Syracuse Dy-Dee Diaper Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 963 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

DIAPER SERVICESYRACUSE DY-DEE
Syracuse Dy-Dee Diaper Service and Service Em-
ployees' International Union, Local 200, AFL-
CIO. Case 3-CA-8682
August 27, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND TRUESDAL.E
On May 19, 1980, Administrative Law Judge
George Norman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
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 brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions' of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
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 and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Syracuse Dy-
Dee Diaper Service, Syracuse, New York, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the
action set forth in the said recommended Order,
except that the attached notice is substituted for
that of the Administrative Law Judge.
I We agree with the Administrative Law Judge that, based on circum-
stantial evidence, including the size of the plant, the timing of the dis-
charges, and the pretextual reasons asserted for the discharges, the con-
clusion is warranted that Respondent had knowledge of Grevelding's and
Jacob's union activities before their discharges. Florida Cities Water Com-
pany, 247 NLRB No. 111 (1980). In addition, we note that Grevelding
procured union authorization cards and distributed them to employees on
her break, invited employees to attend a union meeting at her home
before she was terminated, and openly expressed prounion sentiments and
handed out authorization cards to other employees. Thus, inasmuch as
Grevelding's and Jacobs' union activities at Respondent's small plant
"were carried on in such a manner, or at times that in the normal course
of events, Respondent must have noticed them," Respondent's knowledge
of those activities may be inferred. See Coral Gables Convalescent Home.
Inc., 234 NLRB 1198 (1978).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportu-
nity to present evidence and state their positions,
251 NLRB No. 135
963
the National Labor Relations Board found that we
have violated the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, and has ordered us to post this notice.
Wi W Il. NOT terminate employees or fail
or refuse to reinstate employees for engaging
in protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOTr discriminate in regard to the
hire and tenure and terms and conditions of
employment of our employees thereby dis-
couraging membership in a labor organization
by termination of them.
WE WIll. NOT interrogate our employees or
tell them we do not want to hear anything
more about the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WIl.L offer immediate and full reinstate-
ment to Genevieve Grevelding and Elizabeth
Jacobs to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent posi-
tions, without prejudice to their seniority or
other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and WE WILL make them whole for their lost
earnings, with interest.
SYRACUSE DY-DEE DIAPER SERVICE
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE NORMAN, Administrative Law Judge: Service
Employees' International Union Local 200, AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union, filed a charge against Syracuse
Dy-Dee Diaper Service, herein called Respondent, on
September 6, 1978. The General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, on
behalf of the Board by the Acting Regional Director for
Region 3 issued a complaint and notice of hearing based
on that charge on April 24, 1979.
The General Counsel's complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor
Relations Act, herein called the Act. Specifically, the
General Counsel alleges that on or about September 1,
1978,' at Respondent's plant, Respondent, by its supervi-
sor or agent, Harvey Tucker, discharged employees Ge-
nevieve Grevelding and Elizabeth Jacobs and has failed
and refused to rehire them to their former or substantial-
ly equivalent positions. The complaint also alleges that
Respondent discharged those employees because they
joined or assisted the Union and engaged in other union
concerted or protected concerted activity for purposes of
collective bargaining or mutual aid or protection.
The complaint also alleges Respondent, by its supervi-
sor, Ron Reid, interrogated an employee concerning that
and other employees' union activities and, by its presi-
dent, Harvey Tucker, told an employee he did not want
I All events herein occurred in the year 1978 unless otherwise indicat-
ed.
964 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to hear anything more about the Union. The complaint
further alleges that Respondent by the acts described
above interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is in-
terfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act, and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(l) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act. The complaint further alleges that Respond-
ent by discharging employees Grevelding and Jacobs dis-
criminated and is discriminating in regard to the hire
tenure, and terms and conditions of employment of its
employees; thereby discouraging membership in a labor
organization; and thereby engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
The Respondent filed an answer to the General Coun-
sel's complaint and denied the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices. The hearing was held before me
on September 12 and 13, 1979, at Syracuse, New York.
Briefs have been received from the General Counsel and
Respondent.
Upon the entire record, from my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and having considered the
post-hearing briefs, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
Respondent operates a diaper processing and service
plant, with its principal office and place of business in
Syracuse, New York. Respondent also maintains a facili-
ty in Rochester, New York. It has approximately 7 em-
ployees in the Rochester location and about 43 employ-
ees at the Syracuse plant. Respondent has operated at the
Syracuse location since about January 1947. Harvey
Tucker is president of the Respondent corporation and
Ron Reid is the manager of the Syracuse plant.
The following procedure is followed in the plant from
the time that the diapers are returned to the plant to the
point where they reach the folding table. When the dia-
pers come into the plant they are put into washing ma-
chines and washed for a period of 76 minutes, with 14
changes of water, using temperatures of 191 degrees with
live steam injected. After the diapers are washed and re-
moved from machines they go through the tumbling de-
partment where they are put into tumblers or dryers.
Each bundle is put into an individual tumbler and the pin
number that accompanies that bundle all the way
through the process stays on the outside of that tumbler.
A nylon net and the pin accompany the bundle through-
out the process.
After the diapers come out of the tumbler, they are
brought to the fold department with the particular deli-
veryman's bundles kept together. An employee in the
folding department records the pin number of a bundle
on a sheet, opens the pin, shakes the contents of the
bundle on a table, and then goes through each diaper
looking at both sides and stacking it. One diaper is laid in
one direction and nine are placed on the top of that
diaper in another direction The bottom diaper is then
folded over the 9 to make a unit of 10. Anytime the
folder sees a stained, torn, or frayed diaper she replaces
that diaper with a good one from a bundle beside her.
Respondent considers it very important that stained dia-
pers do not go back to a customer. The stain could have
been caused by cod liver oil, mildew, orange juice,
blood, rust, or Desitin. It is important that the count in
the particular bundle remains the same so, as previously
indicated, each rejected diaper is replaced from a stack
of good quality diapers.
Jacobs testified that she was the only employee who
had any substantial contact with any bundle of diapers
which she handled and that her work could be identified
by her notation on the bundle that she worked on as ap-
peared on daily and weekly production sheets.
The Discharge of Elizabeth Jacobs
Respondent contends that its discharge of Elizabeth
Jacobs was warranted business reasons, that she was ter-
minated without any union animus on the part of Re-
spondent, and that there was no violation of the Act in
her discharge.
Jacobs began her employment with Respondent about
7 or 8 years ago, and except for a maternity leave she
was in Respondent's continuous employ as a folder and
inspector of diapers. Jacobs testified concerning a con-
versation she had with Tucker in early August 1978, re-
garding her ability to read, write, and count, and Tucker
offered that she take some type of reading course at his
expense. She further testified that approximately I week
before her discharge was the first time she met with the
representative of the Union and had met him on only
two occasions before her termination. Prior to her termi-
nation she handed out union authorization cards outside
the plant premises during her break period. She said that
no comments were made by her to management or by
management to her concerning her union activities and,
to the best of her knowledge, nobody representing the
Respondent was present when she engaged in those
union activities. She also said she never had any occasion
to speak to Tucker, Reid, or any other representative of
management regarding her union organizational efforts.
She further testified that she had never received any
disciplinary warnings regarding her work, but at the time
of her termination she was advised as to some of the rea-
sons for her termination.
Tucker testified that between May 24 and the time of
Jacobs' termination on September 1, the rejects in the
bundles handled by her were substantially below the
average number of rejects in the bundles of other em-
ployees handling an equivalent number of diapers, but
that an increase in the number of diapers rejected by a
particular folder does not adversely reflect upon or
reduce that folder's productivity rate, inasmuch as the
folder would receive credit for every diaper rejected
along with those passed through.
He said that in early 1978 complaints were received
from customers regarding the quality of the bundles
which were handled by Jacobs and the passing of
"stained" diapers on to customers without proper rejec-
SYRACUlSE [ DY-)Dt I)IAPLIR SRVIC'I )hs
tion. Tucker said that these complaints wxere brought to
Jacobs' attention not only by himself but also by Reid
and Supervisor Bernie Skopenski. i'Tucker said that
during 1978 he spoke to Jacobs regarding those com-
plaints on approximately six occasions and that the poor
quality of her bundles was brought to his attention every
3 weeks. Tucker said that the quality of the bundles han-
dled by her deteriorated from early 1978 up to the time
of her discharge and that he advised her she could be
discharged if there was no improvement. Tucker said
that while Jacobs' productivity was high, the number of
her rejects was low, which indicated to him that she was
not removing stained diapers from the bundles, but
rather was returning them to the customers.
Manager Reid testified that Respondent was having
problems with the quality of Jacobs' work and the first
complaints came to Reid's attention in late 1977. He said
that following these complaints and throughout the
period from late 1977 through 1978 he spoke with Jacobs
on several occasions as soon as they had a complaint as
to one of her bundles. He said he first noticed her count-
ing problems a couple of months prior to her termination
at the same time that he received complaints from cus-
tomers concerning shortages.
Reid denied that he had any knowledge of union activ-
ity at the plant prior to the discharge of Jacobs and, fur-
ther, that he had not heard of Jacobs engaging in any
union activities prior to her discharge.
The Discharge of Employee Genevieve Grevelding
Genevieve Grevelding started working for Respondent
on August 18, 1966, and worked until September 1, 1978,
when she and Jacobs were discharged by Respondent.
She was employed as a group leader who made up new
orders for expectant mothers and trained new employees.
She occupied that position for approximately 3-1/2 years
before her discharge. Grevelding said that there were 12
to 14 employees in the folding operation on August 23
when she met with Union Representative Jerry Dennis.
On that date she and Jacobs went to lunch at the
Depot Grill and was introduced to Dennis by Don
Cerrio. Dennis gave Grevelding some application cards
for membership in the Union which she and Jacobs
signed and returned. Dennis gave them cards to pass
around at the shop on their own time. Grevelding passed
out a few cards in the back room on her 2 p.m. break the
next day to employees in the dryer room. She spoke in-
dividually to 10 or I employees.
Grevelding and Jacobs met again with Union Repre-
sentative Dennis on August 23 at Finley's Grill & Bar.
While discussing the Union with Dennis. Grevelding ob-
served that Respondent's employee, Jack DeCaire, was
eating lunch there also.
On September 1, Tucker approached Grevelding and
fired her. That day was payday. It was Grevelding's job
on payday to get the paychecks to pass them out. She
got the checks and while sorting them she noticed that
her check was not among the others. She then proceeded
to go to the back room and pass out the checks. Tucker
happened to be working between the two employees to
whom Grevelding gave the paychecks. Tucker gave
Grevelding her check and two policies. He told her that
he had paid the premiums on them up to September. At
that time he told her he had heard that she was looking
for another job and that "she would have to end it." As
she was gathering her belongings to leave, he told her he
would mail her last check. Tucker did not mention her
work performance on that occasion. = Greelding stated
that when her check was missing she surmised that she
was going to be discharged. When asked why she
thought that, Grevelding said that Jacobs came down
from the office earlier that day with her paycheck and
Jacobs told Grevelding that she had been fired by
Tucker and she therefore assumed she too was going to
be fired. Her assumption was correct.
Grevelding further testified that she had union meet-
ings after that at her house on September 2, 3. and 5. She
said Jacobs, Dennis, and she were present at all three
and that on September 3, Bob Hodge, Tom Heron, and
Jo Rivera were also present for the meeting. As for the
meeting of September 5, Grevelding said she invited
fellow employees, Eve Clark. Bob Heron, Tom Hodge,
and Elizabeth Jacobs to it before she was discharged on
September I.3
Respondent's position is that the record amply justifies
the discharge of Genevieve Grevelding. Grevelding, on
cross-examination, testified that her primary job function
was to make up orders for new customers and for poten-
tial customers and that on a general basis she was the
only one in the employ of Respondent who handled or
made up such orders. She admitted she was familiar with
the necessity of having clean diapers for new customers
and potential customers and that special consideration
was given to these bundles. Grevelding also admitted
that in the fall or early winter of 1977 she spoke with
Reid to discuss the problems Dy-Dee Diaper was having
with the quality of her bundles and the inclusion of
soiled diapers in these bundles. Thereafter Grevelding
again spoke with Reid in mid-August, prior to any con-
tact by her with the Union. at which time Reid advised
her of problems in her work performance; namely, her
bad attitude; her home related problems; too much talk-
ing while working; throwing order slips around; and that
she advised Reid she was looking for another job. Gre-
velding said that the following day she had a conversa-
tion with Tucker and that during that conversation
Tucker discussed the matters that Reid had discussed
with her the previous day. Grevelding said that the first
time she spoke with the Union was following these two
interviews with Tucker and Reid and that this meeting
occurred around August 23. She further stated that when
she was engaged in union activities, either in the plant or
in the general environs of the plant, there was no repre-
2 During the second or third week of August prior to her discharge
Grevelding as called to Tucker's office and was told b him that he
heard hrough Reid that she was looking for another job She told
Tucker that she was not looking for another job but that she had asked
Reid what he could do about getting her a raise He responded that in
order lor her to gel a rais e she would hase to get out more production
because that is sshere the money is coming from and hat is ho he
could gtse her a raise G(re'elding said that he saw the nmion repre-
sentalive after that clinversatliol
' Emplioee Michael tHodge corroborated Gtreselding's testimoniot that
(irevelding had aked him l alttelld the uillon meeting ill her home oln
September 5 before he s a tlrnlilllilcd
DECISIONS OF NATIONAI. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentative from management present. She said that on the
date of her discharge she did not tell Tucker about her
union activities and that she had not told him that her
discharge was in any way related to her union activities.
Tucker testified that during the fall of 1977 the Com-
pany had problems with Grevelding and that the prob-
lems were brought to Grevelding's attention three or
four times a week during 1978 by other representatives
of the Respondent. Tucker also stated that during 1978
he had occasion to personally speak to Grevelding re-
garding her work product and particularly did so during
June and July 1978. Tucker testified that he had no
knowledge of any union activity prior to the discharge
of Grevelding.4
Elaine Hamm, an employee who worked in the office,
testified that her job included accepting "call in" orders
and complaints from customers. She said she had prob-
lems whenever she presented a "call in" order to Gre-
velding and asked her to service customers who person-
ally came into the plant. Hamm stated further the re-
marks made by Grevelding over the intercom system
were improper but that she had had such difficulty with
Grevelding for 2 or 3 years prior to her discharge.
Interrogation of Employee Michael Hodge by
Supervisor Ronald Reid
Michael Hodge testified that he first found out about
the union activities in the plant near the end of August
when Grevelding told him about it. He said that Gre-
velding told him there would be a tentative meeting on
or about September 3, and one on September 5, and that
he had agreed to attend the meeting at Grevelding's
home on September 5. le said that Grevelding gave him
a union membership application card, and that when he
attended the meeting on September 5 he had signed the
card and turned it over to Bennett's union representative.
Hodge said that he had a conversation with Reid in the
week prior to the meeting; that Reid approached him
and asked him what was going on and Hodge asked,
"What are you talking about?" Reid said, "You know
what I'm talking about." Hodge said he "got the idea
that Reid was speaking of the Union" and said, "Are you
speaking of the Union?" Reid replied "Yes." Reid asked
him what was going on, if he knew anything that was
going on and Hodge told him he did not. Reid asked him
if he knew there was a meeting. Hodge replied that he
did know that there was a meeting on the following
week on a Tuesday and that he had been asked to attend
the meeting. Hodge testified that Tucker also asked him
who was at the meeting and that he told him that he did
not have to tell if he did not choose to do so.
Hodge was asked if he recalled the conversations that
he had concerning first learning about the union activity
with Grevelding which took place in the last week of
August and that he recalls both Grevelding and Jacobs
were still employed at the time of these conversations.
Hodge on cross-examination testified that Tucker told
him that he let Jacobs and Grevelding go because they
I For reasons discussed injr. I do not believe that either Tucker ,or
Reid had any knowledge of Gre.elding'N and Jacohs union activities in
the planlt
were constantly complaining; were bitter about the Com-
pany; their attitude was affecting their work: and that he
did not discharge them because of any union activity.
Hodge further stated that it was Tucker who told him it
was his right to get involved with the Union if he so
wished. And added that he did not want the Union in
here but that he could live with it.
Reid testified that he recalled that his conversation
with Hodge regarding the union meetings took place
shortly after Labor Day and that this conversation took
place in the plant driveway. 5
Discussion and Conclusions
Elizabeth Jacobs and Genevieve Grevelding had been
long time employees of Respondent. Respondent's plant
in Syracuse housed approximately 42 employees. Both
Jacobs and Grevelding, by virtue of the longtime em-
ployment relationship with Respondent's president,
Harvey Tucker, were known by him both as to their
performance on the job and to a certain extent their per-
sonal lives. Jacobs as a folder was required, among other
things, to count accurately. Yet, after years of employ-
ment in that position. Respondent uses her alleged inabil-
ity to count as one of the reasons for terminating her
within 2 weeks following her organizing effort on behalf
of the Union.
Genevieve Grevelding was also known by Respondent
for years in both the employment relationship and as a
tenant of Respondent who occasionally borrowed money
from him. And yet less than 2 weeks after she and
Jacobs had begun an organizational drive in behalf of the
Union both were discharged on the same day after 12 and
7 years of employment, respectively, with Respondent.
Respondent contends that the reasons they were dis-
charged were for poor quality work, bad attitudes, and
discussion of their sex lives in the plant. As for the latter,
Respondent's president, Tucker, testified that neither dis-
cussed her sex life with him directly but he learned of
their discussions in the plant through complaints of the
other employees. Tucker and his plant manager, Reid,
testified that poor performance of the two women was
observed by them many months before the occasion of
their discharge. Neither explained why it took them so
long to terminate Grevelding and Jacobs.
As for Respondent's knowledge of the union activity,
Respondent denied such knowledge prior to the dis-
charge of the two union organizers. The General Coun-
sel contends that the testimony of Michael Hodge with
that of Ronald Reid establiblishes that Respondent had
such knowledge in this case. The General Counsel
argues alternatively that the record reveals circumstantial
evidence sufficient to justify an inference of knowledge.
I agree with the latter reason and conclude that Re-
spondent had knowledge of the union activies prior to
I discredit Hodge's testimony as to when he iifirmed Respondent
He ga'e prior inconsistent statements and his memory :as not god
However, in applying "small slhop-theory. " I flind that there is a strttong
inference. ad I infer, that Respondeint had knoss ledge of the union aclti-
ileis in the plant prior to the discharge f Grcveldinig and Jacobs and that
their discharge was because they engaged in uniclitilisiti
966
SYRACUSE DY-DEE DIAPER SRVICFq
the discharges and that the reasons offered by Respond-
ent for the discharges are pretextual.
In reaching that conclusion I have placed weight on
the following undisputed facts:
I. Respondent employed only 42 employees in thie
Syracuse plant. It was a small plant. There is a strong in-
ference the Respondent knew that Grevelding and
Jacobs were passing out union cards and having meet-
ings.
2. The longtime employment relationship between the
affected employees and Respondent should have made it
aware of their work performance long before the occa-
sion of the discharges.
3. The discharges occurring on the same day and
within 2 weeks of the organizational drive appears to be
more than coincidental.
When considering the above facts I find it hard to be-
lieve that Respondent had no knowledge of Grevelding
and Jacobs' union activities prior to their discharge. I
therefore conclude that Respondent had knowledge of
their union activities and that Grevelding and Jacobs
were discharged because of their union activities and not
for the reasons stated by Respondent. Florida Cities
Water Company, 247 NLRB No. I II (1980); Tbm'v Ifbrd.
Incorporated, 233 NLRB 23 (1977); Marsden Electric
Company. Inc.. 226 NLRB 1097 (1976): Rose Tool & Plas-
tics, Inc., 218 NLRB 506 (1975); Wiese Plow Welding Co.,
Inc., 123 NLRB 616 (1959).
The Alleged Interrogation
The complaint alleges that Supervisor Reid interrogat-
ed Michael Hodge concerning his and other employees'
union activities in late August or early September. Con-
sidering the admissions of Reid concerning that conver-
sation, I credit Hodge and find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by Reid's interrogation of
Hodge.
The Allegation that Respondent Tucker Told an
Employee He Did Not Want to Hear Anything
More About the Union
It is alleged that in mid-September Harvey Tucker
told an employee (Michael Hodge) that he did not want
to hear anything more about the Union.
I find that Tucker did indeed tell Hodge that he
(Tucker) did not want to hear anything more about the
Union and that such a statement constituted interference
with Hodge's Section 7 rights in violation of 8(a)(1) of
the Act.
CONCLUSIONS O: LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By terminating Genevieve Grevelding and Elizabeth
Jacobs and refusing to recall them because they engaged
in protected concerted activities, the Respondent en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By terminating Genevieve Grevelding and Elizabeth
Jacobs. the Respondent discriminated and is discriminat-
ing in regard to the hire and tenure and terms and condi-
tions of emploxlment of its employees, thereby discourag-
ing membership in a labor organization, and Respondent
thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfiair labor prac-
tices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
its interrogation of Michael Hodge and its statement to
him that it did riot want to hear anything about the
Union.
it! Ril y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices I find it necessary to order the Re-
spondent to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative actiol designed to effectuate tlhe policies of
the Act.
The Respondent having terminated Gieneic e (ire-
velding and Elizabeth Jacobs in violation of their rights
under Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. I fiid it neces-
sary to order Respondent to offer each full reinstatement
to her former position, or, if that position o longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position with backpay
computed as prescribed in F W 4 WoolvHortlh Company, 90
NLRB 289 (1950). plus interest as set forth il l is Plumb-
ing & Heating Company, 138 NI RB 716 (1962), and Flor-
ida Steel Corporation. 231 NLRB 651 (1977).
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 recom-
mended:
ORDER6
The Respondent. Syracuse Dy-Dee Diaper Service.
Syracuse, Nex York. its officers, agents successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Terminating employees and failing and refusing to
reinstate employees for engaging in protected concerted
activity.
(b) Discriminating against its employees in regard to
the hire and tenure and term of conditions of employ-
ment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership
in a labor organization.
(c) Interrogating and stating to employees that it does
not want to hear anything more about the Union.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering ith. re-
straining, or cocrceing employees in the exercise of their
rights under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessar to
effectuate the purpose of the Act:
(a) Offer Genevieve Grevelding and Elizabeth Jacobs
immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs, or,
' IIn the esilCl I11 cCeptiIIs Ire filed as pro idcd h Scc 1()2 46 of he
Rules, and Regulations f he National Labor Rlaionrs loaridl. the find-
inlg. conciimllls. and recolrrlll derdL ()rdcr hereill h,I. , i pr sided III
Sec 102 4 ot the Rules Iand Rtgtilllnrs. he . \oipel b I1e J l arld
heoni its ill 1 n llag l,l. ;ll1O i. ld ()rder . id .111, h1 t.kl l 11 i} Th
shall he dnlctlrd ail tl for all purpozs'
967
968 DECISIONS OF NAI()ONAL LA13)R REI.A I()NS H()ARI)
if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, and make them whole for their loss of earnings
in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision en-
titled "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 records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order,
(c) Post at its place of business in Syracuse, New
York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix." 7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
7 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 h
Regional Director for Region 3, after being duly signed
by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately up receipt there-
of, and he maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable 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 3, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Order of Ihe Nationral l.abor Relations I ard" shall read "P'tosted P'uru-
ant to a Judgmellt of the United States Court tof Appeals EnlforciB an
Order of the National I abohr Relations oard "