Slotkowski Sausage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 931 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

Slotkowski Sausage Company and Bernard Jeczalik.
Case 13-CA 17271
June 8, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANt) MEMBERS JNKINS
AND PN It.l.O
On January 24, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Benjamin Schlesinger issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
filed a brief in response to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member pnel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order,. as modified herein.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
Slotkowski Sausage Company, Chicago, Illinois. its
officers, agents, successors. and assigns. shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as so
modified:
1. Substitute the following for paragraph I(a):
"(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing em-
ployees by laying off or discharging employees for
engaging in protected concerted activities."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph l(c):
"(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the excercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act."
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer Bernard Jeczalik immediate and full re-
instatement to his former position or. if that position
Inasmuch as we are adopting the Adnlinistraie law Judge's finding
that th (Charging Party, while not acting ir concert with other employees
not directly engaging in union actisities, revertheless was discharged for
what the Board has long held to be the protected concerted ctilIts of seek-
ing benefits under the pro is ons ol a collectise-bargalting agreement in
illalltion of Set 8(ag I. we shall modil's his recommended Order accord-
ingly Bunnem Brts (,n oru-iin (ompan. 139 N I R B 1516 ( 1962)
' We are amending the recommended Order ronl the broad language used
by the Adnilnlisratise 1a;1 Judge to the nrrow "n an hklike or related
manner" in alnuch s the iunf r labhor pralctices found herein relate Io onil
one employee and Respondent ha'l not hown a ptern ol such conduct in
the past
SL.OrKOWSKI SAUSAGE CO.
is no longer available. to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make
him w hole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered as a result of his discharge by Respondent in the
manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled 'The Remedy.' "
4. Substitute the attached notice fbr that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
A PPEN DI X
No n(iic TO EMPI.YI ES
PosII t BY ORDI)R 0)1 lIlt:
NAIIONAI_ LABOR Rti.AII()NS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
F' VIt. NOt interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees by laying off or discharging them
fBr engaging in protected concerted activities.
Wt WII.L NOI interrogate our employees about
their union membership or union sympathies.
W V Wili. NOI in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, to engage in concerted ac-
tivities for the purpose of collective-bargaining
or other mutual aid or protection. or to refrain
from any or all such activities.
Wlv wIn.l offer Bernard Jeczalik reinstatement
to his former position or. if that position is no
longer available, to a substantially equivalent po-
sition without prejudice to his seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed.
W ti x, Ull make Bernard Jeczalik whole for any
loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result
of our unlawful action against him, plus interest.
SioIKOw sKI SAULSA(;E COMPANY
DEC(ISION
SIAIt:MINI OF1 1111- (ASt
BiNJAMiN\ Stli.t-SIN(l:R. Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard betifre me on August 1 and 2 1978 in
Chicago. Illinois. upon the General Counsel's complaint
which alleged that Bernard Jeczalik was discriminatorily
discharged on Fehruar 6 1978. in violation of Section
8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.
§151. c/ svq. and was illegall interrogated on the same
date in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The com-
plaint wsas based on an unlair labor practice charge filed h
Jeczallk on lebruair 9 1978.
242 NI.RB No. 143
931
DE('ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Respondent contends that no interrogation took place
and that Jaczalik was laid off on February 6, 1978. purely
for business reasons and, in any event, was recalled to work
on March 7 and voluntarily quit his employment on March
13. The General Counsel contends that Jeczalik was not
recalled to substantially equivalent employment and that
his "quit" was actually in furtherance of the unftir labor
practice committed against him in February.
Upon the entire record.' including the helpful briefs sub-
mitted by the General Counsel and Respondent, and from
my observation of' the witnesses. I make the following:
FINDINGS 01 F/\(
I. JtRISDIC'IIONAIL I A"(IS
Respondent admits, and I find, that it is and, at all times
material herein. has been an Illinois corporation maintain-
ing its principal office and place of business in Chicago.
Illinois. where it is engaged in the processing and packing
of sausage and related meat products. During 1977, a repre-
sentative period, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, Respondent puchased and received goods at its
Chicago, Illinois, location valued in excess of $50.000 from
points located outside the State of Illinois. Accordingly, Re-
spondent is. and at all times material herein has been, an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE I.ABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED AND) lEl
COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING A(GREEMENT
Respondent also admits, and I find, that at all times ma-
terial herein Highway Drivers, Dockmen, Spotters, Ramp-
men, Meat, Packing House and Allied Products Drivers
and Helpers, Office Workers and Miscellaneous Employees,
Chicago and Vicinity, Local 710, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
ers of America (Teamsters) is and has been a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and is
the recognized bargaining agent of tractor trailer and other
truckdrivers and general helpers employed by Respondent
pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement under which
Respondent is bound.'
Among its provisions, article I. section 2 provides in
part:
It is the intention of the parties that all deliveries of
livestock, meat and meat products (including all fro-
zen, smoked and cured meat, etc.) to customers or con-
signees of the Employer located within a distance of 75
miles of the Chicago Main Post Office (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the delivery area) shall, with the limited
I The General Counsel moved on September 18, 1978, to correct the tran-
script in various respects. There being no opposition, I granted the motion by
an order dated November 22, 1978; and, in the same document. I issued an
order requiring the parties to show cause why further corrections set forth
therein should not be made. There has been no opposition filed and, accord-
ingly. I further correct the record. The General Counsel's motion and my
order shall be received as exhibits and marked ALJ No. I and 2, respectively.
2 Leonard Slotkowski (Slotkowski), owner and president of Respondent,
was a member of the employer committee which negotiated this agreement,
which is apparently industry- and area-wide.
exceptions hereinafter set forth, be made by the Em-
ployer exclusively with the employees covered by this
Agreement. Notwithstanding the bargaining unit cre-
ated herein. all work of the Employer performed
within the jurisdictional area of a Local Union shall be
exclusively by Employees who are represented by that
Local Union. Specifically, it is agreed that:
(I1) All livestock, meat and meat products for de-
livery from within the delivery area to a location
within the delivery area, whether to final destination
or point of transfer. shall be made by the Employer
exclusively with employees covered by this Agree-
ment ....
(2) All livestock, meat and meat products which
originate with or are processed or sold by the Em-
ployer and are destined to be sold or consigned to
retail store-door customers located within the deliv-
ery area shall be delivered to such retail store-door
customers or consignees from the Employer's plant,
city dock or other distribution or terminal facility
located within the delivery area exclusively by em-
ployees covered by this Agreement ....
During the applicable period, the minimum wage rate
provided in article 3 for any of the job classifications was
$8.35 per hour. However, article 2. section 5 provides that
all new employees without prior work or experience in the
industry shall receive $ .60 per hour less for the first 90 days
of employment. The agreement also provides for employer
contributions to a health and welfare fund and a pension
fund and, particularly. that contributions: "must be made
for each week on each regular or extra employee, even
though such employee may work only part time under the
provisions of this contract, including weeks where work is
performed for the Employer but not under provisions of
this contract and although contributions may be made for
those weeks into some other union health and welfare
fund."
111. 1 ll Al.I.l(ilil) NI-AIR ABOR PRACICES
A. 7he Testinmonv of Jeczalik
On October 20. 1977. Charging Party Jeczalik applied for
employment at Respondent's premises. First interviewed by
Slotkowski's wife. Wanda, Jeczalik filled out an employ-
ment application, on which Wanda wrote after the inter-
view: "Has a 'B' license, driving record perfect I feel this
man would be capable of doing more than one job." Then.
Jeczalik was interviewed by Slotkowski in the presence of
Richard Olendorf, Respondent's plant superintendent. Slot-
kowski reviewed Jeczalik's written application and asked
Jeczalik whether he was a member of any union. Jeczalik
said he was not. Slotkowski asked him if, when he was
employed at City Foods, he was a member of a union, to
which Jeczalik again said he was not. After some further
discussion, it was agreed that if Jeczalik passed a physical
examination, he would commence employment on the fol-
lowing day. October 21, 1977. He was to be paid $3.75 per
hour. with the promise of a substantial increase after 30
days of employment. Jeczalik made known his desire to
become a permanent truckdriver; but he was advised that
932
SLOI KOWSKI SAtUSAGE (().
temporarily he would function as a general all-around cm-
ployee that he swould he moved around tfr a little while
until Respondent determined which job and department he
was best suited for.
During his first 30 days of employment, although origi-
nally assigned to the shipping department. Jeczalik worked
in the basement of Respondent's premises under the super-
vision of Olendorf and Hal Thomas. Respondent's plant
manager. There, he prepared hams for smoking: removed
them from the boxes in which the hams are smoked: moved
freight, operated an electric jeep: and participated in var-
ious processes entailed in the manufacture of sausages. such
as cutting the ends off, placing the sausage in plastic bags.
setting them up on trays. and taking them upstairs.
Unhappy with the menial, solely physical nature of his
tasks, Jeczalik twice asked Olendorf during his first 30 days
of employment when he was going to be transferred to the
shipping department. In the first conversation. held about
7-8 days after he started work. Jeczalik was told that he
would at some point "see the shipping department.'' About
3 weeks later, Jeczalik again asked Olendorl " i h was
going to ever put me up there again":'' Ole norl said ihe
would take care of it.
In or about late November 1977, jeczalik was reassigned
to the shipping department on the first tloor. His normal
hours of work were from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. His supervisors
remained the same: however, his duties now encompassed
loading and unloading of trucks, packaging products on the
scales and labeling them. and filling orders by placing the
correct amount of prepared sausages, whiclh are kept in a
cooler on the first floor, on little trucks prior to their being
packaged and weighed. NVhen he packaged the products.
there was another employee, a scaler, who weighed the
products and wrote out order forms by filling in the
weights. price. and box number.
Approximately a week later. in I)ecember 1977. Jecza-
lik's duties again changed. for he was additionally required
to deliver Respondent's products by truck to customers in
Chicago and its suburbs and he also assumed the scaler's
functions. Jeczalik described his typical day as follows:
The drivers, Hank. Eddie, I.ou, myself Stosh, we'd
load the trucks and as the trucks were loaded, the driv-
ers would take off and deliver the route and depending
on the time you came back. if you came back in the
afternoon. probably you'd go take a couple more stops
out: late orders or whatever. here are special orders.
and if not, they'd send you in to work on the scales on
the main floor.
Jeczalik sporadically delivered Respondent's products in a
station wagon. On only one occasion thereafter. and then
for only 15 to 30 minutes. was Jeczalik assigned to work in
the basement.
On December 14, 1977. approximately a week after
Jeczalik began driving Respondent's trucks, another driver.
Hank Mickiewicz was injured on the job and remained out
of work until JanuarN 9. 1978. During that period Jeczalik
drove steadily. When Mickiewicz returned to work. Jeczalik
did not drive fulltime. all the time. Some da,,s. he drove all
3 Thomas esltfied hat Jcalik worked n the shipping deparimerll ir
about an hour when he first cniilen ed Cellpl0os ment
day: other days. his duties were split between driving and
loading, unloading and scaling.4
At the end of January 1978. Jeczalik told Slotkowski's
son, Adam.' that he had been employed by Respondent for
more than 90 days and that he wanted to get into the Team-
sters. Adam replied. "That's a touchy subject." Jeczalik
said that he wanted the health and welfare and the pension
fund "and everything." Adam said that he had no authority
to make a decision on Jeczalik's request, but promised to
talk to his father when he returned from vacation. By the
first week of February 1978, Jeczalik had not received any
reply to his request. He again approached Adam, asking
him if he had talked to his father. Adam said that he had,
that his fther did not say es or no on the Teamsters. and
that his father would call Jeczalik into his office and talk
about the problem. Leonard Slotkowski, however. never did
SO.
As a result, Jeczalik went to Slotkowski's office on Mon-
da\. F:ebruary 6, 1978, at about 9:15 a.m. Olendorf was
present during the conversation that followed. and Adam
was present :it the end of it. Jeczalik testified as follows:
I asked Leonard if he talked to Adam. and he said
,es. I said what did you decide, he says why do ou
want to join the union. I said well they got a good
pension and sound job security. health and welfare and
everything. lie says well I've got those things after
ou'\e been here five years. I said there's no job secu-
rity, and then he says well what do ou know about
AFL ('1O Meat Packers;: I say no I'm a driver, I don't
want to pack meat; and he says well I'll give you an
answer in one or two days.
I)uring the course of the conversation, Jeczalik stated
that he liked being a truckdriver.
After the conversation. Jeczalik left the premises to make
deliveries, returning at about 3:30 p.m. He went to punch
out his timecard. but it was not in its customary place. He
went to (ilenn Bode.' the shipping foreman, and Bode told
him he was "laid off." Indeed. Bode wrote on Jeczalik's
timecard. "Laid off -GEB." and returned it to Jeczalik. At
about 3:40 or 3:45 p.m.. Jeczalik asked Olendorf whether it
was true that he had been laid off. Olendorfconfirmed that
he had been.
During that week. Jeczalik isited the Union's office and
returned to Respondent's premises on Monday, February
13. 1978. to meet with Teamsters' representative. Herb
Rampert. Rampert apparently arrived first, for Jeczalik saw
him leaving the building. Rampert told him that he had to
attend an important meeting and that Jeczalik should go
inside and tell Leonard Slotkowski his intentions. Follow-
ing Rampert's advice. Jeczalik met with Slotkowski and
Olendorf in Slotkowski's office. According to Jeczalik, the
conversation proceeded as follows:
Jeczalhk stated that from he beginning of December 1977 until he was
terminated. when he did not drive all week. he spent 20 io 40 hours per week
driving: and 10 to 15 hurs. loading trucks; and 10 to 20 hours. saling.
'Adam Sloikowsk. admitted h5 Respondent to he a supervisor. did not
testit\ in this proceeding.
I Respondent sais lso In .i conractual relationship ith Amalgamated
Butchers nid Nlcat ( ulters itI North America. I lcal ItX). Beef Boners and
Sausage I eaIt 'uttersl
Bode aidnlitted h Respondent to he it supervisor, did not testilf) in this
proiceedlin
933
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I asked Leonard if he talked to Herb Rampert, and
he said yes; and I said how can you lay me off for lack
of work if all these people are working overtime in the
plant: and he says well, you weren't the only one laid
off. Business is down 42 percent. I said you just picked
up 47 Eagle Stores and you've got more coming in. He
says, what are you trying to do run my business? I said
well, I filed a complaint with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and he said for what, and I said discrimi-
nation. He says what are you talking about, I says you
laid me off because I wanted to join the union: and he
shoved me and he says get your ass out of here, and I
left.
On March 6, 1978. Respondent sent Jeczalik a telegram
asking that he return to work on Tuesday, March 7. 1978.
Jeczalik reported to work on March 7 at 7 a.m. and was
assigned to the main floor to weigh meat and write up or-
ders. During the day, Jeczalik asked Glenn Bode why he
did not send Jeczalik out on the route. Bode told him, "I
don't know the particulars of your case, but I was told to
keep you away from the trucks." On March 8. he failed to
report to work at his assigned time, calling in at about I I
a.m. to say that he had personal business to take care of.1
On Thursday, March 9, Jeczalik was required to report at 6
a.m. and again commenced work in the scale room. How-
ever, at about 9 or 9:15 a.m., he was reassigned to the base-
ment, where he weighed and packaged hams. During that
day, apparently in the early morning, he loaded a truck for
about 5 minutes. Hal Thomas came over to Jeczalik and
told him to get back inside.
On Friday. March 10. he was assigned to start work at 7
a.m. and again worked in the basement, weighing and pack-
aging hams. On Monday, March 13, he started work in the
basement at 6:45 a.m., again weighing and packaging
hams. At the end of the work day, Jeczalik quit his employ-
ment, stating to Bode:
[L]ook you got me starting all different times and
everything, that is ridiculous; ... I want a set schedule
going; . . . I was supposed to get back a comparable
position and I haven't been given that.'
B. The Respondent's Witnesses
I. Richard Olendorf
Olendorf testified that he first became acquainted with
Jeczalik on or about October 21 22. Although Olendorf, as
plant superintendent, oversees all operations in the plant,
insuring that the employees are kept busy and on the job,
his kowledge of Jeczalik was minimal. He had no direct
contact with Jeczalik, no direct knowledge of Jeczalik's ac-
tivities, and never spoke with Jeczalik. Thus, he indirectly
denied his presence at Jeczalik's interview for employment
and the two conversations wherein Jeczalik allegedly asked
s Jeczalik testified that he had to go to the Teamsters' ofice that morning.
9 It is undisputed that Jeczalik was paid the same salary upon his recall as
he was paid prior to his "lay off."
for a transfer from the basement to the shipping depart-
ment.'0
In reference to Olendorf's layoff' of Jeczalik, Olendorf as-
serted that he talked with Thomas just prior to the layoff.
Noting that it was slow throughout the entire plant, the talk
centered around who to lay off Jeczalik he being one of
the younger employees) or Lou Simental. Thomas said that
Simental was a better worker and was dependable, whereas
Olendorf knew that Jeczalik was not dependable because of
tardiness. Nothing was said about seniority."
Olendorf also testified that he was present at a conversa-
tion between Slotkowski and Jeczalik, but could not recall
when the conversation took place. At any rate, he heard
Slotkowski ask Jeczalik to step into his office and ask what
was on Jeczalik's mind. Jeczalik responded that he wanted
Slotkowski to know that Jeczalik was taking him to the
Labor Board and that Slotkowski would hear from Jeczalik
later. Slotkowski replied that he should go to the Labor
Board if that was the way he felt.
2. Hal Thomas
Thomas testified that he interviewed Jeczalik for the
shipping department (but could not remember any specifics
of the interview) and hired him for general labor. He con-
firmed most of the details of Jeczalik's early employment,
adding that Jeczalik was first assigned to load trucks for I
hour before Thomas reassigned him to the basement. He
described Jeczalik as a good worker, who had a tardiness
problem.
With respect to the layoffW Thomas asserted that he had
two and possibly more meetings with Olendorf. At the first,
he and Olendorf merely discussed the problem of having
too many employees and that a layoff was necessary be-
cause of a 20 percent decrease in business. No names of
possible employees to lay off were mentioned, nor was there
talk about sending people on vacation. At the second meet-
ing or a third, if there was one, they' talked about which
employees should go on vacation and which should be laid
off. Thomas could not recall which employees were selected
to go on vacation and could not state as fact that any em-
ployee was told to go on vacation. He thought that three
employees were selected for layoff: two from the smoked
meats department, and Jeczalik, who was selected because
of his tardiness and because he was not necessarily the most
reliable employee.
3. Leonard Slotkowski
Slotkowski testified that he met Jeczalik sometime after
he was hired, thus indirectly denying Jeczalik's testimony
that he was interviewed by Slotkowski. Sometime in Janu-
ary or February 1978, he talked with Jeczalik (he did not
recall who else was present), who complained that he was
unhappy with the multiple jobs he was required to do and
expressed his desire to become a full-time truckdriver. Slot-
i° Respondent concedes in its brief that Respondent "complied with Jecza-
lik's request" for a transfer. No representative of Respondent testified that
Jeczalik made the request. I am constrained to discredit Olendorfs testi-
mon).
" Olendorf initially testified that Jeczalik was laid off"in line of seniority"
for lack of work
934
SLOTKOWSKI SAUSAGF CO.
kowski, who denied there was any mention by Jeczalik of a
union, told Jeczahk that he would let him know. Slotkowski
believes he told Olendorf and Thomas that they had an
"unhappy employee," that Jeczalik did not like what he
was doing, and that he wanted to be a steady' truckdriver.
In a later conversation. Jeczalik told Slotkowski that he was
going to the Board. Slotkowski replied that it was his privi-
lege and that there was nothing that Slotkowski could do
about it. Jeczalik stated that he would take it from there.
Slotkowski stated that he does not personally intervene in
layoffs of employees, but restricts himself to an overview of
Respondent's operations, breaking down by department the
tonnages of meat products and the costs of overhead and
labor. When business decreases, as it often does because of
the seasonal and holiday demands for Respondent's prod-
ucts, it is necessary to lay off employees, ask them to take
vacations, or reduce their hours.'
Finally, Slotkowski admitted that unless an employee
joins a union voluntarily (there being no union security pro-
vision in Respondent's collective-bargaining agreement
with the Teamsters), the employee is not paid pursuant to
the scale set forth in the agreement and no contributions
are made to the fringe benefit funds provided therein.
Rather, the employee "comes under our hospitalization
plan." As to who decides who is going to be in a union, he
answered: "Mr. Thomas and Mr. Olendorf. If they decide if
the man is going to be staying on this type of job. then they
follow whatever the regulations are."
C. Credibility Resolutions and Concluding Findings
It is impossible to reconcile the conflict between the testi-
mony of Jeczalik and Respondent's witnesses, and it is thus
necessary to choose to believe one side or another. Jeczalik
impressed me as entirely truthful and credible, recalling
events with clarity and without hesitation. On the other
hand, based upon my observation of the witnesses, my re-
view of the record, and the logic of the inherent probability
of the testimony I find that the testimony of Olendorf and
Thomas was inconsistent, that they were unable to recall
with precision critical times and events, that certain por-
tions of the testimony was refuted by documentary evi-
dence, and that the entire theory of Respondent's defense is
shifting, conflicting, pretextual, unsupported, and unworthy
of belief.
In Respondent's opening statement. Respondent's coun-
sel stated that Jeczalik "was not discharged but was laid off
because of purely business reasons." Subsequently. during
the course of arguing Respondent's motion to quash a
broad subpoena duces tecum issued by counsel for the Gen-
eral Counsel, which requested. inter alia, the production of
records of gross sales and profits during the period from
January 1977 to the date of hearing. Respondent's counsel
objected to the relevancy of various demands. In answer to
my question as to what was the pure business reason that
Jeczalik was laid off, Respondent's counsel replied:
The pure business reason was that Mr. Jeczalik had
been hired as a general all-around employee. An em-
ployee that did many things. Mr. Jeczalik, in a conver-
2 Respondent maintains records of its production: however, none was
produced at the hearing.
sation with Mr. Slotkowski, initiated a request con-
cerning future employment, stated to Mr. Slotkowski
that he wanted solely to be a truckdriser. We had no
need at that time for a sole truckdrier. We had need
for someone to be a general all-around fill-in person
that could do many and various different jobs. includ-
ing driving a truck upon an emergency.
Therefore there was a business decision that at this
time a man who only wanted to drive a truck would be
laid off.
I then asked Respondent's counsel whether Respondent
had need for a general all-around employee at the time of
the layoff. to which he answered: "At the time of the layoff
we could have used a general all-around employee. We
could not use a full-time truckdriver. which is what Mr.
Jeczalik wanted to do .... Mr. Jeczalik told us that he
wanted to be a full-time truckdriver and that he didn't want
to do the type of work that we are requesting him to do."'"
Later in the hearing, during the direct-examination of
Simental. the employee with less senioritS who was not laid
off, the General Counsel sought to introduce into evidence
Simental's timecards. Respondent's counsel objected on the
ground that they had no relevance to Jeczalik's layoff. The
following coloquy ocurred:
JUn(;E SII.ESINGER: General Counsel seems to
think the defense of Respondent is, as I understand.
that the charging party was laid off because of lack of
work, and I assume that there is something in these
documents that can tell that Mr. Simental filled in the
absence of the charging party and did his work after he
was laid off because of lack of work: and if that truly is
the defense, then I assume it's relevant.
MR. LTI: But I think at the commencement of
this action we had to discuss with the Court the de-
fense. It was more that he was laid off because all he
wanted to do was to be a truck driver. and I don't
think that this is relative [sic] to whether or not we
needed a man who all he does is be a truck driver.
Because of Respondent's position at the opening of the
hearing, the shifting position of Respondent as it proffered
its testimony causes me to doubt the veracity of Respon-
dent's witnesses.' If there were truly a need for a general
all-around helper at the time of Jeczalik's layoff. Jeczalik
would have remained on his job. but for his alleged insis-
tence on becoming a full-time truckdriver. However, it was
Leonard Slotkowski to whom Jeczalik allegedly announced
his desire to be a full-time truckdriver. Both Thomas and
Olendorf testified that they alone made the decision to lay
off Jeczalik and that Leonard Slotkowski was not consulted.
Slotkowski agreed with that testimony. Thus. their testi-
mony is completely at odds with their own counsel's posi-
tion that "there was a business decision that at this time a
man who only wanted to drive a truck would be laid o'."
" In light of counsel's representation, I did not order Respondent to pro-
duce the records of gross sales. profis, or losses. deeming such records irrele-
vant to the issues framed hb Respondent.
"1 Respondent's brief does not rely upon the ground nitially staled as the
reason for Jeczalik, lasoff. Nonetheless. the shift in Respondent's position
lends strong support to a holding that Respondent was discriminatorily mo-
tivated N.LR.B. v. Teknor-.Ape. Conyuans. 468 .2d 692 (Ist Cir. 1972):
('entral Cariuage. In-., 236 NI.RH 1232 (1978): The Dalin Conmpany, Inc.
109 NI.RB 1228 (1954}.
935
D.(ECISIONS OF NAl IONAl. L.ABOR RELATIONS BOARI)
Indeed, in direct contradiction o Respondent counsel's as-
sertion, both Thomas and Olendorf testified that Respon-
dent had no need for a general all-around helper at the time
of Jeczalik's layoff. This, at least, makes sense: for if it were
accurate that Respondent did not require an additional full-
time truckdriver and laid Jeczalik off for that reason, then
there is no crediblejustification for disregarding that reason
and recalling him on March 7 1978, to the very same part-
time truckdrivingjob from which he was originally laid off'.
However. even though the newly interposed defense of
work being slow makes more sense-- Olendor; Thomas.
and Slotkowski all testifying that business was slow during
the first week of February 1978 and was expected to be
slow until the Easter rush for Respondent's products com-
menced-such defense was not supported by credible evi-
dence. Indeed, Olendorf admitted that he had no knowl-
edge whether there was driving work available at the time
of Jeczalik's layoff: and because of the position of Respon-
dent's counsel at the opening of the hearing, the General
Counsel was not afforded the full opportunity to ascertain
whether business was. as Respondent alleged. slo it the
time of the February 6 layoff.
In any event. Thomas stated that work was slow in both
the smoked meat and shipping departments and. therefore.
employees from only those two departments had to be laid
off. He stated that Jeczalik was laid off along ith lwo
employees in the smoked meat department. This assertion
was not only unsupported, but also belied by documentary
evidence introduced at the hearing. Based upon the records
produced by Respondent, only two employees terminated
their employment in February 1978. Both resigned; neither
was laid off.5 Respondent fuirther contended, however, that
its practice was to have employees take their vacation dlur-
ing the slow periods. Although vacation schedules for 1977
and 1978 were introduced in evidence and show that cer-
tain employees took vacations in February 1978. the record
is barren of any credible evidence showing that these em-
ployees were told to take a vacation during February 1978
because work was slow. I can conclude only that the vaca-
tion schedule for February 1978 had been arrived at the
preceding December or early January when vacations werc
normally picked by Respondent's employees.
Other than the conclusory oral statements of Respon-
dent's witnesses that business was slow, the record is barren
of proof to sustain Respondent's position. To the contrary .
overtime worked b Respondent's employees kept up a
fairly steady pace, as follows:
Week
Ending
1/20/78
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
O/T Pay
$2,339.77
2,275.31
4,135.27
3,044.85
3,280.59
3,417.29
0/T Hrs.
137
158-1/4
291-3/4
265-3/4
402-1/4
387
15 Respondent's counsel stated that after reviewing Responderil's records
he was unable to locate an) record showing that an empl:sece other than
Jeczalik had been laid off in eary February 1978
In the shipping department alone, Jaczalik worked over-
time the week before his layoff for lack of work: and Lou
Simental. who drove a truck 3-4 days a week, worked over-
time throughout his employment, both before and after
.leczalik's discharge. Further. Respondent hired the follow-
ing individuals on the following dates to work in the ship-
ping department:
Zaniewski
Thomas Prendirgast
Consa lez
Andrew Buglski
Feb. I. 1978
I-Febh. 17. 1978
Feb. 21. 1978 (rehire)
\Mar. 3 1978
The continuation of overtime and the hiring of' new em-
ployees for Ihe shipping department and many other new
emnployees (for other of Respondent's departments"' negate
the conclusion that business was slow and do nothing but
danmage the credibility of Respondent's witnesses. Further-
more, I find it unique. at best, that a drop of 20 percent of
Respondent's business was the direct cause of the layoff of
only one employee out of 79 89 employees -the very em-
ployee who had raised the question of his union niember-
ship the morning of his layoff: I find it so unique that I
discredit Respondent's defense in its entirety. N'.L.R.B. v.
Te'knor-.A4/e.x Col/patv, .suprl,. 468 .2d at 694.
Olendorf and Thomas could not even agree as to the way
the agreed to lay off Jeczalik. Olendorf testified that the
decision could lhave been reached the day before or the
same day that Jeczalik was laid off'. Thomas. however, testi-
fied that the decision seas reached approximately one week
prior to Febhruar r 6. Olendorf and Thomas also could not
agree upon hot millny meetinggs were held concerning
,leczalik's layoff, Olendorf claiming that only one meeting
was held, hile Thomas sated that he and Olendorf had
two meetings or possibly more.'
Assun1ng. thereforeo. tlha even it' there ere a justifiable
reason for a laN off of any employee, and I have found there
is none. Respondent's case is in such a state of disarray that
I am constrained to link Jeczalik's la:yoff soley with his con-
versation with Ieonard Slotkowski that morning. In doing
so. I find the reason for selecting Jeczalik to be laid off was
pretextual. Olendtorf initiallx testified that Jeczalik was laid
off il the line of, senioritN . hbut changed his testimony when
it as revcaled that I ou Siticnital had less seniority. Then
he testified that the decisil,i was to lay off Jeczalik or an-
other employcc and that leczalik was picked because he
;lts t:irds and not dependable. 'Ihonias said he had rwarned
Jeczalik ticc about tardiness: Jeczalik denied that he had
ever been warned. In light of Olendorfs change of testi-
' I'he parties stipulated tha Respondent hired tour employees in January
1978 and five in Februars 1978
I also credit Jeczalik's narration of' his conseration sith Slotkovoski on
Fcrualr> 13 I'here. Jeczalik siaed in detail his cnplaiint that he hould not
hase been laid off because there l.ts Imtnpl business aind that he uias iling a
chalrge lor being discriminated galint hbecause iof his request to join he
Icaltlsters. Sloilkoski and Olendorf's reslimony. in m opinion, defies belief'
I st. ince Sliotkoski stated that lie was concerned onls lth the broader
hbilmess itflairs of Respondent. he eciirigl sholi d nlt hlr'c crien kno n
,.lal .lecialik ais talking about ben ec/alik stated. accrdlilg ii Slotkovw-
ski. th li he as going o the Board. \ssuming that he knew that Jeczalik had
been lid fl: I heliese it reasonable expect that hie sould have explained
ti Jeczalik hx he as lid off' cither because 1f lack of' ,rk or that
Respondetil hald n need for a ull-lime truckdriver. Instead, he bhtlheli told
Jectalik to dol is he is ihed Resplrident's tetintons dles nt comport with
the probhabilities t human reactions lihercls Jeczaik's crsin oi the con-
crstoii criiir ell .plausib le ald Co sislen i th all of lhis tcsiillions.
936
SLOTKOWSKI SAUSAGE CO.
mony. Respondent's failure to produce Jeczalik's timecards
to support its allegation that Jeczalik was tardy. and all the
other circumstances herein, I am inclined to believe that the
issue of Jeczalik's tardiness was a mere afterthought and
was a pretext for the real reason for his layoff.s The timing
of' the layoff, occurring immediately upon Jeczalik's return
from delivering goods to customers. clearly is a result not of
absenteism or tardiness, but rather an effort to punish him
for some other activity. .'.L.R.B. v. Montgomery Ward &
Co., Inc.. 242 F.2d 497. 502 (2d Cir. 1957) cert. denied 355
U.S. 829: N.L.R.B. v. West Coast Casket Compan. Ic.,
and Mrs. Gladys Selhin, 469 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1972). That
activity was his conversation with Slotkowski that morning.
The credible evidence makes clear that Respondent de-
sired to have few drivers covered under its Teamsters agree-
ment. Thus, at Jeczalik's interview for employment. Slot-
kowski asked for and received assurance that Jeczalik was
not currently a member of a union and had not been ear-
lier. Later, when Jeczalik asked about membership in the
Teamsters. Adam Slotkowski replied: "That's a touchy sub-
ject."
The obvious reason why it was so touchy was that Re-
spondent was paying Jeczalik $4.25 per hour, far less than
the labor agreement required: and if he were to be consid-
ered a part of the drivers' unit, the equivalent of Teamsters
membership in the circumstances of this case.l9 Respondent
would have had to raise his straight time and overtime pay
substantially. make contributions on Jeczalik's behalf to the
fringe benefit funds, and otherwise comply with the terms
of the agreement. By keeping him out of the Teamsters, and
out of the umbrella of the agreement. Respondent had
much to gain not only as to Jeczalik, but also as to other
employees such as Simental and Stosh Jooniak, who drove
trucks but were not considered part of the unit covered by
the Teamsters' agreement.
Leonard Slotkowski stalled in giving .leczalik an answer.
Jeczalik again asked Adam Slotkowski to renew his request.
Again, there was no immediate reply from Leonard Slot-
kowski. Finally, on February 6. 1978. Jeczalik went to
Leonard Slotkowski's office. and the conversation (as re-
lated by Jeczalik and as I construe it) was entirely consis-
tent with Jeczalik's earlier actions and Slotkowski's desire
to undercut the Teamster's agreement. Jeczalik asked
whether a decision had been made: Slotkowski. undoubted-
ly having heard from his son of Jeczalik's earlier requests.
asked why Jeczalik wanted to join the Teamsters. Jeczalik
said essentially that he wanted the benefits of the Team-
sters' contract. Slotkowski, fearing the consequences of the
higher wages and the fringe benefit funds contributions and
attempting to dissuade Jeczalik. suggested that Respondent
'1 In its brief, Respondent further relies upon the fact that during the
course ' Jeczalik's employment he sas abs( nt from work approximatel) 8-
10 days. However, he was never warned either orally or in writing about his
absenteeism: and his absenteeism was not relied upon by Olendorf and
Thomas as a reason to lay him off.
' Slotkowski clearly knew that union membership was the equivalent of
coverage under the union contract According to his testimons. Olendorl'and
Thomas decided which of Respondent's employees were to be in the union:
and when they decided that an employee was to he in the union. only then
was Respondent required to comply with the applicable contract. Only 55 of
some 79-80 employees of Respondent are cosered by Respondent's labor
agreements: only 4 are truckdriver,.
gave those benefits to its employees not covered under lia-
bor agreements). but Jeczalik said that there was no job
securit\ without an agreement. Slotkowski then suggested
that Jeczalik noted that he uas a ruckdriser (nd should be
covered under the Teamsters contract) and that he did not
want his job changed to a meat packer (to be covered under
the Meat Cutter's agreement). Slotkowski said that he
would let Jeczalik know within a da or to and the con-
versation ended. Jeczalik went back to his job, made deliv-
eries, returned to Respondent's premises. and found out
that his employment had been terminated h! a laoH: (O)hi-
ously, the sudden turn of events was occasloned bh the con-
',ersation that morning 21 a conversation that I deem to he
protected and concerted activity.
Jeczalik was not seeking Teamsters membership in order
to become a member of a labor organization. lie knew per-
fectly well how to join the Teamsters: he mercly had to pay
his dues and initiation fees. What he was realls seeking 'as
to be covered under the Teamsters' agreement since he con-
sidered himself to he a truckdriver.' _ lie wanted to obtain
job security, coverage under the health and eltfare and
pension plans, and all other privileges, terms. and condi-
tions of employment accorded to his fellow truckdrivers--
Teamsters' members." Although he may not have articu-
lated that it was the entire contract he sought to enforce, in
the circumstances herein, that was clearly understood bh all
parties. Board law makes abundantly clear that s here an
employee seeks to insure compliance with a provision (i a
collective-bargaining agreement, no less than the entire
agreement. his efforts constitute an extension of the con-
certed authority giving rise to the agreement. Bionie Brs.
(Constrltion Cnmplatv, 139 N RB 1516 (1962)1 Interhoro
Contractor,s Inc.. 157 NLRB 1295 (1966). enfd. 388 F.2d
495 (2d ('ir. 1967): . O..Sct/i'rt Coomparv. 199 NI.RB 960
(1972) enfd. hby unpublished order. 86 I.RRNI 2152 (9th
Cir. 1974): Crat-BurcAe ('ompan',. 208 NLRB 707 (1974). It
is gainsaid that such concerted actiity is protected. J. J.
Cook Con.s'rt( tion ('rnttl)anv. 203 N [. R B 41 (1973). The oh-
vious effect of Respondent's actions as to discourage
membership in the Teamsters. I conclude that Respondent
20 I note that Olendorf lesllhed that the decision to lav ,off Jecciik could
have been made on the day of his lay off I so find.
i1 Because of this finding. I disagree v ith Respondent's bhref uhich alrgues
that Jeczalik wanted onl to he promoted to a fll-lime truckdriver. an tin-
protected activity Although Respondent cites a number of decisions which
sustain its premise. which I find f'actually unsupported. CPE /ndlrsrrie, I Id
202 NLRB 782 (19?7). supports m) conclusions There, the respondent',
employees were unrepresenled bh any lahbor organization. An emplosce
'
.
request of his employer to he put into a union was "to gain entitlement Io the
benefits which would derive from such membership qual member and niol qi
employee" and not "to utilize that membership as a vehicle to change. m-
prove. or modifs any or his conditions of emplosment " Here. Jc.lalk. , :in
employee, sought the benefit, of membershlp which would directly mprie
his conditions ofemplo, ment Further, as Respondent recognized. the Board
founld nol causal connection between the employee's discharge and hls desire
for union memhership and thus felt no need to p;ss upon the finding of the
Administrative Law Judge that the employce's activit was tl protec ed hb
the Act. I find the eistence of' such a causal connection and find thiat. under
the facts in this proceeding Jeczalik', aclril uls protletIld
22 In so finding. I do not hold thit Jet.ialik sa s covered under tlie camn-
sters' agreement Thait is a matier lir nother torum ('learly. how, u er, an
arguable and cogenl tlim nlil ma e e that Ihe 'ealmsters' greemnle
co.ered any employee (including .i regular helperi. either ltilltinii or part-
time, who made deliseries , Reronder t' Priducits uithin 7 nile, of, Ihe
('lhi;go Malin Pt (Office
937
DI)('ISIONS OF NATIONAL L.ABOR REI.ATIONS BOARI)
violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of' the Act b laying off
Jeczalik for engaging in concerted and protected activity
and to discourage his membership in the Teamsters.
Jeczalik was recalled to work on March 7. 1978. His
starting time of work, previously 7 a.m., was changed from
day-to-day2. in a blatant and callous attempt to goad and
fiorce Jeczalik into quitting. At first assigned to the first
floor, Jeczalik was kept away from the trucks and then rel-
egated to work in the basement, where he had not worked
since his first 30 days of employment. Glenn Bode's state-
ment to Jeczalik that he was told to keep Jeczalik away
from the trucks, and Thomas' statement 2 days later to "get
back inside," are overtly indicative of' Respondent's attempt
to insure that Jeczalik would lose his right to claim cover-
age under the Teamsters agreement and forfeit the very job
security which he attempted to gain. Certainly. Jeczalik was
not recalled to the comparable or substantially equivalent
position of' at least a part-time truckdriver, which was
Jeczalik's job on and prior to February 6, 1978. Bode and
Thomas' statement to him could mean only that Jeczalik
would never drive for Respondent again.24 Jeczalik was, ac-
cordingly, justified in complaining of' the daily change of
starting times, refusing to continue employment in the base-
ment, and leaving his employment because the Respon-
dent's actions were merely a continuation and in further-
ance of its unfair labor practice committed on February 6,
1978. Viele & Sons, Inc.. 227 NLRB 1940 (1977): Ramona'
Mexican Food Products, Inc., 203 NLRB 663 (1973). enfd.
531 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1975).
The General Counsel alleges, as an independent violation
of Section 8(a)( ), that Slotkowski interrogated Jeczalik on
February 6 as to his union sympathies. The issue is not
wholly clear-cut. On the one hand. Jeczalik initiated the
conversation by asking Slotkowski what he had decided
about his getting into the Teamsters. I do not deem that.
when Slotkowski asked Jeczalik why he wanted to join the
Teamsters, Slotkowski was engaging in interrogation.
Jeczalik had already made known his desire, and it was
only natural for Slotkowski to ask the question, rather than
remain mute.2 But the mere initiation of a conversation by
31 I reject the General Counsel's argument that Jeczalik was given a more
onerous job in light of Jeczalik's testimony that thejob on recall was simply
different. The responsibility of Respondent was to place Jeczalik in the same
or substantially equivalent employment. I consider his relegation to the base-
ment as a demotion which is not in compliance with established Board law.
especially since it is apparent from the hiring of additional employees and
the lack of evidence to the contrary that there was truckdriving work which
Jeczalik was able to perform.
24 Respondent argues that the timecards of Lou Simental (.C. Exh. 6)
demonstrate that the changing of starting times was neither unique nor even
unusual because Simental had to report at different times. I do not read the
cards as does Respondent. The cards merely credit Simental with starting his
work day at the quarter-hour after he punched in. They do not indicate when
Simental was required to report for work.
25 In ITT Automoive Electrical Products Division. 231 NLRB 878 (1977).
the Board held that an employer, knowing that two employees were strong
union adherents, violated the Act by asking them why they were wearing
union buttons. The Board wrote: "Although [the employees] had openly
declared that they were union adherents. Respondent was not thereby free to
probe directly or indirectly into their reasons for supporting the Union In
our view, such probing tends to have a coercive effect upon employees,
whether or not the employees have openly declared their support for a
union." However, the wearing of a union button is not an open invitation to
an employer to interrogate its employee. Here. Jeczalik openly encouraged
Slotkowski's response, even if it were the form of interrogation which, under
ordinary circumstances. would he considered coercive.
an employee does not give his employer ctare blanche to
pursue areas otherwise deemed coercive. By suggesting that
union membership would not be necessary because Re-
spondent granted the benefits which Jeczalik thought he
could obtain only through union representation, and look-
ing for Jeczalik's reply, and then suggesting that the Meat
('utters would also grant the benefits sought by Jeczalik,
Slotkowski went too far and coercively diverted the conver-
sation from the Teamsters' agreement and Teamsters' mem-
bership to forbidden areas. Indeed, the fruit of the conver-
sation Jeczalik's insistence on Teamsters membership so
its to be covered under the collective-bargaining agree-
ment -constituted the basis for Jeczalik's termination later
that day. C(roswn Zellerhbach (orporation, 225 NLRB 911
(1976).
I find, therefore, that Slotkowski illegally interrogated
Jeczalik on February 6, 1978, in violation of Section 8(a)( ).
I also find that during the initial interview of Jeczalik on
October 20, 1977, within the applicable Section 10(b) pe-
riod, Slotkowski illegally and coercively interrogated Jecza-
lik as to his union sympathies to insure that he would not
be covered under, or at least would not raise the issue of.
the Teamsters' agreement. The complaint does not allege
that the interview constituted a violation of Section 8(a)( I),
and no motion has been made to amend the complaint.
Nonetheless, this matter was fully litigated by the parties.
and "is sufficiently related to the subject matter of the com-
plaint to justift a specific finding of a violation of Section
8(a )( ) of the Act." 4 lexander's Restaurant and Lounge, 228
NLRB 165 (1977): Southwestern Bell Telephone Company,
237 NLRB 110(1978).
I1. 1111i I 11( I ()1: 1111t t NIti R l ABOR PRA("TlCES UPON
( O)MMI R( i
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III
above, occurring in connection with the operation of Re-
spondeni described in section 1. above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor
disputes, burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce,
CO()N('I.t:SI(NS 01 LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. By laying off or discharging Bernard Jeczalik for en-
gaging in protected concerted activity, and for the purpose
of discouraging his membership in a labor organization,
and by failing to recall Jeczalik to his former position, Re-
spondent has violated Section 8la)(3) and (I) of the Act.
3. By interrogating Bernard Jeczalik on October 20,
1977. about his union membership and on February 6,
1977, about his union sympathies. Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(1 j) ( the Act.
4. he aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
938
SIO'KOWSKI SA!SA(GE CO.
Tlt Ri Msi)v
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I shall recommend that it he ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that Respondent laid off Bernard Jeczalik
because of the protected concerted activities in which he
was engaged, and for the purpose of discouraging his mem-
bership in a labor organization I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be ordered to offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to Jeczalik to his former position, or if no longer
available, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges: and
make him whole for any loss of earnings or an monetary
loss he may have suffered from February 6, 1978. as a result
of Respondent's unlawful conduct, less interim earnings, if
any. The amount of backpay shall he computed in the man-
ner set forth in F. 1W'. Woolworth (onmptlv. 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest thereon to be computed in the manner
prescribed in Florida Steel (orporatrion 231 N I.RB 651
(1977). 26
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and upon the entire record and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2?
The Respondent, Slotkowski Sausage Company. hi-
cago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns.
shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by laying off or discharging employees for engaging in pro-
26See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Healing (, 138 NlRB 716 1962).
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided b Sec 1102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Ltahor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as pros ided in Sec 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order. and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
tected concerted activities and for the purpose of discourag-
ing membership in a labor organization.
(h) Interrogating employees about their union meniber-
ship or smpathies.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. ake the following affirmative action designed to el-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) O()ffer Bernard Jeczalik immediate and full reinstate-
ment to his former position or, if that position is no longer
available. to a substantiall\ equivalent position without
prej udice to his seniority or other rights and privileges and
make him vs hole for any loss of earnings he may have suf-
fered as a result of his discharge by Respondent in the man-
ner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy ."
(h) Preserve and. upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, lor examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records timecards,
personnel records and reports. and all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of the hackpay due under the
terms of this recommended Order.
(c) Post at its place of business in Chicago, Illinois. cop-
ies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."'2 Copies of
said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director (br
Region 13, after being duly signed by Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained hs it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reason-
able steps shall be taken b Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered. defaced. or covered by any other
material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13 in writ-
ing. within 20 days fronm the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2a In he eent tha this Order is enforced h a Judgment o the United
States (court of Appeal. the words il the notice reading "Posted b Order of
the National L.abor Relations Board' shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment o he United States Court ol Appeals Fnforcing an Order of the Na-
tional lbaNr Relations Board"
939