Women Care, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1979

246 N.L.R.B. 753 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

OM()1EN (ARE. IN.
Women Care, Inc. and Retail Clerks Union Local No.
698, United Food and Commercial Workers Inter-
national Union, AFL-CIO.' Case 8 CA 12321
December 5. 1979
DECISION AND ()Rl)lR
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENII t(). ANt) TRtI'SI)AI
On September 13. 1979. Administrative Larw Judge
Abraham Frank issued the attached l)ecision in this
proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent and the (General
Counsel filed exceptions and supporting hriefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National l.abor Relations Act, as amended. the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its alu-
thority in this proceeding to a three-mnimber panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs'
and has decided to affirm the rulings, fdinings). and
conclusions of the Administrative l aw Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, Women Care, Inc.. Akron,
Ohio, its officers, 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 The name of' the Charging Party. formerly Retail Clerks Union l.ocal
No. 698. AFL-CIO, is amended to reflect the change resulting from the
merging of Retail Clerks International Union and Amalgamated Meatcut-
ters and Butcher Workmen of North America on June 7. 1979.
2 Respondent requested oral argument. This request s herebh denied as
the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties.
The General Counsel has excepted to the Administrative l.aw Judge's
recommendation that interest on backpay be computed at a rate other than
the 9 percent requested by the General Counsel. We find no merit in this
exception. See Florida Steel Corporatrion. 231 NLRB 651 ( 19771.
' n par. I(b) of his recommended Order, the Administrative I.aw Judge
provided that Respondent shall cease and desist from "in any other manner"
interfering with the employees' exercise of their Sec. 7 rights. We have exam-
ined this case in light of Hickmott Food. Inc., 242 NLRB 1357 (1979). and
have determined that the issuance of a broad order is warranted in this case
inasmuch as Respondent's unlawful conduct, involving three discharges and
the refusal to reinstate two unfair labor practice strikers, directly affected
over half of the employee complement. See Hanso Mold Inc. 243 NRB
853 (19791.
We also wish to note that the unfair labor practice strikers. Phillips and
Francisco. are entitled to backpay from October 3. 1978, the date of their
unconditional application to return to work The dischargees' aards oif
backpay are to be computed from September 30. 1978, the date of their
discharges.
A\PPNND)IX
No II( - To EMP'I ()YI-IS
P()SI D BY ORDI)IER ()- IEll
N \II()NAI LABO)R R AII()NS B()ARI)
An Agency otf the United States G(overnmcnt
After a hearing at which all sides had the opportunit\
to present evidence and arguments, it was determined
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act, Ias
amended. We have, therefore, been ordered to post
this notice and to do what it say;s.
Ihe National l.abor Relations Act, as anmended.
gives Nou. as employees, certain rights,. including
the right:
To engage in self-organization
'Io form, join. or help a union
''o bargain collectixtel' through it represent-
ative of your own choosing
To act together for collective hargaining or
other mutual aid or protection
Fto retrain from ans or all of these things.
Accordingly. we give ou these assurances:
W! \VIli N interfere with. restrain. or coerce
our emploxees b\ discharging employees because
of their protected concerted activity and by re-
fusing to reinstate unfair labor practice strikers
upon their application to return to work.
Wl-. \vII.I Not in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
We xvIl offer I.auren Swirsky. Francine Lu-
cas, Gina Sessions. Barbara Phillips, and Tammy
Francisco immediate and full reinstatement to
their former positions, if available, or, if those
positions no longer exist. to substantially equiv-
alent positions with the wage rate they enjoyed
at the time they were terminated or refused
reemployment, plus any increases, and without
prejudice to their seniority any other rights and
privileges, and wF wtl. make them whole, with
interest, for all losses suffered by them as a result
of our discrimination against them.
WOMFN CARE, INC.
DECISION
ABRAHIAM FRANK, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge in this case was filed on October 10. 1978.' and the
complaint alleging violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
issued on November 17. The hearing was held on April 19
and 20. 1979. at Akron. Ohio. All hriefs filed have been
considered.
IAll dates are in 1978 unless olherwise indicated.
246 NLRB No. 119
I)lI('ISI()NS (0I NA I ()NA I O()R R I ! I)NS ()ARI)
t iN lsuI i this cXse is the question , heertile IRepon delit
uinlalls il dischalrged tllhree cnlployee' b,caust of heir
cillc i t !ll illl II S and I lis d i tI I reh ire tIo aIIltil Ill al n l-
pri) Isc. S1 I tI liIt to protest the dischIrI es ol their Icl.11
erm plo. ccs.
I'1\II)I",(i 01 [I'A( I XN) ( 'I N ( II ,IIN S I l I '\\N
A. '/iI or, I/ ,/iw, ng oe md ( / hIts,mI
Fe's pollltl .I ,111 ()Ohio c rp(t I t)I'ai(ll. \\11lh 1IIi )lice ai/d
p'l icc Of bu ine in \ itll .()i the ol tlt it'i n l d11\c\
I [ IIhi, I) Ik ItcCd llg lis l/ga ed III Ie bUsillc s t)[ operallllt d it '-,
ilnl\ lannis I illg and i l llll I clinic RI Npll. ondct I dllll
t ii IIl lII colise nlt cn uti t o I IN hlI'IIIes I % et C lscs
gi ON , t,,i ill I l lXt e cc ',O " ().1() . Ios c . 1)eNpt llel
i l lies lbll i i it oIilicr i e lggci l ll (11lll'lCC \ i t Ithin ie
I i; 1111 Of Sectionll 2() and (7) of tle cii.
()II \pil . 1979. cliunsel foi he ( eilriil ( otNll l ,le t
Â¥il/Â¥e'oll ~ T/ li1' (IIII 1( Sti "II 0llu. lIcCli o tlt' \kftln
clinic. ai1 i)r. Mi chiel Kafrissei. il ctI it e otl l icc i l c l pi-
celdtilil il sai clinic, ith coie to R j' sponde' l' IIItCIl
I tl stlbpeinas requlirld the prese1 c e o tle ;t lorelIllcilqleJ
dents gross relttUcS 1111 oul-ol-statc Illict.ilaNeC be21111nn
\tnid the calendar \ear 1977 ilr to \1Mah 31, 1979. 11iC
StIblth lISO, l rietiulit the piltdultctitll o pleinllllnel loi 'or
1
pasr o ll lrecl rs relating It) telt super iNl rl allld llia i crillail
personnel Of' Respontdent. ['lie sIhbpei rtll ed ilt' 1r1Cs-
CIe of1'F lurst and Kafrisse ad the proltductil o tilte
doleturneiilar nlmterial o the nilorning t the he;ua-ilg in
his Case April 19. 1979.
lurst and Katrissen appeared. lowever the UbCCpenaed
documenttary evidence was not prodiLed i. ()n April 13.
1979, Respondent, through its iounsel. moved or a con-
tinuance of the heariing o thhe grlind Ila t 1O ' its ill-
nesses. larvey l ev ad Arthur Katrissen. were not i.il-
able. the former because lie was ill ad the latter becaise of
his duties as judge in the cit ofF Philadelphia. n April
18. 1979, Respondent's motion fr continuance as de-
nied hv the Regional Director.
At the hearing, counsel for Respondent argued thi;t it
was uniirly denied a continuance and renewed its mioltl(i.
I reserved judgment on the issue. The motion is dienied.
Neither l.evy nor Arthur Kafrissen is named in the cornm-
plaint. Levy's illness would not permit him to attend the
hearing in this matter for several weeks: nor has Respon-
dent suggested when, if ever. Arthur Kafrissen would he
available. Neither Levy nor Arthur Kafrissen was present
in Akron at times material to the issues in this case. Re-
spondent's representation and testimony that the decision
to discharge the alleged discriminatees was mad le hy evy is
not challenged by the General Counsel. In these circulm-
stances, I conclude that the Regional Director reasonnably
exercised his discretion in denying Respondent's motion,
and I reaffirm that ruling.
Respondent also argued that the subpenaed documents
were not produced because they were located in Philadel-
phia in the possession of Levy and could not be produced
without his presence. I find no merit in this position. Re-
spondent also argued that, at the request of the General
Counsel, the parties on April 13, 1979, had discussed the
possihilit l1 ;Irrlinlg lt erl.tlill stipll;tioslls I1tiCh would
lllake it lUllCCTessarlr to pIldUCC SOitC of the subpenaed
doctitlIllents, .1n1 it N nilot untlil that da;te Ihilt Resprondent
\sis .is s Fir til lt ll ll rLtr ils uOld bh he lieC Sill for tills
prloc.edil. I lind his positiollI to \.ilhoult m tril. 1he p-
riod bercts tn \pA1ril 13. 1979. ; 1ll April 19, 1979. i; a stllli-
\lllnt iline to tla;llspol tihe suhlb ctlletl l(c1Utlcllts trotl
)liladephl d i) Akronl o, i n the aih.llt\,c. to sL~blllt i
'LIIIIII
i
A , 1)l of 1lc ITcol( ds. o'it h :il rl tl l liII\ 11 ;1) I n UgCel
oit 1 ( eral ( ' unrisl It chteck the ;IC LIllIts Ol ' the NUll-
Ill;ll\ r ol l tl ii gill I ni idicumlenIts, ;i s i, \dcd1 ill tile ,/Ii-
\' IlditClCll b1oe. LRso nplldeltl 11 i.iittlcd Los re-
culIe~ ill xC S of 50()(}. With Iesprt t eLltie Nllc
rtCl'tlt 1 ar. l), hillps .I regisIcrCl itrs. tstified cretl-
IhR tlli s s as tcplo\edi at RtesplIondent's Akron lifit
,iii .IlLaMlr\ 3 to Septetliber 3(0 ;tid that during thal pe-
rlo, i sl , h ol kcd I( r ) 5 lotll) l l tile p'roLtl(t'll i 1Arid ClO.' iVc!
1(l0tll 11 lI t lc pCl; l}llilllCC ell Iher LltI es she O1bCh\CsVed 1p;-
Itlls' 1.alls ll Iltil p .llOllllllllts 1ol (t-!--state p1;-
tliCliits sitl Ileil O\\T1 IdoCois l foll(os\up procedures
,\hollltlr l pI cc( JL".iCs ,S crc perrtl llliCdl ( 11 4 tl;a s a s,eck,
I uc,i \ .\Vcl'titesdal1 I Iidli ;1. an Sut (Lur;!a. Pilips esti-
11ll l that 111 ;Ia;erage of 5() such procedtures erc peCr-
toerlredti cich \\cck. ()f le 5I patients llnsol\ed, an; a;erae
ot ll ere outil-oltalte patienits. 'hlie nlilllnll cost of an
ahortil it Respondllltl C's clinic as $ 75. I he prieojcted
Cl'elIsle rll10111 LIt-o- slae I;till ts o\cr it 11il i;1 al 5()} - eek
ptrio! thus ;iliiililed to 87,501).
11 I lie suilll'er o' 1978. Respondent reciv( ci at suctioln
t;achlnc Iro I I3erkel% io-lrlgittcirlng i Berkeley, (';ali-
tOrlia lih ctost o( this machine was estimated at various
;nIilouIIts. SC\eril cllllploees testifie Ilatl lHurst had in-
tolirnld Iltlit tIhe nlchiclle cost seer;il thousand dollars or
S2.(1)). W\\'hen tIucstoncd b\ the lneral ('oLinsel, iturst
Aas i relucLt;Canl lll c\ssis.e itless, "guessing" that the
rachine cost S 1 .600. ()in rCl uttal she testitied that, based on
the lerkele` IIIIInIIl antd ldirect conversations w ith Berke-
lei, tite cot of' the niacie as a ipproximately S1.200. In
additilon to the suction machine. Respondent in 1978 re-
cei\ ed boxes of canlnulas itusing) from Berkele , (Califor-
nia. aluetd t aabout $2.5 ) each. Hurst also testified that an
autoclase machine that "could have" arrived at the clinic in
the spring of 1978 and which she "believed" came from
outsilde the state, was priced at "around $900.00." At an-
other point in her testimo ny Hurst testified that the suction
machine svas, in adition to the autoclave machine, "an-
other Berkeley m achine" that came from Calilornia.
The record shows that Respondent in 1978 had a busi-
ness relationship with three other amily planning and
abortion clinics in Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and Milwau-
kee. Hurst testified tut she was directed by Levy, her supe-
rior to whom she reported by telephone on a daily basis, to
travel to these locations and help establish clinics patterned
after Women Care, Inc.. of Akron. Each of the newly estab-
lished clinics included in its business name the phrase
"Women Care." The director of the Las Vegas clinic visited
the Akron clinic, and on some occasions thereafter Hurst
and personnel in Las Vegas engaged in telephone conversa-
tions during which Hurst supplied birth control informa-
tion. uring her employment in other cities for the above
purposes l urst w as paid her regular salary by Respondent.
7S4
755
T'he erlkele suction mnachmine. receised hb Resplonlcint in
1978. * as eenluaill\ shipped or I .ev'-s istrtltiont t the
Wotien ('are clinic in IPhiladelphlia.
Respondent's hilure Io produce doclleitir\ lidelnct
of its gross resvenues ;tnd owt-ot-st;ite purchales .k:irrtits
the inference. which I dr;s. thail such e\ ltciCc sstiuld b
supportitc of the ahhoe cnniercc Licls.
Based uplon the f(regoing. I conclude' that ReSpoitdent is
engaed in commerce within the nmcaning li Section 2{()
and 71 ot' the Act and that it ill eftlfcectuilt te plicies t
the \et to assert urdlciioil n 117 tIis case.
Ili (iarging Fi,[' is t Jablhot orgatl/aiitii iAithliln the
11. 1li tile i\C
I \cepi Itr cltitli.l ' rllepcllllttilOl tI1. tile 1t. o 1i,-
\e\ .c\! ils olIC Itlld of t1ie ISICd shal.es I, Respoln-
detll. there IS II,) iCdcC il tile record ais Ile. aittl.l
onlership of Respiondtil. It s lear t'will t recold. 11,-
ever. that l.eX. a tiloln llcr \ili Il trilrl crporate title.
controls the operations ol' Respondent ailld I.akes ll 11tnpot-
tLAnt diCCisiolls. t t[ilis s itl he Concurrence of \rilltr Kit-
frissen. Neither I.cv nor Nrthur Ka;lrssen resides in Ak-
Respondent's seiceLTs ait its klull linic iclude abl-
tiIln. birth control irnlatioll. preprienalic\ tIstingtg al
counselinlg.
The das-t-da husiness operaltions of the N\kron clinic
and ll nonnmedical serices are under the imlediate con-
trol and direction of Hlurst. A\t times mnaterial to this pro-
cccing. )r. Michael Katrissen a brother otf \rthur Kat'ris-
sen was in charge ot' all medical procedures.
Except for Hurst and Michael Kafrissen. no other official
or representative of' Respondent supervises aln' of the em-
ployees at the Akron clinic. Hlurst hires and tires enmplosces
and effectivels recommends raises for them. She sins
checks lor drugs and supplies that arrive at the clinic c.o.d.
from Berkele}, ('alifornia. Other bills are sent to l.ev! in
Philadelphia. She prepares weeklN schedules and assigns
subordinates to train new counselors. She maintains a file
containing patients' ealuation reports. She is paid a slars
of $275 per week as compared to the hourly rate for em-
ployees ranging from 4 to $5.50 per hour.
I find that urst is a supervisor within the meaning of
Section 2( 1 ) of the Act.
Dr. Michael Kafrissen was first employed at the clinic on
September 20, succeeding a Dr. Chiu. Kafrissen is in charge
of all medical procedures, such as birth control. Pap smear,
annual exams, and abortions. Necessarily, employees in-
volved in any of these procedures are under his control and
supervision. These would include registered nurses and li-
censed practical nurses.
The record shows, however, that Kafrissen projected a
larger apparent authority. When he first arrived at the clinic
on September 20. Kafrissen called a meeting of the entire
staff for 1 1:30 a.m. that morning. He infiormed them that he
expected them all to work together, that he had different
medical procedures from Dr. Chiu, that there would be
medical changes and slight procedural changes. Thereafter.
he interviewed counselors individuall , asking their views
as to the problems at the clinic. Francine ucas pointed out
Srtle of tilh tenipio}es' persotnnel problems. such ts not
hIa\ing a Xc Icio the ollners. no decgllted lunch break.
long Sllrld! hllurs, s. nd tihe lie; hatl nliln eplo\ees
came t \sork whetn the'. were ill Ka lrlssenl thanked I.ucas
Ir her c:idllr tnd Said that he \ ould tall to the people in
Philidelphia incerniiling the collrm enls she had made.
Ka;lrissen 5 s lio instrume ntal il ichanging the tfee for
;iboirtionls to ;1 11matis ti l of 175 S\ itil tle colicurrence ofl
I C\ anld Irthutir ;lt'rlssen. Ki rlissen is pid on al ee hbsis
i1 1 Cichli SC1C\ ' IC ert)llled.
I llsiilticl is K lrissll's (titie, 1s a doctor are ;ar integral
iiidl leCessr\ i'tl of Rspoiicllt' bisiness operiills.
AiId II1 s\IT\ tl Illr aLppalrenl stiltl .:illihirt\ atld his respon-
sibll dlirecltonl t nlplo cs perlhirnrlling nledical ser ,ices. I
find Ilt lie s .i slpc lso i ir tilllll tle Ilaii of Sectiot
21t1 Iof lie \Ci
\I Or iutl ti 3(} oi 4 p.l11 i Septlcllhei '. tfie tropli-
ces. lie alleed diim. iilltes Inll tils calse. coulleliors 1.;li1-
rnl S isk\. F ranciie IL.ucit ( illla Sessions I LPN I amn
I 1at111csv,: RN Bllharll Ihillilps. imet a1 SiAirsk 's home
hilI she sIhared i iti Sessions. I '1tlie icting lasted until
abitl t :3 1 I n. I ie Cmplo sCC hd decided to get together
because of t i lt of personnelll tand other problems at the
clinic. Ittel alking the matter o\cr the\ conc!uUded that
soiiTietliiig should he donl e ahiout their problems. Sessions,.
. lho hid been takit niotes, drevu p a list of' grie antes or
problelils. ' 1 hec debatcd the tinlling (,f their action and i-
nall agreed thati something should he (done the next das.
r;Lnisco was chose h b lot to call Hlurst. Ilurst as not
t holne. lld Ir;lancisco leftt a message that there ould e a
ilnceltin at 8 o'clock ait \'lotiCll ('are. IIrst, Kit'rissen. alt]
his st ie ere asked t hbe presenit. hel Imessage xwas signed:
Statl it *'\tet ('aCe.
SessioIs tried. hiut .as tinable to conttact Kafrisscn hb
phone.
I The 1olloss tig nliliig. ai Salurda\,. at 8 am. the employ-
ecs met in the parking lot of tile clinic. Sessions was sched-
uledl t begil i cotliMl g it 8 a.n.: I.ucas at 10 a.m.: Sir-
sk\ aInd Phillips uxcre due at 8:3() am. and 9:30 am. re-
spectni el5 to assist the doctor.
Ihce emploees entered the clinic and invited the recep-
tionist. Maria Pringle. t join them in presenting their griev-
ances. but she declined. Between 8 and 8:30 a.m. Hurst
called abou three times. She wanted to knovs who had
called and left the message. Speaking on one occasion to
T he list of grievances. subsequently reduced Io itpewrittllen form, con-
taned the fotlowing points (I) half-hour lunch away from the joib: 21
posted schedule a week in adance: (3 if scheduled. guaranteed work a
minimum of 4 hours. maximum of 10 hours a day Intbrm employees a da
ahead of time if employee is not needed (4) emplosee assumes onl) one
position" per da as it is too hard to assume multiple duties: (5) copies
gien to eer) emploee of hiahility and malpractice insurance a wniten
statement rom the insurance compan: (
6
) no one passes out medications
unless the) are certified by the State to do so: 47) no one can take erbal
medlcaiun orders frm the doctor unless the) are an RN or an I.PN with
pharmacology: (8) evers emplo)ee Is entitled to a ataion, or time off, for
personal reasons if employer is given 2 weeks' notice (this des not include
sick da)s). and (9) reply on all points bh Wednesday, Oct. 4. 1978. at another
staff meeting I hour befiore scheduled work begins On an additional sheet of
paper under the heading "Palients. Proedure, and Doctor Staff relations"
additlional problems were noted: (I) updating of aftercare sheets now: 2)
cuonlitenc in plices 'riueen; 3) hbetter balancing in heduling patients;
(4) staff meetings once esery weeks with ull staff ("We're willing to volun-
teer half' of the htme") (5) ritten. detailed job tel.cripltons, and (6) pub-
lished list oi ali employees' phone numbers
W()t:N (\RI . IN(
DI5:('ISIONS OF NAIIO()NAL LAIBOR REL ATIONS BOARI)
Sessions, Hurst said. "Gina. I want you to start counsel-
ing." Sessions replied. "Well, Starr, we kind of want to have
a meeting before we start counseling." Hurst insisted, and
Sessions continued to refuse. About 8:45 a.m., SirskN
called Hurst and told her that the employees just wanted to
have a meeting before they began the day's work and they
wanted her and Dr. Kafrissen to be there. Hurst angrily
said she did not know who had called and left the message
the night before. Hurst finally agreed to come to the meet-
ing.
About 9 a.m., Dr. Kafrissen and his wife. Jill, who as-
sisted him, arrived. Kafrissen. his wife, and the employees
assembled in the counseling room. A list of the grievances
was handed to Kafrissen. who read them and handed them
to his wife. Hurst arrived about 9 or 9:15 a.m. While Hlurst
was reading the list, Kafrissen said. "hey all sound reason-
able to me."
Swirsky opened the meeting by saying that the employees
wanted to talk about problems that had been going on for a
long time, particularly since Kafrissen seemed to he think-
ing of making other changes. Swirsky said that the eplo-
ees were a united front.
Kafrissen then said in the form of a question. "When I
was in school, that mreant you either all stalSed or ou all
left?"
Lucas replied. "Well. that hasn't been decided as et."
Each of the employees read three of the grie;lances.
When they had concluded reading the grievances and
talking about them, Kafrissen said that he thought the
grievances were reasonable and that he would deal with the
medical issues. Anything else was Hurst's department.
Hurst said only she would have to talk to Lev\ and Arthur
Kafrissen.
About 9:45 a.m., Pringle opened the door and said. "Is
this going to go on much longer, patients are waiting?"
Everyone agreed to end the meeting. The employees went
to work. Four or five patients were waiting for the "proce-
dure" and three patients were waiting for birth control. All
patients were counseled and procedures were finished: none
was turned away.
About 3:30 p.m.. Arthur Kafrissen called and asked to
speak to Hurst. Jill Kafrissen took the phone from Swirsky.
and thereafter Hurst went to the phone.
The day went smoothly as far as work was concerned,
except that Hurst would not talk to Swirsky unless Swirsky
asked her a direct question.
About 4:30 p.m., Swirsky overheard a conversation be-
tween Hurst and Kafrissen. Hurst said, "Well, who is going
to tell them?" Kafrissen replied, "Well, I will tell them."
About 6 p.m., when Swirsky was about to punch out,
Hurst said to Swirsky. "Do you have a few minutes? The
doQor would like to talk to you .... He'd like to talk with
you and Gina and Francine." Francine Lucas had already
left for the day.
Kafrissen met with Swirsky and Sessions in the counsel-
ing room. Kafrissen said that Swirsky, Sessions, and L.ucas
were no longer associated with Women Care.
Sessions asked, "Does that mean we are fired?"
Kafrissen said, "Yes."
The employees asked if he knew why and Kafrissen said,
"No." He had just been given the order to fire them. In
reply to further questioning by the employees. Kafrissen
said. "I think the grievances are reasonable and I think
your work has gone very well. and I think ou did a good
job."
Kafrissen suggested that the employees talk to Hurst if
they wanted to know the reasons why they were fired.
Subsequently, the employees talked to Hurst and asked
why they were fired. Hurst said. "Yu know personally that
I think you have some good points, your grievances are
reasonable, but you ent about this all wrong. You
shouldn't have called the meeting the night before. You
shouldn't have left me a note written on a crumpled piece
of paper and not leaving a name." I Hurst also said, "It was
the meeting. it was just the way ou went about it. Harvey
and Arthur (I.ev and Arthur Kafrissen) are vers mad, very
angry." lluist may also have said that l.cy and Arthur
Kafrissen were angry because the employees had kept the
patients u;ai ing.
[)uring this period of time, about 6: 15 p.m.. Hurst had a
con,,erlation with Phillips in the lab. Hurst told Phillips
that )r. Katrissen was in the couiseling room terminating
three counselors and Hlurst hoped Phillips would under-
stand the o ners' position, that they were very angry with
whal had gone on that da5 . Phillips said that the employees
h;ld decided it >,;is concerted actlsiits and she would have to
resign in protest.
Subsequentls. on Octoher 3. Phillips wrote a letter to
Flurst. offering to return to work unconditionalkl. Phillips
has not been oflered her job by Respondent.
About 7:3() p.m. that evening Swirsky. Sessions, and
Phillips arrived at the home of ucas and told her that she
was fired. I.ucas called the clinic and. before Kafrissen
could tell her she ssas fired, she said, "Never mind. I called
to tell you I quit." I.ucas also told IHurst the same thing,
that Lucas quit.
That evening Francisco called Hurst and told Hurst that
Francisco was quitting in protest over the firing of the other
employees.
On October 3. F-rancisco wrote a letter to Hurst oflering
to return to work. tI-rancisco has not been offered her job by
Respondent.
('. A /nalt'xi.s and Final Conclusions
Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right to
engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and pro-
tection. It is a violation of Section 8(a) I) of the Act to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise
of this right.
The instant case is a classic example of such an 8(a)( )
violation. These employees had legitimate, mutual griev-
ances which they concertedly presented to their Employer.
The immediate reaction of Respondent was to fire three of
them at the end of the day. The fact that the employees'
meeting with their supervisors resulted in delayed services
for several patients for 20 or 30 minutes is no justification
for denying these employees their statutory right to engage
in concerted activity. Moreover. I conclude on this record
that the employees were discharged by Respondent solely
because they' had the temerity to demand better working
conditions and to call a meeting specifically for that pur-
pose.
756
WOMEN ('A
Accordingly, I find that, by discharging auren Swirsky,.
Francine Lucas, and Gina Sessions on September 30. Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Barbara Phillips and Tammy Francisco became unfair
labor practice strikers when they resigned on September 30
to protest the above unlawful discharges. They are entitled
to full reinstatement to their former or substantially equiv-
alent positions upon their application to return to work. By
refusing to reinstate Barbara Phillips and Tammy Fran-
cisco to their former positions upon their applications of
October 3 to return to work, Respondent further violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law.
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER'
The Respondent, Women Care. Inc.. Akron, Ohio, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
by discharging employees because of their protected con-
certed activity and by refusing to reinstate unfair labor
practice strikers upon such strikers' application to return to
work.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Offer Lauren Swirsky, Francine Lucas, Gina Ses-
'In the event no exceptions are filed as provided hy Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, he findings.
conclusions and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 10248
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted by the Board and become Its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall he deemed
waived for all purposes.
757
sions. Barbara Phillips. Tammy Francisco immediate and
full reinstatement to their former positions, if available, or.
itf those positions no longer exist. to substantially equivalent
positions with the wage rate they enjoyed at the time they
were terminated or refused reinstatement, plus any in-
creases. and without prejudice to their seniority and other
rights and privileges. and make them whole for all losses
sufftered by them as a result of the discrimination against
them in the manner set forth by the Board in 1': 1:'. Ii0ol-
s.',orth ( niplnv,. 90 N .RB 289 (1950): f'loridl Srteel ('orpo-
ranllion, 231 NL.RB 651 (1977). See, generally. Isis Plunhing
& Ih'ating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). The Gieneral Coun-
sel's request for an interest rate of 9 percent is denied.
Nec'hc \ (ar (inic. 242 NLRB 335 (1979).
(hb) Preserve and, upon 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 other records necessary
to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of
this Order.
(c) Post at its clinic in Akron. Ohio. copies of the at-
tached notice marked "Appendix." ' Copies of said notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
after being duly signed by an authorized representative of
Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con-
secutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notice is not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director tor Region 8. in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
4 In the event hat this Order is enforced hb a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the ords n the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United Stats (Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
labor Relations Board "