Fidelity Telephone Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fidelity Telephone Company and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA- 10069 May 17, 1978 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND PENELLO On February 2, 1978, Administrative Law Judge Sidney J. Barban issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions 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- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclu- sions of the Administrative Law Judge, to the extent consistent herewith, and to adopt his recommended Order. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's findings that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) of the Act by coercively interrogating employees and applicants for employment regarding their and other employees' union activities and sympathies, by, promising employees increased benefits if they re- jected the Union at the December 15, 1976, election. and by, threatening employee Bierman that "things will get a lot stricter" if the Union were selected, and with similar such statements to Bierman. We also agree with the Administrative Law Judge that Re- spondent engaged in unlawful conduct by enforcing work rules more harshly and strictly because the em- ployees selected the Union, and by advising employ- ees that new and more onerous work rules were im- posed, and extant rules were more strictly enforced, because they had selected the Union. Further, we agree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclu- sion that Respondent constructively discharged em- ployee Berti in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act for the reasons discussed, infra. We do not agree, however, with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Supervisor Delcour threat- ened employee Berti in a conversation which oc- 'Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made bs the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established polico not to oier- rule an Administrative L.aw Judge's resolutions with respect to credibilits unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence consinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Produis. Inc. 91 NLRB 544 (1950). enfd 188 F. 2d 362 (C.A. 3. 1951). We have carefull% examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings curred a day or so prior to the election. The record shows that shortly before the election Delcour called some 12 employees into his office individually and read to them a prepared speech. which is in evidence. Berti was the only employee to testify concerning such conversations, and she testified that Delcour said "things would get stricter if the Union was voted in, more like Continental and Bell." However, Berti, in her testimony, made it clear that Delcour did nothing more than read to her his prepared remarks. The Administrative Law Judge, without passing on the legality of the speech itself, concluded that the speech was intended to deliver the message that there would be a more stringent enforcement of the work rules and that, if this was the impression which Berti received from listening to Delcour's remarks, then Respondent must be held responsible for what it in- tended. This is not the test, however. A respondent is responsible only for the remarks it makes to employ- ees and not for the impressions that employees may derive from the remarks. Here, the speech in question clearly falls within the limits of Section 8(c) of the Act and, absent evidence that Delcour departed at any time from the text of this speech, we are unable to predicate a violation of the Act on the mere im- pression an employee received from listening to pre- pared remarks. Accordingly, we shall dismiss this allegation of the complaint. We also disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions that Respondent's installation of monitoring equipment in the facility and its change in the vacation policy were unilateral changes in de- rogation of the Union's status as bargaining repre- sentative and on this basis constituted violations of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The General Counsel nei- ther alleged nor argued such a theory and in the cir- cumstances of this case, we do not believe that that theory should be relied on for finding violations of the Act. What was alleged was the General Counsel's claim that these changes were acts of reprisal against the employees for having selected the Union as their bargaining representative, and, as noted by the Ad- ministrative Law Judge, the underlying facts were fully litigated. The Administrative Law Judge found that the installation of the monitoring equipment was not an act of reprisal, and we agree with this finding based on the evidence that the decision to install the equipment was made, and the actual installation of the equipment begun, several months prior to the election. The Administrative Law Judge also found that Respondent's change in vacation policy, which required employees to select their vacation dates by February 15, instead of, as had been the case, by April 15, was not an act of reprisal. We do not agree. The change in question was clearly detrimental to the 236 NLRB No. 26 166 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY interests of the employees and affected a term and condition of employment. The change in vacation policy occurred after the election in which the Union was selected as the employees' bargaining representa- tive and, in the absence of any plausible explanation of this abrupt change in policy, we conclude that Re- spondent's action was in reprisal for the employees' decision to select the Union as their bargaining rep- resentative. Accordingly, we find that Respondent did not violate the Act by installing monitoring equipment in the facility, but that Respondent did violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by changing its va- cation policy. We agree with the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent constructively discharged employee Berti in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. As outlined above and detailed more fully by the Administrative Law Judge. Respondent, im- mediately following the election, embarked upon a course of conduct designed to punish its employees for selecting the Union as their bargaining represent- ative, and all operators suffered from both the more rigid enforcement of extant rules and the imposition of new rules. Thus, through the imposition of new rules, Respondent absolutely prohibited employees from talking while on duty and required them to schedule their vacations much earlier than in prior years. Other new rules, which were the whimsical creations of individual supervisors. prompted Super- visor Moeckel's criticism of employee Berti for hav- ing her foot "in [her] chair" and resulted in Moeckel's advice to employee Ryan that the method employed by Ryan in preparing certain paperwork. which was the method employed by all operators pursuant to prior instructions, was incorrect. After the election and contrary to preelection practice, Re- spondent strictly enforced its rule prohibiting opera- tors from leaving their stations without permission, to the point of requiring employees to obtain permis- sion to go to the restroom. On one occasion, employ- ee Bierman was required to justify her need to be excused and, because they failed to obtain "permis- sion." employees Berti and Ryan were reprimanded for leaving their work stations. Ryan's absence oc- curred when she went to a higher authority to ques- tion Moeckel's institution of the new paperwork rule mentioned above. Berti left her chair for 15 seconds to retrieve a piece of paper which had fallen on the floor. When employees Hilliard and Berti com- plained about the rules and the harassment of em- ployees to Supervisors Jergens and Bennett. re- spectively, they were told that the supervisors were under instructions to strictly enforce the rules. Del- cour, in response to similar complaints from Bierman and Berti, advised the employees that this treatment was what they had "voted" and what they would have to "put up with." It is in this context of what we have found to be preelection threats of reprisal and the postelection fulfillment of those threats that Berti's departure from Respondent's employ must be viewed. On Feb- ruary 2, 1977, Supervisor Schatz, pursuant to Delcour's instructions, called Berti into an office and reprimanded her for "bringing an unauthorized per- son up on company premises" in violation of one of Respondent's rules. This reprimand was given de- spite the fact that the person who was "unauthor- ized," Berti's mother, did not enter the operator's work area, which Respondent, through this rule, sought to insulate from disturbances and "eaves- dropping." Moreover, on other occasions, nonem- ployees had been seen in the work area by operators, and no objections were raised to their presence, with the exception of one occasion when the niece of an operator was required to remain in the operators' lounge. After advising Berti that her "attitude toward her supervisors" was poor, which Berti disputed with the exceptions of her relationship with Moeckel, Schatz told Berti that she would be given "retrain- ing." which would begin the following week, and that, in the meantime, she should go home and "eval- uate herself." Schatz admitted that this "self evalua- tion" was a "new procedure" which she decided to try out for the first time on Berti. Rather than accept these conditions and disputing Respondent's appar- ent emphasis on "attitude" as opposed to work per- formance. Berti advised Schatz that "maybe it would just be best if I quit." Schatz made no reply and Berti left. In our opinion, Berti's act of quitting her employ- ment was the direct result of Respondent's unlawful harassment of its employees. Immediately after the election, Respondent embarked upon a course of conduct violative of the Act which was clearly de- signed to punish its employees for their exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by the Act. The natural consequences of such a campaign are employee bit- terness, disquietude, and, ultimately, the termination of the employment relationship. The employees in- volved in this proceeding were subjected to rigid en- forcement of extant work rules and the imposition of new work rules, which were also strictly enforced, after they selected the Union as their bargaining rep- resentative. Indeed. Schatz' imposition of the condi- tion that Berti "evaluate herself" was but another in- stance of the harassment visited upon the employees and, in the context of the conversation between Schatz and Berti, was a precipitating cause of Berti's decision to quit her employment. With Berti's quit Respondent attained the ultimate result of its unlaw- 167 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ful campaign, and it must be held to have intended that such would occur. Accordingly, we conclude, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that, by causing Berti to quit her employment, Respon- dent constructively discharged her in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 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, Fidelity Telephone Company, Sullivan, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE SIDNEY J BARBAN. Administrative Law Judge: This mat- ter was heard at St. Louis, Missouri, on May 10 and 11. 1977, upon a complaint issued on April 13, 1977, based upon a charge filed on March 1, 1977, by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein the Union). The complaint, as amended at the hearing, alleges that Fidelity Telephone Company (herein Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by (I) interrogation of employees concerning union sympa- thies; (2) threatening employees with reprisals for support of the Union; (3) taking reprisal against employees for sup- port of the Union; and (4) advising employees that more onerous working conditions of which they complained were due to their selection of the Union as their bargaining representative; and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by con- structively discharging and refusing or failing to reinstate Susan Renae Berti for the purpose of discouraging union membership and union activities. The answer to the com- plaint denies the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices, but admits allegations of the complaint sufficient to justify assertion of jurisdiction under current standards of the Board (Respondent, a public utility providing tele- phone services at a facility-located at Sullivan, Missouri, during a recent annual period performed services valued in excess of $250,000, of which in excess of $50,000 was de- rived from calls originating or terminating outside the State of Missouri), and to support a finding that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Upon the entire record in this case, from observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and after due consider- Certain errors in the transcript have been noted and are hereby correct- ed. ation of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Re- spondent, I make the following: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Introduction The events in this case involve primarily the telephone operators employed at Respondent's Sullivan, Missouri, fa- cility. In July 1975, the Union filed a petition for certifica- tion as bargaining representative of those operators, but the Board held that this unit was not appropriate. The Union then, on March 2, 1976, filed a petition for a more comprehensive unit of Respondent's employees, including the operators, apparently in accord with the position taken by Respondent. An election was held in this unit on April 2, 1976, in which a majority of the voters voted against representation. The Union filed objections to the election, and the election was set aside by stipulation of the parties. On December 15, 1976, a second election was conducted in which a majority of the employees voting selected the Union as their bargaining representative. Respondent filed objections to the conduct of this election. After a hearing upon Respondent's objections, the Board, on May 9, 1977, certified the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the unit. For the most part, the matters with which we are here concerned occurred just before and soon after the election held on December 15, 1976. At times material to this proceeding, Respondent em- ployed about 24 telephone operators in the unit involved. The traffic manager in immediate overall charge of the operators was Mr. Ivy L. Delcour. Also supervising the work of the operators was the senior supervisor, Patsy Schatz (incorrectly spelled "Shautz" throughout the rec- ord), and several other supervisors. On the basis of the record as a whole, I find all of these to be supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The decision of the issues in this case depends essentially upon resolution of the conflicts in the testimony among the various witnesses. In assessing the credibility of the wit- nesses, I have considered my impressions of the witnesses and their testimony, the record as a whole, and particularly the arguments made in the parties' briefs, as well as the probabilities inherent in the situations involved. The fol- lowing findings are based upon my resolution of these credibility conflicts. To the extent that the evidence is not consistent with these findings I do not credit the evidence. To the extent it seems advisable, the basis for credibility findings will be indicated. B. Alleged Interference With and Restraint and Coercion of Employees 1. Delcour's conversation with Bierman on December 14 The day before the election scheduled for December 15, Brenda Bierman, one of Respondent's telephone operators. '68 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY having just gotten off from work, was seated in her car, apparently parked near Respondent's place of business, when she saw Delcour coming across the street from a res- taurant. It was raining. Delcour tapped on the car window and Bierman let him in the car. The record shows that Delcour considered that he was a friend of Bierman's and she had in the past given him reason to believe that she was opposed to the Union. After speaking of some matters in general, Delcour said, "Looks like tomorrow is the big day." He continued, "I sure hope you and the other girls don't let me down, because right now we're working on a way to get you higher pay for evening and weekend work." 2 Bierman agreed that this would be welcome. Del- cour went on, saying, "Do you know why the girls are trying to get a union? Right now you guys have really good working conditions. You can get off pretty well anytime you want to." Delcour told Bierman that if the union were successful, things would get a lot stricter, saying, "There will be absolutely no talking, and you will have to answer for everything you do." Delcour stated that though the em- ployees probably would get more money if the Union came in, they would more than likely pay it back to the Union in dues. Delcour asked Bierman how she thought certain em- ployees-including Susan Renae Berti-would vote. Bier- man told Delcour that she had heard that Berti was against the Union. Delcour asked if Bierman did not think he had been fair to the girls. Bierman responded that she thought he had been fair. Delcour concluded that he felt like a father to the girls and that "he would try to be good" to them if they "would just give him an opportunity and not vote the union in." This terminated the conversation. The above findings are based on Bierman's credited testi- mony. She seemed a credible witness at the hearing, though she suffered from what seems to be a common inability to fix some times and situations precisely. I have reread her testimony in light of Respondent's criticisms and find no reason to discredit her on the matters set forth above. Delcour agrees that he told Bierman on this occasion that "Tomorrow is the big day," that he hoped the opera- tors would not vote the Union in, that he thought the operators had good working conditions, that he may have told her on this occasion that under Union contracts at other telephone exchanges rules were stricter than at Respondent, 3 and that he may have told her on this occasion that he felt like a father to the girls. Other than this, Delcour denies the statements attributed to him. In particular, he denied that he has any input into wage decisions and is not consulted or advised concerning wage raises.4 Delcour originally testified on direct 2 The record shows that Delcour considered that Respondent's weekend and evening working schedules to be particularly disagreeable working con- ditions. It is of some significance that the only rule at unionized telephone ex- changes of which Delcour is aware that is stricter than that at Respondent is one which prohibits talking. Though Delcour indicated in his testimony that he did not specifically discuss this rule with the operators. the speech which examination that though he did not ask Bierman how the employees were going to vote, she "volunteered to me how she thought others would vote," but also "didn't name any names of anyone on that occasion." On cross-examination, Delcour asserted that though Bierman had volunteered infor- mation to him previously, "on that particular day," he didn't believe that she gave him any information. I further do not credit Delcour's testimony to the effect that Bierman on this occasion took the initiative in inviting him into her car to talk to her and that he had no purpose in talking with Bierman. The contents of the conversation, and Delcour's campaign at the time to induce the operators to vote against the Union are persuasive that this incident was part of Delcour's antiunion effort. 2. Delcour's preelection statement to the operators Prior to the December 15 election, Delcour called 10 to 12 operators individually into his office where he read a statement to them. There is some dispute whether the type- written statement which was received in evidence (G.C. Exh. 3) is an accurate copy of the document used by Del- cour during these talks. I find it unnecessary to resolve this dispute for reasons set forth below. The typewritten state- ment in evidence begins with a statement of the events leading up to the second election to take place on Decem- ber 15. and continues as follows: This election coming up Wednesday is important to you for a number of reasons: FIRST The union is not interested in you as an indi- vidual or in your family. SECOND The union is interested only in taking money from you in dues, fees, assessments, etc. The union hopes it will get the chance to take 8 dollars a month from each employee who works here. Which would mean 96 dollars a year in just dues alone out of your pay. I don't know what the union has been promising to get votes but the fact is that all pay and benefits come only from the Company. Another thing we feel is im- portant and that is with a union you as individuals could no longer speak for yourself about your pay, your benefits, and your job. This is perhaps the great- est loss to any employee with a union in the picture. You can keep your right to speak for yourself about all these things when and only when you vote NO in the election. he read to the operators (discussed hereinafter) referred specifically to this rule 4 I find it strange that the manager of an important segment of Respon- dent's operations should he so isolated, but this past practice would not have prevented him from making such a recommendation on this occasion. nor is there anything in the record that shows the employees had reason to disbelieve that he had such authority. 169 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD By voting no which you have the legal right to do you will be telling the union that you want to keep all of your paycheck every payday and that you want to continue to keep your right to speak for yourselves as individuals. Just recently the TV news report showed where this union has called employees out on a strike for over seven months now in Illinois. Can you imagine what it would be like to be out on strike without pay for 7 months. It is not a nice thing to happen to anyone. We have heard that the Union has been telling our employees that under a union they would not have to abide by the Public Service Commission Standards or any of the company's rules, but this is not true and the union knows it. In fact the rules at the Bell System absolutely PROHIBIT any talking when operators are working on the Board and if they do talk it means automatic discharge. We also have a rule against talk- ing when you are on the Board but we have never discharged anyone for it that I know of. We will talk to you and caution you not to do it again but as far as I know we have never discharged anyone for talking the first time while working on the Board. I don't want anyone to believe that we are perfect and of course you know better, but I can assure you of one thing, the working conditions here are much bet- ter than they are at Bell or Continental or any other company where the people have to work under a union. I don't think that anyone who works here can honestly say that myself or any supervisor here is a slave driver and we try to be fair and honest with you at all times. I sincerely believe that this place will be a better place to work without a union and the things that we all know this union has done to its members. I want you to think about these things we have dis- cussed before you VOTE in the election and I would appreciate it if you would give me a chance to work with you to make our company a friendly and pleas- ant place to work and by working together we can make it true. Thank you very much for sharing this time with me. The only employee who testified about this little speech. Susan Renae Berti, recalled (in addition to minor varia- tions in the form of the document which she saw as Del- cour was reading from it) that Delcour said that he had typed the document up the night before to state a few things that the employees should know, that he read from several pages, that "on the last page, as he read things off. he said things would get stricter if the union was voted in, more like Continental and Bell." and, at the end. that he hoped that she would vote the right way. I find that the message which Berti derived from Delcour's speech is that which Respondent would reason- ably expect, and on the basis of the speech and the record as a.whole, was the message that Respondent intended that the employees should receive from this speech. 3. Refusal to permit Ryan to take an early breaktime On December 16, the day after the election, some of the operators had obtained permission to give a "shower" for one of the operators (apparently because of her impending marriage) at Respondent's premises during a break period. Tina Ryan, one of the operators, asked Senior Supervisor Schatz for permission to take her break a little early to prepare for this event. Ryan says that in the past when there were operators there to cover the board such permis- sion was granted. On this occasion, Schatz told Ryan that she could not take off early, that the supervisors "had been told not to do that." When Ryan responded that was what she "had figured," Schatz replied, "That's the way you guys wanted it." Schatz agrees that she denied Ryan's request to take an early break period. She clearly does not have a specific recollection of her conversation with Ryan on this occa- sion,5 but denies that she said to Ryan "that's the way you guys wanted it." She was not asked and did not deny say- ing that the supervisors had been told not to grant such employee requests. I credit Ryan's testimony set forth above. Schatz gener- ally struck me as tending to be prolix and nonresponsive. quite opinionated and strongly biased, as indicated in foot- note 5, above. I was not favorably impressed with her testi- mony generally. In this particular circumstance, I do not trust her recollection (or nonrecollection) of the incident here involved. In crediting Ryan as set forth, I have carefully consid- ered Respondent's claim that she gave testimony in a prior hearing inconsistent with her testimony in the present mat- ter that Respondent's rules for the operators (discussed hereinbelow) were not continuously posted on Respon- dent's bulletin board. Briefly, there were two bulletin boards on which these rules were posted: an open board near the operators' work, and a glass-enclosed locked board some 30 feet away. Two other employees in addition to Ryan testified that the posted rules had been removed for a time and then reposted during the period of the repre- sentation proceeding. They did not specifically identify the particular bulletin board involved. Delcour testified that the rules had been posted for over a year in the glass- enclosed bulletin board. In the hearing on Respondent's objections to the second election, in January 1977, Ryan testified in agreement with suggestions made to her that "the set of rules was posted on the bulletin board," and that "they have been left post- ed up there for a long time, haven't they." In the hearing in the present matter, Ryan explained that in the prior testi- mony she was referring to the fact that the rules had been posted a "long time" before they were taken down. Aside from the issue of credibility, the question of whether the rules were continuously posted is not of great significance. The preponderance of the evidence is persua- T hus. when asked what she said to Ryan on this occasion. she replied: If I said anything atll. it more than likel, would have just been thai I didn't see a need for it. which I didn't and still don't. We're Ihere to perform a, duty for that company. That's our job and we're getting paid for it. We re not paid to give showers 170 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY sive that the rules were taken down for a time on at least one of the bulletin boards. Rvan's testimony in the prior proceeding, as she credibly explained it, is not necessarily inconsistent. Ryan also agreed that she had been in error in the previ- ous hearing with respect to whether she could see the lights on the switchboard when seated in a certain position. The significance of this point is not shown. Ryan candidly ad- mitted and in a persuasive manner explained the error. Upon full consideration of the issues, I do not believe that these errors detract from her testimony in this pro- ceeding. 4. Delcour's postelection statements (a) In early January 1977. Susan Berti became ill at work. As discussed in more detail hereinafter, Berti called her parents who came to pick her up. Berti's supervisor, (leo Moeckel. became vexed because Berti had (on her breaktime) called her parents before notifying Moeckel that she was sick. Berti, thereafter, in an emotional condi- tion, fell down the steps as she was leaving Respondent's facility. This was reported to Delcour. During a conversa- tion between Delcour and Berti concerning these matters, in which Berti explained that Moeckel had made her upset, Delcour asserted that he had faith in the ability of his su- pervisorstodo the job because he had selected them with care, and said that Berti was at fault in calling her parents and then telling Moeckel that she was going to leave, in- stead of asking Moeckel for permission first. Berti told Delcour that she thought he was being unfair, to which he replied that "this is what you girls wanted and what you voted in, so this is what you will have to put up with." Delcour said that "the girls had lied to him." (b) Later in January. Delcour noticed Brenda Bierman at Respondent's facility apparently in a "bad mood." Del- cour asked Bierman if she was not "happy with [her] job anymore?" Bierman responded that she thought "things had got a lot stricter, that working conditions weren't as good since the union had been voted in." Delcour replied, "That's the way you voted it." When Bierman protested that she did not vote that way, Delcour accused her of lying to him. Delcour stated that "it looks like some of you guys stabbed me in the back because it went through." adding "I told you how things would be if the union went through." 5. Respondent's work rules; enforcement of the work rules It is clear from the record that prior to the advent of the Union, the operators considered Respondent's facility a pleasant, relaxed, easygoing place in which to work. Thus various witnessess referred to it as a "nice" place to work: "a big happy family": "it was a free kind of atmosphere": "it was interesting . . . and we all seemed to get along." The rules then in effect were not consistently or rigidly enforced. The record is also convincing that during the course of the Union drive to organize the employees and particularly after the second election, Respondent began to enforce the rules more rigidly, and instituted or applied working procedures in a manner that caused the operators to feel that they were being harassed. Virginia Hilliard, a reliable witness who no longer works for Respondent, testified that in January 1977, when she protested instructions as to the use of the newly installed monitoring equipment as an invasion of the operator's pri- vacy, Supervisor Jergens told her that it was Jergen's job to give her those instructions, "that was the rules and ... we were to follow them." Jergens further told Hilliard that in a meeting between the supervisors and Delcour a complaint was made to Delcour that the supervisors did not want to enforce some of the rules, to which Delcour replied that if the supervisors "didn't like it they could leave." About the same time. Susan Renae Berti had a similar conversation with another supervisor, Mary Bennett, dur- ing Berti's breaktime. Berti commented to Bennett that it had "reallN been a long day. and that the company was getting hard to work for because things were getting a lot stricter, and I felt more criticism and harrassment." Ben- nett concurred, saying, "Well, I know what you mean," and told Berti that Delcour had told the supervisors that there were four of them, and only three were necessary, "and the supervisor that couldn't enforce the rules and be strict about it would be the first one that would go." Both Jergens and Bennett denied that they made the statements attributed to them. Jergens testified that she probablN told the operators that there were some rules she did not like but it was her job to enforce them anyway. She also testified that on a number of occasions. Senior Super- visor Schatz has stated that if Jergens did not do her job enforcing the rules, she might not continue as an employee, but asserts that Schatz was not serious. Schatz denied that she made the statements which the testimony set forth above attributes to Delcour.6 Delcour was not asked and did not testify concerning these matters. I credit the testi- mony of Hilliard and Berti set forth. a. Re.spondent's restriction on talking armong the operator. Prior to the union campaign involved in this proceeding, Respondent permitted the operators to talk among them- selves at work so long as this did not get out of hand or boisterous, as it appears sometimes happened. After the second election, the employees were forbidden to talk to each other while at work. Respondent. however, contends that there has always been a "no talking" rule in existence at Respondent's oper- ation (asserting that such talking affects the operators' effi- ciency and leads to customer complaints), that "a no talk- ing sign has always been posted," and the employees knew the rule, and that any change in its endorcement was "in the interest of operator efficiency and customer service." Several witnesses did refer to a "no talking" sign posted at Respondent's operations, but the record as a whole makes quite clear that there was no absolute prohibition of talking among the operators prior to the advent of the Union. Thus, among the written rules posted in the operators 'Schatz. however. testified that "u-e actualls don't need four lsupicrl sors]," but use the fourth "so the supersi},or don't hase ti,. ork eers weekend" and ti, ork during \3acaiti.ll 171 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workroom (as discussed above), the only rule on this sub- ject is rule 7: "Do not talk to other operators either across the room or at the other end of the room. Do not make lights wait at any time." 7 At least one employee testified that the no-talking rule at Respondent forbade only talking across the room. In addition, in July 1976, Delcour pre- pared and distributed a memorandum to the supervisors (Resp. Exh. 3), in which it is stated: "Conversation be- tween operators to be kept at a very minimum. If this is not successful we have no alternative but to discontinue all conversations between operators. This I would much dis- like having to implement." This, of course, clearly indicates no absolute prohibition on talking among the operators. Further, as has been noted, Delcour told the operators be- fore the second election, that their privilege of talking at work would be jeopardized by voting the Union in. On the basis of the above, and particularly in light of Delcour's preelection predictions, his manifest distress at the employees' vote for the Union. and the timing of the event, I find that the institution of the new rule prohibiting all talking among the operators at work was occasioned by the fact that they had voted for the Union as their bargain- ing representative. b. Installation of monitoring equipmenm In January 1977, after the election, Respondent in- stalled certain monitoring equipment in the operators room. The operators were given no advance notice of this change although the equipment had been under construc- tion by certain of Respondent's service personnel for about 3 months. Concurrent with the installation of this equip- ment, it was impressed upon the operators that they would be required, under penalty of discharge, to keep the keN at their work stations in a position which would permit the supervisors to hear everything the operators said at their stations. Some operators were reprimanded for failing to keep their keys in the required open position at all times. The record shows that there are good operating reasons for keeping the operator's key in other positions on occasion to accommodate certain circumstances. It is indicated that Respondent had not previously insisted that the key be kept in an open position at all times. General Counsel contends that this equipment was in- stalled to assist Respondent in enforcing its new no-talking rule. However, based upon Respondent's uncontroverted testimony that this is equipment of a type used in the in- dustry, that it was authorized and constructed during sev- eral months before it was installed, and that its purpose is to facilitate communications between the operators and the supervisors, and better enable the latter to assist the for- mer., I do not find that the monitoring equipment was in- stalled for the purpose of enforcing the new no-talking rule, although it probably aids in that effort. Lights ,on the switchboard indicate calls 'hich the opr llors mustr himll die quickly. Should talking interfere with this, it would, of course. impair the operator's efficiency. c. C(hange in vacltion policli In January 1977, Respondent also changed its vacation policy for the operators. It was announced that the opera- tors would be required thenceforth to select their vacations for that year by February 15, instead of April 15. Respon- dent asserted this change was required by its budgeting procedure, but was unable to explain the connection fur- ther. It was indicated that the employees feared that this change would prevent them from taking single days of va- c(ation at a time as in the past, but this does not seem well founded on this record. Of course, in common experience. halving to select a vacation period in IFebruary is less desir- able than making the selection in April, closer to the usual 'acation time, and this new rule, in the context of Respon- dent's other indications of reprisals against the employees, necessarily served to exacerbate the tensions being built up bh Respondent's actions. d. Rule cagain. leavinf .stions Among the rules for operators posted as referred to above was the following: "Operators shall not leave their position at any time without notifying a supervisor." It ap- pears that prior to the representation election, the rule was not rigidly enforced. Operators did leave their positions to go to the restroom without notifying a supervisor when the hoard was not busy. There is no evidence of an employee being criticized for such conduct prior to the union cam- paign. After the second election enforcement of the rule became much stricter. All of the incidents concerning the enforcement of this rule involve one supervisor. ('leo Moeckel. who, it appears, was the most inflexible of the supervisors in this connection. On one occasion, when Su- san Berti dropped a piece of paper on the floor which should have been placed in a slot on the board, Moeckel criticized Berti for leaving her position for about 15 sec- onds to retrieve the paper. (Moeckel thereafter was in- volved in other incidents with Berti discussed hereinafter. which led to Berti's leaving Respondent's employment.) Bi- erman testified to an instance in which lMoeckel required Bierman to justify her need to go to the restroom i Bierman having recently been on her breaktime) before giving her permission to go, a "hassle" which Bierman had not experi- enced before the advent of the U nion. Moeckel was also involved in an incident regarding em- ployee Tina Ryan. in which Moeckel insisted that Ryan handle her paper worL in a manner different than the pre- vious practice. When Rvan asked, Moeckel admitted that she had decided upon the change at that moment. During the course of the morning this began to upset Rvan (who seems from the record to be rather emotional) to the point that she left her position without consulting Moeckel to protest the new procedure instituted b Moeckel. It ap- pears that management agreed that Moeckel should not have changed the procedure. but Ryan was reprimanded for leaving her position without permission to protest the matter.i \i 'T Ii hlI Clllpl!o t.c' ikIl. KlIicnll ltl'l, ,III ( oi,!.Cr i inT/, r Ic Kl dr1I lc rnfitd that Srir utll R 'l lliC ll! 'II/ o11Cll h ,JLSC (i itf, L x.r ,,he .' I -1tcred arb.ltraLr. ;td tillfail .rcl cLriI l of R .anor1 thr, oct- wSlin 172 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY e. Rule against unauthorized personnel At the top of a set of stairs leading from a street door into Respondent's building there is a small hallway with several doors. Over one of these doors, leading directly to the employees' restroom area, is a sign reading "Author- ized Personnel Only." There is a bulletin board in this rest- room area on which the employees' work schedules are posted periodically. There is access to the operators' work- room through a door in this area. Another door leading from the hallway also gives access to the operators' work area, through the operators' lounge and past Supervisor Schatz's desk. There is no sign over this doorway. As dis- cussed in more detail in connection with the termination of Berti's employment. the rule was rather erratically en- forced. At one point, during the union campaign here in- volved, an employee placed a note in the company sugges- tion box, asserting: "If one employee is allowed to bring guests to take a tour of the office and plant, then ALL. employees should be entitled to this opportunity!!!" Del- cour posted this note and his typewritten reply dated 12/l1/76, stating: "ANYTIME-between 8 a.m. & 5 p.m. Monday thru Friday with proper supervision. I ask that all tours and guests be cleared thru me." 9 Delcour testified that the reason for the rule is that per- sons coming into Respondent's operations "would disrupt working operations and certainly they might be exposed to conversations [which they should not hearl if they' overhear the operators talking to a customer or something of that sort..." In earl)y January, Berti's mother accompanied her into the restroom area in Respondent's facility where the bulle- tin board is located, under circumstances discussed herein- after. There is no evidence that she entered the operators' area, disrupted any operations, or was in a position to over- hear any conversations. As set forth in connection with Berti's termination of employment, Berti was criticized for this incident, as part of the sequence of events leading to her leaving her job with Respondent. No other evidence of criticism or reprimand for violation of this rule after the first of December 1976 was shown. 6. Delcour's interview with Schleifer In late March 1977, Rita Schleifer. who applied for a job with Respondent. was interviewed by D)elcour. Schleif- er testified that Delcour told her that the Union was trx ing to come into Respondent's operation and asked her opin- ion of it. She said she had no experience working under union conditions and she had no opinion about it. She was thereafter employed. Delcour asserts he merely told Schleifer that the Union was trying to organize Respondent's employees, and did not ask her opinion. I credit Schleifer. She persuaded me that she had been queried about the Ulnion, Delcour was clearly trying to keep the Union out. There was the possibility at the time One ,ilness Iretifed thai shhe ehe~¢d the noloe .a, p-,sled in car!\ I ebruars }to'we\ el. i)ellcour " as qintie posllh'e ;is to the dte anind the note is dated. I accept his testltllnn on the point. that there might be another election at the time and he would not likely desire to strengthen the Union's support. Analysis and Conclusions Prior to the representation election, Respondent advised the employees that if they selected the Union as their bar- gaining agent, rules would be stricter at Respondent's oper- ations, and. in particular, the employees would henceforth be absolutely prohibited from talking while at work, a change from the condition prior to the election. Respon- dent, by these threats of reprisal, violated Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. During this same period, and in this context, Re- spondent also interrogated its employees concerning their and other employees' union sympathies and activities, and promised the employees increased benefits without the Union. By these activities, Respondent also engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(I) of the Act. After the election, in which a majority of the employees voted for the Union. Respondent's working rules were more strictly enforced against the employees. A new rule prohibiting talking at work was also enforced against the employees. Supervisors admitted to the employees that they were under pressure to enforce the rules even against the supervisors' wishes. Upon complaint to Respondent's manager concerning these conditions, the employees were advised that the new stricter conditions were due to the fact that the employees voted for the Union. By these ac- tions. and each of them. Respondent engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act. During the course of instituting the changed conditions set forth, Supervisor Schatz denied employee Ryan permis- sion to take her breaktimrne a few minutes early. While in itself a seemingly minor matter. Schatz made plain to Ryan that the refusal was based on instructions which had been given to her and was due to the employees' vote for the lUnion. In the circumstances, therefore, this conduct con- stituted an act of reprisal because of the employees' pro- tected activities under the Act, by which Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)( I ) of the Act. While the installation of the monitoring equipment and the change in the vacation policy were not shown to have been intended as acts of reprisal, they did. in fact. consti- tute. together with other changes instituted by Respondent. unilateral changes in working conditions in derogation of the l'nion's status as bargaining representative of the oper- ators."' and therebs. in addition to the other acts of reprisal and recriminators conduct engaged in by Respondent. served to denimonstrate to the employees the futility of their vote for the tUnion as their representative. Although this theorye was not specificall? alleged in the complaint, it is consistent with the allegations of the complaint and is based upon facts fully litigated. It is therefore found that bh engaging in such conduct, which had a reasonable ten- dency to interfere with, restrain, and coerce the employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act, Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 1 ReSpideirlli iat.\ r ti,l i.td ii1 obhlltlon tol deai wlh the representative selcacd bh it,, eniplo, ccs llrlI ha, fiIhn objectilons to the Ielntlon In such .a,. If it .Ats I1t dCroit.lionl to the represenlatlse. it takes the risk that Its ,obhectiott, ,ill be fllnd :1lihll itcrit is lt: the tintal l lmatter 173 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD C. The Termination of Susan Renae Berti Susan Renae Berti began work as a temporary employee with Respondent in May 1976, after she finished high school. She was hired on a full-time basis as an operator in August 1976. Senior Supervisor Schatz gave Berti the cus- tomary 2-week training for operators, consisting in large part of reading materials and instructions in Schatz' office and also training and instruction at the switchboard. She apparently became a valued operator. One supervisor, Jer- gens, who complained of some operators not being amen- able to instructions or directions, stated that she had no such problems with Berti. Senior Supervisor Schatz testi- fied that to her knowledge Berti was a good operator. "a person . .. you don't want to get rid of." So far as this record shows, Berti was not involved in any union activity. In the first months of her employment, Berti states that she enjoyed her employment, the work was interesting, she had no complaints, and the workers seemed to get along well. This relationship changed. Berti noted, after the no- tice of the second election on December 15, was posted. Berti asserts that Respondent began enforcing new rules. In one such instance, Berti states she "was called [by Sup- ervisor Moeckelj on a rule about how to sit in a chair. I was sitting in the chair . . . I had my foot in the chair and . . . [sihe just said to get my foot off the chair." i] Similarly, Berti testified that after the monitoring equipment had been installed in January 1977, on an occasion when she pulled her monitoring key back so that a customer could not hear her cough, she was then called into Schatz' office and asked if she had not been informed of the new rule that Respondent wanted the monitoring key kept open at all times. When Berti said she had, Schatz informed her that there would he no exceptions, and that operators would be disciplined for not following this instruction. Ber- ti also testified to other new or changed requirements, pre- viously discussed, which distressed the operators. On Sunday, January 9. 1977, Berti was working on an evening shift, which was scheduled to end 10:30 p.m.. when she began feeling ill. During her breaktime, which began at 8:15, she called her parents and told them of her illness. Since Berti had not driven to work because of a snowstorm that day, her parents offered to come and pick her up and she agreed. Thereafter, Berti told her supervisor that evening. Moeckel, that she was sick, and wanted to go home. When Moeckel sought to persuade her to continue, Berti told Moeckel that she did not think she could endure the last 2 hours and that her parents were on their way to pick her up. At this point, Moeckel became very upset, and told Berti that Berli "did not have any right telling [Moeck- el]., that [Berti] should have asked her." Moeckel took the Moeckel did not testif. Schatz, a.ho apparentls was not iMnoled in the incidelt. in her tetrion li ail tempted to jiStlli Mieckel's reprimand ln the basis that Berti had her footl in the chair next to her, and thus was Imut of position to ansAer calls Berl:'s testilon., as set forth, indicates Ihat she had her foot in the chaii In r hiih she was sitting. and that Moeckel' re- quirriellni t wals one that }ad not pre !iousls been insisted upon I so find remaining 2 hours off Berti's schedule. Berti testified that she waited for her parents, and when they came, "I was so glad to see [them] I threw my coat on; and I was running out of the building, and I missed the top step and fell down the flight [of steps]." Berti recalled that this was not a very busy night, that there were around four or five operators there and that she had taken "[p]robably about seven calls an hour or some- thing." Respondent's records, which I credit, show that the calls averaged more than that number for the operators on duty and that evening was busier than average for that time of year. I have, as argued by Respondent, taken this conflict into consideration in assessing Berti's credibility. There is no contention, however, that Berti was not actual- ly ill on this occasion, and Respondent admits that if she were ill, Moeckel should have given her permission to take off. There is no evidence that Respondent suffered any difficulty as a result of this incident. Berti was not able to report her accident to Delcour until Wednesday, January 12. Delcour told Berti if it was neces- sary to seek medical treatment, she should do so and Re- spondent would pay for it. In response to Berti's claim that she had been upset with Moeckel at the time, he replied that he had selected his supervisors with care and was sure they could do their jobs, that Berti was wrong in telling Moeckel that she was going to leave, that she should have asked the supervisor first. Berti replied that she thought that Delcour was being unfair. He answered saying, "This is what you girls wanted and what you voted in, so this is what you will have to put up with." Delcour continued that "the girls had lied to him." Berti lost no work as a result of her accident. On Satur- day, January 29, when Berti was going to Respondent's operations to copy her schedule for the next days, her mother accompanied her to see the steps which Berti had fallen down. On this occasion, Berti's mother accompanied her up the steps and into the operators' restroom area where the schedule was posted. In doing so, she passed under the sign posted above the door stating "Authorized Personnel Only." However, she did not pass through the door into the operators' work area. Then Berti and her mother left. The record shows at least four other occasions proximate to this incident in which operators had brought outsiders into Respondent's building (a young infant, the fiance of an operator, a husband, and a niece of an operator). Some came into the operators' work area, others only as far as the operators' lounge. The operators had cause to believe that these persons were in the building without advance permission, and that the supervisors present at the time did not object, except that Schatz did require the operator's niece to remain in the lounge area, and not come into the work area. Someone, apparently Supervisor Moeckel, saw Berti's mother in the operators' restroom area and reported this to Delcour. Delcour was not informed and did not inquire exactly where in the building Berti's mother had been or whether her presence interfered with Respondent's opera- tions. Delcour told Senior Supervisor Schatz to speak to Berti about this incident. On February 2, Schatz called Berti into an office and asked her, "what a rule meant to 174 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY [her]," stating that Berti "had broken one of the most seri- ous" by "bringing an unauthorized person up on company premises." Berti asked if she had been the only one report- ed for this. and Schatz said that she was the only one so far as Schatz knew. Berti replied that others had also done so. Schatz said that it was not Berti's work that she was com- plaining about, but her attitude toward her supervisors. Berti replied that she had good relations with three of her supervisors (this seems to be confirmed, at least in part, by Supervisor Jergens' testimony), but that she did have prob- lems with Supervisor Moeckel and that other operators did also. Schatz said that Moeckel was a good supervisor, the others needed to be more like her, and even Moeckel need- ed to be more strict. Then Schatz told Berti that she would be given retraining, 2 to begin the next week, and that in the meantime she should go home and evaluate herself. Berti responded that she "thought that was fairly degrad- ing; and that if she didn't think that I made the company money or couldn't get along with my supervisors, and if my attitude counted more than my ability to do the job . . . maybe it would just be best if I quit." Schatz made no reply, so Berti left, cleaned out her belongings, and on her way out of the building, opened the door to Schatz' office and told her that she "was sorry that I wasn't doing the job right, and that my attitude counted more than my ability to do the work." Schatz responded that she really had not said that, to which Berti stated that was the impression Schatz had left. Schatz said nothing further. Berti left. In essence. Schatz' account of the meeting with Berti conforms to the above. To the extent that it differs in de- tail, it is not credited. A considerable part of Schatz' testi- mony was devoted to her reasons for telling Berti on this occasion that she must evaluate herself and that she would have to be retrained, inasmuch as the original purpose of calling Berti into the office was merely to caution her against bringing unauthorized persons into the building. Schatz repeated several times that this assertion that Berti must evaluate herself and be retrained was triggered by Berti stating in January that she did not know "what the monitor meant." She further stated, in respect to how long Berti's retraining would have taken, "if it was just on the monitor . .. [i]t wouldn't take very long at all." 13 The difficulty with this is the fact that Schatz also testified that in January, when Berti expressed her doubts about the monitoring procedure, Schatz then explained the proce- dure to her very quickly. Schatz, on February 2, was clearly not aware of any other operating problem which would require Berti's retraining. In fact, what occurred, as indi- cated by Schatz' testimony, is that Schatz decided to try out on Berti, on this occasion, a new employment proce- dure-a new working condition-which had not been pre- I! Berti states she was told that she would he given 2 weeks' retraining, which she understood would be a repetition of her original training when she was first hired. Schatz denied this, saying she was not sure what the training would be or how long it would take, However. in the absence of anr explanation to Bertl, she was justified in understanding that the retraining referred to would be the same as the onls training with which the operators had ans experience A None of this was explained to Bernl I do not credit the indication in Schatz' testimony that she could not have explained what she meant, in ans event. because tof Berti's emotional state viously used or explained to the employees. As Schatz stat- ed, "actually as I'm starting to do now, you know, on this evaluating yourself part is new, and I felt this was the time actually to start it.... I had never asked anybody to do it. The company had talked about it earlier.... Analysis and Conclusions Based upon the above and the record as a whole, I find that Berti's quitting of her employment with Respondent on February 2, 1977. was the direct result of the pressures upon and the harassment of the group of operators, of which she was one, resulting from Respondent's unlawful course of conduct in violation of the Act. It would reason- ably be expected that such conduct would cause bitterness and distress among the employees and lead some of them to quit their employment to avoid such pressures and har- assment. The record shows that at least one other employ- ee, besides Berti, quit for these reasons.14 Respondent argues, however that since it was not shown that Berti was active in behalf of the Union, or that Re- spondent knew or suspected that she was an adherent of the Union, there is no proof of antiunion motivation, and "[t]hus. even if it were proven that the Respondent pro- voked Berti into quitting. it would not be a violation of Section 8(a)(3)." But, as has been found. Respondent embarked upon a course of conduct in violation of the Act designed to pun- ish and harass the employees, including Berti, because of the exercise of their rights under the Act, which conduct could reasonably be expected to cause some of the mem- bers of that group to quit their employment. Respondent must be held to have intended the reasonably anticipated consequences of its conduct, that employee members of the group, such as Berti. would indeed quit under pressure. For the reasons, I find that Respondent, by causing Su- san Renae Berti to quit her employment with Respondent on February 2, 1977, discouraged membership in and ac- tivities on behalf of the Union, by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or other terms of employ- ment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening employees with reprisals, instituting new and more onerous rules and working conditions, and enforcing its working rules more harshly and strictly be- cause the employees engaged in activities protected by the Act, and by advising the employees that Respondent was 14 One Respondent witness testified that, after her termination. Beri told her that she had quit "when the union came in," that she "just couldn'l work for the union."' On the other hand. Berti testified that she had told the witness. in a casual social situation, that she had quit because it was "hard" to work there "with the union and company disagreements" which caused tension. Insofar as these versions differ. I credit Bert. The facts support her version In fact, she had not set been exposed to working under a union She did not quit .hen the .nion .won the election, and the matters causing her quitting were the tensions created hb Respondent as set forth 175 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD imposing new. onerous, and stricter working conditions upon the employees because the employees voted for the Union, and by coercively interrogating employees and ap- plicants for employment concerning their union attitudes or sympathies, and by promising employee benefits if the employees did not vote for the Union, Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By causing the constructive discharge of Susan Renae Berti. Respondent engaged in discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or other terms or conditions of employment discouraging membership in or activities on behalf of a labor organization in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY It having been found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)( 1) and (3) of the Act, it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It will be recommended that Respondent offer Susan Renae Berti immediate and full reinstatement to her for- mer job or, if such job no longer exists, to a sobstantialls equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or other rights and benefits, and make her whole for any loss of pay or benefits she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against her as found hereinabove by pay- ment to her of a sum of money equal to that she would have earned as wages or other benefits from February 2. 1977, to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period and interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Comnpamn. 90 NL.RB 289 (1950). and Florida Steel ('orporation 231 NLRB 651 (1977). 15 In order to make effective for Respondent's employees the guarantee of rights contained in Section 7 of the Act. it will be recommended that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed by 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 issue the following recommended: ORDER 16 the Respondent, Fidelity Telephone Company, Sulli- van, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall: i. Cease and desist from: (a) Causing the termination of or otherwise discriminat- ing against employees in order to discourage membership in or support of Communications Workers of America. AFL ('10. or any other labor organization. (b) Coerceively interrogating employees or applicants for employment concerning union activities or sympathies. (c) Promising employee benefits in order to discourage union activities or membership. (d) Threatening employees with the institution of or in- stituting rules or conditions of employment which are stricter, more stringent, or more onerous in order to dis- courage membership in or support of a union. (e) Changing or enforcing its rules and conditions of work for the purpose of discouraging, or in a manner which will discourage. membership in or support of a union, or otherwise penalizing or harassing employees be- cause of their exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act. (f) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef- fectuate the purposes of the Act: (a) Offer to Susan Renae Berti immediate and full rein- statement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority, or other rights and privileges, and make her whole for any loss of earnings or benefits she may have suffered by reason of Respondent's discrimination against her as set forth in the Remedy section of this Decision. (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 facilitate the effectuation of the Order herein. (c) Post at its operations at Sullivan. Missouri, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 14. after being duly signed b? an authorized repre- sentative of Respondent, shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 con- secut;ve days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily post- ed. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to en- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered bh any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in writ- ing. within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. i See. gcneraill . I.. 'llhoiilrnt & llca/rir (,. 138 NlRB 71( 1 9h2) In lhe cientl noi exceptirons ae filed is proidead hs Sec It2 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National L.ahor Rclations Board. the finding. c,*tlusilmns. and recommended Order herein shall as proi ded in Sec 1124S if ihe Rules and Regulloi,i.. be adopted h the faird and he,,noe it. fiindngs. conclusiols. arid Order, and all obhections Ihcieto .hall he deemled Saled for all purposes. in the emcnt that ihis Order is enforced bh a Judgment of the t ruled States ( ourt of Appeals. the 'Aords iii the nitice reading "Posled h, Order of the Nahional L abor Relalion Boird" hall read "Poned Pursua;n to a; Judgment of Ihe tlnitcd States ( ourt of AppealN l:nforciig an Order of the National I.abor Relations Board." 176 FIDELITY TELEPHONE COMPANY APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the following rights: To form, join, or assist labor organizations To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing To engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection To refrain from any or all such activities, except as may be required by a legal agreement between an employer and the representatives of the employees. WE WILL NOT cause the termination of employment of, or otherwise discriminate against, any emplo\ee in order to discourage membership in or support of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate employees or ap- plicants for employment concerning union activities or sympathies. WE WILL NOT promise employee benefits in order to discourage union activities or union membership. WE WIit NOT threaten employees with the institution of and we wiil Noi institute rules or conditions of em- ployment which are stricter, more stringent, or more onerous in order to discourage membership in or sup- port of a union. WE 1i NOT change or enforce company rules or conditions of employment in a manner which will dis- courage. or for the purpose of discouraging. member- ship in or support of a union, and WF WILL tNOT other- wise penalize or harass employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, W'i Wslli NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act. WL WiLL offer to Susan Renae Berti immediate and full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists. to a substantially equivalent position. without prejudice to her seniority, or other rights and privileges. and make her whole for any loss of earnings or benefits which she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her. with interest thereon as provided by the National labor Relations Board. FiDI II i Tli I PHONE (o()%iPNY 177