Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1988

291 N.L.R.B. 319 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA
Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza , Inc and Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union
Local No 20 , affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO 1
Case 8-CA-20261
September 30 1988
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT
On March 30 1988 Administrative Law Judge
Russell M King Jr issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief and the General Counsel filed exceptions and
a supporting brief The Respondent filed a brief in
reply to the General Counsels exceptions and the
Charging Party filed briefs in reply to the Re
spondent s and the General Counsel s exceptions
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The National Labor Relations Board has consid
ered the decision and the record in light of the ex
ceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the
judge s rulings findings 2 and conclusions to
modify the remedy 3 and to adopt the recommend
ed Order as modified 4
i On November 1 1987 the Teamsters International Union was read
mated to the AFL-CIO Accordingly the caption has been amended to
reflect that change
8 The judge inadvertently erred in fn 9 of his decision and par 2(c) of
the recommended Order in describing the information being requested by
the Union The date June 26 1986 should be June 24 1986 The
recommended Order has been modified to correct the date
In adopting the judge s finding that Dons Dunlap was given an unrea
sonable time to consider the reinstatement offer given her by the Re
spondent we note that our decision does not qualify our holding in Ester
line Electronics Corp 290 NLRB 833 (1988 ) There we held inter alia
that when a discnmmatee receives a letter that unconditionally offers re
instatement and that also states a report back date we will not find the
offer invalid simply because the specified reporting date appears unrea
sonably short However the offer will be treated as invalid if the letter
on its face makes it clear that reinstatement is dependent on the employ
ee s returning on the specified date or if the letter otherwise suggests that
the offer will lapse if a decision on reinstatement is not made by that
date Here by letter dated May 26 1987 the Respondent informed
Dunlap that she was being recalled to work on May 29 1987 at 3 p in
The letter stated If you fail to report within the scheduled time your
recall rights will be terminated The letter sent by certified mail was
received by Dunlap on May 28 1987 Thus Dunlap had only I day to
consider the reinstatement offer and the letter expressly conditioned the
offer on compliance with the unreasonably short report back date While
Dunlap-under Esterline-need not have attempted to respond to this in
valid offer she did so Accordingly the judge s analysis regarding the
unreasonableness of the time afforded Dunlap is sound
3 We modify the judge s remedy to include a provision that backpay be
computed in accordance with the formula in F W Woolworth Co 90
NLRB 289 (1950)
4 We shall modify par 1(c) of the recommended Order to correct an
inadvertent error
319
We do not adopt the judge s finding that the Re
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing the
Union s September 8 1986 request for information
As the judge himself noted in the background sec
tion of his decision substantiated evidence sup
ported the Respondents position that it was under
no obligation to bargain with the Union as of Sep
tember 1986 Accordingly the Respondents refusal
to provide information at that time was not an
unfair labor practice
Thereafter the Union won a Board election and
was certified as the collective bargaining represent
ative of the unit employees On June 8 1987 the
Union reaffirmed its September 8 1986 request and
also sought certain additional information We
agree with the judge that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) by failing to furnish the information
requested on June 8 1987 and we shall modify the
judge s Conclusions of Law accordingly We shall
also modify paragraph 2(c) of the judge s recom
mended Order to include the additional items re
quested on June 8 1987
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4
Substitute the following for Conclusions of Law
4 By failing and refusing to furnish the Union
the information it requested on June 8 1987 the
Respondent has violated Section 8 (a)(5) and (1) of
the Act
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re
spondent Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc
Stoney Ridge Ohio its officers agents successors
and assigns shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified
1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c)
(c) In any like or related manner interfering
with restraining or coercing employees in the ex
ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act
2 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c)
(c) Furnish to Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehou
semen and Helpers Union Local No 20, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer
ica AFL-CIO the following information
The name address telephone number social
security number date of hire job classifica
tion wage rate and fringe benefits for each
employee performing bargaining unit work
from June 24 1986 to the present all bargain
291 NLRB No 46
320 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing unit positions that have been filled since
July 16 1986 as well as the name address
telephone number and social security number
for the individual filling the position all un
filled bargaining unit positions the name ad
dress telephone number and social security
number for each individual hired or recalled to
perform bargaining unit work after May 29
1987 as well as the wage rate and fringe bene
fits that are or will be provided to such indi
viduals
3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge
WE WILL furnish the Union the information it re
quested that is relevant and necessary to its role as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit
employees
TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA INC
Paul Lund Esq for the General Counsel
Terrance L Ryan Esq and David L 0 Connell Esq
(Marshall & Melhorn) of Toledo Ohio for the Re
spondent Employer
John M Roca Esq (Gallon Kainiz and Iorio Co LPA)
of Toledo Ohio for the Charging Union
DECISION
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees by
terminating them after tendering to them mad
equate and invalid offers of reinstatement
WE WILL NOT refuse the request of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union
Local No 20 affiliated with International Brother
hood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and
Helpers of America AFL-CIO for information re
garding individuals who have performed or are
performing bargaining unit work since June 24
1986 to the present and further regarding unfilled
bargaining unit positions
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exer
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL offer Doris Dunlap immediate and full
reinstatement to her former position or if that pose
tion no longer exists to a substantially equivalent
position without prejudice to her seniority or
original date of hire or any other rights or privi
leges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make her
whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
she may have suffered by reason of our discrimina
tion against her less any net interim earnings plus
interest
WE WILL notify Doris Dunlap that we have re
moved from our files all references to her termina
tion and notify her specifically that this has been
done and that this unlawful action will in no way
be used against her in the future
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
RUSSELL M KING JR Administrative Law Judge
This case was heard on 19 and 20 January 1988 in
Toledo Ohio The initial charge was filed against
Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc (the Company) on 24
July 1987 by the Charging Union Teamsters Chauf
feurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the
Union) Based on the charge a complaint was issued on
4 September 1987 by the Regional Director for Region 8
of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on
behalf of the Board s General Counsel i The complaint
alleges that the Company discharged employee Doris
Dunlap in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
and further alleges that the Company failed and refused
to furnish certain information requested by the Union in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 2 The
Company defends on the grounds that employee Dunlap
failed to timely respond to a recall letter after an eco
nomic strike had ended and thus was legitimately denied
later employment and removed from the Company s
recall list Regarding the information request the Com
pany argues that the General Counsel failed to prove
The term General Counsel when used herein will normally refer
to the attorneys in the case acting on behalf of the General Counsel of
the Board through the Regional Director
2 The pertinent parts of the Act (29 U S C § 151 et seq) read as fol
lows
Sec 8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
(1) to interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
(3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or
any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization
(5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of em
ployees
Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self organization to
form join or assist labor organizations to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA
that the Union s requests for information were actually
refused 3
On the entire record including my observations of the
demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel counsel for the
Union and counsel for the Company 4 I make the fol
lowmg5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
The pleadings admissions and evidence in the case es
tablish the following jurisdictional facts At all times ma
terial the Company an Ohio corporation with an office
and place of business in Toledo Ohio maintained a facil
ity in Stoney Ridge Ohio where it has been engaged in
the operation of a restaurant general store auto and
truck service garage and a fueling station This facility is
the only facility involved in this case and the employees
involved were only those employed in the fuel service
control center and garage 6 In the course and conduct
of its business operations at Stoney Ridge Ohio the
Company derived gross revenues annually in excess of
$500 000 and received goods and materials valued in
excess of $50 000 directly from points located outside the
State of Ohio As alleged and admitted I find that the
Company is now and has been at all times material an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act
Also as alleged and admitted I find that the Union is
now and has been at all times material a labor organiza
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
H At the hearing in this case and based primarily on testimonial evi
dence elicited from General Manager Snyder during the hearing the
General Counsel moved to amend the complaint by adding an additional
alleged violation of Sec 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act as follows
Since on or about 29 May 1987 Respondent discriminated against
employees concerning their recall right as to the position of cashier
by failing and refusing to consider them for recall because they en
gaged in activity set forth in paragraph 8(B)
After hearing argument I denied the motion In their posthearing briefs
the General Counsel and counsel for the Union request that I reconsider
that denial and grant the amendment I have reconsidered the motion to
amend and I again deny the same
4 The deadline for the filing of briefs was set on 24 February 1988 On
or about 24 March 1988 counsel for the Company filed a motion for
leave to file a reply brief That motion is denied
5 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and on my
observation of the witnesses The credibility resolutions have been de
rived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits with due
regard for the logic of probablity the demeanor of the witnesses and the
teaching of NLRB v Walton Mfg Co 369 U S 404 408 (1962) As to
those testifying in contradiction of the findings herein their testimony has
been discredited either as having been in conflict with the testimony of
credible witnesses or because it was in and of itself incredible and unwor
thy of belief All testimony and evidence regardless of whether men
tioned or alluded to has been reviewed and weighed in light of the entire
record
6 The Union represents the Company s employees at Stoney Ridge
Ohio in the following unit
All full time and regular part time fuel service control center and
garage employees including mechanics service tire and parts em
ployees employed by Toledo 5 Pure Truck Plaza Inc 1-280 and
Libbey Road Stoney Ridge Ohio 43463 but excluding all motel and
restaurant employees confidential employees professional employ
ees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act as amended and
all other employees
II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
321
A Brief Background
The Company and the Union have had a collective
bargaining relationship with each other since approxi
mately 1963 Thereafter a series of collective bargaining
agreements were entered into the last being a 3 year
agreement that expired 23 June 1986 Prior to said expi
ration the Union and the Company had engaged in un
successful negotiations and on 24 June 1986 the Union
commenced an economic strike that lasted until 15 July
1986 when the Union made an unconditional offer for
the return to work of all striking employees After the
strike none of the striking employees actually returned
to work because they had been replaced by the Compa
ny On 8 September 1986 the Union wrote the Company
requesting certain detailed information regarding replace
ment employees and their positions On or about 12 Sep
tember 1986 the Company based on substantiated evi
dence concluded that the Union no longer represented a
majority of the employees involved and withdrew its
recognition of the Union further declining to execute a
collective bargaining agreement with the Union and also
refusing to provide the information that had been re
quested by the Union in its letter of 8 September 1986
Consistent with these actions on 6 October 1986 the
Company filed a decertification petition with the Board
(Case 8-RM-927) and pursuant to that petition a Board
conducted election was held on 21 May 1987 The Union
received a majority of the votes at that election and the
Company did not file postelection objections thus the
Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining
representative of the unit employees on 29 May 1987 On
8 June 1987 the Union renewed its 8 September 1986 in
formation request and expanded the request to apply to
employees hired after 29 May 1987 Following the strike
that ended 15 July 1986 the Union had filed a number of
unfair labor practice charges against the Company but
none were found to have merit except for the charge in
volved in this case Employee Doris Dunlap was the first
striking employee who was recalled to work which oc
curred by letter dated 26 May 1987 She was to report to
work the afternoon of 29 May 1987 ' but for various
stated reasons she did not return to work on that date
and as a result the Company in effect terminated Dunlap
by removing her from the recall list Regarding the re
quests for information as indicated earlier the Union
claims that to date it has never received a response or
any of the requested information
B The Recall and Discharge of Employee Doris
Dunlap
Employee Dunlap commenced work for the Company
in April 1968 and she worked as a cashier continuously
until the strike on 24 June 1986 She was a union
member and supporter and was number one on the se
niority list at the time of the strike During much of her
employment Dunlap had served as the Union s steward
or acting steward and throughout the period she had
r All dates hereafter will be in 1987 unless otherwise stated
322 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
filed some 30 to 35 grievances on behalf of employees
She was also on the picket line during the strike By
letter dated 26 May the Company wrote to Dunlap in
forming her that she was being recalled to work on 29
May at 3 p in That letter was sent by certified mail and
according to Dunlap her daughter picked up the letter
she thought on 27 May indicating that she actually re
ceived the letter on 28 May On receipt she immediately
contacted Union Business Representative Robert Robasz
kiewicz informing him of the recall letter Robasz
kiewicz then asked Dunlap to contact the Company and
set up a meeting at the Company s facility prior to the
time of the recall (29 May 3 p m) Dunlap did so and the
meeting was set for 1 p in on 29 May Present at the
meeting was Union Business Agent Robaszkiewicz
Dunlap Union Business Agent Robert L Lemle Com
pany President (and owner) Melvin Berman Company
General Manager Michael J Snyder and the Company s
attorney in this case Terrance L Ryan 8
Subsequent to the strike Dunlap had obtained other
employment at a slightly lesser salary and with fewer
benefits At the meeting on 29 May Dunlap expressed
great concern in leaving her present employment on
such short notice and she and Robaszkiewicz initially
asked for a 2 week extension to report to the Company
for work The Company refused that extension where
upon Dunlap asked for a 1 week extension and the Com
pany also refused that request insisting that she report to
work by 3 30 p m that day After further discussions re
garding certain of the terms and conditions under which
Dunlap would return to work the meeting ended and
General Manager Snyder testified that at the end of the
meeting his impression was that Dunlap would return
and report for work at 3 30 p in Robaszkiewicz and
Dunlap concede in testimony that they left this impres
sion at the end of the meeting The meeting over
Dunlap and Robaszktewicz returned to the Union s head
quarters Dunlap still concerned about the short notice to
her current employer With such lingering concern on
arriving at the union hall Dunlap telephoned General
Manager Snyder This conversation was monitored by
Robaszkiewicz and Union Agent Lemle on extension
phones without the knowledge of Snyder During the
conversation Dunlap offered to report the following day
but Snyder again refused any extension and told Dunlap
that if she did not report that afternoon as requested she
could consider such a failure as a termination Dunlap
did not so report was never again recalled and thus the
charge in this case was subsequently filed on 24 July
Snyder s testimonial excuse for giving Dunlap such short
notice included the fact that his staff was already thin
that summer vacations were approaching and that the
Company had adopted a new system in the control
center that required some retraining for Dunlap and that
Friday was the best day for such training because of the
volume of business on Fridays However Snyder himself
conceded that he as an employer would have preferred
at least 1 week s notice Dunlap s position in fact was not
filled according to Snyder until 2 July
8 Testifying in this case was Robaszkiewicz Dunlap Berman Lemle
and Snyder Attorney Ryan did not testify
Economic strikers who unconditionally apply for rein
statement at a time when their positions are filled by per
manent replacements remain employees and are entitled
to full reinstatement on the departure of replacements
unless they have acquired regular and substantially
equivalent employment or unless the employer can es
tablish the failure to offer reinstatement was for legiti
mate and substantial business reasons Laidlaw Corp 171
NLRB 1366 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 99 (1970) cert denied
397 U S 920 (1970) For an offer of reinstatement to be
valid it must provide adequate time for consideration by
the employee based on the circumstances of each indi
vidual case National Tape Corp 187 NLRB 321 (1970)
Penco Enterprises 216 NLRB 734 (1975) Murray Prod
ucts 228 NLRB 268 (1977) enfd 584 F 2d 934 (9th Cir
1978)
I find the Company s offer of reinstatement to employ
ee Dunlap in this case to be totally inadequate and thus
defective and invalid due to the lack of a reasonable
time for Dunlap to decide whether she wished to return
to work and the unreasonably short notice she would
have been required to give to her current employer The
Company I find lacked substantial and legitimate bust
ness reasons for such short notice especially in light of
General Manager Snyder s own testimony that he (him
self) would have preferred at least a week s notice and
the fact that Dunlap s position was not filled for over a
month Accordingly I find and conclude that the Com
pany s termination of employee Dunlap on her refusal to
accept an inadequate and invalid offer of reinstatement
was discriminatory and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)
of the Act
C The Requests for Information
On 8 September 1986 the Union requested by letter
detailed information regarding replacement employees
and their positions 9 Soon thereafter the Company with
drew its recognition of the Union and the information
request was not complied with There followed a decer
tification proceeding a Board conducted election and
ultimately a certification of the Union by the Board on
29 May 1987 By letters dated 4 8 and 16 June the
Union renewed its 8 September 1986 information request
and in its letter of 8 June extended the request to apply
to replacement employees hired after 29 May 10 The re
The requested information consisted essentially the following
The name address telephone number social security number date
of hire job classification wage rate and fringe benefits for each em
ployee performing bargaining unit work from June 26 1986 to the
present all bargaining unit positions that have been filled since July
16 1986 as well as the name address telephone number and social
security number for the individual filling the position and all unfilled
bargaining unit positions
10 On 4 June and in separate letters both the Union and counsel for
the Union wrote to counsel for the Company again requesting a response
to the Unions 8 September 1986 information request On 8 June the
Company s attorney responded by letter to the 4 June letter from the
Union s counsel stating that The Company will prepare and pro
vide relevant information concerning bargaining unit members in the near
future On 16 June counsel for the Union again wrote to the Company s
counsel renewing the request
TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA 323
newed and expanded request has not been complied
with Union Business Representative Robaszkiewicz testi
fled that the Company refused to furnish the requested
information by letter dated 19 August 1987 11 The Com
pany does not dispute the Union s right to the requested
information but contends that the General Counsel has
not met his burden of proof by showing that the requests
were actually refused by the Company further arguing
that the record in the case contains merely an allegation
of Company refusal The Company also contends that
the Unions September 1986 information request is not
chargeable in this case because it is barred by the 6
month limitation period found in Section 10(b) of the
Act 12
The information has been requested has been the sub
ject of a charge filed by the Union with the Board and
the resultant complaint in this case and yet to date the
information has not been furnished to the Union by the
Company I find that the Company by its own actions
(or inaction) has failed and refused to comply with the
Union s request 13 As to the limitation period in Section
10(b) of the Act the Union renewed its request in June
well within the 6 month limitation period 14 I find in this
case that in refusing to comply with the Union s informa
tion requests contained in its letter of 8 September 1986
as renewed and modified in June 1987 the Company vio
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged in the
complaint
June 1986 to the present and further regarding unfilled
bargaining unit positions
(5) The unfair labor practices found in paragraphs 3
and 4 above affect commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent Employer has com
mitted the above unfair labor practices I will recom
mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom
and to take other affirmative actions designed to effectu
ate the purposes and policies of the Act including the
posting of an appropriate notice I shall recommend that
the Respondent Employer offer Dons Dunlap immediate
reinstatement to her former position or if that position
no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position
without prejudice to the date of her original hiring or
other rights and privileges Additionally I shall recom
mend that the Respondent Employer be ordered to make
whole Doris Dunlap by paying to her a sum of money
equal to the amount she normally would have earned
from 29 May 1987 or from the date her position became
open if earlier to the date she is validly offered rein
statement with interest as computed in New Horizons for
the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 15
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record 16 I issue the following recommend
ed17
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent Employer Toledo 5 Auto/Truck
Plaza Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act
2 The Charging Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 The Respondent Employer on 29 May 1987 violat
ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating em
ployee Dons Dunlap after she refused an inadequate and
invalid offer of reinstatement
4 The Respondent Employer since 8 September 1986
has violated and continues to violate Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act in refusing the Charging Union s request
for information regarding individuals that have per
formed or are performing bargaining unit work since 24
11 For reasons unknown this letter was not introduced into evidence
12 Sec 10(b) of the Act provides inter alga
no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occur
ring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the
Board
13 As conceded by the Company I find the requested information to
be necessary and relevant to the Union s duties responsibilities and per
formance as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees in
the involved unit
14 Par 9(A) of the complaint refers to the Union s letter of 8 Septem
her 1986 and par 9 (B) alleges that on 8 June 1987 the Union reaf
firmed its earlier request and requested additional information Pars 10
and 12 of the complaint allege the failure to comply with the requests to
be violations of Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act During the hearing coun
sel for the Company moved to dismiss those portions of pars 10 and 12
of the complaint dealing with the 8 September 1986 request as being
beyond the limitation period contained in Sec 10(b) of the Act That
motion was not acted on during the hearing and on the record Consist
ent with my findings and conclusions that motion is denied
ORDER
The Respondent Employer Toledo 5 Auto/Truck
Plaza Inc Stoney Ridge Ohio its officers agents suc
cessors and assigns shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminating against employees by terminating
them after tendering to them inadequate and invalid
offers of reinstatement
(b) Refusing the request of Teamsters Chauffeurs
Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20 affili
ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America
AFL-CIO for information regarding individuals that
have performed or are performing bargaining unit work
since 24 June 1986 to the present and further regarding
unfilled bargaining unit positions
15 Under New Horizons interest is computed at the short term Federal
rate for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to
26 US C § 6621 Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective
date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp 231
NLRB 651 (1977)
16 On or about 25 March 1988 counsel for the Union filed a motion to
correct the transcript The motion is denied The words and figures of
the witness were reported accurately and to the best of the reporters
ability The remaining portions of the record (including the evidence) do
not in my opinion justify an interpretation different than that officially
reported
17 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all put
poses
324 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer employee Dons Dunlap immediate reinstate
ment to her former job or if that job is no longer avail
able to a substantially equivalent job without prejudice
to her original date of hire or other rights and make her
whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of this decision
(b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful
termination or discharge of Doris Dunlap and notify her
that this has been done and that her discharge will not be
used as a basis for future personnel action
(c) Furnish to Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen
and Helpers Union Local No 20 affiliated with Interna
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Ware
housemen and Helpers of America AFL-CIO the fol
lowing information
The name address telephone number social secure
ty number date of hire job classification wage rate
and fringe benefits for each employee performing
bargaining unit work from June 26 1986 to the
present all bargaining unit positions that have been
filled since July 16 1986 as well as the name ad
dress telephone number and social security number
for the individual filling the position and all un
filled bargaining unit positions
(d) Preserve and on request make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay
roll records social security payment records timecards
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(e) Post at its facility in Stoney Ridge Ohio copies of
the attached notice marked Appendix i 8 Copies of the
notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 8 after being signed by the Respondents author
ized representative shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by
any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re
spondent has taken to comply 19
9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation
al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board
19 The General Counsel initially requested in the complaint that the
Order include a visitatonal clause authorizing the Board for compliance
purposes to obtain discovery from the Respondent in the manner provid
ed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervision of the
United States court of appeals enforcing this Order However this re
quest was withdrawn in the General Counsels brief