The La Grange Land Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 693 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME 693
Colonial Manor Convalescent & Nursing Home, a
Division of' The La Grange Land Corporation
and Council # 19, American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees , AFL-CIO.
Case 13-CA-9094
July 29, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On January 30, 1970, Trial Examiner John G.
Gregg issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged
in and was engaging in certain unfair labor prac-
tices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Decision and a supporting brief, and the General
Counsel filed an answering 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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the
briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order, the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that Respondent, Colonial Manor Con-
valescent & Nursing Home, a Division of the La
Grange Land Corporation, La Grange, Illinois, its
officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall take
the action set forth in the Trial Examiner 's recom-
mended Order.
' The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the trial.
16, and 1.7, 1969, based on a charge filed by Coun-
-cil #19, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, on May 6, 1969,
as amended on May 8, 1969, and a complaint is-
sued October 29, 1969, by the Regional Director
for Region 13 of the National Labor Relations
Board.
The complaint alleges essentially that the
Respondent committed unfair labor practices in
refusing and failing to reinstate its employee Ollie
Mason, because he had engaged in activities pro-
tected by the Act, and that thereby the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In its
answer the Respondent denies the commission of
any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in this case, from my ob-
servation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testified, and after due consideration of the argu-
ments and briefs herein, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is, and has been at all times
material herein, a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Illinois, maintaining a place of
business at 339 Ninth Avenue, La Grange, illinois,
under the name of Colonial Manor Convalescent &
Nursing Home, a Division of the La Grange Land
Corporation,' where it is now, and at all times
material herein has been, engaged in the business of
providing residential nursing, convalescent and
health care services, and related services.
During the past year, a representative period, the
Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, realized gross revenues in excess of
$800,000. During the past year, a representative
period, the Respondent, in the course and conduct
of its business operations, caused goods valued in
excess of $50,000 to be shipped into Illinois
directly or indirectly from out of the State of Il-
linois.
The Respondent is now, and at all times material
herein has been, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Council , # 19, American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees , AFL-CIO,
herein called the Union , is and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOHN G. GREGG, Trial Examiner: This trial was
conducted at Chicago, Illinois , on December 15,
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The complaint alleges essentially that on or about
April 14, 1969, certain employees of the Respond-
' The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing
184 NLRB No. 80
694 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent at the convalescent home engaged in a con-
certed withholding of their services in support of
the Union, and that on or about May 2, 1969, this
concerted withholding of services was terminated.
It alleges that since on or about May 2, 1969, and
continuing to date, the Respondent has refused and
failed to reinstate its employee Ollie Mason at the
convalescent home because he had engaged in the
concerted withholding of services described above,
and/or because of his other activities on behalf of
the Union, and/or because of his participation in
other concerted activities for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protec-
tion, and that by the aforesaid acts, the Respondent
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act, and that by said acts the Respondent did
discriminate and is discriminating against em-
ployees with respect to hire, tenure, and other con-
ditions of employment in order to discourage mem-
bership in a labor organization, thereby violating
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
A. The Activities of Ollie Mason
Neal Bratcher , an employee of Council #19,
Chicago and Cook County , American Federation of
State , County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO, testified that in connection with his job
he had occasion to participate in the organizing
campaign among the employees of the nursing
home . Bratcher stated that the campaign com-
menced some time around February or March 1968
and that Ollie Mason, an employee and the organiz-
ing keyman at the home , was instructed to secure
authorization cards signed for membership in the
Union . On May 13 , 1968, according to Bratcher,
leaflets were passed out at the home , and he,
Bratcher , gave copies of the leaflet to the key mem-
bers who passed them out at the gate outside the
home . Bratcher testified that following the certifi-
cation of Council #19 as the bargaining representa-
tive of the employees , meetings were held in an at-
tempt to negotiate a contract and that Ollie Mason
was on the Union 's negotiating team.
About 4 or 5 days prior to the strike , which com-
menced on April 14, 1968, Bratcher attended a
bargaining meeting in connection with the contract
proposals . For the Union at the meeting were Ollie
Mason , Mrs. Kemmerling , Mrs. Camp, Tom
Beagley, and Bratcher, while for the convalescent
home , Mrs. Temple and Mr . Colianni were the
representatives together with Mr . Lesser , the attor-
ney for the home, and Mr. Criel, a labor relations
consultant for the home . Bratcher testified that
after April 14, there were pickets around the home,
that he appointed Ollie Mason as picket captain,
and that Ollie Mason was on the picket line for the
duration of the strike , a period of relatively 2
weeks . Bratcher described the placards used by the
pickets, indicating that one legend stated "on
strike," one was on pay increases , and another on
vacations and fringe benefits.
The record indicates that on May 2, 1969, Tom
Beagley , director of Council #19, addressed to Mr.
Herbert Lesser, attorney for the Respondent, a
letter received by Mr. Lesser shortly after mailing
which indicated that the strikers had been in-
structed to return to work, and which requested a
meeting for the purpose of negotiating a contract.
The record also discloses that on January 23,
1969, Herbert Lesser, sent a letter to Ollie Mason
in which Lesser advised Mason to confine himself
to the proper and correct performance of assigned
duties and to restrict his union activities to his
lunch hour, rest periods, and off-duty hours and
"not to interfere with the normal functioning of the
nursing home at any time." Lesser went on to in-
dicate that Mason had seen fit to disregard these in-
structions and had also engaged in other allegedly
improper acts enumerated in the letter. The letter
closed with the statement that it was a final warning
and indicated that "If you at any time after receipt
of this letter seek to influence the actions of any
person connected with the nursing home in any way
other than those rights permitted you by law to act
on behalf of the Union at recognized bargaining
sessions , you will be summarily dismissed."
Subsequently, under date of February 25, 1969,
Lesser wrote to the Union indicating that Mason
was soliciting support for a strike and was threaten-
ing possible physical violence for those not support-
ing the strike. Lesser advised the Union that he be-
lieved the Union had agreed to advise Mason that
Mason 's union activities were to be confined to off-
duty hours and to areas away from the nursing
home but that apparently Mason was either acting
under the Union's express direction or had chosen
to flaunt the Union's authority. On February 25,
1969, the Union replied indicating that it had no
knowledge of threats by Mason and stating the
position of the Union that it would not engage in
nor authorize anyone to engage in any violence.
There is ample testimony of this record to
establish the fact and I find that there was a work
stoppage from April 14 to May 2, 1969, and that
Ollie Mason was actively engaged in concerted ac-
tivities on behalf of the Union, prior to and includ-
ing active participation in the work stoppage from
April 14 through May 2, and that the Respondent
had knowledge of these activities.
B. The Refusal To Reinstate Ollie Mason
Ollie Mason testified that prior to the work stop-
page, he was employed as a washer by the Respond-
ent, that at the end of the stoppage he appeared at
the convalescent home on May 3, 1969, at 7:30
a.m., with six or seven other individuals who had
also been on strike, figuring he was going back to
work. The group met briefly at the home with
Bratcher who told them to go in. They went
COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME
downstairs and sat in the dining room, no one say-
ing a word, according to Mason . Then Mason's
sister , Marcella Hawkins, an employee of the
Respondent and a supervisor, told them to go up-
stairs, that Mrs. Temple would see them upstairs.
Mason then talked with Mrs. Temple alone in a
room on the second floor. According to Mason, "I
come in and she told me to have a chair and I did. I
sat down and she told me that they called this meet-
ing. She called me in there to tell me that there was
not a job for me in the home anymore and I could
go home. I turned around and got up and walked
out."
Jane Adams Temple testified she was employed
by the Respondent at the home as its administrator.
She reports to the board of directors and the func-
tioning of the home is her responsibility. Temple
testified that Mason was employed by the Respond-
ent on March 17, 1967, as a washman in the
laundry where he worked until April 14, 1969,
when he commenced picketing the home together
with other employees.
Temple testified that since the laundry is essen-
tial to sanitation in the care of the home's 165 pa-
tients, it was imperative to continue this function
on April 14, when the stoppage occurred. She as-
signed the washman duties to another employee,
Mr. McPherson, for performance. According to
Temple, on May 2, 1969, Mason appeared with a
group of employees and requested to talk with her.
Temple, who lives on the premises, indicated she
had to take her daughter to high school before
meeting with the group. When she returned she
went to the lounge where they were gathered.
Mason then told her he was returning to work. She
told him there was a new washman, "the job had
been replaced or he had been replaced in the job."
According to Temple, Mason then stated that he
had not expected to be reemployed. Temple
testified that Mason's job was filled by McPherson
who had worked temporarily as washman prior to
that time from March 16 to March 24, while Mason
was on vacation. At the time of the work stoppage
on April 14, McPherson again was assigned to work
as washman and continued through May 7, when he
resigned.
Mrs. Temple stated that when McPherson
resigned on May 7 she did not offer the job to
Mason but replaced McPherson with Mr. Caffee
who then filled the job through July 1969. During
the month of July, another employee, James
Camper, worked alternately with Caffee as wash-
man. Neither Caffee nor Camper currently work
as washman as the job is now filled by another em-
ployee, Westfall. Mrs. Temple stated that the
Respondent has not offered reinstatement to Ollie
Mason but that other picketing employees had
returned to work after the work stoppage , including
Mr. Camper, Mrs. Camp, who had also been in-
volved not only as a picket, but as a member of the
negotiating team, Mrs. McDaniels, Mr. Crow, Mr.
695
Gilbert, Mrs. Brown, Mrs. Chamberlin, Mrs. Miller,
and Mrs. Simmons.
Concerning her failure to consider Ollie Mason
for the washman job when it was vacated by
McPherson on May 7, Mrs. Temple testified that on
May 2 when the work stoppage ended McPherson
was still employed as the washman . When he
resigned on May 7, she discussed with Mrs. Haw-
kins, who was McPherson's supervisor, the fact that
McPherson was leaving and that the linens needed
to be washed. McPherson was going to stay to
finish the work that day and discussion was had
concerning which employee could fill the job. Ac-
cording to Mrs. Temple, when a vacancy occurs the
first place the Respondent looks is among the em-
ployees actually employed. According to Mrs. Tem-
ple, Mrs. Hawkins suggested that Mr. Caffee, who
worked under her supervision, could fill the job and
he was placed in it . Soon thereafter Mr. Camper
was alternating with him.
Q. Now on or about May 7, 1969, when
McPherson indicated to you that he was
quitting, did the name of Mr. Mason in any of
your discussions with Mrs. Hawkins, or anyone
on that date, did the name of Mr. Mason come
up in the course of those conversations about
what to do about replacing McPherson?
A. No sir.
Q. Did it occur to you at all?
A. Mr. Mason wasn 't discussed. It simply
didn't occur to us.
Mrs. Temple stated further that prior to April 14
when the work stoppage occurred, she had had oc-
casion to discuss Mr. Mason with members of
management and his supervisor. She indicated that
there was frequent conflict between Mason and his
supervisor, Mr. Myrha, concerning the materials
being used in the laundry, the source of purchase,
and the care and maintenance of the equipment.
According to Mrs. Temple, both Mason and Myhra
would stop to talk to her about this conflict from
time to time. Mrs. Temple testified that Mr. Mason
had a unique job, that in most of the jobs at the
home people work in a group and there are people
doing the same job. Mr. Mason's job was different
because he was under the supervision of Mr. Myhra
who had many responsibilities throughout the
building. There was no close supervision of lunch
hours and coffeebreaks and Mrs. Temple indicated
that discussions were had over the hours Mason
spent away from the job. Mrs. Temple also testified
that around January 1969 Mr. Mason at times in-
sisted that laundry be washed in an order other
than that required by Mrs. Hawkins who has
responsibility for the flow of laundry and that even
after discussion with him , Mason did not change his
order of washing. Temple stated that she asked
Myrha to talk to Mason about his failure to
cooperate in the laundry flow and that thereafter
there were times when the flow went smoothly and
other times when it did not.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mrs. Temple testified that she had discussed
Mason 's unsatisfactory job performance with Mr.
Lesser, attorney for the home , and that Lesser had
written a letter to Mason and also wrote and talked
with union officials about Mason 's conduct, which
according to Temple, was interfering with the work
of other employees in the building and with the
smooth functioning and operation of the nursing
home . Mrs. Temple testified further concerning an
incident when Temple sent home employees who
were suffering with the flu and Mason informed her
she could not do that as she was not a physician
and that the employees who were sent home would
be paid by the nursing home.
With respect to the allegedly unsatisfactory per-
formance of Mason , at the close of her testimony
Mrs. Temple stated directly that when she made the
decision on May 2 not to reinstate Mason , she did
not consider the trouble she was having with Mason
over the flow of laundry or the matters discussed
with Lesser , or the charges on Mason filed by the
home , but that the decision not to reinstate Mason
was based solely on the fact that there was no
vacancy for a washman on May 2.
Mrs. Temple also stated that when McPherson
quit on May 7, 1969, Mason was not considered for
the job because she went through the normal
procedure of evaluating employees who were then
actually employed and who could fill the job, that
Mason was not in the employ of the home on May
7 and he was not considered, nor even discussed in
connection with the washman vacancy.
Mrs. Temple stated that after August 28, 1969,
the date on which the Respondent was notified by
the Board 's Region 13 that there was merit to the
charge concerning Mr. Mason , the Respondent did
not offer reinstatement to Mason as a washman,
nor did it offer him any other job.
On further direct examination , Mrs. Temple
testified concerning a conversation on May 16,
1969, which she had with Mr. Criel , labor relations
advisor for the Respondent , in which Temple
elaborated on a letter she had furnished Criel, ex-
plaining her personnel actions relative to Mason
and a number of other individuals . According to
Temple, at this time she told Criel that Mason had
been replaced by McPherson , that McPherson had
resigned and been replaced by Caffee and Camper,
both on whom had participated in the strike, both
of whom did a fine job as washman , adding an air
of cooperation to the laundry. She also told Criel
that after April 14, a new supervisor (Hawkins) had
been placed in charge of the laundry , and that
Mason had at an earlier time specifically told Tem-
ple he would not take orders from Hawkins who
was his sister and whom he had raised . Mrs. Temple
stated she told Criel that "we couldn 't have a man
assuming duties in a nursing home with this attitude
toward supervision in general , and this supervision
in particular."
C. Discussion and Concluding Findings
As indicated in the findings hereinabove , the fact
has been established that Mason was an active par-
ticipant in the protected activities prior to and in-
cluding the period of the work stoppage and the
Respondent had knowledge thereof . It is well-set-
tled that employees have the right under the Act to
engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid
and protection and that employees who engage in
an economic strike are entitled to reinstatement
upon application prior to their permanent replace-
ment.
The Respondent admits that it did not reinstate
Mason but defends on the grounds that Mason did
not offer to return to work and in any event
Mason 's job had been permanently filled while he
was on strike and before the offer , if made, was
made . The Respondent argues essentially that Ollie
Mason did not make an unconditional offer to
return to work at the termination of the strike and
that the offer , if any, was vague and equivocal. The
Respondent buttresses this position by pointing out
that almost all of the employees who returned to
work reported or went directly to their respective
supervisors concerning their jobs , that Mrs . Temple
had not asked or instructed the supervisors to have
any returning employees meet with or talk to her,
and that , of the 37 or more strikers who were asser-
tedly instructed by the Union to return to work,
only six or seven asked to see Mrs. Temple first.
The Respondent also points out that at most Mason
in his testimony said he "figured" he was going
back to work and that Mason explained "after the
strike was over , we were supposed to go back to
work ." According to the Respondent , Mason's
testimony indicated that he had not told anyone he
was there to go to work . However, in her testimony,
Mrs. Temple , in discussing what took place when
she met with Mason and his group at the home that
morning , stated "I believe Mr. Mason said they
wanted to talk to me about returning to their jobs."
Mrs. Temple then went on to testify that in the
course of her conversation with Mason , she ex-
plained to him that his job had been filled and that
Mason responded that he had not expected` to be
reemployed anyway . According to Mrs . Temple,
Mason did not then inquire about any other job in
the home nor did he request Mrs. Temple to take
any action in the case of a later opening in the
home on his old job or on some other job.
There is uncontradicted testimony by Mason in
the record that Mason had talked to Mrs . Hawkins,
who was his sister , several times about going back
to work . While Mason stated that he talked to her
"at that time, that same morning, and afterwards,
too," and later appeared to contradict this
testimony when he stated that he did not go in and
talk to Mrs. Hawkins, but he just went over to the
tables and sat down, and that subsequently Mrs.
Hawkins came out and told them that Mrs. Temple
wanted them upstairs , based on my observation of
COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME
Mason as he testified, and his apparent inability at
times to be articulate, I do not find in these incon-
sistencies a basis for establishing a lack of credibili-
ty, but I am convinced that Mason has difficulty ex-
pressing himself clearly. I am persuaded on all the
facts and circumstances herein that Mason had
made it clear to Mrs. Hawkins before May 2 that he
was going to return to work at the end of the strike
and I am persuaded from his actions on that morn-
ing when he went to the home and sat down, facing
Mrs. Hawkins with a mutual understanding of his
purpose in being there, that Mrs. Hawkins, in con-
sonance with this mutual understanding, arranged
to have the group talk to Mrs. Temple and that
under these circumstances, it was clear to all that
the group including Mason was there to return to
work. This is borne out by Mrs. Temple's natural
reaction when she informed Mason there was no
job for him at the home. I am convinced that
Mason made an unequivocal offer to return to work
and I so find.
The question remaining then is whether, at the
time that Mason made his unequivocal offer to
return to work to Mrs. Temple, he had been per-
manently replaced by McPherson. There was much
testimony of.record concerning the replacement of
Mason by McPherson. While the question is close, I
am convinced that the Respondent established the
fact that Mason was permanently replaced. There is
insufficient basis in this record for finding other-
wise. In any event, when McPherson quit on May 7,
just 4 days after Mason was denied reinstatement,
the Respondent did not consider Mason for this
opening.
Mrs. Temple made it clear in her testimony that
on May 7 she did not even consider Mason for the
opening, "Mr. Mason was not discussed. It simply
didn't occur to us." Temple stated that Mason was
not considered for the opening on May 7 because
she went through the normal procedure of evaluat-
ing employees who were then actually employed
and who could fill the job and that because Mason
was not in the employ of the home on May 7, he
was not considered, not even discussed in connec-
tion with the washman vacancy which Mason had
filled prior to the strike. I find this failure to con-
sider Mason for the vacancy on May 7 to be in-
herently destructive of Mason's rights as an em-
ployee and find that thereby the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act as alleged
in the complaint. As stated by the Supreme Court
in N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., 389 U.S. 375,
(1967), "This basic right to jobs cannot depend
upon job availability as of the moment when the ap-
plications are filed. The right to reinstatement does
not depend upon technicalities relating to applica-
tion. On the contrary the status of the striker, as an
employee, continues until he has obtained `other
regular and substantially equivalent employment."'
Accepting Mrs. Temple's testimony at face value,
on May 7 Mason was denied the opportunity of
being considered for the vacancy because the
697
Respondent considered him other than an em-
ployee of the home entitled to consideration. Since
his status as an employee continued beyond his
denial of reinstatement on May 2 he was entitled on
May 7 to at least the same consideration and
evaluation for the job opening as that accorded to
every other employee. The failure of the Respond-
ent to accord him this consideration is clearly in-
herently destructive of Mason's rights as an em-
ployee and accordingly a violation of the Act. The
Laidlaw Corporation, 171 NLRB 1366 (1968);
N.L.R.B. v. Fleetwood Trailer Co., supra; N.L.R.B.
v. Great Dane Trailers, 388 U.S. 26 (1967).
While much was made by the Respondent of the
alleged unsatisfactory job performance of Mason
and of his conduct allegedly obstructing the normal
and efficient operation of the home, there is no
doubt but that on this record such alleged conduct
is substantially interwoven with activity which
would appear to be protected by the Act. Since the
Respondent clearly indicated that these alleged ac-
tivities were not considered by it in the failure on
May 7 to consider Mason for the vacancy, I find it
unnecessary to reach any findings or conclusions
with respect thereto.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact
and upon the entire record in the case, I make the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined
in Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By failing and refusing on May 7, 1969, to
consider Ollie Mason for the vacancy in the job of
washman as set forth in section III, above, the
Respondent discriminated against employees with
respect to hire, tenure, and other conditions of em-
ployment in order to discourage membership in a
labor organization, and did interfere with, restrain,
and coerce its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has
engaged in and is engaging 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 Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE REMEDY
I recommend that Respondent cease and desist
from their unfair labor practices, and that they take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Specifically, I shall recommend
that the Respondent offer to Ollie Mason im-
mediate and full reinstatement to the position of
washman, the vacant position for which the
Respondent discriminatorily failed and refused to
698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consider him on May 7, 1969, or to a substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to his
seniority and other rights and privileges. In so
recommending I am not unmindful of the testimony
of record concerning the alleged unsatisfactory na-
ture of Mason's employment, bearing in mind the
fact that these considerations did not enter into the
failure to consider Mason for reinstatement. I
further recommend that the Respondent make
Mason whole for any loss of earnings he may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against
him, by paying to him a sum of money equal to that
which he would have been paid by the Respondent
absent such discrimination, less net earnings during
the said period. The loss of earnings shall be com-
puted in the manner set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289, and Isis Plumbing & Heat-
ing Co., 138 NLRB 716.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The Respondent, Colonial Manor Convalescent
and Nursing Home, a Division of the La Grange
Land Corporation, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Unlawfully discriminating against its em-
ployees in regard to their hire, tenure of employ-
ment, or any term or condition of employment.
(b) In any other manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of any right guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action:
(a) Offer to Ollie Mason immediate and full
reinstatement to his former position as washman or
a substantially equivalent position, and make him
whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's discrimination against
him, in the manner set forth in the section herein
entitled "The Remedy."
(b) Notify the above-named employee, if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States of his right to full reinstatement upon
application in accordance with the Selective Ser-
vice Act and the Universal Military Training and
Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the
Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available
to the Board or its agents, for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Recommended Order.
(d) Post at its place of business in La Grange, Il-
linois, copies of the attached notice marked "Ap-
pendix."2 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 13, after being
duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall
be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and be maintained by them for 60
consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by them to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 13,
in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Decision, what steps have been taken to comply
herewith.3
2 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings , conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes In the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board "
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for
Region 13, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing which was held at Chicago, Illinois,
on December 15, 16, and 17, 1969, it was decided
that Colonial Manor Convalescent & Nursing
Home violated the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, by discriminatorily failing to consider
Ollie Mason for the washman job vacated on May
7, 1969.
WE WILL offer reinstatement to Ollie Mason
to the job of washman and pay him for all the
wages he lost because of our discriminatory ac-
tion.
COLONIAL MANOR
CONVALESCENT &
NURSING HOME, A
DIVISION OF THE LA
GRANGE LAND
CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
We will notify immediately the above-named in-
dividual if presently serving in the Armed Forces of
the United States, of the right to full reinstatement,
upon application after discharge from the Armed
Forces, in accordance with the Selective Service
COLONIAL MANOR CONVALESCENT & NURSING HOME 699
Act and the Universal Military Training and Service
Act.
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu-
tive days from the date of posting and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board 's Office, 881 U. S. Courthouse and Federal
Office Building, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Il-
linois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7570.