Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Jose M. Delgado. Case 23-CA-6546 November 21, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS JENKINS, MURPHY. AND TRUESDALE On August 2, 1978, Administrative Law Judge El- bert D. Gadsden issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Southwestern Bell Tele- phone, Brownsville, Texas, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. 'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 186 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELBERT D. GADSDEN. Administrative Law Judge: Upon unfair labor practice charges filed on June 2, 1977, by Jose M. Delgado, an individual, the Charging Party herein, against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, herein called Respondent, a complaint was issued by the Regional Director for Region 23, on behalf of counsel for the Gener- al Counsel, on July 29, 1977. In substance, the complaint alleges that Respondent has refused to reinstate Jose M. Delgado to his former or a substantially equivalent posi- tion of employment, because of Delgado's activities on be- half of the Union and his having engaged in other protect- ed concerted activities, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying that it has engaged in any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. The hearing in the above matter was held before me in Brownsville, Texas, on November 17, 1977. Briefs have been received from counsel for the General Counsel and counsel for Respondent, respectively, which have been carefully considered. Upon the entire record in this case and from my obser- vation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Respondent maintains its principal of- fice at St. Louis, Missouri, and is engaged in the business of transmitting and receiving telephone messages in and among the several States in the southwestern portion of the United States, including the State of Texas. Only Respon- dent's facilities and operations in the greater Brownsville, Texas, area are involved in this proceeding. In the course and conduct of its business during the past 12 months, which period is representative of all times mate- rial herein, Respondent received revenues in excess of $100,000 for the performance of its communication ser- vices herein above described. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find that Communications Workers of America, Local 12229. is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Respondent herein, is a corporation engaged in the business of trans- mitting telephone messages in and among several States in the southwestern portion of the United States, including the State of Texas. The Charging Party, Jose M. Delgado, was first employed by Respondent at its Milwaukee, Wis- consin, facility on November 17, 1971. In April 1973, Del- gado moved to Brownsville and was employed by Respon- dent's facility there. He became union steward in the summer of 1973 and remained in that capacity until March 16, 1977. As union steward, Delgado's responsibility was to police the contract with respect to employees' safety and the reso- lution of employees' problems and complaints. In his stew- 419 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ard capacity, Delgado processed a considerable number of employee grievances. As a result of an acute personal (fam- ily) problem in the spring of 1977, Delgado requested a leave of absence which Respondent declined to grant. Thereafter, Delgado tried to transfer to Respondent's Ok- lahoma City facility but was advised there were no posi- tions available at that time. Since he was unsuccessful in obtaining a transfer, Delgado tendered his resignation to Respondent on May 13, 1977, returned to Oklahoma City, and applied for employment at Respondent's facility there. When he did not succeed in obtaining employment, Delga- do called Respondent's Brownsville facility a few days later and requested reinstatement to his position, but Re- spondent advised that it could not rehire him. Delgado contends that Respondent's refusal to reinstate him to his former position is based upon his union activity as steward, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. The primary issue presented by the pleadings and evi- dence for determination in this proceeding is whether Re- spondent's refusal to reinstate Jose M. Delgado to his most recent position is based upon good cause, economic con- siderations, or upon Delgado's union activity as steward in violation of the Act. B. Delgado's Activities as Union Steward Jose Al. Delgado testified that as union steward he talked to supervisors about employees' problems and complaints almost daily but for sure, at least twice a week. He said he processed the grievance against discriminatory assignments of overtime. In this particular instance, it was established that one employee had 108 hours of overtime and the low- est number of overtime hours by an employee was 8 hours. He met with management (Mr. Nations and M. A. Cog- gin) who, in October 1975, agreed that overtime should be equally distributed and assured by posting it, so that all workers could see who was being assigned. He attended other grievance meetings in San Antonio and another grievance meeting concerning contractors doing craft work. Delgado said nothing ever came of many of those grievances, but at least he fought for them. When Delgado was asked was he ever reprimanded by Respondent, he said that the day following his meeting with management on the grievance against discriminatory overtime, the following transpired: Mr. Coggins [sic] had come out and was waiting for us, and I was by my truck, drinking a cup of coffee, because we had been told not to go to coffee, so I took my coffee break at the jobsite. Anyway, that day Mr. Coggins [sic] walked up to me, and he was mad. He told me, so, you shook your finger, huh? I said, well, what are you talking about? He said, you're boasting to all the people that you won that grievance. Don't you know that I know that every-don't you know that I know about everything that goes on at the garage? I said, wow, I thought I was just talking to people, you know, that I thought I could talk to. Evidently, one of them went and told him about it. So he was mad. I wasn't boasting. What I was doing, I was telling the people what had happened and how we came out ahead. And everybody was satisfied with it. Delgado further testified that when he assumed employ- ment at Respondent's Brownsville facility he had 2 years' experience as a splicer and was the most experienced and senior man on his crew, except for Wayne Spofford, a sup- ervisor. Delgado's testimony in this regard is corroborated by the testimony of fellow employees James Thurwalker and Yvonne Thurwalker. Delgado said his supervisor, Mike Kennedy, kept telling him, "You do not work for the Union. You work for the Company" (Respondent).' Fellow employee James Thurwalker testified as follows: Q. (By Ms. Small) Would you state for the Court your opinion of Joe's work, based upon your work with him. A. I worked in association with Joe for the three years I came down here. And Joe was the-came here from Wisconsin, and he was one of the only splicers with any service or experience that knew his job. He knew his job well. He knew the BSP, which is our standards, well. And he performed his duties and re- sponsibilities in accordance with those BSP's. And I worked in association with him, as he was a splicer and I was a lineman. And he and I would be doing splicing work or recon work, which is reconcentration of buried drops into the pedestals that Joe worked in. So I was exposed to his work at times, and generally a great deal of the time. And I was exposed to him as a person and as an employee at Southwestern Bell, 604 Galveston Road. Q. Would you state for the Court what if anything you know about his Union activities. A. Yes. I came here in 1973, in January, and shortly thereafter met Joe. And Joe was the Union representa- tive for our garage .... * * . * t Q. Was he the only steward in the garage at that time? A. Yes, he was. He was constantly exposed to our union needs, our employee needs. And he was exposed to solving these problems that arose with our new em- ployees. We had several employees. Not many employees that are splicing now have over three to four years' experience. I would imagine most have less that [sic] two years' experience. They're exposed to the system for the first time, the Bell Sys- tem for the first time, and they need some supervision as far as Company/employee-type relations. And Joe tI credit Jose Delgado's testimonial account of his active and aggressive processing of employee grievances as steward for the Urnon: that Supervis- or Coggin accused him of boasting about having won the grevance on the issue of discriminatory assignment of overtime work; and that Supervisor Kennedy frequently told him that he (Delgado) did not work for the Union, he (Delgado) worked for the Company (Respondent). I credit Delgado's testimony because not only is it uncontroverted, but also it is essentially corroborated by the testimony of fellow employees James and Yvonne Thurwalker, infra, as well as by some of the other credited evidence of record. 420 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY was the employee representative for the Union, and he was constantly trying to better our situation and com- ply with our safety standards and with our needs, as far as doing our job, our Bell System tools and what have you, that we needed to do our jobs or our job assignments. And, naturally, because he was representing at the end thirty-five people, his face was seen much more than anybody else in the garage. And the tendency, the general mood of management that I felt . Q. (By Ms. Small) What has your experience been as far as Company reaction to union activities? A. I was involved as a Union steward at the begin- ning of Yvonne Thurwalker's grievance. I consulted Joe as the Union steward, and we-we started this thing together. I consulted Joe, and we both filed- went to the Union president and decided to file a grievance against the action that was taken against Bonnie Thurwalker. A. The Company seemed to retaliate in that we were given extra heavy workloads to do, as well as there was a general sentiment against us, in that Bon- nie, after her grievance was completed, had to file a harassment grievance because she won that grievance. And Joe seemed to be set aside. He was pointed out as a Union official, or a Union steward .... S · * Q. (By Ms. Small) Can you give me some specific instances in which you feel, in your own opinion, that Joe was watched? A. Yes. Joe was followed from the storeroom on several occasions by his supervisor to make sure that he was going to his first jobsite. And that was why he was discovered in the coffee shop, because he was fol- lowed directly from the storeroom. No other employ- ees were followed directly from the storeroom, to my knowledge. On cross-examination, Thurwalker said that every time a grievance was filed the filing person would be assigned to a heavy workload. He also said that he and other employees saw Mike Kennedy follow Delgado and other employees in a company truck from the storeroom; and that he has nev- er been suspended, reprimanded, or warned about being observed in a coffee shop. Yvonne Thurwalker was employed by Respondent on December 19, 1974, as a line person, placing cables, climb- ing posts, removing poles, and performing some splicing and recon work. She may also have been handling mate- rials inside. She worked until August 1, 1977, when she went on maternity leave for the second time. She testified that she was worked with Delgado for several years and when she learned she was pregnant on the first occasion, she told her supervisor, Richard Vela, who advised her that she would have to take a leave of absence. Yvonne Thur- walker further testified as follows: Q. How were you forced to take that leave? A. I was told by my supervisor that -Richard Vela at that time-that I had two alternatives: I could either take my leave of absence voluntarily, and ev- erything would be all right, or they were going to have to write up the leave of absence for me, force it upon me, and then I would run into complications as far as getting-you know, I'd have a lot of trouble with the company. And I said, either way you're going to-I'm going to have to take it. Right? And he said, yes. I said, you go ahead and do it. They forced my leave of absence. We fought it through the Union, and I got my backpay. * . * * * Q. So if you believe that you had a leave of absence forced upon you, would it be your position then that in your pregnant condition you would still be able to climb poles and do the rest of your job duties? A. No. I had a doctor's statement saying that I was not capable of climbing poles or doing heavy lifting. Any other thing would be to my benefit. You know, any other job. Q. All right. Could this have affected, then, the kind of work as- signments that you got? A. We weren't doing much pole climbing at that time. I was-I was, and had been for the past five months prior to my leave of absence, inspecting con- tractors, watching and making sure they do the job correctly, and placing a conduit line, which I could have handled, yes, all through the nine months. Q. But this would have affected the type of job as- signments you received previously. Is that true? A. No. Not where I was then? JUDGtE GADSDEN At that time you could have per- formed all of the work that was assigned to you-at that particular time. THE WITNESS Yes, your Honor. Yvonne Thurwalker said that she consulted steward Del- gado who advised her of the Union's position, and she then filed a grievance because she was forced to take a leave of absence from May 1975 through January 1976. She said she was advised by management that she could stay until certain contractors who were doing conduit work had com- pleted their jobs, but Mr. Coggin kept asking her how soon was she going on leave. This went on for 3 months and when Delgado resigned as steward in March 1977, she be- came steward, and then the following started: THE WITNESS: When I would address Mike Kennedy to ask a question he would fall back and ask what I was going to bitch about. Or when I would ask him or address him, you know-what now? What did I do? Q. (By Ms. Small) How many women were there in the crew? 421 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. Two. Q. What action, if any, did the Company take in relationship to you after you filed your grievance over your pregnancy leave? A. We were four people on the crew. There was two line trucks, one a bucket, and the other one the corner mount, which does the digging and the placing of the poles and stuff like this. It was the policy, and we were to where I was with the senior man, and I had the least experience. And then we had-we were split up, a male and a female. The male with the higher experi- ence and then the female with the least experience. We were then split up. Us two girls took the corner mount, which is the heavy truck doing the placing of the poles, removing poles and things like that. The two senior men were placed in the bucket truck with the power steering, and things like this. Yvonne Thurwalker said that she was forced to take her present leave of absence for pregnancy in August 1977, but that she signed the papers herself (Respondent did not sign them for her); her supervisor, Mike Kennedy, threatened to ruin her record by telling her that she was not doing her job, that she sat on her "ass" and did nothing, and found any excuse to avoid doing her job. She said that at that time she was pumping water out of a manhole with her partner, Judy Warren, who was also pregnant; but Warren got sick. She said that she called Kennedy and advised him of Warren's illness; and that he said he was going to send someone for Judy Warren and asked her could she handle the job by herself. Yvonne Thurwalker continued to testify as follows: I got-I finished the job. There was one manhole I couldn't find, which was the last one I was to pump. There was a big distance-I felt that that one I first saw was too far distant. I jumped into the truck, and I was looking at the print, to look on there what the footage was on the manholes. At that time Richard Vela and Ron Ticer went by and saw me in the truck, and then I proceeded to pump the manhole. When I got back to the storeroom he said I was sitting on the job. There was nothing-the machines weren't going or anything, I was just sitting there, not doing anything, I had a big mouth, and I didn't do my job, I found any excuse not to do the job. And I asked him why it wasn't on my record. And he said, it will be now. Eduardo P. Garcia, employed with the Respondent 27 years and presently an installer and chief steward, undis- 2 Essentially, I credit James Thurwalker's testimony with respect to Delgado's work competence, his aggressive steward (union) activities, and Respondent's manifested retaliation or antiunion attitude towards its em- ployees, including Delgado, after said employees had filed or processed gnevances. I also credit the testimonial account of Yvonne Thurwalker to the effect that Respondent (Supervisor Kennedy) manifested acts of reprisal against employees (Yvonne Thurwalker) for filing and/or processing griev- ances against Respondent or for engaging in protected concerted activity. I credit the testimony of both witnesses because their accounts are virtually uncontroverted and the) are consistent. each with the other and with Delgado's credited testimony. putedly and credibly testified that about 35 percent of the grievances are handled informally. Based upon the foregoing credited testimony and all of the credited evidence of record, I thereupon conclude and find that from April 1973 until March 16, 1976, union steward Jose Delgado was a very active and aggressive grievance processor for himself and for 30 to 35 other ga- rage employees of the Respondent; that Delgado was so active and vocal in said activity, that on one occasion Sup- ervisor M. A. Coggin accused him of boasting about his victory on a grievance against discriminatory assignment of overtime work; and that on several occasions, Supervis- or Mike Kennedy told Delgado he did not work for the Union, he worked for the Company (Respondent). C. Delgado's Problem With Coffee Breaks and Disciplinary Actions Imposed by Respondent Delgado further testified that they reported to work at 7:30 a.m., and that Respondent did not have a rigid rule about coffee breaks except that they could go to coffee without their trucks I hour after lunch and 1 hour before the end of the workday. He further testified as follows: In May of 1976 I was observed at a coffee shop on my way to Port Isabel, Texas, with another employee, Antonio Morado. And when I came back in, my boss, Mike Kennedy, was waiting for me, and he asked me about it. I told him. He said, O.K. You know I got to suspend you. I'm going to. I says, for how long? He said, thirty-one and three-quarter hours. And I got a little upset. I said, thirty-one and three quarter hours for staying over five minutes at the cof- fee shop? Thirty-one and three-quarter hours. That's what it is. I said, O.K. Man! I handed in my keys and I went home for a whole week .... Q. What happened .... A ..... almost. Q. What happened shortly after that? A. Shortly after that, ma'am, there was a bunch of people caught in ... at a. . . at a shift, and. . . no. They were caught at at a coffee shop, and nothing came of it-no. They came to see me because they were getting docked forty-five minutes. And I asked Mike. I said, Mike, come here. Let me talk to you for a minute. Q. Who is Mike? A. Mike Kennedy. Q. And who was he? A. He was my supervisor. I said, Mike, don't you think that-you know, here you are, you send me home for thirty-one and three- quarter hours, man, for going to coffee, and you dock these people three-quarters of an hour. Don't you think something is wrong here? And he said, well, Joe, they're just lucky, that's all. 422 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY With respect to Delgado's violating the coffee break rule, Mike Kennedy, formerly a union steward but now a con- struction foreman, testified that while on his way to Port Isabel to see about a job in 1976, he passed a cafe and saw a splicing tiuck there. He parked and discovered Delgado drinking a cup of coffee and reading a paper. Kennedy continued to testify as follows: So I sat down, and I think I had a cup of coffee with Joe, and I said, Joe, you know, we are going to have to stop this. You are going to have to quit this. This is every day or every week, I'm-you know-catching you in here, or I'm walking in here, and here you sit. You know. And I said, what's it going to take? What do I have to do, you know, to get your attention on this? He said, well, I don't know. So I said, well, O.K. I said, you go on and go to work, you know. So he left and went to work. And I went on about my business. On the next day, May 9 or 10, 1976, he came back to the office and one of his supervisors told him that he had ob- served Delgado in the same cafe a few minutes after he left the storeroom. When he (Kennedy) asked Delgado about it, Delgado denied he was in the coffee shop. But after he told Delgado that he was observed by two supervisors and asked him to tell the truth, Delgado then said, "O.K.," he was there. Kennedy said that he told Delgado this is going to have to stop, that he had gone along with him, and that he had refused to put this in writing because he (Delgado) had problems and that he wanted him to get his mind clear and his problem solved, so he could get his mind on his work. Delgado, said, "Well, O.K." However, 2 days later, while on his way to Port Isabel, Kennedy observed a splic- ing truck at this cafe around 7:45 a.m. or 8 o'clock. When he investigated he was shocked because there was Delgado. He asked Delgado what did he have to do and Delgado said he did not know, because he (Kennedy) was the boss. Kennedy said that he told Delgado he would forget about this incident and that he was not going to put it in writing, but he said that if it happened again, he was going to take disciplinary action. However, Kennedy said that he later discussed the mat- ter with supervisors in the office and came to the conclu- sion that he should suspend Delgado, which he did the next day, from Tuesday morning until Monday morning. Del- gado said, "That's 4 days, Mike." And he said, "Yes it is, that's what it's going to take to get your attention." Kenne- dy admitted that Delgado was not the only one to abuse coffee relief; and that he imagined everyone at some time or another abused the rule, including himself when he was an employee, for which he got reprimanded. Kennedy said that although the Company provided a coffee period for its employees, he would observe Delgado having that coffee period and then going straight to another coffee shop. He acknowledged that he did not give Delgado written warnings because Delgado got along well with people and he was hav- ing some serious family problems and that he (Kennedy) wanted to help him. He was trying to win Delgado's confi- dence, and if he had given him warnings he would have destroyed that opportunity. Delgado said that when Supervisor Richard Vela saw him in the coffee shop on May 10, 1976, at 8:15 a.m., he was not in violation of the relief rule because, on some occasions, the 1 hour had elapsed or they had already been to their first work location. He denied that Mike Kennedy saw him in the coffee shop on May 11, 1976, at 7:45 a.m. but instead at 8:30 a.m. or 8:45 or closer to 9 a.m. Delgado said that he was suspended Tuesday through Fnday (37 hours) in May 1976, and he did not file a grievance for the suspension. He admitted that he was caught on a subse- quent occasion, was suspended pending termination, and that after Mr. Coggin, Kennedy, and union officials met, Coggin decided not to terminate him but to give him an- other chance. Andrew Besa has been employed by Respondent for 10 years and is presently a switchman and chief steward for inside plant. He seas also a past president of the Union until March 1977. He undisputedly testified, and I credit his testimony, that the types of employee violations for which Respondent imposed disciplinary action were for re- petitive tardiness, repetitive absences, not reporting to the supervisor that an employee was going to be out, or re- maining out without notifying the supervisor. He said Re- spondent determines the severity of the disciplinary action to be imposed by the number of offenses and the severity of the offense; such as, stealing would probably be dealt with severely, as compared with too long a coffee break, which would probably be the lowest severity. From his ex- perience, the longest suspension imposed for a minor of- fense would be a day or two. In one instance, he said, an employee was late I hour and suspended for I day-for the remainder of the day, or 7 hours, something like that. In another instance, an employee was given a I-day suspen- sion for drinking on the job. M. A. Coggin, engineering construction supervisor for Respondent, testified that he is the second level supervisor and that the first level supervisors are Harry Irby, Ron Ticer, and Mike Kennedy, all of whom report to him. He acknowledged that he issued and signed the reprimands dated October 13, 1975 (Resp. Exh. 7), to Delgado for eat- ing a taco and reading the newspaper of the job. The long- est suspension in which he was ever involved was 36 to 40 hours, for an employee's refusing to carry out an order. He acknowledged that on one occasion seven men were sus- pended for 8 hours for drinking on the job, but that that was the only incident of such drinking by those employees; and that the length of all suspensions may very well be related to the needs of the job; that is, the availability of skilled men to perform the job after a suspension, the time within which the job must be completed, and the work volume and work schedules of the Respondent. Coggin said no persons were hired after Delgado's resig- nation and that all changes in positions were accomplished by the transfer of employees from within. D. How Respondent Dealt With Other Union Stewards Richard Taoner has been employed by Respondent since 1957, and has served as president of the Local. He testified as follows: 423 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Q. Now, as Union president what has your experi- ence been as far as Company and Union cooperation in the Valley? A. It's been hostile. Q. Would you please specify so that we can get the facts upon which you base that conclusion? A. Like Joe, as far as being suspended for thirty- one and a half hours as a job steward for coffee break, that's excessive. Most people don't, unless they are a job steward, get suspended for that amount of time. Q. Can you give me some specific instances in which they were not suspended for that amount of time. A. Yes. Mr. Coggins [sic], two weeks ago, caught two people the same way, and they were not suspend- ed at all. In McAllen a few months ago I had two men sus- pended for one day, drinking coffee. I went in to the Company, and they agreed to pay them. Very seldom do we get suspensions on coffee. Tarver said that he had another steward who was sus- pended three times and the Union had to have her resign in order to keep her out of trouble. One Mary Lou Rodrigues had to go in her personnel files because she was being harassed for being a union officer in Brownsville over re- ceiving calls from union members or going to grievance meetings. Mr. Coggin would not allow travel to steward Bonnie Thurwalker to go to grievance meetings in San An- tonio. He (Tarver) had to call Coggin and quote the con- tract to him and then he (Coggin) said, "Oh, it was a mis- take." Tarver said that the coffee break policy has always permitted an employee to get coffee if he was on his way to a job where coffee could not be purchased. He continued to testify as follows: Q. O.K. Now, when you say their attitude toward some of your officers, can you give us some specific examples that- A. Well, Bonnie Thurwalker took over after Joe. She provided me information to file some sixty some- odd formal grievances out of Brownsville on contrac- tors doing contract work. I sent my executive vice president, Dennis Dobbs, and Mary Lou Rodriguez, vice president, in to meet with Mr. Kennedy to get information. And they refused to give us any informa- tion of why the contractors was doing the work.3 Based upon the foregoing testimony of the several wit- nesses, which is essentially consistent and uncontraverted, I hereby conclude and find that Jose Delgado was given a disciplinary warning on October 13, 1975, for eating a taco and reading a newspaper on the job; that just about all of Respondent's employees have, on occasion, violated the 1 credit Richard Tarver's account of how Respondent's supervisors gave active union stewards, including Delgado, a difficult time by imposing se- vere disciplinary measures upon them for simple violations of company rules, or by harassing them and failing to cooperate by giving them request- ed information for processing grievances. Tarver's testimony is credited not only because it is uncontraverted, but also because I was persuaded by his demeanor that he was telling the truth. Moreover, his testimony is supported by the logical consistency of all the credited evidence relating to the man- agement-employee relations of Respondent. Company's coffee relief rule; that Delgado was caught vio- lating the Company's coffee relief rule more than any other employee, but he was the only employee shown to have been followed by management when he was caught on sev- eral occasions violating the rule; that in May 1976, Delga- do was given the longest (37 hours) suspension from work for violating the coffee relief rule; that no employee other than Delgado had ever been so severely disciplined (37 hours' suspension) for violating the coffee relief rule; that the record does not show that any employee was the sub- ject of such extensive surveillance by Respondent in going to coffee shops after leaving the store in the morning; that Delgado was subsequently caught violating the coffee relief rule for which Respondent (Supervisor Coggin) considered terminating his employment but elected to give Delgado another chance; and that Delgado's immediate supervisor, Mike Kennedy, admitted he did not give Delgado any writ- ten warnings for tale coffee relief infractions because, he contends, he was trying to win Delgado's confidence since Delgado got along so well with people. E. The Onset of Delgado's Personal Problem and his Ultimate Resignation Delgado further testified that just prior to March 1977, the Union had an election in which he ran for vice presi- dent and Andrew Besa ran for president of the Brownsville area. They both lost and Delgado said that he was disap- pointed because Brownsville elected only one officer. He investigated the results of the election and learned that only 12 garage employees out of 36 had voted. He was pretty upset about this fact because he felt his steward ef- forts for employees were not appreciated. Consequently, he submitted his letter of resignation as steward on March 16, 1977. Subsequently, Delgado said that a new problem arose over the overtime and he went to his supervisor, Ron Ticer, and reminded him of the meeting with Mr. Coggin some time ago in which Coggin said the Company was going to post the overtime. Ticer said Coggin did not tell him any- thing about that and he told Ticer to call Mr. Coggin and ask him about it. In May 1977, Delgado said that a personal problem arose wherein his ex-wife called him about the care of his 2-year-old daughter in Oklahoma City. He requested a leave of absence and Supervisor Ron Ticer told him he had spoken with his supervisor, Coggin, about it and informed Delgado that unless such leave was for an emergency in the immediate family or pregnancy, Respondent could not grant it. Two weeks later, Delgado asked for a vacation and was granted one from April 18 to April 25. On April 25, Delga- do called Supervisor Ron Ticer and asked for an extension, and Ticer granted him the remainder of his vacation, 2 days, plus 3 days excused absence time, which gave Delga- do until April 29 to return to work. Delgado went to Okla- homa City and applied for employment at Respondent's Oklahoma City facility where it was suggested that he try to transfer, and he advised them that he had requested a transfer on two occasions without success. He then asked the lady with whom he had spoken how could he get a job 424 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY there, and she told him that if he resigned and sent a rec- ommendation from his supervisor she could then hire him. Delgado returned to Brownsville and talked to Supervisor Ticer about it. His description of that conversation is as follows: He said, well, I don't know. Are you sure you want to go? I said, man, it's not that I want to go. It's something that I have to do, you know. And he said, well, Joe, I'll help you as much as I can. You can count on me, you know. And he says, write me a letter. And so I wrote the letter and told him why and all this. He said, good luck, man. I never had any trouble with you, and I'll be willing to help you as far as I can. And I said, thanks, Ron. Thanks a lot. Delgado submitted his resignation on May 13, 1977. and went to Oklahoma City and applied for a splicer's job with Respondent's Oklahoma City facility. He was informed that there were no openings for a splicer, but that he could apply at the service department for a position as a tempo- rary service representative. Delgado said he declined to ap- ply for the subject position because he was not interested in that position. He called Supervisor Ticer immediately, on May 16, 1977, and asked to be reinstated to his job. Ticer said he did not know and suggested that he talk to M. A. Coggin. Delgado called Coggin and the latter told him he (Delgado) made the decision. Delgado said he reminded Coggin that he had rehired Sammy Sullivan, who had been out for a long time, and Coggin said, "Oh! I already talked to Robbins [Coggin's supervisor] and he seems to agree with me, I don't have to give you your job back, and I already told you all the trouble you gave me about those grievances. " Del- gado said he then said, "It sounds very final Coggin, I have worked for you .... " And Coggin hung up the telephone. Delgado said he then brought his daughter back to Brownsville. He denied that Ticer told him before he re- signed that it would be difficult for him to be rehired.4 With respect to Delgado's resignation from employment, Supervisor Ron Ticer testified that after being informed by Delgado of his intention to resign, he asked Delgado was he sure about what he was about to do, and Delgado said, "Sure." He said he then said, "If you're sure, I want it in writing," and Delgado said, "O.K." Delgado called him a few days later requesting reinstatement to his job and he told Delgado it was out of his hands because the letter had been submitted that Friday, and he was sure the papers were being processed. Ticer said at the time he supervised Delgado he (Delgado) was not active in the Union and he was not aware of any grievances Delgado had filed. Super- visor M. A. Coggin said that he simply told Delgado he I credit Delgado's testimony to the effect that Supervisor Coggin told him he (Coggin) could not rehire him because he had received the blessings of his own supervisor. Mr. Robbins, not to rehire Delgado. and because Delgado gave him all that trouble with those grievances. I credit Delgado's testimony not only because I was persuaded by his demeanor that he was telling the truth, but also because Coggin did not categoncally deny that he made such statements, and because such statements appear to be consistent with Coggin's other antiunion statements and conduct in the record. would not rehire him, that he (Delgado) had made a deci- sion and as far as he (Coggin) was concerned, it was final. Coggin said he declined to rehire Delgado because of his past and poor work performance. Carol Thomas, an employment office interviewer for the Respondent, testified that about May 16, 1977. Delgado came to the Oklahoma City office and asked for a service representative position, permanent or temporary. He com- pleted an application and she scheduled him for a test on June 17, 1977, at 12:45 p.m. He did not appear, nor did he call to reschedule the test. At the time he applied, she said that Respondent was not accepting applications for craft jobs and it has not accepted applications for craft positions within the past 2 years. Delgado denied that he agreed to accept the temporary position or that he requested a ser- vice representative job. He said that they told him that was the position that was open and he applied for it and left Oklahoma. F. Delgado's Work Performance Delgado said that prior to November 1976. the last ap- praisal he received from Mike Kennedy was outstanding. He said only two reprimands were placed in his personnel file, the last of which was in May 1976, and he resigned in May 1977. He said that shortly after he was suspended for 37 hours from Tuesday through Friday in May 1976, Re- spondent sent him to advanced cable splicing school, the following Monday, in San Antonio for I week. He said his last supervisor, Ticer, commended his work on two occa- sions. Harry Irby, employed by Respondent 31 years, has worked as a cable splicer, switchman, and cable splicing foreman. He has been a member of the Union for 27 years, 18 years as secretary, and he now serves as chief job fore- man. Irby testified that cable splicing work is generally unsupervised 80 to 85 percent of the time, and sometimes the splicer works alone. He supervised Delgado for I year. In explaining (Resp. Exh. 3) a "Recommendation of Wage Consideration Date and/or Progress Review," signed by Irby on April 23, 1974, he said that after I month to 6 weeks, the report indicates Delgado took pnde in his work. At that time he considered Delgado a good employee. The nonsupervisory employee appraisal, dated May 10, 1974 (Resp. Exh. 4) was favorable. Delgado was rated 65 to 75 percent on job skills as a cable splicer on a scale of 100 percent. He believed that Delgado's performance would improve with experience, but his productivity needed im- provement. However, at that time Delgado was a goodpo- tential for management. Respondent's Exhibit 5 is a progress review report after Irby had been supervising Delgado 8 months. By this time, Irby contends that Delgado's performance had declined, that he had fouled up several jobs necessitating his (Irby) going to the jobs six or seven times to correct mistakes that Delgado had made, and which he felt a man with Delgado's experience should not have made. The report was unfavorable as described on pages 116 through 118 of the transcript herein. Irby said that he thought Delgado's domestic and financial problems were affecting his work performance. However, in General Counsel's Exhibit 2, 425 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Irby rated Delgado's work satisfactory, indicating that he tries to keep defects to a minimum and did a trouble free job; that he showed good improvement in the last 3 months with a lot better attitude. Mike Kennedy supervised Delgado from September 1975 until November 1976. In his employee appraisal, dated January 1976, he indicated that Delgado needed improvement in attitude and pride, and that he was abusing the lunch relief periods. He said he did not recall telling the Board during an interview that he did not have any trouble with Delgado's work performance sufficient to write him up. Ron Ticer testified that he supervised Delgado for ap- proximately 6 1/2 months but during such time did not ever prepare a formal appraisal or progress review regard- ing Delgado's work performance. Now, while testifying, Ti- cer said that he believed for the amount of experience Del- gado had, his production was a little below par, or below average, and that his quality of work was approximately average. He said that Delgado liked to pick his job and would complain about the jobs. Ticer further testified that Respondent's performance evaluations are given annually on the birthdate of the employee. He acknowledged that Delgado's evaluation was due in May 1977, but that Delga- do had an evaluation in his file dated January 23, 1976. He admitted that he knew Delgado was a union steward. Analysis and Conclusions In determining whether Respondent's refusal to rehire Jose M. Delgado to his last position of employment was based upon good cause, objective economic considera- tions, or upon Delgado's aggressive activity as steward for the Union, it is readily observed that the evidence is clear that Delgado voluntarily resigned from his position on May 13, 1977. The evidence of record is also clear that Respondent, through its supervisors M. A. Coggin and Mike Kennedy, has manifested a history of antiunion (an- tiactive stewards) conduct against Delgado, as well as other persons (stewards Thurwalker, Rodriguez, etc.) who served as stewards for the Union. Hence, whatever reasons, just or pretextual, Respondent advances for refusing to rehire Delgado must necessarily be measured against this histori- cal background and Respondent's knowledge of Delgado's active involvement in the multiplicity of employee griev- ances he processed. There cannot be a genuine question about Delgado's in- volvement in grievance processing since the record is re- plete with evidence that Delgado was recognized by Re- spondent, and respected by his fellow employees, as an aggressive processor of employee grievances. So active was Delgado in this respect that supervisor Coggin accused him of boasting to other employees about a grievance victory, and supervisor Kennedy frequently reminded him that he did not work for the Union, but for the Company (Respon- dent). The credited evidence of record clearly establishes that all of Respondent's employees have, on occasion, violated its coffee relief rule by purchasing coffee at times other than the designated coffee relief periods; and that some employees, including Delgado, have been disciplined by Respondent for such violations. However, it is well estab- lished that Delgado was the most frequent offender of the rule caught by management, and that he is the offender who has been most severely disciplined (37 hours suspen- sion from work) by Respondent. If the evidence were to become final at this juncture, it would appear that Delgado was the most chronic offender of the coffee relief rule whose resignation Respondent should have rejoiced in re- ceiving. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the evidence does not conclude here, but instead goes on to establish that certain members of management (Supervisors Kennedy and Vela) were observed conducting surveillances of Del- gado as he left the store in the morning. Under such cir- cumstances, it cannot be concluded that Delgado violated the coffee rule any more than any other employee, since it is not established that other named employees were under such surveillance by Respondent. Consequently, when Respondent's antiactive steward background and its knowledge of Delgado's active griev- ance processing is considered along with the several occa- sions on which Delgado was caught by management violat- ing the coffee relief rule, it may reasonably be inferred that Respondent singled out Delgado and zeroed in on his work itinerary, in order to obtain evidence upon which it could impose disciplinary sanctions against him for his aggressive grievance activity. This position is further supported by the evidence that Delgado holds the record for an unprece- dented suspension (37 hours) for violating the coffee relief rule, the evidence of Respondent's attitude towards other stewards, and Respondent's refusal to honor Delgado's re- quest for reinstatement, infra. I do not credit the advanced subjective explanation of Supervisor Kennedy for his fail- ure to issue written warnings to Delgado for his several violations of the coffee relief rule. I also note (and consid- ered the fact) that Delgado's concern and involvement with grievances continued after he resigned as steward on March 16, 1977. In considering Respondent's refusal to rehire Delgado to his former position of employment, it is particularly noted that only on one occasion during Delgado's working tenure with Respondent did Respondent ever, in fact, issue to Delgado a written, but not formal, warning (in his record) for eating a taco and reading the newspaper on the job. The evidence does not show that such conduct by Delgado was ever repeated. He was not issued any written warnings for his several violations of the coffee relief rule. Neverthe- less, after the onset of Delgado's domestic problem, the undisputed and credited evidence shows that Respondent denied Delgado's request for a recommended transfer to its Oklahoma City facility. Although Delgado assumed the risk of obtaining employment at Respondent's Oklahoma City facility by resigning from Respondent's Brownsville facility first, the evidence does not show that he was in- formed or that he had any concrete evidence that Respon- dent would not have rehired him, especially when his re- quest for reemployment was made only 5 days subsequent to his resignation. In an effort to justify its refusal to reemploy Delgado, Respondent offered rather old (early and mid-1976) evi- dence of Delgado's coffee relief violations and performance evaluation (progress review) reports for 4-28-74 and 5-1(- 74 (Resp. Exhs. 3 and 4), and such reports for 10-27-74 426 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and 1-23-76 (Resp. Exhs. 5 and 6). The first evaluative reports (Resp. Exhs. 3 and 4) are favorable and indicate Delgado had good potential. The second set of evaluative reports (Resp. Exhs. 5 and 6) recognized Delgado had fam- ily problems which apparently affected his job attitude and job pride, and that his production needed improvement. However, he was still considered a good prospect for a management position. Finally, Delgado's personnel file also contained one written warning issued to him October 13, 1975 (hereinabove referred to) for eating a taco and reading a newspaper during working hours. The record does not show that such conduct was ever repeated by Del- gado. Respondent also submitted evidence that it has not hired any new employees since Delgado resigned on May 13, 1977. It further showed that all seven cable splicing posi- tion vacancies since Delgado's resignation were filled by transfers of personnel from within its Brownsville facility. Conspicuously absent in Respondent's evidence, however, is any evidence of economic considerations which necessi- tated Respondent's cutting down its work force, by laying off or not hiring new employees, or evidence that Delgado's former position no longer existed. When the ab- sence of such evidence is considered along with Respon- dent's reliance upon such remote and exaggerated evidence of Delgado's violations of the coffee relief rule and his work performance evaluation reports, for which he did not receive any written warnings, the Administrative Law Judge is persuaded that such evidence by the Respondent is a mere pretext to conceal its real motive for refusing to reemploy Delgado. The only significant conflict in the testimony with re- spect to Delgado's personal problem, his resignation, and his request to be reemployed by the Respondent, is his conversation with M. A. Coggin, engineering construction supervisor for the Respondent, on May 16, 1977, 3 working days after his resignation. Prior to that conversation, Delgado's immediate supervisor, Ron Ticer, informed him that he did not know whether he (Delgado) could be reem- ployed and referred him to Supervisor M. A. Coggin. When Delgado called Coggin, the latter told him that he (Delgado) had made the decision, and when Delgado re- minded Coggin that he had rehired another employee who had been out for a long time, Coggin said, "Oh! I already talked to Robbins [Coggin's supervisor] and he seems to agree with me, I don't have to give you your job back, and I already told you all the trouble you gave me about those grievances. " When Delgado told Coggin it sounded very final, Coggin hung up the telephone. I credit Delgado's testimonial ac- count in this regard not only because I was persuaded by his demeanor that he was telling the truth, but also because Coggin did not specifically and emphatically deny these statements attributed to him by Delgado. Moreover, the above statements attributed to Coggin are consistent with Respondent's (Coggin's) other antisteward (union) activity towards Delgado and other stewards. In fact, it is particularly noted that in all of the evidence relat- ing to disciplinary action imposed against Delgado, or other antisteward grievance activity to stewards (Yvonne Thurwalker and Rodriquez), Supervisors M. A. Coggin, Mike Kennedy, or Richard Vela were involved. It is at least well established on the record that Coggin and Ken- nedy were aware of the steward and grievance activities of Delgado and Yvonne Thurwalker. Supervisor Coggin was involved in practically every incident involving the consid- erable number of the grievances which Delgado processed, as well as most of the infractions of the Company's coffee relief rule by Delgado. Hence. Coggin had a clearly mani- fested motive for refusing to rehire Delgado and that un- lawful motive predominated all other motives for not rehir- ing him. The Act, in part, as pertinent herein, provides that "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer .... By discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or dis- courage membership in any labor organization." In dispos- ing of the issue as to whether an employer may deny em- ployment to a nonemployee and if so, how can such denial be remedied, the Sdpreme Court said: We have already recognized the power of Congress to deny an employer the freedom to discriminate in discharging. N.LR.B. v. Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1. So far as questions of constitutionality are concerned we need not enlarge on the statement of Judge Learned Hand in his opinion below that there is "no greater limitation in denying him (the employer] the power to discriminate in hiring, than in discharging Did Congress also empower the Board to order the employer to undo the wrong by offering the men discriminated against the opportunity for employment which should not have been denied them? Reinstatement is the conventional correction for discriminatory discharges. Experience having demon- strated that discrimination in hiring is twin to discrim- ination in firing, it would indeed be surprising if Con- gress gave a remedy for the one which it denied for the other. . . . Phelps Dodge Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 313 U.S. 177, 187 (1941). 5 It is obvious by the evidence that while Delgado may not be deemed an exemplary employee, the evidence does not show that Respondent considered him an unsatisfactory employee. This position is supported when it is noted that immediately after Delgado's excessive suspension for vio- lating the coffee relief rule, Respondent immediately sent him to advanced training school in San Antonio, Texas. Moreover, Delgado's work performance evaluation reports continued to refer to him as a good prospect for manage- ment with no indication that his work was unsatisfactory or any indication that he was a potential for discharge. If such evidence suggests at all that Respondent even enter- tained a desire to eliminate Delgado from its employ, it is obvious that such consideration was far from being the primary motivating cause for its refusal to reemploy Delga- do. On the contrary, the evidence is more than sufficient to 5Also see: The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 354 F.2d 707 (Sth Cir. 1966); Erie Sand Steamship Company. 189 NLRB 63 (1971); Memorial Hospital Association, Inc.. JD-205-77, and as counsel for the General Coun- sel further cites, a discharge or, here, a refusal to hire "motivated only in part by an unlawful purpose is similarly illegal." J. P. Stevens & Co.. Inc., v N L.R.B.. 380 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1967). cert. denied 389 U.S. 1005. 427 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD support the conclusion and finding that Respondent's pri- mary motive for refusing to reemploy Delgado was not his abuse of coffee relief or his work performance, but rather, Delgado's very active and aggressive processing of employ- ee grievances against Respondent. Such refusal by the Re- spondent therefore constituted a violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. IV IHe EFIE(ITI OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERC(E The activities of Respondent set forth above, occurring in connection with its operations. have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traffic, and com- merce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act, it will be recommended that the Re- spondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affir- mative action designed and found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent discriminated against Jose M. Delgado for exercising his Section 7 protected rights in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent offer Jose M. Delgado reemployment to his job, and make him whole for any loss of earnings within the meaning of and in accord with the Board's decisions in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corpora- tion, 231 NLRB 651 (1977),6 except as specifically modified by the wording of such recommended Order. Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner interfer- ing with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exer- cise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. N.L.R.B. v. Entwistle Manufacturing Company, 120 F.2d 532, 536 (4th Cir. 1941). Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, the Respon- dent, is an Employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Communications Workers of America, Local 12229, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organi- zation within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By refusing to reemploy Jose M. Delgado on May 18, 1977, because he actively and aggressively processed em- ployee grievances in accordance with his steward duties on behalf of the Union, in order to discourage his and other 6 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co.. 138 NLRB 716 (1962) employees' membership in said Union, Respondent dis- criminated against him in regard to his tenure of employ- ment and has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices condemned by Section 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce 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: ORDER7 The Respondent, Southwestern Bell Telephone Compa- ny, its officers, agents. successors, and assigns, shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Discouraging membership in, or activities on behalf of, Communications Workers of America, Local 12229, or any other labor organization, by refusing to reemploy or otherwise discriminating against them in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment, or any term or con- dition of employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. (b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaran- teed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Offer Jose M. Delgado immediate and full reinstate- ment to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju- dice to his seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of the discrimination against him, with interest, in the manner described in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (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 recommended Order. (c) Post at Respondent's Brownsville, Texas, facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 23, after being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it immedi- ately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, includ- ing all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the Natinal 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. In the event that this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted 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 L abor Relations Board." 428 SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 23, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a hearing at which all parties had an opportunity 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 WILL NOT discourage membership in, or activities on behalf of Communications Workers of America, Local 12229, or any other labor organization, by refus- ing to reemploy employees or otherwise discriminating against them in any manner in respect to their tenure of employment or any term or condition of employ- ment. WE WILL offer Jose M. Delgado immediate reinstate- ment to his former position or, if such position no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights previ- ously enjoyed, and make him whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of our discrimination against him, with interest. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise and en- joyment of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. All our employees are free to become, remain, or refuse to become or remain members of said Union or any other labor organization, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by lawful agreements in accord with Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 429