WQBS-AM Radio Station

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 318 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

I)( CISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Qualit Broadcasting Corp. of San Juan d/b/a
WQBS-AM Radio Station '"La Gran Cadena" and
lnion de Periodistas, Artes Graficas y Ramas
Anexas afiliada a The Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO.
('ase 24 ('A 3916
March 21, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY C(IIAIRMAN FANNIN(; AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND MURPHY
On November 17, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Charles W. Schneider issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thoritv in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, as modified herein.
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. as modified be-
low, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Quality
Broadcasting Corp. of San Juan d/b/a WQBS AM
Radio Station "La Gran Cadena." Santurce, Puerto
Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the said recommended
Order. as so modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a):
"(a) Offer Peter John Porrata immediate and full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights
or privileges previously enjoyed, and make him whole
for any loss of earnings or other benefits as prescribed
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
mnistlratise l .as Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an Administrative I.law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear prepolideraince f all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions arc incorrect. Standard Dry [Wall Produris, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950) enfd. 188 .2d 362 (3d ir 1951) We have carefully examined the
record and find no hbasis for reversing his findings.
Respondent contends that the Administrative a. Judge erred in stating
that FPorrata' estinmon) concerning his November 3, 1977. meeting with
Rulz was uncontroverted Inasmuch as the Administrative aw Judge ulti-
miately credlited Prrala's version and discredited Ruiz' version of that meet-
ing, whether Porrata's testimons as to he particular statement involved as
contradicted is immiaterial
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950),
with interest thereon as prescribed in Florida Steel
Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). (See, generally,
L.is Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962))."
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
Administrative Law Judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTEI) BY ORDER Of THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had an opportuni-
ty to present evidence, the National Labor Relations
Board has found that we violated the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and has ordered us to
post this notice. We intend to abide by the following:
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise punish
any employee for exercising rights under the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
WE WII.L NOT in any other manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act.
WE WIll. offer Peter John Porrata immediate
and full reinstatement to his former job or, if that
job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed, and
make him whole, with interest, for any loss of
pay, earnings, or benefits that he may have suf-
fered by reason of his discharge.
QUALITY BROADCASTING CORP. OF SAN
JUAN I)/B/A WQBS AM RADIO STATION
"LA GRAN CADENA"
DECISION
SIAIliMENI1 OF IIIE CASE
CIIAR.S W. SHINIEhR. Administrative Law Judge: On
November 8, 1977,1 Union de Periodistas. Artes Graficas y
Ramas Anexas afiliada a The Newspaper Guild, AFL-CIO
(the Union). filed an unfair labor practice charge and filed
on December I a first and on December 28 a second
amended charge against Quality Broadcasting Corp. of San
Juan d/b/a WQBS-AM Radio Station "La Gran Cadena,"
the Respondent, pursuant to the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §151, et seq. On January 12,
1978, the Acting Regional Director for Region 24 (Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico) issued a complaint and notice of hearing
on the charge. Service of the charge, the amendments, and
the complaint were made on the Respondent. On January
All dates are 1977 unless otherwise specified
241 NI.RB No. 43
318
WQBS-AM RADIO STATION "LA GRAN CADENA"
19, 1978, the Respondent filed an answer denying the com-
mission of unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before me in Hato
Rey, Puerto Rico, on February 23 and 24, 1978. All parties
appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity
to participate. to introduce and meet material evidence, and
to engage in oral argument. On April 10, 1978. the General
Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which have been
considered.
On the entire record in the case, including my observa-
tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, and after due
consideration of the briefs. I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Quality Broadcasting Corp. of San Juan d/b/a WQBS
AM Radio Station "La Gran Cadena" is, and has been at
all times material herein, a corporation duly organized un-
der, and existing by virtue of, the laws of the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. At all times material herein, Re-
spondent has maintained an office and place of business at
First Federal Building, Suite 1512, in the City of Santurce,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. where it is, and has been at
all times material herein, continuously engaged in the op-
eration of a radio broadcasting station.
During the past year, which period is representative of its
annual operations generally, Respondent in the course and
conduct of its operations derived gross revenues therefrom
in excess of $100,000. Respondent in the course and con-
duct of its operations advertised national brand products
and was a member of the Associated Press and United
Press International, utilizing their wire services. Respon-
dent is and has been at all times material herein an em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The Issue
On November 3, the Respondent discharged Peter John
Porrata, according to the General Counsel because of his
protected concerted activity in connection with claims on
the Respondent for overtime pay, and according to the Re-
spondent because of deficiencies in performance by Por-
rata. The General Counsel asserts that the discharge vio-
lated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
The Facts
Porrata was hired by the Respondent on July 16 as an
operator-announcer, or disc jockey, for the Respondent's
AM radio station in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
At the time he was hired, Porrata was a full-time law
student, carrying 13 credit hours. His working schedule for
the Respondent. 30 hours per week, was as follows: Mon-
day through Thursday-7 to 12 p.m.: Friday-7 to 2 a.m.:
and Saturday-10 to I a.m.
About a month after being hired. Porrata presented a
claim to Ismael Nieves, the Respondent's controller, for
overtime under a Puerto Rican law requiring time and a
half for hours worked in excess of 8 over a 24-hour period.
Nieves agreed with Porrata's claim, and as a result a check
was issued to Porrata to correct the deficiency.
Toward the end of August. Samuel Pena. a technician
employed by the Respondent, approached Porrata and in-
quired as to the correctness of his pay under the Puerto
Rican law. Porrata explained the law to Pena.
Around September 12, the Respondent presented Porrata
with a document which "confirmed" Porrata's appointment
at a compensation of $125 weekly and which also stated
other terms and conditions of employment, including cer-
tain fringe benefits, with the request that Porrata indicate
agreement by signing the document. Porrata objected on
the ground that the document did not contain all the bene-
fits promised upon his hiring, but ultimately, at the insis-
tence of Program Director Pedro Ruiz, Porrata signed the
document.
In the latter part of October, Samuel Pena and another
disc jockey named Joaquin Ross asked Porrata, in the sta-
tion. for further explanation of the law as to overtime pay.
In the presence of employees Porrata repeated the require-
ments of the law. Shortly thereafter, Pena made a claim onl
the Respondent for overtime pay for work performed in
excess of 8 hours during a 24-hour period. A week after this
claim, Pena received a check from the Respondent for the
amount of the claimed differential.
At the end of 90 days of employment with the Respon-
dent. Porrata became a permanent employee under Puerto
Rican law, and thus entitled to I month's pay and other
benefits in the event of unjustified termination.
The October 31 Conversation Between Porrata and Ruiz
On October 31, prior to the beginning of Porrata's shift,
Program Director Ruiz and Porrata had a conversation, the
terms of which are disputed, in the newsroom of the station.
Porrata's version is as follows.
Ruiz and Porrata whether he and Porrata had not agreed
as to Porrata's salary and hours at the time Porrata was
hired. Porrata replied that that was correct. Ruiz asked why
Porrata had then claimed overtime, Porrata replying that
the overtime compensation was required by law. Ruiz
stated that the problem was that Samuel Pena, apparently
on Porrata's advice. had now claimed overtime, which Por-
rata acknowledged to be true. Ruiz then declared that Por-
rata was setting a precedent for the Respondent which Ruiz
was "not going to let ... happen." During the conversation.
Pena, who had operated the previous shift, and who was
waiting for Porrata to relieve him, came into the newsroom
twice to advise Porrata of the time and heard part of the
conversation. Pena corroborated Porrata's testimony in
substantial part.
Ruiz' version of the conversation is that it consisted
wholly of comment by Ruiz on Porrata's deficiences as an
announcer, in an effort to improve his performance. The
conflict is resolved infra.
Three days later, on November 3, as Porrata was prepar-
ing to begin his shift on that evening, Program Director
Ruiz called Porrata to his office and discharged him. When
Porrata asked the reason, Ruiz stated that the Respondent
was not satisfied with Porrata's services, at which Porrata
319
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expressed disbelief. Ruiz told Porrata that he would give
Porrata a good recommendation if inquiries were made
about him, and he advised Porrata not to "claim ... rights"
for other people. Porrata asked Ruiz for a month's salary,
in accordance with Puerto Rican law in the case of unjusti-
fied discharge of a permanent employee. Ruiz replied that
the discharge was justified and that Porrata was therefore
not entitled to severance pay. Several days later, Porrata
received a letter from the Respondent dated November 3,
1977, confirming his termination and stating as grounds
that the Respondent was "not satisfied with [his services]."2
The Respondent's Asserted Reasons for the Discharge
As Program Director Ruiz testified, the Respondent's
stated grounds for the discharge were Ruiz' dissatisfaction
with Porrata's services. Ruiz' testimony is that from the
outset of Porrata's employment his performance was char-
acterized by the following deficiencies, as outlined in the
Respondent's brief:
1. Not following the written rules for disc jockeys.
2. Announcing in a shouting manner, making it
hard to understand him.
3. Altering the established musical format.
4. Not properly announcing the time, or giving the
station's slogan.
5. Encouraging listeners to call, contrary to station
policy.
6. Having prolonged telephone conversations.
7. Abandoning his work area and going into other
areas of the station, such as the newsroom, to attend to
personal matters.
8. Not paying attention while on the air, thus caus-
ing frequent "batches" or periods of air silence.
Ruiz' testimony in those respects is as follows: He moni-
tored Porrata's performance, principally from Ruiz' home
at night, in the course of which he noted Porrata's deficien-
cies. After a period of some weeks of this-a forbearance
designed to give Porrata reasonable opportunity to adapt
himself to the Respondent's format-Ruiz began to speak
to Porrata about his improper performance, but without
success. From then on, Ruiz testified, he spoke to Porrata
critically on "innumerable occasions" and "continuously,"
2 The findings as to the discharge interview are based on Porrata's uncon-
tradicted and credited testimony. Porrata testified that, after Ruiz told him
tht he was fired because the Respondent was not satisfied with his services,
Porrata responded that that was "impossible" and pressed Ruiz for particu-
lars. Porrata's testimony from that point, in part, is as follows:
Ruiz said, "Well, the reasons are the ones I'm giving you. The com-
pany is not satisfied with your job or your services within the company,
and my obligation is to fire you." And I say "Mr. Pedro Ruiz, you know
those aren't the reasons for firing me. Discharging me from this job."
And he said, "no, the reasons I'm discharging you you might know
them, but those are the reasons."
And he started in a manner of philosophy, he said, "Let me give you
my advice. Try to work on your own. Don't work for nobody. Don't
claim no rights for nobody. I'm going to give you advice. You're a nice
person. You're a young person. You have a nice life ahead of you and I
believe in giving persons second chances and second opportunities. If
you happen to look for a job at another station and they happen to call
here I'll give you a good recommendation of your job. But you got a
nice life ahead of you and you're going to be a lawyer. I know that
you're going to be a lawyer. But you're not a lawyer yet and since you're
not a lawyer yet you can't claim nobody's rights."
both by phone and at the station, with no improvement in
Porrata's performance. Finally, becoming convinced in
mid-October that Porrata was "not interested," Ruiz de-
cided to discharge him. However, Ruiz was unable to se-
cure a replacement until November 3, the day of the dis-
charge. Ruiz did not warn Porrata of adverse consequences,
such as discipline or discharge, which might result from
Porrata's malperformance.
Ruiz' testimony as to Porrata's deficiencies in perform-
ance and his conversations with Porrata about them was
largely in general terms and provided few identifiable inci-
dents or instances which could be refuted by other than
equally general denial. However, it is established that Por-
rata often did his homework during free intervals at the
controls, and on occasion used the typewriter in the news-
room in connection with his studies. Porrata likewise admit-
ted that there were sometimes "batches" during his shift-
one or two of them due to his inattention. However, the
remainder of the batches Porrata attributed to malfunctions
in recordings or tapes, and to failure of the news announcer
to respond to his cues, occurrences which the news an-
nouncer, a witness for the Respondent, admitted. The evi-
dence indicates that technical malfunctions and missed
cues, with resultant batches, occur from time to time, some-
times as a result of personal and physical demand. Porrata's
undenied testimony is that he often reported technical mal-
functions on the "trouble" sheet, or log, kept for each shift.
These were presumably in the possession of the Respondent
and thus available to test the credibility of Porrata's testi-
mony in such respect. Concerning changes in format, Por-
rata admitted changing the order of musical numbers at
times, but only when a malfunctioning tape or other emer-
gency required substitution of a different tape. The testi-
mony of both Program Director Ruiz and employee Joa-
quin Ross establishes that Ruiz did speak to Porrata
concerning his delivery. Porrata's testimony, seemingly con-
firmed by that of Ross, is that Porrata made a number of
changes in his method of presentation and delivery to con-
form to the wishes of Ruiz and the Respondent.
On balance, I conclude from the testimony that Ruiz'
testimony as to the degree and volume of his dissatisfaction
with Porrata was exaggerated. Ruiz spoke to all announcers
from time to time concerning their performance and con-
formance to rules, a number of which seem not to have
been rigorously enforced. As we have seen, personal phys-
ical demand sometimes required an announcer to leave his
place. When work permitted, announcers sometimes left
their positions and visited with others in the station. Night
jockeys, such as Porrata, were required sometimes at inop-
portune moments, to answer the phone, which is located in
the AM control room. Ruiz admitted that he did not know
whether Porrata's phone conversations were work related
or personal-merely that they were prolonged. Since Ruiz
was not ordinarily present in the station during Porrata's
shift, it is not apparent how he could know that Porrata,
rather than others on the staff, were using the phone, nor
how long individual conversations took. With respect to
visitors, though visitors were forbidden in the station, em-
ployees, including Ruiz, sometimes had them, and there is
no indication that Porrata was a greater offender in this
respect than anyone else. Concerning asserted improprieties
in Porrata's delivery, Ruiz' testimony is disputed by Porrata
320
WQBS-AM RADIO STATION "LA GRAN CADENA"
and Ross, the latter still in the Respondent's employ and
thus not likely to be influenced to give false testimony con-
tradicting that of his superior.3
Conclusions
The issue is whether the Respondent's dominant and
controlling motive for Porrata's discharge was his activity
in connection with the overtime matter, one protected un-
der Section 7 of the Act (Synadyne Corp., 228 NLRB 664
(1977)), or was instead Porrata's deficient performance as
an employee (N.L.R.B. v. Fibers International Corporation,
439 F.2d 1311 (Ist Cir. 1971); N.L.R.B. v. Circle Bindery,
Inc., 536 F.2d 447 (Ist Cir. 1976); N.L.R.B. v. South Shore
Hospital, 571 F.2d 677 (Ist Cir. 1978)).
If the testimony of Porrata and Pena is accepted as to the
conversation between Porrata and Program Director Ruiz
on October 31, the evidence warrants the inference that it
was Porrata's advice and activity concerning the overtime
pay which was the operative factor in producing Porrata's
discharge without notice 3 days later. Thus, when Porrata
told Ruiz that dissatisfaction with Porrata's services was not
the reason for his discharge, Ruiz' answer was, in effect,
that it was not, but that it was the reason the Respondent
was giving. In addition, Ruiz warned Porrata not to be giv-
ing advice to individuals about their rights until he became
a lawyer, a statement interpretable as a reference to Ruiz'
assertion that Pena's claim was a result of Porrata's advice.
The sequence between the October 31 conversation and the
November 3 discharge, if the testimony of Porrata and
Pena is substantially correct, seems too marked to be as-
cribed to coincidence. Other factors contributing to that
conclusion are adverted to infra. The question then is, who
is to be credited as to the October 31 conversation?
After consideration of the circumstances and the demea-
nor of the witnesses, I have concluded that the testimony of
Porrata and Pena as to the October 31 conversation is to be
credited and that of Ruiz rejected. According to Ruiz, he
decided about mid-October to discharge Porrata as soon as
he could find a suitable replacement, and at some time prior
to the October 31 conversation with Porrata he had found
and hired one, but he was not available until November 3.
I consider it implausible that, if Ruiz' testimony as to Por-
rata's asserted persistent deficiencies and stubborn incorri-
gibility were correct, Ruiz would have spoken to Porrata on
October 31 for the purpose of improving his performance
over the next 3 days. Moreover, if Ruiz' version of the Oc-
tober 31 conversation is correct, the conclusion would fol-
low that Porrata and Pena had deliberately perjured them-
selves by concocting a wholly fictitious story. While the
testimony of Porrata and Pena was not always consistent,
such defects as it may have in those respects can be as-
cribed, in my opinion, to confusion or failure of recollec-
tion. Their testimony as to what Program Director Ruiz
'See N.LR.B. v. Sunshine Mining Company, 110 F.2d 780. 790 (9th Cir.
1940); Georgia Rug Mill, 131 NLRB 1304. fn. 2 (1961); Wirtz v. B. A C.
Steel Products, Inc., 312 F.2d 14, 16 (4th Cir. 1963); N.LR.B. v. National
Survey Service, Inc., 361 F.2d 199, 206 (7th Cir. 1966): N.L.R.B. v. South-
bridge Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 380 F.2d 851, 855 (Ist Cir. 1967); Federal
Stainless Sink Div. of Unarco Industries. 197 NLRB 489, 491 (1972); Florida
Steel Corporation, 214 NLRB 264 (1974); Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc., et
al., 234 NLRB 618 (1978).
said in the October 31 conversation, however, falls into an
entirely different category: it cannot have been mistaken; it
was either true or it was deliberately false. On the basis of
my observation, I conclude that Porrata and Pena would
not have so boldly and jointly concocted an outright lie.
Porrata and Ruiz, of course, have partisan interests in the
outcome of the litigation. But no reason is apparent for
Pena to have joined in a knowing fabrication.' Thus, per-
jury on Pena's part seems a more remote probability. On
the other hand, Ruiz' testimony, though incorrect, may not
have been a conscious falsehood. The capacity of the hu-
man mind unconsciously to color, to modify, even to oblit-
erate completely, recollections damaging to self-interest,
make it possible for Ruiz' testimony to be honestly incor-
rect as to what he told Porrata on October 31.' Thus, actual
instances of lapses by Porrata, and conversations between
him and Ruiz concerning Porrata's delivery and presenta-
tion, of no more than routine significance at the time they
occurred, may have been unconsciously magnified and dis-
torted in Ruiz's recollection aa to volume, importance, and
occasion, and telescoped and transferred to the October 31
conversation, while actual statements by Ruiz were ex-
punged by psychological rejection. Whatever the reason, I
find Ruiz' testimony as to what he told Porrata on October
31 to be incorrect.
I therefore conclude that Porrata and Pena's version of
the October 31 conversation between Porrata and Program
Director Ruiz is substantially correct. I further conclude
that the Respondent's dominant and controlling motive in
discharging Porrata was his giving advice to employees
about overtime and his activities in connection with that
problem, and not dissatisfaction with Porrata's perform-
ance as an employee.
Thus, it does not seem likely that if the Respondent had
been dissatisfied with Porrata's work performance it would
have permitted him to become a permanent employee, with
its accompanying legal complications. Nor does it seem
likely, in the light of the evidence, that the decision to dis-
charge was made before October 31. The delay from about
October 15, when Ruiz assertedly decided upon the dis-
charge, to November 3, when he effectuated it, is not satis-
factorily explained by asserted inability to find a replace-
ment.
Pena was discharged on the same day as Porrata, and the original unfair
labor practice charge alleged his termination to be discnrminatory. However,
no complaint seems to have issued on that allegation. While the possibility of
bias on Pena's part therefore exists, he has no pecuniary or proprietary inter-
est in the litigation as do Porrata and Ruiz.
See Stryker, "The Art of Advocacy," 94 (1954):
[Apl [a witness'] recollections ofltimes are the product of an association
of ideas, commingled and confused with rationalization, and all his
memory may be tinctured by a bias, sometimes subconscious, or colored
by suggestion.
And see Marshall, "Evidence, Psychology. and The Trial: Some Challenges
To Law," 63 Columbia L. Rev. 197, 211, 215 (1963):
Memory too is selective....
False testimony may be intentional and conscious; on the other hand,
it may involve psychological denial by the witness that he is testifying
falsely, that is, he may be blocking out the truth from his consciousness
and not recognize that he is doing so.
321
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If Porrata's performance was as bad as portrayed by
Ruiz, no reason appears why his shift (and particularly the
last 3 days, involving a total of 15 hours), could not have
been handled by the Respondent's five other announcers,
who are subject to emergency call, once his discharge had
been decided upon and a replacement secured. In addition,
Santiago, the replacement, worked for the Respondent, ap-
parently on a call-in basis, during Porrata's employment,
according to Porrata's credited testimony. The fact that
Santiago held a full-time job with his brother, which he
changed to part-time at some undisclosed date after replac-
ing Porrata, does not seem a satisfactory explanation for
delaying his induction until November 3. Porrata's work
was also part-time, and all of it at night. It also seems sig-
nificant that Porrata was discharged not at the end of his
shift on November 2 but at the beginning of it on Novem-
ber 3. Ruiz' explanation for this-that it was a "personal
decision" on Ruiz' part-is hardly enlightening. The fact
that the Respondent made settlement on overtime claims
other than those of Porrata and Pena does not negate the
Respondent's motivation in Porrata's case, which is estab-
lished from Ruiz' statements in the October conversation.
The apparent objection to Porrata was that he was a cata-
lyst, not that he was a claimant.
Those factors, in my judgment, require the conclusion
that Porrata's discharge was not decided on until shortly
before it was effected and that its cause was not his work
performance but his protected concerted activity. It is so
found. The Respondent thus violated Section 8(aXl) 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 6
The Respondent, Quality Broadcasting Corp. of San
Juan d/b/a WQBS-AM Radio Station "La Gran Cadena,"
Santurce, Puerto Rico, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 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.
I. Cease and desist from:
(a) Discharging or otherwise punishing employees be-
cause they engage in protected concerted activity for the
purpose of collective bargaining or mutual aid and protec-
tion.
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, 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 ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to Peter John Porrata immediate and full rein-
statement to his former position or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to his seniority or other rights and privileges, and make
him whole, with interest, for any loss of pay, earnings, or
benefits he may have suffered by reason of his discharge by
the Respondent.
(b) 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 all other records neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(c) Post at its premises copies, in English and in Spanish,
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 24, after being duly signed by an authorized represent-
ative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, inconspicuous places, in-
cluding all places where notices to employees are customar-
ily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 24, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7 In the event that 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
National 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."
322