees also told him about problems
with the ladies' room. Again Bird promised to have it
fixed. According to Hannon, Bird also said that "he'd
start off with the blank sheet of paper . . . that he would
cut our pays to $3.50" (Tr. 155). She also recalls him
saying that once pay was $3.50 an hour, negotiations
might result in more, less, or the same pay (Tr. 177).
Mary Wright, a 40-year veteran who lost her job as a
full-time folder, testified about attending an employee
meeting where Bird told the six assembled employees
that the Company would "start from scratch" and that
the employees would lose their benefits, including Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, and that wages could" go one
way or the other, either get a raise or get cut" (Tr. 105).
The testimony of Jim Bird and Bill Cameron, as well
as a written summary of the meetings , was similar but
not the same as the scenario descnbed by these employee
witnesses. In his testimony, Bird described the employee
meetings as consisting of two parts, one "part of the
meeting was company position on the union organizing,
and the other part of it was a gripe session" (Tr. 220).
He told them: "We would be starting from a blank sheet
I Other employees did not recall any reference to strikes during these
meetings Moreover, Bird may well have explained his right to hire re-
placements in the event of an economic strike The record does not con-
tain sufficient reliable evidence to make a finding in this issue
SCRANTON LACE CO
of paper. Nothing,riwas guaranteed . . . . That their
wages could go up, could go down or remain the same."
He further testified that he "told them that all benefits
they had were negotiable, they could either get more,
less or stay the same" (Tr. 221). With regard to Blue
Cross and Blue Shield, Bird said that if he mentioned it
during the meetings, he "would have mentioned only
that they could stay the same, they could lose it." He
similarly testified with respect to wages.
Cameron's testimony was similar He testified that the
"meetings started [with] Jim Bird asking for any com-
plaints or problems or any grievances any of the employ-
ees had" (Tr. 293).
According to Cameron's testimony, "Jim Bird men-
tioned that if the new union is elected, we would start
from a blank sheet of paper at negotiations" and that
wages, fringe benefits, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield
benefits "could remain the same, go higher or go lower"
(Tr. 294) The minutes of the meetings similarly reflect
Respondent's version of the substance of the meetings
(R. Exh. 4)
A fair evaluation of the evidence shows that the Re-
spondent 's testimony and the minutes were general and
sometimes vague. The testimony of the employee wit-
nesses, however, was consistent and unequivocal. This
testimony, which I credit, was that the Respondent's
message to them during the employee meetings was that
if the Union was voted in their wages would be reduced
and their benefits, including Blue Cross and Blue Shield,
would be cut and negotiations would then begin with a
blank sheet of paper. Considering the surrounding cir-
cumstances, the methodical meetings from November 28
to December 4, with a small group of employees in the
offices of the plant manager, in the presence of the chief
executive , the plant manager , and a note-taking secre-
tary,, during the height of the union campaign, the con-
clusion is inescapable . The Respondent 's message was
not made in the context of a prophesy, but in the form of
threats NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U S. 575, 618
(1969). The clear implication was that the employees
would lose because management would take action on its
own initiative in retaliation for the employees' choice of
the union. The Respondent thereby violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
Moreover, the record is also clear that each meeting
began with an invitation by Bird for the employees to
express any complaints or grievances. The Respondent
has shown that it has a past history of soliciting employ-
ees' suggestions. When Bird first came to Scranton Lace
in 1983, he conducted quality circles, instituted the open-
door policy, the 48-hour rule, and employee suggestion
awards. The purpose of these policies was for the em-
ployees to "look at the way they were currently doing
their job" and find "a better way of doing it" or to bring
up problems in their departments such as "are the goods
being brought in the correct condition, are they being
accepted; what can we do to make that job easier; the
environment better, make the work flow more smoothly,
more efficiently and have less errors in the plant" (R.
212). Bird quickly, after a year or two, delegated these
meetings to Bill Cameron because the employees were
too easily intimidated by Bird. In the years thereafter,
251
the foremen were expected to hold such meetings. The
48-hour rule was instituted to encourage employees to
take a problem to their foreman, if they did not get a re-
sponse they could then go to Cameron with their com-
plaint . The Company also had a labor management coun-
cil, but that council consisted only of foremen and man-
agement. In spite of all these programs designed to stim-
ulate employee suggestions, it is clear from Cameron's
and Bird 's testimony, as well as the minutes of the qual-
ity control meetings, that their purpose was to improve
productivity at the plant, eliminate waste, and make a
better product. (R. Exh. 9.) Few if any of these pro-
grams elicited .or were designed to provide a forum for
employees to voice their complaints regarding their ben-
efits, their pay, or their working conditions.
The meetings of November 28 and December 1986
were not a routine continuation of any such programs,
but were specifically initiated because of the union cam-
paign. This is of course immediately apparent because
the meetings dealt specifically with the union campaign
they were conducted by the chief executive who had not
conducted such meetings in years, and because manage-
ment promised to improve working conditions, such as a
malfunctioning bathroom and the lack of heat in the
workplace. It is clear that the Respondent's manner and
method of solicitation was significantly altered. Carbon-
neau Industries, 228 NLRB 597 (1977).
The Respondent not only promised to respond to the
employee grievance but it resolved them. The record
shows that the restrooms which had been in disrepair for
years were promptly repaired; furthermore, management
supplied a second kerosene heater to the plastics depart-
ment . The record therefore clearly shows that the Re-
spondent solicited employee grievances, promised to
remedy the solicited grievances, and in fact granted ben-
efits in the form of additional heat in the working area
and a repaired bathroom. Because the action was taken
shortly prior to the election, the timing of the action was
reasonably calculated to interfere with the employees'
freedom of choice in voting for or against the Union.
NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409 (1964)
Such conduct violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
B. The Alleged Interrogation
The alleged interrogation of Carol Romich occurred
during the employee meeting on December 1, 1986
Romich , responding to Bird 's invitation to express griev-
ances, complained about the disciplinary warning given
to her when she failed to report for work on October 29,
the day of the Board hearing. Romich testified as follows
(Tr. 48): "He said he thought it was fair and that he had
known it was given to the IAM and I told him yes, be-
cause I had done it. And he proceeded to ask me why it
was and I proceeded to tell him." At first blush, the
question appears innocuous and noncoercive, but consid-
ering all surrounding circumstances, I find that Bird's
conduct amounted to unlawful interrogation. Initially, it
is clear that the meeting was union related ; it was con-
ducted by the chief executive who expressed his views
against the Union. It is important to note that after
Romich responded to Bird's invitation to express griev-
252 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ances, Bird stated that he knew that she had provided
the Union with the warning. He then questioned her
why she had done so. This obviously put her on the spot
and placed her in a coercive situation in the presence of
management and her coworkers. It required the employ-
ee to make an observable choice in the presence of her
supervisors. The question was designed to elicit her
union sympathy during the union campaign only a few
days prior to the election. I therefore find that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Kurz-Kasch,
Inc., 239 NLRB 1044 (1978).
C. More Onerous Working Conditions
Management responded to the complaints of the em-
ployees in the plastics department during the December
3 meeting and supplied additional heat in the workplace
on December 5, 1986 (R. Exh. 5). However, on Monday,
December 15, which was the working day following the
day of the union election on Friday, December 12, 1986,
when the Union won, the Respondent removed the kero-
sene heater (Tr. 158-159). This action is alleged as a vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act as an imposition of
more onerous working conditions because of the union
victory. Because the record shows that the heater was
returned to the workplace in the plastics department 2 or
3 days later, I would regard the action as de minimis. In
any case, the record shows that the heater was removed
from the security guard area during the day and placed
in the plastics department. After the workshift, it was put
back in the security guard station . On some occasions the
heater was used in other areas of the plant on a priority
basis. The lack of heat for the 2 days immediately after
the election may have been coincidental. I would dismiss
this allegation of the complaint.
misinterpreted I will credit the testimony of Cameron
and Kolvick to the extent that such a statement was not
made.
E. Jury Duty
Employee Linda Goonan, a union supporter who at-
tended union meetings and signed a union card, served
on a jury for 14 days between November 17, 1986, and
February 11, 1987. Immediately after she had received
her summons for jury duty, she informed her foreman,
Dave Perry, and inquired about her pay while she served
on the jury. Perry, on consulting with Dick Morgan,
head of payroll, told her to turn in her slips on a weekly
basis. She also talked to Morgan directly who informed
her that she should simply submit the slip which she re-
ceived from the court' s administrative office. On Decem-
ber 3, 1986, she called the Company and was referred to
Walter Krzan, head of personnel. He informed her that
as of January 1, 1986, company policy had changed, and
that under the new policy jury duty would no longer be
paid He also said that she was the last one to have re-
ceived jury duty pay 2 years earlier. On February 24,
1987, Goonan spoke directly with Jim Bird. She testified
as follows about that conversation:
Well, I inquired as to why I hadn't been paid and
he told me it wasn 't a policy of the company to
pay. And I again mentioned that I had been paid
two years before. He said it was probably a clerical
error. At that time, he said if I could show him any-
thing in black and white which says they had to
pay me, he would be more than happy to So, I re-
ferred to a letter that I had received from his office,
with the projected earnings for the year. [Tr. 197.]
D. The Alleged Threat
The union election was held on December 12, 1986.
Carol Jones, Denise Peoples, a secretary, Bill Cameron,
Bob Kolvick, an engineer, and a Board agent remained
in the room to count the votes. Carol Romich testified
that after the ballot count Cameron turned around as she
was standing in the doorway and said. "You will pay for
this." The Respondent argues that the threat was not
made and could not have been made because Romich
was not present at that time. Cameron also denied in his
testimony that he had made that remark and Bob Kol-
vick testified that he did not hear Cameron say it (Tr.
296, 303). The record, however, shows that Romich
signed the tally of ballots and that she was at the door-
way with a group of employees in the hallway so that
Cameron could have made that remark (G.C. Exh. 10).
It appears to me that had he made such a comment to
Romich, other employees who were with Romich would
have overheard it or the individuals at the ballot box, in-
cluding Carol Jones, would have heard it. Yet, the
record contains no such corroboration by anyone. More-
over, it would be more plausible if Cameron had made
such a threat to union supporter Carol Jones who was in
his immediate presence. Although Carol Romich im-
pressed me generally as an honest witness, it is possible
that Cameron may have made a statement which Romich
The document received by Linda Goonan on Novem-
ber 21, 1986, after she had already served some jury
duty, showed her projected earnings and is silent as to
any subtractions for wages lost due to jury duty (G.C.
Exh. 9).
The General Counsel argues that this change in com-
pany policy is an indication of the Respondent's discrimi-
natory practices directed at the employees because of
their union activities. The Respondent argues that it was
not aware of Goonan' s union support and that it had not
discriminated against her as that change in company
policy predated the union campaign.
In evaluating the evidence, it is clear that management
(Perry and Morgan) initially recognized the policy to
compensate their employees for jury duty. However,
Bird denied that such a policy existed and then, as re-
flected in the Respondent's brief, Bird confirmed Krzan's
statement, i.e., that the Company no longer provided pay
for jury duty (R. Br. 27). But the Respondent offered no
business justification for this change in policy since Su-
pervisors Perry2 and Morgan recognized the policy as
2 Although the Respondent denied that Perry was a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act, the evidence shows that his authority as foreman
in the "bleach and dress" and "gray room" departments included such
supervisory indicia as the assignment of work to employees, the issuance
of discipline, and other mdicia (Tr 35-36)
SCRANTON LACE CO.
late as November 1986. Krzan's statement that the policy
had been changed --effective January 1986 is not credible.
Bird's initial denial of the existence of such a policy
shows inconsistency in the Respondent's testimony and a
lack of candor. This disingenuousness , coupled with the
timing of Respondent's denial of the jury duty pay to
Goonan shortly after the union election and the Re-
spondent' s union animus as demonstrated by its other
violations of the Act, convinces me that the Respond-
ent's unexplained change in policy was directed against
its employees who had elected the Union. Even though
the Respondent is correct in arguing that the General
Counsel had failed to prove that management was aware
of Goonan's union support, the Respondent's unilateral
change in company policy was a discriminatory act re-
flecting one policy while the employees were not union-
ized and another after the employees had voted for a
union . Such a policy is certainly destructive of their Sec-
tion 7 rights and thereby in violation of Section 8(a)(3)
and (1) of the Act.
F. Alleged Absenteeism for a Board Proceeding
Three employees, Carol Romich, Carol Jones, and Pa-
tricia Hannan, were subpoenaed to appear for the repre-
sentation hearing on October 29, 1986 (G.C. Exhs. 3 and
4). The three employees involved duly notified their su-
pervisors. Carol Romich testified that she notified her su-
pervisor, Michael Vispi, on the day before the hearing,
October 28, of the subpoena request. Vispi "said it was
all right" (Tr. 42). She also testified that she had asked
Vispi if he had notified Bill Cameron, to which Vispi re-
plied that he had. Carol Jones testified that she notified
David Perry early on October 29. Perry's reply was "all
right," and "see you tomorrow." Harmon similarly testi-
fied that she informed her supervisor, Eleanor Lisowski.
Her reply was "no problem." On October 29, the three
employees drove to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. in
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Those parties agreed to a stipulation for the election,
and the proceeding lasted 1 or 2 hours. The testimony of
the employees was not required. The employees went to
lunch and then home. They reported for work on the
following day. Romich testified that she handed her sub-
poena to her supervisor who told her later that Cameron
would not honor it. She then received a written warning
for her absenteeism on October 29 (G.C. Exh. 8). Carol
Jones also handed her subpoena to her supervisor, Perry.
He told he that she had accumulated a personal day. She
had a choice of taking it or be marked absent or tardy
for the day. She chose to be marked absent and received
an unexcused absence for that day.
According to the General Counsel, the Respondent
interfered with the employees' right to be absent in order
to attend a Board hearing in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (4) of the Act. The Respondent contends that the
employees' failure to report for work after the NLRB
hearing subjected them to the established company ab-
senteeism policy.
The law is clear, Section 8(a)(4) makes it unlawful for
an employer to discriminate against an employee because
he has filed charges or given testimony under the Act.
For example, an employer violates the Act for disciplin-
253
ing an employee who was scheduled to testify, but did
not actually testify. Fuqua Homes, 211 NLRB 399 (1974).
Here the employees did not actually receive their sub-
poenas until the day of the scheduled hearing, but both
employees notified their supervisors either on the prior
day or in the morning of the same day that they were
subpoenaed to appear on October 29. In each instance
the supervisors gave permission for them to attend the
hearing. They were not instructed to return to work
after the hearing was finished, even though the manage-
ment officials which were in attendance at the hearing
could easily have done so. The Respondent states in its
brief that it "does not argue that the employees had no
right to attend the hearing at all, it does, however, con-
tend that their right to attend a Board proceeding does
not necessarily extend to take off additional work time in
excess of what is sufficient to profess one's rights, guar-
anteed by Section 7 of the Act " (R. Br. 43.) The Re-
spondent' s argument , however, is inconsistent with the
discipline. The General Counsel correctly observed that
the discipline was not for tardiness or for the absence for
a portion of a workday, but for absenteeism for the
entire day. Under these circumstances the two employees
were clearly penalized for their protected right to attend
a Board hearing. Specialty Steel Treating, 279 NLRB 670
(1986). Similarly, the Respondent's requirement to take
personal leave or be marked down for an unexcused ab-
sence interfered with the employee's right to attend the
hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Scranton Lace Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
2. District Lodge 128, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. By threatening its employees with reduced wages
and benefits if the employees selected the Union as their
bargaining representative, the Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1)-of the Act
4. By soliciting employee grievances and promising
benefits and better working conditions and by granting
benefits to the employees in order to discourage its em-
ployees from selecting the Union as their bargaining rep-
resentative, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
5. By coercively interrogating an employee about her
union activities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
6. By refusing to compensate its employees for jury
duty because the employees supported the Union, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
7. By issuing a disciplinary warning or an unexcused
absence to its employees because they had attended a
representation hearing, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
254 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE REMEDY
On concluding that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices , I find it necessary to rec-
ommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Having unlawfully discriminated against its
employees Linda Goonan, Carol Romich, and Carol
Jones the Respondent shall make them whole for lost
earnings and other benefits computed on a quarterly
basis, less net interim earnings in accordance with F. W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded.3 The Re-
spondent shall pay to Linda Goonan the difference be-
tween her daily wages from the Respondent and the
amount she secured for serving on the jury for the dates
from November 17 and February 1987 In addition, the
Respondent shall retract and remove the disciplinary
warning and the unexcused absence for October 29,
1986, issued to employees Carol Jones and Carol
Romich.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed'
ORDER
The Respondent, Scranton Lace Company, Scranton,
Pennsylvania , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with reduced wages and
benefits because of their union support.
(b) Soliciting employees ' grievances and promising
benefits and better working conditions and granting ben-
efits to employees in order to discourage their union ac-
tivities.
(c) Coercively interrogating employees concerning
their union activities.
(d) Refusing to compensate its employee for jury duty
because the employee supported the Union.
(e) Issuing disciplinary warnings or unexcused ab-
sences to its employees for attending a representation
hearing or other Board proceedings.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make Linda Goonan, Carol Jones, and Carol
Romich whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, in
the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(b) Remove from its files any references to the unlaw-
ful actions against the above-named employees and
notify them in wasting that this has been done and that
such actions will not be used against them in any way
3 283 NLRB 1173 (1987)
4 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 46 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board
and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes
(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 facility in Scranton , Pennsylvania, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 4, after being signed by the Respondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond-
ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con-
secutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dis-
missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe-
cifically found.
5 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 Nation-
al Labor Relations Board " shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form , join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with reduced
wages and benefits because of their union activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and prom-
ise benefits and better working conditions or grant bene-
fits to our employees in order to discourage their union
activities
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate our employees
regarding their union activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to compensate our employees for
jury duty because they supported the Union.
SCRANTON LACE CO. 255
WE WILL NOT issue disciplinary warnings or unex- resulting from our discrimination against them, including
cused absences to our employees for attending proceed- compensation to Linda Goonan for her jury duty and a
ings of the National Labor Relations Board. retraction of the disciplinary warning or unexcused ab-
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere sences given to Carol Jones and Carol Romich in con-
with , restrain , or coerce our employees in the exercise of nection with the representation hearing.
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make Linda Goonan , Carol Jones and Carol SCRANTON LACE COMPANY
Romich whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits