St. Francis Hospital

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1980

252 N.L.R.B. 1247 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

ST. FRANCIS H()OSPITAI4
St. Francis Hospital and United Paperworkers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO. Case 15-CA-7408
September 30, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANI) MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENI.I.O
On July 15, 1980, Administrative Law Judge J.
Pargen Robertson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief,' and the General
Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administra-
tive Law Judge.
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 panel.
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, find-
ings, 2 and conclusions of the Administrative Law
Judge and to adopt his recommended Order, as
modified herein.3
I Respondent also filed a motion to reopen the record, and the General
Counsel filed an opposition thereto. In its motion, Respondent asserls thlia
on June 23. 1980. subsequent to the hearing. discrininatee Wheeler as
arrested for distributing marijuana, and that on July 15 she pleaded guilty
to the charge It further asserts that it maintains a uniform policy of su,-
pending employees arrested on such charges and of discharging thorse
who are convicted or plead guilty to such crimes It therefore requests
remand to the Administrative l.aw Judge for the purpose of taking ei-
dence regarding Wheeler's eligibility for reinstatement In our opinion,.
the matter raised by Respondent's motion is more appropriately left
the compliance stage of this proceeding Accordingly, we hereby deny
Respondent's motion See Savin Rusines Machines Corporarion, 242
NLRB 435 (1979}
In its brief, Respondent contends that it was prejudiced by the alleged
failure of the Board to grant an additional extension of time to August 25.
1980, for filing its brief in support of its exceptions. We find this conten-
tion to be without merit In so doing, we note that Respondent, in fact,
was granted an extension of time to August 25
2 Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the
Administrative Law Judge It is the Board's established policy rot to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credi-
bility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence con-
vinces us that the resolutions are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products.
Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F2d 362 (3d Cir 19511. We have
carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings
The Administrative Law Judge stated that Wheeler was a credit clerk
until 1978, rather than 1979 This inadvertent error is insufficient to affect
our Decision.
3 The Administrative Law Judge inadvertently failed to include in his
recommended Order a provision requiring Respondent to cease and desist
from discharging and refusing to reinstate employees for engaging in pro-
tected concerted activities. In addition, we have considered this case in
light of the standards set forth in Hickmot Foods. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357
(1979). and have concluded that a broad order is appropriate. In reaching
this conclusion, we note that in St. Francis Hospital, 249 NLRB 180
(1980), we found Respondent committed numerous violations of the Act.
and that the misconduct in the present case occurred less than 2 years
after this prior unlawful conduct We shall modify the recommended
Order accordingly
Member Jenkins would provide interest on the backpay award in ac-
cordance with his partial dissent in Onpic Medical Corporaiorn. 250
NLRB 146 (1980)
252 NLRB No. 174
We agree with the Administrative Law Judge
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
by discharging employee Wheeler for pretextual
reasons. In so doing, we agree with the Adminis-
trative Law Judge that the record establishes Re-
spondent's lingering animus directed against
Wheeler because of her past union activities. Like
the Administrative Law Judge, we also rely on the
admission by Respondent's vice president that the
August 8 conversation between Wheeler and Su-
pervisor Greene, during which Wheeler explicitly
coupled her concerted protected complaints about
working conditions with references to her strong
union stance in the past, was "the straw that broke
the camel's back." Finally, we concur in the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's finding that at no time
did Wheeler engage in the insubordinate conduct
which Respondent advanced as its asserted reason
for terminating her.4
Finally, we note that, even if Respondent's ver-
sion of the disputed August 8 conversation is cred-
ited, Wheeler was engaged in concerted protected
activity by registering a complaint over work con-
ditions on behalf of herself and fellow employees.
Even accepting the version of Wheeler's remarks
to Greene most favorable to Respondent's position,
we find that Wheeler's conduct was not so egre-
gious or outrageous as to deprive her of the protec-
tion of the Act.5 Accordingly, we conclude that,
even assuming arguendo the absence of a discrimi-
natory motive, Respondent's termination of Wheel-
er in connection with the August 8 incident was
unlawful and in violation of Section 8(a)(l). 6
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modi-
fied below, and hereby orders that the Respondent,
St. Francis Hospital, Monroe, Louisiana, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order, as
so modified:
4 Since we are satisfied that the record amply supports the finding of ia
pretextual discharge predicated on the factors discussed abose, we find it
unnecessary to pass on or rely on the Administrative Law Judge's addi-
tional finding that the record established Respondent's disparate treat-
ment of Wheeler in terms of Respondent's past treatment of employees
found to have engaged in misconduct.
' See, generally, Thor Power ool Co., 148 NLRB 1379 (1969)
In view of our conclusions here, we find it unnecessary to pass on
the possible application of .L.R.B. v Burnup and Sims., Inc., 379 U S 21
(1964), also cited by the Admirnisrative I a Judge in connection ith
his analysis of this case Member Penello is of the opinion that the facts
clearly demonstrate that Respondent violated Sec. (a)(3) of the Act by
discharging Wheeler fr her activities on behalf of the Union He thus
finds it unnecessarv to determine whether, absent a discriminatory
motise. her discharge ould constitu te a violation of Sec 8(a}(l)
1247
I)ECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. Insert the following as paragraph 1:
"1. Cease and desist from:
"(a) Discharging and refusing to reinstate em-
ployees for engaging in protected concerted activi-
ties.
"(b) In any other manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in their exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act."
2. Insert the following immediately prior to para-
graph (a):
"2. Take the following affirmative action which
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:"
3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NoTICi. TO EMPt.OYI:I:S
POSTED) BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RE:LATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE: Wll.I NOT discharge or refuse to rein-
state our employees for engaging in union ac-
tivities or concerted activities protected by the
National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILt. NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Sec-
tion 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
W w.t. offer Trudie Wheeler immediate
and full reinstatement to her former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to her
seniority or other rights and privileges previ-
ously enjoyed, and wE WILt. make her whole
for any loss of earnings she may have suffered
as a result of our discrimination against her,
with interest.
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
DECISION
STAIMENr OF THE CASE
J. PAR(;EN ROBERISON, Administrative Law Judge:
This case was heard on March 10, 1980, in Monroe,
Louisiana. The charge was filed on August 30, 1979, and
the complaint issued on October 25, 1979. The complaint
alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l) and (3)
of the Act by discharging employee Trudie Wheeler on
August 10, 1979.
Upon the entire record and from my observations of
the witness, and after due consideration of the briefs filed
by General Counsel and Respondent, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE EVII)ENCE
On August 10, 1979, Respondent' dishcharged em-
ployee Trudie Wheeler. Respondent's vice president of
human resources, Hazel Dowd, testified that she was
Wheeler's supervisor on Auqust 10, and that she, along
with three other supervisors, decided to discharge
Wheeler because of a memorandum they received from
Robert E. Green.2 However, Greene was not among the
supervisors that meet on August 10 and decided to termi-
nate Wheeler.
Greene's memo read:
TO: Garry Ege
FROM: Bob Greene
DATE: August 9, 1979
SUBJECT: Ms. Trudy Wheeler/Interview
Ms. Wheeler came to my office yesterday at ap-
proximately 3:30 p.m. and asked to speak with me.
By way of introduction I told Ms. Wheeler my
name and mentioned that her name was . . .? At
this point, Ms. Wheeler got up, approached my
desk and slapped her name tag down, stating:
"Trudy Wheeler. You see what that says? It says
Credit Office and I'm here to tell you that that's
where I want to be." Ms. Wheeler began telling me
that she was in her present position against her
wishes due to the fact that she was a union organiz-
er and activist and the same was true of Shirley
Gray.
You will see below several comments made by Ms.
Wheeler during the interview. Unfortunately, some
comments were repeated and expanded upon in a
rapid-fire fashion that prevents me from furnishings
you a chronological description.
I. Ms. Wheeler and Ms. Gray are over-paid and
over-qualified in their present capacities.
2. The people running around in habits will deal
you a mortal hell.
3. She [and] Ms. Gray got along well with Mr.
Scalia while in the collections department and pro-
duced excellent results.
4. Administration has dealt badly with hourly
employees and would pay for it.
5. She is strong union and would not be run off.
6. She is the kind of person who will look you
right in the damn eye and tell you what she thinks
of you.
I The commerce allegations are not at issue Respondent admitted that
it is a nonprofit health care institution located in Monroe, Louisiana. Re-
spondent also admitted, and I find, that it satisfies the Board jurisdictional
requirements for health care institutions and is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respon-
dent also admitted, and I find, that the Charging Party (Union) is a labor
organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(S) of the Act.
Greene, an admitted supervisor, was employed by Respondent during
a relatively short period-July 1979 to December 1979 He testified that
his "responsibility was to oversee the operations of the admissions, out-
patient services. emergency department, in-patient insurance billing, pri-
sate pay collections and the cashier department"
1248
ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL
Ms. Wheeler somewhat abrubtly terminated the
conversation by standing up and saying, "It's 3:41. 1
should have gone home 12(?) minutes ago. You
make a record of this because I'm going to.", and
left my office.
I found Ms. Wheeler to be very abrasive in conver-
sation and approach. particularly for someone seek-
ing employment within my department and must
wonder how well she could interact with the new
Collections Supervisor based upon her conduct in
my office. I am unaccustomed to this type of inci-
dent and believe it to be totally unacceptable.
I should add that although Shirley Gray was men-
tioned frequently and freely, Ms. Gray has not ap-
proached me with any form of similar demand or
displayed such ill will toward St. Francis and its
management.
I will appreciate your interest in this matter, and if I
may be of any help, please let me know.
On August 10, Wheeler was called in and told by
Hazel Dowd that she was being terminated because of
her insubordinate act toward Greene on Auqust 8. An
"Employee Counseling Report," signed by Hazel Dowd
on Auqust 10 reflects that Wheeler was terminated for
"Insubordination, misconduct, use of abusive language."
General Counsel alleged that Wheeler was actually
terminated because of her union activities. Those union
activities occurred during a union organizing campaign
during the spring of 1978. Wheeler's union activities in-
cluded attending union meetings and soliciting approxi-
mately 200 employees to sign union authorization cards.
Wheeler served as a union observer during the March
17, 1978, representation case election. Afterwards,
Wheeler was involved, and testified, in an unfair labor
practice proceeding which was heard before Administra-
tive Law Judge Richard J. Boyce during September
1978.3
Although the union campaign occurred well in ad-
vance of 1 year before Wheeler's discharge, Robert
Greene admitted that during the August 8, 1979, conver-
sation Wheeler indicated that she was strong "union"
and would not be run off.
Wheeler started work for Respondent in 1974 as a
credit clerk. She continued in that position until 1978. At
that time Respondent, because of internal reorganization,
transferred her to an information desk on the first floor.
Shirley Gray, who had also been employed as a credit
clerk until Respondent's reorganization, was transferred
to admissions.
In the early months of 1979 Wheeler and Gray heard
through rumors that Respondent was planning to rees-
tablish the credit department as it had existed before the
internal reorganization. Between themselves they dis-
a On May 1, 1980, the Board issued is decision in the proceedings
heard by Administrative Lass Judge Boyce (249 Nt.RB 180) The Board
held that Respondent had violated the Act in several Ilstances including
several which directly involved Trudie Wheeler
Administrative Law Judge Boyce mentioned in his Decision that
Trudie Wheeler, a credit clerk im the husinres office, perhaps as the
Union's foremost advocate among Respondent's employees
cussed the possibilities of returning to their former posi-
tions of credit clerks. That possibility was the reason for
Wheeler's approaching Greene on August 8.
Much of Wheeler's testimony regarding her August 8
conversation with Greene was confirmed by Greene in
his testimony and in his memorandum which is quoted
above. As to the areas of disagreement, I have credited
the testimony of Wheeler.4
Wheeler's credited testimony during the August 8 con-
versation included:
A. Well, that morning when I reported to work I
saw Mr. Greene, and I heard that they were going
to open the credit office back up for strictly collec-
tions, and when Mr. Greene came by my working
station, I told him that I would like to speak with
him during the day.
Q. Do you recall at what time during the day
this was?
A. It was sometime during the morning, before
nine o'clock.
Q. Continue.
A. He told me that he was busy, that he would
get back to me later on, and he passed by there sev-
eral times during the day, and he would let me
know that he was still to busy to talk. So, when I
got off work at 2:30, 1 took a chance that he might
be in his office and might be idle. So I went in and
looked, and he wasn't there at the desk, so I turned
around to walk out, and Mr. Greene was just
coming in behind me. He had a cup of coffee in his
hand, and I asked him if I could talk with him for a
moment, and he said that he had been in meetings
all day, and he had been tied up, and he was tired.
And I told him it wouldn't take but just a couple of
minutes and he said that if I didn't mind he would
like to excuse himself and he would he right back,
and I said allright. He said, go in and have a seat,
and he went in and set his coffee down on his desk,
and I went to sit down. And when he came back,
he sat down behind his desk and he said that there
were no need for formalities, you know who I am,
and I know who you are. And he wanted to know
why, and what I wanted to talk to him about. And
I told him that I had heard through the hospital
grapevine that they were going to reopen the credit
office and I would like to request that Shirley and I
get our jobs back. And I took my nametag off and
showed him, and shoved it to him, and it had my
' I have discredited the testimony, of Greene to the extent it conflclts
with Wheeler on the basis of my observation of his demeanor G(reene
testified Wheeler was abrasive, that she was "speakinq loud." and that
she as "in a ery agitated state." However, another of Respondent's
witnesses. Joy Pasnell, secretary to the business and credit manager, testi-
fied that she as seated at her desk wshich is "right up against a glass
window that looked into Greene's office," during the August conversa-
tion between Wheeler and Greene Pasnell testified that she was unable
to hear "one word" of the Wheeler-Greene conversation Pasnell testified
that she observed Wheeler just talking and using her finger, during the
conversation By using her finger. Pasnell demonstrated that she meant
Wheeler was tapping her finger on Greene's desk as she talked There-
fore, it appears from other evidence. including Pasnell's testimony that
portions of Greene's testimony were exaggerations.
1249
DECISIONS ()F NATIONAL LAH()OR REI.ATI()NS H()ARD
name, Trudie Wheeler, and credit clerk still on it. It
had not still changed my job classification. And he
told me that he would make a point to judge who
would be working in the credit office and he
wanted to know what other qualifications other
than the three months that I worked on the credit
floor in credit that I had. And I told him that I was
hired in October of 1975 to collect delinquent ac-
counts, and he said that he had not been aware of
that. And he said that, aside from that, what other
qualifications do you have? And I told him that I
had been married previously for six years, and that
my husband and I were self-employed. And that it
would be-slowed down the contracts from the re-
course of the finance company and I had to do my
own collecting. And Mr. Greene told me that he
was well aware of recross papers, and he had
worked for a finance company before, and had to
collect contracts. And he wanted to know why I
wanted to go back into the credit office, and I told
him that Ms. Gray and I were over-qualified and
over-paid for the jobs that we had. And that we
knew well the functions of the credit office and we
wondered if it would be possible, we would like to
have these jobs back. And he said that he would be
the judqe of the one and the people that he would
hire back to work in there, and I thanked him and I
told him that it was 3:41 and I was about fifteen
minutes late leaving. And I asked him if he would
make a notation of that fact that I had already re-
quested for us to have our jobs back, and he said
that he would. And I got that.
Q. Do you recall how, anything else about that
conversation?
A. No, Sir, I don't.
Q. Do you recall him saying anything concerning
why you have been cited from the desk?
A. I told him that St. Francis had put Ms. Gray
and myself in these positions for cause of our union
activity, and they did not want us working the jobs
that we wanted because of it. And they were trying
to run us off. They gave us the impression that they
no longer wanted our employment there.
Q. Did they say anything else?
A. Well, I told them that we were going to stay
in the jobs that we were in because we did need
work, and they were not going to run us off, if
thats what they had in mind, and we were going to
stay working, even if they did not give us the credit
office job.
II. FINI)INGS
General Counsel alleges that Wheeler was actually dis-
charged because of her union activity. I have concluded
on the basis of the entire record that General Counsel is
correct.
Vice President of Human Resources Hazel Dowd tes-
tified that the decision to discharge Wheeler was made
on August 10 during a conference which involved
Dowd, Crawford, Ege, and Chief Executive Officer
House. Dowd testified that they discussed Greene's
memo regarding his August 8 conversation with Wheeler
and decided that that was "the straw that broke the
camel's back."
Dowd testified that they then contacted their labor at-
torney before discharging Wheeler.
The record demonstrates that Wheeler engaged in no
activities on August 8 which, when considered in light of
Respondent's prior practice of disciplining employees for
misconduct, warranted disciplinary actions.
The Greene memo, which Dowd and the other high-
level supervisors considered in determining to discharge
Wheeler, indicate the following facts regarding Wheel-
er's conduct during the August 8 conversation:
You will see below several comments made by
Wheeler during the interview. Unfortunately, some
comments, were repeated and expanded upon in a
rapid-fire fashion that prevents me from furnishing
you a chronological description.
1. Ms. Wheeler and Ms. Gray are over-paid and
over-qualified in their present capacities.
2. The people running around in habits will deal
a mortal hell.
3. She and Ms. Gray got along well with Mr.
Scalia while in the collections department and pro-
duced excellent results.
4. Administration has dealt badly with hourly
employees and would pay for it.
5. She is strong union and would not be run off.
6. She is the kind of person who will look you
right in the damn eye and tell you what she thinks
of you.
Ms. Wheeler somewhat abruptly terminated the
conversation by standing up and saying, "It's 3:41. I
should have gone home 12(?) minutes ago. You
make a record of this because I'm going to.", and
left my office.
Although Greene concluded that Wheeler was very
abusive in conversation and approach, there is nothing in
the record, which demonstrates that Wheeler engaged in
misconduct or was insubordinate. The memo indicates
that Wheeler, in addition to requesting that she be re-
turned to the credit office, complained about the work-
ing conditions at St. Francis and stated her belief that
she had been taken out the credit department because of
her union activities.
Although Greene's memo was considered, the testimo-
ny of Dowd reveals that Greene himself was not includ-
ed in the group that decided to terminate Wheeler.
Moreover, I noticed that there is nothing in Greene's
memo which could be considered as a recommendation
that Wheeler be terminated. It appears from his com-
ments Greene was suggesting that Wheeler not be con-
sidered for transfer to a position in the credit office.
Under the rule of Burnup & Sims,5 General Counsel
has on the basis of the above facts demonstrated a viola-
tion. As shown by the Greene memo, Wheeler's August
8 conversation with Greene included protected concert-
' N.L.R.B. . Burnup & Sims. Inc., 379 U S 21 (1964).
1250
ST. FRANCIS H()SII'l AI
ed activity.6 I find that Wheeler's action on that occa-
sion was neither insubordinate nor did it involve miscon-
duct. In Burnup & Sims, the Supreme Court held:
In sum, Section 8(a)( ) is violated if it is shown
that the discharged employee was at the time en-
gaged in a protected activity, that the employer
knew it was such, that the basis of the discharge
was an alleged act of misconduct in the course of
the activity, and that the employee was not, in fact,
guilty of that misconduct.7
The evidence is persuasive that Wheeler's protected
activity was the primary motivation behind Respondent's
decision to discharge her. In fact other elements, over
and above those encompassed in the Burnup & Sims rule
demonstrate a violation.
Dowd revealed Respondent's practice regarding insub-
ordination by employees in her testimony regarding two
previous employees that had been discharged for insub-
ordination. According to Dowd, one employee was dis-
charged because she was very rude, "used rotten lan-
guage" to a patient and some coworkers. Another em-
ployee was discharged when he walked into a class and,
using profane language, yelled at an instructor. I find
nothing in the record which demonstrates that Wheeler
engaged in any conduct which would approach the level
of conduct which precipitated the discharges of the
other two employees. Therefore I find Wheeler was
treated in a disparate manner when she was discharged
on August 10.
I also find that the evidence supports the General
Counsel's contention that the asserted basis for Wheeler's
discharge was pretextuous. I make this finding on the
basis of my determination, as indicated above, that the
evidence reflects that Wheeler did not engage in miscon-
duct and was not insubordinate.
As to evidence of Respondent's true motivation, the
record is convincing that Respondent was unhappy with
Trudie Wheeler's continued insistence on throwing up
the Union to management. As shown by both Adminis-
trative Law Judge Boyce and the Board in its Decision,"
Respondent took discriminatory action against Wheeler
because of her union activities during the 1978 union or-
ganizing campaign. Administrative Law Judge Boyce's
decision issued in January 1979. Thereafter, there were
complaints that Wheeler had been treated too nicely by
Vice President Crow. Dowd testified that Wheeler
should have been fired a long time ago because of things
that "she had been let get by with."9 Crow testified that
it had been "thrown up" to him that he had not cracked
down on Wheeler.
It was in that background that Wheeler again threw
up her strong union convictions to a supervisor. As
stated by Dowd that was "the straw that broke the
camel's hack." Under the circumstances I find the evi-
6 Mrs Wheeler, by complaining about sorking conditions and stating
her position as "strong union," was engaged in protected aclisi. She
also requested reassignment on behalf of both herself and employee Shir-
ley Gray
7 See also Rubin Bras IrFotrer. Inc. 99 NLRB 61() (1952)
8 St Francis Hospital. 249 NLRB 18IO 1980)
However, the eidence failed to prose hat Wheeler did in fact
engage in actlisty which should hase resulted in her discharge
dence convincing that Wheeler was discharged because
of her continued assertions of Union support."'
In consideration of the entire record and the showing
of Respondent's union animus in the prior case, I con-
clude that Wheeler was discharged in violation of the
Act.
CONCI SIONS oF LAW
The Respondent, St. Francis Hospital, is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. United Paper Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
3. By discharging its employee Trudie Wheeler on
August 10, 1980, and thereafter failing and refusing, and
continuing to fail and refuse, to reinstate Wheeler Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THft REMED1)
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall recommend it be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As I have found that Respondent unlawfully dis-
charged Trudie Wheeler, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be ordered to offer her immediate and full rein-
statement to her former job or, if that job no longer
exist, to a substantially equivalent position, without prej-
udice to her seniority or other rights and privileges. I
shall further recommend that Respondent be ordered to
make Trudie Wheeler whole for any loss of earnings she
may have suffered as a result of the discrimination
against her. Backpay may be computed with interest as
described in F W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289
(1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977). '
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record and pursuant Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER 12
The Respondent, St. Francis Hospital, its officers.
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
(a) Offer Trudie Wheeler immediate and full reinstate-
ment to her former job or, if that job no longer exist, to
a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to
her seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
l'a lelav Rockiwool. Division of Rockwsool Industries. Inc, 218 NLRB 577
1975)
" See, generally, Isis Plumbing Hearing Co. 118 NIRH 716 (1962)
2 In he evenrit no exceplions are filed as prov ided b Sec 1024 of
the Rules and Regulationls of the National Labor Relatiotls Board, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall. as proided in Sec
102,48 of the Rules and Regulallons, be adopted hb the Board and
become its findings, conclusilns. and ()rder, and all hbjectilins thereto
shall be deemed wais cd fr all purposes
1251
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wheeler whole for any loss of earnings she may have
suffered as a result of the discrimination against her, in
the manner set forth in the section of this Decision enti-
tled "The Remedy."
(b) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all
payroll records, social security payment records, time-
cards, personnel records and reports, and all other re-
cords necessary or useful to analyze the amounts of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(c) Post in its facility in Monroe, Louisiana, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix."'3 Copies of the
i:1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted
notice on forms to be provided by the Regional Director
for Region 15, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pur-
suant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
1252